While I fully agree that the authors of virus/worms etc must be held accountable for their actions, surely there are other parties that are also liable for any issues that arrise from a virus/worm infestation.
The obvious one is the good old Microsoft. This has been beaten to death so many times that I am not going to delve into it...
The other group to consider is the people who have been infected. They have partially brought any problems upon themselves. This happens because of many things including the choice they made to run the system was vulnerable, the choice to not patch promptly (if a patch was available), the choice to not better secure their critical systems, etc.
Blaming the virus/worm authors and the author of the vulnerable software is easy (and absolutely right), but people really need to start looking beyond that and realise that it is really their decisions that are the core issue. If you don't want to be vulnerable to Windows virii/worms then don't run Windows. If you need to run Windows, secure it. If is a critical app, pay some serious attention to it...
Basically, I am advocating a bit of responsibility for ones own destiny...
I've gone so far as to say to a few newbie SysAdmins that your sole goal should be to automate yourself into an early redundancy. From there, the only reason you should be around is to cover for emergency situations and to read logs that tell you everything is running smoothly...
I don't know... Maybe my thinking is flawed... I always thought one of the coolest feature of any OO language is the ability to NOT have to reinvent the wheel constantly. It seems to me that Microsoft is taking every opportunity to do just this. I really don't understand why. I don't claim to be an expert in C# or anything, but I really can't see the benefit in taking the approach that they are.
Maybe they are just up to their old trick of trying to do everything their own way - we do C++ better than C++... We do Kerberos better than Kerberos <sigh>
I don't think I will ever understand those Redmond guys...
This reminds me of an urban myth/guaranteed scam that you hear about from time to time.
Firstly, you put ads out for, say, a heap of hardcore porn. People join up and pay you money. Now you bank that money into account 'A'. A little while later, you contact all of the people and tell them there are some legal issues with the service that you want to check out (being the good business person you are) and in order to be fair to them (the paying customer) you are going to refund their money. You now transfer the money from account 'A' into account 'B' that has a name like 'Anal Sodomizers of the World Unite!'. You send them all cheques with their refunds. The best part is, most of them won't present that cheque and after a certain time frame (differs in each country/state), the cheque becomes invalid and you get to keep the money:) Can't be too upset with that <chuckle>
I don't know if it has actually been done and I'm not sure how legal it is (the act in itself isn't as far as I can tell, but the intent to defraud is definitely there).
All standard disclaimers apply (ie. don't sue me when you go to jail:)
I just recently finished reading a software engineering book (yes, I am a sick puppy:) that uses this very concept. The book is Extreme Programming Explained by Kent Beck. It is less than 200 pages and is a very good read (not normal text book style).
It is a rare book in the field of software engineering. At its core is putting coding at the forefront of software engineering (what an amazing concept!) The basic concept is that you start with a metaphor and that is enough to get you started. You design just what you need to get the tasks at hand done. One example of a metaphor used in the book is when describing a pension caclulation to be "like a spreadsheet" (I know it is a simile, but close enough:) It then expands from there - as you need more detail, you drill down into the metaphor and fill in the design. The most controversial part of XP is you write tests first, then you write the code.
Overall, very impressed with the book. Even though I don't practice extreme programming (and in case you were wondering, no, it isn't like street luge in San Francisco:) I got a lot from the book. I will take the appropriate bits and add them to my arsenal.
Definitely worth a read and at sub-200 pages and easy reading style, you can cover it all in one decent sitting. And the bibliography is an absolute blast!
I wonder if Marshall Rose's BXXP stuff mentioned on/. recent would have any bearing on this...
I would think that it wouldn't be that hard to encorporate network printing into such a model. Oh well - one for the experts to work on... My experience with network printing is that to do it right is significantly harder than it first appears.
[sarcastic mode on] Hmmm... Maybe we could use the money that is defunded from the suckers to educate the next round of would-be suckers.
