Advice Please; How to "Quarantine" Hard Drives

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > Are really that dense? I know what you said.
>
> Obviously not.
>
> > I reposted that quote
> > didn't I?

> Yes, you did. And quite well too. Now, if you were only able to read and
> comprehend it we'd have no problem.

Everything you said is already well known or just plan incorrect. So
there is nothing else to comprehend.

> Listen very carefully. I said a third of the O.S. would be 'missing' (I.E.
> not available, inaccessible.) since, if the C: drive isn't working (your
> criteria of "the C: drive going down"), the files on the C: drive would not
> be accessible. NOT that the files would be "missing from the C: drive."

Any dummy would have long ago understood one of the several times I've
had to convey that I'm *not* talking about spreading the O.S. over
three drives. How many more times do I have to repeat that?

> That was based on your description of, somehow, having 'the O.S. on three
> drives', and not RAIDed or else you'd have said RAIDed.

No it wasn't. It was based on your whatever is going on in your
imagination.

> > Everyone else understands but you. So if it is not clear then
> > obviously you are the problem.
>
> I've seen their 'understanding' and it's essentially the same as mine.

I'm sure they will appreciate that insult.

> A 'copy' is not 'the O.S.' It's a 'copy' of 'the O.S.'. And I can
> understand copies just fine if you had the sense to simply SAY a freaking
> copy instead of 'have the O.S. on three drives'.

It would not have made a difference, because you would have still
taken it to mean "spread" over three drives. And since you mentioned
it, everyone who has a an O.S. on their PC is said to have a "copy" of
the O.S. on their PC. Even the biggest moron would know that. So this
is further proof that you are just having a grand old time starting
arguments over nothing. Go harass someone else. I'm sure you can fin
plenty of threads to target.

> No, as imprecise as it would be to say you "have 'the O.S.' on three
> computers" I'd know because any other interpretation is even more silly.

"Know"? You obviously don't because you keep arguing the issue.

> However, stripping 'the O.S.' across drives is quite normal for a RAID setup.

Really?

> > Again,
> > *you* are the problem.Even I know that when an app is spread across
> > multiple drives, "spread across" and "stripping" are the phrases/terms
> > used. But I never used those words.
>
> You didn't use ANY descriptive words, not copy, not striping, not anything,
> which is the problem.

No, again you are the problem. I'm not going to draw you pictures
because you feel like you want to argue.

> I have LOTS of things on multiple drives. Care to 'guess' what the hell I
> mean by that? Because that's what YOU expect when you say things like "have
> the O.S. on three drives."

This thread was targeted toward intelligent people. Not you.

> I admit to not being a mind reader.

Which you would have to be in or to overcome your problem with
understanding what comes easily to others.

> > but since I have nothing else to do...
>
> That's apparent.

Obviously we'll be at this for the next 50 years.

> > I'm sure it never occurred to you that if for some reason I wanted to
> > boot from a different drive, it would have to have an OS on it, right?
>
> Of course it occurred to me. I even listed that as one of many
> possibilities that occurred to me. What the hell YOU had in mind was an
> unanswered question which, of course, you didn't bother to mention until
> you felt it might be fun to throw more insults.

If it occurred to you, then you did you ask, "And what is so 'obvious'
about someone being nutty enough to want 4 "complete" COPIES of their
OS on 4 drives?"

This is further proof that you are just trying your best to be a pest.

> > And an O.S. on all my drives would give me the option of booting from
> > any one of the three drives left if for example my "C" drive went
> > down, right? Now read that again several more times before you find
> > issue with it.
>
> If you are concerned with 'drives going down' then you'd be better off with
> a RAID5 array rather than separate bootable copies of the O.S. on each
> drive. A three drive RAID5 uses less space, meaning more room for your
> other data, and operates seamlessly even during a single drive failure
> without even a 'boot' needed (except for drive replacement if you don't
> have hot swap capability).

No. And I'm not going to bother telling you why "RAID5" is not an
option for me, because I knoiw it is just bait for you to start
another issue.

> >>>Now why would anyone want to stripe an OS across
> >>>multiple hard drives?
> >>
> >>You apparently don't know about RAID. Why? Speed, fault tolerance. Depends
> >>on how much of each you want and how much you're willing to spend to get it.
> >
> > There are many apps one can stripe across hard drives for speed
> > reasons. But it is not a good idea to do that with an OS, for reason
> > anyone with half a brain can figure out.
>
> Oh really? I guess that's why it's so commonly done, eh?

You're wrong again. It is *not* commonly done.

> > More importantly, you
> > yourself already gave the reason why stripping your OS across hard
> > drives is a bad idea? The follow are your words: "...but if you mean
> > the system not operating with a third of the OS missing from, as you
> > put it, the C: drive going down then that is a big "well, Duh.""
>
> I didn't say "striping" there. I was talking about your claim of "the O.S.
> on three drives" with no explanation of what it means and that if you meant
> RAID you'd have SAID RAID; an assumption I now freely admit was foolish in
> your case.

