I'm the sys-admin for my company I work for (when not coding). Only the boss and myself knew the password for the entire domain, and everyone was happy. One day, during a software demo I need to pull some files off my machine for the demo. Boss says "come back once the files are on the public share, and we'll re-test". I say "Not to worry; i'll go through the admin share" (\\machinename\c$ or such) - I'll just log you into my machine as network admin. This worried my boss - "What? You can access any machine's drives if you're the network administrator?".
I try and explain that yes you could; it's by design; the admin being the super-power on the network - full access to everything, etc. This leads him to the next question of "What? Even you could access even my PC? I've got sensitive information on here?!". I reply "Yes, even yours if I really wanted to".
Unimpressed, he changes the network admin password.
Precisely 1 hour and 20 minutes later; I get an email saying "User xyz can't access a file YYY on the abc share - what's the problem?". I explain the permissions on the file probably got corrupted/lost and resetting the file-system permissions for the root directory structure should flush out the problem.
He gives me the new network admin password. Problem was fixed in 2 mins.
In conclusion, us geeks rule the world. On modern IT systems, someone, must have complete power over all. That is why we are geeks because we can do what others cannot.
And it's true what they say; being a sys-admin is a power-trip.
*evil laugh* The machines! They're all miiiine! Aaaalll mine!!!!
I'm amazed you consider an operating system that uses all the memory you throw at it to speed things up, a pig. Indeed; 4GB is just a more realistic sweet-spot - 64GB is where it's at really (64 bit only of course).
Thank god Windows can finally scale to decent hardware I say.
I can't help but think this has a lot to do with price more than actual preference...
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Linux and run it at home etc, but if you know anything about Linux, it'll be that it's "free" which would logically imply your PC is cheaper?
Not that it's the only reason people request Linux pre-installed of course, but it must be a big one at least.
Well, I got about a 3rd of the way down the comments list, and couldnt read any more. Comments like "Vienna will be out when the next Mac OS is out so they can copy the features! Lol!!1one!" and so on, are so blatently showing your shameless bias towards everything !microsoft, its just unreal! Theres too many times I find some/. comments sickeningly short-sighted, and this post is proving to be a classic example.
Lets have a real discussion then; I want to know how Vienna will: * Give me a reason to upgrade from Vista, bearing in mind Vista is supposedly the precipse of computing nirvana * Set it apart from what a modern Linux distro like Ubuntu might look like in 2009 (bearing in mind the frightening speed of improvements the Linux scene has seen in the last 5 years or so) * What bits of Vista have Microsoft fucked up and will re-do from scratch?
To add a computer to a domain you must be logged in as an administrator onto that PC. Assuming all network settings are right (DNS specifically), you can opt to join a domain if one exists on the connected network. Once found OK, a network administrator must authorise the computer onto the domain, and thus, two separate administrator passwords are required for this 'rootkit' to install.
By joining a domain of course, the original 'owner' of the PC is agreeing to hand over complete control of the network administrator(s), and therefore be subject to all network policies pre-defined. By entering a network admin password, the network admin accepts they want the machine on the network.
Personally I've found with corporate networks especially that it's never good to be all of one thing in particular. Linux is best (in my opinion) at performing discrete tasks incredibly well - for example, storage (using lvm in particular), web (Apache), Internet caching & proxying, but as for operating top-to-bottom tasks such as managing numerous workstation and user policies, I'm afraid Windows wins it - the instant integration built-in to Windows is incredible. I can plug in any Windows 2000 and upward PC into the network I manage, and within minutes, it'll be fully patched, have all the software we need installed, and be fully locked-down & generally configured (company screen-saver, explorer bar and such things) - all without actually touching it.
But I digress, my point really is that there are few cases where a network is running well without a mix of technology. Running one without the other is a bad idea if you ask me.
Is anyone else here thinking they don't give a shit too?
I mean, this whole thing pretty much boils down to "which one do you prefer?" - how scientific is that?!
Give me a real debate ffs; better default security, faster networking, better f/s, better app-support, better memory management....anything! Anything but "which one's better?"!
Christ, it's Friday night, everyone's going out and I'm on slashdot. Good evening everyone, the beers are calling.
