Re: I came close re. MS Office Home and Student
used to allow three installs.
The current incarnation only allows one, and is more expensive.
2924 posts • joined 15 Jun 2007
I did most of the technical design for the backup/recovery and DRM of UNIX systems at a UK Regional Electricity System back in the late '90s.
The design revolved around having a structured backup system based around an incremental forever server and a tape library.
One of the requirements of getting the operating license for the 1998 deregulated electricity market in the UK was passing a real disaster recovery test. A representative of the regulator turned up on a known day, and said "Restore enough of your environment to perform a transaction of type X". The exact transaction was not known in advance.
We had to get the required replacement hardware from the recovery company, put it on the floor, and then follow the complete process to recover all the systems from bare metal up. This included all of the required infrastructure necessary to perform the restore.
First, rebuild your backup server from an offsite OS backup and tape storage pool, and reconstruct the network (if necessary). Then rebuild your network install server using an OS backup and data stored in the backup server. Then rebuild the OS on all the required servers from the network install server and data from the backup server. All restores on the servers had to be consisntent for a known point-in-time to be usable. Then run tests, and the requested transaction.
And where possible, do this using people other than the people who designed the backup process, from only the documentation that was stored offsite with backups, using hardware that was very different from the original systems (same system family, but that was all).
Apart from one (almost catastrophic) error in rebuilding the backup server (the install admin account for the storage server solution had been disabled after the initial install), for which the inspector was informed, but allowed us to fix and continue because we demonstrated that we could make a permanent change that permanently overcame the problem while he was there, the process worked from beginning to end. Much running around with tapes (the kit from the DR company did not have a tape library large enough!), and a frantic 2 days (the time limit to restore the systems), but was good fun and quite gratifying to see the hard work pay off. I would recommend that every system administratror gos through a similar operation at least once in their career.
We were informed afterwards that we were the only REC in the country to pass the test first time, even with my little faux pas!
When supply and distribution businesses split, we used the DR plan to split the systems, so having such good plans is not always only used in disasters, and I've since done similar tests at other companies.
My view is that it depends entirely on ho much has changed in the OS since it was installed, and that is probably determined by the function of the system being backed up.
I've worked in an environment where every server in the server farm is a basic install with scripted customisations, with all the data contained in silos that can be moved from one server to another (the bank I used to work for had been doing this on a proprierty UNIX since the turn of the century, before Cloud was fashionable). These systems can be re-installed rather than restored.
I've also worked in environments where each individual system has a unique history that is difficult to replicate or isolate. These systems need to be restored.
One example of this latter category is the infrastructure necessary to reinstall systems in the former category!
There just is not one fixed way of doing things. Each environment is different.
I was the one who brought up Tax discs, and I did refer to the Post Office being used to obtain Tax discs, although I did not sufficiently discriminate between the Post Office and Royal Mail. My mistake.
My other points about the Post Office in rural areas still stand IMHO.
If it were profitably for TNT et. al. to put a last mile delivery service in, they would. They don't, so it can be assumed that they have judged that it is not worth it. IIRC, Royal Mail originally said that they would at best break even doing the last mile (although that is really not descriptive of what is done), and would more likely end up doing it at a loss. Unfortunately, they were forced to do this in order to allow other companies to break the total monopoly that Royal Mail had for many years.
It is probable that residents of most medium sized or larger towns could live without a local Post Office day-to-day. It is similarly likely that rural areas need Post Offices more. But I would bet that many of the people who say that they can live without it probably do not know what they could use it for. They are for far more than just buying stamps.
If you can live without a mail service, then I suspect that for you the Post Office is irrelevant.
But I also suspect that when you need your next car tax disk (assuming you drive), you may find one of the Post Office and Royal Mail services useful, either to collect in person or to deliver the disk. And if you don't drive then you are not typical, and your comment is irrelevant.
Or you want your next bank card to be securely delivered, or that job application that the employer wants documentary evidence for and you want to be tracked, or any number of things for which a physical delivery is required.
What you may not realise is that people like TNT and DHL (I think) and others actually use the Royal Mail for last-hop delivery, because they can't be bothered to raise the money to put a national delivery mechanism in place for themselves. If there was no Royal Mail to do this, these alternative services would become much more expensive.
