Windows XP opinions?

[steely07]

Totally agree MrSid,i think it really is only for the kinda advanced user.....unless set up to be used by someone,for someone else,locking it down to whatever kind of machine it is supposed to be .
 PS I'm actually wrong about Aces running on .Net server,having a bit o trouble making it work....but,"i think i can..i think i can"
 Steely
"Mmmmmm i wonder what would happen if i......."



 

[Mayhem]

windows xp (and windows 2000 Sp2 from what I hear) have the keyboard port closed so that the old Ch gear (fighter stick pro throt exc) can no longer be programed. Ch products will not have xp drivers for gameport gear till this summer. the problem remains however you still will not be able to program them in the OS. The work around for this is to program from win 9x (including ME) in either a multiboot enviroment or from another machine (running win9x).

There however would be a great option Iam sure should be workable. Make an adapapter that can accept a ps2 keyboard and 2 midi/gameport jacks and convert them to a USB line. there are some out there but none that will truely work with the programing fetures of the ch line. So what Ch products needs to do is make a anolog to usb adapter and a new ch speed keys or ch control manager that works with the new device. on a plus side it should fix the problem with the toe brakes on the pro pedals.

I don't see why Ch products couldn't produce the above device and software in a timely manor for about 25 to 75 bucks. It would save alot of us 400 bucks to upgrade to the new USB versions of the gear we already have. I can only see two reasons why the wouldn't Price vs. profit if there aren't enough people with the old gear specially the pro throttle or they feal they could make more money forcing ch users to upgrade.

If you are a ch products user and you use the old gameport gear I recomend you send Ch products an email message letter or phone call and voice your opinion on this matter. If theres enough intrest in this mabey we can get the product we need if CH products feels its worth it.

CH Products
970 Park Center Dr.
Vista CA, 92083

760-598-2518
760-598-2524 FAX
760-598-7833 Tech Sup.

Brenda hayes - VP Retail Division - brenda@chproducts.com
Debby Seymour - Director of sales and marketing - debby@chproducts.com

[Vulcan]

Let me quote you :  "Lion relied on a broken remote print services. With the right root kit, you could grab root and install lion. Prevention of lion didn't require intervention by ANYONE. You simply used ipchains to deny access to a particular port. "

Thats what you said. First, you say "didn't require intevention by ANYONE". Then proceed to contradict that.

Same goes with MS Apps, as security holes are found they are published on websites. My point here is you blocked lion with ip chains, I blocked red code with a firewall (already in use). Not much difference in the solution is there?

The problem perceived here is that because so many of the Apps come from MS that MS has more problems. If you lumped all the Unix app problems together you'd have as much if not more.

Curly, no security minded soul relies on the server to be the first line of defence

Now tell me Curly, what O/S did the first Worm on the Internet hit?

Originally posted by AKcurly
Vulcan, I certainly don't deny that new buffer overflows are frequently found.  However, as they are found, they are announced on the security websites/mailing lists and you either block access to the port or replace the problematic software with patched software.  With MS apps, there's one source of patches, and their track record hasn't been good.  Even worse, many of the problems aren't "security problems" as such.  Rather they involve scripts taking control of a client machine's mail client and hosing the freaking network (because of the sheer number of clients involved.)   It interfers with my ability to play warp free Aces High.

You said NO MS products have no more security issues than other software solutions.  

What can I say?  Either you've been asleep for the past five years or you sell MS software.  It's the only explanation.

you said it was fixed without user intervention (and then contradicted yourself in the next sentence).

No I didn't.  I simply said that my fix didn't require a patch from a software vendor.  Instead, I used ipchains.  Admittedly, I didn't say it clearly the first time, but I did so the second time.  Now I've said it clearly a third time.

Vulcan, no security minded soul uses a MS OS as an important server.  Hell, even Microsoft is that smart, right?  They use BSD!

curly


 

[AKcurly]

Vulcan, perhaps I am incorrect, but I thought we were talking about security on servers (and the lack of it.)

I thought it was interesting that Microsoft, purveyor of all that's good and great doesn't use a Microsoft OS at HotMail.

I tried to get you to respond to this fact, but instead, you mumbled something about efficiency of NT and completely ignored the statement in all subsequent responses.  Microsoft claims NT is fair more efficient than Linux.

Now, someone (Vulcan or Microsoft) is having trouble with the facts.  Who is it?  Either Microsoft is right (NT is efficient) when compared to Linux or
you're right and NT is a bloated pig (to paraphrase your words.)

If Microsoft is correct, then evidently they don't use NT as a Hotmail server because of Security issues.  Instead, they use a UNIX variant (BSD.)

If you're correct, then all the test data which supports the fact that NT isn't a bloated pig is in fact wrong.  Now, that would be interesting.  Vulcan against the world!

Concerning your other remarks, you are re-hasing statements which I have agreed to.  There are occasional buffer overflow issues with linux.  I have agreed with this statement, ok?

