Again - why do you expect that others will use the same event logs settings as you do? We crank up the size of our event logs to keep more space available in a log at any given time. Then we achive them off regularly. I have every log even going back to the first time the system booted for every production server we manage. No big deal. As for centralizing - that doesn't necessarily disable the local copies and the central collection point has enough capacity to keep years worth of data online at any time. Sounds like you are logging too much but not keeping large enough logs before recycling them.
You are wrong in many ways. First, it's not at all uncommon to have W2K boxes with 100% uptime for a year. On some boxes that are not internal (no internet connection) we don't reboot until something NEEDS it. We don't do SPs just because they are released on certain machines. I have several W2K Servers with over 1 year uptime. The event logs can be increased in size and it is NOT good practice to recycle old logs. We ALWAYS archive off our event logs so we can maintain a history of events from the day the machine was installed. Also, while security audit logs may grow very large very quickly (and we still do archive those) the system and application logs on a properly setup windows server should not grow very fast at all - we do NOT allow our severs to generate warnings and errors without fixing what's wrong. Maybe your servers have overfull logs because you allow errors to go on and on?
Um... look. A fact is a fact. We boot these up and leave them running. To date: none has ever crashed. Period. When there are applicable patches that need to be done and they require rebooting - we evaluate how important the patch is and if necessary reboot after applying it. So, just as I said, SO FAR we have 100% uptime on our boxes. I'm not claiming the machines have never been rebooted in a year. But we've never seen a BSOD nor have we had any mysterious lockups. Sure, we get errors in our event logs now and again. Sure, once in a while we might have to stop and restart a service (once a copy of antivirus froze up under load, we had to stop and restart that service). But... that's it. Read what I wrote: "The only reboots are planned." And that's what I meant by 100% uptime. So far, as long as we choose, the application stays up.
Because all of these are not for a single client. We run approximately 1600-5000 users per exchange box to keep performance up not "putting all our eggs in one basket" kinda thinking. Disk storage depends on the clients needs, with most being DAS and some through a SAN.
Exchange has functionality we have yet to see duplicated by anyone else, open sores or not. As for Windows update, OF COURSE I am on security bulletin mailing lists and manually check daily but you might have not noticed that MS now does patch releases on wednesday am manually (to their website and notification by e-mail) and by wed night on WU. If something is critical it goes out the same day it's ready. I have never been more than a single day behind in patching from day of release. Is that so hard to believe?
From converstions and email exchanges and newsposts I've shared with other Exchange admins I find that my story is much more common than corruption stories. So long as the hardware is decent and even basic "good computing" steps are taken to keep the server up to date and the event logs error free I dont' see any reason why others wouldn't share this experience. Then again, there are way more shit admins out there than good ones. That is far more likely the cause of problems than the Exchange software. We've been running Exchange 2003 in beta form on several of our production machines for months and it's rock solid as well, plus a shitload faster! And this is beta form. We are dying to get RTM code up and running.
You are very factually wrong. Windows Update IS made for servers and it works great. I have used windows update on every windows 2000/2003 server I've ever seen/used. Never had a problem on over a thousand machines. I have never had a corruption issue on an Exchange server and we certainly do not work for or are paid by MS. We've only had to call once when a forestprep moving to 2003 failed; we paid them $240 - once is enough. And the method you described is exactly what WU does. It downloads each individual patch using an engine like hfnetchk/msbsa then qchains them together. The only thing different from what you are doing and WU is that your method takes long and is more (human) error prone. Maybe THATs why you've had corruption and I didn't.
Tell me what the big deal is? We put a little over 75 Exchange boxes in service. SOme are bigger and harder used and some are definately under utilitied. Why should my experience vary so much if we have 10 or 75 or 250? Did you consider that those 75 or so do exactly what we and our clients want and we don't need a single one more or less? Sounds like you have denial issues instead...
Why must people resort to lies to promote their holy cause? ANYONE who's really used Exchange (and has even half a brain) knows that this story is complete horseshit.
Look - here is a real one for ya all. Dual PIII-1000 system, 1 gig of RAM, mirrored pair of 72 Gig 10K SCSI drives in a 2U SuperMicro chassis connected to a 100 mb/s burstable circuit at level 3. That's what my company uses to host our exchange users; our own use plus those we host for.
Setup? Lesse, a basic load of W2K, hit windows update and did'em all. Single vendor provided driver was for the SCSI 0-channel RAID card. Time? About an hour.
