Absolutely wonderful human being to meet and listen to.
In the early 90's, he gave the homecoming address at the university I attended (a school specializing in aviation-related degrees). I'll never forget during the Q&A, on about the third question about a detail in one of the episodes, he responded with something like:
"Look, it was a job - we learned our lines, were taped while reciting them, and got paid. You guys know these episodes far better than I do, so please stop asking me why in the third line in episode 27 I said one thing when in my fifteenth line in episode 13 I contradicted that. It was a job, and we said the lines we were told to say. I'd much rather talk about aviation, please!"
He and his wife both are pilots, as I recall...I think he had just received his flight certificate.
I, for one, will remember him most for that, not for his acting career - that was the point at which he became a real person to me rather than just another actor.
I think the last time I had a kernel panic was 6 years ago (and it happened once) - and the systems I run are not idle by any stretch - nor are they single-task machines.
When I ran Windows, I could count on a BSOD at least once a week, if not more often. The company I worked for at the time had well over 2,000 NT4 servers that needed to be rebooted once a week because of a memory leak.
Now, while that memory leak was in a database application (not MS SQL), I think it speaks volumes that a poorly written application on Windows can cause the system to require a reboot because of inadequate garbage collection at the OS level, but an OSS platform running applications that are developed entirely in the OSS world doesn't.
I know someone who years ago worked for WordPerfect (on WordPerfect Office - the mail program) and was offered a job at Microsoft (working on MS Mail), but had a non-compete clause with WordPerfect.
Microsoft paid him a years' salary to sit on his butt and do no work - I spent most of that year talking with him online, and boy was he glad when the year was up - he was going stir crazy.
Seems to me that if Microsoft had to do that in the past, it's only fair that their competitors should have to abide by those rules as well.
Now, if Google wants to pay Mr. Lee to sit on his butt for a year and do nothing, that would also seem fair to me for them to be allowed to do that.
And yet you feel that your own opinion should be given greater weight - why, exactly?
What makes you so special?
You wrote:
"I am saying don't post your point of view unless it is fact and you are well qualified to deliver it, if not then shut the fuck up."
Well, your point of view isn't a fact - it's your opinion, you don't appear to be well qualified to deliver it, maybe you should take your own advice.
Yes, it is a tough time for you Brits right now, and I empathize - really, I do - after 9/11, I felt much the same as you do, even having made the comment that we should just "nuke them 'till they glow and turn the desert into a glass field" - something I'm not terribly proud of saying and regret it greatly; I was angry and not rational, and it is unfair to characterize the actions of an entire people with the devestating actions of a few nut cases.
I had no excuse, and neither do you. I have friends who work in the British government; on our last vacation, my wife travelled by herself to Russell Square station to meet a friend - we've spent a lot of time using the underground and know all three of these stations pretty well.
I travelled to the USSR back in '89 (during the height of Glasnost/Perestroika), and if I learned one thing in my visit "behind the iron curtain" it's this: People are people; in most cases, they are just trying to get by in the world, be happy, have adequate food and shelter - they don't agree with their governments and what the governments do bears little relation to what the people really want; but there are always a few extremest nuts who play the politics (some of them get control of countries, and others don't - but the others are still there, and in this case it's Al Queida and organizations like that) and promote hate and distrust.
You may wonder why I say this; my travels - domestic and international - make me somewhat well qualified to talk about how people around the world relate to each other. My immediate family (including aunts and uncles) have travelled and lived in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Japan, the United Kingdom (England and Scotland), Mexico, South Korea, China, and the former Soviet states of Russia, and the Ukraine (just off the top of my head, there's bound to be more I don't know about). I have close friends in and from Australia, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy and France. These people are not casual online acquaintences, mind - they are all people who have been guests in my home and whom have invited me - when the opportunity presents itself - to be a guest in theirs.
This is not bragging, it's presenting qualifications, since you put so much weight in them. I feel well qualified to opine about the general attitudes of people in various countries, because I talk to people in various countries about their opinions and the opinions of their governments and people. Many of the people I know work in government at some level in some of those countries; one woman I know used to work for UNHCR, and she did actually used to get shot at in the course of her job - which was IT work for the United Nations in war-torn countries. She got out of that job partly because the mortality rate on her team was too high.
