Maybe we could form an open "support" community to provide collaborative volunteer tech support to businesses willing to deploy an open source solution in their shops?
How is the tech support supposed to support themselves? Volunteer means they don't get paid. They'll also be needed mostly during the day, when people are actually at work. Finally, as a business, would you want to rely on the charity of volunteers to keep your IT infastructure going? Sorry, nice idea, but it wouldn't work.
The (IMO saner) way is to run Windows where you really need it (on many, possibly most desktops) but use Unix/Linux on the server and even more importantly use open standards and formats whereever possible. (For example use Mozilla/html/LAMP instead of client/server/Win32 or IE/html/ASP)
Bull. Linux wasn't cutting it as my home server. I was tired of wading through text configuration files and googling on the internet to get something as simple as a USB printer working. You think companies want their admins spending thier time doing this? I ended up replacing my Linux server with SBS 2003, because I wanted to get things running and make changes easily, not spend my time in text files and googling on why something isn't working as its supposed to.
So ask for Linux versions. If you don't get them, you'll take your business somewhere else. If you need the software *that* badly you can probably pay someone to write it for less than the cost of all those Microsoft licence fees.
$15,000 for 105 licenses, $1000 for the standard 2003 R2 server, $42,000 for XP pro. Note this is all pricing according to MS; you'll likely get volume discounts when you actually perchase. Now, $58,000 is less than I make a year, and that doesn't include benefits. Do you really think you can hire a TEAM of programmers to build software that ALREADY available off the shelf for less?
Apparently you don't know what "there isn't a distinction" means. I have not even been to a starbucks I'm using this as an example and you apperently don't understand what I'm saying, if there private network is unsecured in a public place along side there public network, it is public. I'm not wasting anymore time on this subject.
I do; the very fact that you said there was a public and private one indicated there was a distinction.
You did indeed waste time, with a stupid and not thought out or explained example.
At any rate, try this. If you don't own it, don't use it without permission; assume you can't, secured or not.
You're not allowed in another person's home without explicit permission, in Vermont. You walk into my house without permission, you are guilty of trespass (and a much harsher fine / jail time).
No, you're not liable if someone breaks their neck on your property. While they may not have been trespassing, they didn't have a reason to be on your property. You are responsible for yourself, meaning you need to, like, look where you're walking.
For some reason though the story is different if you know people regularlly trespass; such as a common short cut through your property.
Why I don't know; if you don't own it, you shouldn't be on it.
I think there'd be an argument taht a site which doesn't prompt for credentials is implicitly granting access, while a prompt for credentials even if they password is blank would indicate that only authorized users may access.
Why not ship him off to Russia to face their computer laws? Its not pick and choose... he broke into a US military computer, he needs to face US law. It was not the UK that was harmed by his actions, it was the US.
What I'm saying is there isn't a distinction and that's the problem. If they leave a wireless conection unsecured, there is no way for me to know that it's there private connection or their public connection. For example, lets say you have two houses side by side both unlocked. You give me authorization to enter the place your mail on the table. I do so, not knowing you wanted me to go into the left house not the right. You get all pissed off and try to sue me for your own ignorance. And you sue the person you hired to water your plants because they did the same thing!
No, this is more akin to you going into the door clearly marked private, but which is also unlocked.
Now, enough of stupid analogies. You clearly know which one not to use, because you know one of them is public and the other is private. If you had just said 'starbucks has two wireless networks' and left it at that, you may have a point. The very fact that you KNOW one is private proves you know which one to use and which one they don't want you to use. How could you know they have a private network if they never told you it was private?
I own a business, in fact. And I'm going to go with the vendor who has my best interests at heart--not the vendor who says "screw the customers...we'll throw in dangerous, unsecured technology to make our stockholders happy and gain market share against those damned Netscape people."
So you'll buy a product for your business that doesn't do what you need it to? Doesn't seem like a very smart business move, even if the product is secure.
I've read through every NDA I've signed, and I strongly doubt that statement is correct. Though I admit, IANAL.
