Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218654 > unrolled thread

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Started by	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
First post	2021-09-05 09:55 +0000
Last post	2021-10-08 07:27 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 224 — 41 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →

#219090

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-09-28 14:48 +0100
Message-ID	<20210928144825.fae561a70471b8287b191090@eircom.net>
In reply to	#219087

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:11:34 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:21:51 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 15:56:30 -0400
> >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Why would they not be?  There are 100 orbital launches or so a year.
> >>It would take that many to knock down all the satnav satellites.  And
> >>there aren't very many orbital launch facilities in the
> >>world--furthermore none of them are hardened.
> >
> >This and the possibility that there is a separate constellation for
> >military use with an authenticated and encrypted protocol and hardened
> >satellites. It would be easy enough to do and hide and an elementary
> >common sense precaution and it's really hard to steal a private key if
> >the only copy is on a satellite.
> 
> Easy to do -- perhaps.  Easy to hide?  No.  There are bird watchers, train
> spotters, and similarly, people who track satellites.  They have the

	Sure, there are known to be many satellites with undeclared
purpose, who's to say that some of them aren't an encrypted military only
GPS system ?

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218969

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-09-24 17:16 +0000
Message-ID	<bKn3J.44301$ol1.33641@fx42.iad>
In reply to	#218955

On 2021-09-24, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:31:34 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:51:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>>>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>>>>> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>>>>> update that was pushed out to them.
>>>>
>>>> Push updates should be a criminal offense.
>>
>> I'm amazed that it doesn't seem to occur to anyone what a
>> huge security hole this represents.
>
> The story is that those updates are essential to close security holes.
> It's amazing the bullshit that people believe about security.

For many people, security is all about giving yourself the warm fuzzies;
whether the measures are effective is irrelevant.  A PPOE once implemented
a security policy requiring all after-hours access to be done through one
door (at the opposite end of the building from the computer department,
of course).  So I'd have to walk the length of the building on the outside,
let myself in through the designated door, then walk back the length of
the building on the inside.  There were no locked doors internally -
once you were inside you had the run of the building - so this measure
accomplished exactly nothing.

>>> Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.
>>
>> Hear, hear!
>
> That ship, however, has sailed.

In the case of the Australian navy, that ship was left dead in the water
when Windows crashed.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218987

From	Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-25 00:11 +0000
Message-ID	<pOt3J.39690$nR3.34158@fx38.iad>
In reply to	#218969

Who in sane state of MIND would use WINDOWS for critical missions
and FAULT TAULERANCY :P
(I work for RS military)

-- 
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\
On 2021-09-24, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-09-24, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:31:34 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:51:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>>>>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>>>>>> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>>>>>> update that was pushed out to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Push updates should be a criminal offense.
>>>
>>> I'm amazed that it doesn't seem to occur to anyone what a
>>> huge security hole this represents.
>>
>> The story is that those updates are essential to close security holes.
>> It's amazing the bullshit that people believe about security.
>
> For many people, security is all about giving yourself the warm fuzzies;
> whether the measures are effective is irrelevant.  A PPOE once implemented
> a security policy requiring all after-hours access to be done through one
> door (at the opposite end of the building from the computer department,
> of course).  So I'd have to walk the length of the building on the outside,
> let myself in through the designated door, then walk back the length of
> the building on the inside.  There were no locked doors internally -
> once you were inside you had the run of the building - so this measure
> accomplished exactly nothing.
>
>>>> Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.
>>>
>>> Hear, hear!
>>
>> That ship, however, has sailed.
>
> In the case of the Australian navy, that ship was left dead in the water
> when Windows crashed.
>


-- 
Evil Sinner!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218938

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-09-23 07:32 -0700
Message-ID	<1764791413.654100101.121068.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#218933

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-09-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> 
>>> In article <20210918155210.02c1c46cfbb0456d26a4ee94@eircom.net>,
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:49:00 -0600
>>>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/18/21 12:27 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I suppose the real question is why not recompile them to take
>>>>>> advantage of the newer hardware. I know during Y2K work that a lot of
>>>>>> instances of lost source code came to light, are people still running
>>>>>> binaries for which there is no source ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why recompile something just for the sake of recompiling it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If it's working just fine and is exhibiting no symptoms, why mess with it?
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah I get it, you might be depending on an old undocumented
>>>> compiler bug or you might fall foul of a new one so why risk the
>>>> new shiny compiler that might get 10% better performance and might
>>>> break the application.
>>> 
>>> By that logic, one should never upgrade anything if it can
>>> be avoided.  An operating system upgrade in particular would
>>> be terribly fraught.
> 
> s/would be/is/
> 
> Especially if you have no mechanism for parallel testing
> prior to the cutover.
> 
>>> It strikes me how much process we've built predicated on the
>>> presumed difficulty of testing and qualifying software for
>>> production use.
>> 
>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
> 
> Sadly, people now update software whenever the vendor tells them to
> (or does it behind their back).
> 
> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
> update that was pushed out to them.
> 

