If the code for Microsoft's products -- especially OSes such as Whistler -- gets out, then you could expect to see bogus alternate versions making the rounds. Unsuspecting warez kiddies could be installing copies of Windows that contain trojans galore. Some of this bogus software would surely find its way onto a few company networks, which would then be vulnerable to any number of creative exploits. That is, even more than the usual ones that IE so generously affords.
[Slightly OT]: While reading this discussion about the Pioneer 10, I've been listening to Orbital's song "Way Out", from their album _The Middle Of Nowhere_. It's beautiful and fitting.
If you're hacked, the only ways to know that no trojans are around are to wipe clean and start over
This sounds like good advice, but I have a question. Is there a way to cleanly rebuild the site without losing the most recent posts, stories, account updates, and such? I am especially interested in solutions that would minimize or eliminate downtime on such a dynamic site.
Any loss (especially of stories and comments) would be highly undesirable for a site such as Slashdot, imho. Then there are even more important systems, such as those that handle financial transactions, in which it is probably mission-critical to not lose any information in the event of a crash or a crack. What methods do database administrators employ for recovery in such situations?
Ignorance is curable. I want to learn. Thanks in advance.:)
Is the poster really trying to indicate that a minority of DSL users have a positive opinion about it? That this is an issue worthy of 'advocacy' and astroturfing?
I know what astroturf is (an artificial football field material), but what does "astroturfing" mean in this context? Is it a marketing message disguised as spontaneous grassroots approval? Thanks in advance for any clarification.
I just installed Win2k yesterday and the tag line on the login box is "Built on NT technology".
I noticed that too... even my boss caught it.:) I'm surprised MSFT shipped W2K like that. I mean, couldn't they have rephrased it to something like "part of the NT platform"?
If I'm not mistaken, Whistler is the IA64 version of Windows 2000.
Paul Thurrott's Whistler FAQ says that a 64-bit version of Whistler is being developed, but I doubt it will be released at the same time as its 32-bit counterparts, which will be the main offering.
I've used whistler before and it 's the most unstable piece of crap I've EVER seen.
Whistler isn't even in beta yet, so you shouldn't expect it to be stable, or even remotely feature-complete. Judging it at this early stage is way premature. Heh... reminds me of the Chicago alphas that were circulating on warez BBSs more than a year before Windows 95's release. Have you used Blackcomb yet? d;^]
In Windows 2000, right-click the desktop and click Properties. Then click the Effects tab. Uncheck "Hide keyboard navigation indicators until I use the Alt key". I assume/hope that Whistler can be fixed similarly.
What is it with Microsoft? From Windows 3.1 onwards each implementation of Control panel seems to take up more screen estate, and become harder to navigate through.
Now we have this abberation. Absolutely ghastly, all space and no real ordering.
The issue is, can they dumb things down any further.
No argument here -- many Windows default settings are dumb, even to the point of being counterproductive for nontechnical users. Just look at how hidden filename extensions tricked many Outlook users into thinking they were opening text attachments when they were actually malicious scripts.
But for those of us who don't like to be patronized by cutesy OS "features", many of these annoyances can be customized into oblivion. You can use the View menu to display Control Panel as a list, to save screen real estate. Personalized menus can be disabled. The information columns in the right pane of explorer windows can be removed or substituted with better information in W2K by right-clicking them. Check out this thread more ideas.
The point is, Windows defaults suck but are fixable.
However, he consumer version may not come with all the CLI tools that the professional, server, DC, etc versions come with. Might have to get them elsewhere.
Most likely, some of the better CLI tools will be reserved for the Whistler Server Resource Kit, which Microsoft will sell seperately for two or three hundred dollars.
My workgroup of NT4 workstations was a pain to manage until I discovered some tools in the NT4 RK that allow me to remotely administer users and shares. This functionality should have shipped with the OS, but I guess Microsoft prospers further from sales of its exhorbitantly priced resource kits.
anyone know how much of a hard drive hog this thing is going to be?
I don't know any hard facts, but I would guess maybe 100 to 350 MB more space than Windows 2000, so probably around a gigabyte, not counting the swapfile. For W2K system partitions, I recommend allocating at least 2GB to accommodate future bloat (service pack backups, extra system and application components, and such). If you have the space, 3GB would probably be more comfortable for either W2K or Whistler to live and grow on happily for years. Please note that these estimates are only for the OS itself (and maybe the swapfile). Applications and data should be on seperate partitions as much as possible.
Of course, it might be possible for you to squeeze a minimal OS installation, swapfile, applications, and data onto a single 2GB partition. For limited computing tasks, this might even be acceptable. But I'm a forward-looking person. My recommendations are so big because I like to install most of what's available in the OS, plus support for every language I can, with ample room for future expansion and space to spare. After choking Win98 on a ~700MB partition, I try to err on the side of allocating more space than necessary. (Hmmm, maybe that system partition should be 4GB, just in case...:)
Bug win2k is still mostly targetted at servers is it not?
