Satnav spelt the end of marital arguements while driving. That alone makes it worthwhile, as suddenly it didn't matter even if you took a wrong turn!
Wikipedia spelt the end of pub-style arguements over astroturf and so on - suddenly, you can look it up, just like the British Police have recently been told to!
Personally, I see no reason why you can't continue in tech for another 20 - 30 years.
Your history gives you a huge advantage - not many companies are going to throw out all their old kit, so your experience will stand you in good stead.
There is also the issue of Tech Managers who haven't realised that they're not techs any more - at more than one site, I've had to deal with managers who are still doing half the configurations themselves because a) they still want to play and b) there isn't anyone to tell them to get on with managing - all very well, until the mess they leave is either given to you to clean up or worse, blamed on you.
Someone earlier mentioned that there's nothing above 'senior' for techs - I disagree. Once you're a senior engineer, you can become a team leader, group leader, test leader...lots of fun stuff!
I didn't say Win9x/NT/Etc. was the best at any point. You're absolutely right, Win was rubbish against many other OS's. Here's the news I'll repeat for you - It's Too Late - MS WON. I'm talking about reality here, we're not sitting in your bedroom arguing over technical merits as if that somehow equates to popularity. I won't go on to cite SQL or Exchange, since no-one else uses those either, I'm sure...
When are you going to wake up to the fact that 'the best' LOST. A VERY LONG TIME AGO. Rewrite history? Do point out the OS I'm missing that overtook Windows at any time since 1994...
Meanwhile, in the real world, many many engineers have to work on Windows every day, while listening to smug (and blinkered) Mac users and (even worse) MORE blinkered Linux fans who think that bleating that their OS is the best is somehow going to change this.
And since March 1994, at what point did Linux achieve ONE PERCENT of market share? Last month, according to slashdot. (Later another/. article said it was 5-6% - that's still five out of every HUNDRED machines - looks like not everyone agrees with your take on 'history').
The Amiga (my weapon of choice at the time) offered everything you mentioned, as did OS/2 - both BEFORE linux. Where are they now? And what difference does it make that they were better?
But hey, if it helps you to carry on pretending that the rest of the world agrees with you, then you carry on. The rest of us will wait until you realise that compatibility with Windows is the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. The rest is fanboy nonsense, and the point I was making was that articles that describe Windows engineers as 'friends' (in quotes) shows just how far out of your bedrooms you haven't gotten...
If by 'friend' you mean 'person who doesn't fancy working on a system that covers 5% of the world, and has accepted that fact' - I guess you're onto something......but it's the 'honestly' part that makes me laugh - you might as well say that anyone driving fords doesn't really know how to drive. Catch up chaps, you lost this race 15 years ago. (You did you know. It was in a couple of papers).
In the meantime, do keep wearing your 'lala I'm not listening' headphones. I'm sure the rest of the world will bow to your ideals and start using your OS....just not today.
Actual Linux usage compared to average linux coverage...what gives?
...but then we haven't had to deal with the needless bloatware that all the manufacturers love to install - *that* will be the test.
You know the drill....needless print engine? check. Unasked for toolbar/ systray icon? Check. Several services running for a single device (Creative, ATI, et all)? Check...
If you're intending to use the mouse in a living room environment, where the mouse may be some metres away from the receiver, it's a no-brainer.
I went through every wireless k/b+mouse setup available when they first became available, and found that if I wanted to use the mouse on a heavy oak table (or similar), the signal would be blocked.
Then the next-gen of k/b+mouse setups came out - and as they'd nearly all reduced their range (the assumption being that you'd be sitting at the desk anyway), they were even worse.
Then I got Logitech's first Bluetooth offering, and have never looked back. I don't have to worry about what my device is sitting on or behind - I can turn the volume up or down *from the toilet* (=2 rooms away), in a 130yr old house with THICK walls - never mind being in the same room.
The same goes for the M$ version - once you're onto bluetooth, those previous worries disappear.
One thing to watch - security. All the BT offerings will work out-of-the-box, but unless you install the s/w and 'pair' the device, you're open to having your typing monitored...
Only linux users tend to worry about speed, and that's when they're running on a Pentium II.......isn't it a bit pointless to worry about your dual/ quad-core machine with 1Gb of video memory not rendering pages fast enough? It's not like I sit twiddling my thumbs on each page.
Again, like FF, this would have been a nice thing 5-10 years ago...
My preference for Symantec came to an end when I had to rebuilt a banks' worldwide AV solution because of the certificate system in SAV Corporate.
