Actually, they did. On the Mayflower in 1620, they traveled to the "new world" (America), and established the settlement now known as Plymouth, Massachussetts
And Mac's still don't amount to a significant percentage of the market.
Which market? The personal computer operating system market? Yes. The portable music device market? No.
When you fail to overcome the market leader in one category, the best thing you can do is create or choose a category you can be the market leader in. Then, you're winning.
If we're talking a server, I'd go with Gentoo for 2 reasons.
1: You can compile all the packages using the USE flags to prevent the installation of any dependencies that you will not actually use. An example would be X, or one of the desktop environments (for the GUI portion of a program).
2: Part of setting up Gentoo is compiling a kernel, which other distributions have basically glassed over with the kernel+modules packages.
In this particular case, this forces you to configure the kernel, removing functionality you don't need, which includes the use of modules. When setting up a server, the last thing you need is to make rootkits easy to install.
If you decide to set up Gentoo as a server, I recommend you also run down the instructions on http://gentoo.insecurity.dk/ , as there's a lot of good tips for making the system even more secure.
Now, for making management feel warm and fuzzy, there's really only two options... depending on the tech level of said management. Red Hat and SuSE (Novell) have the name brand recognition and public information that will make any manager feel more comfortable. After all, if you manage something, you want to be certain you will know about the company selling it, and it's pretty easy when you can grab a 10-Q to do some research.
And as long as your needs don't include any software not included on their disk sets, there should be little trouble with them.
Finally, if you just want a fast & easy install that is mostly secure and painless to maintain, Debian and its derivatives are always good for the sanity factor.
With a few exceptions, the majority of packages come into play already configured for a very good tradeoff between security and convenience, and do not need manual configuration, unless the security of the package depends on it.
Another major factor for this particular distro is the fact that packages are compatible between derivatives... i.e. Debian packages can be used on Ubuntu, Xandros, or Progeny with little need for concern; they will work, since Debian is based on a specific design policy.
Perhaps. However, paper and (ink|toner) costs money I don't have in endless supply. I want to make the most paranoid system that money has little to do with. I do like the idea about using a serial connection, however.
There are some good things about a clear memory. Being able to recall things with a minimal amount of effort, and maybe, if it's stubborn, the easy recall of where to find it. Immediate notice of a flaw in a pattern, no matter how miniscule or unnoticeable. Noticing inconsistency in a conversation. Tracking how much money you have left.
However, it does have it's downside.
Ever hear the saying "Someday we'll look back and laugh at this?"
I'm still waiting. I still cringe over every single embarassing memory in the 30-year period that is my life. Those memories, when I recall them, are much too clear, and it feels like it just happened, despite the fact that some of those events had occurred over 20-25 years ago. Sometimes it's so strong, I feel the need to shut down, and lately, it's started to cause nervous reactions; too many things are drawing them up as I work to re-integrate myself into that thing known as "Humanity."
Thankfully, my memory, while vivid, is still selective, and I can find the mercy of forgetfulness. I don't think I could survive a photographic memory with my sanity intact.
It is said that if you recalled every single thing, it would take a strong will not to go mad. I believe it.
If it's running nothing else but the firewall software, it's a hardware firewall... a particularly flexible one. (and one I like, because it can keep logs of any and everything going on in the box)
I have one myself. An old PII 466 working as a firewall/router for the LAN. Gentoo Linux, non-modular kernel, and shorewall with very few rules available, and a "no external access" policy in place.
As soon as I can grab another cheap computer, I will configure the logs on the server to simply be sent to the internal server box, and stop using my desktop as a mail server on the side.
My design plans involve the use of two firewalls, and a server. The external fw will have access only to the Internet, and the internal fw will have access to the LANs and to the external firewall. Any incoming packets will be dropped without a corresponding stream. Neither firewall will be able to connect upstream.
I also plan on using Tor to further obfuscate my network's external transmissions, as well as use Squid on the server system to reduce the amount of external traffic on the network. I'm looking for a good mail provider that uses encryption for both authentication and data transmission, cutting off the threat of sniffers.
The server box will be for the LAN, I keep it in the DMZ, however, so that if, for any reason, it gets compromised (In the case that some exploit of e-mail, DNS, or Squid), it will still not have access to the internal systems. Once again, it serves data upstream only on access. It can't initiate internal connections.
The whole thing is meant to be a one-way gate. Data can come in, but it does not leave. Ever. In theory.