No -- Windows 2000 Professional is the client version, and it is targeted at business users that require better robustness and security. It works best in an environment with Windows 2000 servers, but servers are not necessary. I even use it at home. My one complaint is that I've lost the ability to rip CD audio digitially, but that might just require an updated driver form my CD-ROM. Overall, W2K is solid and usable (for Windows, at least), although maybe not friendly enough for the clueless masses to use on their home PCs. But that's what WinMe is for. Whistler's convergence is something to look forward to.
These kinda shortcuts make life a little more bearable.
C:\Documents and Settings
cd doc*set*
Thanks for the tip! I didn't know that I could include wildcards in cd commands. That's a real timesaver. And it can be further shortened, on my computer at least.
cd d*s*
Why your post was moderated as funny, I don't know. Maybe someone thought it was a joke. It's not. It really works.
The reason Microsoft won't write a brand new OS from scratch is backward compatibility with old software and hardware (and in the case of MS Office documents, data). Incremental improvements to the Windows platform allow not-too-old programs and devices to run. If Microsoft dropped this backward compatibility for a superior but incompatible new MS OS, then many people would not adopt it. Since users would have to start from scratch with a new OS, they might evaluate their options and choose Linux instead.:) So Microsoft keeps its user base through incremental updates.
I still think that there should be an option somewhere to force Windows*.* to conform to 8.3 for no other reason that personal preference.
You can still use 8.3 filenames to reference files and folders with long filenames in Windows. I still have to install the occasional legacy app using C:\PROGRA~1\foo as the install directory, rather than "C:\Program Files\foo legacy app".
At the command line, type "dir/x" to see the 8.3 representations of long filenames.
I guess it just makes it so that (in theory) you only have to back up one folder. And perhaps in some cases there may be some ambiguity about whether some data should be considered a document, config info, or both.
But I agree. The Documents and Settings folder is a deep mess. I would much prefer having them in seperate folders, with more manageable names. And I don't see how it would be any harder to back up two trees instead of just one. At least this user profile stuff is no longer buried obscurely under the WINNT folder.
That's a good start, but I go further. Windows Explorer has some bad defaults that I must immediately correct. In Folder Options, uncheck "Hide file extensions for known file types". I also make compressed folders show up in an alternate color (blue), and display the full path in the address bar for easy copying. Also, after selecting the Details view, I click "Like Current Folder" in the View tab in Folder Options.
I like to keep utilities like TweakUI and X-Setup around, too.
Actually, it can take me hours to do all the other things necessary to make Windows 2000 bearable and comfortable for me, but then it really is a mostly okay environment. Another minor-but-nice feature is the ability to auto-expand Control Panel on the Start menu, so I don't have to be opening and closing that folder all the time.
In Windows 2000 Professional, go into "Advanced TCP/IP Settings" for a network connection, click the Options tab, and look at TCP/IP Filtering properties.
You can filter based on TCP ports, UDP ports, and IP protocols. It may not be a big & clever firewall, but it's better than nothing.
if yo're new to Linux, there are easier distributions than Debian. Try Redhat or Suse until you know the intricacies of the/etc/rc.d/init.d directory:-)
Thanks for your suggestion and insights, Simon. I might as well give Redhat a try, especially if it will help me to become accustomed to how Linux works.
I've heard people say (about woody, the next Debian) that an "unstable" development version can actually be quite sound and usable. Should I, as someone fairly new to Linux (comfortable with basic commands, but new to system administration), only try stable releases (such as RH 6.2), or would I do just as well to grab the latest dev? This would be running on my home computer, so it should at least be well-behaved enough to not hose my Windows partitions. Any further input is appreciated.
The following post does not contain objective comparisons between operating systems. Merely some perceptions of a Windows user beginning to delve into Linux.
I use Windows 2000 Professional (the non-server version of the OS) regularly. It is, AFAICT, far and away the best version of Windows yet. It is trivial to install, easy to use and administrate, and is more stable and secure than any previous version of Windows. Windows 2000 offers a huge improvement over outdated NT4 and unstable Win9x. Its system requirements are really steep for legacy equipment, but that will be a non-issue within a year or two, as hardware continues to progress.