Loading Exchange 2000? First, run dcpromo to turn this box into an Active directory domain controller. This process also automatically installed and configured the DNS. Then stuck Exchange 2000 CD in drive, followed the next next next, finish clicks and sat back. About 30 minutes later Exchange was running.
Configuration? Added domain name, added a user and left the checkbox for "Create Exchange mailbox" checked. Bingo, new user with automatically assigned e-mail address based on policy we wanted to use.
Full web access. Done. Full shared calendars and public folders. Done. Delegate access with full ACLs. Done. Offline support. Done. POP3 support. Done. IMAP support? It's in there. NNTP? All set. Instant Messenging? It's in there. IRC (chat) - It's in there. x.400 and SMTP, of course. No open relays by default. S/MIME? Digital certificates? Yep and yep. The list goes on, I won't bother with any more.
Total time to get up and running, a single afternoon.
OK, so it's up - now what? Well... nothing. Every night we do a backup, using built-in APIs that allow backing up without taking the information store offline. Virus scanning runs automatically and updates itself daily automatically. Antispam is fully automatic using statistical and phrase filtering. Nothing to do but look at the cute charts of spam blocked by user. Every so often there might be an applicable windows update to do - ok, so, hit windows update, download and (the ONLY part that sucks, I'll admit it) reboot.
That's it. Our uptime is 100.00% The only reboots are planned. Period. The hardware is not esoteric. The loads are easily managable on a simple dual PIII.
Client performance is flawless, and very fast. Database corruption? What's that? Never seen it. During preproduction testing we regularly would pull both power cables simultaneously while the machine was doing an full-text indexing crawl across our 60 gigabyte stores. Upon restoring power the entire server came up without a single hitch and without any delay whatsoever; the failed crawl was detected, and restarted. Transaction logs were played back and 0% loss sustained. We did this at least 30 times without ever suffering a single corruption or anything more than a few red Xs (something needs fixing) in the event log (followed by a few yellows (we're fixing it) then pretty blue I's to tell us "it's fixed.")
Anyone that thinks Exchange is just a POP/SMTP/IMAP server hasn't a clue. Anyone who would like to tell you that Exchange crashes is either lying or can't run a server. Period. With over 75 Exchange boxes in production and never a single chance to test our off-line disaster recovery plan -- we could not be more pleased.
Sorry but you are also incorrect. The original certification did not involve a networked system. The CURRENT cerfications for both NT4 and Windows 2000 are indeed networked systems.
You are incorrect. At one time the first certification NT4 had was one that didn't involve being connected to a network. Current NT4 certifications are fully networked. Windows 2000 Server is also certified to a higher level with networking.
I say software RAID sucks because it delivers less performance than hardware RAID for not such a great difference in price. Lets look at it this way, you want to increase performance, that is your goal. OK, so you decide to strip two drives together. You do it using software then go and run your favorite disk benchmark. It is smoking fast. You compare it to a hardware RAID solution and, assuming you figured out your IDE channel conflict issues correctly, you find that you are not that far off the mark from hardware -- and you got it for free! Woo hoo! Oh wait, you didn't notice one little statistic you didn't think was related. CPU overhead! Using hardware RAID actually lowers your CPU utilization while access your drive(s/array). Using software RAID your CPU utilization goes way up. Worse, your PCI bus is in serious contention. Data headed to your sound card is suddenly bottlenecked behind all that noise from the RAID - and now your FPS game is slowing down because it can't fill the sound card buffers fast enough.
If you just wanted to match the benchmark values of SCSI drives using software raid you might have come close - but in a real world application where your CPUs have to do more than just run the software RAID array - you'll find you've hit yourself hard.
I don't spend a fortune on SCSI drives, I feel $250 is not bad to pay for a 15,000 RPM 8 MB cache Cheeta 36 gig drive. $250 for the fastest single drive on the planet? Sounds like a bargin to me. Now, let me put two of those drives on a $200 RAID card from Adaptec -- lets run that against your ATA100 7200 RPM 2 mb cache IDEs running on a serial interface. OUCH! "Sucks"
Not true. I have never found a system that performed faster using software RAID than the same using a dedicated hardware RAID device. To use software RAID all the hard disk data and commands must move on and off the bus and into memory and into the primary CPU all the time competing with everything else the CPU is doing and the bus is doing and memory is busy shuffling around. With a hardware RAID device, 90% of which include a cache onboard, unload the CPU from doing any of the work. Memory is not tasked other than to transfer the actual data being manipulated and there is no waiting on otherwise busy bus or CPU lines. Additionally, all the commands are occuring between the controller and drives directly at a much higher speed, sometimes, than the bus itself. I mean, I'm using 14 Cheeta 15.3 drives with Ultra 320 interfaces. These are setup as 7 pairs of mirrored drives, each mirrored pair is part of a single stripe. The card I'm using has a 48 Mb cache and is connected directly to the bus (not a PCI card). The firmware for the card allows me to build and manipulate this array while the OS is running or before it loads. The overhead to manage 14 drives using software RAID is too high.