I hate to say that’s what they get for using windows, but…

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218940

From	Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-23 10:52 -0400
Message-ID	<sii4be$q2r$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218938

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2021-09-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>> 
>>>> In article <20210918155210.02c1c46cfbb0456d26a4ee94@eircom.net>,
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:49:00 -0600
>>>>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 9/18/21 12:27 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I suppose the real question is why not recompile them to take
>>>>>>> advantage of the newer hardware. I know during Y2K work that a lot of
>>>>>>> instances of lost source code came to light, are people still running
>>>>>>> binaries for which there is no source ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why recompile something just for the sake of recompiling it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If it's working just fine and is exhibiting no symptoms, why mess with it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah I get it, you might be depending on an old undocumented
>>>>> compiler bug or you might fall foul of a new one so why risk the
>>>>> new shiny compiler that might get 10% better performance and might
>>>>> break the application.
>>>> 
>>>> By that logic, one should never upgrade anything if it can
>>>> be avoided.  An operating system upgrade in particular would
>>>> be terribly fraught.
>> 
>> s/would be/is/
>> 
>> Especially if you have no mechanism for parallel testing
>> prior to the cutover.
>> 
>>>> It strikes me how much process we've built predicated on the
>>>> presumed difficulty of testing and qualifying software for
>>>> production use.
>>> 
>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>> 
>> Sadly, people now update software whenever the vendor tells them to
>> (or does it behind their back).
>> 
>> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>> update that was pushed out to them.
>
> I hate to say that’s what they get for using windows, but…

All these stories about companies paying ransoms.
Seldom do they place the blame directly on Windows.

Too be fair, poor backup and recovery probably plays a role too.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218943

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-09-23 10:01 -0700
Message-ID	<156764.654108760.351531.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#218940

Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <20210918155210.02c1c46cfbb0456d26a4ee94@eircom.net>,
>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:49:00 -0600
>>>>>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 9/18/21 12:27 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I suppose the real question is why not recompile them to take
>>>>>>>> advantage of the newer hardware. I know during Y2K work that a lot of
>>>>>>>> instances of lost source code came to light, are people still running
>>>>>>>> binaries for which there is no source ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why recompile something just for the sake of recompiling it?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If it's working just fine and is exhibiting no symptoms, why mess with it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yeah I get it, you might be depending on an old undocumented
>>>>>> compiler bug or you might fall foul of a new one so why risk the
>>>>>> new shiny compiler that might get 10% better performance and might
>>>>>> break the application.
>>>>> 
>>>>> By that logic, one should never upgrade anything if it can
>>>>> be avoided.  An operating system upgrade in particular would
>>>>> be terribly fraught.
>>> 
>>> s/would be/is/
>>> 
>>> Especially if you have no mechanism for parallel testing
>>> prior to the cutover.
>>> 
>>>>> It strikes me how much process we've built predicated on the
>>>>> presumed difficulty of testing and qualifying software for
>>>>> production use.
>>>> 
>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>> 
>>> Sadly, people now update software whenever the vendor tells them to
>>> (or does it behind their back).
>>> 
>>> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>>> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>>> update that was pushed out to them.
>> 
>> I hate to say that’s what they get for using windows, but…
> 
> All these stories about companies paying ransoms.
> Seldom do they place the blame directly on Windows.
> 
> Too be fair, poor backup and recovery probably plays a role too.
> 

I was going to say that windows is just a bigger target than Linux, but
Linux is used extensively in servers and mission-critical situations, and
you seldom hear about a successful attack targeting Linux. You’re right
about poor backup software and procedures.

Someone recently posted here about ransomware that just lay low and
corrupted backups for a while before it struck, but don’t good systems
checksum the backups and verify a good one? Duplicity does that, and also
does a test restore periodically. I have had occasion to restore some files
a few times, and I’m grateful to have it, although I also do some of my own
backups.

