I'm sure they're not pulling out the ability to do a search on file names. More likely this would be seen as an additional method of searching. Consider that I might feel like listening to music, but I'm not sure what band I feel like. Flipping through the CD's let's me notice "that band I haven't listened to in a while".
I would look at this as an optional interface that doesn't remove any current functionality.
You really have to consider that an average user really doesn't know much about the PC, nor do they want to know much about it. The average user expects the home desktop to function much like a car, they get in and drive it around. The average user doesn't want to know how the system or a car works. They just expect it to work when they need it. Getting them to read the manual or online help is not likely no matter how much developers or IT geeks would like them to. Providing a level of protection is almost a necessity when turning an operating system loose into the world. In an ideal world, we could require users to read the manual prior to operation, but that will never happen.
As for the Looking Glass software, I see this as a logical progression of the user interface. I can see this being leveraged at a time when the monitor/display is no longer part of the desktop and we move to a virtual interface. As systems become more complex, the visualization of the system also changes.
Working at a company that regularly builds solutions that ship to other countries, you should be able to buy a localization kit from the vendor (Dell) for the end use country. I've not been part of the actual purchase process from a company standpoint, so I don't know if this is something that can be checked off on the order or if it's a "special" request from the vendor.
You have to remember that most people that are using MS Office products haven't found a compelling reason to move to a newer version. The company I work for is still on MS Office 2000 and doesn't have any plans for moving foward. Even new PC's have a baseline image with MS Windows 2000 and MS Office 2000 rather than the newer versions of the OS or MS Office.
Home users may be staying at the older versions due to the software registration (at least for the XP version as I haven't seen 2003 yet).
Isn't that what the TV rating system is for? If a show is rated R, don't let junior watch it.
I agree with this part of your posting and even a bit with
Oh wait, I forgot... TV is what we use to raise our children.
Some parents will rely on the TV to be the "baby sitter", but you can't claim that all parents do. In my home, my wife does not work (although is attending part time college while the kids are in school) and between the two of us, we raise our kids. TV is primarily used for entertainment and the amount and content is set by us, not the kids, and the rating guide is used in our decisions (although not the sole discriminator - program description, preview, etc... - digital cable programming guide is nice).
I think the big concern over content is when it is a surprise. Imagine watching SpongeBob with your children and all of a sudden SpongeBob and Sandy fucking in the cartoon. This would certainly be unacceptable as the content is designed for young viewers. The same concept can be applied to broadcast television during normal viewing times. You just expect that the viewing audience will be diverse (wide age range). If a target audience is expected, then properly label the shows rating.
I think the rating system on the shows is adequate for the most part, as long as the broadcasters actually label them correctly. Of course, the overall responsibility is on the parents. As a parent though, any help in content ratings is much appreciated.
I picked them up at school and from friends as well. I'm sure my kids will do the same.
I find the web to be more difficult to regulate than traditional media outlets (physical address, licensing, limited sources, etc...). I don't know the statistics on web sites, but I'm sure there are quite a few out there and setting up a method to regulate them would be difficult and it would really upset a portion of the population. Throw in the fact that regulation would need to be international and I believe regulation will pretty much be unrealistic. Also consider that, at least in the US, the ACLU will likely stop any regulation.
I still like the idea of controlling content at the desktop level. I realize this can't solve all problems (sites without rating information, new sites not on "list", kids at friends how where filter isn't installed, etc...) but it seems the best solution. At some point though, education has to take over. While I'm sure my kids are not very good with the computers yet, it's only a matter of time till they start hacking away at any controls I setup. Good thing I do software R&D with Sys Admin on the side. Should be able to keep ahead of the kids for a while.
The difference between saying "fuck" here and "fuck" on TV can be seen as different. Most parents will want to "filter" the content presented to children until the child is deemed ready to deal with the content. I for one don't want my children running around using foul language, not so much because it offends people, but rather because the language is generally associated with people who lack intelligence to choose a more socially acceptable word. If suddenly one of these words becomes the accepted word, then sure, they'll learn it at a younger age. Really if you think about it, what's the difference between penis and dick? They both indicate the same body part. The difference is what people deem as acceptable.
Now are you going to prevent your children from viewing Slashdot or are you going to write to your congressman to have Slashdot be censored because you're too lazy to monitor your children?
I for one believe the web should not be sensored. This environment is truly one where a person can express whatever ideas they like. What I do appreciate is content ratings (similar to movies, video games, etc...) where I can filter the content at my end. Your comment about parents preventing children from viewing content is where I believe control should be. Not everyone will want to have the filtering and they shouldn't have to put up with it. Some things can be better expressed using foul language (adds a bit of emphasis in most cases).
Your post reminded me of the old "wife 1.0" joke. I'm sure the printer in this case will be jealous of any other printers too.
Tech Support
Dear Sir,
Last year I upgraded my system from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 and noticed that the new program began creating problems within the system processing and that took up a lot of space and valuable resources.
Wife 1.0 installs itself into all other programs and launches during system initialization, where it monitors all other system activity.
Applications such as Poker Night 2.3, Girlfriend 3.2 and Saturday Football 5.0 no longer run, crashing the entire system whenever selected.
I cannot seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while running my other favorite applications. Whichever module or software I enter, only Wife 1.0 seems to run and nothing else.
I am thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0, but the uninstall from Wife 1.0 to Girlfriend 7.0 does not work on this program. Can you help me, please!