So don't tell me what I can and cannot opine about. If you don't want to read opinions, don't read/. - in case you haven't you noticed, posting opinions is what people do here; I'd hope you'd noticed, because you've done so yourself - and quite frequently, too, from the looks of it.
Give it a break - you know the grandparent is correct on this. Trying to silence those who disagree with you is exactly one of the goals of terrorism.
It is not your place to suppress the thoughts and ideas of others.
It is not your place to judge those who post anonymously (whatever their reasons be).
It is not your place to tell us that if we haven't contributed to this pathetic war that we don't know what we are talking about.
And I *do* put my name to this post, unlike you, "DrSoCold", whatever the fuck that means - it sure as hell ain't a name. Posting with a pseudonym is no better than posting AC, so don't even pretend that not posting AC buys you anything in the credibility department.
I think I'd qualify as a die-hard fan of Adams' work - so I'm the type of person your comment is geared towards, or so it would seem. Does having a towel autographed by DNA count?
Suffice to say, I thought the HHG movie was OK - not great, just OK. There were a LOT of in-jokes, but many of them weren't necessary to understanding the plot (such as it was - and as it has always been with HHG).
But in true Adamsian style, the movie presents yet another totally different take on the story. Something that Adams himself consistently did with the story in each and every version. If continuity of story is what you want, HHG is not the place to look for it.
I have to start out by saying that my sentiments of shows like Buffy and Angel pretty much consisted of rolling my eyes or running screaming from the room when it came on. However, my wife and son both enjoyed both shows.
Enter Firefly - and Netflix....My wife had seen the series, but wanted to see it again, so put the DVDs in her queue so we could watch them. I watched them with her, and found them quite enjoyable.
The story was pretty straightforward, and I honestly was unsure of the whole "space cowboy" concept, but I found the dialogue to be funny and the characters to be engaging.
Then we got lucky - my wife found out that the movie was going to be previewing in a theater about 5 miles away from us and she purchased tickets.
The film - as we saw it - was about 90% complete. Even after having seen the series, I wasn't sure about the movie, but I was curious enough to find out what happened to the characters to go - and I'm glad I did.
This has got to be one of the better films I've ever seen. It's got a good story, excellent dialogue (unlike the Star Wars prequels - that dialog just plain sucked), and it was very entertaining.
Bottom line - don't judge the film before you've seen it. Oh, wait, this is/. - that's what people around here do.
Sadly, this is not true, and this has been proven over and over again: Standard Oil, AT&T, Microsoft, just a few companies who didn't have the better product, but who won through strongarm anticompetitive techniques - and those are the ones that were caught and convicted.
This is a part of a free competitive environment.
Microsoft doesn't want a free competitive environment. With a free competitive envrionment, "good enough" doesn't win, and Microsoft has always been extremely good at making products that were just "good enough". Good enough that customers put up with their shortcomings rather than switching to a technically better product. They've mastered the art of making it just cheap enough quarter-by-quarter to upgrade rather than to switch.
They never have wanted a level playing field - their actions state taht pretty clearly - and I'd be surprised if they ever did. If they wanted that, they wouldn't have put restrictive licensing in place with OEMs and all the rest of the stuff they were convicted of doing.
And I know everybody will go crazy citing anti-competitive antitrust issues that MS supposedly committed.
Not supposedly - it's been proven, in court.
It seems that nobody mentions that there are really good upstarts out there that do beat the "evil" big conglomorate - a la Google, Bittorrent, etc, etc.
MS was late to the 'net game, and they still don't seem to understand it very well. OK, I'll give you Google.
Bittorrent didn't "beat" them, Microsoft hasn't competed in that space yet. Avalanche is a potential product - nothing more, but it's a sure bet that if Microsoft finally has seen the light in P2P distribution networks and their viability, they'll look to absolutely crush the competition - free or not - in any way they can.
