If Mozilla is really going through the "security via obscurity" thing, and if it does generate a bigger marketshare, and likewise holes are found...
Good for that. It means that the Mozilla products will become a better browser. All that Mozilla needs to do is impliment an auto-update that is on by default, runs in the background, and applies the patches once you close it.
Privacy concerns? Sure, why not. But if those people really care that much, tell them to look at the browser source.
Tell Orrin Hatch that A) This law will change nothing (I thought we had legislation to stop spam...), B) He's a US senator, and has no control over the spread of P2P apps oversears, regardless of where they come from, and C) He'd also be opening up a lawsuit vs. many, MANY legit companies. (ICQ to name a prominent one).
I have two friends who were away from their e-mail for a week, so they called and had me check it. They both use hotmail.
89 and 76 messages in the spam folder (as per each of them).
Spam IS an issue. I just don't pesonally think the UN can do much about it.
Actually, if you're in canada, your users should be just fine... However, I don't know how this ruling would affect caching services.
In the states, there's already several states that have laws which prevent an ISP from setting up any kind of cache. So, I don't even know what good this would do a few states, since they can't legally impliment caching services.
I was working for my neighbor (he's only got a few million), and we had a Comcast guy come over to install their business line. My neighbor being who he is, he handed me his (unsigned) business credit card, told me, "Pay the comcast guy, order pizza." He leaves (like goes on vacation for a few days), me with the credit card.
So I did just that.
The pizza arrives, the tech is still installing (brick sucks to drill through). I offer him some pizza, and he declines. "I had a partner once who had some, installed a NIC, and then toasted the computer. Maybe after." So I thought okay, cool, ate some pizza.
Went later to work on the new server. Dual 2200+, liquid cooled, 14 fans, full-size case (customized key), 4GB of DDR in 1GB modules, RAID5, the works.
Just for the record, Iriony is a cruel, sadistic, b***h.
If I was really trying to troll, I'd say that my work server is a 500MHz Celeron and then it would get a 2.5 second copy rate on a ATA33 HD for the same size folder;)
(Sorry, but I like my sarcasm rather dry...)
With less than 10 clicks, I can deploy a package that upgrades an existing program (or installs a new one) across a cluster of 10,000 globablly via domain sync. Without any extra programs (note: I'm saying that "yum" is an "extra" program here.), without the user even noticing anything more than an extended startup time.
Don't get me wrong - I would replace every computer in my posession at work with linux - but it can't do active directory at the moment (
It's just that I can take a computer, set it to network boot, and have it completly re-formatted with all needed apps installed in 1.5 hours, without any user interaction other than the start of the network boot. Also, all updates applied, and joined to the domain. Yes, I can do that with linux, but currently it's FAR easier with windows.
I could debate the patching, as with that same technology, I can deploy patches over an entire domain (co-lo, whatever) effortlessly.
If you want to patch Office you need to have a cd and all that bullshit.
Wrong, active directory package deployment bypasses all of that, effortlessly.
Retraining is a must regardless, every few years MS crams another version of Office down your throat. To a point, yes, but it's funny that I can stick my business with Word 2000 and just leave it. You don't need the upgrades if all you're doing is word processing/macro processing.
Mark me as a troll, it's all good, but I didn't lie about a thing. I know that linux can deploy patches across huge amounts of computers, but I do believe you've got this as an easier task (for now, and I hope that changes soon) with M$.
Now the hacker has to figure out which version of the firmware one is running in order to crack the password. And they can't figure that out without logging in. So everyone is safe now.
Yeah, lemme tell you just how hard.
Try the original firmware password.
If that fails, try the new firmware password.
Everyone is not safe, they're still just as vulnerable.
Haha, this actually adds a security issue...as long as the user is an average user who doesn't care, you can tell the firmware revision based on the password.
Figuring out the firmware is now just as easy as logging in.
Here's an example. Grab the latest copy of WindowsXP, run it without anti-virus software. Why is WindowsXP still vulnerable to the same viruses that Windows95 was?