And for may people, particularly in rural areas, Post Offices fulfil the function of Bank, basic shop and news agent, and social hub, when no other shop would remain open.
Royal Mail and the Post Office are not perfect organisations (especially in light of this report), and their role is definitely diminishing, but if they were to disappear overnight, you, along with everybody else, would notice at some point.
You're missing the fact that these are not single networks, but networks of networks, with fenced links between them, and at arms length from the core University networks. The only really complex part is the distributed user authentication that allows access to the core systems.
It really is a case of divide and conquer.
If you look at large corporate BYOD programs, one of the conditions is often that you surrender a lot of control of your own device. This normally means purchasing hardware from a list, installing company supplied tools like VPN, encryption and AV, and also surrender some control (have additional administrator accounts created). Certainly challenges the idea of it being your device.
What most Universities do is to have an open(ish) student network (or, in fact, many of them, often firewalled from each other and the main University campus network), together with a portal or gateway on each that allows them restricted access to the central file servers and other facilities of the core University networks. In addition, there is firewalled access to the Internet.
I don't see why that model cannot be used by business. It keeps your core network safe, while providing much of the access that is required by the user.
My kids were always told that it was their responsibility to make sure that their systems were adequately secured, and the only assistance given by the collage was to perform standalone virus scans. If the system failed the scan, they were offered one of the free AV packages, and told to either install and run it, or get someone to do it for them. Their machines/accounts were blacklisted until it had been proved to be virus free.
But in order to liberate that energy from a chocolate bar, you need to oxidise (i.e. burn) it in one way or another, and you need atmospheric oxygen, so you ought to take the mass of that into account as well.
Chocolate can be made to burn if you try hard enough, but I'd love to see you 'recharge' your burnt chocolate bar.
But the nature of a battery means that you cannot take the cheap route of just setting light to it. I suspect that the calorific value of oxidising the components of a battery may be even higher than the rated re-usable capacity of a battery.
In short, you're not comparing like figures.
In order to use this, you have to be an Office365 registered user?
OK, this is currently just for UK Government employees and information partners. and I know that I have to temper my dislike of Microsoft's business practices, but this feels like Microsoft just having to wait for all UK Government on-line services to use this mechanism before signing up the entire UK adult population on a subscription service.
Where's the openness, fairness and competition.
The difference is that while a Linux update will reboot a system once, there is a good chance that if you are updating Windows with other components (like hardware drivers), Windows will reboot more than once, sometimes many more times. It's got better than it used to be, but.....
Updating a kernel of any operating system on-the-fly is difficult, regardless of whether it is a desktop or a server system.
The problem is that the kernel is more than just another programme, and is being used all the time by running processes, and one of the things the kernel does is to track and allocate resources to the running processes. In theory it is possible to replace the kernel while it is running without disrupting the processes that it is controlling, but to get it right under all circumstances is difficult, time-consuming to test and thus costly.
A micro kernel implementation may be easier to update, but that assumes that you can re-bind running processes to new instances of a service on-the-fly. But even if you can do this, it is likely that there is one or more components that will require a system re-start if they are updated (the thread scheduler is one example).
With modern on-the-fly service migration, it may be possible to boot the new kernel in a different VM, and then migrate processes into the new VM, but most people just put up with losing their system for 10 minutes.
That's one of the reasons why I always provision my own router. It's a cost I bear, but one I believe is reasonable to maintain independence from any ISP.
I don't trust them not to put some nasty spying functions in their firmware to leak information about my network and the devices installed on it.
Not sure that the 801 ROMP was really intended for PC machines. It was originally intended to be the CPU for a dedicated word-processor, but was picked up by the Advanced Workstation Team in IBM Austin to fill a niche as a technical workstation for education and engineering use. It was most successful as a CATIA workstation, either on it's own, or as a front-end to a mainframe using Distributed Services. It always had weak floating point performance until the advanced floating point processor was available late in it's life. It was an important stepping stone to the RS/6000, p Series and Power systems, and the PowerPC processor, though.
Although the 6150 was originally marketed as a 6150 RT PC, it was never a PC per se. There is folk-law that suggests that it was going to be used as a PC, but looking at the reason why the 5150 was rushed out of the door as a quick-and-dirty temporary solution to stop the likes of Apple and various Z80 CP/M systems from dominating the market, it would never have been ready in the timescales required. That's why IBM used off-the-shelf components and a ready made OS and Basic for the system.