Regarding trust; why should I trust open source anything? Even though I am a programmer, am I expected to read through every line of code and understand how it works enough so that... um... what? I can look for buffer overflows? So that if the software fails I can patch it myself? No, I think I'll trust the hardware manufacturer with millions in R&D and years of experience specifically aimed at RAID and drives. If my open sores RAID solution fails, will I have to wonder if some 13 year old norwegien kid's mom is going to let him reply to newsgroup messages after being grounded for downloading porn via IRC again?
The advantage of striping is nulified if you cannot read/write to your 2+ disks simultaneously. With IDE, any two devices on the same cable/channel are not accessed simultaneously like SCSI but one at a time. SO, if you are only reading and writing one at a time between two drives you lose the benefit of striping. Plus IDE requires the bus to stay busy from the time the command is issued until the data is returned. SCSI allows disconnects so the command can be sent, another command sent elsewhere and then data returned, without waiting for the data to issue that second command. SO, with SCSI you could send the read command to two (or 5 or 15) drives one right after the other and let the data arrive when it does.
or put more simply; two IDE drives stripped on the same channel perform no better than two individual IDE drives joined as a single spanned volume.
Software RAID, excepting mirroring a pair of drives, sucks. Period. The performance hit is not worth the return. Ever do stripping in software? Worse, RAID 5 in software? It sucks. You could spend a few $ and get hardware RAID and not only actually get better performance but not be concerned that some corruption in your OS that is managing that RAID will affect the data stored on it.
And, as a quite note; someone needs to remind IDE users that trying to do striping on the same IDE channel is stupid and if you need to have it explained why - then you are too stupid to have decided to use it in the first place.
If this were MS suing then suing again if it lost the first time - you all would be up in arms. But, nope, every chance to attack MS is a good one eh? How about if, say, MS were to lose their lawsuit against Lindows. Then they were to just sue them again. And again. And again. Maybe until Lindows ran out of money. Would this also be ok? Somehow I think not.
Well, this is what is happening. A bunch of companies who are losing their asses in the market place because their products and inferior to MS ones AND cost more and they haven't got a ray of hope to succeed on their own - so, they desperately pay off politicans and buy 100s of lobbyists to hammer their competition down.
I think the market should decide. No one has ever held a gun to my head over my choice of OS or PC in anyway, not MS not anyone. I choose what I use based on what I want to do. Sounds fair to me.
Actually no, this is a lesser certification. Linux has never achieved any security certifications of any kind while MS has starting with NT4. NT4 and W2K has also held this certification for some time. So, once again, linux playing catch up. Next thing you know various distributions will even try to match the look and feel of win-- opps, already happened.
You really make no sense at all. And to call me an "ass" is really just childish and demonstrates your failure to rebutt with facts.
As you yourself stated, it is their network. They can do whatever they'd like with it; INCLUDING enforce their beliefs ESPECIALLY since it's free. If you don't like it, don't use it. If it changes and you don't like what it's become, go somewhere else. You didn't pay for it, you don't support it, you just USE it. You are a USER and bound by their policies, like it or not.
Look, try to be honest with yourself at least and hopefully with us too; of course there are some "legal" transfers too but we all know (or should know) that the vast majority are easily identifiable as illegal by most definitions. And, this network is based in the US so it's going to get sued in the US if it comes to that so it's US laws that apply. I suspect you are a US citizen and are likely more often than not trading with other US citizens. Lets not play the "it's not illegal in zambobwe so I'm fine" game - that's just lame. It wasn't about bandwidth and we all know it so that isn't it.
In my opinion, when someone loses the ability to get away with something they have been getting away with that happens to be illegal - and they complain; I call them whiners. That's MY right to my opinion I'm expressing there.