The public nature of Linux makes work like
this http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html possible.  The closed nature of all Microsoft OSs fediddleing guarantees that work like the above will never happen with a Microsoft OS as the base.  Instead, we have dear old Bill mouthing platitudes about security.  Man, talk about giving someone a break.

curly

Originally posted by Vulcan
Let me quote you :  "Lion relied on a broken remote print services. With the right root kit, you could grab root and install lion. Prevention of lion didn't require intervention by ANYONE. You simply used ipchains to deny access to a particular port. "

Thats what you said. First, you say "didn't require intevention by ANYONE". Then proceed to contradict that.

Same goes with MS Apps, as security holes are found they are published on websites. My point here is you blocked lion with ip chains, I blocked red code with a firewall (already in use). Not much difference in the solution is there?

The problem perceived here is that because so many of the Apps come from MS that MS has more problems. If you lumped all the Unix app problems together you'd have as much if not more.

Curly, no security minded soul relies on the server to be the first line of defence

Now tell me Curly, what O/S did the first Worm on the Internet hit?

[Vulcan]

No, we were talking about Windows XP.

However you started babbling about MS using Unix as a server solution for hotmail and this made XP bad as a desktop solution.

So tell me, a Unix/Linux server, such as say the Cobalt product. With the GUI, requirements for a video card, sound card, etc all stripped out of it, how could that be LESS effecient than an NT box with its overheads of a gui? A lot of rack mount mail/web server solutions are based around products like these because an O/S without a GUI like these is extremely effecient, and extremely secure (and its a cheaper box to build). They are also easy to cluster and manage.

I never said MS don't roadkill I'm not a MS Zealot. So quote MS as much as you like.

And I didn't rehash statements, I quoted you word for word.

You didn't answer my question - which O/S did the first Internet Worm hit?

BTW, heres an "occasional buffer overflow" for you:
"January 17, 2002: There is a security hole in sudo(8) that can be exploited when the Postfix sendmail replacement is installed that may allow an attacker on the local host to gain root privileges."

6 of one, half dozen of the other. Each has its strengths, each has its weaknesses. Curly you are just another one-eyed Unix zealot jealous that Bill Gates is rolling in our $$$$$$$. Get over it.

p.s. I don't make my money on O/S's, I make it on the networking hardware.

Originally posted by AKcurly
Vulcan, perhaps I am incorrect, but I thought we were talking about security on servers (and the lack of it.)

I thought it was interesting that Microsoft, purveyor of all that's good and great doesn't use a Microsoft OS at HotMail.

I tried to get you to respond to this fact, but instead, you mumbled something about efficiency of NT and completely ignored the statement in all subsequent responses.  Microsoft claims NT is fair more efficient than Linux.

Now, someone (Vulcan or Microsoft) is having trouble with the facts.  Who is it?  Either Microsoft is right (NT is efficient) when compared to Linux or
you're right and NT is a bloated pig (to paraphrase your words.)

If Microsoft is correct, then evidently they don't use NT as a Hotmail server because of Security issues.  Instead, they use a UNIX variant (BSD.)

If you're correct, then all the test data which supports the fact that NT isn't a bloated pig is in fact wrong.  Now, that would be interesting.  Vulcan against the world!

Concerning your other remarks, you are re-hasing statements which I have agreed to.  There are occasional buffer overflow issues with linux.  I have agreed with this statement, ok?

The public nature of Linux makes work like
this http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html possible.  The closed nature of all Microsoft OSs fediddleing guarantees that work like the above will never happen with a Microsoft OS as the base.  Instead, we have dear old Bill mouthing platitudes about security.  Man, talk about giving someone a break.

curly


 

[AKcurly]

No reason to become abusive, Vulcan.  I wasn't babbling -- thought I was ministering to the ill.  You sounded in need of treatment.

And you still haven't answered my question:  Why is Microsoft using BSD at Hotmail?

Tell me why Microsoft is doing such a strange thing and I'll confess to anything.

curly

Originally posted by Vulcan
No, we were talking about Windows XP.

However you started babbling about MS using Unix as a server solution for hotmail and this made XP bad as a desktop solution.

So tell me, a Unix/Linux server, such as say the Cobalt product. With the GUI, requirements for a video card, sound card, etc all stripped out of it, how could that be LESS effecient than an NT box with its overheads of a gui? A lot of rack mount mail/web server solutions are based around products like these because an O/S without a GUI like these is extremely effecient, and extremely secure (and its a cheaper box to build). They are also easy to cluster and manage.

I never said MS don't roadkill I'm not a MS Zealot. So quote MS as much as you like.

And I didn't rehash statements, I quoted you word for word.

You didn't answer my question - which O/S did the first Internet Worm hit?

BTW, heres an "occasional buffer overflow" for you:
"January 17, 2002: There is a security hole in sudo(8) that can be exploited when the Postfix sendmail replacement is installed that may allow an attacker on the local host to gain root privileges."

6 of one, half dozen of the other. Each has its strengths, each has its weaknesses. Curly you are just another one-eyed Unix zealot jealous that Bill Gates is rolling in our $$$$$$$. Get over it.

p.s. I don't make my money on O/S's, I make it on the networking hardware.

