In the real world sysadmin are often not allowed to upgrade or patch production servers because of the required downtime and testing needed for the production apps running on those servers.
In the real world, sysadmins employ test servers to, well, test patches and upgrades prior to rolling them out on production servers. Minimal downtime of mision-critical servers required.
Do not blame the admins, they are between a rock and a hard place.
Sure they are...if they haven't taken the time and effort to set up an appropriate test environment. But who's fault is that, really?
If anything, blame them for taking jobs supporting M$'s sorry excuse for an operating system, instead of something production worthy, like, oh, Solaris.
Ahh...the obligatory M$ slam. I was wondering when we'd see that...well done.
He's NOT a computer professional, he's an Op-Ed columnist. That would be why his opinion is on the NYT Op-Ed page. He has a background in science writing among other things.
I know he's not a computer profssional...I read his bio...in fact, in order to make that clear, I linked to it in my original post. Congragulations on missing the point.
Here's the oh-so-hard-to-find bio for you savvy computer professionals:
So you included a link to the very bio I linked to in the GP...the bio you accused me of not reading. Congragulations...you're now officially redundant.
Not wanting to install a patch to a production server is not necessarily complacency. In point of fact, in some cases, it *is* vigilance, assuming you've ever installed a patch and seen software mysteriously and suddeny cease functioning...it happens on Windows servers from time to time, if you didn't know.
Actually, I do know...as it has happened to me more than once (Windows XP SP2 breaking WinFax and Windows Server 2003 SP1 breaking Windows Update immediately spring to mind). This is where the concept of a QA server comes into play. Any sysadmin worth their salt will have some sort of test server set up where they can test updates, patches, service packs, etc. without endangering their mission-critical systems. It's a simple process, but apparently thre's a lot of sysadmins out there who can't be bothered to exercise due dilligence...hence, my accusation of complacency.
Seems like an astroturf story to me i.e. a story planted in the media by certain interests who don't want any anonymity on the Internet, or anywhere else.
Certainly looks like an accusation of astroturfing to me...if by 'seems like an astroturf story to me', you didn't mean to insinuate that the story seemed like an astroturf story to you, perhaps you shouldn't have said so.
Perhaps you can take this opportunity to clarify your position...what exactly did you mean by the statement 'seems like an astroturf' story to me', if your intent wasn't to accuse Nitesh Dhanjani and O'Reilly of astroturfing?
I'd hardly accuse O'Reilly of astroturfing...besides, he spelled out the process in great detail. If you have any doubts, you can just replicate his experiment yourself.
It's great that so many eyes are going to be on the shuttle this time around, but do we have a plan for actually dealing with a catastrophe, past verifying that it exists? Do we have a rescue mission planned if something bad happens? And what happens when the rescue mission gets a hole in their wing???
I want to see the Shuttle go up again as badly as the next guy, but they're going up without satisfying the recommendations of the committee. More cameras isn't going to help much, apart from letting the astronauts know they're doomed.
Whenever you have a system that allows for anonymity, you will always have people that abuse that anonymity for their own nefarious purposes. If you have a mechanism for singling out and dealing with the abusers, you don't have anonymity anymore.
There's no way around it....you simply have to take the good with the bad.
Microsoft's AntiSpyware worked well because Microsoft didn't write it...Giant did. Back before Microsoft got their hooks into it, it was a fine piece of sofware...past tense.
"Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) continues to notify our users when Claria software is found on a computer, and it offers our users the option to remove the software if they desire."
The issue here is not whether or not Windows Antispyware still detects Claria products...the issue is Microsoft's recommendation on said products. While it is true that users still have the option to remove Claria products if they so choose, the fact is that users had the option to keep Claria products on their system back when Microsoft was recommending removal. The insinuation that this change offers users more choice than previously available is tacitly false.