When these become corrupted (the 'how' was never explained), your 'primary' AV server stops talking to all the sub-servers properly - and for good measure it copies the corrupted certificates to them too so that you can't even restore the primary from an image; the now-corrupted certs on the sub-servers will copy back immediately (and I didn't fancy doing 20 seperate restores).
I contacted Symantec to ask how to disable this 'feature', pointing out that in our internal network there was no need for secure comms between AV servers - and they replied that it had been added after demands from a client and that it was an 'enforced feature' (=lump it). Reading between the lines, I took that to mean that they'd been asked for an extra level of security and rushed it through without considering that some (most?) clients wouldn't need this and might want to disable it. So I was left with the job of rebuilding the SAVCorp setup for a third time, with no guarantee that this wouldn't happen again. It's a bit like MS's Exchange-powershell being wonderful for 10,000 user sites, but not much cop if your sites are all 100 users (which happens to be their main userbase, but that's another story....)
The biggest laugh has to be Vista - MS announced *years* ago that they'd be locking down the kernel (and quite rightly), but it wasn't until Vista was almost out that Symantec and some others came out of the woodwork stamping about how this was going to ruin their tea party...never thought I'd see a major AV player complaining that Windows was *too secure*....
IE is non-compliant, and not very nice to develop for. Too late, the OS race was over by the early 90's, and the browser war v1 was over by the late 90's. I'm not particularly an MS fan, but I have to support it every day, which makes me a realist (as opposed to 'wouldn't it be cool if.....').
So let's assume MS have bundled FF with Windows 7, and that FF is the same version as is available now.
What happens when a users passwords get stolen because FF doesn't force a passworded-protected password list? Is it down to Mosaic, or MS for selling the bundle in the first place? My Ford may come with Pirelli tyres, but I'd take it back to Ford if there was a problem...
Next - what about Group Policy? I know FF offers it's own version, but how will it integrate into an MS Domain?
And - what about OWA? Doesn't work properly with FF...meaning (from a corporate point of view) the whole FF arguement is pointless for anyone running Exchange (= lots of sites) - and while it's MS's fault for forcing OWA to be IE-only, that's the *way things are*. How cool/ fast/ etc. your browser is is now irrelevant.
Finally - how is this going to help in the format war v2 that's already happening? I now *have* to run FF just to post on this site, and several others. Please don't give me the 'well, FF is compliant' excuse - compliant with what? The by-far dominant browser on the planet? For a start, end users aren't going to care, all they will know is that they have to run two sets of browsers, bookmarks and the like - and secondly you can't carry on refusing to even acknowledge MS + IE as THE O/S + Browser of choice - what works wonders in your bedroom isn't going to be quite so cool (or acceptable) in the office - just ask anyone that runs Linux. StarOffice, anyone? Mosaic should be making FF *more* IE compliant, if they wanted a seamless transition - but hey, we're all pretending that IE doesn't exist, right? And what do you think is going to happen with IE8, IE9 and so on? It isn't just going to go away...
Of course I could be wrong, and the whole world is actually running Linux/ FF/ Apple, and I just haven't noticed...
I personally don't blame MS. I blame Netscape, Commodore, Apple, Novell and the like for going for the money instead of developing their lead back when it would have made a difference - unlike now.
...after all, the EU spent ages pursuing MS over bundling not only IE but WMP too - for no apparent reason, according to FF.
It figures tho - he probably thinks that leaving your default browser settings at 'two clicks, all your passwords, fully displayed' is a good security configuration too.
Although this is all a bit surprising anyway - the way the FF users talk, everyone *in the world* is already using FF, aren't they? Just like Linux and Mac users, your world becomes everyone else's, whether they like it or not.
And this self-deception spreads - for instance, i couldn't post here without installing FF. Well done Slashdot, I guess your devs have blinkers on too. Why do I get the feeling I'm always arguing with Betamax users? Yes it's better, and yes, in the grand scheme of things, no-one uses it.
Interesting how he calls Windows 7 a 'contender', as if there's actually going to be some competition and linux isn't still at 10% desktop market share......but not as funny as having to install FF in order to post here - after all, why bother ensuring compatibility with the browser that still has around 70% market share? But hey, let's all pretend that there ISN'T a format war going on...the users won't mind having to run several browsers just to read web pages. Not at all.
