I told this board right off the bat that I was a computer dummie. And then I see replies like, Unless you have Windows XP on all PCs and I know that is not so by other replies. And then I see things like, NetBSD, NTFS, FAT or FAT32, PARTITION MAGIC, Unix, SuSE and Ubuntu, graphical interface, sparse and cryptic, GUI, ifconfig em0 10.3.1.3, and the last 1 shell users. Which I have no way of knowing what people are talking about.
When I did any classes in school, all the books would do is talk u step by step. And when I say school I mean Community College. When I say computer dumb I'm talking like a kid in grade school, don't know schmit.
All I was trying to do here was see if anyone could help me via PM or even on the phone (I have cell phone and today is free time), talk me throu how to set up a network. Again TYVM for the time and any help.
Now the guards on this board say, that it's time I stay in my corner and don't come back out. Cause u have talked to much. And u don't know what u are doing out on a computer board talking. lol
:o]



[Hope now people may know what I was trying to do. And thxs to my gr8888t daughter AMANDA for checking everything over for me]
Again SORRY if I did not make myself clear from the start. POOF and still going.

ARGH, reading what I said it sounds like something a person set on UNIX domination would write; it also has a huge redundant chunk (redundant as I've already said it).

So, replace the second paragraph with:

+I don't think that ifconfig is harder to use than a graphical wizard; I doubt the man page info you need to know (do you *really* need to read all the flags? No?) is any longer than the text in the graphical wizard; but I certainly could be wrong.

playBunny: Sorry, that was ambigous. When I said "first presented with any graphical interface" I meant first presented with a graphical interface.

Theres nothing (IMHO) that makes configuring a network with tools like ifconfig any harder than a graphical interface; it's just unfamiliar. With knowledge of how to get help if your stuck (MAN PAGES! They're very good on some OS's ;) (No that's not a snide remark about Windows bad (non-existent?) documentation but a snide remark about another OS). Indeed, I feel ifconfig em0 10.3.1.3 is much simpler than Windows.

But yes, Microsoft doesn't seem to like shell users; it gets worse and worse each release from my very limited experience.

Sorry every1 thought if I asked here that I might get some real help. But with the replies I see, I should have just keeped my mouth shut. TYVM anyway for the try. BYE and off to my corner I go. That way I can just stay out of peoples way. POOF
:o(

playBunny: Ah, proboably true. But how do you know what to do when first presented with any graphical interface? They've just learnt it.

On OpenBSD, the correct command to type would be 'help'. Quite useful.

WhiteTower:

> Of course the hardware doesn't matter

I wasn't talking about just hardware; I was saying that different OS's shouldn't make creating a network harder - notice "Windows" and "NetBSD"? Not hardware ;)

> but Windows XP has a nice "one-liner" itself - the Network Connection Wizard where very little information is needed by the user

It's not the information needed I'm talking about; it's that in Windows you have go to Start, something, Control Panel, something, Network, something, something, Interface name, something, IP address, something, ok, something, reboot (I don't know if you still have to reboot but my last experience you do).

> and the OS does all the dirty work "rewiring" its internals, resulting in a fully functioning wireless network

What dirty work? Configuring the actual physical network card with the information given? Yes, well UNIX does that too and I'm glad of it; I don't want to have an 'OS' being a nice little program that accepts machine code and executes it (the code must, of course, return back to the program that accepts machine code; it couldn't be as high-tech as doing that for you; no-no)

But I think you didn't mean that, but I can't see what dirty work there is; basic network configuration isn't complex (well, to me at least).

> in the same way that a true OS user would do, let's say, in Un*x :)

Well, things like that exist in the *nix world too; they come in Linux distros such as SuSE and Ubuntu. And of course, theres always dhcp (I dislike dhcp but I think the principle of dhcp is nice; I sort of like IPv6's autoconfiguration).

But, basically, my view is that you don't need a big program to do some basic configuration work; greater complexity does NOT make something easier or simpler.

