> [Ooo... the thought of 50 machines all trying to hit the same server onc 
> per second over a 2 MB Internet link... that's not even funny.]

What? You *aren't* using a proxy so that the updates are only downloaded 
once from the AV site and then transferred only via LAN??

Post a reply to this message

> Maybe you'll be unlucky. Most likely you won't. Either way, shaving 4 
> hours off the window of opportunity seems a little moot when the window 
> is theoretically hundreds of hours wide to start with, that's all.
> 

Do you think the same about deadlines? "We won't make it in time anyway, 
so why even try?" Or the opposite: "We have plenty of time, so even 
though we have an (easy) way to take 4 hours less, why bother?":

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I think at least some unix networked file systems support something
> similar to this. Typically if you list the contents of /home you will only
> see your own home directory and nobody else's. If you explicitly 'cd' to
> someone else's home directory (if it's allowed) it will appear under /home.

Yes. How I saw it done, however, required the configuration to be on 
each client machine, rather than being maintained strictly at the 
server. Maybe it's similar in Windows, too, tho.

Given the flexibility of UNIX in general and Linux in particular, tho, 
I'm sure any problems could be worked around without much difficulty, 
for some size company. For example, I can't imagine Google has to do 
anything to bring up a new machine beyond booting a particular CD or 
something. :-)

>> And, for example, Windows allows 
>> some home directories to be mounted locally, others to be mounted 
>> remotely on a variety of file servers, and there has to be some 
>> mechanism to tell the "client" machine which is where.
> 
>   I don't know enough about file systems to be sure, but I would be
> surprised if this wasn't supported by any unix networked file system.

I think it's more just a question of how complex a configuration you can 
specify, and not something to do with the file system as such. (Unless 
you want to have multiple home directories mounted at once, in the same 
directory, from different servers, of course.)

The main difference, I think, is that since you can't easily do 
something that isn't built in to Windows, Microsoft puts more options in 
obvious places in Windows than any given distribution of UNIX-like 
systems does. But since Linux (et al) is more open, it's probably easier 
to make it work *exactly* like you want it to. (And I think this 
analysis applies to many, many aspects of those systems, too.)

BOCTAOE.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Given the flexibility of UNIX in general and Linux in particular, tho, 
> I'm sure any problems could be worked around without much difficulty, 

  *Everything* in Unix is a file. Unix *is* a file manager OS. Anything
you can imagine you could do with files and directories, is possible
in unix, if by nothing else, by a little programming.

  I hear it's not even that hard to create your own file system driver
in unix (or at least linux). A friend of mine has written one which can
be used to create and mount compressed read-only file systems (with awesome
compression ratios).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/08 11:09:
>> The cycle goes like this:
>>
>> 1. Destructive virus is released.
>>
>> 2. It takes 72 hours for any AV companies to even notice it exists, 
>> much less obtain a useable sample for analysis.
>>
>> 3. It takes another 72 hours to analyse the virus and develop a virus 
>> definition for it.
>>
>> 4. The new definition is deployed.
>>
>> 5. Our server downloads and applies the definition.
>>
>> My point is, that's 144 hours between the virus being released and the 
>> virus definition being released. An extra 24 hours before the server 
>> picks up the new definition seems quite trivial by conparison. The 
>> virus has already had plenty of time to wreck your entire network, 
>> long before the AV vendor has anything to offer you...
> 
> Probably not, as I doubt the person who released the virus aimed it 
> straight at your network.  Likely it took several days to build up 
> worldwide before it got into your network somehow.
> 
The worst virus out there are made to target one or only a few companies. They 
are made to remain under the AV radars by limiting ther diffusion.
Very slow propagation to keep a minimal network impact. Very few machines 
infected every day or weeks, with a relatively low stop therhold. But, as they 
target juicy targets, the payof can be prety impressive.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you downloaded and printed the 
Renderman Interface documentation, so you'd have a little light reading to take 
on holiday.
Alex McLeod a.k.a. Giant Robot Messiah

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Given the flexibility of UNIX in general and Linux in particular, tho, 
>> I'm sure any problems could be worked around without much difficulty, 
> 
>   *Everything* in Unix is a file.

I'm not sure what you're trying to express here. I meant that in the 
UNIX setups I've seen with distributed sharing of home directories off a 
central server, there's a bunch of information that has to be configured 
at each client to make it work. I.e., if I want to log in with my home 
directory on *this* client machine, I have to configure *this* client 
machine to know where *my* directory is, rather than just point the 
entire machine at the right server.

And what I was trying to express is "that's a pretty small problem to 
solve in UNIX, if it bothers you."

For all I know, it's already been solved.

> Unix *is* a file manager OS. Anything
> you can imagine you could do with files and directories, is possible
> in unix, if by nothing else, by a little programming.

Not quite, but pretty close, ya. Not quite everything is a file, or you 
wouldn't need other system calls. :-) The Amiga actually came much 
closer to making everything a file than UNIX ever did.

>   I hear it's not even that hard to create your own file system driver
> in unix (or at least linux).

Nor is it in Windows. Not sure what the point is.

(I already agreed it's not much of a problem. It's just one I've never 
seen solved in a general way in UNIX. Maybe it is. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> The worst virus out there are made to target one or only a few 
> companies. 

I am still surprised that I never saw (say) the DBase company get in 
trouble for writing a virus that only messed up FoxBase data files or 
something. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>> [Ooo... the thought of 50 machines all trying to hit the same server 
>> onc per second over a 2 MB Internet link... that's not even funny.]
> 
> What? You *aren't* using a proxy so that the updates are only downloaded 
> once from the AV site and then transferred only via LAN??

Not yet, no. (Requires a newer version of Windows on the server.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
...
> Given the flexibility of UNIX in general and Linux in particular, tho,
> I'm sure any problems could be worked around without much difficulty,
> for some size company. For example, I can't imagine Google has to do
> anything to bring up a new machine beyond booting a particular CD or
> something. :-)

I would guess that all that has to be done for
them is to set the BIOS to boot off the network.

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> I would guess that all that has to be done for
> them is to set the BIOS to boot off the network.

Yeah, exactly. And given that I read they bought something like 15% of 
all servers manufactured last year, they can probably get custom BIOSes 
already set up for it put in the machine when they buy it.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message