And has anyone noticed M$ doing benchmarks against still-a-year-away linux distros? Funny that...please guys, this race was lost 15 years ago - maybe something should have been done about it then, rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
Linux. Most people don't want to engineer their car from scratch either (You may call it trolling - I call it the truth).
...which happens to be run by Windows 2008. And really, I'm not trolling here, but what advantage are you looking to get by this move? What superior options will you gain?
The major advatange I can see for a linux box these days is ZFS - not so much for speed, but for reliability. Problem there is, you can simply set up FreeNAS (or similar) to offer that via iSCSI-to-Win2003/8. And even then, MS are already offering exFAT, so no doubt a ZFS-killer is on the way.
Others have already pointed out the failings of the 'alternative' crowd to provide reasonable equivalents to the MS offerings (group policies and the like- they've only just started offering GP's for FF under Windows, never mind Linux), but is there a Linux offering that will corral your machines until they're patched and up-to-date before allowing network/ internet access? Will there be an equivalent to the Direct Access MS are pushing with 2008 R2?
The list goes on...and any license savings you achieve will be swallowed by the higher charges for Linux engineers and so on (otherwise businesses would have chopped over long ago). And that's also before you get to the users who panic 'this isn't office! What's open office? I don't know this! I want training, etc. etc.', and users who want to connect from home, the list is, in fact, endless...
...are from disgruntled Linux bods being forced to acknowledge that a system they don't like (and generally pretend doesn't exist) is actually being used happily by the majority of the rest of the world.....so far so Apple, but they were like this when AD was first released ('Why not just use LDAP?' was the cry).
And what did they fail to do? Provide a popular, useable alternative for work and home. Just like Linux, really (hehehe)
I mean 'so what' because it's irrelevant. Either malware will let someone in, or the browser will be attacked directly, or (if you're running default FF) someone can just walk up to your machine and write them down. So that's THREE vectors for attack instead of two. If you're running default FF. But hey, the browser is more secure, right?
I was generally pointing out (since you're concentrating on a single line of my post rather than dealing with the main issue) that once you're supporting end-users who *aren't* spending their time on slashdot pretending there's no format/ browser war happening for a second time, they're going to get attacked - after which they will come banging on your door because 'you said this was more secure'. We're dealing with what will actually happen here, not what's fair.
And what's *not* fair is that FF is so INSECURE, by default, even though they're on version three - that two clicks will show you someone's passwords in English. No need for infection, malware, key loggers or anything - and yet because it's been taken up by the geeks first, everyone's shouting about how wonderful it is without a) examining the real-world risks and b) taking into account that MS are going to simply steal all the best bits for the next IE anyway - so we're left with multiple browsers and multiple web page formats, all because folks still want to pretend there's actually a choice (seen any Banks running star office recently?). You could liken it to learning a manual-gearbox car, then giving it to an automatic-gear car driver, and wondering why they keep coming unstuck..
And anyway, are you seriously suggesting there aren't going to be *any* direct attacks on FF, ever, job done, we can all go home? Rii-ight. Just like no-one bothers attacking OS 10.x leaving the mac users to pretend that they don't get attacked as much because their OS is 'superior' (as opposed to just unpopular).
'I told you so' last time. If you don't want to listen, then you won't mind doing all the up and coming support. Ah, no, actually that'll be me.
Hahahahaaa yup been there with limewire...or how about 'So what's wrong with running itunes against my server-based home folder? What do you mean, the server's run out of space?':-)
You're right, geeks who know what they're doing shouldn't worry (for now) - the *really* dangerous users are the ones who *think* they're geeks (and will install Windows/ FF/ Limewire assuming it's secure-by-default, etc. etc)
Actually I say geeks shouldn't worry...is there a generally accepted AV product that will catch anything? No, it's down to personal preference out of the top 5. So better hope your sites are using the one that *does* stop the aforementioned exploits when they start appearing......I can still remember the MS AV product for DOS - it only stopped the top 30% or 'most popular' viruses. How *very* useful!
Indeed - if you're a geek (which we both are) you'll know about securing files, exposure and the like. CEO's (for example) aren't, but they'll still blame us when their bank accounts are emptied - you know the drill 'this is on my private machine that you've never even seen, but it's still all your fault'. But with more swearing.
It's the same as quantum-encryption being ultra-secure, but falling down due to the human factor making it leaky.
And anyway, it won't be long before someone *does* write an exploit that pulls out the passwords from a live session - if they're displayed, in english, on the screen, they're vulnerable - otherwise MS would have no qualms about displaying all the Windows domain passwords in English too - but as I pointed out, why bother writing code when you can simply steal the laptop?