In the way you used the word "spreading", it is a term that is used in
place of, or means the same as "striping". (Duh)...

> Which indicates you still don't know what RAID is.

RAID has nothing to do with my goals, and I never mentioned that term.
So this is obviously your way of trying to start a new argument over
something that I didn't say.

> No one, not even I, can read your mind.

You can't understand simple concepts either.

> The reason they're not asking is they've given up trying to help you.

They are not asking because they already know the answers. And they've
already helped me come to my conclusions. You're just here trying to
be a pain.

> No one, not even I, can 'comprehend' what you don't explain.

Well, whatever I don't explain(or am not asked about)is not meant to
be comprehended.

> Be happy in your misery.

Is that what you are attempting to do? You need to take your hand off
of your johnson and get out more.

> Why don't you take a poll of how many people keep three, soon to be 4 from
> what you said, fully bootable, non-RAID, duplicate copies of their O.S. on
> separate drives to see how much sense it makes.

It's none of your business if I want to keep a copy of my O.S. on
*all* of my drives. I've alreaded stated my reason and it is a good
one. I'd rather take a poll of how many think you are a troll.

You asked the stupid question, "And just how are you going to
automagically, and instantly, transfer the operating system to
something else so it runs when you 'shutdown' the C: drive?"

I attempted to convey that it is possible to have an operating system
on multiple drives by saying that, "My first system had the OS on all
three drives." I did *not* say "spread" across three drives.

Since your (stupid)question involved how my system would work without
access to the "C" drive, it would be obvious to a normal person who
knows that the entire O.S. is needed for operation, that there would
be a "copy of the OS on each of the four hard drives in the *new*
system I want to build."

Even after I explained this in different words so many times, you kept
arguing the point and obviously will continue to do so. You've argued
over the word "copy", my intent to have the O.S on separate drives,
that I didn't explain myself to your satisfaction, "Spreading" vs.
"striping", and have now introduced RAID5 as an argument.

You sir are the biggest idiot I've ever come across on the newsgroups.

> Enjoy the fantasy.

Get a dose of reality.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> I did not claim to 'decide' what 'idea' is, or is not, a workable solution
> "for you." What I said was it's clear you're not seeking one because you go
> out of your way to NOT explain what you're trying to accomplish and,
> instead, insist that your 'solution' is not only the 'right way' but the
> 'only way' of accomplishing whatever the hell the 'job' is and that 'the
> industry' is stupid, or conspiratorial, for not providing the 'solution'
> you've dreamed up.

I've explained myself clearly(multiple times for you). And I've come
to the conclusion(without any help from you) that what I want to do is
not possible because hardware/sofware manufacturers don't have it
implemented.

> The fact of the matter is, based on what meager hints you've provided as to
> the nature of the supposed 'problem', your 'solution' does not solve it and
> 'the industry' does not provide such a thing, except for perhaps
> specialized applications unrelated to your situation, because there are
> superior solutions already available.

Incorrect. There are no superior solutions. My goal was stated. The
reasons for my goal were stated. The solutions were given. Those
soultions don't work for me. The reasons they don't work for me were
given. The end.

> But you have shown to not be interested in hearing the flaws in it,
> alternate solutions, or anything else; instead insisting the only issue is
> "can it [your idea] be done," which is why I say you are apparently not
> really interested in a 'solution' to 'the problem'.

Wrong. I'm not interested in *your* solution.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > That isn't what I said. Can you tell me what era PCs had a switch on
> > the outside of the case that allowed one to turn off/on write?
>
> Wiring this on machines which contained drives with a write-protect jumper
> was trivial. Two pieces of wire and and a switch.

Once again. Since it was implemented already, can you tell me what era
PCs had a switch on the outside of the case that allowed one to turn
off/on writes to any of it's hard drives?

> > ?!? In 1940 America did *not* know how to make an atomic bomb.
>
> Yes, America did. The physics had been worked out--it was reduced to an
> engineering problem.

Incorrect. It would be a simple matter for me to tailor my basic game
playing techniques to allow me to score 3.3 million points on Pac-man,
but since I haven't done it I cannot claim that I can with any
credibilty. 🙂

> > In 1960
> > America did *not* know how to put a man on the moon. The basic
> > theories and procedures were known, but a lot of ground work still had
> > to be done.
>
> Well, actually, no, it didn't. It was a matter of designing and building
> the spacecraft.

Wrong. "designing and building" a spacecraft has always entailed
unforseen problems and issues that the engineers had to come up with
solutions for.

> > The basics are so well know that such a challenge would be weak. How
> > deeply would I need to explain the theory of turning off/on writes
>
> Well, at least far enough to demonstrate that you actually understand the
> issues involved.

Um, Didn't you say "Wiring this on machines which contained drives
with a write-protect jumper was trivial."?