IRC stands for Internet Relay Chat. It's for chatting. But in reality, anyone who's used it knows that it's a haven for warez and porn file trading.
The people running it decide to enforce a policy against channels designed exclusively for file trading -- chat channels not being used for chat.
Because someone has once again made it a little harder for people to steal software and music and exchange pornography (much of it going to under 18 year old children) these people are threatening to leave an entirely free network?
DALnet is provided as a free service to thousands using not-free bandwidth and servers and other resources of those that run and support it. "If you don't like it, go somewhere else" seems appropriate to say here.
Where is the legitimate complaint? They won't shut you down if you do a few exchanges of files (even if those files or that activity might be considered illegal by some). They are only shutting down channels that spew files and are not for the purposes of the network they built and offer. DALnet never claimed to be a file trading network and now they intend to lightly enforce their use policy. How is that unfair to the unpaying, leeching hordes complaining now?
Sounds to me like Napster whiners. Sounds to me what Kazaa users will be whinning about when it too is shut down.
Now... imagine; what if the usenet stopped allowing binary posts (ignore the technical aspect for a moment, assume it became a "policy" somehow). Ooohh.. I can hear the kiddies crying out as if a trillion posts were suddenly canceled.
Coolest Hacks you've ever done
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
OK, check with your lawyers but as I'm sure you know the statue of limitations for computer crimes (not otherwise associated with violent crimes) is 4 years in most every state. So, with that in mind; can you tell us some of the coolest hacks you've ever done? Most especially; any so well done that they have gone undiscovered (and unprosecutable now)?
And, I repeat, MS drivers are not vulnerable (yes, the ones MS ships) and therefore doesn't need a fix. Why would you associate a vulnerability in a driver not shipped (or written) by MS with MS (which is, I assume, your implication).
Drivers for linux are vulnerable so do need fixing.
(p.s., sorry for the bad link in the original post, I meant: CERT note)
Device Driver Original Description 3c501.c A 3Com 3c501 Ethernet driver for Linux 3c507.c An EtherLink16 device driver for Linux 3c523.c net-3-driver for the 3c523 Etherlink/MC card (i82586 Ethernet chip) 3c527.c 3com Etherlink/MC32 driver for Linux 2.4 7990.c LANCE Ethernet IC generic routines (AMD 7990 LANCE, local area network controller for Ethernet) 8139too.c RealTek RTL-8139 Fast Ethernet driver for Linux (based on rtl8139.c device driver which is also vulnerable) RTL 8129, 8139 chipsets 82596.c A generic 82596 Ethernet driver for Linux 8390.c A general NS8390 Ethernet driver core for Linux a2065.c Amiga Linux/68k A2065 Ethernet Driver aironet4500_core.c Aironet 4500/4800 driver core am79c961a.c driver for the am79c961A Lance chip used in the Intel (formally Digital Equipment Corp) EBSA110 platform. ariadne.c Amiga Linux/m68k Ariadne Ethernet Driver arlan.c This module provides support for the Arlan 655 card made by Aironet at1700.c A network device driver for the Allied Telesis AT1700 atari_bionet.c BioNet-100 device driver for linux68k atarilance.c Ethernet driver for VME Lance cards on the Atari atari_pamsnet.c PAMsNet device driver for linux68k atp.c Attached (pocket) Ethernet adapter driver for Linux (Realtek RTL8002 and RTL8012 chips) bagetlance.c Ethernet driver for VME Lance cards on Baget/MIPS declance.c Lance ethernet driver for the MIPS processor based DECstation family depca.c A DIGITAL DEPCA & EtherWORKS ethernet driver for Linux eepro.c Intel EtherExpress Pro/10 device driver for Linux eexpress.c Intel EtherExpress 16 device driver for Linux epic100.c A SMC 83c170 EPIC/100 Fast Ethernet driver for Linux (This driver is for the SMC83c170/175 "EPIC" series, as used on the SMC EtherPower II 9432 PCI adapter, and several CardBus cards) eth16i.c An ICL EtherTeam 16i and 32 EISA Ethernet driver for Linux fmv18x.c A network device driver for the Fujitsu FMV-181/182/183/184 gmac.c Network device driver for the GMAC Ethernet controller on Apple G4 Powermacs isa-skeleton.c A network driver outline for Linux lance.c An AMD LANCE/PCnet Ethernet driver for Linux lasi_82596.c Driver for the Intel 82596 Ethernet controller, as munged into HPPA boxen lp486e.c Panther 82596 Ethernet driver for Linux ni5010.c A network driver for the MiCom-Interlan NI5010 ethercard ni52.c net-3-driver for the NI5210 card (i82586 Ethernet