Consider this: when I need more PC power, I could replace part of the machine (say: motherboard, cpu, memory, disk drive) or I could buy a new system.
When replacing only part, I could say that I saved the environment by not replacing everything. But at the same time, I have discarded part of a system, useless to everyone but a few hobbyists.
When I would have bought a new system, I would have left one complete machine that could be useful to someone else. I could sell it, donate it to a school project, or whatever. It could probably run a few more years before it is useless to anyone.
So, instead of discarding useless parts into the environment, I actually only damaged the economy (because the one who gets my old machine does not need to buy a new one). That does not seem to be such a big deal.
I remember that a Lisa was shown behind glass in a local department store. It cost at least 10 times more than I would be able to afford.
However, computers like that all were expensive in those days. In the same timeframe there was a "Fortune 16:32" system which ran Unix (no GUI) and had a similar hardware setup. It was laid out like a PC (motherboard, slots, HD, floppy all in a box under the monitor) but it cost lots more. Maybe because of the Unix license too.
Apparently Americans consume ridiculous amounts of electricity. US$1000 a year means about 8300 kWh/year. That is about twice the amount a typical Dutch household consumes, and even then there are efforts to bring that down (by promoting energy-saving equipment etc)
We all know that the US government does not give a damn about the environment, but maybe the citizens could be more considerate...
The situation for general use by the average home user isn't the same as for a company or government entity.
At home, you may want to buy a new gadget and plug it in, and expect it to just work. In a company environment you will not expect that. In fact, in many environments the OS will have been configured to NOT allow installation of addons unsupported by the ICT department.
But indeed this is what is required for a desktop Linux. No toolkit of modules, but a standard install that sets up a standard Linux installation that can be made user-friendly, can be well debugged, can be optimized w.r.t. parameter settings, etc.
But spelling is an exact science defined by a pre-agreed dictionary. Something is either spelled correctly, or it isn't.
There might be such a definition for SPAM, but it is not defined by the content of the message. The reader of the message is subjectively determining if something is SPAM.
Why don't mailers just forbid executables by default? Not by looking at extensions, but by looking at the header.
Who ever needs to send executables by mail? Not the millions that do get infected by viruses now.
I don't see the need to zip them. Just reject them. Maybe setup some new service for "shared data" on Internet (has existed before) where you can put the executables that you would have otherwise mailed. Of course, virus-scanned.
But that was also possible with the NT CD... Interesting that they now use Linux. Does this mean they have write support for NTFS? Or is the setup proceduring converting from FAT to NTFS?
It seems funny that they mention a "24 hour" limitation for an installation environment. Last week someone re-installed a big Windows server and he had to reboot the thing at least 24 times to complete the installation of all software. The times between boot were always less than 24 minutes, often more like 24 seconds!
The problem with using this technique is that some Windows programs require write access in unexpected places. Admittedly this is becoming less of a problem, but there still are older programs around that store configuration data and/or temporary files under their C:\Progra~1\Progname subdirectory:-(
Worse, when they do and they cannot perform the write, the error information is often useless. The program fails in an unclear way (like, nothing happens when you click something) or an error message like "cannot create file" (without filename) appears.
We run Windows 2000 Pro, and ordinary users of the system have no write access to anything on C: except their profile directory. This often results in lengthy debugging sessions and searches on the Internet to resolve problems. Even Office 2000 has problems running on such a system (the orgchart program does not work when C:\WinNT is not writable). Similar problems arise when programs try to write to the registry.
There have been many times when I wished there was a tool like "strace" on these boxes so that it would be possible to quickly determine what the application tried to do, and why that failed. (actually, an strace for Windows appears to exist. next time I have to debug something like this I will try it)
The Dell Server Assistant CD, a CD-ROM you get with any Dell server, is a booting CD that loads Windows NT and then runs a GUI program that lets you select a disk layout, an operating system, parameters for the operating system (system name, IP address etc) and then prepares an unattended installation file for that operating system. It asks for the OS installation CD, copies it to the disk, and hands over the installation process.