Look at the scoring for our conversation. I make valid, argueable points, but get none from the moderators. I was having arguements about MS Domains vs. Novell like this 15 years ago, but I'd get marked down because 'Everyone knows that Novell is the best'. And yet here we are, nothing changes, clique-y mungous. Maybe I was under the false impression that Slashdot deals with the real world, as opposed to 'my BBC is better than your Commodore 64' discussions....
I had an Amiga 1200 with a full 68030 in it, and used Virtual Memory with it. Unlike Windows 3.1, I could do 3D ray-tracing with 128Mb of RAM (remember this is when 10Mb was considered massive) and *not notice any slowdown*.
I've had to wait 15 years, and only now is Vista even approaching the power I had back then - albeit once it has 80 time the memory and 100 times the hard drive space, with more memory on the gfx card alone than my Amiga had in total. Makes me weep, it really does.
Right then - I'm sure there won't be any more exploits for the amazingly-secure FF.
'I told you so' is about how browsers are hacked based on their popularity, and so once FF becomes truly popular, or chrome, or insert-your-favourite-browser-here, we'll not only have to support 5 browsers on every machine (due to the incompatibilities for which I gave examples in my previous post), but we'll have to work through another format war (again, example sites given previously).
But let's pretend for a minute that FF is impenetrable. Steal someone's laptop. Lophtcrack your way through their logon password (if you can't guess it from their Facebook account, or similar). Open up FF. Two clicks, there you go - all the passwords in English. I've now visited over 50 machines running FF, and none of them have password-protected the password list. Not one.
See, I'm not interested in which OS/ Browser is technically the best. That's Linux - but no one uses it as a desktop (5% market share, and that's including servers). I'm more interested in what everyone is using, and rightly or wrongly, that's IE. FF might be fine for your bedroom, but they've only just included Group Policy controls in v.3, for heavens' sake. And we also know that MS wil simply steal the nicest bits and include them in IE8/9/etc - and they won't pester you to install extra software that you don't need (but has earned them extra revenue) - such as a needless toolbar, star office, Safari, etc. etc.
What galls the most is that we've all been through this nonsense before, and everyone appears to be pretending that it's not going to happen again. It's along the lines of mac users still pretending that their system is 'superior', when that race was over 15 years ago - they account for less than 1 in 10 users - but hey, everyone else is stupid, right? (Oh, I forgot, 'they look so cool'). Call MS what you like, but they didn't have to buy Vista for £270 million off of their own chairman that they'd sacked.
Last time I mentioned FF's woefully unprotected password list, I got marked down as a troll (cheers, fanboy moderators).
And yet here we are, with an exploit - *so what* if it can only run on a compromised machine, us geeks will catch-and-kill it but the chairman of your company won't when he installs FF at home 'because his son said it's the best'.
It's only gonna get worse - and once everyone's browsers have the same risk level, we can concentrate on developing for/ supporting multiple-browser installs and everything that entails while the format war plays out.
I left school with one 'O' level (for I am that old).
I am now a third-line support bod, and get to install/ break the latest toys (Exch2007, SQL2008 and so on).
I used to think that it would have been much easier if I'd gotten 'proper' qualifications - however, if I'd have gone to college I would have found myself competing for jobs with bods that had already been in the business for three years.
Now I am on the 'other side of the desk', and find that when interviewing, I'll almost always go with someone that has experience, as opposed to someone that has qualifications that, in real terms, will already be out of date in terms of practical usefulness (I'm talking about hands-on tech knowledge here).
The downside of the 'experience' approach for the worker is that you're going to have to take less money for the first few years, so that you can then apply for more jobs and quote your experience.
However, IMHO this will give you an advantage over the straight-into-management college applicants - you'll know more real-world tech stuff, you'll then have a much better idea how long IT jobs take (if you want to move into management), and you'll have a lot more respect from staff in those areas, having done the job yourself.
Don't bother with MCSE's to begin with (you could maybe a single MCP), as without any experience they simply show aptitude as opposed to actual real-world knowledge. I've interviewed dozens of applicants who were MCSE, but couldn't tell me how managing Exchange 2003 was different from 2000. Do them once you've been in the job a few years.
Slashdot Mirror
Satnav spelt the end of marital arguements while driving. That alone makes it worthwhile, as suddenly it didn't matter even if you took a wrong turn!
Wikipedia spelt the end of pub-style arguements over astroturf and so on - suddenly, you can look it up, just like the British Police have recently been told to!