chip) ni65.c ni6510 (am7990 'lance' chip) driver for Linux-net-3 pci-skeleton.c This driver is for boards based on the RTL8129 and RTL8139 PCI Ethernet chips saa9730.c SAA9730 Ethernet driver seeq8005.c A network device driver for the SEEQ 8005 chipset sgiseeq.c Seeq8003 Ethernet driver for SGI machines sk_g16.c smc9194.c A driver for SMC's 9000 series of Ethernet cards sonic.c sun3lance.c tc35815.c via-rhine. c A Linux Ethernet device driver for VIA Rhine family chips wavelan.c WaveLAN ISA driver znet.c An Zenith Z-Note Ethernet driver for Linux Wavelan_cs.c Supports version 2.00 of WaveLAN/PCMCIA cards (2.4GHz) xirc2ps_cs.c Xircom CreditCard Ethernet Adapter IIps driver Xircom Realport 10/100 (RE-100) driver. This driver supports various Xircom CreditCard Ethernet adapters including the CE2, CE IIps, RE-10, CEM28, CEM33, CE33, CEM56, CE3-100, CE3B, RE-100, REM10BT, and REM56G-100.
Well Mr. Coward, you didn't bother to find out that Linux is vulnerable but Windows is not. MS has already issued a statement about this but I see nothing from Linux yet. Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now - haha.
If you read the CERT Vulnerability note and seen that Windows is not vulnerable.">actual vulnerability note itself you'd see that Windows isn't even vulnerable. So it's linux that has to patch a hole Windows doesn't have.
Slashdot Mirror
Again - why do you expect that others will use the same event logs settings as you do? We crank up the size of our event logs to keep more space available in a log at any given time. Then we achive them off regularly. I have every log even going back to the first time the system booted for every production server we manage. No big deal. As for centralizing - that doesn't necessarily disable the local copies and the central collection point has enough capacity to keep years worth of data online at any time. Sounds like you are logging too much but not keeping large enough logs before recycling them.
You are wrong in many ways. First, it's not at all uncommon to have W2K boxes with 100% uptime for a year. On some boxes that are not internal (no internet connection) we don't reboot until something NEEDS it. We don't do SPs just because they are released on certain machines. I have several W2K Servers with over 1 year uptime. The event logs can be increased in size and it is NOT good practice to recycle old logs. We ALWAYS archive off our event logs so we can maintain a history of events from the day the machine was installed. Also, while security audit logs may grow very large very quickly (and we still do archive those) the system and application logs on a properly setup windows server should not grow very fast at all - we do NOT allow our severs to generate warnings and errors without fixing what's wrong. Maybe your servers have overfull logs because you allow errors to go on and on?
Um... look. A fact is a fact. We boot these up and leave them running. To date: none has ever crashed. Period. When there are applicable patches that need to be done and they require rebooting - we evaluate how important the patch is and if necessary reboot after applying it. So, just as I said, SO FAR we have 100% uptime on our boxes. I'm not claiming the machines have never been rebooted in a year. But we've never seen a BSOD nor have we had any mysterious lockups. Sure, we get errors in our event logs now and again. Sure, once in a while we might have to stop and restart a service (once a copy of antivirus froze up under load, we had to stop and restart that service). But... that's it. Read what I wrote: "The only reboots are planned." And that's what I meant by 100% uptime. So far, as long as we choose, the application stays up.
Because all of these are not for a single client. We run approximately 1600-5000 users per exchange box to keep performance up not "putting all our eggs in one basket" kinda thinking. Disk storage depends on the clients needs, with most being DAS and some through a SAN.
From converstions and email exchanges and newsposts I've shared with other Exchange admins I find that my story is much more common than corruption stories. So long as the hardware is decent and even basic "good computing" steps are taken to keep the server up to date and the event logs error free I dont' see any reason why others wouldn't share this experience. Then again, there are way more shit admins out there than good ones. That is far more likely the cause of problems than the Exchange software. We've been running Exchange 2003 in beta form on several of our production machines for months and it's rock solid as well, plus a shitload faster! And this is beta form. We are dying to get RTM code up and running.
