Ok, bright guy - so you think it's a good programming decision on the part of Clarkconnect and other firewall authors to give the user the option of running server services on top of the firewall??
Of course you can turn the stuff off. The point is, it's misleading to release a security product with the ability to do quite insecure things with it. At the very least, it's bad practice and teaches bad habits.
Show me a single Cisco firewall product with Samba or print services optionally running on it?
I think "Joe Sixpack" is going to learn just enough to get by, either the "hard way" or by anecdotes from his buddies.
EG. He may not know what all's involved with DVD+RW vs. DVD-RW, but he will quickly get the idea that "DVD-RAM is the older stuff, that is really only good for backing up your files; people still buy it only because the discs come in cartridges that keep them from getting scratched up." He'll also probably buy (and return) either a DVD+RW or DVD-RW drive, once he makes a few movie discs with it and finds out those "darn re-recordable discs don't play in anything besides my computer!"
If he does a little more asking around, he will probably buy a Pioneer DVR-A03 drive that uses DVD-R discs, because his buddies tell him those are the most compatible ones around right now.
I looked at Clarkconnect, but I refuse to run it. Why? Because honestly, what kind of serious firewall product also leaves all those other services running? What's the point in protecting your systems and data behind a firewall, when at least some of your important files and servers *are* the firewall? There's no line of defense in front of your print server, file server, etc.
Eh... I remember in the "good old days" of computing (when the Commodore 64 ran most of the BBS's out there, and people had fights over which platform was best: Tandy, Commie, or Atari), Woz was pretty well-regarded in the phone phreaking and system hacking communities. I don't think it was necessarily because anyone thought he was really good at it, but more because he had "celebrity status", yet still kept friends in those circles.
I even remember getting called up, late one night, and added to a huge conference call that a phone phreaker set up. Woz was in the call, along with a lot of regular attendees of the 2600 group meetings and so forth. (It's been years now, but I believe they hacked a code for a conference calling service called "Alliance", and they were trying to see how long they could keep the call going -- adding new participants as other people got off the phone.)
I don't even recall what the topic of dicussion was, but I don't think it was anything substantial. Pretty much just a lot of "Oh wow, cool - so who's all in here tonight?" and misc. chit-chat.
It's always interesting to see people so quick to attack an author of security-related software when they ask how to essentially "de-secure" the product!
I mean, honestly, it's probably a little "over the top" to ban your IP over the question -- but looking at it from the author's side for a minute; You're basically trying to modify the package to suit your specific needs. If you do this, you run a risk of introducing new code that's untested as to the level of security inherent in it. If the author helps you do these modifications, and then your box gets hacked later, how do you think that reflects on his original product?
Richard Morrell may have his share of attitude problems, but I don't think this is really a fair one to use against him. Firewalls are *not* supposed to run other services. People keep trying to add ftp, printing and Samba file sharing services to Smoothwall, among other things - and it's just a BAD idea.
I work for a company that uses Citrix Metaframe and Windows 2000 terminal server, as well as a mix of PCs and thin clients.
So far, I've come to a few conclusions.
1. Be *very* cautious about deciding to serve an entire Windows desktop to the clients. There are unbelievable security/configuration headaches you'll encounter as time goes on. (Basically, what happens is a user can install a program while using the Citrix desktop. Even if he/she doesn't have the administrator rights that are required to succeed in installing the application to the Citrix server, it can still end up writing some changes to the system registry before it fails.) We've seen things like.GIF and.JPG files suddenly becoming associated with a shareware package (like LView Pro), which isn't even installed on our Citrix servers. Then, nobody can view the images by double-clicking on them in Windows Explorer until we change it back again.
2. Internet Explorer (or any web browser, for that matter) runs very poorly when served through a Citrix ICA session. It will work pretty well viewing a static HTML page, but things like Shockwave and Flash video will clobber the Citrix server's CPU and update very sluggishly on the client's system that's viewing it. Unfortunately, if you try getting around this by letting users run a locally installed browser instead, you can't easily handle things like their own personal sets of bookmarks/shortcuts, or cookies.
3. As others have already pointed out here, printing from inside Citrix is troublesome. We've had issues with print notifications going to the wrong user (never did get a decent explanation from Citrix on why this happens out the blue, every so often). More importantly, some printer drivers just refuse to work properly in a Citrix environment.
4. Avoid thin clients that come with "embedded NT" (NTE)! That's all we're using right now for thin clients (Netier XL1000 and XL2000's), and they're bad news. They take a LONG time to boot up, and they're too much like using a full-blown PC, minus the hard drive and cooling fans. Since they do still need the special "embedded" version of the OS, you have to pay the manufacturer's inflated prices to make you new OS images when you want to upgrade them. (They told me just to switch to embedded Linux on our Netiers, it would probably cost in the ballpark of $2000-2500 to have Wyse engineering work up a custom master image for us.) Then too, the "management software" they provide for most thins is less than stellar. At best, you get the exact same functionality you'd get using something like the latest verison of Symantec Ghost on your PCs (with the new Ghost Console). More often, you get a buggy system manager that requires learning yet another proprietary scripting language to push software updates to your thin clients.