Or... Maybe we could use the money that is defunded to buy shares in the defundees so they can defund to our advantage and make everything ok. [sarcastic mode off]
I hate bigotted people who misunderstand what the word free means in free software... <sigh>
To a certain degree, I agree with you. VMS has some really cool fruit when it comes to a true enterprise class system. Unforunately, you have to pay an absolute arm and a leg for it (plus you get lots of old crusty admins - no offense intended to those out there that are older and crustier than me:)
The other downside is that less and less vendors are providing support (or even products for that matter) for VMS. Take Oracle for example. They port to VMS last and give it the lowest priority when it comes to patches/bug fixes. This is unfortunate coz Oracle is something that really benefits from the true clusterability (it that a word?:) of VMS rather than falling back to Oracle Parallel Server (yucky at the best of times).
Even with that all said, I really don't like VMS. (Please, please don't tell anyway that I stuck up for it:)
It is good to see that a company like RedHat is trying to take Linux in the right direction and (hopefully) making some money out of it along the way. All those that have been around for a while will remember in the very early days of RedHat, they were always saying (paraphrasing) "We don't necessarily want to make money out of Linux, but out of the services and support we can offer over and above the base".
I'm much happier seeing them move in this direction than the "make a whizzy graphical installer, call it a new distribution and then float". Hang on... Aren't RedHat the ones that started that trend? <laugh>
At the University where I did my Computing Science degree and currently work, the School of Computing was concerned about the lack of gender balance in their courses.
The solution: create a new course called "Information Technology". This course has less maths and concentrates more on the practical uses of IT rather than the high CS theory and mathematical content that a good CS degree has.
The results were amazing. About 40% of new enrollments were female - quite a few attractive ones as well (this is something that was sadly lacking from Computing Science previously:) It seems that most of the girls who were potentially interested in computing were turned off by the "Science" part of CS.
While we were out at dinner on Saturday night, a friend of mine (Mandy) was playing the game with her neice. After consistently beating the small child, her neice introduced a "thumbs-up" option called dynamite. Naturally, this always wins.
After a while of getting dynamited to hell, Mandy starts using dynamite. The small child in question then uses scissors, because sissors can cut the fuse.
Moral #1 of the story: Don't play with children.
Moral #2 of the story: As I said above, consistently beat small children <laugh>
I have a big problem with all of these types of games... At the end of the day, they are all very linear. You have to do A before you can do B which in turn allows you to do C. What if I happen to think up a better way which allows me to jump straight to C and go back to A and B later? Tough! Why can't I do C first. God damn it! I wanna do C first!! [Rant mode off]
IMHO Myst was designed to be pretty first and playable second. I really hope the "realtime 3D" remake does things better. I really want a game I can play rather than just impressing the luddite masses with the pretty pictures.
I fully understand and appreciate the fact that for a game to be any decent, you have to have a fairly well defined end goal and keep proding the player along in that direction, but there are ways and means of doing it without being so one dimentional. A good example of this was The Elder Scrolls Chapter 2: DaggerFall. There was a storyline to follow, but it really didn't matter what you did - storyline or not. Admittedly other than this, the game was somewhat ordinary.
I currently work at a University in Australia that will remain unnamed. We have recently commissioned an email review in an attempt to standardise things a bit more than the scarey mess that is out there at the moment.
Despite the fact that the review process was very flawed and a total con (typical of consultants), it very clearly outlined that there is a huge mix of both email clients and email servers out there and that we really should look at standardising the clients and consolidating the servers.
Part of the process was a survey of current usage across campus. The client side results were (from memory, in no order and staff only):
elm/pine: 10% - mostly the UNIX-centric areas such as Comp Sci and some of the other Science areas.
Pegasus: 10% - mostly legacy, but you know how academics are.
Outlook: 20% - this is (unfortunately) the way we are moving.
Groupwise: 30% - we have a large NDS infrastructure and, for better or worse, this is the way we were going before the email review said otherwise.
Eudora: 30% - this is historical and is being replaced with Outlook just because the email review said so.
The students mostly use Eudora, although the use of our internal student webmail system is starting to increase quite dramatically.
There is also quite extensive use of free web based email (such as hotmail), but I don't have any stats on this. We are actively discouraging its use, but the Uni doesn't have any real balls when it comes to making policy about it.