I did prefer the system I had previously, whose name I have forgotten, that
had a better UI, but they dropped support for individual users in favor of
corporate licenses.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218944

From	scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date	2021-09-23 17:05 +0000
Message-ID	<Ut23J.143091$o45.18825@fx46.iad>
In reply to	#218943

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

>> 
>> Too be fair, poor backup and recovery probably plays a role too.
>> 
>
>I was going to say that windows is just a bigger target than Linux, but
>Linux is used extensively in servers and mission-critical situations, and
>you seldom hear about a successful attack targeting Linux. You’re right
>about poor backup software and procedures.

Fundamentally, it devolves to Microsoft's choice to use HTML
in email and to allow executable content in mail, to forgo
any form of user security, et cetera.

Simple text is far safer, and forcing someone to manually cut & paste
URLs from a text mail (where the URL is unobfuscatable) to
a sandboxed browser would have been a far more secure paradigm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218949

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-09-23 18:42 +0000
Message-ID	<7U33J.176549$T_8.126792@fx48.iad>
In reply to	#218944

On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Too be fair, poor backup and recovery probably plays a role too.
>>
>> I was going to say that windows is just a bigger target than Linux, but
>> Linux is used extensively in servers and mission-critical situations, and
>> you seldom hear about a successful attack targeting Linux. You’re right
>> about poor backup software and procedures.
>
> Fundamentally, it devolves to Microsoft's choice to use HTML
> in email and to allow executable content in mail, to forgo
> any form of user security, et cetera.
>
> Simple text is far safer, and forcing someone to manually cut & paste
> URLs from a text mail (where the URL is unobfuscatable) to
> a sandboxed browser would have been a far more secure paradigm.

Yes, but far less convenient.  And as every marketroid knows,
convenience trumps everything: cost, efficiency, security, even safety.

Wait, let me amend that: _perceived_ convenience.  How many times have
you watched someone pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking
and dragging and dropping and... oops, my mouse finger slipped - where
did that file get dropped?  All this to do something we could do with
a dozen keystrokes.  And still they'll proudly proclaim how _convenient_
it is.  Furrfu.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218956

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-23 20:51 -0400
Message-ID	<948qkgd0ildesmlesq6uhupv53omp7en6m@4ax.com>
In reply to	#218949

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:42:11 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Too be fair, poor backup and recovery probably plays a role too.
>>>
>>> I was going to say that windows is just a bigger target than Linux, but
>>> Linux is used extensively in servers and mission-critical situations, and
>>> you seldom hear about a successful attack targeting Linux. You’re right
>>> about poor backup software and procedures.
>>
>> Fundamentally, it devolves to Microsoft's choice to use HTML
>> in email and to allow executable content in mail, to forgo
>> any form of user security, et cetera.
>>
>> Simple text is far safer, and forcing someone to manually cut & paste
>> URLs from a text mail (where the URL is unobfuscatable) to
>> a sandboxed browser would have been a far more secure paradigm.
>
>Yes, but far less convenient.  And as every marketroid knows,
>convenience trumps everything: cost, efficiency, security, even safety.
>
>Wait, let me amend that: _perceived_ convenience.  How many times have
>you watched someone pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking
>and dragging and dropping and... oops, my mouse finger slipped - where
>did that file get dropped?

That particular one is a _stupid_ design decision.  Accidentally hit
the button at the wrong moment and you can drag a whole heirarchy into
obscurity.  And the really annoying thing is that you can drag it out
of a folder to which you do not have the permissions to drag it
_back_.

>All this to do something we could do with
>a dozen keystrokes.

If the filenames and paths have fewer than a dozen letters.

>And still they'll proudly proclaim how _convenient_
>it is.  Furrfu.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218945

From	Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-23 13:12 -0400
Message-ID	<siichh$kao$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218943

