Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #518379 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-05 09:29 +1000 |
| Last post | 2018-10-12 08:21 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-05 09:29 +1000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 01:14 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 19:31 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-05 07:27 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Gene Filatov <evgeny.filatov@ieee.org> - 2018-10-05 11:12 +0300
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-05 08:41 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-10-05 16:28 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2018-10-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-10-05 20:59 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 14:19 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 23:44 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 09:58 +1000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2018-10-06 00:39 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 12:50 +1000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 08:42 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 21:41 +1000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 14:59 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-06 09:10 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 16:44 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 16:46 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 19:34 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2018-10-06 13:46 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 05:12 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 04:36 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-06 14:50 -0400
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 19:43 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-10-08 13:58 -0400
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 20:04 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-09 07:03 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 12:13 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-09 22:52 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-10 10:06 +1100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 19:06 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:43 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-11 12:16 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2018-10-11 14:50 +0200
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-11 13:51 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 08:35 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-11 15:56 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 13:24 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-11 21:24 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 20:43 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-12 07:38 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 08:55 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-12 16:48 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 10:22 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-12 16:49 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-12 16:53 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 10:27 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 17:10 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-13 02:13 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-13 09:14 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? +++ATH0 <news@ringpiece.local> - 2018-10-13 14:29 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 08:28 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 08:27 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-10 10:04 +1100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 06:47 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 19:01 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 06:03 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 05:17 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 15:38 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 19:14 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 08:13 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-20 07:07 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-05 20:12 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 13:42 +1000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-05 21:02 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 06:03 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 08:45 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 16:42 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2018-10-06 19:55 +0300
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 19:29 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> - 2018-10-06 22:41 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2018-10-07 02:07 +0300
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-07 11:56 +1100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 20:06 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2018-10-07 03:46 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 22:04 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> - 2018-10-06 22:40 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2018-10-07 02:05 +0300
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-07 01:36 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-06 20:14 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-07 08:07 +0100
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> - 2018-10-07 14:09 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-07 08:55 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-08 00:50 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-08 00:51 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 19:23 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> - 2018-10-07 13:52 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 08:18 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-08 00:52 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-08 00:54 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 22:20 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-08 08:20 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo> - 2018-10-08 08:19 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-08 10:30 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 19:57 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-09 06:51 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 08:50 +0000