Of course, I was referring to non-I&D PDP-11, which I think that the LSI-11 was. I think that the J-11 and F-11 may have been separate I&D machines, but that only allows you to double the process address space, and even then, with serious limitations (64KB text space and 64KB data).
As much as I love the PDP-11 as an architecture, it would still have run out of steam in the late '80s. The problem was the memory model, and the mixed-endian nature of the system.
Without further architectural evolution (which was the VAX-11 in 1978), the PDP-11 was limited to 64KB processes (unless you used overlays) mapped into an overall 22-bit (4MB) maximum address space.
Don't get me wrong. It was a magic architecture, and because of the orthogonality of the ISA, I used to be able to decode PDP-11 machine code directly from octal dumps on paper. But it was a '70s architecture, not an '80s one.
The '80s should have belonged to Motorola 68000, NS16032 or 32032 (a very nice instruction set), or possibly ARM, running UNIX derivatives.
Just imagine if the IBM PC had had a 68000 with enough of a cut-down UNIX back in 1982. As soon as hard-disks became available (PC-XT time scales), we would have had multi-tasking full UNIX systems on the desktop, a bit like the AT&T 3B1.
PDP-11s survive (even to the current day and into the future according to a recent El-Reg article) because they are fine industrial controllers for systems that do not need large amounts of code to perform their function.
But Acorn User also produced a barcode scanner for the BBC, and printed their programmes as barcodes as well as listings that could be scanned in, complete with checksumming.
They had special yellow pages in the middle of the magazine so that you could find them easily.
Be careful with your Facebook account. There are many, many other sites that will use the Facebook login process to access their site (I think linked-in will, and I was looking at the On-TV app on Android that allows it - I tend to ignore it as I don't want all my accounts linked together). I think these processes work by logging into Facebook themselves, and seeing whether the ID that you've given is currently logged in.
There seems to be a group of information providers that would like to become single sign-on candidates. I've seen Google, Yahoo and PayPal as well as Facebook offered as quick ways of registering and authenticating for other sites on the Web.
I agree that the header files are not necessarily authoritative, but unless you know somewhere else that is generally available, the header files may still be the best even if they are not very good.
Most people (and me, now) do not have access to any current UNIX source code. Generally speaking, although the temptation was there, I resisted taking snapshots of the various code when I left companies with source. I try to abide by the rules, even though in hindsight, I have often regretted being so 'moral'.
The only UNIX source code I have available to me now is the V6 Lyons commentary, and the V7 code that was freed up by Caldera.
When I wrote my previous comment, I had a bit of a dig around in the IBM AIX V7.1 include directories. I was very surprised to see almost no copyright notices to Bell Labs or AT&T (understandable), USL (I suppose that is understandable as well), or Novell, Caldera or SCO, and precious few to the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley.
It looks like IBM have been cleaning up the copyright notices over the years.
I am currently not working on any other platform to check.
Oh. Yes. I forgot about 32v. That was in the same announcement.
BSD/Lite was, as far as I understand, BSD 4.4 with AT&T code removed/re-written. I think, although I am prepared to be corrected, that is the reason why it was called Lite.
UNIX does indeed contain code written at Berkeley. The obvious example is vi, although it would not surprise me if the paging code had something to do with BSD. As I understand it, there were relatively good relations between the Bell Labs. people and the Computing Labs people as Berkeley.
The networking code probably has not, because AT&T took the Wollongong TCP/IP code, and re-wrote most of it to use STREAMS/TLI.
But it does not matter how much code cam back from BSD, because the BSD license is a very permissive one that does little to restrict what the code is used for, provided it is acknowledged.
It is other contributors (which will mostly be companies working with AT&T) that may be more problematic, but I guess it depends on the contractual relationship between them and AT&T. The best place to look is probably the copyright notices in the header files for each release.
I would actually dispute that UNIX(tm) has ever been Open, as we would think Linux or other GPL code is.
Yes, UNIX code source code has been available, but only under license. Versions (editions) 1-6 were available to academic users under a very permissive license, but one that prevented commercial use. At the time, Bell Labs/AT&T were prevented by a US anti-monopoly judgement from supplying commercial computers, and this included Operating Systems. At this time, there was a thriving pre-Open Source group of academic users who dabbled in the code, and shared their work with others. This was a really exciting time (I was there), and you often found 400' 1/2" tape reels being sent around (it was pre-networks) various Universities.