...but in my opinion, if there was a single feature that is a quantifiable improvement on anything other than visuals; it's UAC. Imagine; you can open any executable file at all, even without virus protection; knowing that it can only destroy your local profile at worst. Obviously, if you turn off UAC or keep clicking 'Allow' at every turn then you'll be just as screwed an unprotected WinXP user would be.
Sure, there's a load of kernel improvements, pretty graphics and such, but really; is that all going to turn Vista into a justifiable upgrade? I think not.
All these things are improvements for sure; but they are evolutionary not revolutionary.
Vista is indeed a worthy improvement, but not a worthy upgrade. I'd buy it on a new PC, but in no way buy it outright...
UAC is one of the biggest improvements in my opinion; not in that it makes Windows nicer to use (far from it in fact), but that finally, Windows has adopted a more *nix based approach to user-security (in at least, you don't have to be a full admin to do anything useful, and full-admin rights are difficult to obtain) and thank god for that!
But like I say, I'm not rushing out to buy it...and not many people will either if you ask me.
1. IE != OpenSource - many eyes are better than few for finding & fixing defects.
2. Desktop integration - across Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP and to a lesser extent Vista.
3. Application integration - there are tonnes of apps writen either embedded in IE, or using IE as a view-port to data, screens, etc.
All of the above (and more) make IE6 a bitch to keep updated quickly and easily. Breaking not just a browser, but OS shell, and tied-apps with a dodgy patch isn't an option for Microsoft and they know it (despite the odd rogue update that slips through the net).
...for the average user I'd say. Microsoft are one of the few company's in this world that can throw absolutely stacks of hard cash at figuring out how to make everyday tasks such as saving, editing, etc easier for the average user, and I expect that in the end, it will be easier. I remember similar protests when Windows 95 came on the scene - dramatically new interface and all; it create a bit of a storm if memory serves.
What I do wonder though is, have Microsoft sacrificed ease of use for power-users in favour of n00bs? From what I've seen it looks like they have (no menus, and so on), which is not good.
This case would make an excellent case-study for the Vista Bitlocker facility. The cynic in me wonders whether Microsoft may play on this convenient timing.
One such example was when Virgin attempted to get Internet humour website B3ta.com to come up with something for their "say yes" campaign. Virgin got rather offended in fact over what was being produced and pulled out. It did however generate a storm of publicity (The Inq. wasn't the only site to report this cock-up), so it was successful in some respects.
I think the game needs a little more than that to make it 'realistic'
Things like: -300 points for team-kills, except Europeans. -100 points for civilian kills, but some mild torture should give at least +10 but with the possibility of some bad press. +50 points should be given for every gun you manage sell to the insurgents instead of using against them.
Well, fair enough. I can only say that as I paid for my copy of XP, and subsequently I have zero issues with WGA or activation as they have caused me 0% grief. The day they become a hurdle, I'll be first in line to join your protests.
So far, WGA just means you don't get the extra free-bits for Windows that don't come out of the box (IE7, Windows Defender, et al - which are now baked into the OS already). In fact, even if Vista is 100% sure you've stolen it it'll still work with things like Areo disabled, and with nag-screens. But then like I say, if you've not paid for it then you can't complain you're being hounded.
In fact, it's activation that's by far the biggest killer - not activating won't let you log-in ultimately. Failing WGA just means no freebies.
Anyway, I'm definitely not saying Vista is the ultimate OS by any standard. It's got some nice bits and some rough bits - like any OS.
-So buy it, or quit whining. WGA is a pain if you've stolen Windows, but otherwise it's more or less transparent.
-Don't use WMP11/WMA - no-one's forcing you to.
-No more than any other version of Windows. That's the Windows philosophy; simplicity. If that's not your cup of tea then fine, but you the go on to endorse OSX which takes the same approach as Windows in that the user doesn't need to 'see under the hood' - as long as it works.
You want a real reason not to upgrade? Try:
-Windows XP is very stable, and the most widely supported for hardware software - Vista isn't (yet)
or if you just don't like the way Windows does things:
-I just don't like the way Windows does things. I like to "drive my own car" so to speak and "not be driven".
