- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [wlug] Re: Instant Messaging Software

by Chuck Homic

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 04:16:20PM -0500, Keller, Tim wrote: > I only wish that Trillian supported Jabber. I deployed a Jabber server and > it worked, but the clients for windows were so crummy that nobody used it. Trillian supports IRC, and an IRC server is really easy to set up. I did this at work, and no one used it, either. :) -Chuck

March 19, 2004

RE: [wlug] Re: Instant Messaging Software

by Keller, Tim

The biggest problem usually isn't the messaging client itself, secure or insecure. The biggest problem is the users who don't understand the technology under it. Inside of Stratus we've done a lot of education to get users to understand that IM is a completely insecure medium and that no business information is to be transmitted over it. Once you explain to Suzy accountant that when she pasts the financials into the IM window and send it to her coworker that they shoot out the door, zip half way across the country and then come back and anybody in between can read them, it suddenly hits home... I only wish that Trillian supported Jabber. I deployed a Jabber server and it worked, but the clients for windows were so crummy that nobody used it. Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Bob George [mailto:mailings02@ttlexceeded.com] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 2:30 PM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: [Wlug] Re: Instant Messaging Software Simoncini, Matthew wrote: > [...] > I work at a large company in Natick that has recently decided to > disallow instant messaging clients from being used on corporate PC's. If the policy is "no instant messaging clients", I don't think I'd load jabber, then argue the finer points. Especially if disciplinary action is noted for violations. If nothing else, make the case for an INTERNAL server, but GET APPROVAL before using it. Jabber has much to recommend it for such a server. > They sight a concern that it is an insecure network link to the outside > world that could allow hackers, worms, trojans, viruses, etc ... into > the otherwise protected network. That's a commonly cited concern, and not unwarranted. > [...] What does affect my team is the ability to easily > communicate with each other on a "live" or instant platform within the > company firewall (we have no interest really to communicate outside the > firewall yet). I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction > of an Open Source alternative to an instant messaging platform? For > starters I'm just looking for software to run on a server (either Linux > or Doze) and the associated clients to use on primarily XP or 2000 desktops. Again, I'd get approval first, but IRC can do much of what you want. There are plenty of Win clients and servers for it. - Bob _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

March 19, 2004

Re: Instant Messaging Software

by Bob George

Simoncini, Matthew wrote: > [...] > I work at a large company in Natick that has recently decided to > disallow instant messaging clients from being used on corporate PC's. If the policy is "no instant messaging clients", I don't think I'd load jabber, then argue the finer points. Especially if disciplinary action is noted for violations. If nothing else, make the case for an INTERNAL server, but GET APPROVAL before using it. Jabber has much to recommend it for such a server. > They sight a concern that it is an insecure network link to the outside > world that could allow hackers, worms, trojans, viruses, etc ... into > the otherwise protected network. That's a commonly cited concern, and not unwarranted. > [...] What does affect my team is the ability to easily > communicate with each other on a "live" or instant platform within the > company firewall (we have no interest really to communicate outside the > firewall yet). I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction > of an Open Source alternative to an instant messaging platform? For > starters I'm just looking for software to run on a server (either Linux > or Doze) and the associated clients to use on primarily XP or 2000 desktops. Again, I'd get approval first, but IRC can do much of what you want. There are plenty of Win clients and servers for it. - Bob

March 19, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Instant Messaging Software

by Theo Van Dinter

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 02:01:09PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > I don't think IM is a replace-all for phones or in-person meetings, > but it does better handle/allow a lot of communications in a more > efficient manner. IMHO. Oh, I forgot one... It's easier for me to encrypt my IM sessions than it is to encrypt my phone conversations. If you're paranoid, as I am(*), this is important. * - As someone you routinely captures network traffic at work, and who watches other people in the group addicted to running AIMsniff off the firewall port ... -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch?" - W.C. Fields

March 19, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Instant Messaging Software