With profit not being the overriding motivator in much of the open source community (differentiate from companies that participate in that community - they do it because there is money to be made, make no mistake), it will be interesting to see if Avalanche becomes a real implementation how it stacks up against BitTorrent.
Novell still is a major Utah employer, just because the company HQ is out of state now doesn't mean that Leavitt is going to leave his former constituents out in the cold.
First of all, Novell is the company name. "Novell" doesn't have a network file system, NetWare does.
One, the network file system they use is antique. It has no global namespace, no kerberos authorization, doesn't use an ACL model, doesn't support symlinks, etc.
It sounds like you're confusing the filesystem with the network file system. TFS (the "Traditional File System" is fairly old, but also quite secure when security is implemented properly.
FAT/FAT32/NTFS are not Network File Systems; they are file systems. CIFS is a network file system. DFS is a network file system. NFS is a network file system. Mixing terminology in the way you are is common amongst those spreading FUD.
Kerberos authentication and authorization is not the perview of the filesystem; the filesystem is responsible for managing how file pointers resolve to the actual data in the files, and who has access is based on an authentication credential in a different part of the operating system.
In the upcoming eDirectory 8.8 product, there is a GSSAPI provider that allows you to use Kerberos for authentication if you choose.
Doesn't use an ACL model? Please, check your facts. Going back to NetWare ELS Level 2 at *least* there has been support for access controls in the filesystem, including inheritance of rights and the use of inheritied rights masks.
The NFS implementation supports symlinks - hard and soft - and has for a while.
Second, while the directory service might be cool, it isn't useful for anything beyond Novell's own products.
Totally untrue, this is FUD based on an understanding of the product as it was nearly 12 years ago, not the current version. Here's a little free advice: don't use Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign or their competitive marketing papers to get your information about their competitors. They can't stand up to the current versions of the software, so they still refer to the old versions, because they don't want their user base to know there's something better out there.
There are extremely large companies out there who use eDirectory to manage web-based identity services. Many use Nsure Identity Manager to synchronize identity data between various different systems - including between eDirectory and Active Directory - and yes, that includes password synchronization.
There are very few client applications that are written for NDS.
True, if you are saying that there are very few applications written that use the NWDS APIs. Why? Because the LDAP interfaces are faster and more efficient on the wire.
You can see NDS as an LDAP server, but if you do that then what is the point of using NDS at all?
Because it's fast, secure, and scalable. eDirectory (the current directory product, why does everyone insist on talking about NDS? Those who do sound like Microsoft marketing propaganda, because that's all they ever compare AD to) is used in extremely large shops, but in large-scale implementations tends to be used on Solaris SPARC or other high-end UNIX platforms rather than on NetWare. If you think that there's no point to using "NDS" if you're going to write to LDAP, then you disagree with some of the largest organizations in the world.
eDirectory is not about managing NetWare, though it is used for that very successfully.
And, an extended third problem is Novell's architecture has always been to close the administrator out, and put him/her behind a set of pre-written GUI tools that prevent any flexability to the system.
Now I'm laughing so hard there are tears in my eyes. At BrainShare 2005, Novell opened up more APIs to eDirectory than ever before (and there was an awful lot already available). Novell provided a Microsoft ADSI provider before Microsoft did for their own products. Spend a little time up at Novell's Developer Website before making statements that ar
NDS was originally released in 1993 as "NetWare Directory Services", and was renamed in the NetWare 4.10 timeframe to "Novell Directory Services".
It ran on a database engine custom-written for NDS called RECMAN, a contraction of "Record Manager".
The final version of "NDS" was version 8 - which shipped with NetWare 5.0.
eDirectory started as the successor with version 8.5; the current release is 8.7.3.6 (on most platforms), with eDirectory 8.8 due out within a few months.
eDirectory is based on a database engine called FLAIM - for "FLexible Adaptive Information Manager". It scales much larger than NDS ever could have hoped of doing.
All of the high-scalability tests and implementations of Novell's directory products in the world are built on eDirectory, not NDS.
