Only like the criminals the news likes to call hackers.
Blurred lines that requires the clarity of ethics to make sense.
I submit the thought that there are more than one type of 'hackers'. In a classroom or in a setting where the effects can be reversed, then hackers can be beneficial, ala the recent article Teach hacking in high school. Even Mitnick's extreme actions had the benefits of highlighting the ineffectual.
But this thought has been common. Affecting the hacker's morality with something like the Association of Computing Machinery's Code of Ethics is a tough challenge, but worth it.
Does your OS provide tracking data, at the device-driver level, to help your loaded software provide you a near real-time view of your network traffic?
If you have to put a port in promiscuous mode or use a hub (instead of a switch), then you are slowing down your near real-time view.
TCPDUMP? Not!
SNMP v1? v1.1? v2? Are you really going to risk that data on the network? Network data increases with SNMP too?
Yes, there are some tricks to get near real-time views of your network traffic without adding to the bandwidth and risking certain data, but OpenBSD's new PFLOW device, introduced in this article, makes it easy! So, is it news? Yes!
But, the first comment is correct, too... it *is* nerdy. CCNA Network Engineers are always nerdy. I have only met a few of us that go to the gym on a regular basis. Some of us are ex-military, so it is ingrained.
It was a 'shill article.' Yes, he is a pander. (I love the relationship in the definitions - check them out at dictionary.com! )
1GB mp3 players - I figured out your reference, which was the physical mp3 players, not the software (WinAMP) nor the CD-R players that could play MP3s (esp. car stereos, my preference for a long while).
Computing deserves so much better... Can we have Quarterdeck back, PLEASE?!?!
Toss me a few coins here. But first, I have to applaud your 'external voice' for leverage thought. Noble actions, imo. M$ made useful software? Not shit? Contradiction there that is part of our contention, so it's a point of confusion.
Pre-Intel days of M$ architecture? Are we talking M$ keyboards, Xbox, or the latest Surface tablet/laptops? Where do M$ and Intel compete? Intel now produces software and M$ now produces some hardware, but they compete exceedingly rarely. So the line about 'better executing some instructions' confuses me and adds to my thoughts that we must be talking apples and oranges. M$'s most closely guarded products, those with the barrier-to-entry, have always worked on Intel hardware (architecture?). Intel chips came first, then M$. Yes?
Forrest Gump - yep. Humans make mistakes. I revel, now, in the fact that every so often, I have to prove I am human and revel even more when a company with a bad business model makes human errors. Yippeee!
I need to take another look at the
Definitely good people, even some in management, but not for long. And, although MBA's have great numbers on efficiency of number of people for a given job, their examples in business competition need some upgrades. Working together and pride in a good product have longer lasting effects, imo, than the crap business models (from the heydays of oil, train, and telcos) they are used to using.
The specific ambiguous statement 'M$ tools are shit.' is off. Some of the tools are and were crap (IE, Windows 3.1) and mostly intentionally for their business model. But there are thousands of other businesses that rely on M$ tools and because they are decent in many respects and, probably more specifically, easy-to-use, then those thousands prefer those tools. That does not make the tools shit, just decent.
My contention is that shit tools that are actually just decent barely fits as a statement when the contention of the rest of the posters is that M$'s business models blow and their corporation should die and be replaced by something better like Quarterdeck. Yes, it was PR to discredit M$ critics, but who did NOT see the transparency? I thought it was poignant of one poster to point to the original articles' author that it might have been his contention that none of his friends/family talked him out of working for such a POS and immoral corporation when he had a perfectly decent job as a professor. Such is the stink of greed.
My criticism is that you are pushing a line of reasoning that is not parallel with the topic - whether this is intentional misdirection or simply misleading is up for debate.
My '... get a clue...' part was trying to get you back on topic: those companies were slighted by Microsoft and their 'decent' products in the most filthy business ways. Have a read about those companies; enlightenment on this topic, which you obviously care about, is a good thing!
As far as striving toward a similar goal in our debate: yes, Windows 3.1 and all versions of IE are crap.
I would like to add one more bit to all this...
I have seen countless companies die across dozens of software genres... Many of them NOT at the hands of Microsoft, amazingly. But I watched them and noted that they get humble and sincere before dying. Whether they drape their death certificate around another company's neck or not, they get sincere. After sincere comes righteousness. After that comes angst and a showing of their resolve. And then, they die.
Will Microsoft shake the stigma enough to, #GASP#, trust them again? Our trust was a long time ago, before Windows 3.1. But the slights were more than 'business as usual' because computing seemed to be corrupted in all the wrong oil company, train company, power company, and telephone company ways by Microsoft. Microsoft was not Quarterdeck making a great product (QEMM and DESQview) that everyone loved. Microsoft was a decent product that sleezed their way into everyone's hard drives.
We watched Microsoft and, despite many attempts at their life (BeOS, Linux, Google), they endured. But, we always knew that time, especially in this business, is the reaper of all - including you, Microsoft.
Right now, I see them suffering from too many Surface laptops (not enough sales), not enough innovation / market ownership of tablets and mobiles (with not enough tying to their other products despite trying). And they are speaking humbly and sincere.
Will a big, innovative, company in South Korea, Samsung namely, be the death, finally, of Microsoft? I am holding onto my seat as we, hopefully, watch the death of an icon. ESAD, Microsoft.
How are you sure that NT actually contains a copy of part of VMS, rather than just things implemented in a similar way with similar names? The latter is not infringement per Oracle v. Google. I'd appreciate reliable citations.
Does it really matter whether NT contains code of VMS or not? I mean, when you have two of the inventors of VMS writing NT, do you think anyone except them could distinguish original VMS code from original NT code?
But remember:
M$FT, the greedy corporation, still has the blood of Stac Electronics (STACKER), Digital Research / Caldera (DR DOS), and Quarterdeck (QEMM, DESQview, DESQview/X) on their hands. Forgive? Once they're dead like the Nazis, possibly.
ESAD, Microsoft.
Try picking up a Texas or Japanese high school history textbook some time.
Much less anything historical in Germany.
The blood of Stac Electronics (STACKER), Digital Research (DR DOS), and Quarterdeck (QEMM, DESQview, DESQview/X) are still on their hands.
ESAD, Microsoft. For good measure, eat a 9% use rating on Internet Explorer and tons of unsold Surface laptops.
I just use a simple text file and gpg.
Exactly how I manage my passwords. No browsers to fail or be compromised, no phones to lose / break / be compromised, and no paper copies.
With multiple (tons of?) OS and embedded OSes around, as long as one has my
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.
