Many companies I've worked for including the one I do work for surely purchase MS based servers, but that doesn't mean that the company who purchased them will be running Microsoft on them. E.g. we've purchased hundreds of Compaq Proliant servers with MS only to wipe the entire contents of it and place a Unix base system on it.
Bullshit. This argument works for the desktop space but it's ludicrous for the server space. All the major server companies normally ship servers blank (though most, such as Dell, have options for them to install whatever OS you pick for you). I just double checked and sure enough default Compaq servers have no OS, so if someone in these companies is paying extra to have a MS server OS bundled and paying extra to have it installed, and they then wipe it...well those people should be stoned and quartered.
The enforcement of specific policies seems to lie upon the actual @Home partner: i.e. While I get scanned for NNTP servers I have never been scanned for any other type of servers (well...from @Home at least. From script kiddies I've been scanned for every server imaginable).
You're a classic anti-MS raving zealot..and you have the nerve to tell the other person that they're pissing you off? Give me a break.
because as we speak the professional graphic market is still owned by OpenGL and there's one big freakin reason about this, it is better.
Anyone out there who does professional 3D work please raise your hands...yup, that's about 0.0001% of you. For the vast majority of users, and the vast majority of uses, DirectX is clearly a superior choice. This is pretty much unanimous in the field, including by some well known industry figures who fought DirectX tooth and nail. They now concede that it is clearly superior because it is innovative and continues to evolve.
Now, yes DirectX as improve in the last years. You know why? Of course not. Because it was made to compete OpenGL, you know what they did at M$ for their 8th released they worked with the OpenGL community isn't that weird?
No it isn't weird retard: OpenGL was a good, logical competitor so MS learned from it. The next time you use KDE or Gnome think long and hard about how they learned from, egads, Windows 9x. This is so pathetic. It is natural for anyone who develops software to learn from other software, especially when it's held up as the superior alternative. Is Linux an original operating system? No it's a rip off of a system from the 70s. Any rational, logical person could see that it is reasonable for Microsoft to learn what some in the community particularly had a problem with DirectX, in particular why they thought OpenGL was superior. Gosh you think the setup is too complex compared to OpenGL? Okay we'll make the setup easier. You want a transformation pipeline? Okay we'll put in one of those.
Office is the best office suit on the market because M$ killed all the others that were far far far more quality products.
Now this just takes the cake. The competitors to Office were all universally pieces of shit that were poorly integrated, and were bloated sacks of crap. Please name these superior products that MS killed that were superior? While Microsoft is often accused of making "bloatware" it's funny that when other products try to emulate the functionality they end up bloating much moreso. It was fun to call IE bloatware until Netscape finally came out with that bloated monster. Word was bloatware until Wordperfect finally made a Windows (ergo non-DOS) version of Wordperfect...which ended up being a slow, memory hogging, disk encroaching behemoth.
IE? pfff come on, I'm currently developping web applications, and you know what that DAMN FREAKIN IE IS PISSING ME OFF BIG TIMES!
That's because you're a moron. PFFF! Take a lithium pill or something.
And thanks in part to a media that has utterly failed to grasp or cover well the real issues involving the soft- and hardware that governs the Net and the Web, the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free.
Oh give me a break! This is so friggin' inane it really brings into doubt the rest of the article. That's right Jon: You know the righteous way and all us uninformed masses are stupid ponying up for Windows 2000. Please guide us in our ignorant ways and bring us enlightenment. The real cream on the cake was using Scott McNealy for quotes...wait isn't that the "no one should expect privacy" gentlemen? Gosh, he's got some negative things to say about Microsoft? Egads! What a great surprize! Surely such a credible source adds such foundation to this article.
Don't blame the press for the continued success of Microsoft, because if anything the press has been down on Microsoft for years. CNN (notice that CNN has the big Netscape banner, and the favicon.ico for CNN for the longest time was the Netscape logo...rather disconcerting) has been slamming Microsoft for years. Every other print organization has tried to be hip by hyping the dream world of open source and Linux. There have been countless "Microsoft is doomed because of the march of network appliances/Java/Linux/PS2/etc". Movies like AntiTrust are ridiculous, foolish Katz-type mass media pandering to the foolish that believe an argument without a foundation. So don't tell me the media is the reason that Microsoft is successful: Microsoft is successful DESPITE the media.
Using G7ToWin you can upload/download routes, waypoints, etc with your eTrex (if you have the data cable). Great little program. It doesn't let you draw on a map but I have no doubt that with a little bit of elbow grease and a product like MapPoint (otherwise known as Streets and Trips) you could achieve it. The only nuisance is that it requires that the eTrex be in a different serial data mode than MapPoint forcing me to switch it to jump between them (I considered making a virtual serial port that would automatically convert from a real serial port and both MapPoint and G7ToWin could talk to the virtual serial port, but after a quick look at the Win2000 DDK determined that it wasn't something that was worth dedicating that much time to).
I got one of those as well and it is an amazing device (not to mention being amazingly accurate). To be honest though right after getting my E-Trex I wished I'd gotten the eTrex Venture. Given that it includes the PC cable (which I paid extra for) it is only marginally more expensive than the standard Etrex, but it also has a city database, 1MB of memory, and 160 x 288 resolution versus 64 x 128 for the standard Etrex...well I regretted getting the basic Etrex. You can do a compare at http://www.garmin.com/cgi-bin/compare/outdoor.
The subject is a joke. Personally I am sick and tired of every half-wit commenting about how "Who needs encryption but people who have something to hide?". That's bullshit (and anyone who says that needs to be slapped around a bit).
Encryption isn't about hiding anything, but rather it's about not revealing what no one has the right to know. I use encryption for pretty much everything, and while a lot of the messages are business related (and hence critical that they remain private from opposing businesses and foreign governments), a lot are completely banal conversation type things, yet STILL I encrypt them. Using the standard analogy: I don't send my letters without envelopes, and I'm not going to send my emails without protection.
I am prone to believing that the only ones who abhore encryption are those who are too stupid to understand it and implement it so they fear that others using it makes them more vulnerable to being monitored. It's like those who scoff at crime prevention techniques because they feel that it makes them more attractive to criminals (because being too stupid &| lazy to implement crime prevention they are sitting ducks separated from the herd).
Given that you're sending to the person, the issue is more that you need to have their public key. If they installed PGP and then right clicked on their key (in Key Manager) and picked "Send To" they can upload their public key to keyserver.pgp.com, among others. When you then try to send a encrypted message to it your client will, seeing that you don't have their public key, sends a query to the LDAP server (whichever one you requested) requesting the public key associated with that email address.
Organizations can achieve this internally (in a more "Trusted" manner) through the use of a PKI server.
Microsoft has added encryption to Outlook, Outlook Express, etc., and they've had it for quite some time now. Get yourself a certificate from a root trusted authority (i.e. Thawte) and install it and there you go.
As mentioned by another poster PGP hooks into Outlook, Eudora, Pegasus, and Outlook Express. You can set it to decrypt on opening which makes it generally transparent, apart from entering your passphrase when your cache timeout expires.
This is so classic that this post got marked as redundant. How is it redundant? Given that Mr. Torvalds is an advocate (or least is held up as one) of open source/no intellectual property rights then one would fully expect this book to appear online, or at least with a preface/copyright condition that allows anyone to retype it in (or sorry, following the GPL concept he should provide the original text layout format source) and provide it to the world with no fear of legal recourse.
But wait: Just as the Torvalds/GPL fans will rewrite IP restrictions for processor design (and as I stated in another article processor design is no different than software system design) they will just as quickly claim that meanderings are more worthy of protection than source code.
That's good math...if only it were actually correct. KB=Kilobyte. Kb=Kilobit. Mb=Megabit. 200KBps (note the big B indicating 200 KiloBYTE) = 2Mbps (generally there are about 10 bits including crapulence per byte). A T1, which is about 1.544Mbps (Megabit / second) can transfer ~154KB (KiloBYTE) / second.
I live in Southern Ontario and I can say that I know of no one that doesn't have cable at least running to their house. A couple don't have it active, but it always seems to be built in as a natural home building step. Weird.
Of course, as I noted in another post, it really comes down to what's available in a particular area and how well it works. DSL beat cable modem into Minneapolis by 3 years, and works just fine. You've had a cable modem for two years on a ring that hasn't added more than a handful of users in that time. Lucky you
Here's the fundamental flaw in your argument. Your supposition seems to be that the cable companies (each of which builds its own infrastructure BTW) dropped in X bandwidth, and as users increase X gets divided among them. Hardly. Each of them has been adding users, as mentioned previously, geometrically yet each time there is an appreciable drop in net bandwidth per user they are obviously upgrading the core. You mention if they are allowed on: Do you think @Home is denying customers? Every new customer is paying for a little more infrastructure that makes it better for all of us. In reality I would say if anything that on average my experience has been improving rather than degrading.
