Win8



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    So what did you use instead of Ubuntu?
     

    Debian, Knopix (don't recomend installing it), Red Hat, Slackware. Yeah, I tried it a few times, for a while, I liked to switch distros.

    By the way, I'm not a sysadmin.



  • @anotherusername said:

    So to summarise, if you had a wi-fi access point that you never ever used, then a sniffer would be able to determine that you had it (by the beacon packets) but would not be able to determine the SSID; as soon as you connected a device the sniffer would be able to get the SSID because the device needs to transmit that to connect.
    I knew the latter. It's not a problem because firstly I didn't have any illusions of added security, and secondly because my wireless clients are two stay-at-home laptops that don't go around being chatty.

    I didn't know the former because I misinterpreted "disable SSID broadcasting" as "disable broadcasting". But now I know better.

    Anyways, WPA2 with a random password of over 20 characters should be secure enough, right?



  • @Zecc said:

    Anyways, WPA2 with a random password of over 20 characters should be secure enough, right?


    Well, yes, as long as your router doesn't support WPS.



  • @Zecc said:

    Anyways, WPA2 with a random password of over 20 characters should be secure enough, right?

    I'd certainly hope. I suppose anyone with the time and dedication could eventually crack it but it's unlikely enough to not fret over.

    I actually have two wi-fi access points: a home router (WPA2 and a non-hidden SSID) and a portable hotspot (WPA2, hidden SSID, and MAC filtering). Main rationale for the hidden SSID on the hotspot is because I don't necessarily want any and everyone to be able to see the hotspot that I have in my pocket (or am I just really glad to see them?). Of course they could tell if they had any sort of wi-fi sniffing equipment (but then, it's not really like it's a secret). The rationale for the MAC filtering is because turning it off/on is an easy way to allow/prevent someone connecting, because I wanted to give them access once but in general I don't want their phone to try to connect whenever I'm nearby. Although I've since rethought that strategy and realised that, since they are already set up to connect to my home wi-fi, it's simpler to just change the SSID and password of the hotspot to match that and turn SSID broadcast on when I want to allow them to connect to it.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    @Zecc said:

     

    Anyways, WPA2 with a random password of over 20 characters should be secure enough, right?


    Well, yes, as long as your router doesn't support WPS.
    It does but I had already turned it off.

     



  • @anotherusername said:

    The rationale for the MAC filtering is because turning it off/on is an easy way to allow/prevent someone connecting, because I wanted to give them access once but in general I don't want their phone to try to connect whenever I'm nearby.

    Unless someone spots a machine on the network, which at that point they can steal the MAC address because it's broadcast in the clear. Then the attacker can choose to bump the authorized user from the network or just wait for them to disconnect and hop on later. WPA2 makes MAC filtering nothing more than a security theater hurdle to jump to legitimately add someone to your network.



  • @Zecc said:

    @anonymous234 said:

    @Zecc said:

     

    Anyways, WPA2 with a random password of over 20 characters should be secure enough, right?


    Well, yes, as long as your router doesn't support WPS.
    It does but I had already turned it off.

     

    Well you should be fine then.

    ...as long as your router is not one of those that pretend to turn WPS off but don't actually do it.



  • @rad131304 said:

    Unless someone spots a machine on the network, which at that point they can steal the MAC address because it's broadcast in the clear.
    I realise that, but I trusted them enough to give them the password, so I trust them enough to not try to spoof their MAC address and get on when I'm nearby. It's mainly just to prevent their phone from connecting automatically without them even realising it. It's a 4G data plan so my usage is limited and I don't want them using it without me knowing.



  • @BC_Programmer said:

    @Jedalyzer said:

    And this is one of the reasons why I haven't "upgraded" to Windows 8 yet.

    It seems that every other version of Windows is trash.

    • Windows 3.1 - revolutionary for its time.
    • Windows 95 - some problems.
    • Windows 98 - pretty good.
    • Windows ME - useless and pointless.
    • Windows XP - great.
    • Windows Vista - worthless.
    • Windows 7 - nice.
    • Windows 8 - WHAAA????!!?!?!!!!??

     

    I have good hopes for Windows 9. 🙂

    I always like how people always omit versions of Windows. No Windows 98SE, no Windows 95OSR2? Why no Windows 2000?

    Windows 98SE, 95OSR were mostly service packs, Windows XP SP2 isn't included either besides probably being the SP with the most extensive modifications. Vista SP1 is the only Windows SP to date that actually replaces the kernel.
    Windows 2000 omission is somewhat justified in that is was a mostly-business OS, just as Windows NT isn't included. Windows XP was the real first consumer NT OS.

