I recently tried reinstalling windows on a Dell, using the Dell 'recovery' CDs (OS and drivers) that came with the box. Everything worked except the video. Windows had to boot into 'safe' mode in order for the video to work, and then it was at reduced bit-depth. This was a factory shipped Dell, with factory shipped CDS - I added nothing to it. Of course the problem can be easily fixed, but my point was that it was a problem in the first place.
I booted the same box with Ubuntu live 5.04. X came up fine, no problems. I had to do nothing at all for it to work just fine.
Windows: 0 Linux: 1
This kind of thing happens way too often. What the hell is MS doing with its time - making TPS reports? I guess this is what you get when you spend your resources buying software instead of making software.
More twists means less near end crosstalk. Cat 6 also specifies minium bend radiuses. Something a girl I once made out with paid attention to.
A good article on cat 6 can be found at The Data Center Journal It points out things like why you don't want to use anything that would clamp down to tightly on the Cat 6 runs, like nylon tie-wraps. Use velcro instead. That said, I've run 1Gbps through home-made Cat5 with no errors, albiet for short distances (less than 50 feet).
It makes sense that PHB's (and their favorite newspaper) are confused by OSS. To them, its like a ghost because its built and maintained by a diverse community, rather than by a hierarchical mgmt structure. Since most of them are themselves dedicated to maintaining a mgmt hierarchy, the absense of such doesn't make sense to them. In the case of linux, they look for 'who makes linux', and see nothing recognizable - yet linux exists, and works very well, quite often outdoing its 'commercial' counterparts depending on what you want it to do.
Whether or not Mike Lynn did what he did out of ego, altruism, professional integrity, or whether or not it fell within the normal bounds of how to disclose a vulnerability, while interesting discussions, are perhaps less interesting than the possibility that Cisco wanted to spin their way out, rather than code their way out.
If [cC]isco adopts the spinout method of handling vulnerabilities, or if that mentality takes hold within their corporate culture, the impact on the internet will without question be swift and negative. True, they'll get also get swiftly eclipsed by competitors, but in the meantime there would be Internet-wide trouble.
Both proposals are based on the Multiple Input, Multiple Output (MIMO) many-antennae technique and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) to boost data throughput rates using two- and four-antenna arrays
Is one of the antennas propellor shaped - placed atop beannie?
It must be a *really* bad hole - they might just as well hang a "crack me" sign on their heads. Either that, or they've hired security experts from Microsoft.
If I couldn't 'surf the web', I couldn't find the information I need in order to do my job. Its probably that way for anyone working in any IT field who needs to find current information on any kind of technology. Its not that print isn't usefull - its just too far behind, and in order to have enough information on hand you'd need a small to medium sized library in your cube.
Any of these PHB-centric web-surfing-is-bad studies hit that one?
SPF seem straightforward enough, and if senderid will operate with it, that seems pretty cool. SPF seems like it might no allow forwarding and remailing to work, though. Plus, spammers can just get a throwaway domain, like 123.com (not a real throwaway domain, BTW) and just use it. SPF just seems a little too much in the "easy to go around camp" all by itself.
Whether or not senderid is worth anything depends on whether or not its used by everyone. Sure, it'll put a big spam banner at the top of a lot of phishing messages. But, what about legit messages from banks, friends, and government agencies who aren't using senderid?
For something like this to work, its needs to be widely accepted. MS has been able to illegally use its monopoly in the past to get its way with the industry, but you'd think by now they wuold have figured out that they don't have a monopoly on email. God, these people are stupid. They're just making sure senderid fails, along with other really usefull things. MS's boneheaded antics are just making it harder to get a decent solution out there.
In boot camp, we were told we were being trained at a level equivilent to a third grade learning (military attempt at boosting self-esteem). Third grade is about 8 years old. Since this kid get her cert at 9, we can now assume that MS certification is more difficult than ARMY basic training.
Judging from the MS admins I've dealt with, this seems about right.
If you go to Secundia and check their ratings of, for example, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition with, for example, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9, and RedHat Enterprise Linux ES 4, it looks like:
Microsoft: 7 less critical unpatched vulnerabilities SUSE: 0 unpatched vulnerabilities Redhat: 1 not critical unpatched vulnerabilities
My question is: Why didn't the article's author spend the 10 minutes of research I did? Granted, there's more to it that just grabbing summaries from Secundia. But, if the author couldn't even do that, how useful is quoting 'experts'? At least Secundia can make a believable claim to be unbiased.
As for 'neck and neck', 7-0-1 doesn't look 'neck and neck' to me. Unless, of course, its Bill's FUD noose around my neck.