It is when you think about. An NDA is simply a contract. There may not even be a seperate provision in your contract that says the NDA continues even if employment doesn't.
Finally, you have to remember this. In contract law, the law must be mutually benefital to both sides. After your employment ends, what benefit do you get from keeping up your NDA?
First ActiveX exploit released: 1993. Latest ActiveX exploit: in the wild currently and unpatched. That's 13 years that Microsoft has ignored your security and refused to correct a huge, gaping security hole.
Care to give details on the lastest one? ActiveX (in a browser, I have to assume thats what you're talking about) gives security prompts on any attempt to install software. If you click No or do not install or whatever, it doesn't.
We won't even talk about the RPC processes (accessible through ports left open by default) that have traditionally been running in Windows (up until just a few months ago), with full Admin privileges, every time you log in, no matter how you log in.
Windows Server 2003 ships with RPC network access disabled by default. XPSP2 has network access to RPC shut off by default (indeed, it will just disable it, even if you wanted it open).. that was released almost 2 years ago. Not sure how you get 'up until just a few months ago.'
The real reason Windows has more security problems: the head-in-the-sand, we'll-bend-over-and-take-more-of-this-same-old-cra p attitude of Microsoft customers.
I think a lot of security problems stem from needing to support DOS for so long. It wasn't until XP that home users had access to the NT kernel, which is much more secure.
More to the point though, MS was doing what its customers wanted, and they weren't saying they wanted security. They wanted backward compatability and more ease of use. It wasn't until relatively recently that they wanted security. And MS is reponding; server 2003 comes out of the box pretty secure. Firewall that is on by default, minimal services installed by default.
But here, I'll let the Microsoft folks themselves tell you: "Our products just aren't engineered for security," said Brian Valentine, Microsoft senior vice president for Windows development. Another Microsoft executive recently explained they never paid attention to security "Because customers wouldn't pay for it until recently."
Wow, way to quote a 3 year old article. But it proves my point; are you, as a company, going to go with the vendor that gives you what you want, or something you didn't ask for? Again, I'd also like to point out that server 2003 is pretty secure by default, and it wasn't long until SP2 for XP came out, which fixes a bunch of security issues and other enhancements.
Oh, and you *can* type in a path... did you try to just start typing? As soon as you hit that first/, a textbox will appear. It even automagically completes as you type. It's extremely slick and fast if you already know the path you want.
Having a control hidden like that seems to be pretty bad UI, if you ask me.
Sorry, but changing a URL I don't think would qualify for criminal tresspass. They are inhertently user changable. They might have well just put a button on the page that let you see other companies documents.
If you have rights, the ONLY one that may violate them is the government, and only after due process. Having rights that any joe off the street can violate means you don't really have rights.
If I picked up the phone and called my company's clients and said something to the effect of "our widgets aren't as good as we claim they are", it could hurt sales and alienate customers. I would be fired and potentially sued or prosecuted for corporate sabotage.
Doubtful, if what you are saying is true. We had an employee that was laid off, but had contacts in her personal cell phone. She did something very similar, there wasn't much the company could do to her.
They only exist when the government establishes the monopoly for a company, as it has with the telcos. The problem lies in the fact that electricity, cable, phone services, water, garbage collection are luxuries. Not required for life.
Really? Water and garbage collection are not required to live? Well, I suppose you can live without them, but it will be a short, miserable existence as you die of thirst or disease.
Of course we as a society would be so much better off if people just lost access to electriciy and communication.
You're a total idiot. Go live in a cave if you feel everything is a luxury. Last I checked, you do have the right to life.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we could form an open "support" community to provide collaborative volunteer tech support to businesses willing to deploy an open source solution in their shops?
How is the tech support supposed to support themselves? Volunteer means they don't get paid. They'll also be needed mostly during the day, when people are actually at work. Finally, as a business, would you want to rely on the charity of volunteers to keep your IT infastructure going? Sorry, nice idea, but it wouldn't work.