Thanks,
Huggy
Reply
To: Huggy
Dear Huggy,
This is a very common problem, men users of the Wife 1.0 software complain about but it is mostly due to a primary misconception of the software.
Many men upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 with the idea that Wife 1.0 is merely a UTILITIES & ENTERTAINMENT program.
Wife 1.0 is an OPERATING SYSTEM and designed by its creator to run everything. It is unlikely you would be able to purge Wife 1.0 and still convert back to Girlfriend 7.0.
Hidden operating files within your system would cause Girlfriend 7.0 to emulate Wife 1.0 so nothing is gained. It is impossible to uninstall, delete, or purge the program files from the system once installed !!
You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because Wife 1.0 is not designed to do this. Some have tried to install Girlfriend 8.0 or Wife 2.0 but end up with more problems than the original system. Look in your manual under "Worries Invited For Ever (Wife 1.0)".
I recommend you keep Wife 1.0 and just deal with the situation. Having Wife 1.0 installed myself, I might also suggest you read the entire section regarding general partnership faults (GPFs).
You must assume all responsibility for faults and problems that might occur, regardless of their cause. The best course of action to solve this major IT problem of yours will be to enter the command C:\APOLOGIZE.
In any case avoid excessive use of the Esc key because ultimately you will have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the operating system will return to normal. The system will run smoothly as long as you take the blame for all the GPFs.
Wife 1.0 is a great program, but very high maintenance.
Consider buying additional software to improve the performance of Wife 1.0. I recommend you to install the latest gift software like Flowers 2.1, Necklaces 3.2, and Chocolates 5.0.
note: Do not under any circumstances, install Secretary With Skirt 3.3. This is not a supported application; in fact it is a deadly virus for Wife 1.0 and is likely to cause irreversible damage to the operating system.
I've only ever purchased two new cars in my life and both of them did not include any statements about where I could or could not have work performed on my vehicle. I could see the same applying to computer hardware, but then I built my system from components rather than going to the Dell's of the world. Maybe they have some statements that invalidate the warranty if you have any work done by non-vendor technicians.
As for the right to have work done at a non-dealer location, I do believe you have the right. The purchase of a vehicle is different from that of say software. In the case of the vehicle, you do truly own the car (not bringing "leasing into this picture). I can take that car and sell off individual parts, rent it out, modify it, etc... without prior consent from the manufacturer. We must not confuse the car with other forms of purchase, say an end user license where you essentially buy certain rights with lots of restrictions. The car is owned by the individual. Now the one area that I'm not positive on is the right for an individual to copy a part. I don't know if an after market company needs to license the ability to produce a part or if they just "copy" the part. I'll have to ask the next time I go to the parts store (hopefully not for a while with relatively new vehicles 2002 & 2004).
I believe the concern was over getting the lowest price. Going for diagnostics to the dealership, even with the intention of only getting a quote will up his base price for repair by a minimum of $75. For a person on a budget, $75 could be a significant amount toward vehicle repair.
In the case of the misaligned brake calipers, I'm surprised that the computer would pick that up. I didn't realize that the computer in the car had an interface to the brake system as the caliper is really a pretty simple device. I've also never heard of a misaligned brake caliper problem (unless this is somehow related to the anti-lock braking system, but doesn't seem a likely term) as the only moving parts are to allow for the caliper to press against the disc and float back when brakes are released. Maybe Ford's design is bad on this.
I seem to recall a while back that dealers would only honor a warranty if you had all service, including oil changes, done at the dealership. I believe the outcome was that they couldn't force you to have your vehicle serviced a the dealership in order to maintain the warranty, unless they provided all the parts. While this may not be particular to warranty work, essentially they are forcing you to have the repairs done at the dealership, effectively eliminating your ability to choose where to have the service done. As a backyard mechanic myself, I would welcome an open interface to the system. I doubt I'll actually get the tools for the diagnosis, unless an after market tool becomes available at a reasonable price.
If the concern is over the ability for competition to copy the manufacturers IP, I doubt opening up an API will really affect it that much. Anyone with enough incentive should be able to bypass and figure it out on their own anyways.
Home systems aren't really that cheap yet, but I put together a configuration of a Dell and a Sun system that should give a rough comparison:
Dell:
Dell PowerEdge 1750
Dual Intel Xeon 3.06 w/ 1MB Cache, 533 MHZ FSB
2GB DDR 266MHz (4x512)
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition w/ 25 Client Licenses
2x36GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI hard disk
4 Gigabit Ethernet adapters (2xdual ports)
8x DVD ROM
3 yr GOLD Support
Sun:
Sun Fire V240 Server
Dual 1.28GHz UltraSPARC IIIi Cu Processors
2GB Memory (4x512) * sorry, didn't get speed
Solaris 8/9
2x36GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI hard disk
4 Gigabit Ethernet adapters (2xdual ports)
DVD-ROM Drive * sorry, speed not listed
3 year Gold Support
Prices:
Dell: $9,313
Sun: $10,587
The cost difference really isn't much in a business setting, especially when you consider what your purchasing. As I said before, this is a rough comparison and I could probably find a situation where the prices are even closer.
Guess it all comes down to the TCO when looking at the purchase. In a company with an abundance of UNIX admins/developers, we find UNIX much friendlier than dealing with MS.
The hardware required to support UNIX wasn't cheaply available until competition from MS drove prices down. Sure, you could copy a Solaris, AIX, etc... CD (or 8mm tape) but what would you do with it? UNIX vendors controlled the hardware and wrote their OS's to that hardware. MS on the other hand wrote to a larger hardware base (that was much cheaper).
