Up until my intro to Debian, I had tried Red Hat, Mandrake, and SuSE, all of which were just plain horrible. The integration sucked, I couldn't get networking just right, and then...there was Debian.
I'll see about Gentoo. I'm looking for an excuse to try Linux on the desktop-side at home, prob. on one of my spare Pentium IIs.
On a side note: at home I run a combination of *nix and Windows boxes. I prefer to keep Windows on the desktop, but on the server side, it's all *nix (the licensing fees and incessant purchasing of server utility software, and the crashing and slowness and instability of Microsoft server software finally got to me).
Several of my friends from the Systems Lab at TJHSST introduced me to Debian, and I threw out my NT server in favor of Debian with Samba-TNG. Haven't looked back since.
I'm in the Engineering School. I run Windows because I have to use such programs as Office, MathCAD, JCreator, Canon scanner software, Palm Desktop software, and the occasional game of Rise of Nations.
My roommate has a Mac PowerBook though, and it's so much sweeter than this Windows desktop.
Most of the campus uses Windows-based systems, although there are plenty of Macs and *nix boxes all over the place...they're just hidden behind the scenes.
There's nothing wrong with Windows when properly secured...it's when it's NOT properly secured that it becomes the problem. Same goes for any *nix or Mac box.
At least I feel safer than if I were just running out there open and naked, without any protection at all.
It's funny though, I belive BlackICE Defender was one of the affected products, and that's what Steve Gibson used to tout so highly until he switched over to ZoneAlarm.
I have nothing against commercialization of space, but what does make me nervous is the same type of "commercial interest" run rampant during the age of discovery...
In the process of colonization, European settlers reduced to almost nothing the inhabitants of a continent. There were some pretty crappy things done in the name of colonization.
Basically, I'm all up for viable commercial space projects, but let's try not to just trash a planet, or, should we encounter an intelligent life form, just wipe 'em out or take 'em down without second thought.
I said that I feel a bit safer sitting behind a closed firewall/NAT router. In general, it keeps most of the riff-raff out. I've configured it to more or less reject anything inbound that hasn't been initiated by an internal machine, while letting outbound stuff go through.
I am a bit nervous about my college dorm machine here, though, since it is directly on the Internet (no dorm firewall, only the MS ICF).
I'm also happy that I'm partially migrating my network infrastructure to Linux, etc. (i.e., non-MS products) because they are generally more secure by default.
Well, for starters, I don't use the DMZ feature. Second, the only thing behind the firewall is a bunch of Windows 2000/XP workstations (properly secured, except no firewall software), a Linux file server, and any other Linksys network devices I feel like using (like my print server).
I realize that if something penetrates my network then I'll probably become an attack mechanism but... that's why I'm paranoid about internal network security and keep a very close watch on it. This is probably a horrible security policy, and I'll eventually get around to changing it, but for right now, I'm kinda busy with my studies.
Please note that I have considered adding an additional router/firewall (based on one of the *BSDs or Linux, running on an old 486 or Pentium) in between the Linksys router and internal LAN.
In contrast, the Witty worm infected a population of hosts that were proactive about security -- they were running firewall software.
This makes me feel a bit safer, since we used to run Windows-based boxen directly on the Internet but now they all hide behind a Linksys NAT Router and firewall.
From what I've learned, the general rule is NEVER to put a Windows machine directly on an unsecure network. Unfortunately, the machine I'm typing on here at the University of Virginia is directly connected and yes, it runs Windows. I turned on the Internet Connection Firewall...but this kind of worm vulnerability makes me nervous. Today, someone attacks the eEye security software; tomorrow, someone takes out Microsoft's ICF.
Similarly, end users may also be unaware that perceived slowness of their computer or Internet connection is caused by a worm, and they may reboot their computers in the hope that that will fix the problem.
I find this problem with spyware and adware too. I recently cleaned out the computer of a family friend that was very slow and would no longer connect to the Internet. Removed a huge gob of spyware with Ad-Aware and Bazooka, and BAM! we were back online.
Goes to show you. I'm thinking that Microsoft's security model in Windows may need to be revised, considering in XP Home at least, all users run as Administrator (root) and system services have way too many privileges.
Makes me glad I replaced my aging NT file server with Linux/Samba.
NASA is way too risk adverse; paradoxically, I think that caused Columbia and Challenger.