I like to think that one day I could "log on" to any "computer", and see all my documents, email, and all the other data I use every day just appear on my "desktop" - or any other directory I put them in. The ultimate remote-desktop if you will. It could all be done from a full-screen web-browser, with the local OS just interfacing with a set of complex online APIs and clever client-side scripting to give the impression of real-time updates.
In fact, I think 90% of users would love to see this too, but I see some rather large problems with doing this...not least that in doing so, one would effectively be putting all eggs into one basket (Google's in this case), which is rarely a good idea - promises of "not being evil" notwithstanding. Personally, I'll never seriously use a system that is based on this paradigm, as suddenly, my very personal information is now owned by a company and not by me. I don't think i'm the only one too.
There's other reasons I think this wouldn't really work too (such as offline connectivity), but I won't go there. Still, that's just me....everyone's different.
...for mission-critical operations, most people don't give a flying fuck about TCO, purchase cost, or any other cost - it's about proven & reliable track-records combined with bullet-proof support. Oh, that any high-performance scalability, fail-over clustering, and all the other things OSS databases haven't quite caught up on yet.
Remember kids, if it's expensive - it must be good right?!
I've set our network up to do rather a lot overnight; the "healing process" as I like to call it. Each workstation is completely backed up to a storage server, SourceSafe to the tap-drive(40Gb database), SQL Servers run the maintenance plans (backups to tape, index consolidations, etc), automatic updates are installed and applied (if there are any), and each machine runs a full virus scan. It takes most of the night, and is quite essential for smooth running.
Basically, by the time people arrive in the morning; everyone's data is safe, machines secure, and operation virus-free.
In other words, there's no way I'd recommend shutting the network down overnight.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly; for the common-folk perhaps.
Kindest Regards,
Dr Toreo Asesino, BSc, MSc, GeneralLikerOfComplexAndGeekyThings (From the 'longer-is-better' department)
"There's no place like 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1"
You heard it here first. iThankyou.
I'm the sys-admin for my company I work for (when not coding). Only the boss and myself knew the password for the entire domain, and everyone was happy. One day, during a software demo I need to pull some files off my machine for the demo. Boss says "come back once the files are on the public share, and we'll re-test". I say "Not to worry; i'll go through the admin share" (\\machinename\c$ or such) - I'll just log you into my machine as network admin.
This worried my boss - "What? You can access any machine's drives if you're the network administrator?".
I try and explain that yes you could; it's by design; the admin being the super-power on the network - full access to everything, etc. This leads him to the next question of "What? Even you could access even my PC? I've got sensitive information on here?!". I reply "Yes, even yours if I really wanted to".
Unimpressed, he changes the network admin password.
Precisely 1 hour and 20 minutes later; I get an email saying "User xyz can't access a file YYY on the abc share - what's the problem?". I explain the permissions on the file probably got corrupted/lost and resetting the file-system permissions for the root directory structure should flush out the problem.
He gives me the new network admin password. Problem was fixed in 2 mins.
In conclusion, us geeks rule the world. On modern IT systems, someone, must have complete power over all. That is why we are geeks because we can do what others cannot.
And it's true what they say; being a sys-admin is a power-trip.
*evil laugh*
The machines! They're all miiiine! Aaaalll mine!!!!
one word:
"cache"
Vista will pre-load stuff it thinks you might need next. It's using your RAM to speed up your computer, which shockingly, is the idea of RAM.
Genius idea if you ask me; and I believe UNIX has been doing it for a while too - or at least something similar?
I'm amazed you consider an operating system that uses all the memory you throw at it to speed things up, a pig. Indeed; 4GB is just a more realistic sweet-spot - 64GB is where it's at really (64 bit only of course).
Thank god Windows can finally scale to decent hardware I say.
I can't help but think this has a lot to do with price more than actual preference...
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Linux and run it at home etc, but if you know anything about Linux, it'll be that it's "free" which would logically imply your PC is cheaper?
Not that it's the only reason people request Linux pre-installed of course, but it must be a big one at least.