Again this brings us back to the fact that the biggest anti-cable argument tends to be hypotheticals rather than reality. If the cable company oversold a connection more than the telephone companies oversell the connection to the switching station (which is a fact that most DSL supporters seem to fail to mention...) then hypothetically cable may be slower. Well I've been going at 4x the speed of the local (comparably priced) DSL for years now...
DSL supports a minimum of 1.5Mbps? I'm not sure what you're talking about but in most situations that's the maximum if you're nestled right up beside the telco and have perfect lines. I know lots of people who signed up for their 500Kbps DSL and get that once in a blue moon.
The simple reality is this: For the past two years I've been downloading at 200KBps and having conversations with people with DSL (maxing out at 50KBps) where they proclaim that @Home is going to hell and soon it's going to be super slow, blah blah blah. During that time the number of @Home users has been increasing geometrically, yet I'm still getting 200KBps and those friends are still getting 50KBps. This whole argument really is so absurd with DSL advocates pulling out hypotheticals of what if there were 10,000,000 on one cable drop compared to one guy sitting beside the telco, etc. How utterly foolish.
If ever @Home started to get slow I have the option of getting DSL. However there's a fat chance I'm going to do that based on the theory of which one is faster, when for over two years the opposite has proven to be the case.
I can only speak for personal experience, however using both Rogers@Home and Cogeco@Home I have never gotten a daily average of less than 100 KB/second (or more impressively sounding 1Mbps). Right now I can download at a sustained 200 KB/second (2Mbps). Every now and then my speed drops a bit but then Cogeco subdivides and once again I'm hitting 200 KB.
@Home is up past 3 million users so it's hardly like they're a startup tricking people into thinking they're fast.
In three separate locations I have gotten and been online with cable (@Home) in no time whatsoever with zero hassle. While there may be a delay in getting a technician to do the install, anyone technically adept can pick up the hardware and do it themselves presuming the cable wiring in their house isn't ancient. Regarding the oft criticized reliability of high speed, 98% of the time the problem (which is incredibly rare) is up the network several nodes...hence it isn't the high speed connection whatsoever but the infrastructure of the high speed provider. This sort of problem affects anyone using the net be it through dial-up, cable, DSL, or DS3.
I remember way back when with dial-up modems it was common for people to have problems because of line noise, crosstalk, etc. It was standard to always state to the tech service that it wasn't for a modem though as the phone company would refuse service then (you had to say that the interference disrupted voice conversations to get them out to fix it). The point being that dial-up went through years of trouble as well while the system was upgraded and cleaned up.
The subject is in jest and it is parodying the "study" with the realization that if you asked 100 drunks whether drinking diminishes their driving abilities, approximately 99 would say that it actually makes them better drivers. A study that asks people to give statements about their behaviours is founded in folly because people in general are liars. People will lie to try to push their views. People will lie to defend their position. People will lie just for fun.
The only way such a study could have any relevance is if the samples were totally unaware of being monitored.
...that, quickly followed by an IBM commercial (or Red Hat, or whatever distro could afford it,) advertising campaign that said something to the effect of: "Linux: free, every year, guaranteed." and mentioning how it's more reliable than any MS product, and Linux companies will make money hand over fist.
This should be modded up to +5 Funny. One of the best things I enjoy about Slashdot is watching the Cult of Linux simultaneously bash capitalism, closed source, etc., while at the same time holding up companies like IBM like a "My brother is bigger than YOUR brother!" kind of ally. IBM is a big company and they will use Linux however they can (trying to sell their hardware for instance, not to mention to try to destabilize the power of Microsoft...IBM hasn't gotten over being pummelled in the OS arena), but where necessary they will bend you over and stick it to you with a baseball bat. I see nothing wrong with that personally [excluding the sodomy imagery...] (because it's what everyone does anyways regardless of the rhetoric. The giving community is a suckers dream and an exploiters fantasy), however it's funny seeing so many Slashdotters hold up IBM as the big ally in the anti-MS fight. Next year when everyone has moved on to NewOS (hehe) IBM will abandon Linux like a soiled pair of underpants. Wait wasn't IBM one of the big enterprise Java evangelists?