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <20210918155210.02c1c46cfbb0456d26a4ee94@eircom.net>,
>>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:49:00 -0600
>>>>>>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 9/18/21 12:27 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I suppose the real question is why not recompile them to take
>>>>>>>>> advantage of the newer hardware. I know during Y2K work that a lot of
>>>>>>>>> instances of lost source code came to light, are people still running
>>>>>>>>> binaries for which there is no source ?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why recompile something just for the sake of recompiling it?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If it's working just fine and is exhibiting no symptoms, why mess with it?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yeah I get it, you might be depending on an old undocumented
>>>>>>> compiler bug or you might fall foul of a new one so why risk the
>>>>>>> new shiny compiler that might get 10% better performance and might
>>>>>>> break the application.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> By that logic, one should never upgrade anything if it can
>>>>>> be avoided.  An operating system upgrade in particular would
>>>>>> be terribly fraught.
>>>> 
>>>> s/would be/is/
>>>> 
>>>> Especially if you have no mechanism for parallel testing
>>>> prior to the cutover.
>>>> 
>>>>>> It strikes me how much process we've built predicated on the
>>>>>> presumed difficulty of testing and qualifying software for
>>>>>> production use.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>>>> 
>>>> Sadly, people now update software whenever the vendor tells them to
>>>> (or does it behind their back).
>>>> 
>>>> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>>>> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>>>> update that was pushed out to them.
>>> 
>>> I hate to say that’s what they get for using windows, but…
>> 
>> All these stories about companies paying ransoms.
>> Seldom do they place the blame directly on Windows.
>> 
>> Too be fair, poor backup and recovery probably plays a role too.
>> 
>
> I was going to say that windows is just a bigger target than Linux, but
> Linux is used extensively in servers and mission-critical situations, and
> you seldom hear about a successful attack targeting Linux. You’re right
> about poor backup software and procedures.
>
> Someone recently posted here about ransomware that just lay low and
> corrupted backups for a while before it struck, but don’t good systems
> checksum the backups and verify a good one? Duplicity does that, and also
> does a test restore periodically. I have had occasion to restore some files
> a few times, and I’m grateful to have it, although I also do some of my own
> backups.

I'm not and never have been a professional system admin.
It seems to me the system doing backups should only be connected to the
disk farm.  That would make corrupting backups an unlikely event.

> I did prefer the system I had previously, whose name I have forgotten, that
> had a better UI, but they dropped support for individual users in favor of
> corporate licenses.

Backup systems?  For my home system cron driven rsync with periodic
changes to the backup USB sticks.  Couldn't be much simpler.
Rsync just creates another copy, getting to the backup is just a matter
of copying.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218950

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-09-23 19:41 +0100
Message-ID	<20210923194107.c836b124bfb57c241fbd3a1c@eircom.net>
In reply to	#218945

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 13:12:17 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not and never have been a professional system admin.
> It seems to me the system doing backups should only be connected to the
> disk farm.  That would make corrupting backups an unlikely event.

	That doesn't work! Getting good backups of files in use requires
interaction with the application, usually a minimum of flushing application
state to disc, pausing the application and taking a snapshot so that the
application can resume running, then backup the snapshot not the active
files.

	One common technique for backing up PCs is to mount the backup
drive from the NAS and write a backup to it. This makes the ransomware
author's job very easy indeed.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218946

From	Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date	2021-09-23 13:40 -0400
Message-ID	<87ilyr8a2c.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to	#218943

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:01:37 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> All these stories about companies paying ransoms.
>> Seldom do they place the blame directly on Windows.
>> 
>> Too be fair, poor backup and recovery probably plays a role too.
>> 
>
> I was going to say that windows is just a bigger target than Linux, but
> Linux is used extensively in servers and mission-critical situations, and
> you seldom hear about a successful attack targeting Linux. You’re right
> about poor backup software and procedures.

While it's true that Linux is extensively used on servers it needs an
exploit targeting the server (PHP exploit or something).

But Linux Desktop installations are AFAIK rarely attacked.

Anybody who runs Linux on a desktop for their daily work (email, social
media, watching pr0n) are less likely to find their computer compromised
than their Windows counterparts.

[...]
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218982

From	maus <maus@dmaus.org>
Date	2021-09-24 22:28 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnsksk8a.fpo.maus@dmaus.org>
In reply to	#218943

On 2021-09-23, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <20210918155210.02c1c46cfbb0456d26a4ee94@eircom.net>,
>>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
> checksum the backups and verify a good one? Duplicity does that, and also
> does a test restore periodically. I have had occasion to restore some files
> a few times, and I’m grateful to have it, although I also do some of my own
> backups.
>
> I did prefer the system I had previously, whose name I have forgotten, that
> had a better UI, but they dropped support for individual users in favor of
> corporate licenses.
>

I occasion get a message demainding money or else. So far, nothing
happens.

-- 
greymausg@mail.com
Down the wrong mousehole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218995

From	Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-25 00:38 +0000
Message-ID	<acu3J.41689$6U3.31031@fx43.iad>
In reply to	#218982

I have learned that NOTHING IS FREE. If you PAY HONESTLY it is cheaper
then to use something virtually free.

