We will take Pub files, and can actually output them now (MS made some serious improvements), but it is solely for the home user - no professional would attempt to use it to create ANY document.
1) The Mac or PC issue - all of the applications in professional use are feature identical between the platforms.
2) The performance angle - sure a Mac can beat a PC on the Unsharp Mask filter (but for $1000-2000 more), and it really isn't a significan portion of anyone's day. Save yourself a buck (or $2000) and buy a PC.
3) Which Application - Quark was the superior program for many years, but they killed themselves by not coming out with a new version for what 4+ years? PageMaker is most shop's standard, with many transitioning over to InDesign. Ultimately I suppose you can use any app, as long as you can create a CLEAN PDF.
Summarized: Adobe Apps on a PC (Sorry, It's the real world).
I imagine this will draw some flak from the various independent designer's out there, but the reality is if you are working for yourself - you can use whatever you want. If you want to collect a paycheck, know a PC, don't be a Mac zealot, and create layouts that actually output to film.
I have worked in the industry for years (for a specialty book printer) and this is how we go about business. We will take any platform, any file-format - but we use PC's in-house running PageMaker, InDesign & Acrobat.
The A4 format is a much better size for laying out type. 8.5" is just a bit too wide for easy reading, A4 lets you layout aesthetic pages, and at the proper width for faster reading.
US sizing also doubles/halves for other standard sheets, but the other sizes are akward to work with (think 17x22 or 5.5x8.5).
Most any printer, typesetter or graphic designer in the US will tell you that they'd rather work with metric.
RatioShack did this a few years back with the Cue codes on the pages of their catalog. As I remember a few magazines also printed Cue barcodes on ad pages - so you could just swipe the Cue and voila, be at their website.
Are they going to give me a free Nokia to read the code, like RadioShack gave away the wand?
$50 premium over the top of the line iPaq (and only because it is brand-new), similar specs on mainboard, much better screen, flexibility of a REAL OS with a mulitude of opensource apps.
Bad Ass PDA = $699 Open Source Flexibility = Priceless
Check on Code. While I do agree on conduit, I mean there is always something you want to add later, at least where I am at in Washington state it's against code. Seems contrary, but you can have conduit on the surface of the wall - but not inside the sheetrock.
Just some of the sites that I have used for work in the Windows world. Some are really good, some less-than. I am not endorsing or claiming this is the best definitive list, but should be a starting point.
My understanding from prior articles awhile back is that the MS license says that you cannot distribute PC's without an OS (or you will pay a Windows license anyway). Dell's answer was FreeDOS - it's even cheaper than putting RedHat or some other commercial Linux distro on there. Additionally think of support costs - "No we won't help you install that XFree driver, your machine shipped with DOS."
I have setup a few for friends/customers that are barely lucky enough to have phone service. Downloading files, surfing (using their proxy), pulling audio/video streams are all fine. ANYTHING that is interactive pretty much is broken due to ping times of anywhere from 600-1200ms. SSH/Telnet, games, chat (mostly) and VNC/RDP are all essentially unusable. I've also been unsuccessful setting up FTP at the customer side.
Using their proxy is required to get acceptable performance out of any TCP based protocol, unfortunately they only proxy a few applications and SSL isn't one of them (can't due to the nature of the protocol and how they proxy to get around multiple TCP setups). SSL is SLOWWWWW.
Summarized: HTTP/FTP/MAIL all are great compared to dialup - anything else is slightly/noticably worse.
My worst tech job was once a year for several years I had to setup a LAN in a tent, in a dirt field in the middle of nowhere. The tent was for a western store that set up shop at the rodeo. They sold a sickening amount during 3-4 days (as much as a mall store in a month). Since it was so important they wanted me to stay, but in their cheapness they wouldn't get a hotel - instead I go a mini-van to live in for a week. To top it off I had to dress like a cowboy, not that the cowboy look is bad - just not my style or comfort zone.
So the picture is: Network geek in Wrangler's, boots and a big black hat (feeling out of place) looking just like he slept in car for a week trying to keep computers running that are full of dirt and cow shit.
The only upside was the 'Beer Barn' at midnight (not just a name either) and the cowgirls wanting to have some fun.
