OS X Security Defaults WTF
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Master Chief said:
@blakeyrat said:
XP has a normal backup tool for your documents and images, right? The one in Vista and Windows 7 is quite nice, but I never used the XP version of same so I can't speak for it. (If all else fails, you can shove a robocopy line into a batch file, and make a scheduled task to run it.)
Heh, that's what I do. I have two 1 TB external drives and every night, Windows fires up a 67 line batch file that copies everything I could ever need to them, alternating every other day so I always have two days worth of backed up data.
What do the other 65 lines do?
If you're curious:
- 17 lines for an ugly hack to check which drive got backed up onto last, and make sure the other is active.
- 8 robocopy commands moving files from my user directories (Pictures, Docments, Videos, Music, Projects, Credentials, Contacts, Desktop) to their corresponding directories on the drive.
- 16 xcopy statements that grab things off the system drive, like the outlook data file, UI config files for my graphics program, and other misc. stuff I need.
- 2 goto lines for each option according to result of ugly hack in the first 17.
- Duplication of the 2nd and 3rd for the other drive.
-
@Master Chief said:
Duplication of the 2nd and 3rd for the other drive.
Since when do batch files not have variables?
-
@Lingerance said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Lingerance said:
You seriously forgot all of the 90s? When did Windows first get a built-in firewall? XP, wasn't active by default until SP2. FreeBSD had one in 1993, the same project provided firewalls for multiple UNIX systems, I'm still trying to find when they were shipped with it. Linux has ipchains in 1998. What was the first release that actually put Security as a major priority? Vista. First UNIX variant to focus on security? OpenBSD in 1994. What was the first release that has central logging? Vista/2008. OpenBSD's syslogd is the same one as 4.3BSD's, which was released in 1986. What was the first release that actually allowed for a limited install? WS 2008.It's good Windows Server is finally improving, but that doesn't change the fact that Windows has historically had a very shitty security model, and backwards compatability will fuck anything new they throw on for a while.
Like what? Let's see some money where your mouth is.
Honestly, after a fair amount of time reading various project's HISTORY and CHANGELOG files I'm just going to concede. Of course Windows is secure, it has always had an awesome security track record.That's amazing. I just asked to compare apples to apples in the current state of affairs. And you respond by going even further back in time. That's easy isn't? First pick a random feature, then pick a version of Linux that has the feature and version of Windows that doesn't have it and proclaim Linux to be the winner. I'm sure that at one point in time, the mainframe OSes were 10 times better than anything Linux could do.
You could easiliy do a limited install on earlier version of Windows. The problem just was that everything was selected an opened up by default to help administrators getting their box up-and-running more quickly. Of course they should have deselected the unnessary options and have hardenend their server. There is plenty of documentation online on how to do that. But ignorant administrators do ignorant things. At least Linux doesn't have stupid users ;-)
-
@bjolling said:
That's amazing. I just asked to compare apples to apples in the current state of affairs. And you respond by going even further back in time. That's easy isn't? First pick a random feature, then pick a version of Linux that has the feature and version of Windows that doesn't have it and proclaim Linux to be the winner. I'm sure that at one point in time, the mainframe OSes were 10 times better than anything Linux could do.
I'm going to go a step further-- the best server is obviously the IBM System/360 because Unix, Linux, and Windows, literally did not exist at the time. Therefore, if you're not using System/360 on your servers right now, you're an idiot!
-
Hmm? At one point the discussion veered off into an argument about how *nix skills learned in the dark ages are still useful skills, whereas in the Windows world, despite carrying the burden of backwards compatibility, old skills are quickly deprecated. That's why old stuff was brought up. And now you're attacking the poster for citing examples? This discussion has also veered into other directions simultaneously, including both focusing on and ignoring historical issues between the OSes / cultures. Nevertheless, it is difficult to discuss the present state of OSes without any historical baggage, because the OSes themselves carry it around. (Not to say it's impossible or useless, but the present without the past is a shallow thing indeed.) So what exactly are we actually yelling about..? The current state of things, independent of their ancestry? Are we allowed to extrapolate any trendlines? Just thought I'd ask.
-
@Xyro said:
Nevertheless, it is difficult to discuss the present state of OSes without any historical baggage, because the OSes themselves carry it around.
Lingerance made that same claim, to summarize, that Windows Server is more buggy because of backwards compatibility code. I asked him to back it up with some evidence, because I think it's complete bullshit.
@Xyro said:
The current state of things, independent of their ancestry? Are we allowed to extrapolate any trendlines? Just thought I'd ask.
Look, the point is when you're debating which product is the best one to buy/use right now, you need to look at the products as they exist right now. Talking about features that Windows Server didn't have in 1994 is completely irrelevant.
Trendlines is fine, but you have to use them fairly-- if you drew a trendline for "server features" between Linux and Windows, the Linux one would go to a high level, then be almost completely flat. The Windows one, on the other hand, would be steadily increasing for 15 years... if you drew that into the future, Windows would easily overtake Linux in a short period of time. (Of course, in reality, that doesn't work because the instant Microsoft announces a Windows feature, the Linux community gets together and implements it also.)
-
@Zecc said:
Also, you can have subroutines in a batch file, by using:@Master Chief said:
Duplication of the 2nd and 3rd for the other drive.
Since when do batch files not have variables?
call :label arguments
command.
The arguments are referred as %2, %3, etc.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@serguey123 said:
You get +5 for the photo (+1 for the witty comeback, +1 for being Futurama, +1 for the good doctor, +1 for the suit, +1 reminiscence of the whole chapter). Do you keep a lot of pictures organized for witty comeback or did you search for one. Either way is cute in a creepy "I have a lot of bodies buried in my backyard" kind of way.Considering the art movement this painting belong to there is little doubt
Hey, Ringo: that was the joke!
This is a bit late but I'm lazy and overworked which is not a good combo.
btw you have made it into my favorite person list aka hit list