Excellent points, however the fundamental of my position was that saying that the primary decision of the security of a firms infrastructure is what operating system they use is like (and I'll bring this up because there are several other car analogies) giving car insurance based upon the diameter of the tires. I am absolutely certain you could draw a correlation in some bizarre way between different tire sizes and insurance claims, however to use that as the foundation basis for insuring would be quite silly. Just because there is a correlation of something doesn't mean that it's a relevant correlation, or the most pertinent correlation, especially in something as complex as security.
If I read "...and furthermore shops that had installed the latest 2000 hotfixes had their premiums dropped 60%" then it would be credible. The security difference between a shop where the admins keep on top of the systems and one where they don't is huge and decisively paints a picture of the organization. The OS chosen does not (despite the patting on the back by the Linux community it's amazing how often I see scans for Linux vulnerabilities...).
I mean no disprespect, but on average, people who do not understand how computers work, or how security works into the networked envirnment, would choose windows. There is no reason why windows cannot be as secure as a well locked down linux system, it is just less likly.
Sorry for the repost but I forgot to put &lt rather than <...;-)
I will agree with this if talking about firms with < 100 employees. In that case it is completely true that often Windows is simply what happens to be installed so it is turned into the network infrastructure. However there are a lot of very large companies with very intelligent IT departments that have incredibly secure Windows 2000/NT networks with complete IPSec/SMB signing, Kerberos, certificate authentications, etc. As you mentioned and I will attest, 2000 can be enormously secure, and the reality is that most firms that would actually pony up for "cracking" insurance will be of this calibre: They usually have top notch IT departments. The small shops that account for the overwhelming majority of compromises seldom would get insurance in the first place.
I mean no disprespect, but on average, people who do not understand how computers work, or how security works into the networked envirnment, would choose windows. There is no reason why windows cannot be as secure as a well locked down linux system, it is just less likly.
I will agree with this if talking about firms with enormously secure, and the reality is that most firms that would actually pony up for "cracking" insurance will be of this calibre: They usually have top notch IT departments. The small shops that account for the overwhelming majority of compromises seldom would get insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
Many companies I've worked for including the one I do work for surely purchase MS based servers, but that doesn't mean that the company who purchased them will be running Microsoft on them. E.g. we've purchased hundreds of Compaq Proliant servers with MS only to wipe the entire contents of it and place a Unix base system on it.
Bullshit. This argument works for the desktop space but it's ludicrous for the server space. All the major server companies normally ship servers blank (though most, such as Dell, have options for them to install whatever OS you pick for you). I just double checked and sure enough default Compaq servers have no OS, so if someone in these companies is paying extra to have a MS server OS bundled and paying extra to have it installed, and they then wipe it...well those people should be stoned and quartered.
The enforcement of specific policies seems to lie upon the actual @Home partner: i.e. While I get scanned for NNTP servers I have never been scanned for any other type of servers (well...from @Home at least. From script kiddies I've been scanned for every server imaginable).
You're a classic anti-MS raving zealot..and you have the nerve to tell the other person that they're pissing you off? Give me a break.
because as we speak the professional graphic market is still owned by OpenGL and there's one big freakin reason about this, it is better.
Anyone out there who does professional 3D work please raise your hands...yup, that's about 0.0001% of you. For the vast majority of users, and the vast majority of uses, DirectX is clearly a superior choice. This is pretty much unanimous in the field, including by some well known industry figures who fought DirectX tooth and nail. They now concede that it is clearly superior because it is innovative and continues to evolve.
Now, yes DirectX as improve in the last years. You know why? Of course not. Because it was made to compete OpenGL, you know what they did at M$ for their 8th released they worked with the OpenGL community isn't that weird?
No it isn't weird retard: OpenGL was a good, logical competitor so MS learned from it. The next time you use KDE or Gnome think long and hard about how they learned from, egads, Windows 9x. This is so pathetic. It is natural for anyone who develops software to learn from other software, especially when it's held up as the superior alternative. Is Linux an original operating system? No it's a rip off of a system from the 70s. Any rational, logical person could see that it is reasonable for Microsoft to learn what some in the community particularly had a problem with DirectX, in particular why they thought OpenGL was superior. Gosh you think the setup is too complex compared to OpenGL? Okay we'll make the setup easier. You want a transformation pipeline? Okay we'll put in one of those.