NDS ran on NetWare, with versions for Windows and Solaris in the last releases - "NDS for/on NT" (actually two different versions) and "NDS for Solaris".
eDirectory runs on NetWare, Linux, AIX, Solaris (SPARC), HP-UX, and Windows NT4/2000/2003.
I worked for a company that was in the pharmacy retail business; while I didn't read much of HIPPA, my interpretation (backed at the time by the company's HIPPA officer) was this:
"You'd better be complaint, but we don't know what that means yet - but we'll know non-compliance when we see it."
Things may well have changed since then - at the time I was working with it, not all the parts of HIPPA were complete.
If the relative authorities are focusing on linking terrorist to copyright violations then it should be clear that either their priorities are really screwed up or they are running out of things to call WMDs...
WMD = Weapons of Mass Distraction
They changed the definition of WMD when we weren't looking.
"Hey, look over here, don't look over there, there's nothing to see over there, look over here instead."
If MS were to purchase RedHat, they wouldn't "own" the Linux codebase; they'd have to play by the GPL rules, just like everyone else.
Anything that RH has not opened the source to, of course, would be a different matter. Offhand, I can't think of anything other than maybe up2date that might be closed source.
Um, because he broke the law, and the jury was asked to rule on whether he had broken the law or not. In the state of Utah, it is against the law to posess, use, or distribute meth.
The facts of the case were that he was in posession of meth and the equipment to use it.
Well, first of all, I wasn't the defense attorney (I'm not a lawyer, I'm a technical writer).
Second, we on the jury convicted him anyways, there was more than enough evidence to convict him of what he was charged with rather than prejudicing the jury with his prior acts. As it was, the sales job we got from the defense was that he was taking the fall for his wife, even though the meth and the pipes were found on his side of the bed at 6:30 in the morning when the cops came crashing through the door.
Thirdly, the lawyer wasn't a terribly good one. Nor was she terribly experienced; a lawyer I do know has described such lawyers as "campers" - ie, so new that they have to be handed a few no-win cases so they can learn how to lose.
Having sat on a jury, I can tell you that that's the intent, but in fact juries have to interpret law in order to decide whether the facts support a guilty or a not guilty verdict.
In my case, the plantiff was a person who was busted for posession of methamphetamine and drug paraphanelia.
Both sides present to the jury what they think will give the best chance for conviction (ie, the prosecution does this) or acquittal (the defense's job). In preparing the papers for the jury, both sides are allowed to submit papers that describe the offense.
Now this guy was guilty as all hell of what he was accused of. After the case was over, the defense attorney came in and asked the jury what she could have done differently, and those of us talking to her agreed that putting him on the stand would've helped - but she said "Oh, I couldn't have done that, because he was in fact guilty."
She then explained that what would've happened had she had the defendant testify was that the prosecution would've asked him about the warrant he was served with, and he would've had to testify as to his drug production history, which would guarantee a conviction.
Also, in amongst the papers we were given was a definition of the statute we were to rule on where it stated that posession of drug paraphanelia required an intent to use - which wasn't proven in the case. I actually stopped to talk to the judge about this after the case was over, and he said "Yeah, defense attorneys use that citation of case precident to try to get their defendants an acquittal - it never works, but they have to try it." The way it was presented was in its case form - and to a non-lawyer, that can be presented to it looks like a statute.
All jokes aside about not being able to avoid jury duty - it is a very interesting process, and if you live in the US, you should try it at least once.
Amen to that - I had the same experience with eBay - I am NOT signing up to tell them that someone is trying to scam their customers. Make it easy for me to report, or I'll just bin it.
After all, if they don't care enough to make it easy to report phishers abusing their name, why should I make the effort to find out how to report it to them?
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely wonderful human being to meet and listen to.
In the early 90's, he gave the homecoming address at the university I attended (a school specializing in aviation-related degrees). I'll never forget during the Q&A, on about the third question about a detail in one of the episodes, he responded with something like:
"Look, it was a job - we learned our lines, were taped while reciting them, and got paid. You guys know these episodes far better than I do, so please stop asking me why in the third line in episode 27 I said one thing when in my fifteenth line in episode 13 I contradicted that. It was a job, and we said the lines we were told to say. I'd much rather talk about aviation, please!"