The (IMO saner) way is to run Windows where you really need it (on many, possibly most desktops) but use Unix/Linux on the server and even more importantly use open standards and formats whereever possible. (For example use Mozilla/html/LAMP instead of client/server/Win32 or IE/html/ASP)
Bull. Linux wasn't cutting it as my home server. I was tired of wading through text configuration files and googling on the internet to get something as simple as a USB printer working. You think companies want their admins spending thier time doing this? I ended up replacing my Linux server with SBS 2003, because I wanted to get things running and make changes easily, not spend my time in text files and googling on why something isn't working as its supposed to.
So ask for Linux versions. If you don't get them, you'll take your business somewhere else. If you need the software *that* badly you can probably pay someone to write it for less than the cost of all those Microsoft licence fees.
u y/licensing/pricing.mspx
Bull. In some industries, there are few if any choices, and a lot of those are Windows only. And no, it wouldn't be cheaper to pay someone to recreate off the shelf software for linux. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtob
$15,000 for 105 licenses, $1000 for the standard 2003 R2 server, $42,000 for XP pro. Note this is all pricing according to MS; you'll likely get volume discounts when you actually perchase. Now, $58,000 is less than I make a year, and that doesn't include benefits. Do you really think you can hire a TEAM of programmers to build software that ALREADY available off the shelf for less?
Apparently you don't know what "there isn't a distinction" means. I have not even been to a starbucks I'm using this as an example and you apperently don't understand what I'm saying, if there private network is unsecured in a public place along side there public network, it is public. I'm not wasting anymore time on this subject.
I do; the very fact that you said there was a public and private one indicated there was a distinction.
You did indeed waste time, with a stupid and not thought out or explained example.
At any rate, try this. If you don't own it, don't use it without permission; assume you can't, secured or not.
You aren't breaking Iran's laws by saying he's a jackass in the US. Go to Iran and do so, expect to be jailed.
You're not allowed in another person's home without explicit permission, in Vermont. You walk into my house without permission, you are guilty of trespass (and a much harsher fine / jail time).
No, you're not liable if someone breaks their neck on your property. While they may not have been trespassing, they didn't have a reason to be on your property. You are responsible for yourself, meaning you need to, like, look where you're walking.
For some reason though the story is different if you know people regularlly trespass; such as a common short cut through your property.
Why I don't know; if you don't own it, you shouldn't be on it.
I think there'd be an argument taht a site which doesn't prompt for credentials is implicitly granting access, while a prompt for credentials even if they password is blank would indicate that only authorized users may access.
Not in Vermont: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cf m?Title=13&Chapter=081&Section=03705
You ARE allowed to set foot on the property if there is no sign; you are NEVER allowed to enter the house, sign or not.
Yes, we do.
Why not ship him off to Russia to face their computer laws? Its not pick and choose... he broke into a US military computer, he needs to face US law. It was not the UK that was harmed by his actions, it was the US.
What I'm saying is there isn't a distinction and that's the problem. If they leave a wireless conection unsecured, there is no way for me to know that it's there private connection or their public connection. For example, lets say you have two houses side by side both unlocked. You give me authorization to enter the place your mail on the table. I do so, not knowing you wanted me to go into the left house not the right. You get all pissed off and try to sue me for your own ignorance. And you sue the person you hired to water your plants because they did the same thing!
No, this is more akin to you going into the door clearly marked private, but which is also unlocked.
Now, enough of stupid analogies. You clearly know which one not to use, because you know one of them is public and the other is private. If you had just said 'starbucks has two wireless networks' and left it at that, you may have a point. The very fact that you KNOW one is private proves you know which one to use and which one they don't want you to use. How could you know they have a private network if they never told you it was private?
I own a business, in fact. And I'm going to go with the vendor who has my best interests at heart--not the vendor who says "screw the customers...we'll throw in dangerous, unsecured technology to make our stockholders happy and gain market share against those damned Netscape people."
So you'll buy a product for your business that doesn't do what you need it to? Doesn't seem like a very smart business move, even if the product is secure.
I've read through every NDA I've signed, and I strongly doubt that statement is correct. Though I admit, IANAL.
It is when you think about. An NDA is simply a contract. There may not even be a seperate provision in your contract that says the NDA continues even if employment doesn't.