I'd be intriguied to learn why you need a "Wizard" to configure a network; are people scared of the shell because it's (typically) black and white?

bitwisexor: Of course the hardware doesn't matter, but Windows XP has a nice "one-liner" itself - the Network Connection Wizard where very little information is needed by the user and the OS does all the dirty work "rewiring" its internals, resulting in a fully functioning wireless network, in the same way that a true OS user would do, let's say, in Un*x :)

cosmicdom: Perhaps should be add this sentencet to yours:
NTFS can be convert to FAT or FAT32 without format just with using PARTITION MAGIC.
You can decrease the size of cluster in both NTFS and FAT(16-32) so space wasting can be increase in both of them.
At the end of i advise PARTITION MAGIC for all of your hard drives's work (FORMAT , CONVERT and etc.).

mrloupcity: Hmm, I don't understand what your question is.

WhiteTower:

> Unless you have Windows XP on all PCs involved (the "OS for dummies" <snip> then, yes, it is somewhat cumbersome to set up a nice wireless network

Heh, that reminds me of an image of a manual listing how to configure a network card on various systems. On all the UNIX'es it was a one liner, but on Windows it was an 11 step process :)

But going back to what you said, you said - effectively - that it is cumbersome to do a wireless network if not all PC's involved are Windows XP. Well, this may be true but it seems ridicolous if it is.

What's great about the internet is that there are standard protocols and that they don't care what the hardware, software or ANYTHING ELSE provided it all complies with the protocol.

As I believe Tim Berners Lee said, "People seem to yearn for the time when you couldn't read a document on another computer; never mind another network". But it's different now, a huge variety of systems and transportations - from the boring Ethernet to pigeons (yes, really) - all communicate with little problems. So a system on a network really shouldn't care about whether it's router is Windows or a toaster running NetBSD.

mrloupcity: Unless you have Windows XP on all PCs involved (the "OS for dummies", I suppose, although it's not a disgrace for all others to use as well!) then, yes, it is somewhat cumbersome to set up a nice wireless network... I opted for the peer-to-peer solution in my place, as my main PC is mostly on and online, so ...

hiya all,
Wish I knew how things worked on puters. Like setting up a network for my house.
I got the router and I think the right card for my wifes puter. But everything I try can not make it work. Maybe the book I got off ebay will help me set it up; Networking Home PCs for Dummies, cause I sure I'm dumb when it comes to it. TYVM all for ur time.
:o(

ali: Well, I don't know much about Windows but I don't see how NTFS is more secure. A quick google seems to indicate that NTFS is the only file system that supports permissions (or in other words has a bit of metadata that indicates permissions); ridicolous if that is true. So, from that perspective it is certainly more secure!

It's other 'security benefit' is that it supports file encryption; I'm not sure of the strength of it and I'd be curious to see how it is implemented - after all, it's not much use if the key is stored in plain text.

Also, according to "Forensic Discovery" decrypted text is still easily found in memory after it has been closed. And it's suprisingly hard to totally get rid of memory contents; especially with swap.

But, NTFS is proboably still the way to go.

----- START OFFTOPIC RANTING -----
From my plan9 view (proboably due to Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie's brainwashing) a more elegant solution of encrypted files would be to simply write a 9p server that provides it; it wouldn't fix the problem of information leaks but having swap space encrypted and erasing memory when used by another user should fix it - there doesn't seem to be any easy (and correct) solution, though.
----- END OFFTOPIC RANTING -----

As much as everyone would like for there to be a stock answer to the selection question, there isn't. Different situations and needs will play a large role in the decision of which file system to adopt. There isn't any argument that NTFS offers better security and reliability. Some also say that NTFS is more flexible, but that can get rather subjective depending on the situation and work habits, whereas NTFS superiority in security and reliability is seldom challenged. Listed below are some of the most common factors to consider when deciding between FAT32 and NTFS.

Security
FAT32 provides very little security. A user with access to a drive using FAT32 has access to the files on that drive.

NTFS allows the use of NTFS Permissions. It's much more difficult to implement, but folder and file access can be controlled individually, down to an an extreme degree if necessary. The down side of using NTFS Permissions is the chance for error and screwing up the system is greatly magnified.