[Kieran]

I have a question about XP- how does one ghost it in the current registration key environment? Does the corporate license allow for ghosting?

[akak]

Originally posted by Wlfgng



I get approximately 30-40 attempts each day to 'look' at my home machine.

 

A great deal of the probes are actually security checks by your ISP.  I average about 15 probes a day and of those, 12 of them are usually from Cox.net.

[Fishu]

Im happy with Win98se.
Theres nothing scarier than to install/upgrade to newer windows

Besides, as long as they require me to contact somewhere to get the thing to work, im not gonna buy it.
What says I do have connection to do that or phone handy, when I need to get them MS to open the XP?
If its bad time of the day and can't connect to internet.. well, so much for using XP for next few hours or days in worst situation.

Theres all the drivers for win98se already and working good..

Win98 is working and running good.

[Kieran]

I agree with you today, Fishu. XP is good, but 98SE seems to work for me as well. Trouble is, 2 or 3 years down the road we may not have much of a choice.

[mrsid2]

Originally posted by akak



A great deal of the probes are actually security checks by your ISP.  I average about 15 probes a day and of those, 12 of them are usually from Cox.net.

AKAK you mean people within your own ISP are trying to hack your box. They probe your ip range to see if any sucker left ports open

I had an instance like that also, which I reported to my ISP and they gave the end-user in question a warning. Soon after that they also posted a similar warning to the message board, stating that port scans and / or flooding will result in losing the internet account.

Most likely the probes you get from cox are users infected with some trojan, sending their little fingerprints about the net.

[Wlfgng]

Asmodan, you obviously didn't read my links posted earlier.
yeah xp has a software firewall .. it sux.

mrsic, akak is right.  They do send 'harmless' probes.
however.. not all are harmless or from the ISP.
It's easy to look in the log and see who originates them.

We also have a 'honey pot' at work and it's the most revealing of all.. I love catching hackers and reporting them

[Vulcan]

Dunno Curly, I don't work for MS nor am I an MS Zealot with some sort of twisted story to tell.

But my reasoning, if it was me, would be this:
A unix based solution is less hardware intensive. Especially in the area of web and mail services. Where the box has no GUI and is managed via HTML and other database hook ins. Boxes I've used like that in the past are also easy to cluster and manage as a cluster.

For example, the Cobalt rack products are excellent solutions for scaleable web serving, with clustering capabilities and redundancy. And as a rack solution much easier to manage. Especially when the application being provide is fixed and there are not more advanced user services being provided (ie RAS, print and file sharing, scheduling etc).

Maybe it boils down to this Curly. There are people in MS who are not fanatical enough to cut off their nose to spite their face? Maybe those people can sit back and say, well, here is a better solution, its not ours, but this is what we should use. Isn't it interesting that they can admit the advantages of the competitive product in this situation without being complete zealots of their own?

BTW, you still haven't answered my question about the first O/S hit by an Internet worm  is that one eyed zealotry blinding you perhaps?

Originally posted by AKcurly
No reason to become abusive, Vulcan.  I wasn't babbling -- thought I was ministering to the ill.  You sounded in need of treatment.

And you still haven't answered my question:  Why is Microsoft using BSD at Hotmail?

Tell me why Microsoft is doing such a strange thing and I'll confess to anything.

curly

 

[dfibre]

Just something for you guys to think about...

Windows 2000 is "Windows NT Version 5.0"
Windows XP is "Windows NT Version 5.1"

...according to Microsoft.

Incase anyone was thinking there was that much of a difference between the two.  I have not seen any device drivers for XP that didn't work for Win2k.

-Ryan

[dfibre]

Oh, and just for giggles.  The BSD/Hotmail thing...

When Microsoft bought Hotmail it was already running on BSD, and MS had the good sense to leave it alone. (for a little while)

The front end load balancers for hotmail were custom BSD kernel'ed boxes which were handling over 30,000 connections/sec at peak times.  You must remember this was a few years ago so the hardware was no so buff as today, those numbers were unheard of.  If MS wanted to replace those 2 boxes it would have taken them 5 RACKS of NT servers of equivalent stature.  It was not something they were capable of doing at the time.

But... that didn't stop them from trying.  Instead they decided to keep those machines for now, and concentrate on just moving the webservers onto NT.  I had a friend who was a contractor to Hotmail when they first 'attempted' to move the webservers over to NT/IIS from BSD/Apache.  It was a disaster, try as they might... they were incapable of getting the IIS boxes to run fast enough and they were running out of Colo space because it was taking them 2-3 NT servers to handle the connection load of each of the BSD servers they decommissioned.  Now keep in mind this was NT4.0 with it's 16-bit non-multithreaded TCP stack against custom written hand-optimized BSD kernel'ed boxes so it isn't really a fair comparison.

That project ended in pathetic failure, but that was a few years ago.  I believe they have since migrated all their front end webservers to Win2k but their backend might still be BSD... not sure.

Anyway, makes for an interesting story... I know the BSD stuff was very heavily entrenched in Hotmail... but most/all of it might be gone by now.