Actually, if you go with a thin client solution primarily as an effort to discourage theft of PCs, you need to make sure you go with *really* thin clients.
For example, most thin clients I've seen (such as Wyse WinTerms) that run embedded Windows NT (often called NTE) come with a decent-sized flash disk chip in them, and use standard DIMM memory sticks. Basically, they're a full-fledged PC in a very small case with no need for CPU or cooling fans. They're quite desirable for re-purposing for other projects, such as an in-car MP3 player or a dedicated firewall/router.
I'd think anyone interested enough in PCs to steal parts from them, or "downgrade" the systems, would *love* to grab a thin client of this type to drag back to the dorm and hack around on.
You probably want to use something that only runs Windows CE from firmware and can't do anything but terminal emulation and Citrix ICA connections.
Not really.... I'm talking about what should be going on now, in the year 2002. I don't think there should be any more extensions of any kind on laws that allow CLECs to use the ILEC's copper or switching equipment.
Back when "Ma Bell" was a regulated monopoly (no such thing as MCI, Sprint, etc. - and you rented your phone), the copper was theirs, and theirs only - but that's what you'd expect, since they did have monopoly status.
Now, you have this weird philosophy that to "break up" the monopoly, you have to let "companies" form (that don't really do anything on their own besides run a billing dept. and advertisements for themselves), and proceed to use the existing "Ma Bell" resources as though they owned them.
I'm simply saying that the "right" way to phase out the monopoly status of the telcos is to completely deregulate them, but set them free to do business as a private company - still in full control of the assets (copper wire, etc.) that they've accumulated. Competitors shouldn't be allowed to use those resources for themselves - but *should* be allowed to use any other methods they like to transfer voice and/or data.
If this was done, the public would benefit (wow - real innovation happening, instead of "hack" technologies like ADSL that try to squeeze as much as possible over old copper), and the competition would be forced to have a good business plan in place. (Not just the ".com" type B.S. like Covad and others started out with - because hey, you actually have to buy your own infrastructure to get started!)
Re:...Unless you are on the receiving end of it
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 2
Yep - it works both ways. You'll always get some real "winners" as customers. I know... I did a lot of retail computer sales in the past. Wouldn't want to do it again, either. I had my share of putting up with idiots pretending to be "experts", yaking for close to an hour with incorrect information on new products coming out soon, and on how cool their setup at home was.
No matter what you price your stuff at, some people will make snide remarks on it, saying it's a "ripoff". So what? Just politely suggest they go buy the product(s) at the other store they know has a better price, and point out that you've had "no problem selling them at the price marked, so it doesn't make sense for our store to sell them for any less". Chances are actually not too bad the clown will come back and buy one from you, despite his ranting!
(I actually had that happen more than once. They'd show back up with some line about "I guess I *have* to pay your price... the other guy is out of them now.")
Heh... that's pretty funny and pathetic at the same time!
But really, the core problem is how they're going about "finding out" whatever "it" is that they don't know. Researching the problem should mean going to an outside source. Perhaps it's the Internet... or perhaps it's a matter of calling up the manufacturer's support line and getting more information.
Sure, you can't always provide an immediate answer to the customer - but you don't have to. If the customer knows his/her options (AKA. I'm sorry sir, but nobody here has that information. I can put in a call to the manufacturer for you, and have someone get back with you - but we probably won't have an answer until 48 hours from now.), he/she can choose to say "Yes, I really need to know this. Please have someone get back with me." Or more likely, "Oh, don't worry about it then. I was just curious."
Re: Corps. in pursuit of money
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Well, of course the corporations are "in pursuit of money". What do you think they opened up a business for in the first place? Free hand-outs and free labor?
The statement that "people have ideals and ethics; companies do not" bothers me though.
This belief trivializes the fact that behind every business is an individual, or small group of individuals, who brought it to fruition - and who guides it daily.
If a company "has no ethics", that merely shows that its C.E.O., board of directors, and other upper-level management have no ethics.
I never "thought the tech companies were different than other megacorps because they were started by people like us"! That's a pretty self-centered and foolish remark for anyone to make.
People "like me" are motivated by greed and money, just like people in any other profession. When given the opportunity to hide behind a slew of employees working under you, not to mention behind a respected brand name, would you still "do the right thing" all the time, even when it means losing a lot of potential profit for yourself?
Maybe you would.... but statistically, a *lot* of people wouldn't, no matter what industry they work in.
Actually, just as sort of a side note to this whole discussion, drive letters haven't quite "outlived their usefulness" yet. They're still needed, as long as people want to use DOS batch files without breaking anything.
If it wasn't for the need for "backwards compatibility", then you wouldn't see drive letters in Windows by now. Unfortunately, MS never really spent time replacing the DOS batch file language with an updated/more powerful replacement and gave people a clear set of instructions for editing existing batch files to work under the new system.
Re:...Unless you are on the receiving end of it
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 2
Whatever..... and how much money do you suppose it's worth to exhibit respectful/professional behavior?
It has nothing to do with "poor teenagers getting punished". It has everything to do with refusal to reward incompetence and a bad attitude.
I don't expect that the teenage sales clerk at Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, or wherever be a computer or electronics expert - expecially for the low wages they get paid. I do, however, expect they'll do their best to be helpful - and certainly not insult customers or give out incorrect advice. (If you don't know the answer, just admit you're "not sure" and offer to go find out!)