Version 7 tightened this up to prevent the source from being used as a teaching example. Version 7 and earlier code has, since 2002, been published under GPLv2, granted by Caldera (Horray!). This is now "Open", but I don't know of anybody who is shipping a commercial V7 implementation (although a free x86 port is freely available from a South African company called Nordier Associates).
Commercial use of UNIX post Version 7, from PWB to UnixWare was under a commercial license that did not contain any right to the source code. The same was true for all other-vendor UNIX systems. Source licenses were available, but under their own strict licensing conditions, and at a high cost (and often required the licensee to have an AT&T source licence as well!).
BSD code prior to BSD/Lite required the user to have an AT&T version 7 (or later) license. BSD/Lite or later does not contain any AT&T code (or at least nothing that AT&T were prepared to contest), so is available under the BSD license, but as I have stated before, cannot legally call itself UNIX.
Having got that out of the way, why was UNIX used as the basis for Open Systems?
Well, UNIX was always easy to port. This meant that there were several vendors (piggy-backing on various academic ports, like SUN and DEC) who could sell UNIX systems, meaning that application writers have something approaching a common base to target their code, although differences had to be worked around. This was unique. There was no other large-system operating system around at the time that had this.
It became apparent that if there could be a standardised subset of UNIX (commands, APIs, libraries) that all vendors would support, then this could mean that application writers could possibly entertain a "write-once, compile once per vendor UNIX, and sell" strategy. This was first championed by AT&T (who by this time were allowed to sell computers and operating systems) with the System V Interface Definition (SVID), which was adopted by IEEE, with minor changes, as the various POSIX 1003 standards.
These standards are what gave UNIX the "Open" label. Anybody could write an OS that met these standards, whether based on genetic UNIX code or not. This has resulted in numerous interesting products and projects, one of which is GNU/Linux (POSIX compliant, but not any later UNIX standard), and includes such things as QNX, BeOS and z/OS, which can be regarded as UNIX or UNIX-like, some of which are truly open. Not all of these can be called UNIX, however.
I agree about the Linux kernel. The reason why this has remained as a single kernel is because Linus keeps an iron hand on the kernel source tree and official release numbers. It is perfectly possible for someone to take this tree, and modify it (and it has been done by several people including IBM and Google) under the GPL, but they can't get their modifications back in to the main tree without Linus' agreement. They could maintain their own version, however, as long as they abide by the GPL. AFAIK, they can even still call it Linux.
I think you're wrong. This is what I understand.
UNIX System Laboratories (USL) was set up as the home for UNIX as part of the SVR4 Unified UNIX program, and was joint-owned by a consortium of companies including AT&T. Part of the set-up was that all UNIX IP and code was not just licensed to USL, but the ownership was transferred from AT&T to USL. (I was offered a job by USL in the UK, and nearly took it, so I have an interest in this part of the history)
When USL wound itself up it got bought by Novell, and the ownership of all of the IP for UNIX went to Novell. This included all branding, code, copyright and patent information.
In 1993 or 1994, Novell transferred the UNIX brand and verification suites to X/Open (now The Open Group), and licensed the use of the code and IP to SCO, although through a contractual quirk (SCO not having enough money at the time), the copyright (and I believe that this includes the right to use and license the code) remained with Novell.
SCO then sold itself to Caldera, which then renamed itself the SCO Group.
The SCO Group then tried to assert ownership of the code and failed. This was one of the SCO Group vs. Novell (or vice versa) cases that was ruled on in Novell's favour. In parallel, SCO had engaged in campaigns of FUD and law suites against RedHat, IBM and their customers. These cases have never been concluded and are the ones that will not die, particularly the IBM one.
Novell was then mostly bought by Attachmate, although, and I quote from the Wikipedia article on Novell, "As part of the deal, 882 patents owned by Novell are planned to be sold to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of companies led by Microsoft and including Apple, EMC, and Oracle."
I was never clear about whether this IP included any of UNIX, or if that remained with Novell. This is the bit I am uncertain about. If it went to CPTN Holdings, this is how it could be used, although looking at the agreement, CPTN's ownership of the IP is subject to GPL2 and the OIN licenses, which may offer some protection.
