I've been Using NT since 4.0 SP3 and I still remember the pain in the balls it was to move to 2000 Pro. Hardware support was spotty for a few weeks, and back then I always bought my hardware with a copy of the NT4 Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) handy. Apps weren't much better either. Any time you have a new shiny x.0 codebase (95 aka Windows 4.0, 2000 aka NT 5.0 build 2195, Vista aka NT 6.0 build 6000), its gonna be shaky. By the time XP hit the consumer masses, it was a.1 release (5.1 build 2600) and had time to mature by then. Same with 98. This is the first time end users have had a chance to see a dot 0 code release since 95.
I'm not being a microsoft fanboy or an appologist, but just a guy whose been through this dance once or twice.
Not quite... IT departments don't just support standards, we had have our support equipment list. Its one thing if you're talking about a 10 user shop, but when you're talking 1200 users, it becomes a little different. There's no way i can get my desktop support guys to decently support every piece of software under the sun. When you do that, you loose things like desktop imaging, common part sparing, etc. You're assuming the stuff that gets put in is there for the same style use that comcast has for their subscriber facing services, its their for your use any way you want. The powers that be a footing a large check to provide tools for people to do their jobs, and they want a return on investment. Supporting different platforms adds to the cost. Be it time, disk space, whatever. Adherence to internal standards become more and more important the more users you have.
Spend some time on the other side of the fence and it becomes clear pretty quickly
The ballsy part of the story that tend to go untold, is the corpal that delivered the response. He walked over to the German command, and was asked what McAuliffe meant. His answer? "It means you know where to shove it and where you can go"
My favorite was the IBM row printer III. Its a dot matirx printer with a bit of nasty tractor feed issues. 49 out of 50 pages would feed fine, but then it would tear a little piece of feed edges off, the smallest friggen piece too, it would destroy every following sheet in the print job until it just jammed up.
True... but I like the backwards behavior of tabs on the bottom, ims that was default for epiphany 1.2.x (gnome based gecko browser from days of yore). I got hooked on its quirks.
In the upper levels of the math and science classes i took in high school, HP's actually roamed the land. I got my 48G round 95 or 96, and I'll be damned if that thing doesn't run just as tough as it did then. Once I learned the way of the HP calcs and RPN, I ran circles around TI users. my 48 sits on my desk today at work, and I'd be hard pressed to find another calc to put in its place.
Because consumer's are already checking to see if a CD published by capitol will work in a Sony cd player. Or that his HP paper will work in Dell printer.
Sorry bud, but you missed the boat, you get punished for doing the right thing. Buy a sony CD and pop it in your computer, and they silently install a root kit, and that's to be accepted as fair.
Or maybe i'm wanting too much to think i should be able to copy a cd a buy 2 or 3 time so i can leave one in the car, one at work, and one in my laptop bag. I can only listen to one at a time, but thats still piracy.
This isnt a case of the means justifying the ends, this is fair use.
This is a return to the way MS used to do SP's. All SP's used to be were bug fixed and back ported updates (like NTFS 5.0 supprt for NT4). Nothing major was added to SP's. now they throw a lot more shit in the SP's and change even more shit. SP2 for 2k3 looks like i can fast track it in with out having to go through reams of documentation and testing.
that sounds all well and good, except when your network starts to get large and/or complicated. Take my campus. ~30/24's (not all contiguously address) and and the rest of my network is pread over 4 VRF's (multipule routing instances). We took the route of delevoping an inhouse app to track it all.
When we put in the app we had 16/24's on the campus and about 20 or so remote site's, it was a two month process getting everything documented and verified. I wouldnt want to try that today, and my net isnt *that* large.
If done right, its not a single point of failure. build in abstraction and redundancy. Farm of Citrix servers and keep your data on a seprate set of servers with a Fibre Channel backend and viola. Apps dont play well.... seperate citrix box for those apps
As with anything, you just need to plan in what you need/want.
Its not DHCP doing this, but 802.1x client on the host and the switch/router. DHCP can only give you an IP, it cant pick, and certianly cant enforce what segment you go on. To enforce NAC, you need wither the switchport to change your VLAN, or have the router change its routing policies and ACLS. 802.1x and NAC is an ecosystem, not a dhcp option.