Actually, you could argue that either way. Windows 95 had no Blaster or Sasser issues. It didn't have any (currently known) issue to mass-infect every PC that runs Win95 just be being online. No, you had to rely on the stupid users to obtain that effect. However, Win2k/XP, all you have to do is turn your computer on and you can enjoy a trojan fest.
Perhaps I'm also arguing security vs. abilties. It's generally (read: most often, most cirumstances, not all) "the more you have, the more exploits that'll surface". It's not like I can take a Win95 box the way I can a 2k/XP box, connect it to a domain, and watch the security policy be applied along with the incredibly nice automated software installation. Win9x/ME is a complete pain in a real networked enviroment.
And at the same time a savior beacuse you don't see patches for it that fix things like Blaster/Sasser. Granted, Win95 isn't really in the limelight at the moment, but hey the point still stands. You could apply the same thing to Mac. To Linux.
Additionaly, I run NO form of anti-virus software or anti-adware/spyware/etc crap on either my home network (2 linux, 3 windows, 1 windows box belonging to the family) or my business network (25 computers, mix of Windows 2k/XP, and Win98SE. (and a 2k server)). Some people call me stupid. If it was much more than just that, I'd install some form of corporate version of an anti-virus, but I believe in an educated userbase when it involves small groups, beacuse even when the person is computer illerate, they actually can think for themselves.. Besides, borderguard firewalls are good things.
Now to address the point where I disagree: "Why is WindowsXP still vulnerable to the same viruses that Windows95 was?".
It's not.
Some viruses are winXP only, some are win95 only. And yes, both types do actually exist;). Some exploits are winXP only, some are win95 only.
No, security != marketshare, but it's still a massive factor.
Random question: am I the only one who loves MySQL to death, but thinks that it's also horribly overused for EVERYTHING?
I mean....yes, it's incredibly fast. Scalable. Low overhead. But when everything from e-mail to DNS depends on MySQL....it gets a little sickening:P
You don't need a datbase server for everything, no matter how it is that you can say "I run my DNS servers off of a MySQL database." It's still way overused.
OH NO! A9 IS GOING TO TRACK OUR SEARCHES AND BROWSING IN ORDER TO SHOW US STUFF WE MAY LIKE!
Come on people. It's not like A9 is going to record passwords that we type, and it's not like they're going to print our credit card numbers.
It's not like they know us "in person" and are going to come over and kidnap our children. It's not like a "cookie" (refrence: cookie, first shown definition, item #3), aka A PIECE OF TEXT is going to allow someone to bankrupt our banking accounts.
"Privacy concerns" are far overrated (on the interenet at least).
Geez people, think. These are not exactly Mr. l33t down the corner who wouldn't mind your credit card, these are companies who actually have a sense of business ethic. (Note: addressing websites, not things such as gator/etc.)
Any "big privacy debate" is always with a big company of sorts, and it's nearly always over a text file that's stored away on your hard drive, that you put there by your own choice.
Google isn't going to go out there and publish your e-mails. A9 isn't going to provide a page with your name, address, e-mail, and a list of everything you looked for for other companies.
Privacy concers are largely overrated. If you actually have something on your computer that would do such things, it's only there because you chose to install it.
"No I didn't! It just appeared! I swear I did not install that!"
The only people with the issues are the ones that don't know how to use a computer.
(*sighs*...well I feel better now:P)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, let me say this.
If Mozilla is really going through the "security via obscurity" thing, and if it does generate a bigger marketshare, and likewise holes are found...
Good for that. It means that the Mozilla products will become a better browser. All that Mozilla needs to do is impliment an auto-update that is on by default, runs in the background, and applies the patches once you close it.
Privacy concerns? Sure, why not. But if those people really care that much, tell them to look at the browser source.
That was fast. Like, really fast. I can't RTFA. Anyone have any cache links? Google and web.archive.org don't...
