Other options listed, such as deleting from the Software Distribution/Downloads folder or the disk cleanup tool, reclaim between 8K and 50M from a 12G winsxs folder.
Thank you for the link, but it doesn't fix the problem. At best it only delays it. And if they never release a SP2, that folder can only grow.
Upgrading to Windows 7 or Windows 8 certainly fixes one issue, but it creates a whole new set of problems.
1.) There is guarantee that this won't be a problem in Win7 or Win8. This only showed up when there were *Lots* of updates to IE. In three or four years, Win7 could have a similar problem, or at least a problem with similar symptoms.
2.) Win7 did redesign the update process. (Actually Vista first showed up with it, but many people are skipping Vista altogether.) But in their great (for very, very small values of great) wisdom, they removed the ability to delete old, unneeded patches. In XP and 2003, you simply went to the Windows folder and deleted any of the old patches. You could no longer un-install the patch, but who needs to un-install a 7year-old patch? With Win 7, you cannot delete old patches. The winsxs folder grows exponentially, and since everything depends on everything else, deleting from that folder causes all kinds of problems. This leaves you with a winsxs folder that can be 20G or 30G with no way to trim it down. This is fine for a single system with a 500G hard drive, but is a BIG pain when dealing with VM's.
Depending on your equipment and the time you want to spend, oVirt might be an answer.
Although it is still fairly new and is in development, it runs on CentOS6, is free, can handle multiple guest OSes, can create VM's from a template, and has a power users portal page where trusted students/employees can create their own VM from supplied templates. This way, no student would have access to the host OS, but could create a VM as needed. The downside is that it can get quite complicated to set up the system, and could take a bit of time to learn and set it up properly. Since it is free, you are also dependent upon community support.
You can access more info here.
If cold fusion were invented tomorrow everything changes...
True. I for one would be worried about getting hit by one of those flying pigs.
oink, flap
Orcle does come with a kitchen sink. However, it costs extra if more than one person is in the kitchen at the same time.
The second is wrong. "Begging the question" as a logical fallacy is a mistranslation of a Latin term. (Your signature would leave one to believe that you would be less favorably inclined towards the group basing their phrases on mistranslations of Latin.) The term is better translated as "Demanding the first principle" and is better understood today as "Circular Reasoning."
Just because people have been doing it wrong for hundreds of years does not mean that we have to purpetuate that wrong. Language evolves. Language is designed to help convey understanding between individuals. I would argue that the first is better understood by more people and the second more confusing. Therefore the first is better at accomplishing the design of language. It is time to rename the second to a more descriptive term that is better understood by more people and stop berating people for using the term "incorrectly."
And like many people that have commented it seems, I found that the Tom Bombadil thing was horrendous in the book, and cheered a little inside when it was skipped in the movie.
I honestly can't even slightly understand why some people have such a hardon for that part of the book. It was terrible. TERRIBLE!
One of the reasons people like the Tom Bombadil section is because of the character development.
Remember, the book was about little, ordinary people that can do great things, even while big, great people are doing great things all around them. The book was not about little people outshining big people, nor was it about great people overshadowing the efforts of little people. On complaint about the movie was that it was more about Aaragon and Legolas with Gimli being the comic relief than it was about the Hobbits.
As for the character development, the Tom Bombadil was one of the first things that said, "This is not a simple trip across the forest. This is a dangerous journey and you better be ready." In the book the RingWraith drove them into the dark forest, and they almost got killed because they did not take the journey serious enough. When they got to Bree, they tried to fall back into the easy ways of the shire, only to be almost killed again by RingWraiths because they weren't paying attention. Only this time, they "found" a guide to help them in their character development. By the time they dealt with WeatherTop and finally made it to Rivendell, they were ready to start the journey to Mordor.
The Scouring of the Shire, another section left out by the movie, was the final step that the Hobbits had to take to realize that they were no longer children or ordinary people, but had become great people with large responsibilities. They no longer needed to rely on their guides or other races to take care of their own troubles. Their accomplishments did not belittle the other races, but finally became equals with them. And as equals, they were expected to take care of their own troubles. With great power comes great responibility. (The words are from Spider Man, but the theme is ancient.)
First let's do a sanity check.
Sorry, my sanity check bounced. Insufficient sanity, or something like that.
I would try a reality check, but that account has been missing for some time.
Windows in buildings actually follow the same principle. (Computer Windows is a completely different topic not addressed in these posts.) Windows are built to allow access as well. The primary access for windows is light. Either sunlight to warm or provide illumination, or for vision of what is on the other side.
To secure windows, you either need to limit how much light is allowed, such as making the window only 6 inches square, or placing barriers on either side of the window to make it more difficult for things other than light to enter. Such barriers coud include signs to discourage, hedges, bars, dogs (on either side), traps, moats, and/or landmines. (Some of those options may have questionable legal issues depending on where your building is.)
As with doors, the questions remain, is the stuff inside worth someone's time or effort to get in, and how much am I willing to spend to prevent access. The books dealt specifically with raising awareness about locks, so I concentrated on that aspect. But, if the stuff inside is sufficiently valuable, whole perimeter security needs to be addressed. Is tunnelling a viable option? What about vents? Even if the vent or window is too small for a person to enter, can something be put inside that will compromise the security from the inside?
My dad was a locksmith, so I learned a bit here and there about lock-picking as well as physical security.
It was best expressed to me this way. Most people believe that locks are meant to prevent access. This is incorrect. Locks are there to allow access. After, all, if you want to prevent access, build a wall, not a door with a lock. The lock is there to limit access. Ideally, a standard lock limits access to those people with a key or with knowledge of the combination. But a simple lock only prevents access to honest people or to those without the time or desire to enter. (These days, that is a very small segment of the popluation.) With each group of people that you wish to keep out, the cost of security goes up. Reinforced doors, sturdier frames, multiple locks, higher quality locks, combinations of different types of locks, electronic keys and biometrics are all steps to preventing different groups of people from entering. With each level of security, there is an increased cost, and, with most levels, and increased inconvenience to those who have permission to enter.
I am sure that most people here know the questions to ask when determining computer security, and the same questions apply to physical security. It comes down to How can someone gain access?, and What am I willing to spend to prevent it?
I think it is good that these books are published, because many people are clueless about physical security. "Put an expensive lock on it. We should be okay." I was surprised to learn how much of my prossesions I kept, simply because it wasn't worth someone's time or effort to steal it.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