IMO, it's already untrue. Sure, you can build a "luxury" PC for several thousand dollars, with a GeForce 4 video card and latest P4 processor.
Those types of things are obviously unnecessary for the average user - and serve more as a status-symbol than anything practical. (Show me *one* home user who really has problems because an application they use every day just won't run on anything less than a 2Ghz P4.)
On the other hand though, most people have a real need to type letters and documents, on occasion. Today's budget-priced PC replaces the typewriter for that job, making it much more of a commodity item than a luxury item.
Furthermore, as an educational tool - a PC of some sort is becoming just as important as having the textbook used in a course.
Re:...Unless you are on the receiving end of it
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Umm... I hope you complained to his manager about his unacceptable behavior.
I'm so tired of rude, inconsiderate, and downright stupid sales clerks!
I'm starting to make a habit of filing complaints on these morons - because in the current economy, there's really no excuse for keeping some of these people employed. Much better individuals are out there, trying to find a job.
Just a few weeks ago, my wife got one of the people fired who worked at a Long John Silver's fast food place not far from here. They completely screwed up our order after we waited nearly 20 minutes for it (and while they served some friends of theirs first, even though they arrived after us) - and then copped an attitude when we just asked for a refund.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute.... I, too, grew up in what seems to be the last generation before video games became such a "staple item" of childhood.
I never did enjoy competitive sports though, and constantly fought pressure from both peers and teachers to play them. Until the end of high-school (and even in college, to an extent), I constantly witnessed favoritism towards those who were good at sports, and saw schools much more concerned with the quality of their sports teams than about the quality of their education.
While it doesn't hurt to tell your kids to "get outside" once in a while, when it's a nice day and they're wasting it all indoors, I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that you don't see "leagues of 10+ teams" like you used to.
Maybe kids are finally a little more free to choose their own interests, and to develop their minds outside of the classroom? Only a select few of those who excel at sports in school ever get to make a living from it later. By contrast, how many will find an interest in gaming (and by extension, computers) useful for a future career?
This is complete insanity. If Blizzard was really so concerned that their beta on their official server is under-used, making real testing too difficult, they should do what other companies like Microsoft do. Sell the beta openly, for a nominal fee! Make it expire after a certain amount of time, so people still end up having to buy the full version of the game after a few months if they want to keep playing it.
If anyone can order the beta online, for a few bucks to cover postage and handling (and maybe a token amount of profit like $1.00), plenty of people will do so and use it with whatever network it defaults to running on.
My point is that the "umbrella of guaranteed profits and privileged freedom from competiton" should be completely removed!
In fact, it probably should never have been there to begin with, but that's another subject - and quite possibly irrelevant now. (Obviously, we can't go back and change the past.)
Whenever a govt. regulated monopoly is granted/allowed, then yes - the business should have a certain level of "public responsibility". It's not really operating as anything other than a branch of govt. itself in that situation. (The post office makes a profit too, but it's still govt. owned and controlled.)
I'm completely opposed to restrictions on competitors running their own copper "without permission from the ILECs". The problem I have is with the current system of allowing new companies to form which do nothing more than provide an alternate billing dept. to the regional Bell company. "Hello! We're JoeSchmoe, your new alternative long distance provider. We'll just use Bell's circuits and switches here to put your calls through, and collect a profit from it."
Ridiculous you say? Then explain why there were so many Blues singers who made next to nothing throughout their career? Why in the world would you choose to perform music for a living, knowing it takes years before you become popular at best, and most likely will never achieve popular status?
I used to play guitar in a local band, and I did it because I truly loved doing it. Eventually though, I had to quit because the money we made playing out didn't pay the bills. Often-times, we lost money doing a show when all was said and done, because of equipment rental fees we paid out, people skimming off the top of ticket sales, etc. I knew that my skills in I.T. were much more valuable - so that's what I've done ever since.
Granted, yes, the classical performers were often paid by the rich to compose a musical score. So what? Does this mean they were just in it for the money? Why didn't Beethoven quit when he started going deaf? Wouldn't that make logical sense if it was "just a job" for him? He already got paid for lots of his earlier work....
Exactly.... I love how the govt. takes the stance that only people earning relatively little ever deserve to collect from the systems paid for nearly in full by the rest of us.
Right now, I live in a fairly poor neighborhood. (I wanted to own my own home instead of throw away a large part of my income on rent -- but I didn't have the money for anything in a better part of town.) I work full-time and do alright (not quite as well as the message poster I'm replying to, but I'm also in the midwest, where cost of living is less) -- but I can barely get by. My wife is not working right now, and we have a kid on the way. After we got married, I started getting endless collection agency letters for her past unpaid debts (mostly medical expenses, as she had a number of medical problems in the past and no health insurance).
We can't qualify for any assistance whatsoever, so if it wasn't for the generousity of her parents (bought us all of the furniture for the baby's room and most of her clothes to start out with), I don't know what we'd do.