..consist of a cell phone. However, I'm "the" IT guy, so if I wanted to hook up my own dial-up service I could. That's about it, though.
Do your part.
Tell Orrin Hatch that A) This law will change nothing (I thought we had legislation to stop spam...), B) He's a US senator, and has no control over the spread of P2P apps oversears, regardless of where they come from, and C) He'd also be opening up a lawsuit vs. many, MANY legit companies. (ICQ to name a prominent one).
Main #1 problem with that: it relies on DirectX, which, if you have any brains, is turned OFF on IE.
Oh wait.
I forgot all of the morons who leave it on.
My Mistake. Guess it will work after all.
I have two friends who were away from their e-mail for a week, so they called and had me check it. They both use hotmail. 89 and 76 messages in the spam folder (as per each of them). Spam IS an issue. I just don't pesonally think the UN can do much about it.
Actually, if you're in canada, your users should be just fine... However, I don't know how this ruling would affect caching services.
In the states, there's already several states that have laws which prevent an ISP from setting up any kind of cache. So, I don't even know what good this would do a few states, since they can't legally impliment caching services.
Everyone loves pizza. I mean, who doesn't?
I was working for my neighbor (he's only got a few million), and we had a Comcast guy come over to install their business line. My neighbor being who he is, he handed me his (unsigned) business credit card, told me, "Pay the comcast guy, order pizza." He leaves (like goes on vacation for a few days), me with the credit card.
So I did just that.
The pizza arrives, the tech is still installing (brick sucks to drill through). I offer him some pizza, and he declines. "I had a partner once who had some, installed a NIC, and then toasted the computer. Maybe after." So I thought okay, cool, ate some pizza.
Went later to work on the new server. Dual 2200+, liquid cooled, 14 fans, full-size case (customized key), 4GB of DDR in 1GB modules, RAID5, the works.
Just for the record, Iriony is a cruel, sadistic, b***h.
Shhhhhh, don't give them ideas.
"RIP IE." ...
"RIH IE" is much more like it.
=)
If I was really trying to troll, I'd say that my work server is a 500MHz Celeron and then it would get a 2.5 second copy rate on a ATA33 HD for the same size folder ;)
(Sorry, but I like my sarcasm rather dry...)
...is in my ear. I hate telemarketers enough as-is, but to have them that close to me 24/7? I'll stick with my normal phone, thank you.
Gentoo linux, P4 2.8GHz, 512MB RAM, 36.7GB HD
205.9MB folder: 7 seconds.
Eat my linux dust, mac boy.
With less than 10 clicks, I can deploy a package that upgrades an existing program (or installs a new one) across a cluster of 10,000 globablly via domain sync. Without any extra programs (note: I'm saying that "yum" is an "extra" program here.), without the user even noticing anything more than an extended startup time.
Don't get me wrong - I would replace every computer in my posession at work with linux - but it can't do active directory at the moment (
It's just that I can take a computer, set it to network boot, and have it completly re-formatted with all needed apps installed in 1.5 hours, without any user interaction other than the start of the network boot. Also, all updates applied, and joined to the domain. Yes, I can do that with linux, but currently it's FAR easier with windows.
I could debate the patching, as with that same technology, I can deploy patches over an entire domain (co-lo, whatever) effortlessly.
If you want to patch Office you need to have a cd and all that bullshit.
Wrong, active directory package deployment bypasses all of that, effortlessly.
Retraining is a must regardless, every few years MS crams another version of Office down your throat.
To a point, yes, but it's funny that I can stick my business with Word 2000 and just leave it. You don't need the upgrades if all you're doing is word processing/macro processing.
Mark me as a troll, it's all good, but I didn't lie about a thing. I know that linux can deploy patches across huge amounts of computers, but I do believe you've got this as an easier task (for now, and I hope that changes soon) with M$.
Wow.
I am a moron.
kthx.
