I use the Windows key a lot and wish that it was supported in Linux (no matter how "wrong" that would feel). Window+E, explorer. Window+M, minimize. Window+F, Find (files, networks, people, etc.). Window+D, show desktop. As a Linux user, I would assume you would appreciate the shortcut keys. Don't know about your distro, but it's well-supported on Ubuntu. System | Preferences | Keyboard Shortcuts in GNOME. I'm sure there's some equivalent in KDE as well.
You are not a sysadmin, are you? A sysadmin is the guy with complete, absolute, total, unrestricted control of a number of your critical servers and a good chunk of your data. Not everything, but a sizable piece of your infrastructure. In a big enterprise the IT infrastructure support may be divided among multiple groups of sysadmins. Still, many sysadmins have sufficient access to take your business down for a long time, if not permanently. Yes, I am. And, unfortunately, you're right -- most of the time. In quite a few places I've worked, though, they usually don't give every admin all the admin passwords. The ideal scenario is this in an enterprise environment:
1) This scenario assumes all critical severs are running some form of *nix. 2) Multiple admins are assigned to various parts of infrastructure: data manaagement, backup administration, storage administration, mail, web, etc. None are given root passwords to ANYTHING. IT management retains the root passwords. All admins are given sudo or sudo-like access to do what they need and NOTHING more. Networking equipment is outsourced. Admins do not have access to the networking equipment. All sudo-like accesses are logged - redundantly. 3) Pure separation of duties. The data guy doesn't get to fiddle with the backups or storage, etc., 4) OS installs, etc., are handled by a separate platform group. The platform group consists of trusted individuals who only create images for installation. Selected, trusted sysadmins install from images, but only have access to the automated tools and not to media, etc. 5) Proper physical security, searches, etc.
In the driver-neutral layer, what happens if the checksum verification fails? Answer: It resends in the packet.
What happens if every packet is corrupted in someway? Answer: No actually useful communication (and a lot of very un-useful communication) occurs on the network. All noise, no signal.
What would a network admin or sys admin do to fix that? Answer: Test the cable, try a new NIC, replace the cable anyway, replace the switch, etc., ad infinitum. It won't occur to 90% of *nix sysadmins that the problem is at the NIC driver. Windows admins might be a little more quick to change the driver ("but it was working before!")
Of course, changing the driver-neutral layer, as described would be even better because you could introduce random errors at THAT level, too.
Or replace or, in open source systems, edit the NIC driver(s). Have it change random bits in the packets. They'll probably spend WEEKS trying to track THAT down.:-D
Ehm, I don't think the disgruntled sysadmin will ever really enter the zeitgeist. If a company has good IT policies and practices in place, the disgruntled sysadmin really isn't that big of a problem.
In my mind, this means that you should always have more than one admin, never giving anybody absolute authority over ALL systems. With offsite backups and redundant systems, the damage any single admin could do would be minimal. Maybe costly in terms of downtime, but nothing that's going to grind your business to a halt. Just as in government, there needs to be checks and balances. Giving a single admin too much power is a very bad idea.
What I want to know is: Why would a sysadmin do things like planting a logic bomb anyway? I mean, we're talking about your PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION here. This guy's never gonna work in IT again.
Seriously. Let's not start filtering traffic because a few companies can't or won't change their business model in the face of changing technologies.
Besides, does anyone really think that that's going to work? It would be nearly impossible to filter out copyrighted material. As always, the Net will just route around the damage. That's the nature of the network and it was built that way on purpose.
Uh, dying company? I wouldn't go that far just yet.
General Motors is still the world's largest automaker, unless/until Toyota surpasses them this year. They are an industry leader in PHEV development, with plans to release their first PHEV in 2010, along with Toyota (Chinese auto maker
http://www.bydauto.com.cn/ will be releasing a PHEV this year, but I wouldn't expect it win big in North America by any stretch of the imagination, especially since it is an unknown in that sector.) They are the #1 producer of ethanol-powered vehicles in the world. They sell cars and trucks in all the major economic regions -- Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, Latin America.
With Microsoft's patent FUD I'm guessing it is only a question of time until we get some SCO clone to file a patent lawsuit against the Linux kernel. Will be interesting to see Linus' response when that happens. You can't sue a kernel. It isn't a legal entity. Maybe you could sue Red Hat or Novell or Canonical or IBM or somebody like that, but you can't sue a kernel. Maybe you could even sue Linus Torvalds personally. I'm sure someone with big pockets, possibly someone with big blue pockets, would step up to defend him almost instantly, though.
That being said, yes, that's been a part of Microsoft's strategy all along. Microsoft has intimated this themselves, while simultaneously explicitly denying it. Either it or another puppet like SCO will step up and sue somebody over patent violations in Linux.
All I gotta say is this: You know that aforementioned someone with big blue pockets? Yeah, that someone happens to be the largest patent holder in the world and happens to have invested large sums of money into Linux as their primary OS strategy for the next several years. I'm guessing they still won't be playing nice.
Who has gotten to Linus? Why does he no longer love free software or RMS?