The really sad bit about all this is that the review process somehow decided that Exchange is the best server solution. Can anyone say Linux box running SMTP/POP/IMAP?
From everyones comments, I am not filled with confidence in the whole background check process.
I am currently in Australia and am in the process of applying for a job in the US. Hopefully I will be based in Australia, but official employed by the company through the US, not their Australian arm.
Part of the process is that a background check will be run. Personally, I have a very clean background (don't we all say that:) The problem is one of my cousins is somewhat of a bad apple. He has the same surname and a very similar first name. Based on the comments read here, I am somewhat worried...
Using BGP or OSPF or multiple default routes would only give you the bandwidth of up to 1 of your interfaces, and would spray packets out of each interface in a 1-goes-here 1-goes-there manner.
Not quite correct. There is the concept of an mroute cache that alleviates this problem. Basically if you route a packet out over link0 and another packet comes along it first looks up the mroute cache. If it finds a match (which it will in this case) it will send it out along the same path as the previous packet. If it doesn't find a match, then it will pick either of the links as you suggest.
This probably wouldn't be what you are looking for voice traffic.
This is not what you are looking for with any traffic. The mroute cache described above is used to assist the receiving end so that it is less likely to receive packets out of order and stop problems such as weirdo retransmission problems due to one link being significantly slower than the other (assuming multihoming). In general mroute cache is a good thing.
Also, the only real reason you would use BGP for something like this is if you were multihomed (it would be an absolute joke trying to receive any kind of routing table over modem links anyway). Multilink PPP (on slow links) to the same upstream is best taken care of with static routes.
As a side note, a while ago I was invited to a meeting with the goal of rationalising the IT infrastructure of my organisation. One of the issues that arose was to try and standardise (read: minimise number) of operating systems in use.
I found it damn funny how the supposed IT leaders were arguing that we need UNIX (vs VMS) in the backend and then in the same breath saying we should have Linux as well [sigh] The point here: people in positions of IT power are generally clueless.
The question was then raised of what UNIX and what Linux they want. The answer we want Solaris and Linux. The point here: people in positions of IT power are generally clueless.
As far as I am concerned, tell them they have Linux and use your favourite distribution. At the end of the day, linux is linux, no matter how you badge it up or how how ridiculously over-priced the stock of the particular company is.
No offence intended, but this sounds very much like the age old theory of promotion to the level of incompetence. You are currently very good at what you do (technical stuff) therefore you get a promotion. This keeps happening up to the point that you are no longer good at what you do (management), so you no longer get promotions.
I guess an adjustment on the theory is promotion to the level of insanity - you get promoted up to the point where you go insane because you work is nothing like what you want to do:-P
A while ago, I was working in a very technical, hands-on kind of role. I was head-hunted for a "Technical Manager" role. I jumped at the chance due to a considerable pay rise and the promise of more cool stuff to play with. It started out well, but after about a year, I ended up going through the "we would like you to get more involved with the management" downward spiral. I tried to do it, but ended up snapping and left to go back to the hands-on technical stuff. Much more fun:)
Slashdot Mirror
While I fully agree that the authors of virus/worms etc must be held accountable for their actions, surely there are other parties that are also liable for any issues that arrise from a virus/worm infestation.
The obvious one is the good old Microsoft. This has been beaten to death so many times that I am not going to delve into it...
The other group to consider is the people who have been infected. They have partially brought any problems upon themselves. This happens because of many things including the choice they made to run the system was vulnerable, the choice to not patch promptly (if a patch was available), the choice to not better secure their critical systems, etc.
Blaming the virus/worm authors and the author of the vulnerable software is easy (and absolutely right), but people really need to start looking beyond that and realise that it is really their decisions that are the core issue. If you don't want to be vulnerable to Windows virii/worms then don't run Windows. If you need to run Windows, secure it. If is a critical app, pay some serious attention to it...
Basically, I am advocating a bit of responsibility for ones own destiny...
I've gone so far as to say to a few newbie SysAdmins that your sole goal should be to automate yourself into an early redundancy. From there, the only reason you should be around is to cover for emergency situations and to read logs that tell you everything is running smoothly...