    Still doesn't change the fact that these things are mostly for fun and could probably be constructed in whatever way you want.



  • I've been using Windows 8 for nearly a year — it's not too bad.

    It's just that Microsoft love to fiddle with stuff. For example, in the Windows 7/Server 2008 UI you can access \\SOME-SERVER and click a toolbar button to show its Devices and Printers panel, and thereby push out 32-bit or 64-bit drivers onto it. In the Windows 8/Server 2012 UI, you can only click that button in the ribbon from the view of all servers on the network: the command was moved up a level in the UI. If the computer doesn't show in the list of computers on the network (probably something to do with it being on the wrong side of a VPN), you can't push out drivers any more.

    Often, all this random fiddling with things breaks things that used to work or used to be possible. Vista used to let you name your network connections. In 7, this wasn't all that relevant. Windows 8 now has a hugeass sidebar for connecting to VPNs and wireless, which makes it all the more irritating that your LAN has some generic name. Why not just call it "Ethernet" or "Wired LAN" if I'm banned from giving it a useful name? Instead of "Network Connection 3" …

    I'm not averse to change, but I am averse to the human obsession that you must change every visible detail otherwise people will cry that it's not "new" (it's not unique to IT) — the concept of improvement without overt visual change is lost on anyone in marketing, while most users would prefer things be left alone. This is what leads to all the senseless fiddling that breaks all the little but important things that the fiddlers lose sight of.

    For example, if I want a control panel in Vista or Server 2008, I'll type it into the Start menu before realising that that wasn't implemented yet. Nothing wrong with that, it's just an improvement in 7 that sadly makes Vista/Server 2008 retrospectively annoying. However, 8 took a step backwards and in 8 or Server 2012 I'm back to cursing the Start screen for not handing me control panels when I type something in! If I wasn't switching between XP/Vista/7/8/2003/2008/2008R2/2012 constantly I'd remember to use the Win+W for wettings. My issue isn't so much that programs and settings are separated, but rather that you can't cycle Programs/Settings/Files with something obvious like ctrl+tab or ctrl+pg down — if I had ONLY that, I'd be perfectly happy with the split, because it would be an easy keystroke away.

    (8.1 has apparently reversed this decision again …)



  • @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    My issue isn't so much that programs and settings are separated, but rather that you can't cycle Programs/Settings/Files with something obvious like ctrl+tab or ctrl+pg down — if I had ONLY that, I'd be perfectly happy with the split, because it would be an easy keystroke away.
    I suggest you try StartIsBack - I use it for 2 things: search and quick access to Control Panel and Administrative Tools. It's search on Windows 8.1 seems to be better than Microsoft's on the Start Screen (which doesn't find half of the classic Control Panel icons for me).



  • @ender said:

    I suggest you try StartIsBack - I use it for 2 things: search and quick access to Control Panel and Administrative Tools. It's search on Windows 8.1 seems to be better than Microsoft's on the Start Screen (which doesn't find half of the classic Control Panel icons for me).

    That's like Windows lacking an equivalent to sudo ("solved" using a third-party tool): no use if I have to install it on dozens or even hundreds of computers just to fix a broken UI, including ones that are not under my own control.

    On my own computer, I rarely change settings, so it's not an issue there. I love aftermarket products for customisation of my own system (for things that are not reasonable to expect from the OS itself), but it's absurd when there are fundamental UI mistakes either created by senseless fiddling, or from ignoring existing industry knowledge (sudo has been around for a long time!)

    BTW I still use your Win32 wget.exe builds any time I need it on a Windows system, so thanks!)



  • @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    @ender said:
    I suggest you try StartIsBack - I use it for 2 things: search and quick access to Control Panel and Administrative Tools. It's search on Windows 8.1 seems to be better than Microsoft's on the Start Screen (which doesn't find half of the classic Control Panel icons for me).

    That's like Windows lacking an equivalent to sudo ("solved" using a third-party tool): no use if I have to install it on dozens or even hundreds of computers just to fix a broken UI, including ones that are not under my own control.

    On my own computer, I rarely change settings, so it's not an issue there. I love aftermarket products for customisation of my own system (for things that are not reasonable to expect from the OS itself), but it's absurd when there are fundamental UI mistakes either created by senseless fiddling, or from ignoring existing industry knowledge (sudo has been around for a long time!)

    BTW I still use your Win32 wget.exe builds any time I need it on a Windows system, so thanks!)

    There is always a trade-off to be made between userfriendliness and flexibility and I think that Microsoft is making the right choices lately by offloading all advanced stuff on the PS api and other command-line tools. 95% of people only use the GUI for light stuff, and it's their needs that has to take priority. For the remaining 5%, like the people who need to push drivers on multiple network nodes or want to rename network connections (i.e.: you), everything can be done in PS.

