I administered about 2,500 to 3,000 seats myself. IMX any one patch would arbitrarily fail on about 2-3% of the systems, either because they were disconnected from the network, because they were not installed in the standard way, or for any other various reasons. I wasn't allowed to use AD to deploy updates so I don't know how well that works. I used Altiris. Still, 2% of 300 is 6. That's not so bad. 2% of 3000 is 60, which is a lot for one person to manage if they have other responsibilities. 2% of 30000 is 600, making it just useless.
I now administer 50 seats, and oddly enough I still get about 15 failures (laptops and remote VPN users). It's easiest to email people instructions and then fix the 2-3 who don't do it.
If you'd ever been the person responsible for updating the Symantec Antivirus client, you would not be so quick to judge. LiveUpdate only handles scanning engine updates and virus definitions. Anything else is a huge nightmare.
I don't like Symantec products because they make the life of a sysadmin *more difficult*.
Yes, because the word "free" is a completely unambiguous word. "Free Software" isn't popular because it was ambiguous from the first day it was coined.
Honestly, the zeal of some slashdot readers is far in excess of reality. Anybody in IT or software engineering should be able to objectively evaluate *nix and Windows conventions without things turning into a political rant.
The most common cause for INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE is a corrupt disk. Run "chkdsk c:/r" from the Recovery Console. Be prepared to wait about 1 minute per used gigabyte of disk space for the operation to complete.
However, if you're experiencing this issue on a consistent basis, I'm guessing you're doing something MS doesn't expect or support, like writing to the NTFS volume from Linux or skipping chkdsk when it detects that it needs to run. NTFS is journaled, but it isn't atomic like ext3. (It's also subject to disk fragmentation.)
Alternately, your hardware is bad, your firmware is out of date, or your drivers are incorrect.
I just hope it will cut the stupid whining. Part of the reason I quit playing was the "Pallies are overpowered" and "Shamans are too good" crap. Most of the people complaining had never even rolled on the other faction. Now they can STFU and play their "broken" class.
Yeah, the key here is that the "bullying" the law is trying to address in this case is the same as "verbal harassment" and, in extreme cases, "verbal assault". Those are the definitions that should probably be used, and I'm not convinced that a new law should be created to deal with a special case of them over the Internet.
Of course, if those terms aren't defined or aren't illegal, then I'd agree with Mr. Brown that it would be difficult to define without infringing on first amendment rights. If you read TFA, you'll see that all he says is that writing the law and enforcing the law would be difficult. He's only got two lines about him in the whole article.
Something else I've never understood is that the biggest cause of network failures I've experienced have been from clients INSIDE the corporate firewall. It's as if some idiot IT person believes that all clients on their network are magically immune from anything just because they've got a firewall on the internet and AV on the clients. It's not as if client firewalls are rocket science?
This is like arguing that bulletproof vests increase bullet wounds to legs, or like saying your skin is an ineffective barrier to infection just because you can inhale germs. Clients inside the firewall cause the most failures because the vastly more numerous attacks from outside the firewall get blocked.
As far as client firewalls, IMX they make network management a nightmare. You must configure exceptions globally, and on Windows clients in particular you have to open up the most vulnerable ports anyways (RPC, SMB, Net Auth, etc.). A proper client firewall should be one which is a default deny to non-authenticated traffic. The problem is deciding what criteria establish authentication. Additionally, software firewalls on Windows are inherently insecure simply because of the way the TCP/IP stack is implemented. No Windows firewall uses proper a proper IPSec style implementation because MS made that a nightmare to use. IDS/IPS services on network appliances are, overall, the best solution.
The mantra of IT security is "Through overwhelming effort on our part, absolutely nothing of interest happened".
If you are unable to do your job, it is your responsibility to get your manager involved. You must leverage management to work across departmental lines. Don't complain about people you have no authority over to people who have no responsibility for your complaints. Complain to your boss that you are unable to do your job. If he is unwilling or unable to help, see your department head.
Middle management exists for a reason, and it's not to produce Excel spreadsheets for CXO's.
Most systems do use UTC or Zulu time internally. Windows AD authentication uses UTC, for example, because it's possible for a domain to straddle time zones.
