On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:15:31 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Fact: It doesn't matter how strong the authentication process is. This
>>> does not automatically mean that the data that follows is encrypted in
>>> any way at all.
>>
>> No, it doesn't
> 
> OK, now we agree on something.

We probably didn't disagree on that - I never asserted that 
authentication and encryption were the same thing.

>>>> Nope, 1200 packets, nothing in the clear.
>>>
>>> And how do you tell whether random binary data is encrypted or not?
>>
>> There's nothing "in the clear".  I connected to the system, opened a
>> CMD window, and listed directory contents.
> 
> Right. So it send a bunch of image bitmaps to you. And you can tell just
> from a hex dump that it was encrypted?

Amazingly enough, Wireshark can reassemble the payloads and tell you 
what's in it.  So yes, with the proper tools, you can in fact tell that 
it's not just streaming a bunch of JPGs to you.

>> That, plus the fact that it, you know, actually is *documented* to be
>> encrypted.
> 
> It's news to me that there /is/ any such documentation.

Well, I only pointed to the articles that documented it.

>> Yes, I do.  However, *weak* encryption is still, you know,
>> *encryption*.
> 
> Weak encryption is virtually no better than no encryption at all. If you
> want encryption, you want strong encryption.

You asserted "unencrypted", not "poorly encrypted".

>> But it's still encryption.  You asserted that it's not encrypted.  I
>> proved that it was.  Now, if you want to talk about encryption
>> *strength*, that's different than, you know, whether it's encrypted or
>> not.
> 
> If you're sending traffic over the Internet, it needs to have strong
> encryption. Since the debate is about whether you need to add additional
> security to RDP or not, it's kinda relevant.

Again, you asserted *no* encryption.

>>> Every Windows protocol I know of sends everything unencrypted by
>>> default, and most of them offer no possibility of adding encryption.
>>> I'd be rather surprised if RDP is different.
>>
>> Well, it's just documented as being enabled by default.  Like your VPN.
>> How do you know your VPN is actually encrypted?
> 
> I'm not saying that RDP isn't encrypted. I'm saying I'm extremely
> surprised that it's encrypted, given that none of the dozens of other
> Windows wire protocols offer any encryption at all.

You started off by saying that it wasn't encrypted, and when you were 
told it was, you refused to believe those of us telling you it is were in 
fact telling you the truth.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:06:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> A more appropriate comparison is latest against latest.
>>>
>>> I don't know how big the latest version of Windows is. I've never
>>> installed it. More to the point, I don't know of anybody who's using
>>> it yet.
>>
>> Windows 7.  You might have heard of it.
> 
> I've heard of it, yes. What I *said* is that I don't know how big it is.
> And that I haven't seen anybody using it.

"I don't know of anybody who's using it yet."

I'm using it.  In a VM.  So there's one. ;)

>>>> Yeah, ultimately, you gave up without asking for help.  If you'd
>>>> asked for help, someone probably would've been able to help you.
>>>
>>> 1. You're assuming that it's /possible/ to fix this.
>>
>> I'm basing that assumption on years of experience in troubleshooting
>> Linux systems.
>>
>> You're giving up and assuming it's impossible to fix it, so why bother
>> even asking for help?
>>
>> *That's* absurd.
> 
> Ultimately, it's "possible" to fix anything. You could reimplement the
> entire OS, for example. (Isn't that how Linux came to exist in the first
> place?) But that's far beyond my level of skill. For all practical
> purposes, that's "impossible". Not every computer problem is solvable.

The reason one asks for help is when something is beyond one's skill 
level.  There's invariably someone with *more* experience and skill, and 
the purpose of asking for help is to learn from those with more 
experience.

When I'm giving technical interviews, you might recall, I ask questions I 
know the candidate doesn't stand a chance of asking.  The reason I do 
this is to find out how they learn beyond their current skill.

You seem to think there's no point in asking questions to learn more.  
That's troubling.  You *have* the ability to learn, and you seek out 
information when it suits you.  But at the same time, you declare 
something as "impossible" (remember the discussion we had a couple years 
ago about debugging a kernel?  You uncategorically declared it was 
impossible to do so, and I told you that I had actually *done* so myself, 
but you still refused to believe it was possible to use a kernel debugger 
to get anything useful out of a crash).

You need to revise your view on that kind of thing and admit that you 
don't know *everything*, but that there are people who know *more* than 
you do and that you could *learn* from them.

>>> 2. You're assuming that had I asked, somebody would have actually
>>> bothered to reply. And that their reply would have been helpful.
>>
>> Again, based on decades of experience in online forums.  Is there a
>> chance of a useless answer or no answer?  Sure.  But I guarantee you
>> you won't get an answer IF YOU DON'T FUCKING ASK.
> 
> My limited experience is that when you ask for help, you get no reply.
> Or you get a few replies from people who don't really know how to help
> you, but they try to offer you some kind of useful information anyway.

Your experience is limited; you need to gain more experience.

I've been answering technical questions in online forums for over 20 
years now.  I can assure you that your experience is not normal - because 
it it was, why on earth would I waste 20 years of my life doing exactly 
what you've said isn't helpful or useful?