This CD uses some commercially available software kit, the name I now cannot recall, to load a Windows NT system into RAMdisk and let it run from there. Unfortunately there is no apparent way to exit the installation GUI and go to the NT desktop. This CD has existed for many years, and I sometimes wondered if we should make the effort to "hack" it and use it as a system repair tool for NTFS based systems.
I don't think this CD is anyway related to Microsoft WinPE technology, but I wonder why it does not stop and say "we must now reboot for the changes to take effect" all the time. It runs on a wide range of Dell servers and I don't think they are completely hardware compatible in the strict sense that Windows often requires.
The multi-distribution model of Linux has some advantages w.r.t. development by competition, but it works against general desktop acceptance.
Probably there will be a shakeout and a small number of distributors survive. Only then can the desktop market be really developed.
Linux enthousiasts like choice. Choice between distributors, choice between window managers, system administration tools, choice between applications.
Desktop users like a uniform system where there are some known invariants. Systems that they can ask others to support, or that they can ask questions about when chatting with a co-worker or friend. Right now, Linux is not like that.
I refuse to believe those numbers. Installed base of Macintosh isn't anywhere near 10% whereever I have looked. Sure there are some hardcode Mac fans and some typical Mac markets, but either your 40 million in-use Macs is an over estimate or the 400 million in-use total systems is an under estimate.
I think it is more like 2.5% what you are looking at.
And of course the Nazi's did not select the symbol to have a negative association. They did not think of themselves as bad people.
Today, the American flag has very negative connotations in many countries and religions. But that does not mean the American flag was selected by the Americans to be a symbol with negative connotations.
The Windows 2000 SP4 issue is strange. Some sources state that this version is already fixed, but the Windows Update site lists the patch as a critical patch on Windows 2000 SP4 systems, and Windows 2000 SP4 is also listed as a prerequesite on the patches downloads site.
You are apparently not very knowledgable about software development, testing and distribution.
Maybe it will take one hour or one day to fix the issue. But that does not mean the fix is available to the world the next day.
There will be additional time due to testing, and because of the dumb way Microsoft internationalizes its OS it has to be built for each and every language Windows is available in, and that for each and every version.
All those builds have to be tested, and have to be placed on the distribution servers. A bulletin has to be written, and translated into many languages. Press bulletins have to be written and distributed. A strategy has to be developed to avoid the issue being taken as the final one that makes the customer decide to abandon Windows.
All this cannot be done overnight.
Re:This is about Server support, not desktop/lapto
on
Dell's New Linux Blog
·
· Score: 1
A while ago we bought a Dell laptop at work and it turned out it only ran Windows XP. The video driver had been artificially crippled not to support Windows 2000. (the original driver from the video chip manufacturer had this support, but Dell had disabled this in the version for this laptop)
It ran SuSE Linux without problem! But not W2K. Back to Dell it went...
We had a couple of them arrive at the mailserver before the antivirus signature update as well. But they did not get in, as we block anything containing executable attachments. Also when in.zip files. All blocked mail has to be manually examined, and of course this is done on a Linux system.
Re:Helps SCO and Microsoft
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 1
Why do you think that? The suggestion that this virus was written by a Linux advocate or by IBM was nothing more than a suggestion. It could just as well have been written by SCO or Microsoft.
Until the creator of the virus has been arrested and it turns out he is a Linux advocate, I do not assume he is. A spammer, that could be true. Spammers have distributed viruses before.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider this: when I need more PC power, I could replace part of the machine (say: motherboard, cpu, memory, disk drive) or I could buy a new system.
When replacing only part, I could say that I saved the environment by not replacing everything. But at the same time, I have discarded part of a system, useless to everyone but a few hobbyists.