Hard to tell from the article's screenshots if the anti-aliasing was any good. Looking at some other screenshots it looks as though the answer is no. The anti-aliasing still looks like crap - inconsistant with obvious jaggies. It looks like windows fans will buy anything MS tells them to buy.
either you work with your eyes shut or are the luckiest admin I ever heard of
Sophomoric ad hominem nonsense aside, just follow the recommended practices, don't do anything unusual (like putting subnets in vlan 1), and keep an eye on buffer and memory usage and inband resource usage. You'll see IOS bugs coming before they happen. Never rely on turnkey network management solutions. Do that, and of course you'll never see what hit you.
As for duplex failures, always make sure hosts are set to negotiate on gig links. Read the IEEE ethernet spec, and you can see why.
As for slow responses, blaming that on the network reflects the human tendancy to fear the unknown. Capture some traffic and examine TCP headers. It's nearly always a host choking on its own protocol stack, or an application problem.
Often, when this happens, people switch a host from one port to another, notice that things start moving again, and they think it was the switch port, when in fact, moving the link caused the host to clear out its protocol stack.
Never use routing to solve security problems. The practice is common among MS admins who have learned what the word 'route' means, and happens in Unix admins, too It causes unpredictable situations. Don't try to force traffic through certain paths at layer 2. That get people into trouble as well. Watch out for WinXP wireless. That'll sometimes make it look like a switch reloaded when someone plugges an XP wireless laptop into a wired link. The sociopathic XP OS often turns on bridging and gatewaying (as opposed to routing), causing layer 2 problems on the network, Even when XP doesn't turn on bridging, the gatewaying screws up other XP boxen, both wired and wireless. They get real slow - benefit of a host offering gatewaying and others jumping on board.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently tried reinstalling windows on a Dell, using the Dell 'recovery' CDs (OS and drivers) that came with the box. Everything worked except the video. Windows had to boot into 'safe' mode in order for the video to work, and then it was at reduced bit-depth. This was a factory shipped Dell, with factory shipped CDS - I added nothing to it. Of course the problem can be easily fixed, but my point was that it was a problem in the first place.
I booted the same box with Ubuntu live 5.04. X came up fine, no problems. I had to do nothing at all for it to work just fine.
Windows: 0
Linux: 1
This kind of thing happens way too often. What the hell is MS doing with its time - making TPS reports? I guess this is what you get when you spend your resources buying software instead of making software.
More twists means less near end crosstalk. Cat 6 also specifies minium bend radiuses. Something a girl I once made out with paid attention to.
A good article on cat 6 can be found at The Data Center Journal It points out things like why you don't want to use anything that would clamp down to tightly on the Cat 6 runs, like nylon tie-wraps. Use velcro instead. That said, I've run 1Gbps through home-made Cat5 with no errors, albiet for short distances (less than 50 feet).
Still, $250 just to read a standard. Not good.
Before Windows vista? Hmmm...
Why mention George "DWI" Bush? Its just interesting Science.
Good news for any 'hacker' they're thinking of tracking down.
"Suddenly, all information on the suspect disappeared from their computer systems..."
It makes sense that PHB's (and their favorite newspaper) are confused by OSS. To them, its like a ghost because its built and maintained by a diverse community, rather than by a hierarchical mgmt structure. Since most of them are themselves dedicated to maintaining a mgmt hierarchy, the absense of such doesn't make sense to them. In the case of linux, they look for 'who makes linux', and see nothing recognizable - yet linux exists, and works very well, quite often outdoing its 'commercial' counterparts depending on what you want it to do.
To them, its like a ghost.
Scores of users who readily accept that things don't work very well, and that computers are generally irritating.
... Oh My!
Viruses, zombies, and worms
This incident does not appear to be due to a weakness in Cisco products or technologies.
except the ones used for the search tool...
Whether or not Mike Lynn did what he did out of ego, altruism, professional integrity, or whether or not it fell within the normal bounds of how to disclose a vulnerability, while interesting discussions, are perhaps less interesting than the possibility that Cisco wanted to spin their way out, rather than code their way out.
If [cC]isco adopts the spinout method of handling vulnerabilities, or if that mentality takes hold within their corporate culture, the impact on the internet will without question be swift and negative. True, they'll get also get swiftly eclipsed by competitors, but in the meantime there would be Internet-wide trouble.
Both proposals are based on the Multiple Input, Multiple Output (MIMO) many-antennae technique and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) to boost data throughput rates using two- and four-antenna arrays
Is one of the antennas propellor shaped - placed atop beannie?