Office is the best office suit on the market because M$ killed all the others that were far far far more quality products.
Now this just takes the cake. The competitors to Office were all universally pieces of shit that were poorly integrated, and were bloated sacks of crap. Please name these superior products that MS killed that were superior? While Microsoft is often accused of making "bloatware" it's funny that when other products try to emulate the functionality they end up bloating much moreso. It was fun to call IE bloatware until Netscape finally came out with that bloated monster. Word was bloatware until Wordperfect finally made a Windows (ergo non-DOS) version of Wordperfect...which ended up being a slow, memory hogging, disk encroaching behemoth.
IE? pfff come on, I'm currently developping web applications, and you know what that DAMN FREAKIN IE IS PISSING ME OFF BIG TIMES!
That's because you're a moron. PFFF! Take a lithium pill or something.
And thanks in part to a media that has utterly failed to grasp or cover well the real issues involving the soft- and hardware that governs the Net and the Web, the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free.
Oh give me a break! This is so friggin' inane it really brings into doubt the rest of the article. That's right Jon: You know the righteous way and all us uninformed masses are stupid ponying up for Windows 2000. Please guide us in our ignorant ways and bring us enlightenment. The real cream on the cake was using Scott McNealy for quotes...wait isn't that the "no one should expect privacy" gentlemen? Gosh, he's got some negative things to say about Microsoft? Egads! What a great surprize! Surely such a credible source adds such foundation to this article.
Don't blame the press for the continued success of Microsoft, because if anything the press has been down on Microsoft for years. CNN (notice that CNN has the big Netscape banner, and the favicon.ico for CNN for the longest time was the Netscape logo...rather disconcerting) has been slamming Microsoft for years. Every other print organization has tried to be hip by hyping the dream world of open source and Linux. There have been countless "Microsoft is doomed because of the march of network appliances/Java/Linux/PS2/etc". Movies like AntiTrust are ridiculous, foolish Katz-type mass media pandering to the foolish that believe an argument without a foundation. So don't tell me the media is the reason that Microsoft is successful: Microsoft is successful DESPITE the media.
Using G7ToWin you can upload/download routes, waypoints, etc with your eTrex (if you have the data cable). Great little program. It doesn't let you draw on a map but I have no doubt that with a little bit of elbow grease and a product like MapPoint (otherwise known as Streets and Trips) you could achieve it. The only nuisance is that it requires that the eTrex be in a different serial data mode than MapPoint forcing me to switch it to jump between them (I considered making a virtual serial port that would automatically convert from a real serial port and both MapPoint and G7ToWin could talk to the virtual serial port, but after a quick look at the Win2000 DDK determined that it wasn't something that was worth dedicating that much time to).
I got one of those as well and it is an amazing device (not to mention being amazingly accurate). To be honest though right after getting my E-Trex I wished I'd gotten the eTrex Venture. Given that it includes the PC cable (which I paid extra for) it is only marginally more expensive than the standard Etrex, but it also has a city database, 1MB of memory, and 160 x 288 resolution versus 64 x 128 for the standard Etrex...well I regretted getting the basic Etrex. You can do a compare at http://www.garmin.com/cgi-bin/compare/outdoor.
The subject is a joke. Personally I am sick and tired of every half-wit commenting about how "Who needs encryption but people who have something to hide?". That's bullshit (and anyone who says that needs to be slapped around a bit).
Encryption isn't about hiding anything, but rather it's about not revealing what no one has the right to know. I use encryption for pretty much everything, and while a lot of the messages are business related (and hence critical that they remain private from opposing businesses and foreign governments), a lot are completely banal conversation type things, yet STILL I encrypt them. Using the standard analogy: I don't send my letters without envelopes, and I'm not going to send my emails without protection.
I am prone to believing that the only ones who abhore encryption are those who are too stupid to understand it and implement it so they fear that others using it makes them more vulnerable to being monitored. It's like those who scoff at crime prevention techniques because they feel that it makes them more attractive to criminals (because being too stupid &| lazy to implement crime prevention they are sitting ducks separated from the herd).
Given that you're sending to the person, the issue is more that you need to have their public key. If they installed PGP and then right clicked on their key (in Key Manager) and picked "Send To" they can upload their public key to keyserver.pgp.com, among others. When you then try to send a encrypted message to it your client will, seeing that you don't have their public key, sends a query to the LDAP server (whichever one you requested) requesting the public key associated with that email address.
