Re: OT - Cloning and CopyWipe


"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E4qdnehUUb7qsMDXnZ2dnUVZ_rhi4p2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <008c00d6$0$22955$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Technobarbarian <Technobarbarian-ztopzpam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:idOdnWZdrp81SsbXnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Computer management -- especially 'network' and 'systems' management --
*is*
an area requiring specialized skills and knowledge to do it *WELL*. All
the
more so when something 'unexpected' happens. Microsoft has done the
world
a
_TREMENDOUS_ DIS-SERVICE by touting systems where they claim there is no
need
for an expert or professional administrator to manage it.

When and where did Microsoft make this claim?

MS has been pushing that line since at least Win95. Saying in
effect,"NOBODY
needs to know that, 'trust us' to manage your box, and everything will be
all
right". You know, when they stopped providing any technical documentation
about
how things work. when the 'user manual' that came with the new O/S went
from
a several hundred page book to a six-sheet fold-out. when the -entire-
directions for new software were reduced to "stick the disk in the drive
and
click 'install'.

Example: bug fixes. Try to find out exactly what the bug is that is
being
fixed, whether it is an application or related to Windows. What
was going wrong, under what circumstances? How can you check to
see (a) _if_ that problem exists on your machine, or (b) *IF* the
'solution' fixes it?

How can you tell, _in_advance_, of installing a fix _what_ changes
it will make to the system -- what files it will replace, what
registry entries it will change, etc.?

How can you tell, _after_the_fact_, what things it actually _did_
change?

If the fix doesn't work, or introduces "some other problem", how
do you put thinks back 'like they were', _without_ the above
information?

Some patches, if you say you _don't_ want to install the patch,
it won't install it now, but the _next_ patch cycle, it will install
that previously rejected patch *without* asking you.

This all means that you don't have _any_ idea exactly what software is on
your
machine, or what it is doing at any time.

Like, I suspect, the vast majority of computer users, I have no idea
exactly what the software is doing most of the time. So why I would worry
about what a patch is doing goes right over my head. If it works as
expected, as it does most of the time these days, I'm happy. If not I'm
likely to use the restore function.

Not only don't you know, you
*CANNOT* find out. There's no 'inventory' you can check to see that (a)
you have everything you need, and (b) that you don't have things that you
(1) don't need, or (2) *shouldn't* be there. What better place to hide a
virus than among 5,000 or so 'unauditable' files.

*smart* system administrators _segregate_ the fixed operating system
components
from operating system 'operational data' from the applications from
'valuable'
persistent data from temporary data from transient data.

If the operating system code (and application program code) is on a drive
that
is _physically_ write-protected it is *impossible* for a virus, or any
other
'malevolent' software to tamper with that programming. if the system is
configured so that _only_ files that reside on that protected disk (or
disks)
can be treated as 'executable', it is not _possible_ (even theoretically)
for a virus to install itself on the machine. Of course, that kind of a
set-up _requires_ multiple physical drives in the machine. Microsoft was
so
sure that 'nobody' would want to do something like that that they made it
_impossible_ to do that from the first version of Windows on. The drive
letter
you boot from, and where the O/S files must reside, *must* be writable.
Window's won't run if it isn't. But, you don't have to worry about that.
Microsoft knows what's best for you and your machine, and _they_ don't
think it's important enough to worry about.

Thanks, this explains why I missed the phantom claim that no experts
are requried. Microsoft didn't actually say this. It's your interpretation
of some of their technical decisions, and your explaination for the source
of this interpretation is sufficiently technical that I doubt that many
computer users got this message. Considering the long list of well known
Windows problems and the instant technical "experts" found at just about any
computer retailer these days, even if they heard it, I doubt that many
computer users believe that no expertise is required.


I bought my first computer about 3 decades ago. The closest I've
come
to a formal class on computers was a quarter on Boolean algebra about 5
years before that. I've turned my computer over to an "expert" exactly
once
in all that time. The "expert" was a pimple faced high school kid who
cleaned contacts and reseated chips. He was 'the' Tech at an Apple store.
That experience taught me that, for many things, being a home computer
expert isn't all that hard.