He and his wife both are pilots, as I recall...I think he had just received his flight certificate.
I, for one, will remember him most for that, not for his acting career - that was the point at which he became a real person to me rather than just another actor.
I needed that laugh today...
I think the last time I had a kernel panic was 6 years ago (and it happened once) - and the systems I run are not idle by any stretch - nor are they single-task machines.
When I ran Windows, I could count on a BSOD at least once a week, if not more often. The company I worked for at the time had well over 2,000 NT4 servers that needed to be rebooted once a week because of a memory leak.
Now, while that memory leak was in a database application (not MS SQL), I think it speaks volumes that a poorly written application on Windows can cause the system to require a reboot because of inadequate garbage collection at the OS level, but an OSS platform running applications that are developed entirely in the OSS world doesn't.
Yo, Microsoft - THESE are the facts....
I know someone who years ago worked for WordPerfect (on WordPerfect Office - the mail program) and was offered a job at Microsoft (working on MS Mail), but had a non-compete clause with WordPerfect.
Microsoft paid him a years' salary to sit on his butt and do no work - I spent most of that year talking with him online, and boy was he glad when the year was up - he was going stir crazy.
Seems to me that if Microsoft had to do that in the past, it's only fair that their competitors should have to abide by those rules as well.
Now, if Google wants to pay Mr. Lee to sit on his butt for a year and do nothing, that would also seem fair to me for them to be allowed to do that.
Oh, and what's that, IYHO?
;-)
All I was saying was that you need to practise what you preach.
And yet you feel that your own opinion should be given greater weight - why, exactly?
/. - in case you haven't you noticed, posting opinions is what people do here; I'd hope you'd noticed, because you've done so yourself - and quite frequently, too, from the looks of it.
What makes you so special?
You wrote:
"I am saying don't post your point of view unless it is fact and you are well qualified to deliver it, if not then shut the fuck up."
Well, your point of view isn't a fact - it's your opinion, you don't appear to be well qualified to deliver it, maybe you should take your own advice.
Yes, it is a tough time for you Brits right now, and I empathize - really, I do - after 9/11, I felt much the same as you do, even having made the comment that we should just "nuke them 'till they glow and turn the desert into a glass field" - something I'm not terribly proud of saying and regret it greatly; I was angry and not rational, and it is unfair to characterize the actions of an entire people with the devestating actions of a few nut cases.
I had no excuse, and neither do you. I have friends who work in the British government; on our last vacation, my wife travelled by herself to Russell Square station to meet a friend - we've spent a lot of time using the underground and know all three of these stations pretty well.
I travelled to the USSR back in '89 (during the height of Glasnost/Perestroika), and if I learned one thing in my visit "behind the iron curtain" it's this: People are people; in most cases, they are just trying to get by in the world, be happy, have adequate food and shelter - they don't agree with their governments and what the governments do bears little relation to what the people really want; but there are always a few extremest nuts who play the politics (some of them get control of countries, and others don't - but the others are still there, and in this case it's Al Queida and organizations like that) and promote hate and distrust.
You may wonder why I say this; my travels - domestic and international - make me somewhat well qualified to talk about how people around the world relate to each other. My immediate family (including aunts and uncles) have travelled and lived in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Japan, the United Kingdom (England and Scotland), Mexico, South Korea, China, and the former Soviet states of Russia, and the Ukraine (just off the top of my head, there's bound to be more I don't know about). I have close friends in and from Australia, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy and France. These people are not casual online acquaintences, mind - they are all people who have been guests in my home and whom have invited me - when the opportunity presents itself - to be a guest in theirs.
This is not bragging, it's presenting qualifications, since you put so much weight in them. I feel well qualified to opine about the general attitudes of people in various countries, because I talk to people in various countries about their opinions and the opinions of their governments and people. Many of the people I know work in government at some level in some of those countries; one woman I know used to work for UNHCR, and she did actually used to get shot at in the course of her job - which was IT work for the United Nations in war-torn countries. She got out of that job partly because the mortality rate on her team was too high.