    Metro is there to stay, Microsoft made that pretty clear with the start button in 8.1, and the recent increase in sales for Surface and WP8 devices is a clear indicator that it's the way forward. Those devices would not sell if they came only with a good ol' desktop GUI. You can bet that as soon as Microsoft has a reliable Metro build for its cash cows (Office, VS, etc) the desktop will die, including all the MMC-based or Explorer-based widgets. The future of GUI is basically the WPF/Metro paradigm: no right-click, single windows (pages instead of dialogs), lean.

    You won't stop that from happening so just go with the flow, get used to PS.



  • @TehFreek said:

    @Soviut said:

    @jakjawagon said:
    The second time I somehow managed to make it fail to boot while trying to change screen resolution (though that may have been the fault of a particularly unusual monitor that wasn't sure of its own native resolution).

    Nope, the monitor has nothing to do with it. That's like blaming your speakers for ubuntu breaking audio with another rushed update.

    Sure, if you had speakers with a digital connection that let you find out how large they are, what impedance they have, and how much power you need to send to them in order for sound to be audible. And then none of what it told you was actually correct.

    Fair enough. My point was that usually monitor issues on desktop linux stem from configuration errors (which are notoriously easy to make) rather than the hardware connected.



  • @Soviut said:

    My point was that usually monitor issues on desktop linux stem from configuration errors (which are notoriously easy to make) rather than the hardware connected.
    That was certainly the case back in the days when dinosaurs ruled the swamps and xorg.conf ruled the frame buffer. But for quite some years it's been the case that xorg.conf is usually nonexistent, with all the things it used to specify now being worked out dynamically based on information collected over DDC. Which means that shitty monitor EDID blocks and/or noisy VGA cables can now screw Linux up every bit as badly as Windows, though at least on Linux you can still specify kernel boot options and stuff modelines into xorg.conf to fix it; on Windows post-Vista, the only way I know of to regain anything like that degree of control involves physically breaking off VGA pin 12 to make Windows treat the monitor as "non plug-and-play".



  • @flabdablet said:

    @Soviut said:
    My point was that usually monitor issues on desktop linux stem from configuration errors (which are notoriously easy to make) rather than the hardware connected.
    That was certainly the case back in the days when dinosaurs ruled the swamps and xorg.conf ruled the frame buffer. But for quite some years it's been the case that xorg.conf is usually nonexistent, with all the things it used to specify now being worked out dynamically based on information collected over DDC. Which means that shitty monitor EDID blocks and/or noisy VGA cables can now screw Linux up every bit as badly as Windows, though at least on Linux you can still specify kernel boot options and stuff modelines into xorg.conf to fix it; on Windows post-Vista, the only way I know of to regain anything like that degree of control involves physically breaking off VGA pin 12 to make Windows treat the monitor as "non plug-and-play".

    If you bought an analog monitor in the last 8 years you deserve all the shit you're getting. I don't care if it was 5 bucks less. You remind me of this one client I had who bought some brand-new widescreen monitors for his computers, and then wanted to know why they weren't working as good as the one I got for them. I came in and saw that they were all bargain-bin VGA, like the computer this guy bought on his own. He reported happily that he spent $100 instead of $120 on them. I'm supposed to work with this shit? At least the main computers I worked with were DVI (I had made sure to specify what they were to buy).

    So the question stands -- why the fuck are you still using VGA? I mean, I could understand if it was the early 2000s. Heck, I can understand doing it today with stand-alone servers, but then you should be deploying headless servers with out-of-band-management. Otherwise, get a digital only monitor and board.

    And chuck your old VGA screens. Those landfills aren't going to fill them-fucking-selves.



  • @Scribbler said:

    why the fuck are you still using VGA?

    Because replacing all the classroom data projectors in a school is a really fucking expensive exercise, and is not likely to happen while the old ones are still working just fine.



  • @ender said:

    I suggest you try StartIsBack - I use it for 2 things: search and quick access to Control Panel and Administrative Tools.
     

    You don't need StartIsBack if you truly only need those two things. Just right-click the start corner.



  • @Scribbler said:

    why the fuck are you still using VGA?
     

    Because my monitor isn't broken yet.



  • @Scribbler said:

    If you bought an analog monitor in the last 8 years you deserve all the shit you're getting.
    What, because even if that's true, Linux shouldn't have got VGA working at any point in the prior decade? Of course it's not true anyway. I've ordered high-end business laptops which did not have DVI ports less than five years ago.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.