Meanwhile, the neighbor who moved in next door is living with her husband, getting "section 8" subsidized rent and welfare (and claiming she's not living with him, so she can be sure to qualify for everything). Neither of them ever seem to go to work, yet they bought a new car last week (giving them 3 cars, total) and always have plenty of groceries. Their 3 kids living with them always seem to have plenty of new designer clothes and shoes, too.
Every morning when I go to work and I see that, I'm reminded what my tax dollars are paying for.
No, I don't necessarily think it should be the job of any available teacher to become instant "I.T. director" and set up a Linux network on the old PCs.
On the other hand, when you have limited resources, it's important to improvise sometimes. If Ms. Brown, the English teacher, was intelligent enough to major in English - I don't see why she's incapable of lending a hand in some of the PC setup, if that's what it takes to give her students the ability to use computers in her class.
I don't know anything about carpentry or home repair, but after I bought my house, I had to buy a couple books on home improvement, and take a crack at doing some of it. I managed to get it done. Sure, I needed a little help here and there, but I got it done because I don't have the available income to pay a professional to do it all for me.
Isn't it rather hypocritical for teachers to believe that the students (who arrive with little or no knowledge on a whole range of subjects being taught) can grasp this whole variety of subjects -- yet the teachers themselves can't be expected to learn something outside their specialty?
And no, I don't expect, nor want, them to serve roles such as "social worker" or "personal mentor". I think a teacher *can* become a student's personal mentor, but that's just a side-effect of being a good quality teacher.
I'm not even saying it's as simple as "lazy teachers" (though sometimes it can be!). I think the greater problem is of messed-up priorities within the school system. If we'd focus on teachers being teachers, instead of on them being a band-aid for a whole gamut of social issues beyond their control - they'd have more time to ensure that the tools donated to them are utilized better.
All I can do is listen, attentively, to what most people say that I encounter in daily life. From that (rather unscientific, but I think still pretty valid) information, I find very *few* people who like pop-rock like Brittney Spears.
I think they're generatng most of their sales on the "under age 15" crowd with that type of music. When you think about it, this only makes sense. Younger kids haven't lived long enough to be exposed to enough music to realize how cliche and "canned" that stuff is. Instead, they're drawn-in by all of the hype and glamour, and then they buy the CDs.
If that's all you focus on, as a record company, though - you eventually get looked upon just like a toy company; great for the kiddies, but not relevant to the rest of us.
Real, quality, music is meant to be so much more. Did any of the great classical composers concern themselves with what the teenagers thought of their image? Did any of the jazz greats cater to pre-teens? I think not. Instead, they composed music from their heart and soul - as much for their own satisfaction as for anyone else's. Either you appreciated the work that went into it, or you didn't - but there was no effort to "market" it to a particular crowd.
The recording industry would serve themselves much better in the long run if they'd stick to the business of recording/archiving/documenting all musicians that come to them with respectably well-done material.
I've been saying for years that the software industry as well as the movie and music industry need to adopt this sales strategy. In all cases, you're talking about something that costs you *very* little to replicate, once you spend the money up-front for the initial production.
The movie industry has already been doing this anyway, in the theaters. They spend millions to make the movie, and then they re-coup the costs and (typically) start earning a profit by selling movie tickets, one at a time, for under $10 each.
They need to come to grips with the fact that all of these "intellectual property" products are not necessary for anyone's survival... They're merely impulse buys and entertainment value. If it costs too much, people will pass on it.
Even items that *are* necessary for survival (groceries) are sold at razor-thin margins, and the profit is made in sheer volume of sales. It's a proven viable business model - and they need to start using it!
Ok, I wasn't going to post again - but I will reply to your flame, just because you're exactly the type of individual I have a problem with.
High-schools right now are a prime example of "garbage in, garbage out" - and why? Because they're full of teachers who don't want to make any extra effort to make the environment learning-friendly. I'm not just attacking the public schools here, either. The private schools are just as much to blame, but for different reasons.
I went to both, and in my experiences, private schools are to "full of themselves" to provide nearly as high quality of an education as they could be providing for the money. They waste a lot of time filling students' heads with a generic idea that they're somehow destined to be "better" than average, simply because they went to this private institution with a good "heritage". This, compounded with a strong emphasis on religion in many cases, makes for a less-than-ideal learning environment.
Anyway, my point is not that high-schools need to become "ITT tech", but that computers are valuable tools, when properly implemented. Yes, even *old* computers. Perhaps even *better* tools for the purpose than new computers, because of the cost-savings on expensive software licensing and outright budgetary expenses to buy new PCs every 2 or 3 years.
Take a look at the Linux Terminal Server Project, for example (http://www.ltsp.org). Here's a great way to serve a complete graphical desktop to a number of lesser machines that don't have anything in them except for a network adapter with custom boot EPROM. There's an offshoot of this project going on right now to build a "school friendly" version, with proper security restrictions implemented so students can't trash the environment they're using on the server.
If your school is full of teachers who aren't willing or competent enough to do something productive with 5 or 6 year old PCs - then maybe you need to start asking if they're competent enough to teach your kids other subjects?
If a school thinks they can teach everything the students need to know without the use of any computers, fine. It was certainly done long before the PC existed. I just have a problem with schools refusing donations of used PCs, merely because "it's too hard for us to find anything useful to do with them", and then turning around and spending *my* tax dollars for shiny new ones instead!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, bright guy - so you think it's a good programming decision on the part of Clarkconnect and other firewall authors to give the user the option of running server services on top of the firewall??