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? jurb6006@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-10-12 08:21 +0200
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae189fba-36f9-4d84-a45e-cb1eb9de5db8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518600 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 8:56:59 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 07/10/18 09:41, DLUNU wrote: > > Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote in news:ppauu1$11ja$1 > > @gioia.aioe.org: > > > >> I wouldn't touch win 10 with yours, never mind my own. Completely > >> untrustworthy if you value personal or even corporate privacy. > >> Modern systems are getting so complex, who can verify what's been > >> hidden in either the hardware or software ?. > >> > > > > Ummm... the millions of folks using it. Particularly the pro > > installations. > > Microsoft doesn't have users. They have hostages. Lol! A few months ago I bought a couple of eBay machines, one for personal use and one for work. Both have Win 10 and I am presently happier with that then any prior Windows. They really added some useful features rather than trying to tell us what we should want. That said, one of the machines won't run very long if used much after booting. I am not able to update it because of blue screen crashes. I've spent a few hours trying to fix it, but no joy. So I'm buying another, even cheaper, eBay machine to continue working with and will be putting Linux on the broken one. I bet it works just fine. The only program I'm worried about running on Linux is a Forth program, Win32Forth. If it runs under Wine, I'll be happy (Wine is for running Windows programs under Linux, not the other way 'round, right?) If not I'll have to port my code to Gforth which will require a few mods to OS interfaces for RS-232 ports, Telnet and accessing the paste buffer. My program puts data into the paste buffer for the user to drop into a spread sheet. That actually saves a lot of time in testing and would be very bad to have to give up. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 03:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NkfuD.9243$8J3.1161@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #518600 |
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 11:56:53 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 07/10/18 09:41, DLUNU wrote: >> Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote in news:ppauu1$11ja$1 >> @gioia.aioe.org: >> >>> I wouldn't touch win 10 with yours, never mind my own. Completely >>> untrustworthy if you value personal or even corporate privacy. Modern >>> systems are getting so complex, who can verify what's been hidden in >>> either the hardware or software ?. >>> >>> >> Ummm... the millions of folks using it. Particularly the pro >> installations. > > Microsoft doesn't have users. They have hostages. Succinctly put! :-) The last of Microsoft's customers who could still regard themselves as "Users" were running win2kSP4. After that with winXP, Microsoft's customers were on the downhill slope to becoming hostages. It started gently at first becoming a cliff like plummet into the depths of what Microsoft rather ironically named "Vista", after which it somehow just kept going from bad to worse. -- Johnny B Good
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 22:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e58e44f-42cb-4471-833c-0f8d845244f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518615 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 11:46:57 PM UTC-4, Johnny B Good wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 11:56:53 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote: > > > On 07/10/18 09:41, DLUNU wrote: > >> Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote in news:ppauu1$11ja$1 > >> @gioia.aioe.org: > >> > >>> I wouldn't touch win 10 with yours, never mind my own. Completely > >>> untrustworthy if you value personal or even corporate privacy. Modern > >>> systems are getting so complex, who can verify what's been hidden in > >>> either the hardware or software ?. > >>> > >>> > >> Ummm... the millions of folks using it. Particularly the pro > >> installations. > > > > Microsoft doesn't have users. They have hostages. > > Succinctly put! :-) > > The last of Microsoft's customers who could still regard themselves as > "Users" were running win2kSP4. After that with winXP, Microsoft's > customers were on the downhill slope to becoming hostages. It started > gently at first becoming a cliff like plummet into the depths of what > Microsoft rather ironically named "Vista", after which it somehow just > kept going from bad to worse. I recall when XP first came out it was widely hated. But it didn't take long for users to warm up to it and eventually really like it. So much so that when Vista showed up with only two crimes committed (requiring new drivers for everything which meant many devices which were not currently in production would never work again and be default turning on various security protections which users thought were new features rather than existing features now turned on and could be turned off) it was widely hated from the get-go. This hatred was so widespread that MS saw and opportunity to make even more money from users who didn't *want* Vista by charging even more money to buy Vista along with the right to uninstall it and revert to XP. But I used Vista on a laptop for four years and was relatively happy with it. By the time Win 8 came along I think users were in the habit of hating anything new from MS, which was not at all reduced by the extremely goofy residual functionality of trying to make it compatible with touchscreen devices like tablets which it didn't have much opportunity to appear on with Android running on 99 of 100 mobile devices that didn't run iOS. I actually know a friend who had a Windows phone which she only had to give up this past year when MS dropped all support. So this brings us up to Win 9 ^H^H 10 which did not repeat any of the previous grievous errors... and as far as I can see didn't create any new ones either. Yeah, it's still Windows, but I don't go to sleep every night cursing MS like I used to. Yeah, I'm planning to dessert and join the Linux camp and I might actually do it this time. I have a whole spare machine that either has an unfixable (by me) Windows update error or a hardware fault. At least installing Linux will tell me which one it is. Lots of fun ahead. :D Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 22:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppbdkk$1pfv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518544 |
Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in news:ppapdd$s8$1@dont-email.me: > > At that frequency of "updates" I hear windows 10 is doing backing up a > a few terabytes all the time sounds the practical thing to do, yeah. > The word for today is "Incremental" No guarantees that it will get properly interpreted. Still not convinced that it ws the update that caused it. Perhaps there was activity taking place during the update that should not have been. I set all my machines to manual and update regularly with that being all that runs during the update.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 02:05 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <ppbf2n$2ls$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #518589 |
On 07.10.2018 г. 01:40, DLUNU wrote: > Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in news:ppapdd$s8$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> At that frequency of "updates" I hear windows 10 is doing backing up a >> a few terabytes all the time sounds the practical thing to do, yeah. >> > > The word for today is "Incremental" > > No guarantees that it will get properly interpreted. > > Still not convinced that it ws the update that caused it. Perhaps there > was activity taking place during the update that should not have been. > > I set all my machines to manual and update regularly with that being all > that runs during the update. > Do you claim you can switch autoupdate on windows 10 and go manually? That would be news I suppose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 01:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ppbkdl$2rl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518589 |
On 10/06/18 23:40, DLUNU wrote: > Dimiter_Popoff<dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in news:ppapdd$s8$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> At that frequency of "updates" I hear windows 10 is doing backing up a >> a few terabytes all the time sounds the practical thing to do, yeah. >> > > The word for today is "Incremental" > > No guarantees that it will get properly interpreted. > > Still not convinced that it ws the update that caused it. Perhaps there > was activity taking place during the update that should not have been. > > I set all my machines to manual and update regularly with that being all > that runs during the update. Good luck with that, wading back through all the incrementals for system recovery. Sounds like seriously hard work for present day sysadmins :-)... Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 20:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jvsirdhfd1vgt8c8a78b6o0sd0im2s3bt7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518540 |
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 16:42:01 +0000 (UTC), DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote: >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in >news:gskhrdtud3u1jf0fi8un1si04cja0t9382@4ax.com: > >>>Always backup first for one thing, and I still >>>think you did something to cause the loss. >> >> The first step to solving a problem really is to blame someone, but >> never blame the person in charge of fixing the problem. They might >> get angry and do nothing. >Especially when the FIRST thing they are ALWAYS supposed to do is perform a >backup. Yeah... you might get angry and... start blaming Microsoft for >your missteps. Well, ok. If you need a detailed procedure on how to assign the blame, I can provide one. 1. The first step is to deny that there's a problem. If the problem goes away, you win, and can stop right here. If not, precede to the next step. 2. The next step is to misidentify the problem in a manner that deflects the blame from the obvious culprit and delivers it to your worst enemy. For example, if Microsoft delivers a self destructive Windoze update, it must be President Trump's fault. 3. When blaming your worst enemy no longer draws the necessary attention, the next step is to blame the innocent. The could mean a former employee, another department, the janitor, or anyone who is incapable of properly defending themselves. 4. Blaming the innocent will inevitably fail, but should give you time for the next step, which is appoint a committee of luminaries, experts, academics, and con artists who will approach the problem from as many directions as there are members, and reach an equal number of conclusions. Extra credit for also providing an equal number of useless solutions to the problem. 5. When the committee inevitably fails, a very expensive consultant will be hired to properly assign the blame. Of course he will be hired by the obvious culprit who cannot be blamed or the consultant might not get paid. 6. The absence of a suitable culprit is not a sufficient reason to bypass the punishment phase of the process. No progress can be made unless someone has been punished for allowing things to gone wrong. Generally, it will be someone already scheduled for early retirement, or perhaps someone who is disliked by management. Once out of the way, this person can also be blamed for a variety of other things that have gone wrong. Don't worry, they won't talk because they are collecting their golden parachute retirement pay off. I forgot to mention if someone accidentally finds the initiative to make a proper backup, the backup media will soon disappear to insure that the backup thief gets credit for finding the all important backups after a frantic search. I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually trust you do solve a computer problem. (Hint: File by file incremental backups suck and are a giant time burn. Backing up only user data is worse. The only backup that really works for me are image backups and rsync type backups). -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 08:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4hiuD.20026$wF4.8126@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #518612 |