So don't tell me what I can and cannot opine about. If you don't want to read opinions, don't read
Give it a break - you know the grandparent is correct on this. Trying to silence those who disagree with you is exactly one of the goals of terrorism.
It is not your place to suppress the thoughts and ideas of others.
It is not your place to judge those who post anonymously (whatever their reasons be).
It is not your place to tell us that if we haven't contributed to this pathetic war that we don't know what we are talking about.
And I *do* put my name to this post, unlike you, "DrSoCold", whatever the fuck that means - it sure as hell ain't a name. Posting with a pseudonym is no better than posting AC, so don't even pretend that not posting AC buys you anything in the credibility department.
Jim
Yep, here's a version of it ported to Java.
Rolling dice - 1d12 - 4 = 1 12-sided die, subtract 4 from the roll; 2d4-3 = 2 4-sided dice rolled, subtract 3 from the result.
Comes from RPG'ing.
Geez, nice generalization about Hitchhiker's....
I think I'd qualify as a die-hard fan of Adams' work - so I'm the type of person your comment is geared towards, or so it would seem. Does having a towel autographed by DNA count?
Suffice to say, I thought the HHG movie was OK - not great, just OK. There were a LOT of in-jokes, but many of them weren't necessary to understanding the plot (such as it was - and as it has always been with HHG).
But in true Adamsian style, the movie presents yet another totally different take on the story. Something that Adams himself consistently did with the story in each and every version. If continuity of story is what you want, HHG is not the place to look for it.
Two - both happily married. :-)
I have to start out by saying that my sentiments of shows like Buffy and Angel pretty much consisted of rolling my eyes or running screaming from the room when it came on. However, my wife and son both enjoyed both shows.
/. - that's what people around here do.
Enter Firefly - and Netflix....My wife had seen the series, but wanted to see it again, so put the DVDs in her queue so we could watch them. I watched them with her, and found them quite enjoyable.
The story was pretty straightforward, and I honestly was unsure of the whole "space cowboy" concept, but I found the dialogue to be funny and the characters to be engaging.
Then we got lucky - my wife found out that the movie was going to be previewing in a theater about 5 miles away from us and she purchased tickets.
The film - as we saw it - was about 90% complete. Even after having seen the series, I wasn't sure about the movie, but I was curious enough to find out what happened to the characters to go - and I'm glad I did.
This has got to be one of the better films I've ever seen. It's got a good story, excellent dialogue (unlike the Star Wars prequels - that dialog just plain sucked), and it was very entertaining.
Bottom line - don't judge the film before you've seen it. Oh, wait, this is
The better product and management will win.
Sadly, this is not true, and this has been proven over and over again: Standard Oil, AT&T, Microsoft, just a few companies who didn't have the better product, but who won through strongarm anticompetitive techniques - and those are the ones that were caught and convicted.
This is a part of a free competitive environment.
Microsoft doesn't want a free competitive environment. With a free competitive envrionment, "good enough" doesn't win, and Microsoft has always been extremely good at making products that were just "good enough". Good enough that customers put up with their shortcomings rather than switching to a technically better product. They've mastered the art of making it just cheap enough quarter-by-quarter to upgrade rather than to switch.
They never have wanted a level playing field - their actions state taht pretty clearly - and I'd be surprised if they ever did. If they wanted that, they wouldn't have put restrictive licensing in place with OEMs and all the rest of the stuff they were convicted of doing.
And I know everybody will go crazy citing anti-competitive antitrust issues that MS supposedly committed.
Not supposedly - it's been proven, in court.
It seems that nobody mentions that there are really good upstarts out there that do beat the "evil" big conglomorate - a la Google, Bittorrent, etc, etc.
MS was late to the 'net game, and they still don't seem to understand it very well. OK, I'll give you Google.
Bittorrent didn't "beat" them, Microsoft hasn't competed in that space yet. Avalanche is a potential product - nothing more, but it's a sure bet that if Microsoft finally has seen the light in P2P distribution networks and their viability, they'll look to absolutely crush the competition - free or not - in any way they can.