So now, suddenly, since there is a new version of the GPL, anyone who stays on the old version hates software freedom?
Wow. That's kind of an extreme way to look at it. Especially since RMS himself said that there's nothing wrong with continuing to use GPL V2, if that's what a project wants to do.
If I were RMS, I would forbid the packaging of any GNU code with a GPLv2 GNU/Linux. Without altering the language of the GPL, simply put, he can't.
No, this is not a troll. It's just that with all of the major studios hopping to Blu Ray, well, let's just say that content often drives adoption rates for new formats. Looks like Sony wins this one.
I don't know about "awesome," my first thoughts were along the lines of "oh...for fuck's sake..." and "how do I check?" TFA seems to be saying that LinkScanner will check for it. Of course, it's worth noting that TFA's author is the 'Chief Research Officer' for the company that makes LinkScanner. IOW, this is a bit of a slashvertisement.
The codecs HAVE been reverse engineered, however, you've been able to download them for free for IA32 for quite some time from Microsoft's Web site for free.
Oh, I'm not saying that Silverlight is great. As AKAImBatman would point out, before you implement Silverlight, you should really read the WHATWG specs, which are being developed in a truly open process, vs. Silverlight and Moonlight, which are nothing more than implementations of some spec developed for some proprietary crap.
Utility computing means that computers will run themselves. Your LAN will wire itself, hardware will never fail, no one will ever need to make any changes to the configuration (which configured itself to begin with) and new terminals will magically materialise on peoples desk overnight, whenever one is needed. Users will never have any trouble what so ever and will never need to ask questions. Bugs will be eliminated. For everything else, there is Walgreens!
You're right in that it depends on the market. While, as others have pointed, PCI data handling can be outsourced readily, others are not so simple. Systems that deal with military classified or ITAR-controlled data can't be outsourced to foreign countries.
Yeah, 'cause Ed Bott and the sources he quotes from are sooo unbiased. *rolls eyes*
Ed Bott has been on the Microsoft dole for years. Don't expect his articles to be anything but Microsoft spin.
And Gates is past his prime, but Ballmer is not? Steve Ballmer has been Billy's right hand man almost since the beginning of Microsoft. He's like Microsoft employee #1 or something. He's already been silently running things behind the scenes since the days of OS/2. Bill has been mostly a face-man in the last, say 15 years or so, still making a lot of high-level decisions, but the nitty gritty details have been handled by Ballmer for a very long time.
Grandparent is putting words in my mouth. I never said that 2008 (or any year) would be the year of Linux on the desktop. I think Linux on the desktop will continue to play a role in certain niche market segments, notably geek desktops, low-end desktops, some so-called "thin-client" solutions, in point-of-sale systems and so forth. Beyond that the future is still uncertain -- OS X has gained a lot of traction, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for Linux desktops. I see more of a mixed market. We don't need one desktop to rule them all. In the end, I doubt it will matter much what your desktop OS is as more and more you will see Internet-based and network centric applications running with platform transparency. Don't necessarily think browser apps or "Google Apps", but think more Google Earth with data to be stored both locally and on the Internet/intranet.
By the time I worked there,/usr/std/* hadn't been updated in a long, long time and most of the tools were way out of date. The CSB was basically being phased out at the behest of one of the new higher-ups in IS&S.
We've "read it on Slashdot" every year for the past 10. Just like "Linux on the desktop THIS year," it isn't happening any time soon. Yeah, but you've never heard it before from an individual who predicted Microsoft's dominance before it ever happened. I've been watching the industry for over 20 years now.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but iPhone, as configured out of the box, only works on EDGE.
1) This scenario assumes all critical severs are running some form of *nix.
2) Multiple admins are assigned to various parts of infrastructure: data manaagement, backup administration, storage administration, mail, web, etc. None are given root passwords to ANYTHING. IT management retains the root passwords. All admins are given sudo or sudo-like access to do what they need and NOTHING more. Networking equipment is outsourced. Admins do not have access to the networking equipment. All sudo-like accesses are logged - redundantly.
3) Pure separation of duties. The data guy doesn't get to fiddle with the backups or storage, etc.,
4) OS installs, etc., are handled by a separate platform group. The platform group consists of trusted individuals who only create images for installation. Selected, trusted sysadmins install from images, but only have access to the automated tools and not to media, etc.
5) Proper physical security, searches, etc.
I could go on, but you get the gist.
Whoosh.
In the driver-neutral layer, what happens if the checksum verification fails?
Answer: It resends in the packet.
What happens if every packet is corrupted in someway?
Answer: No actually useful communication (and a lot of very un-useful communication) occurs on the network. All noise, no signal.
What would a network admin or sys admin do to fix that?
Answer: Test the cable, try a new NIC, replace the cable anyway, replace the switch, etc., ad infinitum. It won't occur to 90% of *nix sysadmins that the problem is at the NIC driver. Windows admins might be a little more quick to change the driver ("but it was working before!")
Of course, changing the driver-neutral layer, as described would be even better because you could introduce random errors at THAT level, too.