Confused? You will be after this years episode of SCO*
(* with apologies to the creators of Soap for the shameless paraphrase of their catch line)
Please, please! Whoever own the UNIX copyright, publish the non-ancient code under an open license. There's no commercial reason not to any more.
You are so wrong in your suggestion that there is no AT&T code in AIX. Also, you are wrong about people wanting to pay for UNIX branding. Look at the Open Group website, and see which UNIX variants have been put through the various UNIX test suites (which costs quite a lot of money). IBM, Sun (as was), HP and Apple have all paid the money, and achieved the certification.
IBM has a SVR2 source license and AIX was very clearly derived from AT&T SVR2 code. It was not written from the ground up. I've worked in IBM and had access to the source code, and I have seen parts of the code that are clearly related to AT&T UNIX, complete with the required AT&T copyright notices. This was a long time ago (early '90s), but they were there.
For Power systems the current AIX can be traced back to AIX 3.1, released on the RISC System/6000 in 1990. AIX 3.1 itself was derived from the code that IBM had for the 6150 RT PC, and this was a direct port of SVR2, mainly by IBM but aided by the INTERACTIVE System Corporation, who had also worked on PC/IX for IBM. Reports of the Kernel (in places like Wikipedia) being written in PL/I or PL/8 refer to the VRM, not to the AIX kernel.
I admit that there has been a huge amount of code added in AIX over the years, but it is still a genetic UNIX. How much code is related? Maybe you should ask SCO. They've seen the AIX source.
The same is true for SunOS/Solaris. I was working for AT&T when SVR4 was released, and I can say with absolute certainty that Sun0S 4.0.1 was the same source code base (again, I had access to the source code) as AT&T's SVR4.
Sun were one of the principal members of UNIX International and the Unified UNIX programme that attempted to standardize UNIX in the late 1980's with AT&T, ICL, Amdahl and various other vendors long gone. I still have the notes from the developer conference. Prior to this release, SunOS 3 and earlier was based on BSD 4.2, with enhancements added from 4.3.
I am not so clear about HP-UX, but I know that HP had a direct UNIX V7 port on a system I'm sure was an HP 500 in the early 1980s, although I can't find any references (it was pre-Internet). Wikipedia says HP-UX was derived from System III. HP (and in fact IBM and DEC) were in the Open Software Foundation that was set up in opposition to the Unified UNIX. They had their own UNIX called OSF/1, which had a common code base that was taken from DEC and IBM versions of UNIX. The tension between UI and OSF was known as "The UNIX wars".
Time moves on, and of course there is no feedback from the vendors back into the main tree, so of course the different versions diverge, but I am sure it is safe to say that all three of these are genetic UNIXes, and they all have achieved UNIX branding at various levels. They can all be called UNIX as per the branding rules, but in this day an age, this is not really important. UNIX as a unified OS (much to my regret) is largely a has-been.
My biggest fear is that without some form of standardization (like the Linux Standards Base which is mostly ignored) Linux will go the same way.
There are nuances to this. Note that I said "UNIX(tm)" not UNIX-like.
Want to know the difference?
There is a set of verification test, owned by The Open Group (http://www.unix.org/), which tests a system for UNIX compliance. There have been several UNIX standards over the years, starting with SVID, through Posix 1003.X, UNIX 93, UNIX 95, UNIX 98 and most recently UNIX 03.
UNIX(tm) is a registered trade mark. Use of this mark to describe an operating system is restricted to those that have passed one or more of the test suites maintained by The Open Group.
OSX Mountain Lion has passed the UNIX 03 test suite. As has Solaris 10 and 11, HPUX 11i, and AIX 5.3 and 6.1. All of these operating systems can call themselves UNIX.
There are absolutely no Linux distributions that have passed any of the UNIX test suites, so legally, no Linux system can be called UNIX.
Two other quirks. There are no BSD systems that have been tested, so strictly, BSD is not UNIX (although there may be historical justification for BSD 4.4 and earlier) . But z/OS V2R1 (and some earlier versions) have been tested and passed against UNIX 95, so bizarrely, z/OS 2.1, an operating system that has little or no UNIX code in it can be called UNIX!