Now the hacker has to figure out which version of the firmware one is running in order to crack the password. And they can't figure that out without logging in. So everyone is safe now. Yeah, lemme tell you just how hard.
Try the original firmware password.
If that fails, try the new firmware password.
Everyone is not safe, they're still just as vulnerable.
Haha, this actually adds a security issue...as long as the user is an average user who doesn't care, you can tell the firmware revision based on the password.
Figuring out the firmware is now just as easy as logging in.
Here's an example. Grab the latest copy of WindowsXP, run it without anti-virus software. Why is WindowsXP still vulnerable to the same viruses that Windows95 was?
;). Some exploits are winXP only, some are win95 only.
Actually, you could argue that either way. Windows 95 had no Blaster or Sasser issues. It didn't have any (currently known) issue to mass-infect every PC that runs Win95 just be being online. No, you had to rely on the stupid users to obtain that effect. However, Win2k/XP, all you have to do is turn your computer on and you can enjoy a trojan fest.
Perhaps I'm also arguing security vs. abilties. It's generally (read: most often, most cirumstances, not all) "the more you have, the more exploits that'll surface". It's not like I can take a Win95 box the way I can a 2k/XP box, connect it to a domain, and watch the security policy be applied along with the incredibly nice automated software installation. Win9x/ME is a complete pain in a real networked enviroment.
And at the same time a savior beacuse you don't see patches for it that fix things like Blaster/Sasser. Granted, Win95 isn't really in the limelight at the moment, but hey the point still stands. You could apply the same thing to Mac. To Linux.
Additionaly, I run NO form of anti-virus software or anti-adware/spyware/etc crap on either my home network (2 linux, 3 windows, 1 windows box belonging to the family) or my business network (25 computers, mix of Windows 2k/XP, and Win98SE. (and a 2k server)). Some people call me stupid. If it was much more than just that, I'd install some form of corporate version of an anti-virus, but I believe in an educated userbase when it involves small groups, beacuse even when the person is computer illerate, they actually can think for themselves.. Besides, borderguard firewalls are good things.
Now to address the point where I disagree: "Why is WindowsXP still vulnerable to the same viruses that Windows95 was?".
It's not.
Some viruses are winXP only, some are win95 only. And yes, both types do actually exist
No, security != marketshare, but it's still a massive factor.
http://www.bash.org/?148851 Not to mention the exchange rate.
Random question: am I the only one who loves MySQL to death, but thinks that it's also horribly overused for EVERYTHING?
:P
I mean....yes, it's incredibly fast. Scalable. Low overhead. But when everything from e-mail to DNS depends on MySQL....it gets a little sickening
You don't need a datbase server for everything, no matter how it is that you can say "I run my DNS servers off of a MySQL database." It's still way overused.
OH NO! A9 IS GOING TO TRACK OUR SEARCHES AND BROWSING IN ORDER TO SHOW US STUFF WE MAY LIKE! Come on people. It's not like A9 is going to record passwords that we type, and it's not like they're going to print our credit card numbers. It's not like they know us "in person" and are going to come over and kidnap our children. It's not like a "cookie" (refrence: cookie, first shown definition, item #3), aka A PIECE OF TEXT is going to allow someone to bankrupt our banking accounts. "Privacy concerns" are far overrated (on the interenet at least). Geez people, think. These are not exactly Mr. l33t down the corner who wouldn't mind your credit card, these are companies who actually have a sense of business ethic. (Note: addressing websites, not things such as gator/etc.) Any "big privacy debate" is always with a big company of sorts, and it's nearly always over a text file that's stored away on your hard drive, that you put there by your own choice. Google isn't going to go out there and publish your e-mails. A9 isn't going to provide a page with your name, address, e-mail, and a list of everything you looked for for other companies. Privacy concers are largely overrated. If you actually have something on your computer that would do such things, it's only there because you chose to install it. "No I didn't! It just appeared! I swear I did not install that!" The only people with the issues are the ones that don't know how to use a computer. (*sighs*...well I feel better now :P)