Or replace or, in open source systems, edit the NIC driver(s). Have it change random bits in the packets. They'll probably spend WEEKS trying to track THAT down. :-D
Ehm, I don't think the disgruntled sysadmin will ever really enter the zeitgeist. If a company has good IT policies and practices in place, the disgruntled sysadmin really isn't that big of a problem.
In my mind, this means that you should always have more than one admin, never giving anybody absolute authority over ALL systems. With offsite backups and redundant systems, the damage any single admin could do would be minimal. Maybe costly in terms of downtime, but nothing that's going to grind your business to a halt. Just as in government, there needs to be checks and balances. Giving a single admin too much power is a very bad idea.
What I want to know is: Why would a sysadmin do things like planting a logic bomb anyway? I mean, we're talking about your PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION here. This guy's never gonna work in IT again.
Ahem. Case in point to my other post in this thread.
Seriously. Let's not start filtering traffic because a few companies can't or won't change their business model in the face of changing technologies.
Besides, does anyone really think that that's going to work? It would be nearly impossible to filter out copyrighted material. As always, the Net will just route around the damage. That's the nature of the network and it was built that way on purpose.
General Motors is still the world's largest automaker, unless/until Toyota surpasses them this year. They are an industry leader in PHEV development, with plans to release their first PHEV in 2010, along with Toyota (Chinese auto maker http://www.bydauto.com.cn/ will be releasing a PHEV this year, but I wouldn't expect it win big in North America by any stretch of the imagination, especially since it is an unknown in that sector.) They are the #1 producer of ethanol-powered vehicles in the world. They sell cars and trucks in all the major economic regions -- Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, Latin America.
GM is nothing to sneeze at.
That being said, yes, that's been a part of Microsoft's strategy all along. Microsoft has intimated this themselves, while simultaneously explicitly denying it. Either it or another puppet like SCO will step up and sue somebody over patent violations in Linux.
All I gotta say is this: You know that aforementioned someone with big blue pockets? Yeah, that someone happens to be the largest patent holder in the world and happens to have invested large sums of money into Linux as their primary OS strategy for the next several years. I'm guessing they still won't be playing nice.
So now, suddenly, since there is a new version of the GPL, anyone who stays on the old version hates software freedom?
Wow. That's kind of an extreme way to look at it. Especially since RMS himself said that there's nothing wrong with continuing to use GPL V2, if that's what a project wants to do. If I were RMS, I would forbid the packaging of any GNU code with a GPLv2 GNU/Linux. Without altering the language of the GPL, simply put, he can't.
No, this is not a troll. It's just that with all of the major studios hopping to Blu Ray, well, let's just say that content often drives adoption rates for new formats. Looks like Sony wins this one.
*sigh*
The codecs HAVE been reverse engineered, however, you've been able to download them for free for IA32 for quite some time from Microsoft's Web site for free.
Oh, I'm not saying that Silverlight is great. As AKAImBatman would point out, before you implement Silverlight, you should really read the WHATWG specs, which are being developed in a truly open process, vs. Silverlight and Moonlight, which are nothing more than implementations of some spec developed for some proprietary crap.
On Europa, Soviet Russians look for YOU!
You're right in that it depends on the market. While, as others have pointed, PCI data handling can be outsourced readily, others are not so simple. Systems that deal with military classified or ITAR-controlled data can't be outsourced to foreign countries.
You're being very specific.
Is Microsoft a software company that produces desktop applications? Yes.
Is Adobe a software company that produces desktop applications? Yes.
Ergo, they are competitors. Maybe not niche-for-niche, but they are competitors.
Yeah, 'cause Ed Bott and the sources he quotes from are sooo unbiased. *rolls eyes*
Ed Bott has been on the Microsoft dole for years. Don't expect his articles to be anything but Microsoft spin.
And Gates is past his prime, but Ballmer is not? Steve Ballmer has been Billy's right hand man almost since the beginning of Microsoft. He's like Microsoft employee #1 or something. He's already been silently running things behind the scenes since the days of OS/2. Bill has been mostly a face-man in the last, say 15 years or so, still making a lot of high-level decisions, but the nitty gritty details have been handled by Ballmer for a very long time.
Grandparent is putting words in my mouth. I never said that 2008 (or any year) would be the year of Linux on the desktop. I think Linux on the desktop will continue to play a role in certain niche market segments, notably geek desktops, low-end desktops, some so-called "thin-client" solutions, in point-of-sale systems and so forth. Beyond that the future is still uncertain -- OS X has gained a lot of traction, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for Linux desktops. I see more of a mixed market. We don't need one desktop to rule them all. In the end, I doubt it will matter much what your desktop OS is as more and more you will see Internet-based and network centric applications running with platform transparency. Don't necessarily think browser apps or "Google Apps", but think more Google Earth with data to be stored both locally and on the Internet/intranet.
Microsoft has made the spec relatively open and it's being implemented by Miguel de Icaza & Co. as part of the Mono project.
By the time I worked there, /usr/std/* hadn't been updated in a long, long time and most of the tools were way out of date. The CSB was basically being phased out at the behest of one of the new higher-ups in IS&S.