Yes, but wasn't that to keep at least one competitor around to show that MS isn't a monopoly? It would be very difficult to defend against lawsuits if you were the only OS vendor for the desktop market.
First off, I don't have any LINUX systems. My background involves UNIX (Solaris, IRIX) and MS Win32 (NT, 2000, XP (to a lesser extent)). The development we do rarely involves MS Studio as we can't be locked into a single platform. Our customer base still utilizes a variety of operating systems and hasn't commited to migrating to a single OS platform.
I can understand an application running at high priority, but it shouldn't cripple the system until it completes. I should be able to move to another application while a process is running. I'll still consider the multi-tasking to be immature if a single process can essentially freeze the system.
The applications that I need to access via GUI are not always internally written applications so assuming that they will have an administrative or configuration console can not be done. I am very happy that MS added the feature to allow remote administration to many of their components, but it's not a global concept yet.
Some of the strategies you list work fine and we've used them where we can, but something as simple as an installation often requires running an "installer" application with user input. An administrative console would be nice, but I'm not sure that we can wait until everyone adopts the MS way.
It's true that I'm more of a UNIX person than MS, but I find that a simple telnet session piping the display back to my system would make my life much easier than all the work arounds.
Basically I see the advice your offering as working well with a "vanilla" workstation/server environment. If I put out a single baseline in my environment, I'd find most of the systems to be fairly unique in a few weeks, and I shouldn't have to lock the systems down to keep a simple environment.
OK, did some research on SUS and found this Microsoft page describing the SUS product and configuration.
Looks like you'll need the following:
MBSA - Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
SUS - Software Update Service
MS IIS (required for IIS vulnerability checks)
MS SQL Server (required for SQL vulnerability checks)
MS Office (required for Office vulnerability checks)
Looks like this product could be useful for pushing updates to the desktop. I'd certainly be much more careful on the server environments as the applications may have problems with some of the updates.
Does using SUS get around the repeated rebooting when setting up a new MS Win32 based system and applying the numerous patches? (And YES, I'm aware that I could make an image and base all clients on that image, but in many cases, I deal with a variety of hardware configurations - dealing with the "latest and greatest" solutions).
Actually I do administer multiple operating systems (Solaris, MS Win32 desktop, server, & adv server, and IRIX - and in the past I've had a couple others).
to use MSDN and Technet for documentation, with microsoft.* newsgroups on groups.google.com for the hard stuff
This is what I was refering to when I said cyclic documentation that leads nowhere. This doesn't happen for all documents, but it sure seems like the docs I need are in this category.
to use NTBackup for backups
I haven't tried using NT Backup on the newer OS's (XP, 2003) so maybe I'm wrong on this one. My experience with the backup utility that comes with the OS is that you really only use it for backing up data. My understanding is that you'd have to reinstall the OS just to be able to access the restore utility.
to use SUS for patching
I'm not familiar with SUS so I'll check on that shortly. My initial check in the MS Help didn't return any results so either it's an add on application or it's an undocumented feature.
that no MS application requires you to have administrative rights to use it
The standard work applications don't require it, but several games produced by MS do (Age of Mythology is one example). The limitation is mentioned in some of the KB articles (I researched this because I didn't want my children to have administrative rights to play the game).
to use Task manager to kill hung tasks. Yes, including explorer.exe. It's a bit like kill in Linux/unix. Give it a try
I'm well aware of the kill command on UNIX, the task manager on MS Win32, and the kill.exe available for MS Win32. What I originally was refering to was not a "hanging" task, but one that simply "hogs" the CPU. The most common CPU "hog" that my coworkers complain about is McAfee taking 99% of the CPU, but it certainly isn't limited to anti-virus software. We also find that compiling on a single CPU system can also bring it to a halt. That's where I was going with the immature multi-tasking.
Evidently since you need to have multiple users using consoles simultaneously (note, not processes running as different users, or users accessing the server under their own credentials) you have very specific needs, and I expect you are probably running a VAX with VT100 terminals.
As for the multiple users comment, we develop integrated software solutions for various server environments. We also prepare multi-vendor/developer demonstration systems for potential customers, generally to a tight deadline. Usually find ourselves in a fight for access to our MS Win32 servers for software installations. In these cases, we do need to access the server authenticated to individual user accounts to have accountability. Because most of the applications we deal with have a GUI for configuration, we either need to do the equivilent of setting a DISPLAY variable or a remote desktop (terminal services - additional cost, and apparently available on servers, not desktops - believe XP has something here, but haven't played with it yet).
Obviously Microsoft is still in use and probably for many of the reasons you've stated. I believe the point of the article is more that Linux certainly has the potential to pass Microsoft if Microsoft doesn't stay alert.
Why people shouldn't use Microsoft
Monopolistic software tactics (probably not important to a home users, but to software developers, this is a big issue)
Documentation is weak. Often I find a circular pattern when trying to resolve a problem (look at document A, points to document B, document B points to document C, document C points to document A, and none of these answered my question).
Microsoft patching is not a simple process. They've got the Update site, but if I have to patch hundreds of systems, this is not acceptable. I certainly don't want to put this burden on the end user and writing login scripts to handle this (like I'd want to have the local user with administrative rights for installations) or using applications like SMS (additional cost).
The Microsoft backup solution is to reinstall the operating system, create disk mirrors and break the mirror to create a point in time snapshot (XP does have the snapshot capabilities - guess they learned something from other companies), the internal backup software (and how can I access that without first reinstalling the OS to get to the utility?), or third party solutions (additional cost).
