Operating System

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:10:13 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben
Pope" wrote:

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"Ben Pope" wrote:
It's a service pack for XP geared around security.
[snip]

And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention
all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).

Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player...

[snip]

You "presume" wrong.

If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates
and installing them, then you'll probably be ok.
[snip]

Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires,
as opposed to yours.

OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open
Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend
everybody switches over to Linux.

[snip]

Somewhat extreme, but a good approach, if you can pull it off. Unfortunately,
relatively few folks can; and even fewer *believe* that they can, or are
willing to make the effort to try.

You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security
updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer".
[snip]

No, that is NOT AT ALL what I said, or am saying.

You still
get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating
control over your system to MS" is hardly correct.

[snip]

I take it you haven't read your EULAs lately.

Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.
[snip]

In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as
black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which
applications and drivers one happens to need/use.

Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things
like applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of
many problems on Win9x.

[snip]

It may be "a common cause of ... problems", but it is hardly the root of all
evil. The WinNT code base has its own set of foibles and weaknesses; and many
of the more recent (and most nasty) WinWorms/trojans/exploits/etc. target
those weaknesses *exclusively*. For example:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-011.mspx


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"rstlne" wrote:

[snip]

How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
question)

[snip]

None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of
"incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused
problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the
point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT
router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible
threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even
the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite)
have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can
(when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And
that's the best you can ever hope for.

If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.

Yea, Highly possible that one..
Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
explanation)..
[snip]

Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in
reality.

Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
or really run ANY server..

[snip]

All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the
operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue.

Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than
whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard".

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:17:29 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben
Pope" wrote:

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, R
wrote:
(2) Western Digital Raptor

[snip]

I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for
opinions...

Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD
model is (currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale,

Eh? It's 36GB for like £90,
[snip]

You're quite right. After looking up the specs, I somehow slipped a decimal
point when doing the arithmetic.

I can get a drive 4 times that size for less money.

[snip]

Yes, but not with anything like that level of performance.

while still
maintaining "passable" performance.

Passable? It's probably the second fastest ATA drive available.

[snip]

Which is still only "passable", as compared to a good high-end SCSI drive;
probably less so if compared to an array.

No single drive is a match for a RAID array? Well, duh...

Stick two Raptors in RAID and you HAVE a match for a SCSI RAID array
[snip]

I don't think so. The underlying raw mechanicals may perform similarly; but
the as-installed *system* performance will still suffer due to the extra
overhead imposed by any flavor of IDE (granted, SATA may be *somewhat* less
given to this than the older incarnations; but it's still significant).

- in terms of price/performance.
[snip]

Well, if you sufficiently weight the comparison by price, then the
three-year-old clunker you pick up for $5.00 at a garage sale can "win"; but
it's a pretty pointless comparison.

Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake:

snip over-zealous rantings about windows security

We all know Windows isn't great in terms of security, but keeping it up to
date with Windows Update and a using an up to date virus checker is
generally enough for most people.

[snip]

No, it isn't. Not even close. That's why *the* biggest source (by a wide
margin) of spam and virii/worms/trojans are the vast numbers of compromised
WinBoxen hung off "residential broadband" connections.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:10:13 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben
Pope" wrote:

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"Ben Pope" wrote:
It's a service pack for XP geared around security.
[snip]

And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention
all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP).

Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player...

[snip]

You "presume" wrong.

If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates
and installing them, then you'll probably be ok.
[snip]

Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will
exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires,
as opposed to yours.

OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open
Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend
everybody switches over to Linux.

[snip]

Somewhat extreme, but a good approach, if you can pull it off. Unfortunately,
relatively few folks can; and even fewer *believe* that they can, or are
willing to make the effort to try.

You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security
updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer".
[snip]

No, that is NOT AT ALL what I said, or am saying.

You still
get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating
control over your system to MS" is hardly correct.

[snip]

I take it you haven't read your EULAs lately.

Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and
multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better.
[snip]

In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as
black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which
applications and drivers one happens to need/use.

Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things
like applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of
many problems on Win9x.

[snip]

It may be "a common cause of ... problems", but it is hardly the root of all
evil. The WinNT code base has its own set of foibles and weaknesses; and many
of the more recent (and most nasty) WinWorms/trojans/exploits/etc. target
those weaknesses *exclusively*. For example:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-011.mspx


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"rstlne" wrote:

[snip]

How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
question)

[snip]

None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of
"incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused
problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the
point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT
router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible
threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even
the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite)
have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can
(when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And
that's the best you can ever hope for.

If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.

Yea, Highly possible that one..
Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
explanation)..
[snip]

Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in
reality.

Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
or really run ANY server..

[snip]

All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the
operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue.

Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than
whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard".

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -