sample text reacted to Master Disaster in SSD optimization not available
If you carry on your SSD is going to die, very quickly. TRIM is an automated process, between the SSDs firmware and Windows the drive will keep itself optimised. NO USER INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED.
Please stop, all you are doing is using up write cycles with pointless garbage collection.
sample text reacted to Levisallanon in new Cisco exams coming soon?
If you are going for the 200-125 exam probably if they change anything it's just moving around of subjects from CCNA to CCNE etc. And maybe add 1 or 2 small things which are new features. But like 95% of the book won't be outdate because they are all about the fundementals of networking, and these things don't change.
sample text reacted to AbsoluteFool in Linux security question
Don't get me wrong. There are some serious Linux viruses out there, but the chance getting them seems to be quite small. I'm quite sure Apple products will get more viruses than Windows if people keep buying it.
But yeah.. You cannot get a virus designed for Windows on a Linux computer. Not sure about how OS X is, but a Virus made to bit OS X could potentionally hit onto Linux. But do not quote me on that.. I've never used a Mac and don't know how the system is set-up.
sample text reacted to Adorable Cat in help me transfer files from other HDD
You can install the HDD to your PC in a SATA slot (or whatever the HDD uses) and just boot the computer from your normal boot drive. The HDD should show up in windows as another storage device (in the My Computer screen), and you can copy the files from there to a flash drive. Alternatively (like if you're on a laptop or something), you can use Something like this to transfer the files over a USB 3.0 connection.
sample text reacted to Catsrules in help me transfer files from other HDD
Nope, infact you don't want to format it at all or it will erase everything and you will have an unhappy friend.
just plug it in, and you should be good to go it will just appear as another drive in windows with all of the files that are on it.
It may try to boot off that drive depending on how your bios is setup. But if it does just go into the biso and change the drive boot order back to your drive.
sample text reacted to Sauron in Linux security question
If it's a Windows malware, it won't work on Linux - but if it's a Linux malware it will work on Linux and not Windows. Linux malware is just a lot rarer than Windows malware and it's typically less dangerous (although it depends). There is anti-virus software for Linux if you're worried, personally I don't feel the need for one.
sample text reacted to Tabs in bootloader & bootstrap difference?
To the best of my knowledge, the simplest explanation I can use is this:
The bootloader is the first thing run after the hardware is initialised. On a UEFI system, this will be a .efi binary located in the efi partition of the boot drive. If Secure Boot is enabled, the firmware verifies the digital signature of this file before handing control over to it. If it's a traditional system using a BIOS, then it'll be at a specific sector on the selected boot volume.
Bootstrapping is something that has sort of changed meaning over the last few years as machines become more modern. In classical terms, its the term to describe the entire process of BIOS/firmware handing control to the operating system. But it used to specifically refer to (basically) combining multiple bootloaders. For example, in Linux terms, it used to be called Chainloading - where Grub or Lilo would be the bootloader that is run first, and would bootstrap (ie, run) NTLDR to allow booting of XP or older, or BCD to run Vista+. Grub couldn't boot directly to Windows, but it could pass the init over to the Windows loader instead. This transference was called bootstrapping, but isn't limited to this scenario.
This isn't a completely technical explanation, but it's becoming less and less relevant as more and more machines move over to UEFI and less people run legacy software. UEFI doesn't have the same limitations (mainly on size) that required chainloading of traditional bootloaders to allow BIOS-based machines to run arbitrary operating system code, and the increased security requirements in modern machines would be impossible to fit within the size limitations of BIOS-based machines.
Nowadays, the difference basically boils down to whether you're referring to the actual bootable code run first after hardware initialisation (the bootloader), and describing the process (bootstrapping).
sample text reacted to panther420 in bootloader & bootstrap difference?
A bootloader is responsible for loading one or multiple operating systems upon boot. It also loads some basic hardware like USB keyboards before the OS initializes the rest.