Maybe they are just up to their old trick of trying to do everything their own way - we do C++ better than C++... We do Kerberos better than Kerberos <sigh>
I don't think I will ever understand those Redmond guys...
Firstly, you put ads out for, say, a heap of hardcore porn. People join up and pay you money. Now you bank that money into account 'A'. A little while later, you contact all of the people and tell them there are some legal issues with the service that you want to check out (being the good business person you are) and in order to be fair to them (the paying customer) you are going to refund their money. You now transfer the money from account 'A' into account 'B' that has a name like 'Anal Sodomizers of the World Unite!'. You send them all cheques with their refunds. The best part is, most of them won't present that cheque and after a certain time frame (differs in each country/state), the cheque becomes invalid and you get to keep the money :) Can't be too upset with that <chuckle>
I don't know if it has actually been done and I'm not sure how legal it is (the act in itself isn't as far as I can tell, but the intent to defraud is definitely there).
All standard disclaimers apply (ie. don't sue me when you go to jail :)
It is a rare book in the field of software engineering. At its core is putting coding at the forefront of software engineering (what an amazing concept!) The basic concept is that you start with a metaphor and that is enough to get you started. You design just what you need to get the tasks at hand done. One example of a metaphor used in the book is when describing a pension caclulation to be "like a spreadsheet" (I know it is a simile, but close enough :) It then expands from there - as you need more detail, you drill down into the metaphor and fill in the design. The most controversial part of XP is you write tests first, then you write the code.
Overall, very impressed with the book. Even though I don't practice extreme programming (and in case you were wondering, no, it isn't like street luge in San Francisco :) I got a lot from the book. I will take the appropriate bits and add them to my arsenal.
Definitely worth a read and at sub-200 pages and easy reading style, you can cover it all in one decent sitting. And the bibliography is an absolute blast!
I would think that it wouldn't be that hard to encorporate network printing into such a model. Oh well - one for the experts to work on... My experience with network printing is that to do it right is significantly harder than it first appears.
Hmmm... Maybe we could use the money that is defunded from the suckers to educate the next round of would-be suckers.
Or... Maybe we could use the money that is defunded to buy shares in the defundees so they can defund to our advantage and make everything ok.
[sarcastic mode off]
I hate bigotted people who misunderstand what the word free means in free software... <sigh>
The other downside is that less and less vendors are providing support (or even products for that matter) for VMS. Take Oracle for example. They port to VMS last and give it the lowest priority when it comes to patches/bug fixes. This is unfortunate coz Oracle is something that really benefits from the true clusterability (it that a word? :) of VMS rather than falling back to Oracle Parallel Server (yucky at the best of times).
Even with that all said, I really don't like VMS. (Please, please don't tell anyway that I stuck up for it :)
It is good to see that a company like RedHat is trying to take Linux in the right direction and (hopefully) making some money out of it along the way. All those that have been around for a while will remember in the very early days of RedHat, they were always saying (paraphrasing) "We don't necessarily want to make money out of Linux, but out of the services and support we can offer over and above the base".
I'm much happier seeing them move in this direction than the "make a whizzy graphical installer, call it a new distribution and then float". Hang on... Aren't RedHat the ones that started that trend? <laugh>
Can anyone say "Pinky and the Brain"? :)
The solution: create a new course called "Information Technology". This course has less maths and concentrates more on the practical uses of IT rather than the high CS theory and mathematical content that a good CS degree has.
The results were amazing. About 40% of new enrollments were female - quite a few attractive ones as well (this is something that was sadly lacking from Computing Science previously :) It seems that most of the girls who were potentially interested in computing were turned off by the "Science" part of CS.
After a while of getting dynamited to hell, Mandy starts using dynamite. The small child in question then uses scissors, because sissors can cut the fuse.
Moral #1 of the story: Don't play with children.
Moral #2 of the story: As I said above, consistently beat small children <laugh>
[Rant mode off]
IMHO Myst was designed to be pretty first and playable second. I really hope the "realtime 3D" remake does things better. I really want a game I can play rather than just impressing the luddite masses with the pretty pictures.