Applications (I know, this isn't the OS, but I'm including one's written by Microsoft) often require the accounts to have administrative rights.
The tight coupling of the browser and the OS is responsible for security holes.
Single process can bring the system to a stand still. Multi-tasking has improved, but still has room to mature.
Single user for the system (unless you are at a server with Terminal Services - additional cost).
Microsoft has enjoyed market dominance for a while and probably will into the near future. Unless they duplicate the functionality of some of the competitiors, they may find that the tortoise is in front of them.
Linux has a ways to go before it will take over the desktop market, but at the server, it's competing. Just like the Unix flavors started removing some of the "mystery" of system administration by duplicating functionality from it's competitors (GUIs, installers, etc...), Linux must learn from it's competition too.
OK, I'll agree that the consequences go beyond the home. As for what the rest of us do in the meantime, well that's harder. If someone is already corrupted by playing violent games, then it becomes a whole new issue. Violent (as well as the other "mature" content type) games are going to be created because they sell. The rating system is designed to limit access to the games, but this still doesn't address the maturity level of the person buying the game and wether or not they can handle the content. I'm sure I can find a 17+ year old that still has problems differentiating reality/fiction, but in general, the recommended age ratings probably work for 99% of the general population. I guess the real issue is the few situations where something extreme happens (i.e. Columbine H.S. and several other incidents). If the majority of the population is quite capable of understanding the reality/fiction of a game, should the population as a whole suffer because we enjoy the fictional side? If I happen to be one of the people that likes to play an alternatitive lifestyle (and I mean in the sense of a criminal on the street), should I not be able to enjoy that fictional role for a period of time while playing the game?
I do believe some of the games are in bad taste, but they obviously wouldn't be made if they didn't appeal to some user out there. My idea of "bad taste" will certainly differ from other and I'll definitely limit the levels that I expose my children to. I think the only non-invasive approach to how other parents filter their childrens content is to provide an easy to understand rating system for the content and encourage parents to basically "be parents" (doing their job in raising children capable of dealing with society).
I have to disagree on your statement that "it's really not up to parents to deal with the consequences". Parents are the primary influence in their children's life. Parents have a responsibility to prepare their children to deal with the "real" world. Part of that involves monitoring the other "influences" in their life. These other "influences" can involve anything: video games; friends; teachers; coaches; TV; etc.... I, as a parent, feel that I am responsible for my children's actions (and I'll feel that, even after they have grown up and left the house).
My opinion on the responsibility of the game vendors is that they should accurately follow the game rating systems for starters. After that, they should also focus their marketing efforts according to age too (don't advertise GTA on Cartoon Network).
As for your comment that "Games make it harder and harder for kids to make the distinctions you're talking about.", if the kid can't differentiate, the parent shouldn't be providing them with access to the game. That's where the parent's need to step up and limit there access to material based on the comprehension level of the child.
It's not just video games that create controversy. Remember how Dungeons & Dragons was viewed?
Any game that doesn't fit the "norm" will create controversy. A little parental supervision will help in any of these games. Know the capability of your child to determine what types of games they can handle. If they can separate fiction/reality, they can probably handle some of the controversial games. Some kids may take longer than others to differentiate what they see on TV/video games/music/etc... and therefore should be buffered from the content. It's all up to the parents to make these decisions and deal with the consequences.
I'll join your physicist from down stairs in sticking with W2K for my MS Win32 systems. XP seems way too bloated and if I find myself using one at work, I immediately put it back into W2K settings (I really don't need the "pretty" graphics to slow my systems down, the anti-virus software is plenty).
I haven't had to install XP yet, but if it's anything like a W2K system, I'll expect to have to reboot numerous times from the install and the patches (why can't they "cluster" them so that I only have to reboot once for multiple patch installation)
Linux still has a bit to go for ease of installation. Can't say that I've dealt with many flavors of it, but I'm sure it will continue to improve, especially as more hardware vendors provide drivers rather than forcing the open source community to do it.
The OS I find enjoyable to work with is Solaris. I know that I'll get some feedback on this one, but it's an easy OS to deal with, but you'd expect it with the cost of a system.
Re:Cha ching, reloaded.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
So how do we enlighten the masses to MS alternatives? Does anyone know of a good reference that can be handed to a non-geek computer user? I'd love to convince my relatives of the alternatives, but often find it difficult to put into terms that non-geeks would understand.
To get my post back on topic, I doubt that anyone would really give up the freedoms of the current email systems. Why would they want to pay for something (either monetarily, through CPU sharing, etc...) that they've gotten essentially for free (I guess you could argue the price for the ISP, but if you really want free access, you can usually find it through a school, library, etc...). Whatever solution one finds to spam must be invisible to general users or they'll be against it.
I'm in favor of a solution that targets the users of spam based systems. Go after the people who pay for the generation of spam messages. We should be able to trace a way back to them from the contents of the spam message. Of course this will likely need some level of international support, but at least it would put a dent into it.
The hacking direction really depends on your end goal really. If your goal is to disrupt a large number os systems, then your going to go to the desktop level and that's going to be your MS platforms. If your looking to steal corporate information (source code, customer records, etc...), your probably going to look for server type systems, and that branches your hacking effort into the UNIX world. You'll hack to where your end goals take you.
