Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Security vs Productivity (Score 1) 227

Security is needed, but so is productivity. Neither is valuable without the other.

I worked for a company that got breached and had stuff stolen. Their security was overblown and cumbersome, and not layered properly. They tried to secure their entire network, instead of properly layering things, and thus a hack that should have been trivial was not. Had they properly layered their network so the general employee work could happen fluidly, and people could get their jobs done without giving away the keys to the kingdom they would have been much better off. After the breach came mandatory drive encryption (with no password) which brought their largely aging laptop population to its knees. So much wasted time and horrible frustration, all to implement basically worthless security policies.

Comment Re:Threat? (Score 1) 227

> security is a huge threat to productivity.

Exactly this. I've seen so many companies waste time and money on ineffective overblown security measures that they should be spending actually getting the job done. Layer your security so that it stays out of the way as much as possible while still protecting what is actually important.

Comment Who is harmed? (Score 1) 165

You say the goal is "to cut costs", but what costs?

If the cost-savings comes from undermining a union, they probably would have sued already, so I'm guessing it's not that.

This shouldn't be a tax dodge, because 1099s should end up paying roughly the same federal and state tax, so it must be a reduction in actual compensation. Assuming that's the case, those being harmed look to be the 1099 employees themselves. As such, it would seem like a class action suit would be the appropriate course of action. If the state itself isn't willing to abide by the rule, it shouldn't expect others to either. The state should either follow the rule or repeal it.

Comment Re:Windows without a SSD isn't worth it (Score 1) 517

I used to load my machines up with RAM to speed them up. It's not useless, but it makes a tiny fraction of the difference an SSD makes. It simply isn't worth it. Window's caching is terrible, it tends to thrash your disks at inopportune times, and it's filesystems end up a slow tangled mess so quickly that without an SSD, it's just painful. Combine that with the high failure rate of spinning disks in a laptop, the extra-slow speed of laptop drives, and the reduced battery life from their high power usage and you'll be much happier with an SSD based laptop. When SSDs hit the $1/gig barrier it became time to start phasing spinning disks out of all but the lowest-performing laptops. Now that they're pushing down to about 1/3rd that, I'd avoid any laptop maker who doesn't, because they're not very good at what they do.

Comment Windows without a SSD isn't worth it (Score 4, Informative) 517

Windows machines in recent years have become extremely bottlenecked by drive performance, especially in the case of laptops which are so popular in companies. Laptop hard drives are slow, capable of only about 80 IOPS which is about the same speed they were 10 years ago, whereas mainstream SSDs by comparison, can typically deliver 80,000 IOPS. Since once you get Windows loaded up with all it's random messy software it's disk access ends up being tons of tiny reads, IOPS is a much more important number than transfer rate, and SSDs are literally 1000x faster. It can mean the difference between a 20 minute operation and one that takes a few seconds.

If you are in any way in control over your corporate purchases, never *ever* buy another laptop without a SSD. It's false efficiency, wasting very expensive time to save a relatively cheap expense. 256GB SSDs are under $100 and will handle most corporate work just fine. Up to 1TB, the expense is almost negligible and it will pay for itself almost immediately. Your IT department will be happier, your workers will be happier, your machines will be more secure because scanning them is a lot less intrusive and can happen more often. Your IT department should have a pile of SSDs ready to be deployed into any machine that needs to be re-imaged or where the user needs the speed. Not doing so is wasting money.

> I recently reinstalled Windows 7 Home on a laptop. A factory restore (minus the shovelware), all the Windows updates

No you didn't. You *thought* you installed all the updates because Windows lied to you and said you had. Windows Update has a horrible habit of checking to see what updates are available **for the state of your machine right now** and then telling you that it's done installing updates when those are installed, when in truth there are pending updates that required previous updates to be installed before they could subsequently be installed that Windows Update won't tell you about until you re-discover what updates are available. After an install, force re-scan after every reboot to see what new updates are now available and when you reboot and re-scan and it says you are done, you are actually done.

Comment Re:Absence?! (Score 1) 595


Try explaining DHCP, MAC addresses, and static assignments to the average person. Good luck

Exactly why NAT has some security benefits. Set it and leave it alone as a part of other security processes at the OS layer.

Comment Re:Absence?! (Score 1, Insightful) 595

Security is a process. If that process is made easier for some users by using NAT, then it's a benefit. Home users can't manage firewalls effectively. NAT is a good method (even if flawed) to protect some classes of users. Is it perfect? No. But that's why you also have other protections at other layers (host-based firewall, virus scanners, etc.)

Comment Re:Absence?! (Score -1) 595

Incorrect. NAT does have a security benefit. Unless ports are opened, there is no direct inbound access into the backend subnet. Yes, firewalls exist and can protect IPv6, but having a NAT simplifies security for most home users.

The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.