With profit not being the overriding motivator in much of the open source community (differentiate from companies that participate in that community - they do it because there is money to be made, make no mistake), it will be interesting to see if Avalanche becomes a real implementation how it stacks up against BitTorrent.
Novell still is a major Utah employer, just because the company HQ is out of state now doesn't mean that Leavitt is going to leave his former constituents out in the cold.
First of all, Novell is the company name. "Novell" doesn't have a network file system, NetWare does.
One, the network file system they use is antique. It has no global namespace, no kerberos authorization, doesn't use an ACL model, doesn't support symlinks, etc.
It sounds like you're confusing the filesystem with the network file system. TFS (the "Traditional File System" is fairly old, but also quite secure when security is implemented properly.
FAT/FAT32/NTFS are not Network File Systems; they are file systems. CIFS is a network file system. DFS is a network file system. NFS is a network file system. Mixing terminology in the way you are is common amongst those spreading FUD.
Kerberos authentication and authorization is not the perview of the filesystem; the filesystem is responsible for managing how file pointers resolve to the actual data in the files, and who has access is based on an authentication credential in a different part of the operating system.
In the upcoming eDirectory 8.8 product, there is a GSSAPI provider that allows you to use Kerberos for authentication if you choose.
Doesn't use an ACL model? Please, check your facts. Going back to NetWare ELS Level 2 at *least* there has been support for access controls in the filesystem, including inheritance of rights and the use of inheritied rights masks.
The NFS implementation supports symlinks - hard and soft - and has for a while.
Second, while the directory service might be cool, it isn't useful for anything beyond Novell's own products.
Totally untrue, this is FUD based on an understanding of the product as it was nearly 12 years ago, not the current version. Here's a little free advice: don't use Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign or their competitive marketing papers to get your information about their competitors. They can't stand up to the current versions of the software, so they still refer to the old versions, because they don't want their user base to know there's something better out there.
There are extremely large companies out there who use eDirectory to manage web-based identity services. Many use Nsure Identity Manager to synchronize identity data between various different systems - including between eDirectory and Active Directory - and yes, that includes password synchronization.
There are very few client applications that are written for NDS.
True, if you are saying that there are very few applications written that use the NWDS APIs. Why? Because the LDAP interfaces are faster and more efficient on the wire.
You can see NDS as an LDAP server, but if you do that then what is the point of using NDS at all?
Because it's fast, secure, and scalable. eDirectory (the current directory product, why does everyone insist on talking about NDS? Those who do sound like Microsoft marketing propaganda, because that's all they ever compare AD to) is used in extremely large shops, but in large-scale implementations tends to be used on Solaris SPARC or other high-end UNIX platforms rather than on NetWare. If you think that there's no point to using "NDS" if you're going to write to LDAP, then you disagree with some of the largest organizations in the world.
eDirectory is not about managing NetWare, though it is used for that very successfully.
And, an extended third problem is Novell's architecture has always been to close the administrator out, and put him/her behind a set of pre-written GUI tools that prevent any flexability to the system.
Now I'm laughing so hard there are tears in my eyes. At BrainShare 2005, Novell opened up more APIs to eDirectory than ever before (and there was an awful lot already available). Novell provided a Microsoft ADSI provider before Microsoft did for their own products. Spend a little time up at Novell's Developer Website before making statements that ar
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this....
NDS was originally released in 1993 as "NetWare Directory Services", and was renamed in the NetWare 4.10 timeframe to "Novell Directory Services".
It ran on a database engine custom-written for NDS called RECMAN, a contraction of "Record Manager".
The final version of "NDS" was version 8 - which shipped with NetWare 5.0.
eDirectory started as the successor with version 8.5; the current release is 8.7.3.6 (on most platforms), with eDirectory 8.8 due out within a few months.
eDirectory is based on a database engine called FLAIM - for "FLexible Adaptive Information Manager". It scales much larger than NDS ever could have hoped of doing.
All of the high-scalability tests and implementations of Novell's directory products in the world are built on eDirectory, not NDS.