Organizations can achieve this internally (in a more "Trusted" manner) through the use of a PKI server.
Microsoft has added encryption to Outlook, Outlook Express, etc., and they've had it for quite some time now. Get yourself a certificate from a root trusted authority (i.e. Thawte) and install it and there you go.
Personally I prefer PGP though.
As mentioned by another poster PGP hooks into Outlook, Eudora, Pegasus, and Outlook Express. You can set it to decrypt on opening which makes it generally transparent, apart from entering your passphrase when your cache timeout expires.
This is so classic that this post got marked as redundant. How is it redundant? Given that Mr. Torvalds is an advocate (or least is held up as one) of open source/no intellectual property rights then one would fully expect this book to appear online, or at least with a preface/copyright condition that allows anyone to retype it in (or sorry, following the GPL concept he should provide the original text layout format source) and provide it to the world with no fear of legal recourse.
But wait: Just as the Torvalds/GPL fans will rewrite IP restrictions for processor design (and as I stated in another article processor design is no different than software system design) they will just as quickly claim that meanderings are more worthy of protection than source code.
That's good math...if only it were actually correct. KB=Kilobyte. Kb=Kilobit. Mb=Megabit. 200KBps (note the big B indicating 200 KiloBYTE) = 2Mbps (generally there are about 10 bits including crapulence per byte). A T1, which is about 1.544Mbps (Megabit / second) can transfer ~154KB (KiloBYTE) / second.
Thanks for coming out though.
I live in Southern Ontario and I can say that I know of no one that doesn't have cable at least running to their house. A couple don't have it active, but it always seems to be built in as a natural home building step. Weird.
Of course, as I noted in another post, it really comes down to what's available in a particular area and how well it works. DSL beat cable modem into Minneapolis by 3 years, and works just fine. You've had a cable modem for two years on a ring that hasn't added more than a handful of users in that time. Lucky you
Here's the fundamental flaw in your argument. Your supposition seems to be that the cable companies (each of which builds its own infrastructure BTW) dropped in X bandwidth, and as users increase X gets divided among them. Hardly. Each of them has been adding users, as mentioned previously, geometrically yet each time there is an appreciable drop in net bandwidth per user they are obviously upgrading the core. You mention if they are allowed on: Do you think @Home is denying customers? Every new customer is paying for a little more infrastructure that makes it better for all of us. In reality I would say if anything that on average my experience has been improving rather than degrading.
Again this brings us back to the fact that the biggest anti-cable argument tends to be hypotheticals rather than reality. If the cable company oversold a connection more than the telephone companies oversell the connection to the switching station (which is a fact that most DSL supporters seem to fail to mention...) then hypothetically cable may be slower. Well I've been going at 4x the speed of the local (comparably priced) DSL for years now...
DSL supports a minimum of 1.5Mbps? I'm not sure what you're talking about but in most situations that's the maximum if you're nestled right up beside the telco and have perfect lines. I know lots of people who signed up for their 500Kbps DSL and get that once in a blue moon.
The simple reality is this: For the past two years I've been downloading at 200KBps and having conversations with people with DSL (maxing out at 50KBps) where they proclaim that @Home is going to hell and soon it's going to be super slow, blah blah blah. During that time the number of @Home users has been increasing geometrically, yet I'm still getting 200KBps and those friends are still getting 50KBps. This whole argument really is so absurd with DSL advocates pulling out hypotheticals of what if there were 10,000,000 on one cable drop compared to one guy sitting beside the telco, etc. How utterly foolish.
If ever @Home started to get slow I have the option of getting DSL. However there's a fat chance I'm going to do that based on the theory of which one is faster, when for over two years the opposite has proven to be the case.
I can only speak for personal experience, however using both Rogers@Home and Cogeco@Home I have never gotten a daily average of less than 100 KB/second (or more impressively sounding 1Mbps). Right now I can download at a sustained 200 KB/second (2Mbps). Every now and then my speed drops a bit but then Cogeco subdivides and once again I'm hitting 200 KB.
@Home is up past 3 million users so it's hardly like they're a startup tricking people into thinking they're fast.