Now I don't know how many OSX systems have shipped in total compared to Solaris, HPUX and AIX systems, but in terms of new systems installed, I would hazard a guess that Apple are now shipping more OSX boxes than the other vendors are of their own brand of UNIX. And you can't count Linux.
This is why I said what I did.
If you are talking about JFS, then the original implementation was on AIX 3.1, but it was re-implemented (not ported) for OS/2, and it is this that was this OS/2 code that was then ported to Linux. So you are probably right, but not in the way you think.
Would love you to justify this. Apple may now ship more UNIX(tm) systems than anybody else, but they own nothing of the UNIX IP.
OSX is a UNIX derived system, having taken the MACH kernel, married with bits of BSD (which is not branded), and then got UNIX 03 branding. This means that it passes the UNIX test suite, not that it has any UNIX IP in it.
I said a couple of years ago that this may come back. Until it is finally ruled on and closed, beyond all hope of an appeal, it will keep coming back. This is both because the claim is big enough to keep creditors and lawyers interested, and because it is a vector to attach Linux as a platform.
Mind you, the landscape has changed. I never fully understood where Novell's IP went to when SuSE got bought. If it is the case that it ended up with a shell company that is controlled by parties who have an interest in derailing Android, Chrome, Tigon and all of the other Linux related platforms, then consolidating SCO's claim with the ex-Novell's IP could prove more than an annoyance.
It all hinges around UNIX code that was allegedly incorporated into the Linux source tree by IBM as part of AIX code that was ported to Linux (I know that JFS was one thing quoted), but IIRC the case was never proved, as SCO could or would not point out the code in question. There were also arguments about derivative works. But they were never closed either.
Like the MS patent list, I feel that it would be in the best interests of all of the interested parties of Linux to make sure that any code that could be cited was rewritten and expunged from the Linux code tree. At least this would protect future Linux products, and turn this into a chase for money, rather than a FUD attack on Linux.
In one bizarre slant on this, it may actually prolong the life of Genetic UNIX (directly descended from the Bell Labs code), as it keeps it in view. I would love to see the SVR4/UnixWare source opened up as a result of any real settlement of this case, but I think that this is unlikely.
There is a way to make users like the ones you indicate safe, but it means locking down their computers so that they can't install software, and are completely removed from any decisions about installing patches.
Whilst it would appear that Microsoft and Apple may be moving to that mindset, it is gathering some opposition from computer users, especially those who understand how things work.
I'm sure that there are other organisations that would like there to be this level of control, especially if they can recruit the vendors into installing other software components as part of the patching process.
The problem is one of balance between on-line liberty and security (and I'm not specifying whose!)
If such a high pixel density is required, why have I never had migranes up until now?
I completely dispute that it is necessary to have such high resolutions.
In my view, as long as there are enough pixels, it's screen size that is important. And don't go on about 'colour saturation', 'jagged fonts', 'graphics intensive work', and 'multiple windows'. They're just excuses to justify the cost of such displays.
The only reason for higher definitions is to get more on the screen, and once the character height drops to below 2mm, it becomes unusable without a magnifying glass, regardless of how many pixels are ued to display it.
It depends on the model, but many of the UNIBUS PDP-11s were built out of TTL (even the CPU and FPU). This means that it should still be able to source and fit almost any of the silicon parts, although I suspect that the most difficult parts to source would be the memory chips.
If they were F11 or J11 systems, you would have to rely on existing parts.
But I suspect that with the state of current chip baking technology and the simplicity of the chips back then, it may be possible to create a pin compatible memory chip using an FPGA relatively easily if it were really necessary.
Hmmm. What a project. Keep PDP-11 alive using FPGAs!
I was going to say exactly the same.
And you've missed out UNIX, which was definitely multuser on the PDP-11.
I think the hack was confusing PDP with RSX-11M Plus, which really is the ancestor of VMS.
I was the primary technical support for RSX-11M on a SYSTIME 5000E (actually a PDP11/34e with 22-bit addressing and 2MB of memory - a strange beast) between 1982 and 1986. We had 12 terminals working relatively well on a system that on paper was little more powerful than a PC/AT.
I think I can still do PDP-11 assembler. At one time, I used to be able to decode PDP-11 machine code in my head, although this was mainly because the instruction set was extremely regular. I still would recommend people looking at the instruction set to see how to design one. It's a classic.
