 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>> Are those "home folders" somehow different from standard unix home
>>> directories, an idea which has existed probably for over 30 years?
>
>> Erm... Well, they exist on a network filesystem... Nope, that's about
>> the only thing I can think of that makes them in any way different...
>
> There's nothing stopping unix home directories from residing in a
> network file system, and in fact that's a very common practice in
> multiuser environments.
Well, originally I'm told it was on the local file system - but either
way, it's a pretty tiny difference.
Also, the new AV software we're rolling out is configured to look for
updates once per hour. Seriously. Once per hour. I don't know about
Trend, but Symantec only release updates weekly. Daily if there's a
serious outbreak. Hourly update checks?? Are you mental?!
Similarly, I just spoke to a user who got 137 emails this weekend
telling her that she has exceeded her mailbox allocation. OK, so we want
people to keep their mailbox size down. But 137 emails? Anyway, I
emailled the server admin, and he changed the notification frequency
from 1 hour to 4 hours.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Seriously... an email stays there until
you read it. Why on earth do you need an email every 4 hours to remind
you to do something? This is silly! Surely daily would be plenty...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:40:31 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>[Also amusing was the "If you have anything on C:, please move it to
>your new home folder so we can back it up".]
move c:\*.* \\server_name\my_home_directory
Oops.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also, the new AV software we're rolling out is configured to look for
> updates once per hour. Seriously. Once per hour. I don't know about Trend,
> but Symantec only release updates weekly. Daily if there's a serious
> outbreak. Hourly update checks?? Are you mental?!
I think ours (Sophos) is configured for once-per-hour too. Why not? I
suspect only a very small amount of badnwidth is used up to check if an
update is available, but the benefits could be huge if a serious virus gets
into your network somehow.
> Similarly, I just spoke to a user who got 137 emails this weekend telling
> her that she has exceeded her mailbox allocation. OK, so we want people to
> keep their mailbox size down. But 137 emails? Anyway, I emailled the
> server admin, and he changed the notification frequency from 1 hour to 4
> hours.
On the odd occasion that I email (or at least cc) a senior manager in our
company, there's probably a 50-75% chance that you'll get a message back
saying their mail-box is full. Great way to run a company...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:43:47 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Also, the new AV software we're rolling out is configured to look for
> updates once per hour. Seriously. Once per hour. I don't know about
> Trend, but Symantec only release updates weekly. Daily if there's a
> serious outbreak. Hourly update checks?? Are you mental?!
Except you may not know when it gets released. A new virus is found, the
AV boys crank out an update at 13:00; but you don't get it until 23:00
'cos that's when you've set your system to check for updates. You're
vulnerable for 4 hours
> Similarly, I just spoke to a user who got 137 emails this weekend
> telling her that she has exceeded her mailbox allocation. OK, so we want
> people to keep their mailbox size down. But 137 emails? Anyway, I
> emailled the server admin, and he changed the notification frequency
> from 1 hour to 4 hours.
Dear Customer,
administration charge for this warning...
Dear Customer,
charges...
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Also, the new AV software we're rolling out is configured to look for
>> updates once per hour. Seriously. Once per hour. I don't know about
>> Trend, but Symantec only release updates weekly. Daily if there's a
>> serious outbreak. Hourly update checks?? Are you mental?!
>
> Except you may not know when it gets released. A new virus is found, the
> AV boys crank out an update at 13:00; but you don't get it until 23:00
> 'cos that's when you've set your system to check for updates. You're
> vulnerable for 4 hours
Ooo, 4 hours. Big deal...
[I would think it takes a tad more than 4 hours for the AV company to
even notice there's a new virus spreading, much less perform an
extensive analysis and write a fix. And let us not forget, having the AV
signatures is a *cure*, not a prevention.]
> Dear Customer,
>
> an administration charge for this warning...
>
> Dear Customer,
>
> interest charges...
That sounds like a typical bank, yes...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> There's nothing stopping unix home directories from residing in a
> network file system, and in fact that's a very common practice in
> multiuser environments.
It works a bit differently on Windows. For example, it's the remote
machine that checks you have permission to read your "home" directory
instead of the local machine. (Dunno about other UNIX mounting systems,
but NFS doesn't work that way.) Plus, the directory gets mounted when
you log in and dismounted when you log out, because Windows actually has
network locking semantics for files. 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.
But conceptually, yeah, it's network-mounted home directories. The
implementation is just harder to support the more complex file semantics
Windows supports.
--
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:
> Plus, the directory gets mounted when
> you log in and dismounted when you log out
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.
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Also, the new AV software we're rolling out is configured to look for
>>> updates once per hour. Seriously. Once per hour. I don't know about
>>> Trend, but Symantec only release updates weekly. Daily if there's a
>>> serious outbreak. Hourly update checks?? Are you mental?!
>>
>> Except you may not know when it gets released. A new virus is found, the
>> AV boys crank out an update at 13:00; but you don't get it until 23:00
>> 'cos that's when you've set your system to check for updates. You're
>> vulnerable for 4 hours
>
> Ooo, 4 hours. Big deal...
>
> [I would think it takes a tad more than 4 hours for the AV company to even
> notice there's a new virus spreading, much less perform an extensive
> analysis and write a fix.
A virus can do a lot of damage to a company in 4 hours... (isn't 23-13 10
hours anyway? - oh maybe you shut your machines down at 17:00, but then how
will they update at 23:00??)
> And let us not forget, having the AV signatures is a *cure*, not a
> prevention.]
If you have on-access scanning enabled, then it prevents you running any
virus code that it knows about...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>>> Also, the new AV software we're rolling out is configured to look
>>>> for updates once per hour. Seriously. Once per hour. I don't know
>>>> about Trend, but Symantec only release updates weekly. Daily if
>>>> there's a serious outbreak. Hourly update checks?? Are you mental?!
>>>
>>> Except you may not know when it gets released. A new virus is found,
>>> the AV boys crank out an update at 13:00; but you don't get it until
>>> 23:00 'cos that's when you've set your system to check for updates.
>>> You're vulnerable for 4 hours
>>
>> Ooo, 4 hours. Big deal...
>>
>> [I would think it takes a tad more than 4 hours for the AV company to
>> even notice there's a new virus spreading, much less perform an
>> extensive analysis and write a fix.
>
> A virus can do a lot of damage to a company in 4 hours...
Yes. But if the updates only appear once every 24 hours, doing zillions
of update checks per day is really quite futile.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:27:51 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> scott wrote:
>>>>> Also, the new AV software we're rolling out is configured to look
>>>>> for updates once per hour. Seriously. Once per hour. I don't know
>>>>> about Trend, but Symantec only release updates weekly. Daily if
>>>>> there's a serious outbreak. Hourly update checks?? Are you mental?!
>>>>
>>>> Except you may not know when it gets released. A new virus is found,
>>>> the AV boys crank out an update at 13:00; but you don't get it until
>>>> 23:00 'cos that's when you've set your system to check for updates.
>>>> You're vulnerable for 4 hours
>>>
>>> Ooo, 4 hours. Big deal...
>>>
>>> [I would think it takes a tad more than 4 hours for the AV company to
>>> even notice there's a new virus spreading, much less perform an
>>> extensive analysis and write a fix.
>> A virus can do a lot of damage to a company in 4 hours...
>
> Yes. But if the updates only appear once every 24 hours, doing zillions
> of update checks per day is really quite futile.
"Except you may not know when it gets released."
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