> Look, if it's so all-fired important to you to have this capability, go
> through the Seagate site, find the drives that had write-protect jumpers,
> buy however many you need off of ebay, and install them with switches
> outside the case wired to the headers. Or are you too stupid to figure out
> how to solder two wires to a couple of pins and a switch?

Hey moron. This doesn't involve my PC building project. All I did was
post an idea I had, and think that manufacurers should implement. That
was no excuse for you to attack me(again). If you disagree with it
then that is your perogative. But you need to correct your personal
problems before posting.

> > It's all about the bottom line. Malicious code makes a lot of money
> > for a lot of people in the software and hardware sectors. So why
> > promote an easier and cheaper way to fight viruses and hackers?
>
> How does what you propose constitute "an easier and cheaper way to fight
> viruses and hackers"?

?!? Where were you when write-protecting was discussed?

> > Would you buy a Grey Hound bus just to take yourself to work?
>
> If it was the smallest and cheapest vehicle available, then I wouldn't have
> much choice, now, would I.

That's the whole point. Everyone would be asking for smaller and
cheaper vehicles.

I had an idea like you did. I stated it. That's all.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Darren Harris wrote:

>> > That isn't what I said. Can you tell me what era PCs had a switch on
>> > the outside of the case that allowed one to turn off/on write?
>>
>> Wiring this on machines which contained drives with a write-protect
>> jumper
>> was trivial. Two pieces of wire and and a switch.
>
> Once again. Since it was implemented already, can you tell me what era
> PCs had a switch on the outside of the case that allowed one to turn
> off/on writes to any of it's hard drives?

About ten years back. If you wanted a switch on the outside you installed
it yourself.

>> > ?!? In 1940 America did *not* know how to make an atomic bomb.
>>
>> Yes, America did. The physics had been worked out--it was reduced to an
>> engineering problem.
>
> Incorrect. It would be a simple matter for me to tailor my basic game
> playing techniques to allow me to score 3.3 million points on Pac-man,
> but since I haven't done it I cannot claim that I can with any
> credibilty. 🙂

Fine, believe what you want to.

>> > In 1960
>> > America did *not* know how to put a man on the moon. The basic
>> > theories and procedures were known, but a lot of ground work still had
>> > to be done.
>>
>> Well, actually, no, it didn't. It was a matter of designing and building
>> the spacecraft.
>
> Wrong. "designing and building" a spacecraft has always entailed
> unforseen problems and issues that the engineers had to come up with
> solutions for.

The same is true for an airliner, a large ship, or a tall building. So I
guess by your standards we don't know how to build airliners, large ships,
or tall buildings.

>> > The basics are so well know that such a challenge would be weak. How
>> > deeply would I need to explain the theory of turning off/on writes
>>
>> Well, at least far enough to demonstrate that you actually understand the
>> issues involved.
>
> Um, Didn't you say "Wiring this on machines which contained drives
> with a write-protect jumper was trivial."?

So what do you believe is the mechanism by which the write-protect jumper
prevents writes?

Knowing how to put the key in the ignition doesn't mean that you know how a
car operates.

>> Look, if it's so all-fired important to you to have this capability, go
>> through the Seagate site, find the drives that had write-protect jumpers,
>> buy however many you need off of ebay, and install them with switches
>> outside the case wired to the headers. Or are you too stupid to figure
>> out how to solder two wires to a couple of pins and a switch?
>
> Hey moron. This doesn't involve my PC building project. All I did was
> post an idea I had, and think that manufacurers should implement. That
> was no excuse for you to attack me(again). If you disagree with it
> then that is your perogative. But you need to correct your personal
> problems before posting.

I asked you a question. That was not an attack, that was an attempt to
determine whether any solution more complex than opening a cardboard box
and pulling out the contents was within your capabilities.

>> > It's all about the bottom line. Malicious code makes a lot of money
>> > for a lot of people in the software and hardware sectors. So why
>> > promote an easier and cheaper way to fight viruses and hackers?
>>
>> How does what you propose constitute "an easier and cheaper way to fight
>> viruses and hackers"?
>
> ?!? Where were you when write-protecting was discussed?

Right here and I saw no convincing case made that it was either easier or
cheaper than the alternatives.

>> > Would you buy a Grey Hound bus just to take yourself to work?
>>
>> If it was the smallest and cheapest vehicle available, then I wouldn't
>> have much choice, now, would I.
>
> That's the whole point. Everyone would be asking for smaller and
> cheaper vehicles.

And suppose everybody drives greyhound buses in preference to cars. Should
the car manufacturers continue to produce cars that nobody wants?

> I had an idea like you did. I stated it. That's all.

I'm sorry, but I do not recall introducing any "ideas" to this thread, only
techniques that will address the issues you raise. Since in point of fact
you don't seem to actually _want_ to protect your system and were instead
just trolling, that point is moot.