Of course you can turn the stuff off. The point is, it's misleading to release a security product with the ability to do quite insecure things with it. At the very least, it's bad practice and teaches bad habits.
Show me a single Cisco firewall product with Samba or print services optionally running on it?
I think "Joe Sixpack" is going to learn just enough to get by, either the "hard way" or by anecdotes from his buddies.
EG. He may not know what all's involved with DVD+RW vs. DVD-RW, but he will quickly get the idea that "DVD-RAM is the older stuff, that is really only good for backing up your files; people still buy it only because the discs come in cartridges that keep them from getting scratched up." He'll also probably buy (and return) either a DVD+RW or DVD-RW drive, once he makes a few movie discs with it and finds out those "darn re-recordable discs don't play in anything besides my computer!"
If he does a little more asking around, he will probably buy a Pioneer DVR-A03 drive that uses DVD-R discs, because his buddies tell him those are the most compatible ones around right now.
I looked at Clarkconnect, but I refuse to run it. Why? Because honestly, what kind of serious firewall product also leaves all those other services running? What's the point in protecting your systems and data behind a firewall, when at least some of your important files and servers *are* the firewall? There's no line of defense in front of your print server, file server, etc.
Eh... I remember in the "good old days" of computing (when the Commodore 64 ran most of the BBS's out there, and people had fights over which platform was best: Tandy, Commie, or Atari), Woz was pretty well-regarded in the phone phreaking and system hacking communities. I don't think it was necessarily because anyone thought he was really good at it, but more because he had "celebrity status", yet still kept friends in those circles.
I even remember getting called up, late one night, and added to a huge conference call that a phone phreaker set up. Woz was in the call, along with a lot of regular attendees of the 2600 group meetings and so forth. (It's been years now, but I believe they hacked a code for a conference calling service called "Alliance", and they were trying to see how long they could keep the call going -- adding new participants as other people got off the phone.)
I don't even recall what the topic of dicussion was, but I don't think it was anything substantial. Pretty much just a lot of "Oh wow, cool - so who's all in here tonight?" and misc. chit-chat.
It's always interesting to see people so quick to attack an author of security-related software when they ask how to essentially "de-secure" the product!
I mean, honestly, it's probably a little "over the top" to ban your IP over the question -- but looking at it from the author's side for a minute; You're basically trying to modify the package to suit your specific needs. If you do this, you run a risk of introducing new code that's untested as to the level of security inherent in it. If the author helps you do these modifications, and then your box gets hacked later, how do you think that reflects on his original product?
Richard Morrell may have his share of attitude problems, but I don't think this is really a fair one to use against him. Firewalls are *not* supposed to run other services. People keep trying to add ftp, printing and Samba file sharing services to Smoothwall, among other things - and it's just a BAD idea.
I work for a company that uses Citrix Metaframe and Windows 2000 terminal server, as well as a mix of PCs and thin clients.
.GIF and .JPG files suddenly becoming associated with a shareware package (like LView Pro), which isn't even installed on our Citrix servers. Then, nobody can view the images by double-clicking on them in Windows Explorer until we change it back again.
So far, I've come to a few conclusions.
1. Be *very* cautious about deciding to serve an entire Windows desktop to the clients. There are unbelievable security/configuration headaches you'll encounter as time goes on. (Basically, what happens is a user can install a program while using the Citrix desktop. Even if he/she doesn't have the administrator rights that are required to succeed in installing the application to the Citrix server, it can still end up writing some changes to the system registry before it fails.) We've seen things like
2. Internet Explorer (or any web browser, for that matter) runs very poorly when served through a Citrix ICA session. It will work pretty well viewing a static HTML page, but things like Shockwave and Flash video will clobber the Citrix server's CPU and update very sluggishly on the client's system that's viewing it. Unfortunately, if you try getting around this by letting users run a locally installed browser instead, you can't easily handle things like their own personal sets of bookmarks/shortcuts, or cookies.
3. As others have already pointed out here, printing from inside Citrix is troublesome. We've had issues with print notifications going to the wrong user (never did get a decent explanation from Citrix on why this happens out the blue, every so often). More importantly, some printer drivers just refuse to work properly in a Citrix environment.
4. Avoid thin clients that come with "embedded NT" (NTE)! That's all we're using right now for thin clients (Netier XL1000 and XL2000's), and they're bad news. They take a LONG time to boot up, and they're too much like using a full-blown PC, minus the hard drive and cooling fans. Since they do still need the special "embedded" version of the OS, you have to pay the manufacturer's inflated prices to make you new OS images when you want to upgrade them. (They told me just to switch to embedded Linux on our Netiers, it would probably cost in the ballpark of $2000-2500 to have Wyse engineering work up a custom master image for us.) Then too, the "management software" they provide for most thins is less than stellar. At best, you get the exact same functionality you'd get using something like the latest verison of Symantec Ghost on your PCs (with the new Ghost Console). More often, you get a buggy system manager that requires learning yet another proprietary scripting language to push software updates to your thin clients.