I've already got one.
It must be a *really* bad hole - they might just as well hang a "crack me" sign on their heads. Either that, or they've hired security experts from Microsoft.
he at least have waited a few weeks to see how Cisco responds
He waited a few months.
Does that figure include the cost incurred by their culture of software neglect?
Should it?
Is therfore now officially communist, according to MS.
My impression was that the author was refering to MacOS - the pre-OSX OS.
If I couldn't 'surf the web', I couldn't find the information I need in order to do my job. Its probably that way for anyone working in any IT field who needs to find current information on any kind of technology. Its not that print isn't usefull - its just too far behind, and in order to have enough information on hand you'd need a small to medium sized library in your cube.
Any of these PHB-centric web-surfing-is-bad studies hit that one?
"Windows is sort of a GUI version of the Mac's operating system"
As opposed to the non-gui version of Mac's operating system....
SPF seem straightforward enough, and if senderid will operate with it, that seems pretty cool. SPF seems like it might no allow forwarding and remailing to work, though. Plus, spammers can just get a throwaway domain, like 123.com (not a real throwaway domain, BTW) and just use it. SPF just seems a little too much in the "easy to go around camp" all by itself.
Whether or not senderid is worth anything depends on whether or not its used by everyone. Sure, it'll put a big spam banner at the top of a lot of phishing messages. But, what about legit messages from banks, friends, and government agencies who aren't using senderid?
For something like this to work, its needs to be widely accepted. MS has been able to illegally use its monopoly in the past to get its way with the industry, but you'd think by now they wuold have figured out that they don't have a monopoly on email. God, these people are stupid. They're just making sure senderid fails, along with other really usefull things. MS's boneheaded antics are just making it harder to get a decent solution out there.
In boot camp, we were told we were being trained at a level equivilent to a third grade learning (military attempt at boosting self-esteem). Third grade is about 8 years old. Since this kid get her cert at 9, we can now assume that MS certification is more difficult than ARMY basic training.
Judging from the MS admins I've dealt with, this seems about right.
If you go to Secundia and check their ratings of, for example, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition with, for example, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9, and RedHat Enterprise Linux ES 4, it looks like:
Microsoft: 7 less critical unpatched vulnerabilities
SUSE: 0 unpatched vulnerabilities
Redhat: 1 not critical unpatched vulnerabilities
My question is: Why didn't the article's author spend the 10 minutes of research I did? Granted, there's more to it that just grabbing summaries from Secundia. But, if the author couldn't even do that, how useful is quoting 'experts'? At least Secundia can make a believable claim to be unbiased.
As for 'neck and neck', 7-0-1 doesn't look 'neck and neck' to me. Unless, of course, its Bill's FUD noose around my neck.
Hard to tell from the article's screenshots if the anti-aliasing was any good. Looking at some other screenshots it looks as though the answer is no. The anti-aliasing still looks like crap - inconsistant with obvious jaggies. It looks like windows fans will buy anything MS tells them to buy.
either you work with your eyes shut or are the luckiest admin I ever heard of
Sophomoric ad hominem nonsense aside, just follow the recommended practices, don't do anything unusual (like putting subnets in vlan 1), and keep an eye on buffer and memory usage and inband resource usage. You'll see IOS bugs coming before they happen. Never rely on turnkey network management solutions. Do that, and of course you'll never see what hit you.
As for duplex failures, always make sure hosts are set to negotiate on gig links. Read the IEEE ethernet spec, and you can see why.
As for slow responses, blaming that on the network reflects the human tendancy to fear the unknown. Capture some traffic and examine TCP headers. It's nearly always a host choking on its own protocol stack, or an application problem.
Often, when this happens, people switch a host from one port to another, notice that things start moving again, and they think it was the switch port, when in fact, moving the link caused the host to clear out its protocol stack.
Never use routing to solve security problems. The practice is common among MS admins who have learned what the word 'route' means, and happens in Unix admins, too It causes unpredictable situations. Don't try to force traffic through certain paths at layer 2. That get people into trouble as well. Watch out for WinXP wireless. That'll sometimes make it look like a switch reloaded when someone plugges an XP wireless laptop into a wired link. The sociopathic XP OS often turns on bridging and gatewaying (as opposed to routing), causing layer 2 problems on the network, Even when XP doesn't turn on bridging, the gatewaying screws up other XP boxen, both wired and wireless. They get real slow - benefit of a host offering gatewaying and others jumping on board.
--
*sigh* Cowards....
He doth protest too much, methinks