The real issue here is Microsoft abusing their position of trust within the general computer user community. No, I'm not talking about people like us here...I'm talking about Ma and Pa Computer User...the ones who see a virus or spyware warning and panic. Many of these people rely upon the recommendations offered by the spyware detection/removal applications to decide on how best to manage their systems. By artificially upgrading Claria products from 'remove' to 'ignore', Microsoft is taking unfair advantage of these users' trust.
Also from TFA:
"All software is reviewed under the same objective criteria, detection policies, and analysis process," Microsoft claimed. "Absolutely no exceptions were made for Claria."
As far as I'm aware, no other spyware removal application has promoted Claria products in this fashion. Until Microsoft publishes these 'objective criteria', and shows how Claria products managed to get upgraded from 'remove' to 'ignore' under them, we will have no choice but to assume more ulterior motives.
They're working on one right now...it's called 'Christian Fundamentalism'...preliminary trials have shown it to be moderately effective against Islam, but studies suggest that this 'cure' may be even more dangerous than the 'disease'.
Australian scientists have discovered pineapple molecules can act as powerful anti-cancer agents and said the research could lead to a new class of cancer-fighting drugs. Scientists at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR) said their work centred on two molecules from bromelaine, an extract derived from crushed pineapple stems that is used to tenderise meat, clarify beers and tan hides.
HA! I told my guidance counselor that all that beer drinkin' would pay off eventually... ^_^
Although Microsoft had released a patch for this loophole on 13 and 28 April 2004, many companies had not applied this protection before Sasser struck.
It looks like M$ is not the one to blame here (although we do so love to blame them).
Interesting...especially since the german courts seem to think that it's the creation of the virus that is the crime, not the release of it into the wild.
Slashdot Mirror
In the real world sysadmin are often not allowed to upgrade or patch production servers because of the required downtime and testing needed for the production apps running on those servers.
In the real world, sysadmins employ test servers to, well, test patches and upgrades prior to rolling them out on production servers. Minimal downtime of mision-critical servers required.
Do not blame the admins, they are between a rock and a hard place.
Sure they are...if they haven't taken the time and effort to set up an appropriate test environment. But who's fault is that, really?
If anything, blame them for taking jobs supporting M$'s sorry excuse for an operating system, instead of something production worthy, like, oh, Solaris.
Ahh...the obligatory M$ slam. I was wondering when we'd see that...well done.
He's NOT a computer professional, he's an Op-Ed columnist. That would be why his opinion is on the NYT Op-Ed page. He has a background in science writing among other things.
I know he's not a computer profssional...I read his bio...in fact, in order to make that clear, I linked to it in my original post. Congragulations on missing the point.
Here's the oh-so-hard-to-find bio for you savvy computer professionals:
So you included a link to the very bio I linked to in the GP...the bio you accused me of not reading. Congragulations...you're now officially redundant.
I don't blame you...I blame our school systems.
Not wanting to install a patch to a production server is not necessarily complacency. In point of fact, in some cases, it *is* vigilance, assuming you've ever installed a patch and seen software mysteriously and suddeny cease functioning...it happens on Windows servers from time to time, if you didn't know.
Actually, I do know...as it has happened to me more than once (Windows XP SP2 breaking WinFax and Windows Server 2003 SP1 breaking Windows Update immediately spring to mind). This is where the concept of a QA server comes into play. Any sysadmin worth their salt will have some sort of test server set up where they can test updates, patches, service packs, etc. without endangering their mission-critical systems. It's a simple process, but apparently thre's a lot of sysadmins out there who can't be bothered to exercise due dilligence...hence, my accusation of complacency.
Somone call John Dvorak...his title as reigning champion of the blithering idiots is being seriously contested.
Just who is this John Tierney, anyway? Judging from his whining about 'man-years I've spent running virus scans and reformatting hard drives', he doesn't sound like any computer profesional I know...perhaps if he was a bit more in the know, he'd know that although Microsoft had released a patch for this loophole on 13 and 28 April 2004, many companies had not applied this protection before Sasser struck. Perhaps some of Mr. Tierney's considerable ire should be redirected towards the hordes of lazy sysadmins who had a solution for the Sasser worm, but chose complacency over vigilance.