Since I'm not a grand master networker (yet), I am welcome for comments and/or criticisms.;)
That happened once, you know. I believe it was King George III who once used that line of reasoning.
And you know what, those rebellious people decided to keep that "desert island" for their own. And you know what, the United States is the descendant of those colonies.
Those were the days. I remember spending days just trying out all the video modes callable from AtariBASIC, and seeing how each mixed it up. After that, I was experimenting with all the different applications of said displays. Sadly, though, I didn't have storage of any kind, so I couldn't really keep those programs. (And with two siblings and a "pac man" cart, there was little chance of me keeping the computer on and in my possession...)
The core of the pun was talking about clubs (as in groups of people who learn together), rather than my more violent definition (a blunt object to the base of the skull).
The very beginning of my interest in computers was in a small class held in a local library in September 1983. They had a couple computers in there, the ones that were used were the Atari 1200XL and the Apple 2e.
I still remember some events from those days.
I had been given a dozen printed pages stapled together with some basic explanation of the principles of computers. We were supposed to go over them with the teacher, but I couldn't wait. At that time, I was actually a good student.:-/ I read through the whole document and had a (spotty) grasp of how computers worked. Although there were some incidents I still laugh about now.
One was when the teacher had unsheathed a 5-1/4" floppy disk and passed the disk itself around. He asked us to look at the disk to see what was on it and then pass it on. I spent a good minute staring at the disk, then reflecting the light off of it to try and read the data. It turned out he was talking about fingerprints.:-/ D'uh me.
As for the other...
The Atari computer was a goofy little gadget. It had four function keys, Start, Option, Help, and Select (since it was from a game company, that would be the obvious choices). Whenever you had a floppy disk with a binary program on it, you needed to hold down the option key while turning the computer on. If it was a BASIC program, or it worked with BASIC mode, you simply flipped the switch.
Now, at the time, I went through a couple books, trying to find out exactly HOW to tell if the disk was Binary or BASIC. I had imagined it would be obvious by some physical manifestation. When the next class came along, I found out that the programmer would tell you if it's binary when he gave it to you, or, in the case of purchased software, they would tell you in the instructions.
By the way, to this day, I still have a habit of looking WAY too deeply for the obvious...:-/
I also remember playing my first computer game on both the Atari and the Apple computers... Spy Hunter. I preferred the Atari since the Apple's was displayed on a monochrome screen. I've always had a thing for colors... praticularly bright ones.
A couple years later, 1985, My father bought the family an Atari 130XE. Now, I am one of three siblings, so you can imagine the wars such a scarcity produced. Over time, however, the novelty wore off on my sister and brother, leaving me with the machine a good portion of the time.
Now, originally, there was no floppy drive on this computer, so I had one of three choices... either play the pac-man cartridge that my father had also purchased, type in the various listings found in the Atari computermags (Antic & Analog) at the local library, or learn to program the damn thing myself.
Ultimately, the second option slowly migrated me into the third one. As I duplicated the lines of code displayed in the magazines (by this time, I was also devouring "COMPUTE!" magazine), I started seeing ways I could combine those code fragments with other code fragments from other magazines, and ultimately came up with some fun, but simple programs.
After a few years, we traded the Atari for a Commodore 128. My father also purchased the floppy drive and a two-mode monitor for it (a switch on front allowed me to choose between RGB mode and the CGA-Compatible monochrome mode, used by the 128 mode), as well as a new dot-matrix printer, the 1200.
Suddenly, I was once again, delving through the COMPUTE! magazines, this time grabbing all the Commodore goodies, and playing with them, and this time, I saved my... *ahem*... "masterpieces." W00t!;)
Funny part is, my father was bringing home games all the time; I didn't know the first thing about Piracy, and my poor line-worker father hadn't a clue as to what he was doing. All he knew was that a friend at work was willing to give him copies of games and other programs, and he would bring them home for me (and sometimes
No, I'm not rich. I'm only a few weeks away from paying off the last of my late bills (which currently includes rent and my internet access). I'm one of those people working hard to make myself rich, though. Certainly beats the daily grind.;)
As for the question about relief, all I can say is Please! I'm not heartless! I support donation and aid as much as anyone else, even if I'm not in a financial position to offer it.
The fact is, when people have extra money, they can afford (and usually are willing) to be generous. Bill Gates, the man we all love to hate, donated his $3 Billion dividend to his foundation, and is considered the largest single donation this year, seconded by the $2.6 Billion donation made by the late Susie Buffett.