When I would have bought a new system, I would have left one complete machine that could be useful to someone else. I could sell it, donate it to a school project, or whatever. It could probably run a few more years before it is useless to anyone.
So, instead of discarding useless parts into the environment, I actually only damaged the economy (because the one who gets my old machine does not need to buy a new one). That does not seem to be such a big deal.
I remember that a Lisa was shown behind glass in a local department store. It cost at least 10 times more than I would be able to afford.
However, computers like that all were expensive in those days. In the same timeframe there was a "Fortune 16:32" system which ran Unix (no GUI) and had a similar hardware setup.
It was laid out like a PC (motherboard, slots, HD, floppy all in a box under the monitor) but it cost lots more. Maybe because of the Unix license too.
Acrobat is a product, not a format. Portable Document Format (PDF) is what you mean.
But when you search for "the xfree86", like someone else suggested, you hit the same content and it is not blacklisted.
I think it is stupid maliciousness. They blocked xfree86 but not *xfree86*.
Apparently Americans consume ridiculous amounts of electricity.
US$1000 a year means about 8300 kWh/year. That is about twice the amount a typical Dutch household consumes, and even then there are efforts to bring that down (by promoting energy-saving equipment etc)
We all know that the US government does not give a damn about the environment, but maybe the citizens could be more considerate...
The situation for general use by the average home user isn't the same as for a company or government entity.
At home, you may want to buy a new gadget and plug it in, and expect it to just work.
In a company environment you will not expect that. In fact, in many environments the OS will have been configured to NOT allow installation of addons unsupported by the ICT department.
SuSE Linux is mostly what you describe.
But indeed this is what is required for a desktop Linux.
No toolkit of modules, but a standard install that sets up a standard Linux installation that can be made user-friendly, can be well debugged, can be optimized w.r.t. parameter settings, etc.
Much of that spam is (or at least was) sent from the Netherlands. It is probably a big contributor to the 5th place rating of the Netherlands.
Does anybody edit sendmail.cf directly?
But spelling is an exact science defined by a pre-agreed dictionary. Something is either spelled correctly, or it isn't.
There might be such a definition for SPAM, but it is not defined by the content of the message. The reader of the message is subjectively determining if something is SPAM.
Why don't mailers just forbid executables by default?
Not by looking at extensions, but by looking at the header.
Who ever needs to send executables by mail?
Not the millions that do get infected by viruses now.
I don't see the need to zip them. Just reject them.
Maybe setup some new service for "shared data" on Internet (has existed before) where you can put the executables that you would have otherwise mailed. Of course, virus-scanned.
Is this required to allow worms that exploit a leak in a system process can install themselves properly?
But that was also possible with the NT CD...
Interesting that they now use Linux.
Does this mean they have write support for NTFS?
Or is the setup proceduring converting from FAT to NTFS?
It seems funny that they mention a "24 hour" limitation for an installation environment. Last week someone re-installed a big Windows server and he had to reboot the thing at least 24 times to complete the installation of all software. The times between boot were always less than 24 minutes, often more like 24 seconds!
The problem with using this technique is that some Windows programs require write access in unexpected places. Admittedly this is becoming less of a problem, but there still are older programs around that store configuration data and/or temporary files under their C:\Progra~1\Progname subdirectory :-(
Worse, when they do and they cannot perform the write, the error information is often useless.
The program fails in an unclear way (like, nothing happens when you click something) or an error message like "cannot create file" (without filename) appears.
We run Windows 2000 Pro, and ordinary users of the system have no write access to anything on C: except their profile directory. This often results in lengthy debugging sessions and searches on the Internet to resolve problems. Even Office 2000 has problems running on such a system (the orgchart program does not work when C:\WinNT is not writable).
Similar problems arise when programs try to write to the registry.
There have been many times when I wished there was a tool like "strace" on these boxes so that it would be possible to quickly determine what the application tried to do, and why that failed.