My experience with Linux has been challenging yet enticing. I've dabbled with Debian, which I like for its freedom and easy updatability. I recognize and appreciate the vast array of free software that comes with Linux distributions, which Windows can't hold a candle to. I am enthusiastic about learning to use Linux, but at the same time have found it to be much less intuitive than what I'm used to, so the going is slow. Just configuring X to start under Debian 2.1 was quite an exercise. I just got potato (2.2) the other day, but did not complete the installation because somehow it couldn't make the required boot floppy. I still didn't get around to establishing PPP connections with my ISP (admittedly because I haven't yet read the in-depth howtos on the subject, and it seems there may be problems with my cheap old Atlas 33.6k modem).
I truly intend to gain proficiency in Linux and use it as my primary OS. This will clearly require a significant investment in time, even to get up to the usability level where Windows automatically starts me. I'm sure it will be worth it in the long run, as I'll be running a powerful, scalable, open OS. For the next few months, though, I'll mostly be studying for my Win2K MCSE. (I know that much of the Slashdot community takes a dim view of MCSEs, but I'm just trying to leverage my existing Windows knowledge to get my foot in the door as an assistant network administrator. Despite my initial difficulties with Linux, I think it's great, and I'll likely followup my MCSE with a Linux+ cert.) As other people have pointed out, making Linux a more friendly desktop OS could draw a huge chunk of the potentially clueful (and not so clueful) Windows user base.
What, it's not stable? That never stopped M$ from calling win95 a release?
Heheh. Of course, by "stable", I meant "declared stable". <g> But Linux kernel 2.3 is listed, and AFAIK it doesn't have a "stable" version either. (Will we skip directly from 2.2 to 2.4?) So I guess my original suggestion about why 2.4 wasn't included was invalid.
I still haven't found a way to switch into direcotires with spaces. the cd "space space" doens't work. The only way I have seen is the good ol' cd Micros~1 way... and I don't want to have to count out seven letters of some of the big directories I have seen.
Enclosing arguments in quotes works for me, for files and directories that include spaces. For example:
There are a lot of people who think MBTI and similar things are on the same level as astrology. What does the personality test portend for the future?
Personality types are determined based on people's very real preferred modes of operation. Those unfamiliar with MBTI often resist being "labeled", assuming that these simple types box them in to unrealistically limited behavior. But MBTI is not meant to assert what you can't do, but rather what you tend to do most of the time.
MBTI is a tool for gaining insight into how people work, and I think it serves its purpose well. Even though most people aren't pure, prototypical specimens of any single type, I find the accuracy of MBTI representations to be remarkably on-target. Like many of my fellow Slashdot readers, I am an INTP. This typological framework has helped me to better understand and deal with personal differences.
The best book I know of on this topic is _Personality Type: An Owner's Manual_ by Lenore Thompson. I heartily recommend it to anyone who is curious about personality type theory. Whether this knowledge can help one get past programmer's block, I don't know. But it's a surprisingly interesting subject that is worth checking out, IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
If the code for Microsoft's products -- especially OSes such as Whistler -- gets out, then you could expect to see bogus alternate versions making the rounds. Unsuspecting warez kiddies could be installing copies of Windows that contain trojans galore. Some of this bogus software would surely find its way onto a few company networks, which would then be vulnerable to any number of creative exploits. That is, even more than the usual ones that IE so generously affords.
[Slightly OT]: While reading this discussion about the Pioneer 10, I've been listening to Orbital's song "Way Out", from their album _The Middle Of Nowhere_. It's beautiful and fitting.
Any loss (especially of stories and comments) would be highly undesirable for a site such as Slashdot, imho. Then there are even more important systems, such as those that handle financial transactions, in which it is probably mission-critical to not lose any information in the event of a crash or a crack. What methods do database administrators employ for recovery in such situations?
Ignorance is curable. I want to learn. Thanks in advance. :)
That's funny! I hope your post gets moderated up. :)
I know what astroturf is (an artificial football field material), but what does "astroturfing" mean in this context? Is it a marketing message disguised as spontaneous grassroots approval? Thanks in advance for any clarification.
In Windows 2000, right-click the desktop and click Properties. Then click the Effects tab. Uncheck "Hide keyboard navigation indicators until I use the Alt key". I assume/hope that Whistler can be fixed similarly.
But for those of us who don't like to be patronized by cutesy OS "features", many of these annoyances can be customized into oblivion. You can use the View menu to display Control Panel as a list, to save screen real estate. Personalized menus can be disabled. The information columns in the right pane of explorer windows can be removed or substituted with better information in W2K by right-clicking them. Check out this thread more ideas.
The point is, Windows defaults suck but are fixable.
My workgroup of NT4 workstations was a pain to manage until I discovered some tools in the NT4 RK that allow me to remotely administer users and shares. This functionality should have shipped with the OS, but I guess Microsoft prospers further from sales of its exhorbitantly priced resource kits.