As to Who wants to hack an ultra 10? question, you'd probably be surprised by the number of these systems hosting critical applications. While the systems are definitely "old" by todays standards, they could be an entry point into a newer Sun systems. Figure that many companies are stretching their IT budgets and developer and maintenance IT staff will often sit at older equipment as their entry point into the "new" systems where the critical applications/data repositories are deployed. Just think of how many systems possibly have the.rhost files for user accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they're not pulling out the ability to do a search on file names. More likely this would be seen as an additional method of searching. Consider that I might feel like listening to music, but I'm not sure what band I feel like. Flipping through the CD's let's me notice "that band I haven't listened to in a while".
I would look at this as an optional interface that doesn't remove any current functionality.
You really have to consider that an average user really doesn't know much about the PC, nor do they want to know much about it. The average user expects the home desktop to function much like a car, they get in and drive it around. The average user doesn't want to know how the system or a car works. They just expect it to work when they need it. Getting them to read the manual or online help is not likely no matter how much developers or IT geeks would like them to. Providing a level of protection is almost a necessity when turning an operating system loose into the world. In an ideal world, we could require users to read the manual prior to operation, but that will never happen.
As for the Looking Glass software, I see this as a logical progression of the user interface. I can see this being leveraged at a time when the monitor/display is no longer part of the desktop and we move to a virtual interface. As systems become more complex, the visualization of the system also changes.
Working at a company that regularly builds solutions that ship to other countries, you should be able to buy a localization kit from the vendor (Dell) for the end use country. I've not been part of the actual purchase process from a company standpoint, so I don't know if this is something that can be checked off on the order or if it's a "special" request from the vendor.
You have to remember that most people that are using MS Office products haven't found a compelling reason to move to a newer version. The company I work for is still on MS Office 2000 and doesn't have any plans for moving foward. Even new PC's have a baseline image with MS Windows 2000 and MS Office 2000 rather than the newer versions of the OS or MS Office.
Home users may be staying at the older versions due to the software registration (at least for the XP version as I haven't seen 2003 yet).
Isn't that what the TV rating system is for? If a show is rated R, don't let junior watch it.
I agree with this part of your posting and even a bit with
Oh wait, I forgot... TV is what we use to raise our children.
Some parents will rely on the TV to be the "baby sitter", but you can't claim that all parents do. In my home, my wife does not work (although is attending part time college while the kids are in school) and between the two of us, we raise our kids. TV is primarily used for entertainment and the amount and content is set by us, not the kids, and the rating guide is used in our decisions (although not the sole discriminator - program description, preview, etc... - digital cable programming guide is nice).
I think the big concern over content is when it is a surprise. Imagine watching SpongeBob with your children and all of a sudden SpongeBob and Sandy fucking in the cartoon. This would certainly be unacceptable as the content is designed for young viewers. The same concept can be applied to broadcast television during normal viewing times. You just expect that the viewing audience will be diverse (wide age range). If a target audience is expected, then properly label the shows rating.
I think the rating system on the shows is adequate for the most part, as long as the broadcasters actually label them correctly. Of course, the overall responsibility is on the parents. As a parent though, any help in content ratings is much appreciated.
I picked them up at school and from friends as well. I'm sure my kids will do the same.
I find the web to be more difficult to regulate than traditional media outlets (physical address, licensing, limited sources, etc...). I don't know the statistics on web sites, but I'm sure there are quite a few out there and setting up a method to regulate them would be difficult and it would really upset a portion of the population. Throw in the fact that regulation would need to be international and I believe regulation will pretty much be unrealistic. Also consider that, at least in the US, the ACLU will likely stop any regulation.
I still like the idea of controlling content at the desktop level. I realize this can't solve all problems (sites without rating information, new sites not on "list", kids at friends how where filter isn't installed, etc...) but it seems the best solution. At some point though, education has to take over. While I'm sure my kids are not very good with the computers yet, it's only a matter of time till they start hacking away at any controls I setup. Good thing I do software R&D with Sys Admin on the side. Should be able to keep ahead of the kids for a while.
The difference between saying "fuck" here and "fuck" on TV can be seen as different. Most parents will want to "filter" the content presented to children until the child is deemed ready to deal with the content. I for one don't want my children running around using foul language, not so much because it offends people, but rather because the language is generally associated with people who lack intelligence to choose a more socially acceptable word. If suddenly one of these words becomes the accepted word, then sure, they'll learn it at a younger age. Really if you think about it, what's the difference between penis and dick? They both indicate the same body part. The difference is what people deem as acceptable.
Now are you going to prevent your children from viewing Slashdot or are you going to write to your congressman to have Slashdot be censored because you're too lazy to monitor your children?
I for one believe the web should not be sensored. This environment is truly one where a person can express whatever ideas they like. What I do appreciate is content ratings (similar to movies, video games, etc...) where I can filter the content at my end. Your comment about parents preventing children from viewing content is where I believe control should be. Not everyone will want to have the filtering and they shouldn't have to put up with it. Some things can be better expressed using foul language (adds a bit of emphasis in most cases).
Maybe ST uses the information from the NASA Develops Tech To Hear Words Not Yet Spoken article covered earlier to speed things up.
Your post reminded me of the old "wife 1.0" joke. I'm sure the printer in this case will be jealous of any other printers too.
Tech Support
Dear Sir,
Last year I upgraded my system from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 and noticed that the new program began creating problems within the system processing and that took up a lot of space and valuable resources.
Wife 1.0 installs itself into all other programs and launches during system initialization, where it monitors all other system activity.
Applications such as Poker Night 2.3, Girlfriend 3.2 and Saturday Football 5.0 no longer run, crashing the entire system whenever selected.