I fully understand and appreciate the fact that for a game to be any decent, you have to have a fairly well defined end goal and keep proding the player along in that direction, but there are ways and means of doing it without being so one dimentional. A good example of this was The Elder Scrolls Chapter 2: DaggerFall. There was a storyline to follow, but it really didn't matter what you did - storyline or not. Admittedly other than this, the game was somewhat ordinary.
Hmmm... www.microsoft.crap...
Then you could sell off "is.crap"... www.microsoft.is.crap... The possibilities are endless...
Despite the fact that the review process was very flawed and a total con (typical of consultants), it very clearly outlined that there is a huge mix of both email clients and email servers out there and that we really should look at standardising the clients and consolidating the servers.
Part of the process was a survey of current usage across campus. The client side results were (from memory, in no order and staff only):
The students mostly use Eudora, although the use of our internal student webmail system is starting to increase quite dramatically.
There is also quite extensive use of free web based email (such as hotmail), but I don't have any stats on this. We are actively discouraging its use, but the Uni doesn't have any real balls when it comes to making policy about it.
The really sad bit about all this is that the review process somehow decided that Exchange is the best server solution. Can anyone say Linux box running SMTP/POP/IMAP?
I am currently in Australia and am in the process of applying for a job in the US. Hopefully I will be based in Australia, but official employed by the company through the US, not their Australian arm.
Part of the process is that a background check will be run. Personally, I have a very clean background (don't we all say that :) The problem is one of my cousins is somewhat of a bad apple. He has the same surname and a very similar first name. Based on the comments read here, I am somewhat worried...
Let's see how much I have to fight this one :(
I remember the first time I put my new glasses on... Wow! Trees have leaves! Not just a blurry shade of green :)
Not quite correct. There is the concept of an mroute cache that alleviates this problem. Basically if you route a packet out over link0 and another packet comes along it first looks up the mroute cache. If it finds a match (which it will in this case) it will send it out along the same path as the previous packet. If it doesn't find a match, then it will pick either of the links as you suggest.
This probably wouldn't be what you are looking for voice traffic.
This is not what you are looking for with any traffic. The mroute cache described above is used to assist the receiving end so that it is less likely to receive packets out of order and stop problems such as weirdo retransmission problems due to one link being significantly slower than the other (assuming multihoming). In general mroute cache is a good thing.
Also, the only real reason you would use BGP for something like this is if you were multihomed (it would be an absolute joke trying to receive any kind of routing table over modem links anyway). Multilink PPP (on slow links) to the same upstream is best taken care of with static routes.
As a side note, a while ago I was invited to a meeting with the goal of rationalising the IT infrastructure of my organisation. One of the issues that arose was to try and standardise (read: minimise number) of operating systems in use.
I found it damn funny how the supposed IT leaders were arguing that we need UNIX (vs VMS) in the backend and then in the same breath saying we should have Linux as well [sigh] The point here: people in positions of IT power are generally clueless.
The question was then raised of what UNIX and what Linux they want. The answer we want Solaris and Linux. The point here: people in positions of IT power are generally clueless.
As far as I am concerned, tell them they have Linux and use your favourite distribution. At the end of the day, linux is linux, no matter how you badge it up or how how ridiculously over-priced the stock of the particular company is.
No offence intended, but this sounds very much like the age old theory of promotion to the level of incompetence. You are currently very good at what you do (technical stuff) therefore you get a promotion. This keeps happening up to the point that you are no longer good at what you do (management), so you no longer get promotions.
:-P
:)
I guess an adjustment on the theory is promotion to the level of insanity - you get promoted up to the point where you go insane because you work is nothing like what you want to do
A while ago, I was working in a very technical, hands-on kind of role. I was head-hunted for a "Technical Manager" role. I jumped at the chance due to a considerable pay rise and the promise of more cool stuff to play with. It started out well, but after about a year, I ended up going through the "we would like you to get more involved with the management" downward spiral. I tried to do it, but ended up snapping and left to go back to the hands-on technical stuff. Much more fun