I'm seriously thinking about taking a Note 2 as an upgrade on my phone next month. The downside is the size.
There are any number of situations when using a finger is just not accurate enough (such things as free-form document mark-up and notes, sketching and handwriting recognition). I still find Graffiti easier to use than swipe, which I just can't seem to use accurately on my current phone, and doing something that feels like writing is easier with a stylus than a finger.
As you might expect, AT&T used UNIX a lot.
I actually worked for an outreach of AT&T that was doing work on the 5ESS telephone exchange, and not only was UNIX used in various parts of the exchange (the AM ran UNIX/RT on a duplexed 3B20D when I was working with it), but UNIX was also the development environment for all the code.
In my time, they were also using Amdahl mainframes running R&D UNIX from AT&T Indian Hill as an emulation environment (EE) for the exchange, as believe it or not, the costs of emulating the exchange on a mainframe was less than having a full exchange as a test-bed.
After I left, they switched to Sun 3 (because the SM used 680x0 processors) and Sun 4 kit for the main working environment. Just before I left, I was playing around with gluing all the systems together with AT&T RFS, which allowed you to do some really neat tricks.
On the subject of Indian Hill (Chicago), pre-TCP/IP and SMTP, the UUCP hub IHLPA, which used to be a go-to for routing mail to systems that you did not have a direct path to was run from this site by AT&T. I don't know when it was decommissioned, but not that long ago (a couple of years) I came across a reference to it in a sendmail configuration that took me by surprise.
You were a bit behind me.
I was introduced to UNIX at Durham University between 1978 and 1981 (V6 and V7 on a PDP11/34e, - and yes, there was one girl on the course in my year), and got a job needing UNIX in 1982. I admit that it was at a college (Newcastle Poly.), but I am still using what I learned, 35 years later, as a techie (not jumped to management, teaching [dallied with this for a year], or horror of horrors recruitment! [dig intended, in a light-hearted way]). Very glad I chose what I did as a career, and I'm one of the few people in my sphere who actually like their work, even after such a long time.
Strangely, I dug my copy of Lions UNIX V6 commentary out yesterday to check the way that Ancient UNIX did something that IBM, in their wisdom, choose not to document for AIX. Not sure whether it is still relevant, but it was a real nostalgia trip.
Just hoping there will still be a need for deep UNIX skills for the next 13 years to get me to retirement age. I don't want or intend to retire until I have to!
Many organisations ban removable writeable media unless the need is justified. There are almost always cases where it's just too difficult to do certain jobs without removable media.
If the sysadmins can make a reasonable case for it, it is likely that it will be allowed, albeit with some additional controls (encrypt the data, use traceable drives etc).
These controls are mainly there to make sure that there is no inadvertent loss of data, or if it is lost, that it can be traced to the careless person. It does not really stop such a device being deliberately used to remove data. To achieve this, you really need to physically disable drives and ports (epoxy glue or break them), have locked PC cases, and make it mandatory that two people are involved with any process that adds or removes hardware. I have a very nice microSD USB card reader, and I'm sure I could hide a 32GB microSD card about my person so that it would not be found except by a really intrusive search.
Completely disabling USB is difficult, as you would also have to deal with the ports being used for your keyboard and mouse. It can be done in a driver by whitelisted USB manufacturer and identity lists, but even this is vulnerable to a sysadmin with the correct degree of privilege.
I'm surprised that he didn't trigger alarms, though. The financial world often seems to have better controls than defence and security related organisations, and when I worked as a UNIX sysadmin in a UK bank, I was always aware that there were people metaphorically looking over my shoulder watching what I was doing (there was no direct root access on production systems, everything was done using a tools like Unix Privilege Manager, which logs the input and output of any command securely off the system). Was a pain in the neck to use, but was effective. Even so, it was possible to disguise what was being done, and take sessions out-of-band of the controls, if you knew enough about what you were doing. And at some point, someone has to know the root password.
It is not the case that anybody can commit code to an open source project. Open source projects to not run like open access Wikis.
Most projects are moderated, so any change has to be agreed by the moderator. For example, I challenge you to get a fix into the Linux kernel without having to convince Linus that it is worthwhile.
I have to agree with both sides on this, but I tend to support Eadon's point of view.