You are very factually wrong. Windows Update IS made for servers and it works great. I have used windows update on every windows 2000/2003 server I've ever seen/used. Never had a problem on over a thousand machines. I have never had a corruption issue on an Exchange server and we certainly do not work for or are paid by MS. We've only had to call once when a forestprep moving to 2003 failed; we paid them $240 - once is enough. And the method you described is exactly what WU does. It downloads each individual patch using an engine like hfnetchk/msbsa then qchains them together. The only thing different from what you are doing and WU is that your method takes long and is more (human) error prone. Maybe THATs why you've had corruption and I didn't.
Tell me what the big deal is? We put a little over 75 Exchange boxes in service. SOme are bigger and harder used and some are definately under utilitied. Why should my experience vary so much if we have 10 or 75 or 250? Did you consider that those 75 or so do exactly what we and our clients want and we don't need a single one more or less? Sounds like you have denial issues instead...
Look - here is a real one for ya all. Dual PIII-1000 system, 1 gig of RAM, mirrored pair of 72 Gig 10K SCSI drives in a 2U SuperMicro chassis connected to a 100 mb/s burstable circuit at level 3. That's what my company uses to host our exchange users; our own use plus those we host for.
Setup? Lesse, a basic load of W2K, hit windows update and did'em all. Single vendor provided driver was for the SCSI 0-channel RAID card. Time? About an hour.
Loading Exchange 2000? First, run dcpromo to turn this box into an Active directory domain controller. This process also automatically installed and configured the DNS. Then stuck Exchange 2000 CD in drive, followed the next next next, finish clicks and sat back. About 30 minutes later Exchange was running.
Configuration? Added domain name, added a user and left the checkbox for "Create Exchange mailbox" checked. Bingo, new user with automatically assigned e-mail address based on policy we wanted to use.
Full web access. Done. Full shared calendars and public folders. Done. Delegate access with full ACLs. Done. Offline support. Done. POP3 support. Done. IMAP support? It's in there. NNTP? All set. Instant Messenging? It's in there. IRC (chat) - It's in there. x.400 and SMTP, of course. No open relays by default. S/MIME? Digital certificates? Yep and yep. The list goes on, I won't bother with any more.
Total time to get up and running, a single afternoon.
OK, so it's up - now what? Well... nothing. Every night we do a backup, using built-in APIs that allow backing up without taking the information store offline. Virus scanning runs automatically and updates itself daily automatically. Antispam is fully automatic using statistical and phrase filtering. Nothing to do but look at the cute charts of spam blocked by user. Every so often there might be an applicable windows update to do - ok, so, hit windows update, download and (the ONLY part that sucks, I'll admit it) reboot.
That's it. Our uptime is 100.00% The only reboots are planned. Period. The hardware is not esoteric. The loads are easily managable on a simple dual PIII.
Client performance is flawless, and very fast. Database corruption? What's that? Never seen it. During preproduction testing we regularly would pull both power cables simultaneously while the machine was doing an full-text indexing crawl across our 60 gigabyte stores. Upon restoring power the entire server came up without a single hitch and without any delay whatsoever; the failed crawl was detected, and restarted. Transaction logs were played back and 0% loss sustained. We did this at least 30 times without ever suffering a single corruption or anything more than a few red Xs (something needs fixing) in the event log (followed by a few yellows (we're fixing it) then pretty blue I's to tell us "it's fixed.")
Anyone that thinks Exchange is just a POP/SMTP/IMAP server hasn't a clue. Anyone who would like to tell you that Exchange crashes is either lying or can't run a server. Period. With over 75 Exchange boxes in production and never a single chance to test our off-line disaster recovery plan -- we could not be more pleased.
Here is a B-52 crash site in Maine that I planted a geocache at last year:? ID=33462
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx
Sorry but you are also incorrect. The original certification did not involve a networked system. The CURRENT cerfications for both NT4 and Windows 2000 are indeed networked systems.
You are incorrect. At one time the first certification NT4 had was one that didn't involve being connected to a network. Current NT4 certifications are fully networked. Windows 2000 Server is also certified to a higher level with networking.
If you just wanted to match the benchmark values of SCSI drives using software raid you might have come close - but in a real world application where your CPUs have to do more than just run the software RAID array - you'll find you've hit yourself hard.
I don't spend a fortune on SCSI drives, I feel $250 is not bad to pay for a 15,000 RPM 8 MB cache Cheeta 36 gig drive. $250 for the fastest single drive on the planet? Sounds like a bargin to me. Now, let me put two of those drives on a $200 RAID card from Adaptec -- lets run that against your ATA100 7200 RPM 2 mb cache IDEs running on a serial interface. OUCH! "Sucks"
Sheesh, a simple typo. Maybe if you weren't such a picky bastard you'd have some "class."