The problem is typically not one of confusing the software at all. It's confusing the users. If your system is running EST and the rest of the world is running EDT, your users need to know that or they will get the time wrong. Users expect that when they read a timestamp with no time zone information on it (which is most common) that the timestamp is attuned to the current timezone.
The area I expect the most problems is calendaring software like MS Exchange.
You could ask the ethernet interface what the gateway IP is or the default route is. By definition that's a network bridge of some kind, most often a router for home users.
Well, there's the difference between plain old FLOSS projects and *successful* FLOSS projects. Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL, etc. are successful because they're *better*. Originally GNU/Linux was just an attempt to get an x86 Unix. Ubiquitous apps like man, tar, and bash all appeared on it to duplicate the environment. But GNU/Linux is *better* than many commercial alternatives on x86 (Windows, Novell, OS/2).
That is why GNU/Linux is successful. Being FLOSS isn't enough to be a success because a software package is worth what it can actually *do* regardless of the cost. A company will use the *best* tool, not the least expensive.
Apache > IIS => FLOSS is better than proprietary
OOo doc formats > MS Office doc formats => FLOSS is better than proprietary
PostgreSQL/Firebird/MySQL/SQLite > MS SQL => FLOSS is better than proprietary
Python/Perl/PHP/Ruby > ASP => FLOSS is better than proprietary
Linux > NT => FLOSS is better than proprietary
Firefox > IE => FLOSS is better than proprietary
But:
Exchange > * => MS won't share
That's a bullshit excuse if I ever heard one. This is whining about vendor lock-in when you need to ignore the unfair vendor and develop something that works better than Exchange + Outlook. That is the successful FLOSS model: make a better product, not a cheaper or ethically superior one.
If you build it they will come. Develop some better, open standards with better, advanced functionality in Exchange and go with it. Work with WC3 on some email standards. How about a standardized subset of HTML for email that doesn't allow obviously bad things like scripting or inline elements? (Cripe, the name even makes it self: EML.) How about a real SenderID? How about a standardized encoding format for attachments?
News flash: Exchange is a *shitty* product. It uses the Jet database (that's Access to you and me). It has pointless partitioning in the form of information stores and storage groups. The web interface is crippled off of IE. It's an email server than uses more then 1 Gb of RAM on the most basic installation. It uses badly formed SMTP or doesn't respond right all the time. You get nonsense 5.7.1 SMTP NDR errors *constantly*. Exchange is such a babied application than needs so much special care I would pay for a better solution. It has arbitrary size limitations if you've got the cheaper version. It has horrible spam filtering. It has no antivirus protection. It has endless numbers of stupid little bugs and holdover restrictions from Exchange 5.5.
We're not making ethanol fuel because it's cheaper to use petroleum. Natural resources have a lower opportunity cost than refined agricultural products do.
To get petroleum and natural gas, you drill a hole and suck out your product. You spend resources to construct drills, transportation, and refining equipment.
To get biofuels, you stop producing food or other cash crops, spend fertilizer, clean water, pesticides, etc. to produce the crop. Now you have to harvest it all, transport it to a production facility, and refine it -- a process which still takes much longer and is much less efficient than petroleum cracking.
The amount of energy and resources put into producing one unit of ethanol is still higher than the energy and resources from natural petroleum and gas. There's even an argument that at current production scales ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces. Ethanol is renewable, but it isn't economical (yet).
If you could get fresh beer from a natural well, would you bother brewing it yourself or just tap the Earth like it was a giant keg?
It doesn't matter. The Feds can't compel the states to do it. This isn't an objection over the intent of the law, it's an objection over the legality of the law. Just like the feds can't write a law abridging your right to free speech, they can't write a law abridging a state's right to govern it's own citizens.
How reasonable the law is is irrelevant. They must word the law to say "states who do choose to support this program get $X million in funds". The federal government is not authorized to say "the states must do this" except for the specific cases outlined in the Constitution: commerce, national defense, and enforcing the Constitution.
Yeah, I'm not getting how this is anybody's fault except S. Korea's. SEED is an open specification. There is no reason the Korean community can't develop a plug-in for other systems. All that is required is for the S. Korean CA to allow it. Again, that's S. Korea's fault.