Personally, I see no reason why you can't continue in tech for another 20 - 30 years.
Your history gives you a huge advantage - not many companies are going to throw out all their old kit, so your experience will stand you in good stead.
There is also the issue of Tech Managers who haven't realised that they're not techs any more - at more than one site, I've had to deal with managers who are still doing half the configurations themselves because a) they still want to play and b) there isn't anyone to tell them to get on with managing - all very well, until the mess they leave is either given to you to clean up or worse, blamed on you.
Someone earlier mentioned that there's nothing above 'senior' for techs - I disagree. Once you're a senior engineer, you can become a team leader, group leader, test leader...lots of fun stuff!
A finanical institution that gets it wrong? Who'd have thought it, in this current climate....
I didn't say Win9x/NT/Etc. was the best at any point. You're absolutely right, Win was rubbish against many other OS's. Here's the news I'll repeat for you - It's Too Late - MS WON. I'm talking about reality here, we're not sitting in your bedroom arguing over technical merits as if that somehow equates to popularity. I won't go on to cite SQL or Exchange, since no-one else uses those either, I'm sure...
When are you going to wake up to the fact that 'the best' LOST. A VERY LONG TIME AGO. Rewrite history? Do point out the OS I'm missing that overtook Windows at any time since 1994...
Meanwhile, in the real world, many many engineers have to work on Windows every day, while listening to smug (and blinkered) Mac users and (even worse) MORE blinkered Linux fans who think that bleating that their OS is the best is somehow going to change this.
And since March 1994, at what point did Linux achieve ONE PERCENT of market share? Last month, according to slashdot. (Later another /. article said it was 5-6% - that's still five out of every HUNDRED machines - looks like not everyone agrees with your take on 'history').
The Amiga (my weapon of choice at the time) offered everything you mentioned, as did OS/2 - both BEFORE linux. Where are they now? And what difference does it make that they were better?
But hey, if it helps you to carry on pretending that the rest of the world agrees with you, then you carry on. The rest of us will wait until you realise that compatibility with Windows is the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. The rest is fanboy nonsense, and the point I was making was that articles that describe Windows engineers as 'friends' (in quotes) shows just how far out of your bedrooms you haven't gotten...
Care to dance some more?
If by 'friend' you mean 'person who doesn't fancy working on a system that covers 5% of the world, and has accepted that fact' - I guess you're onto something... ...but it's the 'honestly' part that makes me laugh - you might as well say that anyone driving fords doesn't really know how to drive. Catch up chaps, you lost this race 15 years ago. (You did you know. It was in a couple of papers).
In the meantime, do keep wearing your 'lala I'm not listening' headphones. I'm sure the rest of the world will bow to your ideals and start using your OS....just not today.
Actual Linux usage compared to average linux coverage...what gives?
...but then we haven't had to deal with the needless bloatware that all the manufacturers love to install - *that* will be the test.
You know the drill....needless print engine? check. Unasked for toolbar/ systray icon? Check. Several services running for a single device (Creative, ATI, et all)? Check...
If you're intending to use the mouse in a living room environment, where the mouse may be some metres away from the receiver, it's a no-brainer.
I went through every wireless k/b+mouse setup available when they first became available, and found that if I wanted to use the mouse on a heavy oak table (or similar), the signal would be blocked.
Then the next-gen of k/b+mouse setups came out - and as they'd nearly all reduced their range (the assumption being that you'd be sitting at the desk anyway), they were even worse.
Then I got Logitech's first Bluetooth offering, and have never looked back. I don't have to worry about what my device is sitting on or behind - I can turn the volume up or down *from the toilet* (=2 rooms away), in a 130yr old house with THICK walls - never mind being in the same room.
The same goes for the M$ version - once you're onto bluetooth, those previous worries disappear.
One thing to watch - security. All the BT offerings will work out-of-the-box, but unless you install the s/w and 'pair' the device, you're open to having your typing monitored...
Only linux users tend to worry about speed, and that's when they're running on a Pentium II.... ...isn't it a bit pointless to worry about your dual/ quad-core machine with 1Gb of video memory not rendering pages fast enough? It's not like I sit twiddling my thumbs on each page.
Again, like FF, this would have been a nice thing 5-10 years ago...
My preference for Symantec came to an end when I had to rebuilt a banks' worldwide AV solution because of the certificate system in SAV Corporate.