Actually, if you go with a thin client solution primarily as an effort to discourage theft of PCs, you need to make sure you go with *really* thin clients.
For example, most thin clients I've seen (such as Wyse WinTerms) that run embedded Windows NT (often called NTE) come with a decent-sized flash disk chip in them, and use standard DIMM memory sticks. Basically, they're a full-fledged PC in a very small case with no need for CPU or cooling fans. They're quite desirable for re-purposing for other projects, such as an in-car MP3 player or a dedicated firewall/router.
I'd think anyone interested enough in PCs to steal parts from them, or "downgrade" the systems, would *love* to grab a thin client of this type to drag back to the dorm and hack around on.
You probably want to use something that only runs Windows CE from firmware and can't do anything but terminal emulation and Citrix ICA connections.
Not really.... I'm talking about what should be going on now, in the year 2002. I don't think there should be any more extensions of any kind on laws that allow CLECs to use the ILEC's copper or switching equipment.
Back when "Ma Bell" was a regulated monopoly (no such thing as MCI, Sprint, etc. - and you rented your phone), the copper was theirs, and theirs only - but that's what you'd expect, since they did have monopoly status.
Now, you have this weird philosophy that to "break up" the monopoly, you have to let "companies" form (that don't really do anything on their own besides run a billing dept. and advertisements for themselves), and proceed to use the existing "Ma Bell" resources as though they owned them.
I'm simply saying that the "right" way to phase out the monopoly status of the telcos is to completely deregulate them, but set them free to do business as a private company - still in full control of the assets (copper wire, etc.) that they've accumulated. Competitors shouldn't be allowed to use those resources for themselves - but *should* be allowed to use any other methods they like to transfer voice and/or data.
If this was done, the public would benefit (wow - real innovation happening, instead of "hack" technologies like ADSL that try to squeeze as much as possible over old copper), and the competition would be forced to have a good business plan in place. (Not just the ".com" type B.S. like Covad and others started out with - because hey, you actually have to buy your own infrastructure to get started!)
Yep - it works both ways. You'll always get some real "winners" as customers. I know... I did a lot of retail computer sales in the past. Wouldn't want to do it again, either. I had my share of putting up with idiots pretending to be "experts", yaking for close to an hour with incorrect information on new products coming out soon, and on how cool their setup at home was.
No matter what you price your stuff at, some people will make snide remarks on it, saying it's a "ripoff". So what? Just politely suggest they go buy the product(s) at the other store they know has a better price, and point out that you've had "no problem selling them at the price marked, so it doesn't make sense for our store to sell them for any less". Chances are actually not too bad the clown will come back and buy one from you, despite his ranting!
(I actually had that happen more than once. They'd show back up with some line about "I guess I *have* to pay your price... the other guy is out of them now.")
Heh... that's pretty funny and pathetic at the same time!
But really, the core problem is how they're going about "finding out" whatever "it" is that they don't know. Researching the problem should mean going to an outside source. Perhaps it's the Internet... or perhaps it's a matter of calling up the manufacturer's support line and getting more information.
Sure, you can't always provide an immediate answer to the customer - but you don't have to. If the customer knows his/her options (AKA. I'm sorry sir, but nobody here has that information. I can put in a call to the manufacturer for you, and have someone get back with you - but we probably won't have an answer until 48 hours from now.), he/she can choose to say "Yes, I really need to know this. Please have someone get back with me." Or more likely, "Oh, don't worry about it then. I was just curious."
Well, of course the corporations are "in pursuit of money". What do you think they opened up a business for in the first place? Free hand-outs and free labor?
The statement that "people have ideals and ethics; companies do not" bothers me though.
This belief trivializes the fact that behind every business is an individual, or small group of individuals, who brought it to fruition - and who guides it daily.
If a company "has no ethics", that merely shows that its C.E.O., board of directors, and other upper-level management have no ethics.
I never "thought the tech companies were different than other megacorps because they were started by people like us"! That's a pretty self-centered and foolish remark for anyone to make.
People "like me" are motivated by greed and money, just like people in any other profession.
When given the opportunity to hide behind a slew of employees working under you, not to mention behind a respected brand name, would you still "do the right thing" all the time, even when it means losing a lot of potential profit for yourself?
Maybe you would.... but statistically, a *lot* of people wouldn't, no matter what industry they work in.
Actually, just as sort of a side note to this whole discussion, drive letters haven't quite "outlived their usefulness" yet. They're still needed, as long as people want to use DOS batch files without breaking anything.
If it wasn't for the need for "backwards compatibility", then you wouldn't see drive letters in Windows by now. Unfortunately, MS never really spent time replacing the DOS batch file language with an updated/more powerful replacement and gave people a clear set of instructions for editing existing batch files to work under the new system.
Whatever..... and how much money do you suppose it's worth to exhibit respectful/professional behavior?
It has nothing to do with "poor teenagers getting punished". It has everything to do with refusal to reward incompetence and a bad attitude.
I don't expect that the teenage sales clerk at Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, or wherever be a computer or electronics expert - expecially for the low wages they get paid. I do, however, expect they'll do their best to be helpful - and certainly not insult customers or give out incorrect advice. (If you don't know the answer, just admit you're "not sure" and offer to go find out!)