The only fault of Microsoft's lies in an area that the author is grossly misinformed. He says "In IE 7 and in Vista, Microsoft has re-architected Active X controls in such a way to make them 'more safe' by requiring a user action for the control to run", and then links to a page about the Eolas patent resolution. Many places have had to recode websites and controls after this change. While it is Microsoft's fault for the implementation, the impact on S. Korea is entirely up to them.
Social Security is authorized by the 16th Constitutional Amendment (taxes on income).
States require an ID for the privilege of using state services such as state and municipal roads. A driver's license is a license to drive on state-owned roads. You can drive whatever you want however you want on your own property. If you buy the land and construct for a road from LA to New York you can drive 700 mph on it if you want. As it stands now the government owns the roads. If you want to use the roads, you must agree to the rules they have set forth. Don't like it? Don't drive.
Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it. Kinda like a trademark, jurisdiction in a case law precedent system like ours is 'use it or lose it'.
With the Interstate Highway System, the feds provided money to states that wanted it and they could make very good cases for national defense.
With social security, the federal government issues the numbers and the cards. It's wholly a federal matter.
This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.
The first thing to come into my mind is a wireless mouse that gets power through the mouse pad. Wouldn't even need batteries, probably. Just capacitors.
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists.
Translation: If you want to be a lobbyist, you must follow the rules for being a lobbyist. If you're lobbying 500 or more people, you fit the description of a lobbyist no matter how you're do it. Internet grassroots lobby movements are not just as susceptible to oversight as the DC Congressional dinner party lobbyists.
The bill just redefines what it means to be a lobbyist, and seeing as this comes from a grassroots lobbyist, I would argue that this exact article is exactly the type of lybbying the Senate wishes to be kept informed of.
MIT is relevant as long as it produces results. Just because MIT has more peers now, and other countries have a somewhat more open attitude towards scientific research does not invalidate the work they do.
As far as Harvard vs MIT, Harvard's medical, law, and business schools are still highly prestigious. I don't know of anybody who went to MIT to study those fields, although I'm sure they offer them (at least undergrad level equivalents).
How much research money spend MIT get annually? How much does Harvard spend annually, and how much of that is in the same schools as MIT?
Slashdot Mirror
I administered about 2,500 to 3,000 seats myself. IMX any one patch would arbitrarily fail on about 2-3% of the systems, either because they were disconnected from the network, because they were not installed in the standard way, or for any other various reasons. I wasn't allowed to use AD to deploy updates so I don't know how well that works. I used Altiris. Still, 2% of 300 is 6. That's not so bad. 2% of 3000 is 60, which is a lot for one person to manage if they have other responsibilities. 2% of 30000 is 600, making it just useless.
I now administer 50 seats, and oddly enough I still get about 15 failures (laptops and remote VPN users). It's easiest to email people instructions and then fix the 2-3 who don't do it.
If you'd ever been the person responsible for updating the Symantec Antivirus client, you would not be so quick to judge. LiveUpdate only handles scanning engine updates and virus definitions. Anything else is a huge nightmare.
I don't like Symantec products because they make the life of a sysadmin *more difficult*.
Yes, because the word "free" is a completely unambiguous word. "Free Software" isn't popular because it was ambiguous from the first day it was coined.
Max Headroom was cyberpunk, not steampunk.
That was my reading, too.
Honestly, the zeal of some slashdot readers is far in excess of reality. Anybody in IT or software engineering should be able to objectively evaluate *nix and Windows conventions without things turning into a political rant.
The most common cause for INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE is a corrupt disk. Run "chkdsk c: /r" from the Recovery Console. Be prepared to wait about 1 minute per used gigabyte of disk space for the operation to complete.
However, if you're experiencing this issue on a consistent basis, I'm guessing you're doing something MS doesn't expect or support, like writing to the NTFS volume from Linux or skipping chkdsk when it detects that it needs to run. NTFS is journaled, but it isn't atomic like ext3. (It's also subject to disk fragmentation.)
Alternately, your hardware is bad, your firmware is out of date, or your drivers are incorrect.
I just hope it will cut the stupid whining. Part of the reason I quit playing was the "Pallies are overpowered" and "Shamans are too good" crap. Most of the people complaining had never even rolled on the other faction. Now they can STFU and play their "broken" class.