In three separate locations I have gotten and been online with cable (@Home) in no time whatsoever with zero hassle. While there may be a delay in getting a technician to do the install, anyone technically adept can pick up the hardware and do it themselves presuming the cable wiring in their house isn't ancient. Regarding the oft criticized reliability of high speed, 98% of the time the problem (which is incredibly rare) is up the network several nodes...hence it isn't the high speed connection whatsoever but the infrastructure of the high speed provider. This sort of problem affects anyone using the net be it through dial-up, cable, DSL, or DS3.
I remember way back when with dial-up modems it was common for people to have problems because of line noise, crosstalk, etc. It was standard to always state to the tech service that it wasn't for a modem though as the phone company would refuse service then (you had to say that the interference disrupted voice conversations to get them out to fix it). The point being that dial-up went through years of trouble as well while the system was upgraded and cleaned up.
Cheers!
The subject is in jest and it is parodying the "study" with the realization that if you asked 100 drunks whether drinking diminishes their driving abilities, approximately 99 would say that it actually makes them better drivers. A study that asks people to give statements about their behaviours is founded in folly because people in general are liars. People will lie to try to push their views. People will lie to defend their position. People will lie just for fun.
The only way such a study could have any relevance is if the samples were totally unaware of being monitored.
IPF is extremely easy to understand and its logical and powerful control was one of the reasons I use it versus IPFW in FreeBSD. Works fantastically.
What an incredible movie.
This should be modded up to +5 Funny. One of the best things I enjoy about Slashdot is watching the Cult of Linux simultaneously bash capitalism, closed source, etc., while at the same time holding up companies like IBM like a "My brother is bigger than YOUR brother!" kind of ally. IBM is a big company and they will use Linux however they can (trying to sell their hardware for instance, not to mention to try to destabilize the power of Microsoft...IBM hasn't gotten over being pummelled in the OS arena), but where necessary they will bend you over and stick it to you with a baseball bat. I see nothing wrong with that personally [excluding the sodomy imagery...] (because it's what everyone does anyways regardless of the rhetoric. The giving community is a suckers dream and an exploiters fantasy), however it's funny seeing so many Slashdotters hold up IBM as the big ally in the anti-MS fight. Next year when everyone has moved on to NewOS (hehe) IBM will abandon Linux like a soiled pair of underpants. Wait wasn't IBM one of the big enterprise Java evangelists?
Yeah I get it. How's that working out for you?
What?
Being clever.
Excellent points, however the fundamental of my position was that saying that the primary decision of the security of a firms infrastructure is what operating system they use is like (and I'll bring this up because there are several other car analogies) giving car insurance based upon the diameter of the tires. I am absolutely certain you could draw a correlation in some bizarre way between different tire sizes and insurance claims, however to use that as the foundation basis for insuring would be quite silly. Just because there is a correlation of something doesn't mean that it's a relevant correlation, or the most pertinent correlation, especially in something as complex as security.
If I read "...and furthermore shops that had installed the latest 2000 hotfixes had their premiums dropped 60%" then it would be credible. The security difference between a shop where the admins keep on top of the systems and one where they don't is huge and decisively paints a picture of the organization. The OS chosen does not (despite the patting on the back by the Linux community it's amazing how often I see scans for Linux vulnerabilities...).
I mean no disprespect, but on average, people who do not understand how computers work, or how security works into the networked envirnment, would choose windows. There is no reason why windows cannot be as secure as a well locked down linux system, it is just less likly.
Sorry for the repost but I forgot to put &lt rather than <...I will agree with this if talking about firms with < 100 employees. In that case it is completely true that often Windows is simply what happens to be installed so it is turned into the network infrastructure. However there are a lot of very large companies with very intelligent IT departments that have incredibly secure Windows 2000/NT networks with complete IPSec/SMB signing, Kerberos, certificate authentications, etc. As you mentioned and I will attest, 2000 can be enormously secure, and the reality is that most firms that would actually pony up for "cracking" insurance will be of this calibre: They usually have top notch IT departments. The small shops that account for the overwhelming majority of compromises seldom would get insurance in the first place.
I mean no disprespect, but on average, people who do not understand how computers work, or how security works into the networked envirnment, would choose windows. There is no reason why windows cannot be as secure as a well locked down linux system, it is just less likly.
I will agree with this if talking about firms with enormously secure, and the reality is that most firms that would actually pony up for "cracking" insurance will be of this calibre: They usually have top notch IT departments. The small shops that account for the overwhelming majority of compromises seldom would get insurance.