IMO, it's already untrue. Sure, you can build a "luxury" PC for several thousand dollars, with a GeForce 4 video card and latest P4 processor.
Those types of things are obviously unnecessary for the average user - and serve more as a status-symbol than anything practical. (Show me *one* home user who really has problems because an application they use every day just won't run on anything less than a 2Ghz P4.)
On the other hand though, most people have a real need to type letters and documents, on occasion. Today's budget-priced PC replaces the typewriter for that job, making it much more of a commodity item than a luxury item.
Furthermore, as an educational tool - a PC of some sort is becoming just as important as having the textbook used in a course.
Umm... I hope you complained to his manager about his unacceptable behavior.
I'm so tired of rude, inconsiderate, and downright stupid sales clerks!
I'm starting to make a habit of filing complaints on these morons - because in the current economy, there's really no excuse for keeping some of these people employed. Much better individuals are out there, trying to find a job.
Just a few weeks ago, my wife got one of the people fired who worked at a Long John Silver's fast food place not far from here. They completely screwed up our order after we waited nearly 20 minutes for it (and while they served some friends of theirs first, even though they arrived after us) - and then copped an attitude when we just asked for a refund.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute....
I, too, grew up in what seems to be the last generation before video games became such a "staple item" of childhood.
I never did enjoy competitive sports though, and constantly fought pressure from both peers and teachers to play them. Until the end of high-school (and even in college, to an extent), I constantly witnessed favoritism towards those who were good at sports, and saw schools much more concerned with the quality of their sports teams than about the quality of their education.
While it doesn't hurt to tell your kids to "get outside" once in a while, when it's a nice day and they're wasting it all indoors, I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that you don't see "leagues of 10+ teams" like you used to.
Maybe kids are finally a little more free to choose their own interests, and to develop their minds outside of the classroom? Only a select few of those who excel at sports in school ever get to make a living from it later. By contrast, how many will find an interest in gaming (and by extension, computers) useful for a future career?
Just to further demonstrate MS's lack of stability, security, and so forth:
http://www.liquidwd.freeserve.co.uk/
This is complete insanity. If Blizzard was really so concerned that their beta on their official server is under-used, making real testing too difficult, they should do what other companies like Microsoft do. Sell the beta openly, for a nominal fee! Make it expire after a certain amount of time, so people still end up having to buy the full version of the game after a few months if they want to keep playing it.
If anyone can order the beta online, for a few bucks to cover postage and handling (and maybe a token amount of profit like $1.00), plenty of people will do so and use it with whatever network it defaults to running on.
My point is that the "umbrella of guaranteed profits and privileged freedom from competiton" should be completely removed!
In fact, it probably should never have been there to begin with, but that's another subject - and quite possibly irrelevant now. (Obviously, we can't go back and change the past.)
Whenever a govt. regulated monopoly is granted/allowed, then yes - the business should have a certain level of "public responsibility". It's not really operating as anything other than a branch of govt. itself in that situation. (The post office makes a profit too, but it's still govt. owned and controlled.)
I'm completely opposed to restrictions on competitors running their own copper "without permission from the ILECs". The problem I have is with the current system of allowing new companies to form which do nothing more than provide an alternate billing dept. to the regional Bell company. "Hello! We're JoeSchmoe, your new alternative long distance provider. We'll just use Bell's circuits and switches here to put your calls through, and collect a profit from it."
Ridiculous you say? Then explain why there were so many Blues singers who made next to nothing throughout their career? Why in the world would you choose to perform music for a living, knowing it takes years before you become popular at best, and most likely will never achieve popular status?
I used to play guitar in a local band, and I did it because I truly loved doing it. Eventually though, I had to quit because the money we made playing out didn't pay the bills. Often-times, we lost money doing a show when all was said and done, because of equipment rental fees we paid out, people skimming off the top of ticket sales, etc. I knew that my skills in I.T. were much more valuable - so that's what I've done ever since.
Granted, yes, the classical performers were often paid by the rich to compose a musical score. So what? Does this mean they were just in it for the money? Why didn't Beethoven quit when he started going deaf? Wouldn't that make logical sense if it was "just a job" for him? He already got paid for lots of his earlier work....
Exactly.... I love how the govt. takes the stance that only people earning relatively little ever deserve to collect from the systems paid for nearly in full by the rest of us.
Right now, I live in a fairly poor neighborhood. (I wanted to own my own home instead of throw away a large part of my income on rent -- but I didn't have the money for anything in a better part of town.) I work full-time and do alright (not quite as well as the message poster I'm replying to, but I'm also in the midwest, where cost of living is less) -- but I can barely get by. My wife is not working right now, and we have a kid on the way. After we got married, I started getting endless collection agency letters for her past unpaid debts (mostly medical expenses, as she had a number of medical problems in the past and no health insurance).
We can't qualify for any assistance whatsoever, so if it wasn't for the generousity of her parents (bought us all of the furniture for the baby's room and most of her clothes to start out with), I don't know what we'd do.
Meanwhile, the neighbor who moved in next door is living with her husband, getting "section 8" subsidized rent and welfare (and claiming she's not living with him, so she can be sure to qualify for everything). Neither of them ever seem to go to work, yet they bought a new car last week (giving them 3 cars, total) and always have plenty of groceries.