Similar (not doing justice) to Doc Martins, but far superior construction and comfort - not to mention vastly more stylish. Definately check out the "Angels" or "Angel Soles" models. Solid natural rubber (thick), takes 1 day to get used to, but super comfortable. No metal shank (i.e. airport safe). I wear the Derby Swirl boot on an almost daily basis, has kept my feet alive through many a 12-16 hour day. Worn them through seruious traveling, as well as all day/night city explorations. I also wear the wingtip model for when I have to wear a tie and look professional. Can't say enough about 'em. Another bonus is that you can order replacement soles (~$15) and take them to a cobbler - can't do that with Doc's.
One last thing - check out the "Open Source Footwear" section. Submit designs, have them built, copyright/patent free!
I do agree - security is possible without submitting to DRM (i.e. having it both ways). You just can't have it both ways with Microsoft. They have chosen to position their offerings at the opposite ends of the spectrum - 'not really secure' and 'secure + DRM'. My point was that DRM does actually provide something beyond encryption/signatures, and there is good and bad that comes with that.
BTW- I wasn't responsible for the original comment.
I think we are all talking about 3 different levels of security here. The document security in Office docs is pretty basic (and apparently flawed), but it's intent is to prevent casual and/or accidental changes to a file - not as a robust security mechanism. Moving up to utilizing encryption/signatures does provide strong protection against changes to a document as well as providing verification of a document's origin or integrity. WRM/DRM provides something entirely different on top of that - distribution control. The ability to prevent someone from making a copy of a document (and optionally changing the copy), forwarding the document or even keeping a copy in another location. These are powerful abilities ON TOP of what signatures/encryption provide and something probably very attractive to corporate/governmental entities. I think everyone's problem with DRM is that information is no longer free - it can be controlled, and even made to dissappear (even from those who have a copy and had access at one point). That is a social problem and not a security one per se.
The bottom line is that Microsoft does have a secure answer for protecting documents - it's just a question of if you want to accept the consequenses of using it.
Have tried that also. Unless I am missing something, the vulnerability appears to be bogus. Starting to notice that others are unable to reproduce and at the same time I have found no claims on the web that anyone can.
I would be suprised if Magnus @ MS Security responded if it couldn't be verified - though that would show how much they take security seriously.
*maybe it only works in the German version of Word
I'm beginning to wonder if this is another example of blind MS bashing - OOOH look how insecure they are again - without even seeing if it's true. On the otherhand I suppose after as many verified holes, another one isn't that hard to accept on it's face.
Myself and others have tried to reproduce the bypass and cannot. I have created several forms documents as well as found existing ones to try it on. Whenever I save as HTML, the w:UnprotectPassword tag is not present. Initially I had problems with the HTML compatibility settings, which I got worked out, but even after using every logical combination of settings I still do not get the tag. I have tried different methods of protecting the document, still no password hash in the HTML.
I can easily bypass the document protection, but not in a way that is not noticible.
What am I missing or has anyone successfully reproduced?
Has anyone actually tried this method? I had several folks call me saying they couldn't actually save the HTML with the password (they get a warning that it will be removed). I have also tried and get the same thing?
I have worked for several printers in the past, one in particular specializes in short-run self-published books. Suprisingly inexpensive, especially if you do the layout yourself. Has excellent documentation on website on how the prepare the files + tips (click on the information link).
All of my coworkers are confused when I refer to the guy putting flyers on our cars as a 'spammer' - they seem to missing it too when I go out and tell the guy to get the hell out of the parking lot and definately not to touch my car.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot to address Publisher:
We will take Pub files, and can actually output them now (MS made some serious improvements), but it is solely for the home user - no professional would attempt to use it to create ANY document.
This has been an ongoing debate for years...
My humble input is as follows:
1) The Mac or PC issue - all of the applications in professional use are feature identical between the platforms.
2) The performance angle - sure a Mac can beat a PC on the Unsharp Mask filter (but for $1000-2000 more), and it really isn't a significan portion of anyone's day. Save yourself a buck (or $2000) and buy a PC.