Even minors in the days pre-electricity could do this.
Yeah...amazing what they let children do back in the pre-electricity days, isn't it?
Spellcheck will not save you. At some point you need to know what the hell you're talking about.
Dupe...original article can be found here.
Almost the same title, too.
Nice...one post that's patently wrong, and two follow-up posts completely lacking in substance. That's a nice trend you've got going there, paul.
Troll on, you crazy diamond.
From your original post:
Certainly looks like an accusation of astroturfing to me...if by 'seems like an astroturf story to me', you didn't mean to insinuate that the story seemed like an astroturf story to you, perhaps you shouldn't have said so.
Perhaps you can take this opportunity to clarify your position...what exactly did you mean by the statement 'seems like an astroturf' story to me', if your intent wasn't to accuse Nitesh Dhanjani and O'Reilly of astroturfing?
Do enlighten us.
I'd hardly accuse O'Reilly of astroturfing...besides, he spelled out the process in great detail. If you have any doubts, you can just replicate his experiment yourself.
It's great that so many eyes are going to be on the shuttle this time around, but do we have a plan for actually dealing with a catastrophe, past verifying that it exists? Do we have a rescue mission planned if something bad happens? And what happens when the rescue mission gets a hole in their wing???
I want to see the Shuttle go up again as badly as the next guy, but they're going up without satisfying the recommendations of the committee. More cameras isn't going to help much, apart from letting the astronauts know they're doomed.
Whenever you have a system that allows for anonymity, you will always have people that abuse that anonymity for their own nefarious purposes. If you have a mechanism for singling out and dealing with the abusers, you don't have anonymity anymore.
There's no way around it....you simply have to take the good with the bad.
You, sir, seem to be suffering from a serious humor deficiency.
My recommendation: Go read America's finest news source until you begin to laugh again. Then come back here.
It's a bird...it's a plane...it's AstroTurfMan!
Microsoft's AntiSpyware worked well because Microsoft didn't write it...Giant did. Back before Microsoft got their hooks into it, it was a fine piece of sofware...past tense.
Not at all...they firmly believe that everyone should have complete control over what runs on your computer... ^_^
The real issue here is Microsoft abusing their position of trust within the general computer user community. No, I'm not talking about people like us here...I'm talking about Ma and Pa Computer User...the ones who see a virus or spyware warning and panic. Many of these people rely upon the recommendations offered by the spyware detection/removal applications to decide on how best to manage their systems. By artificially upgrading Claria products from 'remove' to 'ignore', Microsoft is taking unfair advantage of these users' trust.
Also from TFA:As far as I'm aware, no other spyware removal application has promoted Claria products in this fashion. Until Microsoft publishes these 'objective criteria', and shows how Claria products managed to get upgraded from 'remove' to 'ignore' under them, we will have no choice but to assume more ulterior motives.
I hope the people over at LOFAR have considered all the ramifications of Pyramid Power... ^_^
They're working on one right now...it's called 'Christian Fundamentalism'...preliminary trials have shown it to be moderately effective against Islam, but studies suggest that this 'cure' may be even more dangerous than the 'disease'.
The SQL servers aren't evil...they're just misunderstood.
He must be counting in base 7604.
Clearly, he is one of the Great Old Ones.
I was wondering when someone would work in the obligatory Slashdot M$ slam...well done!
From TFA:HA! I told my guidance counselor that all that beer drinkin' would pay off eventually... ^_^
Here's a tracking map of Hurricane Dennis, courtesy of the good folks over at Weather Underground.
Looks fairly safe (since Cape Canaveral is off the east coast of Florida), but I'm sure the boys over at NASA don't want to take any chances...
That's OK...your previous post applies to just about any discusion on Slashdot... ^_^
I was waiting for this argument...
From TFA:It looks like M$ is not the one to blame here (although we do so love to blame them).
Interesting...especially since the german courts seem to think that it's the creation of the virus that is the crime, not the release of it into the wild.
Do you have any references for this?