Their 3 kids living with them always seem to have plenty of new designer clothes and shoes, too.
Every morning when I go to work and I see that, I'm reminded what my tax dollars are paying for.
No, I don't necessarily think it should be the job of any available teacher to become instant "I.T. director" and set up a Linux network on the old PCs.
On the other hand, when you have limited resources, it's important to improvise sometimes.
If Ms. Brown, the English teacher, was intelligent enough to major in English - I don't see why she's incapable of lending a hand in some of the PC setup, if that's what it takes to give her students the ability to use computers in her class.
I don't know anything about carpentry or home repair, but after I bought my house, I had to buy a couple books on home improvement, and take a crack at doing some of it. I managed to get it done. Sure, I needed a little help here and there, but I got it done because I don't have the available income to pay a professional to do it all for me.
Isn't it rather hypocritical for teachers to believe that the students (who arrive with little or no knowledge on a whole range of subjects being taught) can grasp this whole variety of subjects -- yet the teachers themselves can't be expected to learn something outside their specialty?
And no, I don't expect, nor want, them to serve roles such as "social worker" or "personal mentor". I think a teacher *can* become a student's personal mentor, but that's just a side-effect of being a good quality teacher.
I'm not even saying it's as simple as "lazy teachers" (though sometimes it can be!). I think the greater problem is of messed-up priorities within the school system. If we'd focus on teachers being teachers, instead of on them being a band-aid for a whole gamut of social issues beyond their control - they'd have more time to ensure that the tools donated to them are utilized better.
All I can do is listen, attentively, to what most people say that I encounter in daily life. From that (rather unscientific, but I think still pretty valid) information, I find very *few* people who like pop-rock like Brittney Spears.
I think they're generatng most of their sales on the "under age 15" crowd with that type of music. When you think about it, this only makes sense. Younger kids haven't lived long enough to be exposed to enough music to realize how cliche and "canned" that stuff is. Instead, they're drawn-in by all of the hype and glamour, and then they buy the CDs.
If that's all you focus on, as a record company, though - you eventually get looked upon just like a toy company; great for the kiddies, but not relevant to the rest of us.
Real, quality, music is meant to be so much more. Did any of the great classical composers concern themselves with what the teenagers thought of their image? Did any of the jazz greats cater to pre-teens? I think not. Instead, they composed music from their heart and soul - as much for their own satisfaction as for anyone else's. Either you appreciated the work that went into it, or you didn't - but there was no effort to "market" it to a particular crowd.
The recording industry would serve themselves much better in the long run if they'd stick to the business of recording/archiving/documenting all musicians that come to them with respectably well-done material.
I've been saying for years that the software industry as well as the movie and music industry need to adopt this sales strategy. In all cases, you're talking about something that costs you *very* little to replicate, once you spend the money up-front for the initial production.
The movie industry has already been doing this anyway, in the theaters. They spend millions to make the movie, and then they re-coup the costs and (typically) start earning a profit by selling movie tickets, one at a time, for under $10 each.
They need to come to grips with the fact that all of these "intellectual property" products are not necessary for anyone's survival... They're merely impulse buys and entertainment value. If it costs too much, people will pass on it.
Even items that *are* necessary for survival (groceries) are sold at razor-thin margins, and the profit is made in sheer volume of sales. It's a proven viable business model - and they need to start using it!
Ok, I wasn't going to post again - but I will reply to your flame, just because you're exactly the type of individual I have a problem with.
High-schools right now are a prime example of "garbage in, garbage out" - and why? Because they're full of teachers who don't want to make any extra effort to make the environment learning-friendly. I'm not just attacking the public schools here, either. The private schools are just as much to blame, but for different reasons.
I went to both, and in my experiences, private schools are to "full of themselves" to provide nearly as high quality of an education as they could be providing for the money. They waste a lot of time filling students' heads with a generic idea that they're somehow destined to be "better" than average, simply because they went to this private institution with a good "heritage". This, compounded with a strong emphasis on religion in many cases, makes for a less-than-ideal learning environment.
Anyway, my point is not that high-schools need to become "ITT tech", but that computers are valuable tools, when properly implemented. Yes, even *old* computers. Perhaps even *better* tools for the purpose than new computers, because of the cost-savings on expensive software licensing and outright budgetary expenses to buy new PCs every 2 or 3 years.
Take a look at the Linux Terminal Server Project, for example (http://www.ltsp.org). Here's a great way to serve a complete graphical desktop to a number of lesser machines that don't have anything in them except for a network adapter with custom boot EPROM. There's an offshoot of this project going on right now to build a "school friendly" version, with proper security restrictions implemented so students can't trash the environment they're using on the server.
If your school is full of teachers who aren't willing or competent enough to do something productive with 5 or 6 year old PCs - then maybe you need to start asking if they're competent enough to teach your kids other subjects?
If a school thinks they can teach everything the students need to know without the use of any computers, fine. It was certainly done long before the PC existed. I just have a problem with schools refusing donations of used PCs, merely because "it's too hard for us to find anything useful to do with them", and then turning around and spending *my* tax dollars for shiny new ones instead!