by Theo Van Dinter

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:37:25PM -0500, Gary Hanley wrote: > Ha. I still, for the life of me, have not seen the value-added benefit of > IM over a good old-fashioned telephone or conference call. Just a few reasons from my POV: 1) phones aren't available everywhere, and cell phone coverage is spotty/dead in lots of areas. (for example, inside my company's colo facility...) 2) it's quick and easy if you're already online. need to shoot a command to someone or ask a quick 5 second question? it'll take me longer to find/remember/dial their phone number than it is to goto my IM "buddy" listing and type it. 3) unless you record it, there's no trail of conversations on the phone. I "record" all IM conversations that I have -- really excellent to remember little snippets of information. as an example, I opened a hardware case with IBM the other day, but a coworker was going to be the contact, so I IMed the case # to him. The next day, I needed to call IBM about the case... Without having the conversation "recorded", I'd have had no way to know what the case # was (didn't write it down, and the coworker was unavailable). I've also done this type of thing with conversations I had over a year ago. (this is the same reason I pretty much save all email I send/receive btw...) 4) IM is good for multiple short conversations throughout the day -- my wife/friend/coworker can IM me in the morning, and I can just keep the window open for any thoughts/questions/etc throughout the day. 5) If I'm not around, but someone IMs me a question, I'll see it when I get back to my computer and can respond directly. If someone calls me (see #6 below) I'd either have to tell them to call me back later when I'm at my computer, or they'd leave me voice mail and I'd have to go through the bother of getting the VM then calling back, etc, etc. 6) I can walk away from my IM window and get lunch or something -- if people knew my cell phone number, I'd have yet another electronic leash. 7) I pay for phone calls, I don't pay for IM. If I'm using my home phone (pay per call + per minute) or my cell phone (pay per minute), that costs me money that I normally wouldn't have to pay... Not to mention the fact that sometimes you want to talk to people who aren't local which costs more money. However, I'm already paying for bandwidth no matter how much I use. 8) I usually type more "correctly" than I talk. 9) I spend a lot of time working on open source software (one program specifically), and sometimes need to converse with other developers on the project. I'm here in MA, some are in CA, some in Canada, some in Germany, etc... It's easier to IM than setup a multi-country conference call. 10) if you're on the phone and want to talk to someone else either about the call or something different, then you'd have to hang up and call someone else, or get multiple phones, or ... an example: I was on a con call with several of the above mentioned open source developers, and the legal department of a large company we're conversing with -- but we (developers) wanted to chat during the call without having the other group overhear, so we had an IM chat session going in the background. 11) I don't like using the phone. :P I don't think IM is a replace-all for phones or in-person meetings, but it does better handle/allow a lot of communications in a more efficient manner. IMHO. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "... although it's better if you call it an osculating circle because nobody knows what it means. Except those smarty-pants math professors..." - Prof. Farr

March 19, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Instant Messaging Software

by Gary Hanley

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Frank Sweetser wrote: > Plain old talk should work fine. Ha. I still, for the life of me, have not seen the value-added benefit of IM over a good old-fashioned telephone or conference call. Maybe it's there. I just haven't seen it. -- Gary

March 19, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Salvage flashdisk

by Keller, Tim

Yeah, I tried that and the camera comes back with "Card Error". Oh well, I think this card is fubar. Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Higgins [mailto:matt@higgsolutions.com] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:41 AM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] Salvage flashdisk You could try to format it with your camera. Most cameras have a very simple format utility that will write a new partition table to the disk, and won't try to be smart about it like your pc. Also it my be the case that you have reached the write limit for the flash card. Compact Flash has a fixed write limit before the cells start to go bad. More to the point a given cell can only be switched from a 1 to a 0 n number of times (blank flashes are all 1's not 0's). -Matt Quoting "Keller, Tim" <Tim.Keller(a)stratus.com>: > I've got a 32mb flash disk that's gone bad. Ironically it went bad before I > had a chance to pull the pictures off of it. I can't open it with fdisk nor > will doing a dd if=/dev/sda of=image_of_flash_disk will work. > > Anybody got any good ideas or know of utilities that might be capable of > salvaging the data? > > Thanks, > Tim. > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

March 19, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Salvage flashdisk

by Matt Higgins

You could try to format it with your camera. Most cameras have a very simple format utility that will write a new partition table to the disk, and won't try to be smart about it like your pc. Also it my be the case that you have reached the write limit for the flash card. Compact Flash has a fixed write limit before the cells start to go bad. More to the point a given cell can only be switched from a 1 to a 0 n number of times (blank flashes are all 1's not 0's). -Matt Quoting "Keller, Tim" <Tim.Keller(a)stratus.com>: > I've got a 32mb flash disk that's gone bad. Ironically it went bad before I > had a chance to pull the pictures off of it. I can't open it with fdisk nor > will doing a dd if=/dev/sda of=image_of_flash_disk will work. > > Anybody got any good ideas or know of utilities that might be capable of > salvaging the data? > > Thanks, > Tim. > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > >

March 19, 2004

Salvage flashdisk

by Keller, Tim

I've got a 32mb flash disk that's gone bad. Ironically it went bad before I had a chance to pull the pictures off of it. I can't open it with fdisk nor will doing a dd if=/dev/sda of=image_of_flash_disk will work. Anybody got any good ideas or know of utilities that might be capable of salvaging the data? Thanks, Tim.

March 19, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Instant Messaging Software

by Michelle Vadeboncoeur

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Simoncini, Matthew wrote: SM> I work at a large company in Natick that has recently decided to disallow SM> instant messaging clients from being used on corporate PC's. They sight a SM> concern that it is an insecure network link to the outside world that could SM> allow hackers, worms, trojans, viruses, etc ... into the otherwise protected SM> network. Whether I agree with this opinion or not I guess is irrelevant as I SM> don't have a strong enough voice to change anything. What does affect my SM> team is the ability to easily communicate with each other on a "live" or SM> instant platform within the company firewall (we have no interest really to SM> communicate outside the firewall yet). I was wondering if anyone could point Not quite what you're looking for, but... There are some Java/web clients of various messenger software available, which may go around the firewall (use web ports), that you may want to try: Yahoo's Web Messenger: http://messenger.yahoo.com/#webmessenger AIM Express: http://www.aim.com/get_aim/express/aim_expr.adp good luck! (I hope they've fixed the java a bit in the last year or two. The last time I used them they were real memory hogs on the slow machine I had at work (but they did get around the firewall)...) -- --==*==-- --==*==-- Michelle R. Vadeboncoeur --==*==-- --==*==-- mrv(a)kluge.net: http://www.kluge.net/~mrv/

March 19, 2004