It is indeed only a possibility that the inspection would be done, but it can be done, and as all projects store their code in publicly available source code control systems (Git, Subversion, CVS or the like), it should be possible to work out when bits of code made it into the source tree. This is not a glib assertion, but a real possibility. Couple this with the fact that in order to have changes accepted to the primary code-tree of most OSS projects, any rogue must convince the moderators of the project to trust them in the first place.
The mere fact that there are these controls will dissuade some rogues from attempting it, although it is always possible for a skilled programmer to code something that looks innocuous to a cursory inspection that does something other than it's stated purpose.
I'm sure that if a back-door was to be found in, for example, the Linux kernel, that there would immediately be a rush of people and organisations who would commit serious effort into auditing the code, and anything found would be expunged very quickly, and the rogue exposed.
Contrast this to close source, and even if it were proved that such a back door existed in a product, any audit would be at the vendors discretion, and if they are complicit in the back-door, you haven't a chance in hell of doing anything about it.
It really annoys me when someone knocks back the "you have the code, so go fix it yourself" statements. OK, I know that not everybody has the skills, and often the statement is made in a harsh way, but at the end of the day, there is no compulsion on the code maintainers to do anything when there is a perceived deficiency. Often they are working on their own time and expense.
What is being pointed out by the "fix it yourself" statement is that maybe, just maybe, users should take some responsibility and contribute in some way (time, money, equipment etc.) to a project, rather than just whingeing. Too many users of Free software feel that the fact they are using it entitles them to some special access to the maintainers, almost as if they had bought it!
With the current state of Free Software, any free support you get will absolutely always be of greater value than the money you paid for it, even it it does not fix the problem!
50% would realistically be the upper limit, at least for HE leading to a degree.
A few years ago, I happened to note two stories on Radio 4 on the same day. One was that 50% of young people achieved 2 A-C grade A-Levels, and the other was that the government wanted 50% of young people to go on to University.
The way I looked at it in a tongue-in-cheek way, was that they could eliminate University altogether, and just award degrees to those who achieved 2 good A-levels, as that would be what was necessary to get both figures to agree!
It just reinforced my belief that having a degree structure has to be elitist in order to both work and be useful.
You've described something not too dissililar to the old grant system.
University places were restricted; A-Levels gave good idea of who was capable (fitted to the normal distribution curve, rather than skewed to thehigher grades), so University could offer places to students with good A-Level results.
For students who got offers, the family income was assessed (taking into account a number of factors including whether other childern from the family were at Uni. already), and a grant depending on income was awarded. Students from poor families got 100% grant, those from rich families got little or no grant with a sliding scale for those in between. The grant was arranged such that any student taking the piss, and not trying to pass the course could have been made to pay it back.
Thus we had a quite fair system, with those students who needed it most getting complete support. I got about 50% grant, and my parents made the rest up (my grant paid for the accommodation in full, and I got the rest in installments from my Dad). Of course, all students got their tuition fees paid automatically.
By keeping the number of places restricted so there was competition, a University place was valued by most students, rather than being taken as a right. I feel that most of my friends 35 years ago all felt privileged to be at University, and few of them wasted it.
And at the end, because there were fewer degrees awarded, they were valued by employers.
Politians still believe this is the case, even though pumping too many mediocre students through the system has devalued a degree to the point where 3 years in the job market rather than a degree will result in a higher paid job. This makes a mockery of degree students being able to pay back their loan and pay more tax.
The crass stupidity in assuming that if you increase the number of degrees awarded, that the country will end up with a more valuable workforce, rather than the reality of just having people with meaningless degrees not relevent to the work they end up doing is one of the classic errors from a left-wing political mindset.
Kids are not equal, and never will be even if you try to say they are (as in the failed Comprehensive system). The best educational leveler IMHO was the Grammar School system for kids with the right academic abillity regardless of background, complemented with streamed secondary schools to act as a catch-net for late achievers, followed by a means-tested grant system to pay for higher education consisting of University for academic achievers and good vocational courses in technical and art colleges coupled with apprenticeship schemes. With this, you end up with a balanced workforce. This is what was put in place in the 1950's and 60's, and probably produced the best education system ever seen in this country.
I admit that it singles out people who have the chance for higher education early, but you have to do this to get the best from young people. No system is perfect, but I believe that the current system is so broken as to not be fit for purpose.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019