Re: Way off topic (was: Re: 2nd bodies)
- From: dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx (DoN. Nichols)
- Date: 23 Oct 2005 02:04:22 GMT
According to Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com>:
> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
> > However -- note that most users have done little to no
> > configuration work on the OS, and the problems come because of the
> > *default* configuration of the OS as it comes from the vendor.
>
> This I can agree with! And it is a problem that aggravates me. This is the
> same crap manufacturers do when they sell wireless routers. They keep them
> wide open and insecure and sell them to the general *uneducated* public.
> Though Microsoft is not as bad as the wireless industry, I believe the
> current release of XP tightened up on a lot of security issues.
So I have heard. If they had not also bundled that with the
re-registration on hardware changes nonsense I would have considered it
an improvement.
> > Most -- but some have exploited holes in at least older versions
> > of OE which would allow an html "iframe" tag to cause it to auto-play
> > a supposed sound file (without even asking the user), which in
> > reality was an executable. And Windows plays a sound file (or
> > displays an image) by attempting to *run* it, and discovering that it
> > is a sound file or an image. Only these virii which claim to be
> > sound files are *really* executables, so it really does run the file,
> > installing the virus.
>
> I exclusively use OE and never had any of these problems.
You also probably have things set to not "hide known
extensions". and a lot of the automatic things which it will do
disabled.
[ ... ]
> >> I don't understand why Don thinks XP won't handle SCSI well?
> >
> > I didn't say that I *did* think that it would not handle SCSI
> > well. (Though it *does* require add-on hardware to do so in most
> > cases, as SCSI is not a part of the typical system as supplied.) I
> > was using the list of SCSI drives which I have hung on *one* of my
> > unix boxen as an indication of the amount of changes which I am
> > frequently doing. Fourteen Ultra-SCSI drives plus a DVD-ROM on the
> > built-in SCSI in my Ultra-2, and a DVD-burner, a dual SCSI PCIMCIA
> > adaptor, and two Exabyte EXB 8505XL tape drives currently on the
> > narrow SCSI from an Sbus card added to the system.
>
> I don't think you'll see any difference between UNIX and PC when good SCSI
> hardware is used.
I didn't say that you *would*. I was showing how frequently I
change system hardware, which could provoke XP into asking for me to
re-register it yet again.
> I wouldn't even consider a motherboard that didn't have a
> built-in dual onboard SCSI controller. I've always used and sold Supermicro
> motherboards. Yes, I know you can add a SCSI controller to a none-SCSI
> motherboard. And having a 64-bit RAID card is also nice. Fortunately, I
> have enough U160 and U320 SCA drives and a few external SCSI drive cabinets
> to do my backups. I got rid of all my tape crap. Damn DLTs and AITs are
> slow compared to a U320 harddrive.
All tapes are -- it is inherent in the basic principles of tape
drives. I've just switched from Exabyte EXB-8505XL drives to EXB-8900
(Mammoth) drives, and the time needed to do a backup has dropped
significantly.
I'm also now using amanda
"Advanced Maryland Automatic Network Disk Archiver"
to perform my backups, with the tapes in an EZ-17 changer. The backups
start around 3:05 AM, and are long complete by the time I wake up. It
uses the standard unix backup tools -- either (ufs)dump, or GNU's
version of tar. In either case, I can always read the backups on
another unix system.
It even offers backup support for Windows -- through samba
mounted filesystems.
And -- there is a section on installing amanda on Windows
systems -- assuming that you have already installed CYGWIN to make it
sufficiently unix-like to run the Amanda suite.
> > I can imagine problems with linux -- in part because it is
> > trying to deal with hardware which has poorly documented, or even
> > worse, totally proprietary interfaces. They have done an amazing job,
> > supporting the number of cards and motherboards which they have, given
> > the handicaps which they have to overcome.
>
> I agree. I found earlier versions of RedHat had better driver support
> during that era..
And the insanity of the WinModems compounds the situation.
Burying part of the modem's functionality in the OS may save a few bucks
on the hardware, but it makes it very difficult to run on any other OS.
(Much to the pleasure of Microsoft, of course.)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
.
- References:
- 2nd bodies
- From: Gordon
- Way off topic (was: Re: 2nd bodies)
- From: DoN. Nichols
- 2nd bodies
- Prev by Date: Re: What is wrong with Canon?
- Next by Date: Re: Digital SLR in cold weather.
- Previous by thread: Way off topic (was: Re: 2nd bodies)
- Next by thread: Re: 2nd bodies
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