NDS ran on NetWare, with versions for Windows and Solaris in the last releases - "NDS for/on NT" (actually two different versions) and "NDS for Solaris".
eDirectory runs on NetWare, Linux, AIX, Solaris (SPARC), HP-UX, and Windows NT4/2000/2003.
I worked for a company that was in the pharmacy retail business; while I didn't read much of HIPPA, my interpretation (backed at the time by the company's HIPPA officer) was this:
"You'd better be complaint, but we don't know what that means yet - but we'll know non-compliance when we see it."
Things may well have changed since then - at the time I was working with it, not all the parts of HIPPA were complete.
Novell HQ used to be in Utah, it is now in Waltham MA. The offices in Provo are still present, but all of the executives are in Waltham.
WMD = Weapons of Mass Distraction
They changed the definition of WMD when we weren't looking.
"Hey, look over here, don't look over there, there's nothing to see over there, look over here instead."
If MS were to purchase RedHat, they wouldn't "own" the Linux codebase; they'd have to play by the GPL rules, just like everyone else.
Anything that RH has not opened the source to, of course, would be a different matter. Offhand, I can't think of anything other than maybe up2date that might be closed source.
if you really want to help out the world, why they hell do YOU have to benefit in some ridiculously selfish way??
Because unfortunately, in this world, food, shelter, and clothing isn't free, and neither are the creature comforts we've become accustomed to.
The drug paraphenelia in this case was glass pipes, not needles. We saw them, and we handled them (they were passed around the jury).
Um, because he broke the law, and the jury was asked to rule on whether he had broken the law or not. In the state of Utah, it is against the law to posess, use, or distribute meth.
The facts of the case were that he was in posession of meth and the equipment to use it.
Any other stupid questions?
Well, first of all, I wasn't the defense attorney (I'm not a lawyer, I'm a technical writer).
Second, we on the jury convicted him anyways, there was more than enough evidence to convict him of what he was charged with rather than prejudicing the jury with his prior acts. As it was, the sales job we got from the defense was that he was taking the fall for his wife, even though the meth and the pipes were found on his side of the bed at 6:30 in the morning when the cops came crashing through the door.
Thirdly, the lawyer wasn't a terribly good one. Nor was she terribly experienced; a lawyer I do know has described such lawyers as "campers" - ie, so new that they have to be handed a few no-win cases so they can learn how to lose.
Having sat on a jury, I can tell you that that's the intent, but in fact juries have to interpret law in order to decide whether the facts support a guilty or a not guilty verdict.
In my case, the plantiff was a person who was busted for posession of methamphetamine and drug paraphanelia.
Both sides present to the jury what they think will give the best chance for conviction (ie, the prosecution does this) or acquittal (the defense's job). In preparing the papers for the jury, both sides are allowed to submit papers that describe the offense.
Now this guy was guilty as all hell of what he was accused of. After the case was over, the defense attorney came in and asked the jury what she could have done differently, and those of us talking to her agreed that putting him on the stand would've helped - but she said "Oh, I couldn't have done that, because he was in fact guilty."
She then explained that what would've happened had she had the defendant testify was that the prosecution would've asked him about the warrant he was served with, and he would've had to testify as to his drug production history, which would guarantee a conviction.
Also, in amongst the papers we were given was a definition of the statute we were to rule on where it stated that posession of drug paraphanelia required an intent to use - which wasn't proven in the case. I actually stopped to talk to the judge about this after the case was over, and he said "Yeah, defense attorneys use that citation of case precident to try to get their defendants an acquittal - it never works, but they have to try it." The way it was presented was in its case form - and to a non-lawyer, that can be presented to it looks like a statute.
All jokes aside about not being able to avoid jury duty - it is a very interesting process, and if you live in the US, you should try it at least once.
Amen to that - I had the same experience with eBay - I am NOT signing up to tell them that someone is trying to scam their customers. Make it easy for me to report, or I'll just bin it.
After all, if they don't care enough to make it easy to report phishers abusing their name, why should I make the effort to find out how to report it to them?