>>> As I say, I can get Linux to /work/ OK. Indeed, my dad still uses it
>>> on a daily basis. It's just that one or two things - like getting the
>>> package manager to install just the packages I actually need - are
>>> annoyingly fiddly.
>>
>> If you asked for help in understanding it, you might just learn
>> something.
>>
>> Heaven forbid *that* should happen. ;)
> 
> What's to understand? Dependencies are tracked at a fairly coarse level.
> It is what it is. Just live with it...

So, there's absolutely nothing more you can learn about dependency 
tracking in Linux?

Some dependencies are very coarse, yes.  Some are not.  Your assumption, 
based on a high level understanding, is incomplete - and you certainly 
*could* ask for more information about it and possibly even contribute to 
making it better.

Or at least understand it better, instead of parroting an explanation 
that the MS-fanbois just love.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:31:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/16/2011 20:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I cited a counterexample, and you changed the criteria.
> 
> Yes. I clarified.  Why, are we keeping score?

Not much point, just hard to debate when the criteria keep changing.

>> They do indeed.  I'm sure they could work out a licensing arrangement
>> for "approved by Microsoft" software if they wanted to, and take a cut
>> for distribution.
>>
>> Apple does, after all.
> 
> Well, as I said, so does Microsoft.
> 
> Say, here's an idea. Why don't you go work for Microsoft and explain to
> them why they're losing so much money? :-)  I mean, seriously, why are
> you arguing to *me* that Microsoft should be offering this service for a
> fee?

I think the likelihood of Microsoft hiring me is about equal to mine of 
seeking employment with them.

>> So, that can happen on both Linux and Windows.  I'm not sure what your
>> point is.
> 
> My point is that in spite of how I'm interpreting your claims, Windows
> does indeed have "software management elements" in their OS and
> supporting software.

I never said that they didn't have "software management elements" in the 
OS and supporting software.  I'm talking about those elements in a 
software distribution system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18/10/2011 12:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:58:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 08/10/2011 10:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Obviously you don't know many Linux users.  I know at least 5,000, and
>>> many of them not only love and use the GUI, but tend to have religious
>>> wars over which GUI is better.
>>
>> That is another point against Linux. Why would I want to join a
>> community of religious fundamentalists? Any day now I expect a knock on
>> my door and open it to find two smartly dressed penguin missionaries.
>
> I think you've just got my Halloween costume selected. ;)
>

OMG A six foot guising penguin. I bet you won’t be dooking for Apples. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:57:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 18/10/2011 12:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:58:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/10/2011 10:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Obviously you don't know many Linux users.  I know at least 5,000,
>>>> and many of them not only love and use the GUI, but tend to have
>>>> religious wars over which GUI is better.
>>>
>>> That is another point against Linux. Why would I want to join a
>>> community of religious fundamentalists? Any day now I expect a knock
>>> on my door and open it to find two smartly dressed penguin
>>> missionaries.
>>
>> I think you've just got my Halloween costume selected. ;)
>>
>>
> OMG A six foot guising penguin. I bet you won’t be dooking for Apples.
> ;-)

I wouldn't take that bet. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 16:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:31:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2011 20:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I cited a counterexample, and you changed the criteria.
>>
>> Yes. I clarified.  Why, are we keeping score?
>
> Not much point, just hard to debate when the criteria keep changing.

I wasn't aware either of us was trying to convince the other of any 
particular point. I thought it was a conversation, not a debate. :-)

>> My point is that in spite of how I'm interpreting your claims, Windows
>> does indeed have "software management elements" in their OS and
>> supporting software.
>
> I never said that they didn't have "software management elements" in the
> OS and supporting software.  I'm talking about those elements in a
> software distribution system.

Windows Update and ClickOnce don't count? :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 16:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
> And I suppose it's possible to put stuff in the registry that IIS won't
> read, so I'm not sure what your point is with that...

That you'd have to put it under a name that IIS won't look at, whereas grep 
has no way of knowing what files Apache won't look at. It's much easier to 
say "IIS roots are stored under \HKLM\blah\yadda\*\docroot" and get all of 
them than it is to parse XML with include files using grep.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

> XP is as close to dead as you can get, without MS
> having shoved the corpse over the edge of the castle wall, at this
> point, and it wasn't in terribly good shape from birth.

And yet, every PC I've had a chance to observe is still running XP.

Now obviously I haven't been able to observe every PC in the country. 
I'm sure a small minority of them are running something newer. I do know 
that whenever I see a PC running a shop till or whatever, it's running 
XP. (Or MS-DOS, weirdly enough...) I know that all the computers where I 
work still run XP. I know that the few home PCs I've looked at are 
running XP.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/10/2011 4:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >>  I think you've just got my Halloween costume selected.;)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >  OMG A six foot guising penguin. I bet you won’t be dooking for Apples.
>> >  ;-)
> I wouldn't take that bet.;)
No! You jailbroke your Apple and put Linux on it. 8-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18/10/2011 9:02 AM, Invisible wrote:
> And yet, every PC I've had a chance to observe is still running XP.
>
Past time to get a new job.
> Now obviously I haven't been able to observe every PC in the country. 
> I'm sure a small minority of them are running something newer. 
Most new PCs come with Win 7 now. It is after all the year of the worn 
tuppence.
> I do know that whenever I see a PC running a shop till or whatever, 
> it's running XP. (Or MS-DOS, weirdly enough...) 
Time you changed your town.
> I know that all the computers where I work still run XP. I know that 
> the few home PCs I've looked at are running XP. 
See above. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message