Yeah, the key here is that the "bullying" the law is trying to address in this case is the same as "verbal harassment" and, in extreme cases, "verbal assault". Those are the definitions that should probably be used, and I'm not convinced that a new law should be created to deal with a special case of them over the Internet.
Of course, if those terms aren't defined or aren't illegal, then I'd agree with Mr. Brown that it would be difficult to define without infringing on first amendment rights. If you read TFA, you'll see that all he says is that writing the law and enforcing the law would be difficult. He's only got two lines about him in the whole article.
This is like arguing that bulletproof vests increase bullet wounds to legs, or like saying your skin is an ineffective barrier to infection just because you can inhale germs. Clients inside the firewall cause the most failures because the vastly more numerous attacks from outside the firewall get blocked.
As far as client firewalls, IMX they make network management a nightmare. You must configure exceptions globally, and on Windows clients in particular you have to open up the most vulnerable ports anyways (RPC, SMB, Net Auth, etc.). A proper client firewall should be one which is a default deny to non-authenticated traffic. The problem is deciding what criteria establish authentication. Additionally, software firewalls on Windows are inherently insecure simply because of the way the TCP/IP stack is implemented. No Windows firewall uses proper a proper IPSec style implementation because MS made that a nightmare to use. IDS/IPS services on network appliances are, overall, the best solution.
The mantra of IT security is "Through overwhelming effort on our part, absolutely nothing of interest happened".
If you are unable to do your job, it is your responsibility to get your manager involved. You must leverage management to work across departmental lines. Don't complain about people you have no authority over to people who have no responsibility for your complaints. Complain to your boss that you are unable to do your job. If he is unwilling or unable to help, see your department head.
Middle management exists for a reason, and it's not to produce Excel spreadsheets for CXO's.
Most systems do use UTC or Zulu time internally. Windows AD authentication uses UTC, for example, because it's possible for a domain to straddle time zones.
The problem is typically not one of confusing the software at all. It's confusing the users. If your system is running EST and the rest of the world is running EDT, your users need to know that or they will get the time wrong. Users expect that when they read a timestamp with no time zone information on it (which is most common) that the timestamp is attuned to the current timezone.
The area I expect the most problems is calendaring software like MS Exchange.
You could ask the ethernet interface what the gateway IP is or the default route is. By definition that's a network bridge of some kind, most often a router for home users.
Sorry, but Dreamworks is just a name now. SKG sold out quite awhile ago.
Well, there's the difference between plain old FLOSS projects and *successful* FLOSS projects. Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL, etc. are successful because they're *better*. Originally GNU/Linux was just an attempt to get an x86 Unix. Ubiquitous apps like man, tar, and bash all appeared on it to duplicate the environment. But GNU/Linux is *better* than many commercial alternatives on x86 (Windows, Novell, OS/2).
That is why GNU/Linux is successful. Being FLOSS isn't enough to be a success because a software package is worth what it can actually *do* regardless of the cost. A company will use the *best* tool, not the least expensive.
It's digital Darwinism.
All your customer are belong to us
You have no chance make your time
Ha ha ha ha
Let me get this right.
Apache > IIS => FLOSS is better than proprietary
OOo doc formats > MS Office doc formats => FLOSS is better than proprietary
PostgreSQL/Firebird/MySQL/SQLite > MS SQL => FLOSS is better than proprietary
Python/Perl/PHP/Ruby > ASP => FLOSS is better than proprietary
Linux > NT => FLOSS is better than proprietary
Firefox > IE => FLOSS is better than proprietary
But:
Exchange > * => MS won't share
That's a bullshit excuse if I ever heard one. This is whining about vendor lock-in when you need to ignore the unfair vendor and develop something that works better than Exchange + Outlook. That is the successful FLOSS model: make a better product, not a cheaper or ethically superior one.
If you build it they will come. Develop some better, open standards with better, advanced functionality in Exchange and go with it. Work with WC3 on some email standards. How about a standardized subset of HTML for email that doesn't allow obviously bad things like scripting or inline elements? (Cripe, the name even makes it self: EML.) How about a real SenderID? How about a standardized encoding format for attachments?