I'm sorry, how many people read the article and saw the the little thing that said 802.1x. I'm not sure about everyone else, but 802.1x has been around for a bit, and adding in NAC (network admissions control) is nothing new. Cisco's been selling this for years. MS put this in 2003's SP1 for remote access. All it does is poll the client for its system state, virus defs, etc, and sends that back as part of the clients 802.1x response. Personally,I've been dying to do 802.1x and NAC on my wire, I'm just waiting for the project to burry the Cisco products in.
As an admin, 802.1x and NAC is a good thing. Picture some asshat with his Windows SP0 laptop with out dated AV trying to plug it in to a network. Scary huh? Now add to the network 802.1x (no nac). That laptop now has to be authenticated by the wire, via things like AD. Add in NAC, and now to get on to a production VLAN, you need to be at the right sp level and proper AV defs, on top of being considered company property.
I know the Bluecoats can do this as well with the SSL cards (and matching software licence). I've been doing the Bluecoat thing for a few years, and bad assed is an understatment. The granularity in the product, esp with the policy stuff, is amazing. after demo-ing it, there words "squid what? ISA who?" was all i could say.
A database engine is only as good as the way it was depolyed. just because a product is from Vendor B instead of Vendor A, doesnt mean that product is going to be instantly better and gaurentee 5 nines. Oracle on a crappy box, no real backups, and a smack-tard of a dba thinking he can be a system/network as well? Well, thats a crap shoot. MS-SQL on a cluster with HA boxes with a steller Fibre Channel and Ethernet/IP backend, killer DBA's and network/sysadmins, strong backup policy and methods? I think those databases will stand a lot better chance of hitting 5 nines. I'm not being a Oracle hater or a MS-SQL fanboy, but data availablity is not just about the RDBMS alone. Its also about the environment the RDBMS is depolyed in.
Oh btw, I've MS-SQL running mission critical databases for years, and I've never had to say "We lost data". It aint luck that keeps me from saying that.
Slashdot Mirror
I live on the other side of the fence as a network / systems guy, and having VM's to beat the crap out is great for prepping an SMS package.
conf t int fa4 ip addr dhcp ip nat outside no shut end thats all i need for my router.
10 minutes with a packet capture and and i'll have an ACL on my router faster that Stevie B can throw a chair
Well as my best friend likes to put it, "you can only get two of three: Fast, Cheap, Right"
I've been Using NT since 4.0 SP3 and I still remember the pain in the balls it was to move to 2000 Pro. Hardware support was spotty for a few weeks, and back then I always bought my hardware with a copy of the NT4 Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) handy. Apps weren't much better either. Any time you have a new shiny x.0 codebase (95 aka Windows 4.0, 2000 aka NT 5.0 build 2195, Vista aka NT 6.0 build 6000), its gonna be shaky. By the time XP hit the consumer masses, it was a .1 release (5.1 build 2600) and had time to mature by then. Same with 98. This is the first time end users have had a chance to see a dot 0 code release since 95.
I'm not being a microsoft fanboy or an appologist, but just a guy whose been through this dance once or twice.
Not quite... IT departments don't just support standards, we had have our support equipment list. Its one thing if you're talking about a 10 user shop, but when you're talking 1200 users, it becomes a little different. There's no way i can get my desktop support guys to decently support every piece of software under the sun. When you do that, you loose things like desktop imaging, common part sparing, etc. You're assuming the stuff that gets put in is there for the same style use that comcast has for their subscriber facing services, its their for your use any way you want. The powers that be a footing a large check to provide tools for people to do their jobs, and they want a return on investment. Supporting different platforms adds to the cost. Be it time, disk space, whatever. Adherence to internal standards become more and more important the more users you have.
Spend some time on the other side of the fence and it becomes clear pretty quickly
The ballsy part of the story that tend to go untold, is the corpal that delivered the response. He walked over to the German command, and was asked what McAuliffe meant. His answer? "It means you know where to shove it and where you can go"
My favorite was the IBM row printer III. Its a dot matirx printer with a bit of nasty tractor feed issues. 49 out of 50 pages would feed fine, but then it would tear a little piece of feed edges off, the smallest friggen piece too, it would destroy every following sheet in the print job until it just jammed up.
True... but I like the backwards behavior of tabs on the bottom, ims that was default for epiphany 1.2.x (gnome based gecko browser from days of yore). I got hooked on its quirks.
In the upper levels of the math and science classes i took in high school, HP's actually roamed the land. I got my 48G round 95 or 96, and I'll be damned if that thing doesn't run just as tough as it did then. Once I learned the way of the HP calcs and RPN, I ran circles around TI users. my 48 sits on my desk today at work, and I'd be hard pressed to find another calc to put in its place.