Compatibility
NTFS volumes are not recognized by Windows 95/98/Me. This is only a concern when the system is set up for dual or multi-booting. FAT32 must be be used for any drives that must be accessed when the computer is booted from Windows 95/98 or Windows Me.

An additional note to the previous statement. Users on the network have access to shared folders no matter what disk format is being used or what version of Windows is installed.

FAT and FAT32 volumes can be converted to NTFS volumes. NTFS cannot be converted to FAT32 without reformatting.


Space Efficiency
NTFS supports disk quotas, allowing you to control the amount of disk usage on a per user basis.

NTFS supports file compression. FAT32 does not.

How a volume manages data is outside the scope of this article, but once you pass the 8GB partition size, NTFS handles space management much more efficiently than FAT32. Cluster sizes play an important part in how much disk space is wasted storing files. NTFS provides smaller cluster sizes and less disk space waste than FAT32.

In Windows XP, the maximum partition size that can be created using FAT32 is 32GB. This increases to 16TB (terabytes) using NTFS. There is a workaround for the 32GB limitation under FAT32, but it is a nuisance especially considering the size of drives currently being manufactured.


Reliability
FAT32 drives are much more susceptible to disk errors.

NTFS volumes have the ability to recover from errors more readily than similar FAT32 volumes.

Log files are created under NTFS which can be used for automatic file system repairs.

NTFS supports dynamic cluster remapping for bad sectors and prevent them from being used in the future.

Baked Alaskan: i just know NTFS is more secured than Fat32 but i don't know how, if anyone know tell me too.

Baked Alaskan: Use power quest partition magic, it cans help you.

I'm getting ready to do a factory reinstall (again)
I have done this a few times in the past thats no problem. But what I wanna know is how do I get rid of drive "sav_D" ? Or do I not want to?
Pic
http://gkwarriors.com/misc/HD.jpg

Now I know C is for my basic programs. G (Big Boy) Is my slave, but what is D ?

I'm asking this because each time I have factory reinstalled C, D never changes (size). But it has unused GB that I would like to use.

*Edited*
Oh yeah.... Why Is C NTFS and D is FAT32? Shouldnt they be the same?

Also heapSort java source code.

I want java source code of priority queue with usin array, without using any package or another class anyone can help me?

I must will be had a lecture about satellite internet connection soon, every person that can help me in this case please send a message to me .

bitwisexor:
"If I had to (which unfortunately I have had to on a few occasionas) 'secure' a Windows box then I'd start by disabling all the unneeded (and theres a lot of that!) junk on it - which Microsoft seems to have intentionally made a harder task."
Maybe you meant this: (posted few months ago from me)

I thinkg MSN messenger and others application in Windows XP that I find useless to have it installed can be uninstalled completely from system and register by this very nice utilities: nLite or XPLite. Also I recommend to switch off several services that XP is using when running but for a common user they are useless and can only caused vulnerability and problems of system.
You can uninstall at least these applications (from register):
Advanced Components:
Active Directory Services,
Distributed Link Tracking Client,
Error Networking Service,
Network DDE,
Secondary Logon,
Web Client,
Windows Time,
Internet Authentication Service,
Microsoft Message Queuing,
all MS Networking Services (Alerter, Computer Browser, Messenger, Microsoft Network Redirector, Net Logon, NT LM SSP, RPC Locator, Server, Server Message Block Redirector, TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper, a Workstation),
System Restore (I can tell you this is very dangerous app.,
Terminal Services.

Accesibility Options:
Accesibility Mouse Cursors,
Accesibility Wizard,
Magnifier,
Narrator,
On-Screen Keyboard,
Utility Manager.
Communication and Messaging:

Addres Book,
Fax Service,
Chat,
NetMeeting,
Outlook Express,
USR/3Com modem drivers,
Windows Messanger,
(Wireless Zero Configuration).
Internet Utilities:
Internet Connection Wizard,
Internet Explorer (!) (use Opera - now is free or Firefox, or Maxthon)
MSN Explorer,
VB Script for MSIE,
Windows Automatic Updates (místo používání Windows Update
Windows Update Manager,

Multimedia:
ATI SP1 driver.
Common Files,
Dokumentace,
Modul snap-in IIS,
service FTP,
web service,
Operating System Options:
Clipbook (Cltr+C, Cltr+V, Ctrl+X will still function),
Help and Support Center,
Microsoft Agent,
Out of Box Experience,
Program Compatibility Wizard,
Search Assistant (instead of it use Copernic Desktop Search),
System Information,
Windows Tour.