News flash: Exchange is a *shitty* product. It uses the Jet database (that's Access to you and me). It has pointless partitioning in the form of information stores and storage groups. The web interface is crippled off of IE. It's an email server than uses more then 1 Gb of RAM on the most basic installation. It uses badly formed SMTP or doesn't respond right all the time. You get nonsense 5.7.1 SMTP NDR errors *constantly*. Exchange is such a babied application than needs so much special care I would pay for a better solution. It has arbitrary size limitations if you've got the cheaper version. It has horrible spam filtering. It has no antivirus protection. It has endless numbers of stupid little bugs and holdover restrictions from Exchange 5.5.
I don't want to just switch. I want to upgrade.
We're not making ethanol fuel because it's cheaper to use petroleum. Natural resources have a lower opportunity cost than refined agricultural products do.
To get petroleum and natural gas, you drill a hole and suck out your product. You spend resources to construct drills, transportation, and refining equipment.
To get biofuels, you stop producing food or other cash crops, spend fertilizer, clean water, pesticides, etc. to produce the crop. Now you have to harvest it all, transport it to a production facility, and refine it -- a process which still takes much longer and is much less efficient than petroleum cracking.
The amount of energy and resources put into producing one unit of ethanol is still higher than the energy and resources from natural petroleum and gas. There's even an argument that at current production scales ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces. Ethanol is renewable, but it isn't economical (yet).
If you could get fresh beer from a natural well, would you bother brewing it yourself or just tap the Earth like it was a giant keg?
It doesn't matter. The Feds can't compel the states to do it. This isn't an objection over the intent of the law, it's an objection over the legality of the law. Just like the feds can't write a law abridging your right to free speech, they can't write a law abridging a state's right to govern it's own citizens.
How reasonable the law is is irrelevant. They must word the law to say "states who do choose to support this program get $X million in funds". The federal government is not authorized to say "the states must do this" except for the specific cases outlined in the Constitution: commerce, national defense, and enforcing the Constitution.
Yeah, I'm not getting how this is anybody's fault except S. Korea's. SEED is an open specification. There is no reason the Korean community can't develop a plug-in for other systems. All that is required is for the S. Korean CA to allow it. Again, that's S. Korea's fault.
The only fault of Microsoft's lies in an area that the author is grossly misinformed. He says "In IE 7 and in Vista, Microsoft has re-architected Active X controls in such a way to make them 'more safe' by requiring a user action for the control to run", and then links to a page about the Eolas patent resolution. Many places have had to recode websites and controls after this change. While it is Microsoft's fault for the implementation, the impact on S. Korea is entirely up to them.
Sorry, you made your bed.
Social Security is authorized by the 16th Constitutional Amendment (taxes on income).
States require an ID for the privilege of using state services such as state and municipal roads. A driver's license is a license to drive on state-owned roads. You can drive whatever you want however you want on your own property. If you buy the land and construct for a road from LA to New York you can drive 700 mph on it if you want. As it stands now the government owns the roads. If you want to use the roads, you must agree to the rules they have set forth. Don't like it? Don't drive.
Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it. Kinda like a trademark, jurisdiction in a case law precedent system like ours is 'use it or lose it'.
With the Interstate Highway System, the feds provided money to states that wanted it and they could make very good cases for national defense.
With social security, the federal government issues the numbers and the cards. It's wholly a federal matter.
This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.
The first thing to come into my mind is a wireless mouse that gets power through the mouse pad. Wouldn't even need batteries, probably. Just capacitors.
The bill just redefines what it means to be a lobbyist, and seeing as this comes from a grassroots lobbyist, I would argue that this exact article is exactly the type of lybbying the Senate wishes to be kept informed of.
MIT is relevant as long as it produces results. Just because MIT has more peers now, and other countries have a somewhat more open attitude towards scientific research does not invalidate the work they do. As far as Harvard vs MIT, Harvard's medical, law, and business schools are still highly prestigious. I don't know of anybody who went to MIT to study those fields, although I'm sure they offer them (at least undergrad level equivalents). How much research money spend MIT get annually? How much does Harvard spend annually, and how much of that is in the same schools as MIT?