On 07/10/18 04:14, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 16:42:01 +0000 (UTC), > DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote: > >> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in >> news:gskhrdtud3u1jf0fi8un1si04cja0t9382@4ax.com: >> >>>> Always backup first for one thing, and I still >>>> think you did something to cause the loss. >>> >>> The first step to solving a problem really is to blame someone, but >>> never blame the person in charge of fixing the problem. They might >>> get angry and do nothing. > >> Especially when the FIRST thing they are ALWAYS supposed to do is perform a >> backup. Yeah... you might get angry and... start blaming Microsoft for >> your missteps. > > Well, ok. If you need a detailed procedure on how to assign the > blame, I can provide one. > > 1. The first step is to deny that there's a problem. If the problem > goes away, you win, and can stop right here. If not, precede to the > next step. > 2. The next step is to misidentify the problem in a manner that > deflects the blame from the obvious culprit and delivers it to your > worst enemy. For example, if Microsoft delivers a self destructive > Windoze update, it must be President Trump's fault. > 3. When blaming your worst enemy no longer draws the necessary > attention, the next step is to blame the innocent. The could mean a > former employee, another department, the janitor, or anyone who is > incapable of properly defending themselves. > 4. Blaming the innocent will inevitably fail, but should give you > time for the next step, which is appoint a committee of luminaries, > experts, academics, and con artists who will approach the problem from > as many directions as there are members, and reach an equal number of > conclusions. Extra credit for also providing an equal number of > useless solutions to the problem. > 5. When the committee inevitably fails, a very expensive consultant > will be hired to properly assign the blame. Of course he will be > hired by the obvious culprit who cannot be blamed or the consultant > might not get paid. > 6. The absence of a suitable culprit is not a sufficient reason to > bypass the punishment phase of the process. No progress can be made > unless someone has been punished for allowing things to gone wrong. > Generally, it will be someone already scheduled for early retirement, > or perhaps someone who is disliked by management. Once out of the > way, this person can also be blamed for a variety of other things that > have gone wrong. Don't worry, they won't talk because they are > collecting their golden parachute retirement pay off. > > I forgot to mention if someone accidentally finds the initiative to > make a proper backup, the backup media will soon disappear to insure > that the backup thief gets credit for finding the all important > backups after a frantic search. > > I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually > trust you do solve a computer problem. That lot is also true for political problems, e.g. nomination processes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppd42q$ihq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518612 |
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in news:jvsirdhfd1vgt8c8a78b6o0sd0im2s3bt7@4ax.com: > I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually > trust you do solve a computer problem. > You are worse than a troll. You actually believe that bullshit you spewed. Man, the truth must have had some hellish sting to it for you to get so angry over it. I understand computer science, so getting your thumbs up on my capabilities is hardly my goal. You do not see me blaming the scientists. Especially not those whom have been doing it decades longer than you have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo8krd9ev9copdrltj8tgb4tgj492hnj3r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518630 |
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 14:09:31 +0000 (UTC), DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> wrote: >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in >news:jvsirdhfd1vgt8c8a78b6o0sd0im2s3bt7@4ax.com: > >> I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually >> trust you do solve a computer problem. >You are worse than a troll. Ah, my favorite topic... me. Please keep things simple. I am a troll. I like to write provocative and inflammatory drivel and poetry. Oddly, you're the only person who seems to be provoked or inflamed. >You actually believe that bullshit you spewed. Well yes, I wrote it, therefore it's a fair assumption that I believe what I write. I only have one requirement. Whatever I write must be worth reading. With the exception of this message, I suspect that I've done rather well. >Man, the truth must have had some hellish sting to it for you to get so >angry over it. Hardly. If I write something, by definition it is my truth. Whether you believe my truths is optional. I don't pretend to have any effect on your version of the truth. I simply add some entertainment value while trying to understand how you think. It's much like shooting neutrons into a fissionable atom, hoping to hit the tiny nucleus, and then take inventory of what comes flying out. Judging by the debris trail behind your logic, that could become a major project and possibly the topic of a research report. >I understand computer science, so getting your thumbs up on my >capabilities is hardly my goal. You do not see me blaming the scientists. I am not a computah scientist. I perform damage control on the mistakes of computah scientists. I don't blame them for anything because I'm profiting from their mistakes. I much prefer to blame government agencies, large corporations, and industry organizations. >Especially not those whom have been doing it decades longer than you have. Doing what? I've been fixing computahs to support my decadent and lavish lifestyle since 1983. That's 3.5 decades experience saving customers from the end products of computer science. Longer if you include my computah hobby phase. What is "it" that you have been doing? -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppe9km$i45$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518642 |
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in news:fo8krd9ev9copdrltj8tgb4tgj492hnj3r@4ax.com: > I am not a computah scientist. I perform damage control on the > mistakes of computah scientists. Yer an idiot, at best. Reputah Le Buta... I'd kick you right in the knee, green teeth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 00:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppe9m4$i45$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518642 |