And corporations don't fare too badly, either.
In terms of monetary donations in 2003, here's what some of the soulless corporations donated:
(Data is from the November 29th edition of BusinessWeek)
I'm sure they don't compare with the 3 Billion dollar donation made by Bill Gates, but the fact remains that that's a few greenbacks being bandied about by some pretty hefty corporations, don't you think?
The link where I got my data would be here.
(Registration is required, but free. Anyone have a non-registration link to help me out here?)
"If there was a way to make money by grinding babies into cat food, somebody would be doing it."
One note of interest... IS there a way of making money by grinding babies into cat food? No. That's a surefire way to go bankrupt, lose public opinion, and even possibly become more hated than SCO.
SCO's a good example of the kind of company you're making reference to. What is the likelyhood of their making money?
And, once again, for every one corrupt organization, there's hundreds out there that are still respected, reputable companies who compete the old-fashioned way.
And in each case, a person made their own choice (whether it's stupid or not is not the issue; this is against all common sense) and got what he or she wanted. The provider offered something in return.
As for the last one, that IS likely thievery (depending on where his TVs came from), and is not as likely to end up one of the "rich people..." not to mention he is going to get caught sooner or later.
No, actually I don't; thanks for pointing that out.
However, I still stand by the fact that we are debating over exceptions to the rule, and not the rule itself. A good company (and those in charge of it) need to be greedy and aim to be rich. Nothing is inherently wrong with that.
The process of achieving wealth is to find out what the public needs, supply it, and demand compensation for it. Whether it be 3 goats for one roofing, $60 for a blockbuster game, or even $199 for a copy of XP Home, it's a trade, it is not inherently evil or mean. And if people accept the price, than that's the product's value.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they did. On the Mayflower in 1620, they traveled to the "new world" (America), and established the settlement now known as Plymouth, Massachussetts
And Mac's still don't amount to a significant percentage of the market.
Which market? The personal computer operating system market? Yes. The portable music device market? No.
When you fail to overcome the market leader in one category, the best thing you can do is create or choose a category you can be the market leader in. Then, you're winning.
If we're talking a server, I'd go with Gentoo for 2 reasons.
1: You can compile all the packages using the USE flags to prevent the installation of any dependencies that you will not actually use. An example would be X, or one of the desktop environments (for the GUI portion of a program).
2: Part of setting up Gentoo is compiling a kernel, which other distributions have basically glassed over with the kernel+modules packages.
In this particular case, this forces you to configure the kernel, removing functionality you don't need, which includes the use of modules. When setting up a server, the last thing you need is to make rootkits easy to install.
If you decide to set up Gentoo as a server, I recommend you also run down the instructions on http://gentoo.insecurity.dk/ , as there's a lot of good tips for making the system even more secure.
Now, for making management feel warm and fuzzy, there's really only two options... depending on the tech level of said management. Red Hat and SuSE (Novell) have the name brand recognition and public information that will make any manager feel more comfortable. After all, if you manage something, you want to be certain you will know about the company selling it, and it's pretty easy when you can grab a 10-Q to do some research.
And as long as your needs don't include any software not included on their disk sets, there should be little trouble with them.
Finally, if you just want a fast & easy install that is mostly secure and painless to maintain, Debian and its derivatives are always good for the sanity factor.
With a few exceptions, the majority of packages come into play already configured for a very good tradeoff between security and convenience, and do not need manual configuration, unless the security of the package depends on it.
Another major factor for this particular distro is the fact that packages are compatible between derivatives... i.e. Debian packages can be used on Ubuntu, Xandros, or Progeny with little need for concern; they will work, since Debian is based on a specific design policy.
I don't even WANT to know what thinking up this joke says about you...
Yeah, until cronjobs keep me awake. ;) PARTICULARLY when system update occurs.
Perhaps. However, paper and (ink|toner) costs money I don't have in endless supply. I want to make the most paranoid system that money has little to do with. I do like the idea about using a serial connection, however.
Personally, I'd prefer a volatile memory.
There are some good things about a clear memory. Being able to recall things with a minimal amount of effort, and maybe, if it's stubborn, the easy recall of where to find it. Immediate notice of a flaw in a pattern, no matter how miniscule or unnoticeable. Noticing inconsistency in a conversation. Tracking how much money you have left.
However, it does have it's downside.
Ever hear the saying "Someday we'll look back and laugh at this?"
