Re: What exactly is the Internet-of-Things?
"the very next Alexa / eavesdropping smart-speaker"
Next?
40485 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"They've evolved to the point where they can recognise a tech' who actually knows what they are doing, so behave properly in fear of being molested."
This can even happen remotely. Only this week SWMBO's sister rang to say could I come and look at her laptop on Thursday afternoon and described a catalogue of woes leading me to wonder if it was malware (quietly wondering what sites her husband might have visited if he'd borrowed it). Oh, no, it was the cat that had walked across the keys.
On Thursday morning she rung to say it had "fixed itself". Probably fear of being molested by somebody who didn't know what they were doing (it runs Windows) and might have taken the step of installing Linux.
"while it has been shown that adding an abrasive material such as sand and lubrication can indeed help to cut using copper, this again, is just a possible theory that is unlikely to ever be proved."
Nowadays if you want to cut stone with a smooth surface you use a diamond saw. My uncles who ran a quarry retired without even installing one. They did a lot of stone cutting, however. Their reciprocating "saw" didn't actually have teeth or anything like that, all it did was move sand back and forward. If you have plenty of man-hours available it's surprising what you can do with simple means. Technology allows you to do things faster and more cheaply but if you don't rate those attributes highly you don't necessarily need the technology.
"That used to worry me too so for safety's sake we had an earthenware Belfast sink fitted instead"
Our Belfast sink in a Belfast lab leaked badly despite all attempts to tighten up the joints on the drain. I only realised later it was the effect of the hydrofluoric acid on the glaze.
"When you have 20+ servers, changing the administrator password because Joe Admin left the company is not so simple."
I think the word you were looking for was "convenient". Do not trade security for convenience.
"Passwords can be cracked or leaked, so a security compromise of one server quickly becomes a site-wide problem (unless you use unique passwords, which complicates the distribution issue further)."
Just so. If an admin's personal password is cracked what stands between the cracker and root? If you have multiple admin users the cracker only has to get lucky with one of them.
"In other words, think about how you implement security instead of just bashing some random tool based on a 7 year old forum post."
I don't have to base my dislike of sudo on any thing as recent as a 7 year old forum post. I can make up my own mind.
"Firstly, sudo logs all its invocations. Secondly, sudo can be configured to only allow a user to run a certain subset of commands."
Those, in my view are because sudo is a kludge to overcome:
"su is an all or nothing command."
Which it has become as a kudge because root is now used for a great many purposes which could and should have separate administrators: e.g lpadmin to manage printers, bin to install and upgrade S/W. But that was too inconvenient so root got handed all the powers.
"Finally, su requires the destination user's password (e.g. root) whereas sudo requires the current user's password (or not at all). "
You say that as if it's an advantage. If the user has adopted a weak password that's all that stands between anybody who cracks it and root permissions. Requiring a second password provides an extra layer of protection.
"One benefit of this, is that when an employee leaves, you don't have to change all the root passwords, you just delete their account."
Again, it's the convenience thing.
I harbour suspicions about that (convenient)option to enter further sudo commands within a given period. It opens the door to an exploit.
"Just out of interest, does ReactOS run the software?"
Not tried but probably not. It actually fails to install properly as far as I can tell and the bastard vendors had no interest whatsoever in fixing it. It needs to contact their servers to register although IIRC there was a means to register it by contacting them off-net. But it's a long time since I bought it and I don't know if I could even register a re-install so the easiest thing is simply to keep it on a VM where it's registered and working.
"21 3.5" disks, and the installer insisted on *every single one*."
I don't remember what Xenix used but I don't think it was quite that many.
I had a SCO install which came on a CD but needed a sloppy to boot. It wouldn't install on Virtual box even if you could get a copy of the floppy onto it - it didn't like the emulation. I had a few clients with Informix on SCO (the staple of a lot of small businesses at one time) so having that on a laptop was quite useful. About the time laptops no longer had floppies Linux became mature enough to use without spending more time fiddling with it than doing actual work (KDE 5 is making me start thinking that things are going backwards).