Well, I got about a 3rd of the way down the comments list, and couldnt read any more. Comments like "Vienna will be out when the next Mac OS is out so they can copy the features! Lol!!1one!" and so on, are so blatently showing your shameless bias towards everything !microsoft, its just unreal! Theres too many times I find some /. comments sickeningly short-sighted, and this post is proving to be a classic example.
Lets have a real discussion then; I want to know how Vienna will:
* Give me a reason to upgrade from Vista, bearing in mind Vista is supposedly the precipse of computing nirvana
* Set it apart from what a modern Linux distro like Ubuntu might look like in 2009 (bearing in mind the frightening speed of improvements the Linux scene has seen in the last 5 years or so)
* What bits of Vista have Microsoft fucked up and will re-do from scratch?
For what it's worth, Linux already powers all the NetGear DG routers at least(Wireless, LAN) etc, and I have to say they work very well.
Nope...
:)
To add a computer to a domain you must be logged in as an administrator onto that PC. Assuming all network settings are right (DNS specifically), you can opt to join a domain if one exists on the connected network. Once found OK, a network administrator must authorise the computer onto the domain, and thus, two separate administrator passwords are required for this 'rootkit' to install.
By joining a domain of course, the original 'owner' of the PC is agreeing to hand over complete control of the network administrator(s), and therefore be subject to all network policies pre-defined. By entering a network admin password, the network admin accepts they want the machine on the network.
Clear? Marvellous
Personally I've found with corporate networks especially that it's never good to be all of one thing in particular. Linux is best (in my opinion) at performing discrete tasks incredibly well - for example, storage (using lvm in particular), web (Apache), Internet caching & proxying, but as for operating top-to-bottom tasks such as managing numerous workstation and user policies, I'm afraid Windows wins it - the instant integration built-in to Windows is incredible.
I can plug in any Windows 2000 and upward PC into the network I manage, and within minutes, it'll be fully patched, have all the software we need installed, and be fully locked-down & generally configured (company screen-saver, explorer bar and such things) - all without actually touching it.
But I digress, my point really is that there are few cases where a network is running well without a mix of technology. Running one without the other is a bad idea if you ask me.
Is anyone else here thinking they don't give a shit too?
I mean, this whole thing pretty much boils down to "which one do you prefer?" - how scientific is that?!
Give me a real debate ffs; better default security, faster networking, better f/s, better app-support, better memory management....anything! Anything but "which one's better?"!
Christ, it's Friday night, everyone's going out and I'm on slashdot. Good evening everyone, the beers are calling.
...but in my opinion, if there was a single feature that is a quantifiable improvement on anything other than visuals; it's UAC. Imagine; you can open any executable file at all, even without virus protection; knowing that it can only destroy your local profile at worst. Obviously, if you turn off UAC or keep clicking 'Allow' at every turn then you'll be just as screwed an unprotected WinXP user would be.
Sure, there's a load of kernel improvements, pretty graphics and such, but really; is that all going to turn Vista into a justifiable upgrade? I think not.
All these things are improvements for sure; but they are evolutionary not revolutionary.
Vista is indeed a worthy improvement, but not a worthy upgrade. I'd buy it on a new PC, but in no way buy it outright...
UAC is one of the biggest improvements in my opinion; not in that it makes Windows nicer to use (far from it in fact), but that finally, Windows has adopted a more *nix based approach to user-security (in at least, you don't have to be a full admin to do anything useful, and full-admin rights are difficult to obtain) and thank god for that!
But like I say, I'm not rushing out to buy it...and not many people will either if you ask me.
1. IE != OpenSource - many eyes are better than few for finding & fixing defects.
2. Desktop integration - across Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP and to a lesser extent Vista.
3. Application integration - there are tonnes of apps writen either embedded in IE, or using IE as a view-port to data, screens, etc.
All of the above (and more) make IE6 a bitch to keep updated quickly and easily. Breaking not just a browser, but OS shell, and tied-apps with a dodgy patch isn't an option for Microsoft and they know it (despite the odd rogue update that slips through the net).
...for the average user I'd say. Microsoft are one of the few company's in this world that can throw absolutely stacks of hard cash at figuring out how to make everyday tasks such as saving, editing, etc easier for the average user, and I expect that in the end, it will be easier. I remember similar protests when Windows 95 came on the scene - dramatically new interface and all; it create a bit of a storm if memory serves.