I'm still waiting. I still cringe over every single embarassing memory in the 30-year period that is my life. Those memories, when I recall them, are much too clear, and it feels like it just happened, despite the fact that some of those events had occurred over 20-25 years ago. Sometimes it's so strong, I feel the need to shut down, and lately, it's started to cause nervous reactions; too many things are drawing them up as I work to re-integrate myself into that thing known as "Humanity."
Thankfully, my memory, while vivid, is still selective, and I can find the mercy of forgetfulness. I don't think I could survive a photographic memory with my sanity intact.
It is said that if you recalled every single thing, it would take a strong will not to go mad. I believe it.
What? You have no imagination? Huh?
If it's running nothing else but the firewall software, it's a hardware firewall... a particularly flexible one. (and one I like, because it can keep logs of any and everything going on in the box)
;)
I have one myself. An old PII 466 working as a firewall/router for the LAN. Gentoo Linux, non-modular kernel, and shorewall with very few rules available, and a "no external access" policy in place.
As soon as I can grab another cheap computer, I will configure the logs on the server to simply be sent to the internal server box, and stop using my desktop as a mail server on the side.
My design plans involve the use of two firewalls, and a server. The external fw will have access only to the Internet, and the internal fw will have access to the LANs and to the external firewall. Any incoming packets will be dropped without a corresponding stream. Neither firewall will be able to connect upstream.
I also plan on using Tor to further obfuscate my network's external transmissions, as well as use Squid on the server system to reduce the amount of external traffic on the network. I'm looking for a good mail provider that uses encryption for both authentication and data transmission, cutting off the threat of sniffers.
The server box will be for the LAN, I keep it in the DMZ, however, so that if, for any reason, it gets compromised (In the case that some exploit of e-mail, DNS, or Squid), it will still not have access to the internal systems. Once again, it serves data upstream only on access. It can't initiate internal connections.
The whole thing is meant to be a one-way gate. Data can come in, but it does not leave. Ever. In theory.
Since I'm not a grand master networker (yet), I am welcome for comments and/or criticisms.
You make it sound as if they'd only be starting that practice...
Now you're just being silly.
That happened once, you know. I believe it was King George III who once used that line of reasoning.
And you know what, those rebellious people decided to keep that "desert island" for their own. And you know what, the United States is the descendant of those colonies.
Mine never did... her thing was always "That's nice, honey."
*chuckle* Yes, just not the presence of mind to write it out. *shrug* I was a kid. And a particularly attention-deficit one at that. :-P
Those were the days. I remember spending days just trying out all the video modes callable from AtariBASIC, and seeing how each mixed it up. After that, I was experimenting with all the different applications of said displays. Sadly, though, I didn't have storage of any kind, so I couldn't really keep those programs. (And with two siblings and a "pac man" cart, there was little chance of me keeping the computer on and in my possession...)
Odd... I thought the Bible was a blog...
The core of the pun was talking about clubs (as in groups of people who learn together), rather than my more violent definition (a blunt object to the base of the skull).
I'm not a big fan of instructors either, but beating them with a blunt object is NOT the ANSWER!
The very beginning of my interest in computers was in a small class held in a local library in September 1983. They had a couple computers in there, the ones that were used were the Atari 1200XL and the Apple 2e.
:-/ I read through the whole document and had a (spotty) grasp of how computers worked. Although there were some incidents I still laugh about now.
:-/ D'uh me.
:-/
;)
I still remember some events from those days.
I had been given a dozen printed pages stapled together with some basic explanation of the principles of computers. We were supposed to go over them with the teacher, but I couldn't wait. At that time, I was actually a good student.
One was when the teacher had unsheathed a 5-1/4" floppy disk and passed the disk itself around. He asked us to look at the disk to see what was on it and then pass it on. I spent a good minute staring at the disk, then reflecting the light off of it to try and read the data. It turned out he was talking about fingerprints.
As for the other...
The Atari computer was a goofy little gadget. It had four function keys, Start, Option, Help, and Select (since it was from a game company, that would be the obvious choices). Whenever you had a floppy disk with a binary program on it, you needed to hold down the option key while turning the computer on. If it was a BASIC program, or it worked with BASIC mode, you simply flipped the switch.
Now, at the time, I went through a couple books, trying to find out exactly HOW to tell if the disk was Binary or BASIC. I had imagined it would be obvious by some physical manifestation. When the next class came along, I found out that the programmer would tell you if it's binary when he gave it to you, or, in the case of purchased software, they would tell you in the instructions.
