Well, but you sortta can access it from anywhere in the world with any pc any time. And you sorta can share the spreadsheets without rolling out any servers and buying any licence fees, so thats a big upside as well.
My experience shows that it is almost always very cost effective to put complex servers (like DVRs) behind simple firewalls. Its not like his problems will magically solve by implementing a linux-based DVR solution. He still has to monitor them and patch them regurarly. And i would still put a firewall box in front of them.
On the other hand, if all the stream traffic to/from the open ports of the servers was allowed only from/to specific addresses and all management tunneled thru ssh, or better yet, ipsec - his setup would get much-much more stable and secure very easily and cheaply and fast. And, depending on the setup - he might tunnel ALL his data thru a VPN tunnel - making the issues of the DVR OS security much less severe. This could be achieved with a simple Linksys WRT-54GL with DD-WRT firmware.
Let me get this straight - putting a 50 dollar router on each location which allows traffic only from predefined hosts to predefined ports in front of each location is "not a cost effective method" for you, but switching to an entire new DVR hardware-software combo to protect you from viruses is ok?
If you stick to standards closely enough and are reasonable enough, you dont need to support them all. You will get a nice layout with modern browsers via CSS and a decently usable text site for older browsers that dont like CSS. Most of HTML standards are backwards compatible.
Of course, if you will make a nested table monster you are screwed.
"Window's has a cult following, it's just not specialized in this sort of development" - lol - the windows cult's lack of access to source code makes it a bit difficult to PORT.
And why on earth is he talking about porting anyway? The whole idea is that now that macs have intel inside we could probably run windows WITHOUT PORTING as such.
he clearly doesnt know what PORTING an OS means and he is modded insightful...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, but you sortta can access it from anywhere in the world with any pc any time. And you sorta can share the spreadsheets without rolling out any servers and buying any licence fees, so thats a big upside as well.
How is this news? You can long ago access google "storage service" on *nix and on windows
My experience shows that it is almost always very cost effective to put complex servers (like DVRs) behind simple firewalls. Its not like his problems will magically solve by implementing a linux-based DVR solution. He still has to monitor them and patch them regurarly. And i would still put a firewall box in front of them.
On the other hand, if all the stream traffic to/from the open ports of the servers was allowed only from/to specific addresses and all management tunneled thru ssh, or better yet, ipsec - his setup would get much-much more stable and secure very easily and cheaply and fast. And, depending on the setup - he might tunnel ALL his data thru a VPN tunnel - making the issues of the DVR OS security much less severe. This could be achieved with a simple Linksys WRT-54GL with DD-WRT firmware.
Have YOU never heard of K.I.S.S.?
Let me get this straight - putting a 50 dollar router on each location which allows traffic only from predefined hosts to predefined ports in front of each location is "not a cost effective method" for you, but switching to an entire new DVR hardware-software combo to protect you from viruses is ok?
If you stick to standards closely enough and are reasonable enough, you dont need to support them all. You will get a nice layout with modern browsers via CSS and a decently usable text site for older browsers that dont like CSS. Most of HTML standards are backwards compatible.
Of course, if you will make a nested table monster you are screwed.
The guy has no clue:
"Window's has a cult following, it's just not specialized in this sort of development" - lol - the windows cult's lack of access to source code makes it a bit difficult to PORT.
And why on earth is he talking about porting anyway? The whole idea is that now that macs have intel inside we could probably run windows WITHOUT PORTING as such.
he clearly doesnt know what PORTING an OS means and he is modded insightful...
Man, you dont have a clue about these matters - you are talking about porting windows... And it is modded insightful...
1) Linux is ported because the source code is available. You CANNOT PORT WINDOWS because you dont have the source code (unless you are Microsoft.)
2) the whole idea of the matter is that, since macs have Intel inside now, can we RUN windows without PORTING it.
Kingston is planning to release ram modules with a window by Q2 2006
is a first major instant messenger consolidation move. Which is a good thing.
that Google already bought firefox a while ago...
that they were grateful to be dead...
imagine a cluster of those...