When these become corrupted (the 'how' was never explained), your 'primary' AV server stops talking to all the sub-servers properly - and for good measure it copies the corrupted certificates to them too so that you can't even restore the primary from an image; the now-corrupted certs on the sub-servers will copy back immediately (and I didn't fancy doing 20 seperate restores).
I contacted Symantec to ask how to disable this 'feature', pointing out that in our internal network there was no need for secure comms between AV servers - and they replied that it had been added after demands from a client and that it was an 'enforced feature' (=lump it). Reading between the lines, I took that to mean that they'd been asked for an extra level of security and rushed it through without considering that some (most?) clients wouldn't need this and might want to disable it. So I was left with the job of rebuilding the SAVCorp setup for a third time, with no guarantee that this wouldn't happen again. It's a bit like MS's Exchange-powershell being wonderful for 10,000 user sites, but not much cop if your sites are all 100 users (which happens to be their main userbase, but that's another story....)
The biggest laugh has to be Vista - MS announced *years* ago that they'd be locking down the kernel (and quite rightly), but it wasn't until Vista was almost out that Symantec and some others came out of the woodwork stamping about how this was going to ruin their tea party...never thought I'd see a major AV player complaining that Windows was *too secure*....
IE is non-compliant, and not very nice to develop for. Too late, the OS race was over by the early 90's, and the browser war v1 was over by the late 90's. I'm not particularly an MS fan, but I have to support it every day, which makes me a realist (as opposed to 'wouldn't it be cool if.....').
So let's assume MS have bundled FF with Windows 7, and that FF is the same version as is available now.
What happens when a users passwords get stolen because FF doesn't force a passworded-protected password list? Is it down to Mosaic, or MS for selling the bundle in the first place? My Ford may come with Pirelli tyres, but I'd take it back to Ford if there was a problem...
Next - what about Group Policy? I know FF offers it's own version, but how will it integrate into an MS Domain?
And - what about OWA? Doesn't work properly with FF...meaning (from a corporate point of view) the whole FF arguement is pointless for anyone running Exchange (= lots of sites) - and while it's MS's fault for forcing OWA to be IE-only, that's the *way things are*. How cool/ fast/ etc. your browser is is now irrelevant.
Finally - how is this going to help in the format war v2 that's already happening? I now *have* to run FF just to post on this site, and several others. Please don't give me the 'well, FF is compliant' excuse - compliant with what? The by-far dominant browser on the planet? For a start, end users aren't going to care, all they will know is that they have to run two sets of browsers, bookmarks and the like - and secondly you can't carry on refusing to even acknowledge MS + IE as THE O/S + Browser of choice - what works wonders in your bedroom isn't going to be quite so cool (or acceptable) in the office - just ask anyone that runs Linux. StarOffice, anyone? Mosaic should be making FF *more* IE compliant, if they wanted a seamless transition - but hey, we're all pretending that IE doesn't exist, right? And what do you think is going to happen with IE8, IE9 and so on? It isn't just going to go away...
Of course I could be wrong, and the whole world is actually running Linux/ FF/ Apple, and I just haven't noticed...
I personally don't blame MS. I blame Netscape, Commodore, Apple, Novell and the like for going for the money instead of developing their lead back when it would have made a difference - unlike now.
Yeah, who is this Obama person?
...after all, the EU spent ages pursuing MS over bundling not only IE but WMP too - for no apparent reason, according to FF.
It figures tho - he probably thinks that leaving your default browser settings at 'two clicks, all your passwords, fully displayed' is a good security configuration too.
Although this is all a bit surprising anyway - the way the FF users talk, everyone *in the world* is already using FF, aren't they? Just like Linux and Mac users, your world becomes everyone else's, whether they like it or not.
And this self-deception spreads - for instance, i couldn't post here without installing FF. Well done Slashdot, I guess your devs have blinkers on too. Why do I get the feeling I'm always arguing with Betamax users? Yes it's better, and yes, in the grand scheme of things, no-one uses it.
....but I'm not installing that either.
Interesting how he calls Windows 7 a 'contender', as if there's actually going to be some competition and linux isn't still at 10% desktop market share... ...but not as funny as having to install FF in order to post here - after all, why bother ensuring compatibility with the browser that still has around 70% market share? But hey, let's all pretend that there ISN'T a format war going on...the users won't mind having to run several browsers just to read web pages. Not at all.
And has anyone noticed M$ doing benchmarks against still-a-year-away linux distros? Funny that...please guys, this race was lost 15 years ago - maybe something should have been done about it then, rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
Linux. Most people don't want to engineer their car from scratch either (You may call it trolling - I call it the truth).