Regarding trust; why should I trust open source anything? Even though I am a programmer, am I expected to read through every line of code and understand how it works enough so that... um... what? I can look for buffer overflows? So that if the software fails I can patch it myself? No, I think I'll trust the hardware manufacturer with millions in R&D and years of experience specifically aimed at RAID and drives. If my open sores RAID solution fails, will I have to wonder if some 13 year old norwegien kid's mom is going to let him reply to newsgroup messages after being grounded for downloading porn via IRC again?
or put more simply; two IDE drives stripped on the same channel perform no better than two individual IDE drives joined as a single spanned volume.
And, as a quite note; someone needs to remind IDE users that trying to do striping on the same IDE channel is stupid and if you need to have it explained why - then you are too stupid to have decided to use it in the first place.
If this were MS suing then suing again if it lost the first time - you all would be up in arms. But, nope, every chance to attack MS is a good one eh? How about if, say, MS were to lose their lawsuit against Lindows. Then they were to just sue them again. And again. And again. Maybe until Lindows ran out of money. Would this also be ok? Somehow I think not.
Well, this is what is happening. A bunch of companies who are losing their asses in the market place because their products and inferior to MS ones AND cost more and they haven't got a ray of hope to succeed on their own - so, they desperately pay off politicans and buy 100s of lobbyists to hammer their competition down.
I think the market should decide. No one has ever held a gun to my head over my choice of OS or PC in anyway, not MS not anyone. I choose what I use based on what I want to do. Sounds fair to me.
Actually no, this is a lesser certification. Linux has never achieved any security certifications of any kind while MS has starting with NT4. NT4 and W2K has also held this certification for some time. So, once again, linux playing catch up. Next thing you know various distributions will even try to match the look and feel of win-- opps, already happened.
As you yourself stated, it is their network. They can do whatever they'd like with it; INCLUDING enforce their beliefs ESPECIALLY since it's free. If you don't like it, don't use it. If it changes and you don't like what it's become, go somewhere else. You didn't pay for it, you don't support it, you just USE it. You are a USER and bound by their policies, like it or not.
Look, try to be honest with yourself at least and hopefully with us too; of course there are some "legal" transfers too but we all know (or should know) that the vast majority are easily identifiable as illegal by most definitions. And, this network is based in the US so it's going to get sued in the US if it comes to that so it's US laws that apply. I suspect you are a US citizen and are likely more often than not trading with other US citizens. Lets not play the "it's not illegal in zambobwe so I'm fine" game - that's just lame. It wasn't about bandwidth and we all know it so that isn't it.
In my opinion, when someone loses the ability to get away with something they have been getting away with that happens to be illegal - and they complain; I call them whiners. That's MY right to my opinion I'm expressing there.
The people running it decide to enforce a policy against channels designed exclusively for file trading -- chat channels not being used for chat.
Because someone has once again made it a little harder for people to steal software and music and exchange pornography (much of it going to under 18 year old children) these people are threatening to leave an entirely free network?
DALnet is provided as a free service to thousands using not-free bandwidth and servers and other resources of those that run and support it. "If you don't like it, go somewhere else" seems appropriate to say here.
Where is the legitimate complaint? They won't shut you down if you do a few exchanges of files (even if those files or that activity might be considered illegal by some). They are only shutting down channels that spew files and are not for the purposes of the network they built and offer. DALnet never claimed to be a file trading network and now they intend to lightly enforce their use policy. How is that unfair to the unpaying, leeching hordes complaining now?
Sounds to me like Napster whiners. Sounds to me what Kazaa users will be whinning about when it too is shut down.
Now... imagine; what if the usenet stopped allowing binary posts (ignore the technical aspect for a moment, assume it became a "policy" somehow). Ooohh.. I can hear the kiddies crying out as if a trillion posts were suddenly canceled.
OK, check with your lawyers but as I'm sure you know the statue of limitations for computer crimes (not otherwise associated with violent crimes) is 4 years in most every state. So, with that in mind; can you tell us some of the coolest hacks you've ever done? Most especially; any so well done that they have gone undiscovered (and unprosecutable now)?