I can tell you when my hatred started. Late '90s some complete and utter eejit in their advertising pestering department decided on a gimmick. They would get a magazine pubilisher to put a gob of the sticky stuff used to attach floppies between two pages with the slogan "Don't get stuck with Microsoft".
I suppose said eejit in his idiocy thought it would simply peel off with no harm done. It didn't always do that on magazine covers and stood no chance of being got off the flimsy pages without tearing. The eejit also hadn't realised the slogan was ambiguous. As a reward for such an arrogant tampering with what I'd paid good money for (and to the other advertisers who'd paid good money to buy space on the same pages) I decided to take the meaning they didn't intend and avoid getting stuck with them as far as possible in the future.
Back in the early days I had their FORTRAN for CP/M which seemed a bit of a miracle although I suppose even a Z80 box had more memory and storage than I was allotted on the University mainframe a few years earlier. And Windows itself was quite welcome when it first arrived: I could run an X-server on it to connect to the HP-UX boxes I was responsible for or, later, just multiple terminal sessions.
But Microsoft, over the years, have brought the hate on themselves through the sheer arrogance of their behaviour.
"NT 4, in 1996, is peak Windows as far as this grizzled hack is concerned, before NT was retooled for consumers with the launch of Windows XP in 2001."
You missed W2K?
I migrated my W2K VM from my old to new laptop this morning. It runs the one application I can't get running under Wine and couldn't find a decent replacement for under Linux. I'm trying to decide whether to migrate the W7 VM. Probably not.
"I want to assure them that we remain fully committed to making their personal data safe with us."
Look here, el Reg. I'm fed up with you just rolling this sort of statement out like that.
Will you please ask their PR people why, if they meant that, they allowed it to happen and tell them you won't publish their boilerplate at all unless they provide an answer to that question to publish alongside it.
They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that crap. The only reason they do is that the media allow them to get away with it. Being allowed to get away with it just encourages them more to the point where Pester thought he could whitewash a major meltdown with some anodyne guff.
"Isn't it illegal (or should be) to require one group of people that are citizens of the UK to have ID cards without requiring all citizens of the UK to have ID cards?"
The ID card phase 1 proposal is that those who are not UK citizens have them. Those who are don't. No discrimination between citizens.
"It's certainly the main reason that Blunkett wanted them."
Not his department. The reason he wanted them is that he was Home Sec, i.e. under the control of the Home Office who want them because they're control freaks.
Yes Minister never properly tackled the Home Office but essentially Home Office policy very much like Foreign Office policy was explained there: ministers come and go and they each want their own policy so it's much simpler to just have on policy, the department's. HO is very, very skilled at brainwashing new Home Secs very quickly.
You can view some bacteria with a "toy" microscope.
With the toy microscope that started me off that's more likely to be a bunch of fringes and other optical artefacts round a bacterium. It sounds as if Intel are having similar problems but at smaller scales.
"Countries should just start their own DNS servers and fracture the root server system."
Not the solution. Let countries (by which I wake it you mean national governments) get involved and you'll end up handing it to the ITU. What needs to happen is for the registrars (who, I believe are supposed to be ICANN "stakeholders" but not, apparently, treated as such) to do it in a coordinated fashion. The root server has a number of mirrors around the world; all they have to do is agree to treat one of those - and has to be just one - as the new definitive server and ICANN is on a downward slide as fast as you can say "fait accompli".
I've commented here a couple of times that Zuk could come to regret it if he needs to lobby HMG and his lobbyists get treated with the same disdain as he treated Parliament. This could well be such an occasion. The CA affair has given MPs motivation enough. Zuk's behaviour will have compounded that.
.. and sometimes you don't need a computer. Well, not make the actual error.
End to end testing of a snail mail system.
The client sent us a life-sized test file of correspondence which would have been sent had the system been live. I'm not sure how they generated it, maybe from their own training exercises but it used real postal addresses. The arrangement was that it would be run right through the system, including the enveloping line, a sample of the results checked and the rest shredded.
That was the computer part and it worked perfectly. The human bit came when the trolley was wheeled over to the outbound post area instead of the shredder.
It was publicly explained as "someone pressed the wrong button".