-- 
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\
On 2021-09-24, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
> On 2021-09-23, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-09-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <20210918155210.02c1c46cfbb0456d26a4ee94@eircom.net>,
>>>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>> checksum the backups and verify a good one? Duplicity does that, and also
>> does a test restore periodically. I have had occasion to restore some files
>> a few times, and I’m grateful to have it, although I also do some of my own
>> backups.
>>
>> I did prefer the system I had previously, whose name I have forgotten, that
>> had a better UI, but they dropped support for individual users in favor of
>> corporate licenses.
>>
>
> I occasion get a message demainding money or else. So far, nothing
> happens.
>


-- 
Evil Sinner!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219045

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-09-26 04:24 +0000
Message-ID	<vCS3J.125899$F26.8263@fx44.iad>
In reply to	#218995

[top-posting corrected]

On 2021-09-25, Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2021-09-24, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>
>> I occasion get a message demainding money or else. So far, nothing
>> happens.
>
> I have learned that NOTHING IS FREE. If you PAY HONESTLY it is cheaper
> then to use something virtually free.

If they CHARGE HONESTLY I'd more likely to pay.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219048

From	Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-26 07:19 +0000
Message-ID	<baV3J.17536$2e3.15262@fx29.iad>
In reply to	#219045

On 2021-09-26, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> I have learned that NOTHING IS FREE. If you PAY HONESTLY it is cheaper
>> then to use something virtually free.
>
> If they CHARGE HONESTLY I'd more likely to pay.
>
Well, in 2000 I gave away all my money, thrhoughed
last 1600deutch marks behind left shoulder for luck,
and started to sleep on streets :P
In order to test theory how you can reach Kingdom Of Heaven :P
I despise money :P
Think it is ANTICHRIST :P
When I want to buy small chocolate that costs less then
1 euro, I pay 40, and when seller runs for me I say:
keep it sister, you *earned it*.
I beleive that if you are alum it will be taken from you,
but i fyou don't care and trow away you will be *given*
more then you need :P


-- 

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219055

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-26 12:11 -0400
Message-ID	<ds61lgdijbs7ie6ocrl7b2fg027g00jvml@4ax.com>
In reply to	#219045

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 04:24:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>[top-posting corrected]
>
>On 2021-09-25, Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-09-24, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I occasion get a message demainding money or else. So far, nothing
>>> happens.
>>
>> I have learned that NOTHING IS FREE. If you PAY HONESTLY it is cheaper
>> then to use something virtually free.
>
>If they CHARGE HONESTLY I'd more likely to pay.

While the money to develop Linux comes from somewhere, nobody is
obligated to pay for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218976

From	cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Date	2021-09-24 19:15 +0000
Message-ID	<sil84m$hgg$2@reader1.panix.com>
In reply to	#218931

In article <sigker$kfe$1@dont-email.me>,
Dan Espen  <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> By that logic, one should never upgrade anything if it can
>> be avoided.  An operating system upgrade in particular would
>> be terribly fraught.
>>
>> It strikes me how much process we've built predicated on the
>> presumed difficulty of testing and qualifying software for
>> production use.
>
>You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.

...or when external factors compel you to do so.  But
that may be a reflection of those external factors
forcing an unbearable cost that implicitly justifies
the upgrade.

And recall, the original discussion isn't necessarily on
updating software, but on recompiling that software.

Of course, as the dividing line between "hardware" and
"software" grows ever more vague, so does the definition
of what it means to "update software" anyway.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219182

From	Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>
Date	2021-10-01 11:48 +0100
Message-ID	<sj6p1p$81u$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218931

On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.

The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality, 
they just plug security holes that someone has found.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219189

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-10-01 17:43 +0000
Message-ID	<%MH5J.151942$Kv2.124437@fx47.iad>
In reply to	#219182

On 2021-10-01, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 23/09/2021 02:15, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>
> The problem is that a lot of updates don't add any real functionality, 
> they just plug security holes that someone has found.

Or they add security holes when the vendors decide they don't
don't have their hooks into you deeply enough.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →

csiph-web

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Contents

#219090

#218969

#218987

#218938

#218940

#218943

#218944

#218949

#218956

#218945

#218950

#218946

#218982

#218995

#219045

#219048

#219055

#218976

#219182

#219189