Hah! recovering?
Still practing metal head here
Because consumer's are already checking to see if a CD published by capitol will work in a Sony cd player. Or that his HP paper will work in Dell printer.
Sorry bud, but you missed the boat, you get punished for doing the right thing. Buy a sony CD and pop it in your computer, and they silently install a root kit, and that's to be accepted as fair.
Or maybe i'm wanting too much to think i should be able to copy a cd a buy 2 or 3 time so i can leave one in the car, one at work, and one in my laptop bag. I can only listen to one at a time, but thats still piracy.
This isnt a case of the means justifying the ends, this is fair use.
I wouldnt run Vista on a server anyhow... however "Longhorn" Server can be installed without a Gooey, they call it "Core"
This is a return to the way MS used to do SP's. All SP's used to be were bug fixed and back ported updates (like NTFS 5.0 supprt for NT4). Nothing major was added to SP's. now they throw a lot more shit in the SP's and change even more shit. SP2 for 2k3 looks like i can fast track it in with out having to go through reams of documentation and testing.
that sounds all well and good, except when your network starts to get large and/or complicated. Take my campus. ~30 /24's (not all contiguously address) and and the rest of my network is pread over 4 VRF's (multipule routing instances). We took the route of delevoping an inhouse app to track it all.
/24's on the campus and about 20 or so remote site's, it was a two month process getting everything documented and verified. I wouldnt want to try that today, and my net isnt *that* large.
When we put in the app we had 16
Thats why I do business grade laptops. HP certifes my nc8430 for suse. It might not be as pretty as the DV6000 series, but they are tough 'tops.
Yes but the Core 2 Duo is 64 bit
You mustnew here.... Welcome to slashdot!
If done right, its not a single point of failure. build in abstraction and redundancy. Farm of Citrix servers and keep your data on a seprate set of servers with a Fibre Channel backend and viola. Apps dont play well.... seperate citrix box for those apps As with anything, you just need to plan in what you need/want.
Hi! you must be new here
Its not DHCP doing this, but 802.1x client on the host and the switch/router. DHCP can only give you an IP, it cant pick, and certianly cant enforce what segment you go on. To enforce NAC, you need wither the switchport to change your VLAN, or have the router change its routing policies and ACLS. 802.1x and NAC is an ecosystem, not a dhcp option.
I'm sorry, how many people read the article and saw the the little thing that said 802.1x. I'm not sure about everyone else, but 802.1x has been around for a bit, and adding in NAC (network admissions control) is nothing new. Cisco's been selling this for years. MS put this in 2003's SP1 for remote access. All it does is poll the client for its system state, virus defs, etc, and sends that back as part of the clients 802.1x response. Personally,I've been dying to do 802.1x and NAC on my wire, I'm just waiting for the project to burry the Cisco products in.
As an admin, 802.1x and NAC is a good thing. Picture some asshat with his Windows SP0 laptop with out dated AV trying to plug it in to a network. Scary huh? Now add to the network 802.1x (no nac). That laptop now has to be authenticated by the wire, via things like AD. Add in NAC, and now to get on to a production VLAN, you need to be at the right sp level and proper AV defs, on top of being considered company property.
I know the Bluecoats can do this as well with the SSL cards (and matching software licence). I've been doing the Bluecoat thing for a few years, and bad assed is an understatment. The granularity in the product, esp with the policy stuff, is amazing. after demo-ing it, there words "squid what? ISA who?" was all i could say.
A database engine is only as good as the way it was depolyed. just because a product is from Vendor B instead of Vendor A, doesnt mean that product is going to be instantly better and gaurentee 5 nines. Oracle on a crappy box, no real backups, and a smack-tard of a dba thinking he can be a system/network as well? Well, thats a crap shoot. MS-SQL on a cluster with HA boxes with a steller Fibre Channel and Ethernet/IP backend, killer DBA's and network/sysadmins, strong backup policy and methods? I think those databases will stand a lot better chance of hitting 5 nines. I'm not being a Oracle hater or a MS-SQL fanboy, but data availablity is not just about the RDBMS alone. Its also about the environment the RDBMS is depolyed in.
Oh btw, I've MS-SQL running mission critical databases for years, and I've never had to say "We lost data". It aint luck that keeps me from saying that.
its rather simple.... the guys with the need for 10GigE and faster have the deep pockets. Follow the money