>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Darren Harris wrote:
>>I did not claim to 'decide' what 'idea' is, or is not, a workable solution
>>"for you." What I said was it's clear you're not seeking one because you go
>>out of your way to NOT explain what you're trying to accomplish and,
>>instead, insist that your 'solution' is not only the 'right way' but the
>>'only way' of accomplishing whatever the hell the 'job' is and that 'the
>>industry' is stupid, or conspiratorial, for not providing the 'solution'
>>you've dreamed up.
>
>
> I've explained myself clearly(multiple times for you). And I've come
> to the conclusion(without any help from you) that what I want to do is
> not possible because hardware/sofware manufacturers don't have it
> implemented.
>
>
>>The fact of the matter is, based on what meager hints you've provided as to
>>the nature of the supposed 'problem', your 'solution' does not solve it and
>>'the industry' does not provide such a thing, except for perhaps
>>specialized applications unrelated to your situation, because there are
>>superior solutions already available.
>
>
> Incorrect. There are no superior solutions. My goal was stated. The
> reasons for my goal were stated. The solutions were given. Those
> soultions don't work for me. The reasons they don't work for me were
> given. The end.

Your stated 'question' was whether you could 'quarantine' drives by a
hardware 'write protect' switch. That's not a goal; it's an already
proposed solution to 'whatever' the goal was. One you still keep as close
to the vest as possible; leaking out hints of what you intended to do with
it only when it suits your need to attack.

>>But you have shown to not be interested in hearing the flaws in it,
>>alternate solutions, or anything else; instead insisting the only issue is
>>"can it [your idea] be done," which is why I say you are apparently not
>>really interested in a 'solution' to 'the problem'.
>
>
> Wrong. I'm not interested in *your* solution.

I didn't give 'a' solution. I, and others, provided an entire panoply of
possible approaches yet, even after you admit to arriving at the conclusion
your 'solution' is "not possible," you still, not just reject but, ridicule
any alternatives. If your idea of seeking a solution is to reject
everything except an "impossible" one then I see where our difference of
opinion lies.

But, hey, have fun deleting and copying your O.S. all over the place. It's
no skin off my nose.

>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Darren Harris wrote:

<snip>

>
> You sir are the biggest idiot I've ever come across on the newsgroups.


If, when this started, I had known you were such an ignorant ass so intent
on remaining an ignorant ass I wouldn't have tried to help. So I leave you
now with the impossible solution of your own design that you so richly deserve.

Have a nice day.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > Once again. Since it was implemented already, can you tell me what era
> > PCs had a switch on the outside of the case tha
t allowed one to turn
> > off/on writes to any of it's hard drives?
>
> About ten years back. If you wanted a switch on the outside you installed
> it yourself.

Well my searches have found nothing to that effect.

> The same is true for an airliner, a large ship, or a tall building. So I
> guess by your standards we don't know how to build airliners, large ships,
> or tall buildings.

As usual you are incorrect. Many airliners, many large ships, and many
tall buildings have been built, which makes them bad examples when you
are comparing them to things that had not been done before at the
dates you menioned.(ie: atomic bomb(1940), and trip to the moon(1960).

> >> > The basics are so well know that such a challenge would be weak. How
> >> > deeply would I need to explain the theory of turning off/on writes
> >>
> >> Well, at least far enough to demonstrate that you actually understand the
> >> issues involved.
> >
> > Um, Didn't you say "Wiring this on machines which contained drives
> > with a write-protect jumper was trivial."?
>
> So what do you believe is the mechanism by which the write-protect jumper
> prevents writes?

What difference does it make? You said wiring the jumpers to a switch
was trivial. The bottom line is that if it can easily be done, then
what I said can easily be done.

> Knowing how to put the key in the ignition doesn't mean that you know how a
> car operates.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

> I asked you a question. That was not an attack, that was an attempt to
> determine whether any solution more complex than opening a cardboard box
> and pulling out the contents was within your capabilities.

And I guess using the word stupid helps you do that.

> >> How does what you propose constitute "an easier and cheaper way to fight
> >> viruses and hackers"?
> >
> > ?!? Where were you when write-protecting was discussed?
>
> Right here and I saw no convincing case made that it was either easier or
> cheaper than the alternatives.

What's new? You also gave no reasons why the alternatives you gave are
easier or cheaper than my idea.

> And suppose everybody drives greyhound buses in preference to cars. Should
> the car manufacturers continue to produce cars that nobody wants?

Another bad example, because everyone will never drive greyhound buses
in preference to cars.

> > I had an idea like you did. I stated it. That's all.
>
> I'm sorry, but I do not recall introducing any "ideas" to this thread, only
> techniques that will address the issues you raise. Since in point of fact
> you don't seem to actually _want_ to protect your system and were instead
> just trolling, that point is moot.

Wrong again. The following was your first idea...
"_Safest_ bet is to put the files you want to protect on a server that
has no
Internet access and then use the security features of the OS on that
server
to prevent writing."