Finally, you have to remember this. In contract law, the law must be mutually benefital to both sides. After your employment ends, what benefit do you get from keeping up your NDA?
First ActiveX exploit released: 1993. Latest ActiveX exploit: in the wild currently and unpatched. That's 13 years that Microsoft has ignored your security and refused to correct a huge, gaping security hole.
a p attitude of Microsoft customers.
o ft/microsoft1.htm#Crapsoftware
Care to give details on the lastest one? ActiveX (in a browser, I have to assume thats what you're talking about) gives security prompts on any attempt to install software. If you click No or do not install or whatever, it doesn't.
We won't even talk about the RPC processes (accessible through ports left open by default) that have traditionally been running in Windows (up until just a few months ago), with full Admin privileges, every time you log in, no matter how you log in.
Windows Server 2003 ships with RPC network access disabled by default. XPSP2 has network access to RPC shut off by default (indeed, it will just disable it, even if you wanted it open).. that was released almost 2 years ago. Not sure how you get 'up until just a few months ago.'
The real reason Windows has more security problems: the head-in-the-sand, we'll-bend-over-and-take-more-of-this-same-old-cr
I think a lot of security problems stem from needing to support DOS for so long. It wasn't until XP that home users had access to the NT kernel, which is much more secure.
More to the point though, MS was doing what its customers wanted, and they weren't saying they wanted security. They wanted backward compatability and more ease of use. It wasn't until relatively recently that they wanted security. And MS is reponding; server 2003 comes out of the box pretty secure. Firewall that is on by default, minimal services installed by default.
But here, I'll let the Microsoft folks themselves tell you:
"Our products just aren't engineered for security," said Brian Valentine, Microsoft senior vice president for Windows development. Another Microsoft executive recently explained they never paid attention to security "Because customers wouldn't pay for it until recently."
Article (2003) quote from http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/micros
Wow, way to quote a 3 year old article. But it proves my point; are you, as a company, going to go with the vendor that gives you what you want, or something you didn't ask for? Again, I'd also like to point out that server 2003 is pretty secure by default, and it wasn't long until SP2 for XP came out, which fixes a bunch of security issues and other enhancements.
Well you must be able to tell, since you stated they have one public and one private.
Oh, and you *can* type in a path... did you try to just start typing? As soon as you hit that first /, a textbox will appear. It even automagically completes as you type. It's extremely slick and fast if you already know the path you want.
Having a control hidden like that seems to be pretty bad UI, if you ask me.
Just because I don't lock my door doesn't mean you can enter my house.
You are not paying for that persons connection, therefore you have no right to use it, secure or not.
Sorry, but changing a URL I don't think would qualify for criminal tresspass. They are inhertently user changable. They might have well just put a button on the page that let you see other companies documents.
If you have rights, the ONLY one that may violate them is the government, and only after due process. Having rights that any joe off the street can violate means you don't really have rights.
If I picked up the phone and called my company's clients and said something to the effect of "our widgets aren't as good as we claim they are", it could hurt sales and alienate customers. I would be fired and potentially sued or prosecuted for corporate sabotage.
Doubtful, if what you are saying is true. We had an employee that was laid off, but had contacts in her personal cell phone. She did something very similar, there wasn't much the company could do to her.
Um, and how many home PCs and business PCs are on the internet?
I think some would say if you're not willing to die for freedom, you don't really want it.
There is a saying, better to die free, then live a slave.
Um, yes there are. The Bee line in FL, the PA Turnpike, the MA turnpike, the NY thruway, just off the top of my head.
They only exist when the government establishes the monopoly for a company, as it has with the telcos. The problem lies in the fact that electricity, cable, phone services, water, garbage collection are luxuries. Not required for life.
Really? Water and garbage collection are not required to live? Well, I suppose you can live without them, but it will be a short, miserable existence as you die of thirst or disease.
Of course we as a society would be so much better off if people just lost access to electriciy and communication.
You're a total idiot. Go live in a cave if you feel everything is a luxury. Last I checked, you do have the right to life.