I have _no_ argument with that. "for many things" it *is* true. When,
however, one of the 'few' rears up and bites you, the situation is
_totally_
different.

My home network serves, at various times: 2
desktop computers, a laptop, 2 handheld devices and 2 game consoles, along
with various peripherals. As long as you take basic precautions and have a
plan B, what's the worst that can happen?

A facetious-sounding answer that has an unfortunate amount of truth in it:
"something that you _haven't_ thought of".

_Some_ of the things I've seen:
1) running back-ups religiously, but _failing_ to check the results of
the back-up operation to see if it worked. (it had failed every run
for the last 18+ months.)
2) making back-ups religiously, but _failing_ to test the back-up copies
to make sure they can be _restored_from_.
3) making back-ups religiously, that were readable by the drive they
were
written on, but -not- by any other drive in the place.
then _THAT_ drive died. *NONE* of the backups or archived history
were
readable.
4) _Not_ make backups religiously.

LOL, backups? This reminds me of the days when I was spending a lot of
time in a community college computer lab. Every now and then their
electricity would blink. You always knew by the groans who hadn't been
saving their work. Pretty much invariably there was at least one person who
lost 8+ hours of work that way. People who lost 2 to 4 hours of work because
they hadn't taken a few seconds to save their work were common. Backups, we
don't need no stinking backups.

5) Make backups religiously, and store them _RIGHT_NEXT_ to the
computer.
(the backups got stolen _with_ the computer. oh my)
6) Put the _telephone_ desk set (a standard '2500' type with that big
electromagnet driving the ringer) on top of the back-ups.
7) following word-of-mouth virus hoaxes, and deleting CRITICAL operating
system files from the machine.

I seen a number of these problems, including #7, but this also reminds
me of my wife's old Win 98 machine when we got together. She had a virus
buried deep in her hard drive. Much like Bruce's $71 hard drive versus
$80/hour experts equation, the most cost effective solution wasn't to turn
the thing over to an expert. I replaced the hard drive.

Recognizing _all_ the ways something can 'go wrong' -- in advance -- and
making sure the procedures cover all those contingencies _does_ take a
professional. The amount of knowledge you have to have, just to identify
_all_ the ways things can fail, is staggering. Knowing how to classify
the risks, and how to evaluate 'how much' it is worth spending on
ameliorating
which of them, is yet another art form. And that's just the start of
what a professional computer admin be aware of.

And yet, myself and the vast majority of home users manage to survive
with the professional experts. If the professionals were really all that
important for home users we'd have at least 10 times as many professional
techs than you actually find anywhere. From what I see the biggest block of
home users who turn to the experts aren't people with problems all that
technical. They're mostly people who don't understand the basics and either
aren't capable of or willing to learn the basics. Most of those people could
have their problems solved by turning to just about any reasonably alert 13
year old boy.

TB


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: saved word file text now opening as small squares?
    ... "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... But of course how those backups are being used could be significant, ... Microsoft MVP (Word) ...
    (microsoft.public.word.application.errors)
  • Re: SBS 2003 backup
    ... And this may lead to backup failed on some files. ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ... | CHKDSK is not available for RAW drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SBS 2003 backup
    ... You failed to backup with following errors: ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ... |> drives running the SBS backup to a file that later is copied to Iomega ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: OT - Cloning and CopyWipe
    ... When and where did Microsoft make this claim? ... from operating system 'operational data' from the applications from 'valuable' ... configured so that _only_ files that reside on that protected disk ... set-up _requires_ multiple physical drives in the machine. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Windows XP incompatible with old motherboard?
    ... I recently upgraded my 98 Gateway computer from Win98 to XP Home. ... Microsoft says all I need is a Pentium CPU to run XP? ... Drives Memory Modules c,d ... Intel82371AB/EB PCI Bus Master IDE Controller ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)