And you need to learn what "facts" are. My intent not to use your idea
doesn't mean I don't want to protect my system.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Darren Harris wrote:

>> > Once again. Since it was implemented already, can you tell me what era
>> > PCs had a switch on the outside of the case tha
> t allowed one to turn
>> > off/on writes to any of it's hard drives?
>>
>> About ten years back. If you wanted a switch on the outside you
>> installed it yourself.
>
> Well my searches have found nothing to that effect.

So what? Contrary to popular belief there is much knowledge that is not on
or accessible from the Internet, and even when it is there constructing
searches that actually find it can be problematical.

>> The same is true for an airliner, a large ship, or a tall building. So I
>> guess by your standards we don't know how to build airliners, large
>> ships, or tall buildings.
>
> As usual you are incorrect. Many airliners, many large ships, and many
> tall buildings have been built, which makes them bad examples when you
> are comparing them to things that had not been done before at the
> dates you menioned.(ie: atomic bomb(1940), and trip to the moon(1960).

Believe what you want to. Every new one presents challenges.

Put it this way, if the United States wanted to build a faster-than-light
starship, could the US do it? Until you know how to do something you can't
plan a path to get from here to there.

>> >> > The basics are so well know that such a challenge would be weak. How
>> >> > deeply would I need to explain the theory of turning off/on writes
>> >>
>> >> Well, at least far enough to demonstrate that you actually understand
>> >> the issues involved.
>> >
>> > Um, Didn't you say "Wiring this on machines which contained drives
>> > with a write-protect jumper was trivial."?
>>
>> So what do you believe is the mechanism by which the write-protect jumper
>> prevents writes?
>
> What difference does it make? You said wiring the jumpers to a switch
> was trivial. The bottom line is that if it can easily be done, then
> what I said can easily be done.

Fine. It can "easily be done". So put a write protect header on a new
drive and then hook a switch to it since you're sure it's so easy.

>> Knowing how to put the key in the ignition doesn't mean that you know how
>> a car operates.
>
> I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Figures.

>> I asked you a question. That was not an attack, that was an attempt to
>> determine whether any solution more complex than opening a cardboard box
>> and pulling out the contents was within your capabilities.
>
> And I guess using the word stupid helps you do that.

I asked you a question concerning your intelligence. You had the choice of
answering it "yes, I'm too stupid to do that" or "no, I'm smart enough to
do that". There's an old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it". From your
general attitude one can guess how you answered the question to yourself.

>> >> How does what you propose constitute "an easier and cheaper way to
>> >> fight viruses and hackers"?
>> >
>> > ?!? Where were you when write-protecting was discussed?
>>
>> Right here and I saw no convincing case made that it was either easier or
>> cheaper than the alternatives.
>
> What's new? You also gave no reasons why the alternatives you gave are
> easier or cheaper than my idea.

So there was no convincing case made that any of the alternatives was easier
or cheaper. So what?

This is USENET. You claim that some technique is "easier or cheaper" then
it's up to you to prove it. Don't like it, find a venue that is more
tolerant of fuzzy reasoning.

>> And suppose everybody drives greyhound buses in preference to cars.
>> Should the car manufacturers continue to produce cars that nobody wants?
>
> Another bad example, because everyone will never drive greyhound buses
> in preference to cars.

It wasn't an "example", it was a "hypothetical".

>> > I had an idea like you did. I stated it. That's all.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I do not recall introducing any "ideas" to this thread,
>> only
>> techniques that will address the issues you raise. Since in point of
>> fact you don't seem to actually _want_ to protect your system and were
>> instead just trolling, that point is moot.
>
> Wrong again. The following was your first idea...
> "_Safest_ bet is to put the files you want to protect on a server that
> has no
> Internet access and then use the security features of the OS on that
> server
> to prevent writing."

That's not an "idea", it's a proven technique that works well and reliably
in millions of installations around the world.

> And you need to learn what "facts" are. My intent not to use your idea
> doesn't mean I don't want to protect my system.

I'm sorry, but _my_ idea? You're the one who said that he wanted drives
that could be write protected by flipping a switch on the outside of the
case. I told you how to implement that. If you don't want to implement
_your_ idea when told how to do so then why are you wasting everyone's time
with this?


> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<10i0590r55jbi1b@corp.supernews.com>...
> Darren Harris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > You sir are the biggest idiot I've ever come across on the newsgroups.
>
>
> If, when this started, I had known you were such an ignorant ass so intent
> on remaining an ignorant ass I wouldn't have tried to help. So I leave you
> now with the impossible solution of your own design that you so richly deserve.
>
> Have a nice day.

You are/were incapable of helping me anyway. All you have done is
waste bandwidth in your attempt to have the last word. And you've been
wrong every time. Now be a jackass with someone else.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > Incorrect. There are no superior solutions. My goal was stated. The
> > reasons for my goal were stated. The solutions were given. Those
> > soultions don't work for me. The reasons they don't work for me were
> > given. The end.
>
> Your stated 'question' was whether you could 'quarantine' drives by a
> hardware 'write protect' switch. That's not a goal; it's an already
> proposed solution to 'whatever' the goal was. One you still keep as close
> to the vest as possible; leaking out hints of what you intended to do with
> it only when it suits your need to attack.