Server Components:
Indexing Service,
Indexing Service Language resources.

System Services:
Remote Registry,
Smart Card Services,
Telnet Service,
UPS service,
Universal Plug and Play (UPnP).

System Tools and Utilities:
Briefcase,
Dr Watson,
Files and Transfer Wizard,
Remote Assistance,
Security Center,
Security Center Background Service,
Task Scheduler,
Windows Script Host,
ZIP Compressed Folders.

You don´t expected it can be so much :) Am i right?
Just wait few minutes, then reebot and your system will boot much quickier and safe.

And thanks bitwisexor for your comments

temo:
> I would be glad to hear from playBunny and bitwisexor how they imagine safe system on Windows (XP or others) not Unix systems,

I'm not sure theres such a thing as a safe system. With Windows? A contradiction, surely ;)

Hmm... would QEMU on Windows runnning OpenBSD guest count? ;) I think that would proboably be considered cheating...

> so what application to use to protect agains worms, hacking attacts, viruses and other network threats.

Yes, well one of my points is using an application to defend against threats is the wrong approach; it's (sometimes) preventing the symptoms (exploits) rather than the cause (buggy software).

This is somewhat comparable to the view that quick patches makes the software somehow "more secure". If anything, after a few patches are released to fix security vulnerabilities I lose confidence.

If I had to (which unfortunately I have had to on a few occasionas) 'secure' a Windows box then I'd start by disabling all the unneeded (and theres a lot of that!) junk on it - which Microsoft seems to have intentionally made a harder task.

As you mentioned, don't use admin rights: in fact, I'd proboably suggest using a seperate user for tasks that involve untrusted data (something that should proboably done even on *nix).

As for not viewing "\"suspicous\"" web pages and not to open e-mail from "\"unkown\"" senders, that is - sadly - excellent advice. I say sadly because it shouldn't need to be done.

The problem with that advice is that of course it limits what you can do - indeed, I will often intentionally view (and dissect) "\"suspicious\"" things; something that admittedly, most people don't do (and as I use *nix it's not really a problem, but my point is that it limits what can be done).

Theres not really much else that can be done; maybye virus checkers will help but I have little experience in that area.

I wonder why people use Windows anymore. Perhaps I could understand why it was used, but - as much as I despise them (I take an elitist view to computing) - desktop Linux have made a lot of advancements and are not, I think, any harder to use than Windows; and at least they're less likely to have a mind of their own that's so evil.

P.S. I doubt theres anything you can do to defend from "hacking attacks" (attacks?); but I wouldn't worry, they won't do any harm. Or did you mean cracking? ;)

P.S. #2: Recently Microsoft seems to have been trying to make their software more secure; they have made some good decisions, but so far it doesn't seem to have worked.

playBunny: Yes playBunny I agree with you in this point. There was no intention to command people to use that or this. Just my suggestion.
Everyone can make their own decission how will secure their operating system by whatever they want(advice from friend who´s keen on this comp´security things,security webs,company focusing on this matter and so on). The basic thing for me is not to log in with admin rights, not to browse on "suspicious" web pages, not to open e-mail from "unknown" sent and its enclosure, use spam filter, install microsoft updates....and so on.

there are a lot of possibilities to search on web and find out what keeps you (relatively) safe or not. Of course, there is never no 100 % safety. I know that.

I would be glad to hear from playBunny and bitwisexor how they imagine safe system on Windows (XP or others) not Unix systems, so what application to use to protect agains worms, hacking attacts, viruses and other network threats.

Bitwisexor, I know why is firewall using for -to prevent unauthorized access to or from a private network. Firewalls can be implemented in both hardware and software, or a combination of both.
It basicily incluedes packet filter, application gateway, circuit-level gateway, proxies....