Drivers for linux are vulnerable so do need fixing. (p.s., sorry for the bad link in the original post, I meant: CERT note)
Device Driver Original Description. c A Linux Ethernet device driver for VIA Rhine family chips
3c501.c A 3Com 3c501 Ethernet driver for Linux
3c507.c An EtherLink16 device driver for Linux
3c523.c net-3-driver for the 3c523 Etherlink/MC card (i82586 Ethernet chip)
3c527.c 3com Etherlink/MC32 driver for Linux 2.4
7990.c LANCE Ethernet IC generic routines (AMD 7990 LANCE, local area network controller for Ethernet)
8139too.c RealTek RTL-8139 Fast Ethernet driver for Linux (based on rtl8139.c device driver which is also vulnerable) RTL 8129, 8139 chipsets
82596.c A generic 82596 Ethernet driver for Linux
8390.c A general NS8390 Ethernet driver core for Linux
a2065.c Amiga Linux/68k A2065 Ethernet Driver
aironet4500_core.c Aironet 4500/4800 driver core
am79c961a.c driver for the am79c961A Lance chip used in the Intel (formally Digital Equipment Corp) EBSA110 platform.
ariadne.c Amiga Linux/m68k Ariadne Ethernet Driver
arlan.c This module provides support for the Arlan 655 card made by Aironet
at1700.c A network device driver for the Allied Telesis AT1700
atari_bionet.c BioNet-100 device driver for linux68k
atarilance.c Ethernet driver for VME Lance cards on the Atari
atari_pamsnet.c PAMsNet device driver for linux68k
atp.c Attached (pocket) Ethernet adapter driver for Linux (Realtek
RTL8002 and RTL8012 chips)
bagetlance.c Ethernet driver for VME Lance cards on Baget/MIPS
declance.c Lance ethernet driver for the MIPS processor based DECstation family
depca.c A DIGITAL DEPCA & EtherWORKS ethernet driver for Linux
eepro.c Intel EtherExpress Pro/10 device driver for Linux
eexpress.c Intel EtherExpress 16 device driver for Linux
epic100.c A SMC 83c170 EPIC/100 Fast Ethernet driver for Linux (This driver is for the SMC83c170/175 "EPIC" series, as used on the SMC
EtherPower II 9432 PCI adapter, and several CardBus cards)
eth16i.c An ICL EtherTeam 16i and 32 EISA Ethernet driver for Linux
fmv18x.c A network device driver for the Fujitsu FMV-181/182/183/184
gmac.c Network device driver for the GMAC Ethernet controller on Apple G4 Powermacs
isa-skeleton.c A network driver outline for Linux
lance.c An AMD LANCE/PCnet Ethernet driver for Linux
lasi_82596.c Driver for the Intel 82596 Ethernet controller, as munged into HPPA boxen
lp486e.c Panther 82596 Ethernet driver for Linux
ni5010.c A network driver for the MiCom-Interlan NI5010 ethercard
ni52.c net-3-driver for the NI5210 card (i82586 Ethernet chip)
ni65.c ni6510 (am7990 'lance' chip) driver for Linux-net-3
pci-skeleton.c This driver is for boards based on the RTL8129 and RTL8139 PCI Ethernet chips
saa9730.c SAA9730 Ethernet driver
seeq8005.c A network device driver for the SEEQ 8005 chipset
sgiseeq.c Seeq8003 Ethernet driver for SGI machines
sk_g16.c
smc9194.c A driver for SMC's 9000 series of Ethernet cards
sonic.c
sun3lance.c
tc35815.c
via-rhine
wavelan.c WaveLAN ISA driver
znet.c An Zenith Z-Note Ethernet driver for Linux
Wavelan_cs.c Supports version 2.00 of WaveLAN/PCMCIA cards (2.4GHz)
xirc2ps_cs.c Xircom CreditCard Ethernet Adapter IIps driver
Xircom Realport 10/100 (RE-100) driver.
This driver supports various Xircom CreditCard Ethernet adapters including the CE2, CE IIps, RE-10, CEM28, CEM33, CE33, CEM56, CE3-100, CE3B, RE-100, REM10BT, and REM56G-100.
Well Mr. Coward, you didn't bother to find out that Linux is vulnerable but Windows is not. MS has already issued a statement about this but I see nothing from Linux yet. Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now - haha.
If you read the CERT Vulnerability note and seen that Windows is not vulnerable.">actual vulnerability note itself you'd see that Windows isn't even vulnerable. So it's linux that has to patch a hole Windows doesn't have.