3) Which Application - Quark was the superior program for many years, but they killed themselves by not coming out with a new version for what 4+ years? PageMaker is most shop's standard, with many transitioning over to InDesign. Ultimately I suppose you can use any app, as long as you can create a CLEAN PDF.
Summarized: Adobe Apps on a PC (Sorry, It's the real world).
I imagine this will draw some flak from the various independent designer's out there, but the reality is if you are working for yourself - you can use whatever you want. If you want to collect a paycheck, know a PC, don't be a Mac zealot, and create layouts that actually output to film.
I have worked in the industry for years (for a specialty book printer) and this is how we go about business. We will take any platform, any file-format - but we use PC's in-house running PageMaker, InDesign & Acrobat.
It may not be much, but when you set margins and such, the perceived "tallness" of the paper seems to make much more "readable" layouts.
I will back up from claiming to speak for all others.
The A4 format is a much better size for laying out type. 8.5" is just a bit too wide for easy reading, A4 lets you layout aesthetic pages, and at the proper width for faster reading.
US sizing also doubles/halves for other standard sheets, but the other sizes are akward to work with (think 17x22 or 5.5x8.5).
Most any printer, typesetter or graphic designer in the US will tell you that they'd rather work with metric.
RatioShack did this a few years back with the Cue codes on the pages of their catalog. As I remember a few magazines also printed Cue barcodes on ad pages - so you could just swipe the Cue and voila, be at their website.
Are they going to give me a free Nokia to read the code, like RadioShack gave away the wand?
Two things I try to get first in the real world, and only resort to the net when that fails.
Why...
$50 premium over the top of the line iPaq (and only because it is brand-new), similar specs on mainboard, much better screen, flexibility of a REAL OS with a mulitude of opensource apps.
Bad Ass PDA = $699
Open Source Flexibility = Priceless
Check on Code. While I do agree on conduit, I mean there is always something you want to add later, at least where I am at in Washington state it's against code. Seems contrary, but you can have conduit on the surface of the wall - but not inside the sheetrock.
To actually try and answer the question at hand:
c rosoft.comt echrepublic.com
a nge.orgp stick.comn swers.com
Forums & News Servers
http://www.dalantech.com
nntp://news.mi
http://www.anandtech.com
http://www.
http://www.tek-tips.com
Resource Sites:
http://www.labmice.net
http://www.msexch
http://www.isaserver.org
http://www.sli
http://www.jsiinc.com
http://www.moma
http://www.eventid.net
Just some of the sites that I have used for work in the Windows world. Some are really good, some less-than. I am not endorsing or claiming this is the best definitive list, but should be a starting point.
My understanding from prior articles awhile back is that the MS license says that you cannot distribute PC's without an OS (or you will pay a Windows license anyway). Dell's answer was FreeDOS - it's even cheaper than putting RedHat or some other commercial Linux distro on there. Additionally think of support costs - "No we won't help you install that XFree driver, your machine shipped with DOS."
I have setup a few for friends/customers that are barely lucky enough to have phone service. Downloading files, surfing (using their proxy), pulling audio/video streams are all fine. ANYTHING that is interactive pretty much is broken due to ping times of anywhere from 600-1200ms. SSH/Telnet, games, chat (mostly) and VNC/RDP are all essentially unusable. I've also been unsuccessful setting up FTP at the customer side.
Using their proxy is required to get acceptable performance out of any TCP based protocol, unfortunately they only proxy a few applications and SSL isn't one of them (can't due to the nature of the protocol and how they proxy to get around multiple TCP setups). SSL is SLOWWWWW.
Summarized: HTTP/FTP/MAIL all are great compared to dialup - anything else is slightly/noticably worse.
My worst tech job was once a year for several years I had to setup a LAN in a tent, in a dirt field in the middle of nowhere. The tent was for a western store that set up shop at the rodeo. They sold a sickening amount during 3-4 days (as much as a mall store in a month). Since it was so important they wanted me to stay, but in their cheapness they wouldn't get a hotel - instead I go a mini-van to live in for a week. To top it off I had to dress like a cowboy, not that the cowboy look is bad - just not my style or comfort zone.