I cannot seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while running my other favorite applications. Whichever module or software I enter, only Wife 1.0 seems to run and nothing else.
I am thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0, but the uninstall from Wife 1.0 to Girlfriend 7.0 does not work on this program. Can you help me, please!
Thanks,
Huggy
Reply
To: Huggy
Dear Huggy,
This is a very common problem, men users of the Wife 1.0 software complain about but it is mostly due to a primary misconception of the software.
Many men upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 with the idea that Wife 1.0 is merely a UTILITIES & ENTERTAINMENT program.
Wife 1.0 is an OPERATING SYSTEM and designed by its creator to run everything. It is unlikely you would be able to purge Wife 1.0 and still convert back to Girlfriend 7.0.
Hidden operating files within your system would cause Girlfriend 7.0 to emulate Wife 1.0 so nothing is gained. It is impossible to uninstall, delete, or purge the program files from the system once installed !!
You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because Wife 1.0 is not designed to do this. Some have tried to install Girlfriend 8.0 or Wife 2.0 but end up with more problems than the original system. Look in your manual under "Worries Invited For Ever (Wife 1.0)".
I recommend you keep Wife 1.0 and just deal with the situation. Having Wife 1.0 installed myself, I might also suggest you read the entire section regarding general partnership faults (GPFs).
You must assume all responsibility for faults and problems that might occur, regardless of their cause. The best course of action to solve this major IT problem of yours will be to enter the command C:\APOLOGIZE.
In any case avoid excessive use of the Esc key because ultimately you will have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the operating system will return to normal. The system will run smoothly as long as you take the blame for all the GPFs.
Wife 1.0 is a great program, but very high maintenance.
Consider buying additional software to improve the performance of Wife 1.0. I recommend you to install the latest gift software like Flowers 2.1, Necklaces 3.2, and Chocolates 5.0.
note: Do not under any circumstances, install Secretary With Skirt 3.3. This is not a supported application; in fact it is a deadly virus for Wife 1.0 and is likely to cause irreversible damage to the operating system.
regards,
Tech support manager.
I've only ever purchased two new cars in my life and both of them did not include any statements about where I could or could not have work performed on my vehicle. I could see the same applying to computer hardware, but then I built my system from components rather than going to the Dell's of the world. Maybe they have some statements that invalidate the warranty if you have any work done by non-vendor technicians.
As for the right to have work done at a non-dealer location, I do believe you have the right. The purchase of a vehicle is different from that of say software. In the case of the vehicle, you do truly own the car (not bringing "leasing into this picture). I can take that car and sell off individual parts, rent it out, modify it, etc... without prior consent from the manufacturer. We must not confuse the car with other forms of purchase, say an end user license where you essentially buy certain rights with lots of restrictions. The car is owned by the individual. Now the one area that I'm not positive on is the right for an individual to copy a part. I don't know if an after market company needs to license the ability to produce a part or if they just "copy" the part. I'll have to ask the next time I go to the parts store (hopefully not for a while with relatively new vehicles 2002 & 2004).
I believe the concern was over getting the lowest price. Going for diagnostics to the dealership, even with the intention of only getting a quote will up his base price for repair by a minimum of $75. For a person on a budget, $75 could be a significant amount toward vehicle repair.
In the case of the misaligned brake calipers, I'm surprised that the computer would pick that up. I didn't realize that the computer in the car had an interface to the brake system as the caliper is really a pretty simple device. I've also never heard of a misaligned brake caliper problem (unless this is somehow related to the anti-lock braking system, but doesn't seem a likely term) as the only moving parts are to allow for the caliper to press against the disc and float back when brakes are released. Maybe Ford's design is bad on this.
I seem to recall a while back that dealers would only honor a warranty if you had all service, including oil changes, done at the dealership. I believe the outcome was that they couldn't force you to have your vehicle serviced a the dealership in order to maintain the warranty, unless they provided all the parts. While this may not be particular to warranty work, essentially they are forcing you to have the repairs done at the dealership, effectively eliminating your ability to choose where to have the service done. As a backyard mechanic myself, I would welcome an open interface to the system. I doubt I'll actually get the tools for the diagnosis, unless an after market tool becomes available at a reasonable price.
If the concern is over the ability for competition to copy the manufacturers IP, I doubt opening up an API will really affect it that much. Anyone with enough incentive should be able to bypass and figure it out on their own anyways.
Dell:
Dell PowerEdge 1750
Dual Intel Xeon 3.06 w/ 1MB Cache, 533 MHZ FSB
2GB DDR 266MHz (4x512)
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition w/ 25 Client Licenses
2x36GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI hard disk
4 Gigabit Ethernet adapters (2xdual ports)
8x DVD ROM
3 yr GOLD Support
Sun:
Sun Fire V240 Server
Dual 1.28GHz UltraSPARC IIIi Cu Processors
2GB Memory (4x512) * sorry, didn't get speed
Solaris 8/9
2x36GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI hard disk
4 Gigabit Ethernet adapters (2xdual ports)
DVD-ROM Drive * sorry, speed not listed
3 year Gold Support
Prices:
Dell: $9,313
Sun: $10,587
The cost difference really isn't much in a business setting, especially when you consider what your purchasing. As I said before, this is a rough comparison and I could probably find a situation where the prices are even closer.
Guess it all comes down to the TCO when looking at the purchase. In a company with an abundance of UNIX admins/developers, we find UNIX much friendlier than dealing with MS.