A) The original question did *not* involve whether or not I could
quarantine drives by a hardware write protect switch. Write-protect
was proposed and discussed later.
B) I never said that write protect was a goal.
c) There were no hints to lead. I've spent most of this thread
responding to your attacks and stupidity.

> >>But you have shown to not be interested in hearing the flaws in it,
> >>alternate solutions, or anything else; instead insisting the only issue is
> >>"can it [your idea] be done," which is why I say you are apparently not
> >>really interested in a 'solution' to 'the problem'.
> >
> >
> > Wrong. I'm not interested in *your* solution.
>
> I didn't give 'a' solution. I, and others, provided an entire panoply of
> possible approaches yet, even after you admit to arriving at the conclusion
> your 'solution' is "not possible," you still, not just reject but, ridicule
> any alternatives. If your idea of seeking a solution is to reject
> everything except an "impossible" one then I see where our difference of
> opinion lies.

A)Yes you did give (impractical)solutions. You can call them
approaches all you want.
B) I didn't arrive at the conclusion that my "solution" was "not
possible".
c) I did not "ridicule any alternatives".
D) And our difference in opinion is a moot point. You've failed to
understand my questions. So there was no way you could provide a
reasonable answer.

> But, hey, have fun deleting and copying your O.S. all over the place. It's
> no skin off my nose.

You certainly don't act like it.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > Well my searches have found nothing to that effect.
>
> So what? Contrary to popular belief there is much knowledge that is not on
> or accessible from the Internet, and even when it is there constructing
> searches that actually find it can be problematical.

In that case. I won't believe it until I see it.

> Believe what you want to. Every new one presents challenges.
>
> Put it this way, if the United States wanted to build a faster-than-light
> starship, could the US do it? Until you know how to do something you can't
> plan a path to get from here to there.

I have no idea what your point is. And the laws of physics don't allow
for travel faster than light.

> > What difference does it make? You said wiring the jumpers to a switch
> > was trivial. The bottom line is that if it can easily be done, then
> > what I said can easily be done.
>
> Fine. It can "easily be done". So put a write protect header on a new
> drive and then hook a switch to it since you're sure it's so easy.

You said that was easy. My idea involves what the manufacturers can
do.

> >> Knowing how to put the key in the ignition doesn't mean that you know how
> >> a car operates.
> >
> > I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
>
> Figures.

Yes it does.

> I asked you a question concerning your intelligence. You had the choice of
> answering it "yes, I'm too stupid to do that" or "no, I'm smart enough to
> do that". There's an old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it". From your
> general attitude one can guess how you answered the question to yourself.

I'd rather respond to insults with insults.

> >> Right here and I saw no convincing case made that it was either easier or
> >> cheaper than the alternatives.
> >
> > What's new? You also gave no reasons why the alternatives you gave are
> > easier or cheaper than my idea.
>
> So there was no convincing case made that any of the alternatives was easier
> or cheaper. So what?

So what?

> This is USENET. You claim that some technique is "easier or cheaper" then
> it's up to you to prove it. Don't like it, find a venue that is more
> tolerant of fuzzy reasoning.

You haven't proven anything. I'm still wating for what you said was
done already.

> >> And suppose everybody drives greyhound buses in preference to cars.
> >> Should the car manufacturers continue to produce cars that nobody wants?
> >
> > Another bad example, because everyone will never drive greyhound buses
> > in preference to cars.
>
> It wasn't an "example", it was a "hypothetical".

What difference does that make? It was a hypothetical example and it
was a bad one.

> > Wrong again. The following was your first idea...
> > "_Safest_ bet is to put the files you want to protect on a server that
> > has no
> > Internet access and then use the security features of the OS on that
> > server
> > to prevent writing."
>
> That's not an "idea", it's a proven technique that works well and reliably
> in millions of installations around the world.

It is still an idea...

> > And you need to learn what "facts" are. My intent not to use your idea
> > doesn't mean I don't want to protect my system.
>
> I'm sorry, but _my_ idea? You're the one who said that he wanted drives
> that could be write protected by flipping a switch on the outside of the
> case. I told you how to implement that. If you don't want to implement
> _your_ idea when told how to do so then why are you wasting everyone's time
> with this?

It is you who are wasting everyone's time. I'm not the one who said
that connecting a switch to the drives jumpers was trivial. I believe
that there are software a firmware changes that have to be made
inorder to make this plausible. And I believe the manufacturers have
the ability to do it. You can disagree all you want.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Darren Harris wrote:

>>>Incorrect. There are no superior solutions. My goal was stated. The
>>>reasons for my goal were stated. The solutions were given. Those
>>>soultions don't work for me. The reasons they don't work for me were
>>>given. The end.
>>
>>Your stated 'question' was whether you could 'quarantine' drives by a
>>hardware 'write protect' switch. That's not a goal; it's an already
>>proposed solution to 'whatever' the goal was. One you still keep as close
>>to the vest as possible; leaking out hints of what you intended to do with
>>it only when it suits your need to attack.
>
>
> A) The original question did *not* involve whether or not I could
> quarantine drives by a hardware write protect switch. Write-protect
> was proposed and discussed later.
> B) I never said that write protect was a goal.
> c) There were no hints to lead. I've spent most of this thread
> responding to your attacks and stupidity.