By the way, to this day, I still have a habit of looking WAY too deeply for the obvious...
I also remember playing my first computer game on both the Atari and the Apple computers... Spy Hunter. I preferred the Atari since the Apple's was displayed on a monochrome screen. I've always had a thing for colors... praticularly bright ones.
A couple years later, 1985, My father bought the family an Atari 130XE. Now, I am one of three siblings, so you can imagine the wars such a scarcity produced. Over time, however, the novelty wore off on my sister and brother, leaving me with the machine a good portion of the time.
Now, originally, there was no floppy drive on this computer, so I had one of three choices... either play the pac-man cartridge that my father had also purchased, type in the various listings found in the Atari computermags (Antic & Analog) at the local library, or learn to program the damn thing myself.
Ultimately, the second option slowly migrated me into the third one. As I duplicated the lines of code displayed in the magazines (by this time, I was also devouring "COMPUTE!" magazine), I started seeing ways I could combine those code fragments with other code fragments from other magazines, and ultimately came up with some fun, but simple programs.
After a few years, we traded the Atari for a Commodore 128. My father also purchased the floppy drive and a two-mode monitor for it (a switch on front allowed me to choose between RGB mode and the CGA-Compatible monochrome mode, used by the 128 mode), as well as a new dot-matrix printer, the 1200.
Suddenly, I was once again, delving through the COMPUTE! magazines, this time grabbing all the Commodore goodies, and playing with them, and this time, I saved my... *ahem*... "masterpieces." W00t!
Funny part is, my father was bringing home games all the time; I didn't know the first thing about Piracy, and my poor line-worker father hadn't a clue as to what he was doing. All he knew was that a friend at work was willing to give him copies of games and other programs, and he would bring them home for me (and sometimes
As for the question about relief, all I can say is Please! I'm not heartless! I support donation and aid as much as anyone else, even if I'm not in a financial position to offer it.
The fact is, when people have extra money, they can afford (and usually are willing) to be generous. Bill Gates, the man we all love to hate, donated his $3 Billion dividend to his foundation, and is considered the largest single donation this year, seconded by the $2.6 Billion donation made by the late Susie Buffett.
And corporations don't fare too badly, either.
In terms of monetary donations in 2003, here's what some of the soulless corporations donated:
Adobe: 3 Million. Starbucks: 6 Million. Oracle: 8 Million. Best Buy: 14 Million. IBM: 26 Million. Time Warner: 37 Million. Cisco: 38 Million. Microsoft: 40 Million. Exxon Mobil: 97 Million. Ford Motors: 120 Million. Walmart: 176 Million.
(Data is from the November 29th edition of BusinessWeek)
I'm sure they don't compare with the 3 Billion dollar donation made by Bill Gates, but the fact remains that that's a few greenbacks being bandied about by some pretty hefty corporations, don't you think?
The link where I got my data would be here. (Registration is required, but free. Anyone have a non-registration link to help me out here?)
Yup. I mean just look at the GPL. Insidious, no? ;)
"If there was a way to make money by grinding babies into cat food, somebody would be doing it."
One note of interest... IS there a way of making money by grinding babies into cat food? No. That's a surefire way to go bankrupt, lose public opinion, and even possibly become more hated than SCO.
SCO's a good example of the kind of company you're making reference to. What is the likelyhood of their making money?
And, once again, for every one corrupt organization, there's hundreds out there that are still respected, reputable companies who compete the old-fashioned way.
And in each case, a person made their own choice (whether it's stupid or not is not the issue; this is against all common sense) and got what he or she wanted. The provider offered something in return.
As for the last one, that IS likely thievery (depending on where his TVs came from), and is not as likely to end up one of the "rich people..." not to mention he is going to get caught sooner or later.
No, actually I don't; thanks for pointing that out.
However, I still stand by the fact that we are debating over exceptions to the rule, and not the rule itself. A good company (and those in charge of it) need to be greedy and aim to be rich. Nothing is inherently wrong with that.
The process of achieving wealth is to find out what the public needs, supply it, and demand compensation for it. Whether it be 3 goats for one roofing, $60 for a blockbuster game, or even $199 for a copy of XP Home, it's a trade, it is not inherently evil or mean. And if people accept the price, than that's the product's value.
They sold something, didn't they? People didn't just give them money without expecting something back.
True, the values were inflated, but it doesn't change the reality that they still traded.
Now, compare this to Medicare, Welfare, and Social Security, where you get nothing back for your "investment"