The hardware required to support UNIX wasn't cheaply available until competition from MS drove prices down. Sure, you could copy a Solaris, AIX, etc... CD (or 8mm tape) but what would you do with it? UNIX vendors controlled the hardware and wrote their OS's to that hardware. MS on the other hand wrote to a larger hardware base (that was much cheaper).
Yes, but wasn't that to keep at least one competitor around to show that MS isn't a monopoly? It would be very difficult to defend against lawsuits if you were the only OS vendor for the desktop market.
First off, I don't have any LINUX systems. My background involves UNIX (Solaris, IRIX) and MS Win32 (NT, 2000, XP (to a lesser extent)). The development we do rarely involves MS Studio as we can't be locked into a single platform. Our customer base still utilizes a variety of operating systems and hasn't commited to migrating to a single OS platform.
I can understand an application running at high priority, but it shouldn't cripple the system until it completes. I should be able to move to another application while a process is running. I'll still consider the multi-tasking to be immature if a single process can essentially freeze the system.
The applications that I need to access via GUI are not always internally written applications so assuming that they will have an administrative or configuration console can not be done. I am very happy that MS added the feature to allow remote administration to many of their components, but it's not a global concept yet.
Some of the strategies you list work fine and we've used them where we can, but something as simple as an installation often requires running an "installer" application with user input. An administrative console would be nice, but I'm not sure that we can wait until everyone adopts the MS way.
It's true that I'm more of a UNIX person than MS, but I find that a simple telnet session piping the display back to my system would make my life much easier than all the work arounds.
Basically I see the advice your offering as working well with a "vanilla" workstation/server environment. If I put out a single baseline in my environment, I'd find most of the systems to be fairly unique in a few weeks, and I shouldn't have to lock the systems down to keep a simple environment.
Looks like you'll need the following:
MBSA - Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
SUS - Software Update Service
MS IIS (required for IIS vulnerability checks)
MS SQL Server (required for SQL vulnerability checks)
MS Office (required for Office vulnerability checks)
Looks like this product could be useful for pushing updates to the desktop. I'd certainly be much more careful on the server environments as the applications may have problems with some of the updates.
Does using SUS get around the repeated rebooting when setting up a new MS Win32 based system and applying the numerous patches? (And YES, I'm aware that I could make an image and base all clients on that image, but in many cases, I deal with a variety of hardware configurations - dealing with the "latest and greatest" solutions).
to use MSDN and Technet for documentation, with microsoft.* newsgroups on groups.google.com for the hard stuff
This is what I was refering to when I said cyclic documentation that leads nowhere. This doesn't happen for all documents, but it sure seems like the docs I need are in this category.
to use NTBackup for backups
I haven't tried using NT Backup on the newer OS's (XP, 2003) so maybe I'm wrong on this one. My experience with the backup utility that comes with the OS is that you really only use it for backing up data. My understanding is that you'd have to reinstall the OS just to be able to access the restore utility.
to use SUS for patching
I'm not familiar with SUS so I'll check on that shortly. My initial check in the MS Help didn't return any results so either it's an add on application or it's an undocumented feature.
that no MS application requires you to have administrative rights to use it
The standard work applications don't require it, but several games produced by MS do (Age of Mythology is one example). The limitation is mentioned in some of the KB articles (I researched this because I didn't want my children to have administrative rights to play the game).
to use Task manager to kill hung tasks. Yes, including explorer.exe. It's a bit like kill in Linux/unix. Give it a try
I'm well aware of the kill command on UNIX, the task manager on MS Win32, and the kill.exe available for MS Win32. What I originally was refering to was not a "hanging" task, but one that simply "hogs" the CPU. The most common CPU "hog" that my coworkers complain about is McAfee taking 99% of the CPU, but it certainly isn't limited to anti-virus software. We also find that compiling on a single CPU system can also bring it to a halt. That's where I was going with the immature multi-tasking.
Evidently since you need to have multiple users using consoles simultaneously (note, not processes running as different users, or users accessing the server under their own credentials) you have very specific needs, and I expect you are probably running a VAX with VT100 terminals.
As for the multiple users comment, we develop integrated software solutions for various server environments. We also prepare multi-vendor/developer demonstration systems for potential customers, generally to a tight deadline. Usually find ourselves in a fight for access to our MS Win32 servers for software installations. In these cases, we do need to access the server authenticated to individual user accounts to have accountability. Because most of the applications we deal with have a GUI for configuration, we either need to do the equivilent of setting a DISPLAY variable or a remote desktop (terminal services - additional cost, and apparently available on servers, not desktops - believe XP has something here, but haven't played with it yet).
Why people shouldn't use Microsoft
Monopolistic software tactics (probably not important to a home users, but to software developers, this is a big issue)
Documentation is weak. Often I find a circular pattern when trying to resolve a problem (look at document A, points to document B, document B points to document C, document C points to document A, and none of these answered my question).
Microsoft patching is not a simple process. They've got the Update site, but if I have to patch hundreds of systems, this is not acceptable. I certainly don't want to put this burden on the end user and writing login scripts to handle this (like I'd want to have the local user with administrative rights for installations) or using applications like SMS (additional cost).
The Microsoft backup solution is to reinstall the operating system, create disk mirrors and break the mirror to create a point in time snapshot (XP does have the snapshot capabilities - guess they learned something from other companies), the internal backup software (and how can I access that without first reinstalling the OS to get to the utility?), or third party solutions (additional cost).
Applications (I know, this isn't the OS, but I'm including one's written by Microsoft) often require the accounts to have administrative rights.