(actually, an strace for Windows appears to exist. next time I have to debug something like this I will try it)
The Dell Server Assistant CD, a CD-ROM you get with any Dell server, is a booting CD that loads Windows NT and then runs a GUI program that lets you select a disk layout, an operating system, parameters for the operating system (system name, IP address etc) and then prepares an unattended installation file for that operating system. It asks for the OS installation CD, copies it to the disk, and hands over the installation process.
This CD uses some commercially available software kit, the name I now cannot recall, to load a Windows NT system into RAMdisk and let it run from there.
Unfortunately there is no apparent way to exit the installation GUI and go to the NT desktop.
This CD has existed for many years, and I sometimes wondered if we should make the effort to "hack" it and use it as a system repair tool for NTFS based systems.
I don't think this CD is anyway related to Microsoft WinPE technology, but I wonder why it does not stop and say "we must now reboot for the changes to take effect" all the time. It runs on a wide range of Dell servers and I don't think they are completely hardware compatible in the strict sense that Windows often requires.
The multi-distribution model of Linux has some advantages w.r.t. development by competition, but it works against general desktop acceptance.
Probably there will be a shakeout and a small number of distributors survive. Only then can the desktop market be really developed.
Linux enthousiasts like choice. Choice between distributors, choice between window managers, system administration tools, choice between applications.
Desktop users like a uniform system where there are some known invariants. Systems that they can ask others to support, or that they can ask questions about when chatting with a co-worker or friend.
Right now, Linux is not like that.
I refuse to believe those numbers. Installed base of Macintosh isn't anywhere near 10% whereever I have looked.
Sure there are some hardcode Mac fans and some typical Mac markets, but either your 40 million in-use Macs is an over estimate or the 400 million in-use total systems is an under estimate.
I think it is more like 2.5% what you are looking at.
The outcome of such statistics heavily depends on the type of websites that they monitor.
Put a counter on slashdot, one on msn, another one on some artistic or webdeveloper site, and watch the difference in webbrowser marketshare...
And of course the Nazi's did not select the symbol to have a negative association. They did not think of themselves as bad people.
Today, the American flag has very negative connotations in many countries and religions. But that does not mean the American flag was selected by the Americans to be a symbol with negative connotations.
The Windows 2000 SP4 issue is strange.
Some sources state that this version is already fixed, but the Windows Update site lists the patch as a critical patch on Windows 2000 SP4 systems, and Windows 2000 SP4 is also listed as a prerequesite on the patches downloads site.
So, is it fixed or not? Maybe partially fixed?
You are apparently not very knowledgable about software development, testing and distribution.
Maybe it will take one hour or one day to fix the issue. But that does not mean the fix is available to the world the next day.
There will be additional time due to testing, and because of the dumb way Microsoft internationalizes its OS it has to be built for each and every language Windows is available in, and that for each and every version.
All those builds have to be tested, and have to be placed on the distribution servers. A bulletin has to be written, and translated into many languages. Press bulletins have to be written and distributed. A strategy has to be developed to avoid the issue being taken as the final one that makes the customer decide to abandon Windows.
All this cannot be done overnight.
A while ago we bought a Dell laptop at work and it turned out it only ran Windows XP. The video driver had been artificially crippled not to support Windows 2000.
(the original driver from the video chip manufacturer had this support, but Dell had disabled this in the version for this laptop)
It ran SuSE Linux without problem! But not W2K.
Back to Dell it went...
We had a couple of them arrive at the mailserver before the antivirus signature update as well. .zip files.
But they did not get in, as we block anything containing executable attachments. Also when in
All blocked mail has to be manually examined, and of course this is done on a Linux system.
Why do you think that?
The suggestion that this virus was written by a Linux advocate or by IBM was nothing more than a suggestion. It could just as well have been written by SCO or Microsoft.
Until the creator of the virus has been arrested and it turns out he is a Linux advocate, I do not assume he is. A spammer, that could be true. Spammers have distributed viruses before.