...which happens to be run by Windows 2008. And really, I'm not trolling here, but what advantage are you looking to get by this move? What superior options will you gain?
The major advatange I can see for a linux box these days is ZFS - not so much for speed, but for reliability. Problem there is, you can simply set up FreeNAS (or similar) to offer that via iSCSI-to-Win2003/8. And even then, MS are already offering exFAT, so no doubt a ZFS-killer is on the way.
Others have already pointed out the failings of the 'alternative' crowd to provide reasonable equivalents to the MS offerings (group policies and the like- they've only just started offering GP's for FF under Windows, never mind Linux), but is there a Linux offering that will corral your machines until they're patched and up-to-date before allowing network/ internet access? Will there be an equivalent to the Direct Access MS are pushing with 2008 R2?
The list goes on...and any license savings you achieve will be swallowed by the higher charges for Linux engineers and so on (otherwise businesses would have chopped over long ago). And that's also before you get to the users who panic 'this isn't office! What's open office? I don't know this! I want training, etc. etc.', and users who want to connect from home, the list is, in fact, endless...
...are from disgruntled Linux bods being forced to acknowledge that a system they don't like (and generally pretend doesn't exist) is actually being used happily by the majority of the rest of the world... ..so far so Apple, but they were like this when AD was first released ('Why not just use LDAP?' was the cry).
And what did they fail to do? Provide a popular, useable alternative for work and home. Just like Linux, really (hehehe)
"NINE million? I will geeve you EIGHTY million, that way you will have some petty cash!"
....after all, what would we do without the original and best unasked-for app?
I mean 'so what' because it's irrelevant. Either malware will let someone in, or the browser will be attacked directly, or (if you're running default FF) someone can just walk up to your machine and write them down. So that's THREE vectors for attack instead of two. If you're running default FF. But hey, the browser is more secure, right?
I was generally pointing out (since you're concentrating on a single line of my post rather than dealing with the main issue) that once you're supporting end-users who *aren't* spending their time on slashdot pretending there's no format/ browser war happening for a second time, they're going to get attacked - after which they will come banging on your door because 'you said this was more secure'. We're dealing with what will actually happen here, not what's fair.
And what's *not* fair is that FF is so INSECURE, by default, even though they're on version three - that two clicks will show you someone's passwords in English. No need for infection, malware, key loggers or anything - and yet because it's been taken up by the geeks first, everyone's shouting about how wonderful it is without a) examining the real-world risks and b) taking into account that MS are going to simply steal all the best bits for the next IE anyway - so we're left with multiple browsers and multiple web page formats, all because folks still want to pretend there's actually a choice (seen any Banks running star office recently?). You could liken it to learning a manual-gearbox car, then giving it to an automatic-gear car driver, and wondering why they keep coming unstuck..
And anyway, are you seriously suggesting there aren't going to be *any* direct attacks on FF, ever, job done, we can all go home? Rii-ight. Just like no-one bothers attacking OS 10.x leaving the mac users to pretend that they don't get attacked as much because their OS is 'superior' (as opposed to just unpopular).
'I told you so' last time. If you don't want to listen, then you won't mind doing all the up and coming support. Ah, no, actually that'll be me.
Hahahahaaa yup been there with limewire...or how about 'So what's wrong with running itunes against my server-based home folder? What do you mean, the server's run out of space?' :-)
You're right, geeks who know what they're doing shouldn't worry (for now) - the *really* dangerous users are the ones who *think* they're geeks (and will install Windows/ FF/ Limewire assuming it's secure-by-default, etc. etc)
Actually I say geeks shouldn't worry...is there a generally accepted AV product that will catch anything? No, it's down to personal preference out of the top 5. So better hope your sites are using the one that *does* stop the aforementioned exploits when they start appearing... ...I can still remember the MS AV product for DOS - it only stopped the top 30% or 'most popular' viruses. How *very* useful!
Next they'll be blocking MS from including their own Browser and Media Player in their OS - after all, that would be a monopoly......oh
Indeed - if you're a geek (which we both are) you'll know about securing files, exposure and the like. CEO's (for example) aren't, but they'll still blame us when their bank accounts are emptied - you know the drill 'this is on my private machine that you've never even seen, but it's still all your fault'. But with more swearing.
It's the same as quantum-encryption being ultra-secure, but falling down due to the human factor making it leaky.