Trying to find out what the hell you're talking about isn't an 'attack' nor
is pointing out flaws in your proposed hardware write protect methodology.
What constitutes an 'attack' is your perpetual hurling of insults simply
because people can't read your mind.

But, from now on, you can get your jollies banging your head against the
wall and hurling insults into the 'industry ethos' that doesn't make your
pet 'solution' for all I care because, as I said in the last one, I'm done
with you and simply closing out the remaining threads.

<snip>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Darren Harris wrote:

>> > Well my searches have found nothing to that effect.
>>
>> So what? Contrary to popular belief there is much knowledge that is not
>> on or accessible from the Internet, and even when it is there
>> constructing searches that actually find it can be problematical.
>
> In that case. I won't believe it until I see it.

Fine.

>> Believe what you want to. Every new one presents challenges.
>>
>> Put it this way, if the United States wanted to build a faster-than-light
>> starship, could the US do it? Until you know how to do something you
>> can't plan a path to get from here to there.
>
> I have no idea what your point is. And the laws of physics don't allow
> for travel faster than light.

The laws that we _know_. See the point? In 1850 the laws of physics did
not allow nuclear weapons.

>> > What difference does it make? You said wiring the jumpers to a switch
>> > was trivial. The bottom line is that if it can easily be done, then
>> > what I said can easily be done.
>>
>> Fine. It can "easily be done". So put a write protect header on a new
>> drive and then hook a switch to it since you're sure it's so easy.
>
> You said that was easy. My idea involves what the manufacturers can
> do.

So try to figure out what manufacturers have to do to give you what you want
and maybe you'll understand why they don't bother.

>> >> Knowing how to put the key in the ignition doesn't mean that you know
>> >> how a car operates.
>> >
>> > I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
>>
>> Figures.
>
> Yes it does.
>
>> I asked you a question concerning your intelligence. You had the choice
>> of answering it "yes, I'm too stupid to do that" or "no, I'm smart enough
>> to
>> do that". There's an old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it". From your
>> general attitude one can guess how you answered the question to yourself.
>
> I'd rather respond to insults with insults.

It would help if you first learned to recognize an insult.

>> >> Right here and I saw no convincing case made that it was either easier
>> >> or cheaper than the alternatives.
>> >
>> > What's new? You also gave no reasons why the alternatives you gave are
>> > easier or cheaper than my idea.
>>
>> So there was no convincing case made that any of the alternatives was
>> easier
>> or cheaper. So what?
>
> So what?
>
>> This is USENET. You claim that some technique is "easier or cheaper"
>> then
>> it's up to you to prove it. Don't like it, find a venue that is more
>> tolerant of fuzzy reasoning.
>
> You haven't proven anything. I'm still wating for what you said was
> done already.

Well, since you don't believe what people who have been there and done that
tell you, you're going to have a long wait.

>> >> And suppose everybody drives greyhound buses in preference to cars.
>> >> Should the car manufacturers continue to produce cars that nobody
>> >> wants?
>> >
>> > Another bad example, because everyone will never drive greyhound buses
>> > in preference to cars.
>>
>> It wasn't an "example", it was a "hypothetical".
>
> What difference does that make? It was a hypothetical example and it
> was a bad one.

Your opinion.

>> > Wrong again. The following was your first idea...
>> > "_Safest_ bet is to put the files you want to protect on a server that
>> > has no
>> > Internet access and then use the security features of the OS on that
>> > server
>> > to prevent writing."
>>
>> That's not an "idea", it's a proven technique that works well and
>> reliably in millions of installations around the world.
>
> It is still an idea...

If you choose to call it that.

>> > And you need to learn what "facts" are. My intent not to use your idea
>> > doesn't mean I don't want to protect my system.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but _my_ idea? You're the one who said that he wanted drives
>> that could be write protected by flipping a switch on the outside of the
>> case. I told you how to implement that. If you don't want to implement
>> _your_ idea when told how to do so then why are you wasting everyone's
>> time with this?
>
> It is you who are wasting everyone's time. I'm not the one who said
> that connecting a switch to the drives jumpers was trivial. I believe
> that there are software a firmware changes that have to be made
> inorder to make this plausible.

I see, you are illiterate. I said that putting a switch on a drive that had
a write-protect header was trivial. Since that fact is intuitively obvious
to the most casual observer it needs no proof. And I am surprised that in
the extensive research that you claim to have conducted you have not
encountered any of the many, many drives that were shipped with such a
header.