Of course, it might be possible for you to squeeze a minimal OS installation, swapfile, applications, and data onto a single 2GB partition. For limited computing tasks, this might even be acceptable. But I'm a forward-looking person. My recommendations are so big because I like to install most of what's available in the OS, plus support for every language I can, with ample room for future expansion and space to spare. After choking Win98 on a ~700MB partition, I try to err on the side of allocating more space than necessary. (Hmmm, maybe that system partition should be 4GB, just in case... :)
cd d*s*
Why your post was moderated as funny, I don't know. Maybe someone thought it was a joke. It's not. It really works.
The reason Microsoft won't write a brand new OS from scratch is backward compatibility with old software and hardware (and in the case of MS Office documents, data). Incremental improvements to the Windows platform allow not-too-old programs and devices to run. If Microsoft dropped this backward compatibility for a superior but incompatible new MS OS, then many people would not adopt it. Since users would have to start from scratch with a new OS, they might evaluate their options and choose Linux instead. :) So Microsoft keeps its user base through incremental updates.
At the command line, type "dir /x" to see the 8.3 representations of long filenames.
But I agree. The Documents and Settings folder is a deep mess. I would much prefer having them in seperate folders, with more manageable names. And I don't see how it would be any harder to back up two trees instead of just one. At least this user profile stuff is no longer buried obscurely under the WINNT folder.
I like to keep utilities like TweakUI and X-Setup around, too.
Actually, it can take me hours to do all the other things necessary to make Windows 2000 bearable and comfortable for me, but then it really is a mostly okay environment. Another minor-but-nice feature is the ability to auto-expand Control Panel on the Start menu, so I don't have to be opening and closing that folder all the time.
You can filter based on TCP ports, UDP ports, and IP protocols. It may not be a big & clever firewall, but it's better than nothing.
I've heard people say (about woody, the next Debian) that an "unstable" development version can actually be quite sound and usable. Should I, as someone fairly new to Linux (comfortable with basic commands, but new to system administration), only try stable releases (such as RH 6.2), or would I do just as well to grab the latest dev? This would be running on my home computer, so it should at least be well-behaved enough to not hose my Windows partitions. Any further input is appreciated.
Just to clear up any confusion, Win2K and W2K are short for Windows 2000. It is not Windows Millennium Edition.
I use Windows 2000 Professional (the non-server version of the OS) regularly. It is, AFAICT, far and away the best version of Windows yet. It is trivial to install, easy to use and administrate, and is more stable and secure than any previous version of Windows. Windows 2000 offers a huge improvement over outdated NT4 and unstable Win9x. Its system requirements are really steep for legacy equipment, but that will be a non-issue within a year or two, as hardware continues to progress.
My experience with Linux has been challenging yet enticing. I've dabbled with Debian, which I like for its freedom and easy updatability. I recognize and appreciate the vast array of free software that comes with Linux distributions, which Windows can't hold a candle to. I am enthusiastic about learning to use Linux, but at the same time have found it to be much less intuitive than what I'm used to, so the going is slow. Just configuring X to start under Debian 2.1 was quite an exercise. I just got potato (2.2) the other day, but did not complete the installation because somehow it couldn't make the required boot floppy. I still didn't get around to establishing PPP connections with my ISP (admittedly because I haven't yet read the in-depth howtos on the subject, and it seems there may be problems with my cheap old Atlas 33.6k modem).
I truly intend to gain proficiency in Linux and use it as my primary OS. This will clearly require a significant investment in time, even to get up to the usability level where Windows automatically starts me. I'm sure it will be worth it in the long run, as I'll be running a powerful, scalable, open OS. For the next few months, though, I'll mostly be studying for my Win2K MCSE. (I know that much of the Slashdot community takes a dim view of MCSEs, but I'm just trying to leverage my existing Windows knowledge to get my foot in the door as an assistant network administrator. Despite my initial difficulties with Linux, I think it's great, and I'll likely followup my MCSE with a Linux+ cert.) As other people have pointed out, making Linux a more friendly desktop OS could draw a huge chunk of the potentially clueful (and not so clueful) Windows user base.
This is a great chart, though. Very interesting.
cd "Program Files"
start "\My Documents\foo.doc"
MBTI is a tool for gaining insight into how people work, and I think it serves its purpose well. Even though most people aren't pure, prototypical specimens of any single type, I find the accuracy of MBTI representations to be remarkably on-target. Like many of my fellow Slashdot readers, I am an INTP. This typological framework has helped me to better understand and deal with personal differences.
The best book I know of on this topic is _Personality Type: An Owner's Manual_ by Lenore Thompson. I heartily recommend it to anyone who is curious about personality type theory. Whether this knowledge can help one get past programmer's block, I don't know. But it's a surprisingly interesting subject that is worth checking out, IMHO.