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in news:fo8krd9ev9copdrltj8tgb4tgj492hnj3r@4ax.com: > That's 3.5 decades experience saving > customers from the end products of computer science. You are so utterly full of shit, child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6251ea8f-72c0-4b11-938a-3f9d8f4fff79@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518534 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 11:51:36 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:45:28 +0000 (UTC), > DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote: > > >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in > >news:n07grdlc3jdr2ssnej54fakvilrdka07u1@4ax.com: > > > >> 1. Since Bloomberg apparently has possession of several of these > >> mystery chips, why haven't anyone done an autopsy or xray analysis on > >> what's inside? > > > Did you even read the article? > > Yes. > > >Did you not see the picture of what the > >chip contained? > > Do you mean this rubbish? > <https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/85c4e100b7ab4a8bbffe7ce2a3e137c1.html> > > You have a good imagination. Perhaps you might know what a "signal > conditioner coupler" mentioned in the first paragraph might be? While > you're working on that, perhaps you can also explain what an operating > system core might be as in "...the microchip altered the operating > system’s core so it could accept modifications". Duz Supermicro use > core memory? > > > And I am quite sure that the DoD's investigation into it was much more > >comprehensive than a news agency's most elite hardware nerd. > > Certainly they'll investigate. So will every other government agency > and publicity hungry entity will conduct their own independent > investigation. This was discovered by Amazon's outside security > contractor something like 2 years ago. One might suspect that there > are now a fair number of these chips floating around and that they > have been rather thoroughly analyzed over the last 2 years. Oddly, I > don't see any reports, photos, or info leaks. However, I'm sure > they'll take their time releasing any real results, when they discover > it's an SMD resistor network. > > > On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:50:02 +0000 (UTC), > DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote: > > >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in > >news:n07grdlc3jdr2ssnej54fakvilrdka07u1@4ax.com: > > > >> Microsoft's October 2018 Windoze 10 update destroying customer data. > > > >Bullshit. Operator error. > > Is that like blame the victim? I would think that the average user > might assume that an operating system update wouldn't erase all their > data. I would expect anyone to back up their data before an update because we know they can go south. A friend did an update earlier this year and his whole machine was bricked because it was one with less memory. I don't know if MS eventually acknowledged the problem, but he wasn't the only one to end up with an unbootable machine. Still, considering that by default I believe Win 10 does updates automatically, you would think these types of problems would be a bigger issue for MS than it seems to be. > Actually, that begs the question of what was Microsoft doing > digging around in the users files anyway? Were they building a > catalog of "interesting" files for the NSA? Why was this update so > big when it only added a few new features: > <https://www.cnet.com/how-to/windows-10-october-2018-update-the-7-best-new-features/> > New spyware, err... telemetry perhaps? I think that is a bit much... but then I may be very surprised at some point. I read "The Puzzle Palace" only to find the cable companies cooperated with the security agencies to feed them cables before they were sent. I would not have expected that either. > Incidentally, MS has suspended the update and is investigating the > problem. > <https://www.cnet.com/how-to/windows-10-october-2018-update-the-7-best-new-features/> > Pulling the plug 5 days after a huge number of rather serious > complaints is what is now called "decisive action". > > >Always backup first for one thing, and I still > >think you did something to cause the loss. > > The first step to solving a problem really is to blame someone, but > never blame the person in charge of fixing the problem. They might > get angry and do nothing. > > I have a simple method of dealing with such complainers. I construct > a clone of their computer. I then push pins and needles into the > motherboard until it exhibits erratic behavior. By sympathetic voodoo > and quantum entanglement, your identical PC will exhibit identical > problems. LOL! Good one. :) > >And you do not have an > >instantaneous mirror on another machine for their data? > > For my former medical office customers, that was standard procedure. I > also didn't install updates of any kind until after a suitable waiting > period. However, for the typical small business and home user, I > prefer image backups, which allows me to quickly restore literally > everything. For backups between image backups, I just copy or rsync a > few directories that I consider important to a local NAS (network > attached storage) drive. I wish I had you running my IT department... instead of me. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppd33f$gog$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518605 |