> And I believe the manufacturers have
> the ability to do it. You can disagree all you want.

Nobody has claimed that the manufacturers lack the ability. What has been
claimed is that they have no reason whatsoever to want to provide it.

Regardless, this is pointless--I don't know if your problem is illiteracy,
idiocy, or a bad attitude but I'm not wasting any more time on you.

<plonk>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<10i39c14uoh1sec@corp.supernews.com>...
> Darren Harris wrote:
>
> >>>Incorrect. There are no superior solutions. My goal was stated. The
> >>>reasons for my goal were stated. The solutions were given. Those
> >>>soultions don't work for me. The reasons they don't work for me were
> >>>given. The end.
> >>
> >>Your stated 'question' was whether you could 'quarantine' drives by a
> >>hardware 'write protect' switch. That's not a goal; it's an already
> >>proposed solution to 'whatever' the goal was. One you still keep as close
> >>to the vest as possible; leaking out hints of what you intended to do with
> >>it only when it suits your need to attack.
> >
> >
> > A) The original question did *not* involve whether or not I could
> > quarantine drives by a hardware write protect switch. Write-protect
> > was proposed and discussed later.
> > B) I never said that write protect was a goal.
> > c) There were no hints to lead. I've spent most of this thread
> > responding to your attacks and stupidity.
>
> Trying to find out what the hell you're talking about isn't an 'attack' nor
> is pointing out flaws in your proposed hardware write protect methodology.
> What constitutes an 'attack' is your perpetual hurling of insults simply
> because people can't read your mind.

It's your perpetual lies and false assumptions that are the issue.
Anyone can see that you are just trolling and willnot stop. And you
comments about my reading comprehension, alleged inability to read or
type with any clarity, and inference that I am nutty because I want to
keep copies of my O.S. on all four of my drives that have prompted the
insults back.

> But, from now on, you can get your jollies banging your head against the
> wall and hurling insults into the 'industry ethos' that doesn't make your
> pet 'solution' for all I care because, as I said in the last one, I'm done
> with you and simply closing out the remaining threads.

I serious doubt it. You will continue to casue problems. That is why I
said we will be at this for the next 50 years.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > I have no idea what your point is. And the laws of physics don't allow
> > for travel faster than light.
>
> The laws that we _know_. See the point? In 1850 the laws of physics did
> not allow nuclear weapons.

In 1850 the laws of physics did very little to address this issue at
all. So this is all academic. And once they did, it was determined
that acheiving speeds faster than light is not possible. See the
point?

> > You said that was easy. My idea involves what the manufacturers can
> > do.
>
> So try to figure out what manufacturers have to do to give you what you want
> and maybe you'll understand why they don't bother.

I understand, and I've covered this already.

> > I'd rather respond to insults with insults.
>
> It would help if you first learned to recognize an insult.

I have and did.

> Well, since you don't believe what people who have been there and done that
> tell you, you're going to have a long wait.

When "people who have been there and done that" show up my wait will
have ended.

> >> It wasn't an "example", it was a "hypothetical".
> >
> > What difference does that make? It was a hypothetical example and it
> > was a bad one.
>
> Your opinion.

That is correct.

> > It is still an idea...
>
> If you choose to call it that.

I do, and have.

> >> > And you need to learn what "facts" are. My intent not to use your idea
> >> > doesn't mean I don't want to protect my system.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, but _my_ idea? You're the one who said that he wanted drives
> >> that could be write protected by flipping a switch on the outside of the
> >> case. I told you how to implement that. If you don't want to implement
> >> _your_ idea when told how to do so then why are you wasting everyone's
> >> time with this?
> >
> > It is you who are wasting everyone's time. I'm not the one who said
> > that connecting a switch to the drives jumpers was trivial. I believe
> > that there are software a firmware changes that have to be made
> > inorder to make this plausible.
>
> I see, you are illiterate. I said that putting a switch on a drive that had
> a write-protect header was trivial. Since that fact is intuitively obvious
> to the most casual observer it needs no proof. And I am surprised that in
> the extensive research that you claim to have conducted you have not
> encountered any of the many, many drives that were shipped with such a
> header.

A moron calling me illiterate? I never said that proof was need that
it is possible to put a switch on a drive that had a write-protect
header. I was referring to proff that there were PCs for sale with
switches on the outside of their cases that would allow one to turn
on/off writing to individual drives.

Also, I never said that after "extensive research that (I) have
conducted (I) have not encountered any of the many, many drives that
were shipped with such a header."

> > And I believe the manufacturers have
> > the ability to do it. You can disagree all you want.
>
> Nobody has claimed that the manufacturers lack the ability. What has been
> claimed is that they have no reason whatsoever to want to provide it.

You need to re-read these posts.

> Regardless, this is pointless--I don't know if your problem is illiteracy,
> idiocy, or a bad attitude but I'm not wasting any more time on you.

Good riddance.

Darren Harris
Staten ISland, New York.