The tight coupling of the browser and the OS is responsible for security holes.
Single process can bring the system to a stand still. Multi-tasking has improved, but still has room to mature.
Single user for the system (unless you are at a server with Terminal Services - additional cost).
Microsoft has enjoyed market dominance for a while and probably will into the near future. Unless they duplicate the functionality of some of the competitiors, they may find that the tortoise is in front of them.
Linux has a ways to go before it will take over the desktop market, but at the server, it's competing. Just like the Unix flavors started removing some of the "mystery" of system administration by duplicating functionality from it's competitors (GUIs, installers, etc...), Linux must learn from it's competition too.
OK, I'll agree that the consequences go beyond the home. As for what the rest of us do in the meantime, well that's harder. If someone is already corrupted by playing violent games, then it becomes a whole new issue. Violent (as well as the other "mature" content type) games are going to be created because they sell. The rating system is designed to limit access to the games, but this still doesn't address the maturity level of the person buying the game and wether or not they can handle the content. I'm sure I can find a 17+ year old that still has problems differentiating reality/fiction, but in general, the recommended age ratings probably work for 99% of the general population. I guess the real issue is the few situations where something extreme happens (i.e. Columbine H.S. and several other incidents). If the majority of the population is quite capable of understanding the reality/fiction of a game, should the population as a whole suffer because we enjoy the fictional side? If I happen to be one of the people that likes to play an alternatitive lifestyle (and I mean in the sense of a criminal on the street), should I not be able to enjoy that fictional role for a period of time while playing the game?
I do believe some of the games are in bad taste, but they obviously wouldn't be made if they didn't appeal to some user out there. My idea of "bad taste" will certainly differ from other and I'll definitely limit the levels that I expose my children to. I think the only non-invasive approach to how other parents filter their childrens content is to provide an easy to understand rating system for the content and encourage parents to basically "be parents" (doing their job in raising children capable of dealing with society).
I have to disagree on your statement that "it's really not up to parents to deal with the consequences". Parents are the primary influence in their children's life. Parents have a responsibility to prepare their children to deal with the "real" world. Part of that involves monitoring the other "influences" in their life. These other "influences" can involve anything: video games; friends; teachers; coaches; TV; etc.... I, as a parent, feel that I am responsible for my children's actions (and I'll feel that, even after they have grown up and left the house).
My opinion on the responsibility of the game vendors is that they should accurately follow the game rating systems for starters. After that, they should also focus their marketing efforts according to age too (don't advertise GTA on Cartoon Network).
As for your comment that "Games make it harder and harder for kids to make the distinctions you're talking about.", if the kid can't differentiate, the parent shouldn't be providing them with access to the game. That's where the parent's need to step up and limit there access to material based on the comprehension level of the child.
It's not just video games that create controversy. Remember how Dungeons & Dragons was viewed?
Any game that doesn't fit the "norm" will create controversy. A little parental supervision will help in any of these games. Know the capability of your child to determine what types of games they can handle. If they can separate fiction/reality, they can probably handle some of the controversial games. Some kids may take longer than others to differentiate what they see on TV/video games/music/etc... and therefore should be buffered from the content. It's all up to the parents to make these decisions and deal with the consequences.
I'll join your physicist from down stairs in sticking with W2K for my MS Win32 systems. XP seems way too bloated and if I find myself using one at work, I immediately put it back into W2K settings (I really don't need the "pretty" graphics to slow my systems down, the anti-virus software is plenty).
I haven't had to install XP yet, but if it's anything like a W2K system, I'll expect to have to reboot numerous times from the install and the patches (why can't they "cluster" them so that I only have to reboot once for multiple patch installation)
Linux still has a bit to go for ease of installation. Can't say that I've dealt with many flavors of it, but I'm sure it will continue to improve, especially as more hardware vendors provide drivers rather than forcing the open source community to do it.
The OS I find enjoyable to work with is Solaris. I know that I'll get some feedback on this one, but it's an easy OS to deal with, but you'd expect it with the cost of a system.
So how do we enlighten the masses to MS alternatives? Does anyone know of a good reference that can be handed to a non-geek computer user? I'd love to convince my relatives of the alternatives, but often find it difficult to put into terms that non-geeks would understand.
To get my post back on topic, I doubt that anyone would really give up the freedoms of the current email systems. Why would they want to pay for something (either monetarily, through CPU sharing, etc...) that they've gotten essentially for free (I guess you could argue the price for the ISP, but if you really want free access, you can usually find it through a school, library, etc...). Whatever solution one finds to spam must be invisible to general users or they'll be against it.
I'm in favor of a solution that targets the users of spam based systems. Go after the people who pay for the generation of spam messages. We should be able to trace a way back to them from the contents of the spam message. Of course this will likely need some level of international support, but at least it would put a dent into it.
The hacking direction really depends on your end goal really. If your goal is to disrupt a large number os systems, then your going to go to the desktop level and that's going to be your MS platforms. If your looking to steal corporate information (source code, customer records, etc...), your probably going to look for server type systems, and that branches your hacking effort into the UNIX world. You'll hack to where your end goals take you.
.rhost files for user accounts.
As to Who wants to hack an ultra 10? question, you'd probably be surprised by the number of these systems hosting critical applications. While the systems are definitely "old" by todays standards, they could be an entry point into a newer Sun systems. Figure that many companies are stretching their IT budgets and developer and maintenance IT staff will often sit at older equipment as their entry point into the "new" systems where the critical applications/data repositories are deployed. Just think of how many systems possibly have the