So the picture is: Network geek in Wrangler's, boots and a big black hat (feeling out of place) looking just like he slept in car for a week trying to keep computers running that are full of dirt and cow shit.
The only upside was the 'Beer Barn' at midnight (not just a name either) and the cowgirls wanting to have some fun.
You have got to check out John Fluevog!
http://www.fluevog.com
Similar (not doing justice) to Doc Martins, but far superior construction and comfort - not to mention vastly more stylish. Definately check out the "Angels" or "Angel Soles" models. Solid natural rubber (thick), takes 1 day to get used to, but super comfortable. No metal shank (i.e. airport safe). I wear the Derby Swirl boot on an almost daily basis, has kept my feet alive through many a 12-16 hour day. Worn them through seruious traveling, as well as all day/night city explorations. I also wear the wingtip model for when I have to wear a tie and look professional. Can't say enough about 'em. Another bonus is that you can order replacement soles (~$15) and take them to a cobbler - can't do that with Doc's.
One last thing - check out the "Open Source Footwear" section. Submit designs, have them built, copyright/patent free!
I do agree - security is possible without submitting to DRM (i.e. having it both ways). You just can't have it both ways with Microsoft. They have chosen to position their offerings at the opposite ends of the spectrum - 'not really secure' and 'secure + DRM'. My point was that DRM does actually provide something beyond encryption/signatures, and there is good and bad that comes with that.
BTW- I wasn't responsible for the original comment.
I think we are all talking about 3 different levels of security here. The document security in Office docs is pretty basic (and apparently flawed), but it's intent is to prevent casual and/or accidental changes to a file - not as a robust security mechanism. Moving up to utilizing encryption/signatures does provide strong protection against changes to a document as well as providing verification of a document's origin or integrity. WRM/DRM provides something entirely different on top of that - distribution control. The ability to prevent someone from making a copy of a document (and optionally changing the copy), forwarding the document or even keeping a copy in another location. These are powerful abilities ON TOP of what signatures/encryption provide and something probably very attractive to corporate/governmental entities. I think everyone's problem with DRM is that information is no longer free - it can be controlled, and even made to dissappear (even from those who have a copy and had access at one point). That is a social problem and not a security one per se.
The bottom line is that Microsoft does have a secure answer for protecting documents - it's just a question of if you want to accept the consequenses of using it.
Have tried that also. Unless I am missing something, the vulnerability appears to be bogus. Starting to notice that others are unable to reproduce and at the same time I have found no claims on the web that anyone can.
I would be suprised if Magnus @ MS Security responded if it couldn't be verified - though that would show how much they take security seriously.
*maybe it only works in the German version of Word
I forgot to add a little flame attractant:
I'm beginning to wonder if this is another example of blind MS bashing - OOOH look how insecure they are again - without even seeing if it's true. On the otherhand I suppose after as many verified holes, another one isn't that hard to accept on it's face.
Myself and others have tried to reproduce the bypass and cannot. I have created several forms documents as well as found existing ones to try it on. Whenever I save as HTML, the w:UnprotectPassword tag is not present. Initially I had problems with the HTML compatibility settings, which I got worked out, but even after using every logical combination of settings I still do not get the tag. I have tried different methods of protecting the document, still no password hash in the HTML.
I can easily bypass the document protection, but not in a way that is not noticible.
What am I missing or has anyone successfully reproduced?
Has anyone actually tried this method? I had several folks call me saying they couldn't actually save the HTML with the password (they get a warning that it will be removed). I have also tried and get the same thing?
I have worked for several printers in the past, one in particular specializes in short-run self-published books. Suprisingly inexpensive, especially if you do the layout yourself. Has excellent documentation on website on how the prepare the files + tips (click on the information link).
http://www.gorhamprinting.com
I am putting together a security system for a client of mine. Wanted something reliable with software for a decent price.
http://www.linuxmedialabs.com/
Check out the LMLBT4M card (listed under all products) 4 channel multiplexed or the LMLBT44 with 4 channel full-rate.
They have free software with motion capture.
All of my coworkers are confused when I refer to the guy putting flyers on our cars as a 'spammer' - they seem to missing it too when I go out and tell the guy to get the hell out of the parking lot and definately not to touch my car.