And anyway, it won't be long before someone *does* write an exploit that pulls out the passwords from a live session - if they're displayed, in english, on the screen, they're vulnerable - otherwise MS would have no qualms about displaying all the Windows domain passwords in English too - but as I pointed out, why bother writing code when you can simply steal the laptop?
Look at the scoring for our conversation. I make valid, argueable points, but get none from the moderators. I was having arguements about MS Domains vs. Novell like this 15 years ago, but I'd get marked down because 'Everyone knows that Novell is the best'. And yet here we are, nothing changes, clique-y mungous. Maybe I was under the false impression that Slashdot deals with the real world, as opposed to 'my BBC is better than your Commodore 64' discussions....
I had an Amiga 1200 with a full 68030 in it, and used Virtual Memory with it. Unlike Windows 3.1, I could do 3D ray-tracing with 128Mb of RAM (remember this is when 10Mb was considered massive) and *not notice any slowdown*.
I've had to wait 15 years, and only now is Vista even approaching the power I had back then - albeit once it has 80 time the memory and 100 times the hard drive space, with more memory on the gfx card alone than my Amiga had in total. Makes me weep, it really does.
Right then - I'm sure there won't be any more exploits for the amazingly-secure FF.
'I told you so' is about how browsers are hacked based on their popularity, and so once FF becomes truly popular, or chrome, or insert-your-favourite-browser-here, we'll not only have to support 5 browsers on every machine (due to the incompatibilities for which I gave examples in my previous post), but we'll have to work through another format war (again, example sites given previously).
But let's pretend for a minute that FF is impenetrable. Steal someone's laptop. Lophtcrack your way through their logon password (if you can't guess it from their Facebook account, or similar). Open up FF. Two clicks, there you go - all the passwords in English. I've now visited over 50 machines running FF, and none of them have password-protected the password list. Not one.
See, I'm not interested in which OS/ Browser is technically the best. That's Linux - but no one uses it as a desktop (5% market share, and that's including servers). I'm more interested in what everyone is using, and rightly or wrongly, that's IE. FF might be fine for your bedroom, but they've only just included Group Policy controls in v.3, for heavens' sake. And we also know that MS wil simply steal the nicest bits and include them in IE8/9/etc - and they won't pester you to install extra software that you don't need (but has earned them extra revenue) - such as a needless toolbar, star office, Safari, etc. etc.
What galls the most is that we've all been through this nonsense before, and everyone appears to be pretending that it's not going to happen again. It's along the lines of mac users still pretending that their system is 'superior', when that race was over 15 years ago - they account for less than 1 in 10 users - but hey, everyone else is stupid, right? (Oh, I forgot, 'they look so cool'). Call MS what you like, but they didn't have to buy Vista for £270 million off of their own chairman that they'd sacked.
Last time I mentioned FF's woefully unprotected password list, I got marked down as a troll (cheers, fanboy moderators).
And yet here we are, with an exploit - *so what* if it can only run on a compromised machine, us geeks will catch-and-kill it but the chairman of your company won't when he installs FF at home 'because his son said it's the best'.
It's only gonna get worse - and once everyone's browsers have the same risk level, we can concentrate on developing for/ supporting multiple-browser installs and everything that entails while the format war plays out.
Deja Vu, anyone?
I left school with one 'O' level (for I am that old).
I am now a third-line support bod, and get to install/ break the latest toys (Exch2007, SQL2008 and so on).
I used to think that it would have been much easier if I'd gotten 'proper' qualifications - however, if I'd have gone to college I would have found myself competing for jobs with bods that had already been in the business for three years.
Now I am on the 'other side of the desk', and find that when interviewing, I'll almost always go with someone that has experience, as opposed to someone that has qualifications that, in real terms, will already be out of date in terms of practical usefulness (I'm talking about hands-on tech knowledge here).
The downside of the 'experience' approach for the worker is that you're going to have to take less money for the first few years, so that you can then apply for more jobs and quote your experience.
However, IMHO this will give you an advantage over the straight-into-management college applicants - you'll know more real-world tech stuff, you'll then have a much better idea how long IT jobs take (if you want to move into management), and you'll have a lot more respect from staff in those areas, having done the job yourself.
Don't bother with MCSE's to begin with (you could maybe a single MCP), as without any experience they simply show aptitude as opposed to actual real-world knowledge. I've interviewed dozens of applicants who were MCSE, but couldn't tell me how managing Exchange 2003 was different from 2000. Do them once you've been in the job a few years.