You may be right on that. I read an article yesterday (forget the source) about a recent maintenance check on the shuttle Discovery in which NASA engineers discovered that one crucial part had been installed backwards. For close to twenty years, since originally manufactured!
Fortunately, it was part of several sets of that particular part, and the specific part that wasn't installed properly would not have caused another Columbia or Challenger. But, had it been one of the other parts in that set, well, another space shuttle loss would set back NASA even more.
Probably not, if it's like the one we have now... if it's like the one from the '60s, perhaps.
But then again, they had to contend with Soviet Russia back then...
Nothing's wrong with commercial interests going up to space, but...let me put it this way: would you rather have a company spearheading space travel technology that operates like AOL, SCO, or Microsoft? or perhaps Google?
imagine if NASA was in charge of creating computer chips, and nasty companies like Intel were outlawed from any involvement in creating processors... do you really think modern computing would be anything more advanced than an Apple II?
*shudders at the thought*
I suppose commercial interests are good because they drive science and technology at a much faster pace than the government, burdened with rules and regulations and bureaucracy, can ever hope to do.
I'm not anti-business, but it just leaves me wondering. Will outer space be cluttered with new forms of "spaceboard" advertising? Will planets be turned into tourist havens that people go to on day trips, leaving litter behind?
I suppose the current system we have, in which commercial interests drive the science and technology but the government checks the growth so that it doesn't get out of control, is better than just the government or just corporations going it alone.
The $10 Million cash prize will be awarded to the first team that privately finances, builds and launches a three-person spaceship to 100 Km (62.5 miles), returning safely to earth and repeating the launch with the same ship within two weeks.
It seems that non-governmental groups are a little less squeamish about taking risks and heading off this hunk of rock we call Earth.
Still...they're doing it for the sake of commercial interests, not simply for the sake of exploration and gathering knowledge, like NASA, the ESA, and the space agencies of other countries including, yes, formerly Soviet Russia.
I realize that for us as humans it's inevitable that we'll break free of Earth and go out...it's something characteristic of our species. Take the discovery of the Americas for example.
Can we be so sure that the end here (travel in space, colonization, etc.) justifies the means we as humans may need to take to get there (commercial interests)?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take you up on that suggestion.
Up until my intro to Debian, I had tried Red Hat, Mandrake, and SuSE, all of which were just plain horrible. The integration sucked, I couldn't get networking just right, and then...there was Debian.
I'll see about Gentoo. I'm looking for an excuse to try Linux on the desktop-side at home, prob. on one of my spare Pentium IIs.
On a side note: at home I run a combination of *nix and Windows boxes. I prefer to keep Windows on the desktop, but on the server side, it's all *nix (the licensing fees and incessant purchasing of server utility software, and the crashing and slowness and instability of Microsoft server software finally got to me).
Several of my friends from the Systems Lab at TJHSST introduced me to Debian, and I threw out my NT server in favor of Debian with Samba-TNG. Haven't looked back since.
I'm in the Engineering School. I run Windows because I have to use such programs as Office, MathCAD, JCreator, Canon scanner software, Palm Desktop software, and the occasional game of Rise of Nations.
My roommate has a Mac PowerBook though, and it's so much sweeter than this Windows desktop.
Most of the campus uses Windows-based systems, although there are plenty of Macs and *nix boxes all over the place...they're just hidden behind the scenes.
There's nothing wrong with Windows when properly secured...it's when it's NOT properly secured that it becomes the problem. Same goes for any *nix or Mac box.
Haha, that is true.
At least I feel safer than if I were just running out there open and naked, without any protection at all.
It's funny though, I belive BlackICE Defender was one of the affected products, and that's what Steve Gibson used to tout so highly until he switched over to ZoneAlarm.
I have nothing against commercialization of space, but what does make me nervous is the same type of "commercial interest" run rampant during the age of discovery...
In the process of colonization, European settlers reduced to almost nothing the inhabitants of a continent. There were some pretty crappy things done in the name of colonization.
Basically, I'm all up for viable commercial space projects, but let's try not to just trash a planet, or, should we encounter an intelligent life form, just wipe 'em out or take 'em down without second thought.
You misunderstood me.
I said that I feel a bit safer sitting behind a closed firewall/NAT router. In general, it keeps most of the riff-raff out. I've configured it to more or less reject anything inbound that hasn't been initiated by an internal machine, while letting outbound stuff go through.
I am a bit nervous about my college dorm machine here, though, since it is directly on the Internet (no dorm firewall, only the MS ICF).