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote in news:6251ea8f-72c0-4b11-938a-3f9d8f4fff79@googlegroups.com: > Still, considering that by default I believe Win 10 does updates > automatically, you would think these types of problems would be a > bigger issue for MS than it seems to be. > > Any person acting as an IT administrator for any client should always (and this is well known) turn off automatic updates and set all such activity to manual. This includes and is assuredly possible with Windows 10 as well. You all have to be stupid to listen to the trash talk and believe the bullshit. The fact is that the OLD windows OSes are no longer robust (if they ever were) (wow one had serial port hooks)and are certainly vulnerable. Whereas Windows 10 is keeping up with the hacker Joneses. Find the stats on machines rendered unuseable via a hack that wants you to pay to get your machine back. The number of previous OSes is far higher than those of Windows 10 and those machines are ALWAYS a machine that was not updated to abate any attacks. If you are on the net, you need Linux or fully updated Windows 10. And no, it is not passing your info on. That is what the vulnerable systems allow. Duh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69a8a5d9-3d5d-4c9f-8bfb-cb4979bb78c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518629 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:52:54 AM UTC-4, DLUNU wrote: > gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote in > news:6251ea8f-72c0-4b11-938a-3f9d8f4fff79@googlegroups.com: > > > Still, considering that by default I believe Win 10 does updates > > automatically, you would think these types of problems would be a > > bigger issue for MS than it seems to be. > > > > > > Any person acting as an IT administrator for any client should always > (and this is well known) turn off automatic updates and set all such > activity to manual. This includes and is assuredly possible with > Windows 10 as well. "Assuredly"??? So you don't know! I seem to recall I've tried to tell Windows to download updates, but let me say when to install them. I think last time it nagged me a lot and let me put it off for some period of time, but there was no option to tell it to stopp with the nagging and finally when I wasn't on the computer frequently enough to say no *in time* it went ahead and did the update. If you know another setting to wait for me to give Windows 10 permission rather than repeatedly having to deny it's requests I'd like to know about it. > You all have to be stupid to listen to the trash talk and believe the > bullshit. The fact is that the OLD windows OSes are no longer robust > (if they ever were) (wow one had serial port hooks)and are certainly > vulnerable. Whereas Windows 10 is keeping up with the hacker Joneses. > Find the stats on machines rendered unuseable via a hack that wants you > to pay to get your machine back. The number of previous OSes is far > higher than those of Windows 10 and those machines are ALWAYS a machine > that was not updated to abate any attacks. If you are on the net, you > need Linux or fully updated Windows 10. And no, it is not passing your > info on. That is what the vulnerable systems allow. Duh. They are talking about the info Windows 10 sends back to the mother ship. It is claimed this is only anonymous info to improve the system, but many doubt MS. Who can blame them? Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 00:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppe9o3$i45$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518636 |
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote in news:69a8a5d9-3d5d-4c9f-8bfb- cb4979bb78c7@googlegroups.com: > "Assuredly"??? So you don't know! I see that you have problems with word definitions too. Not a surprise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppe9ri$i45$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518636 |
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote in news:69a8a5d9-3d5d-4c9f-8bfb-cb4979bb78c7@googlegroups.com: > If you know another setting to wait for me to give Windows 10 > permission rather than repeatedly having to deny it's requests I'd > like to know about it. > It is like this. You are an abject idiot not only for not updating but for ignoring the prompt to do so. My machine is up to date, so I see no such notifications. And do you really need to cry and piss and moan about notifications anyway?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 22:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5817e6d0-4ec5-475b-8ca2-7eab4823ce88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518665 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 8:54:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote in > news:69a8a5d9-3d5d-4c9f-8bfb-cb4979bb78c7@googlegroups.com: > > > If you know another setting to wait for me to give Windows 10 > > permission rather than repeatedly having to deny it's requests I'd > > like to know about it. > > > > It is like this. You are an abject idiot not only for not updating but > for ignoring the prompt to do so. > > My machine is up to date, so I see no such notifications. > > And do you really need to cry and piss and moan about notifications > anyway? You are a trip. Never a dull moment, but also never to be given credence. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 08:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppf40o$1lt0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518685 |
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote in news:5817e6d0-4ec5-475b-8ca2-7eab4823ce88@googlegroups.com: > You are a trip. Never a dull moment, but also never to be given > credence. > You have no clue what credence is, and I could give a fat flying fuck about your pathetic assessments... but I don't. With you, it's never an honorable moment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ppfsil$141u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518685 |
On 10/07/2018 10:20 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 8:54:15 PM UTC-4, > DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: >> gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote in >> news:69a8a5d9-3d5d-4c9f-8bfb-cb4979bb78c7@googlegroups.com: >> >>> If you know another setting to wait for me to give Windows 10 >>> permission rather than repeatedly having to deny it's requests >>> I'd like to know about it. The requests have become more than just requests. Merely checking to find out if there's an update gives MS the go-ahead to install it, you won't get to decline. See the article at the link below. >> It is like this. You are an abject idiot not only for not updating >> but for ignoring the prompt to do so. >> >> My machine is up to date, so I see no such notifications. >> >> And do you really need to cry and piss and moan about >> notifications anyway? > > You are a trip. Never a dull moment, but also never to be given > credence. > > Rick C. It looked like Jeff L. meant to post a link like this one, <https://www.computerworld.com/article/3311978/microsoft-windows/microsoft-yanks-buggy-win10-1809-upgrade-leaving-zapped-files-in-its-wake.html> but posted something else instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web