Ok guys....witing for your responds. :)
I´m curious

Windows XP with Firewall: http://coan.net/bk-smile/cartoons2/post-3-10997024840.jpg

(wanted to throw in a quick joke on the subject)

temo: IMO a firewall well not stop you from being infected or attacked; at best it will reduce the likelihood of some attacks (firewalls themselves aren't perfect after all; in fact, many firewalls will end up reducing the security as they themselves can be exploitable - hardware firewalls are less likely to have the same problem (although it's not impossible, obviously) but can give a false sense of security). It will not stop passive attacks, for instance.

So far, the best use of a firewall I've found is to stop damn script kiddies polluting my logs...

I would be interested to hear why you feel a firewall is useful, of course.

playBunny: well playBunny, you can say it that way, but don´t u think it will be late when you find out that your system has been infected or attacked?
It´s my recommendation not command! ...let them proof themselves.
Btw, can you tell me playBunny one reason why not to use free safer firewall instead of built-in XP one?

I am using - Kerio PF + NOD32. For me it is best solution that I can have.

temo: i think kaspersky antivirus and antihacker is the best of ones.

Kerio personal firewall is better solution than XP´s firewall....trust me, I know what I´m saying.

For Windows XP users, the built-in firewall should be enough (or prove me otherwise, those who know better?) wheeras for antivirus, spam filtering and spyware protection, I use and recommend AVG Free (free AND auto-updating, every few hours sometimes!) and Spybot-Search & Destroy (free, not-auto-updating, but hey, do something yourself occasionally, eh?)

Pythagoras has a point that pirating is very illegal so hopefully we can end the discussion on piracy and what 'free' programs to get or at least take them to private conversations?

Greatly appreciated!

Please stop! I don't want to go any further and look bad....

for a full programs i use thepiratebay.org :)

harley: ???????????????????
What is going on here?
This is just unacceptable!!!!!
Support legal versions and stop these nonsense....!

harley: lol

ali: Because most crack sites have loads of viruses. I sometimes have a quick look, but if I don't find anything straight away I leave it. Another option is to download them from a site like mininova where they often come with a crack/keygen, or is the full version anyway.

harley: Thanks, but why you don't download free trial version of antiviruses and then search for crack of them?

ali: I found AVG to be very good, and its free.

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1

BIG BAD WOLF: You can find any kind of antivirus that you want only with pay 1-2 $ , lol ( we haven't copy write law here )

BIG BAD WOLF: What is your idea about kaspersky and nod32?

BIG BAD WOLF: What is your idea about kaspersky and noe32?

I donno what those are! Maybe we do have them here, if you could explain more.

reza: Not even by a wire transfer using the SWIFT code and IBAN account number?

BIG BAD WOLF: Th eproblem here is not money itself but ways of 'transaction!' We have no means to pay the money!

ali: If you have money to purchase something, I VERY HIGHLY recommend Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security.

Trend Site: http://www.trendmicro.com

PC-cillin site: http://www.trendmicro.com/en/products/desktop/pc-cillin/evaluate/overview.htm

Plus I'm not sure if this is still valid or not since it still says version 2005 on this page (2006 is current version), but it allows you to get 50% off the price. (So instead of around $50, it would be around $25): http://www.trendmicro.com/offers/ms-wsc/english.asp

Not only is it an anti-virus, but also a firewall, spam filter, spyware protection, etc... I love it. New updates for it almost daily (which it will find & update itself), and never had any problems with viruses/spyware getting on my PC while I had this loaded.

First it would be good to fix the bug that breaks the line for non obvious reasons.....

*12
7*

I want to add a more sophisticated HTML validator when I have more time for it.

playBunny: Hyperlinks as well :)

bitwisexor: You didn't expect me to allow scripts, did you? :-)

I just noticed that this board accepts HTML (of some form)... lets see:

<script type="text/javascript">
document.write("Hello World!")
</script>

I do hope it uses whitelists, not blacklists :)

ali: clamav; <rant>though I personally despise anti viruses. They're a kludge (at best) that is working on preventing a known threat exploting a vulnerability (often due to design flaws more than anything) rather than fixing the root cause... </rant>