I'm also happy that I'm partially migrating my network infrastructure to Linux, etc. (i.e., non-MS products) because they are generally more secure by default.
Well, for starters, I don't use the DMZ feature. Second, the only thing behind the firewall is a bunch of Windows 2000/XP workstations (properly secured, except no firewall software), a Linux file server, and any other Linksys network devices I feel like using (like my print server).
I realize that if something penetrates my network then I'll probably become an attack mechanism but... that's why I'm paranoid about internal network security and keep a very close watch on it. This is probably a horrible security policy, and I'll eventually get around to changing it, but for right now, I'm kinda busy with my studies.
Please note that I have considered adding an additional router/firewall (based on one of the *BSDs or Linux, running on an old 486 or Pentium) in between the Linksys router and internal LAN.
In contrast, the Witty worm infected a population of hosts that were proactive about security -- they were running firewall software.
This makes me feel a bit safer, since we used to run Windows-based boxen directly on the Internet but now they all hide behind a Linksys NAT Router and firewall.
From what I've learned, the general rule is NEVER to put a Windows machine directly on an unsecure network. Unfortunately, the machine I'm typing on here at the University of Virginia is directly connected and yes, it runs Windows. I turned on the Internet Connection Firewall...but this kind of worm vulnerability makes me nervous. Today, someone attacks the eEye security software; tomorrow, someone takes out Microsoft's ICF.
Similarly, end users may also be unaware that perceived slowness of their computer or Internet connection is caused by a worm, and they may reboot their computers in the hope that that will fix the problem.
I find this problem with spyware and adware too. I recently cleaned out the computer of a family friend that was very slow and would no longer connect to the Internet. Removed a huge gob of spyware with Ad-Aware and Bazooka, and BAM! we were back online.
Goes to show you. I'm thinking that Microsoft's security model in Windows may need to be revised, considering in XP Home at least, all users run as Administrator (root) and system services have way too many privileges.
Makes me glad I replaced my aging NT file server with Linux/Samba.
Imagine a world without...Microsoft Bob!
And we wouldn't have the obligatory quote: "640K of memory should be enough for anybody." (Bill Gates, 1981)
NASA is way too risk adverse; paradoxically, I think that caused Columbia and Challenger.
You may be right on that. I read an article yesterday (forget the source) about a recent maintenance check on the shuttle Discovery in which NASA engineers discovered that one crucial part had been installed backwards. For close to twenty years, since originally manufactured!
Fortunately, it was part of several sets of that particular part, and the specific part that wasn't installed properly would not have caused another Columbia or Challenger. But, had it been one of the other parts in that set, well, another space shuttle loss would set back NASA even more.
You mean, like Darl McBride?
Probably not, if it's like the one we have now... if it's like the one from the '60s, perhaps. But then again, they had to contend with Soviet Russia back then...
Nothing's wrong with commercial interests going up to space, but...let me put it this way: would you rather have a company spearheading space travel technology that operates like AOL, SCO, or Microsoft? or perhaps Google?
imagine if NASA was in charge of creating computer chips, and nasty companies like Intel were outlawed from any involvement in creating processors... do you really think modern computing would be anything more advanced than an Apple II? *shudders at the thought* I suppose commercial interests are good because they drive science and technology at a much faster pace than the government, burdened with rules and regulations and bureaucracy, can ever hope to do. I'm not anti-business, but it just leaves me wondering. Will outer space be cluttered with new forms of "spaceboard" advertising? Will planets be turned into tourist havens that people go to on day trips, leaving litter behind? I suppose the current system we have, in which commercial interests drive the science and technology but the government checks the growth so that it doesn't get out of control, is better than just the government or just corporations going it alone.
The $10 Million cash prize will be awarded to the first team that privately finances, builds and launches a three-person spaceship to 100 Km (62.5 miles), returning safely to earth and repeating the launch with the same ship within two weeks.
It seems that non-governmental groups are a little less squeamish about taking risks and heading off this hunk of rock we call Earth.
Still...they're doing it for the sake of commercial interests, not simply for the sake of exploration and gathering knowledge, like NASA, the ESA, and the space agencies of other countries including, yes, formerly Soviet Russia.
I realize that for us as humans it's inevitable that we'll break free of Earth and go out...it's something characteristic of our species. Take the discovery of the Americas for example.
Can we be so sure that the end here (travel in space, colonization, etc.) justifies the means we as humans may need to take to get there (commercial interests)?