 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apparently the folks over at HQ have just implemented a new technology
known as "home folders" - and it's planned that this idea will be rolled
out at all sites in the near future.
Oh, wait a sec... we've had that in the UK for the last 6 years. Oh well.
[Seriously... WTF?! The more I work here, the more I wonder just what
the hell they're *doing* at the other sites. This is pretty basic stuff...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Apparently the folks over at HQ have just implemented a new technology
> known as "home folders" - and it's planned that this idea will be rolled
> out at all sites in the near future.
Are those "home folders" somehow different from standard unix home
directories, an idea which has existed probably for over 30 years?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Apparently the folks over at HQ have just implemented a new technology
>> known as "home folders" - and it's planned that this idea will be rolled
>> out at all sites in the near future.
>
> 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...
[Also amusing was the "If you have anything on C:, please move it to
your new home folder so we can back it up".]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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,
This letter is to warn you that you have only £1 remaining in your account
before you exceed your overdraft limit; £10 has been deducted as an
administration charge for this warning...
Dear Customer,
You are now overdrawn by £9, we have unleashed the hounds of high interest
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,
>
> This letter is to warn you that you have only £1 remaining in your
> account before you exceed your overdraft limit; £10 has been deducted as
> an administration charge for this warning...
>
> Dear Customer,
>
> You are now overdrawn by £9, we have unleashed the hounds of high
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47835028$1@news.povray.org...
> Yes. But if the updates only appear once every 24 hours, doing zillions
> of update checks per day is really quite futile.
Unless your update runs at 6am and a new version is added an hour later
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message news:4783300a@news.povray.org...
> A virus can do a lot of damage to a company in 4 hours...
Especially if it gets on to your DC.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:47835028$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Yes. But if the updates only appear once every 24 hours, doing zillions
>> of update checks per day is really quite futile.
>
> Unless your update runs at 6am and a new version is added an hour later
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...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4783995b$1@news.povray.org...
> 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...
Considering how nasty some viruses can be these days, why take the risk? 24
hours could be the difference between one machine has it and the entire
network has it. And you're not necessarily going to get infected the instant
the virus comes out.
Update checks are very quick. Why not do one an hour?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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...
>
> Considering how nasty some viruses can be these days, why take the risk? 24
> hours could be the difference between one machine has it and the entire
> network has it. And you're not necessarily going to get infected the instant
> the virus comes out.
>
> Update checks are very quick. Why not do one an hour?
Well, hey, why not do one an minute? Or even better, once per second?
[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.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47839baf$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, hey, why not do one an minute? Or even better, once per second?
There is a point where it becomes stupid
> [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.]
Or one machine (server-type machine) hits the internet site and download the
definition. All the other machines retrieve the definition from the local
source.
Do all your machines get patches straight from the internet as well?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, hey, why not do one an minute? Or even better, once per second?
>
> There is a point where it becomes stupid
Agreed. So it becomes a question of where you [subjectively] percieve
that point to be.
Personally, I have always had it set to update once per day, since our
supplier only releases updates once per week and I want to be able to
control exactly when all the PCs on our network will slow to a crawl for
20 minutes. I don't actually know how frequently or not Trend Micro
release them...
>> [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.]
>
> Or one machine (server-type machine) hits the internet site and download the
> definition. All the other machines retrieve the definition from the local
> source.
Indeed, this would be the optimal solution.
> Do all your machines get patches straight from the internet as well?
Currently yes. Hopefully that will be rectified eventually.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
> [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.]
Try having just one machine check and download the updates, then deal them
out to everyone on your network. That's how we do it here, as you say,
seems kinda stupid to have all your machines all downloading the same
software from the same place the whole time, especially with a limited
network link.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
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.
>> [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.]
>
> Try having just one machine check and download the updates, then deal
> them out to everyone on your network. That's how we do it here, as you
> say, seems kinda stupid to have all your machines all downloading the
> same software from the same place the whole time, especially with a
> limited network link.
Yes, our current solution does that, and hopefully the new software will
eventually be configured that way too. (It requires updating a server to
a newer version of Windows.)
As I said to Gail, our current AV solution tries to update once per day,
which is 7x more often than the actual update release frequency. Seems
fine to me. I don't know how often (if at all) our new provider releases
these things...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/08 10:57:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:47839baf$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Well, hey, why not do one an minute? Or even better, once per second?
>
> There is a point where it becomes stupid
>
>> [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.]
>
> Or one machine (server-type machine) hits the internet site and download the
> definition. All the other machines retrieve the definition from the local
> source.
>
> Do all your machines get patches straight from the internet as well?
>
>
Make that 50 servers from 50 corporations accessing your server every second or
so...
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If That Phone Was Up Your Butt, Maybe You Could Drive A Little Better!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> [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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> 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:
> Invisible escribió:
>> [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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