What I do wonder though is, have Microsoft sacrificed ease of use for power-users in favour of n00bs? From what I've seen it looks like they have (no menus, and so on), which is not good.
This case would make an excellent case-study for the Vista Bitlocker facility. The cynic in me wonders whether Microsoft may play on this convenient timing.
One such example was when Virgin attempted to get Internet humour website B3ta.com to come up with something for their "say yes" campaign. Virgin got rather offended in fact over what was being produced and pulled out. It did however generate a storm of publicity (The Inq. wasn't the only site to report this cock-up), so it was successful in some respects.
Arriba I say!
If this isn't insightful, then I don't know what is.
I think the game needs a little more than that to make it 'realistic'
Things like:
-300 points for team-kills, except Europeans.
-100 points for civilian kills, but some mild torture should give at least +10 but with the possibility of some bad press.
+50 points should be given for every gun you manage sell to the insurgents instead of using against them.
I'm sure this list could be extended...
Well, fair enough. I can only say that as I paid for my copy of XP, and subsequently I have zero issues with WGA or activation as they have caused me 0% grief. The day they become a hurdle, I'll be first in line to join your protests.
So far, WGA just means you don't get the extra free-bits for Windows that don't come out of the box (IE7, Windows Defender, et al - which are now baked into the OS already). In fact, even if Vista is 100% sure you've stolen it it'll still work with things like Areo disabled, and with nag-screens. But then like I say, if you've not paid for it then you can't complain you're being hounded.
In fact, it's activation that's by far the biggest killer - not activating won't let you log-in ultimately. Failing WGA just means no freebies.
Anyway, I'm definitely not saying Vista is the ultimate OS by any standard. It's got some nice bits and some rough bits - like any OS.
-So buy it, or quit whining. WGA is a pain if you've stolen Windows, but otherwise it's more or less transparent.
-Don't use WMP11/WMA - no-one's forcing you to.
-No more than any other version of Windows. That's the Windows philosophy; simplicity. If that's not your cup of tea then fine, but you the go on to endorse OSX which takes the same approach as Windows in that the user doesn't need to 'see under the hood' - as long as it works.
You want a real reason not to upgrade? Try:
-Windows XP is very stable, and the most widely supported for hardware software - Vista isn't (yet)
or if you just don't like the way Windows does things:
-I just don't like the way Windows does things. I like to "drive my own car" so to speak and "not be driven".
I like to think that one day I could "log on" to any "computer", and see all my documents, email, and all the other data I use every day just appear on my "desktop" - or any other directory I put them in. The ultimate remote-desktop if you will. It could all be done from a full-screen web-browser, with the local OS just interfacing with a set of complex online APIs and clever client-side scripting to give the impression of real-time updates.
In fact, I think 90% of users would love to see this too, but I see some rather large problems with doing this...not least that in doing so, one would effectively be putting all eggs into one basket (Google's in this case), which is rarely a good idea - promises of "not being evil" notwithstanding.
Personally, I'll never seriously use a system that is based on this paradigm, as suddenly, my very personal information is now owned by a company and not by me. I don't think i'm the only one too.
There's other reasons I think this wouldn't really work too (such as offline connectivity), but I won't go there. Still, that's just me....everyone's different.
...for mission-critical operations, most people don't give a flying fuck about TCO, purchase cost, or any other cost - it's about proven & reliable track-records combined with bullet-proof support. Oh, that any high-performance scalability, fail-over clustering, and all the other things OSS databases haven't quite caught up on yet.
Remember kids, if it's expensive - it must be good right?!
I've set our network up to do rather a lot overnight; the "healing process" as I like to call it. Each workstation is completely backed up to a storage server, SourceSafe to the tap-drive(40Gb database), SQL Servers run the maintenance plans (backups to tape, index consolidations, etc), automatic updates are installed and applied (if there are any), and each machine runs a full virus scan. It takes most of the night, and is quite essential for smooth running.
Basically, by the time people arrive in the morning; everyone's data is safe, machines secure, and operation virus-free.
In other words, there's no way I'd recommend shutting the network down overnight.