From what I've found online, a bootstrap loader resides in the BIOS or other ROM-type non-volatile memory and loads the bootloader from the first few sectors of a hard drive on a BIOS system. In a UEFI system, a boot manager is included in the specification, allowing the bootstrap loader to instead detect different OSes on different EFI System Partitions (ESPs) and boot from a specified one. In a way, the UEFI system is sort of "intelligent" in that it is aware of different OSes and bootloaders in the system whereas the BIOS just blindly loads a boot sector off a disk.
sample text reacted to Mira Yurizaki in bootloader & bootstrap difference?
Bootloader is a piece of software that lives on storage (a hard drive, a flash chip somewhere, etc.) that tells the computer how to load the operating system. The basic gist of a computer booting up is:
The CPU starts up and runs whatever program is the address of the reset vector. The program in the reset vector address is usually a system startup program to set the hardware and perform tests to make sure thing are alright. Afterwards, the system looks at all attached permanent storage devices. If the permanent storage device has a boot sector, it loads and runs that. This tells the computer how to read the drive and where the bootloader is, if there is one. The bootloader, as mentioned before, tells the computer how to load the operating system. Normally operating systems has its own startup programs (or perhaps just the kernel) located in a fixed location on the hard drive. The bootloader tells the computer where that location is. Bootstrapping is the process I described above. It's shortened to just "booting"
sample text reacted to Electronics Wizardy in Question about how linux distros vary from each other
Well much more than de, things like the network manager, the update system, and the devs philosophy and goals.
sample text reacted to Sauron in Question about how linux distros vary from each other
You're forgetting the name - "distribution". They are ways of distributing a linux based operating system to anyone who wants it. Aside from the chosen preinstalled packages, most distributions have their own repositories which they maintain and moderate, something you probably couldn't do by yourself. Sure, you can get about the same desktop experience from most distributions, but some of the underlying system is hard to change unless you're building it from scratch.
You CAN modify ubuntu to be linux mint because linux mint is based on ubuntu to begin with - that's what the developers did (aside from adding their own repositories) - but you can't take ubuntu and make it fedora without destroying it first. You can make it look like fedora, for sure, but you can't make it act exactly like fedora.
The closest distros to letting you pick everything (without requiring you to build from scratch) are gentoo and arch - but neither of those can become exactly like ubuntu.
sample text reacted to Mira Yurizaki in Linux security question
Considering that Linux cannot natively run Windows apps, then downloading malware for Windows cannot affect Linux. I would even go as far as to say even if you could get it to run with say WINE, the malware may be looking for known Windows locations to try and affect, which don't exist on Linux. For example, there are no drive letters in Linux, so the moment the Windows malware goes "I'm going to nuke C:\Windows\System32" it's going to immediately fail because that concept doesn't even exist on Linux.
Linux isn't safer than Windows per se, at least with the latest versions. What made Linux great with security from the get go was how simple, yet effective its permissions system is. It also had one other trick: by default, unless you are the root user (which is a special account), every app you run is run with standard user privileges. Meaning it can't mess with the system or other user's files. If you wanted to run it with higher privileges, you could. This alone mitigates a lot of malware attacks. That is, the malware can't do much damage if run normally. It can do a lot damage though if run with higher privileges.
The other part of it is that if you wanted to run an app with higher privileges, often you had to do it manually and you had to enter a password (often your user account's). While I like to equate Windows' UAC feature to this, it's seen more as a confirmation prompt than something you invoke. The difference being that if you have to invoke something, it may make you think about why it actually needs higher privileges. At least that's what I hope is the mindset going on here.
In any case, most evildoers are more after getting admin privileges and poking holes than running malware. Malware these days can be detected with ease and with Windows, UAC mitigates their effectiveness.
sample text reacted to Nocte in Linux security question
Linux has extremely low market share and is generally populated by technology-literate people.
If you were a malware maker it would only make sense to target the biggest platform with a lot of users who have almost no idea about what they are doing (Windows).
Even though I guess that Macs are soon going to be there as well as they are gaining a bit more popularity (and have their good share of tech illiterate users as well).
Linux with <5% desktop share is quite safe.
sample text reacted to WereCatf in Linux security question
That's not how it works, there are viruses and malware for Linux, too. The thing is, Windows - viruses and Windows - malware don't work under Linux, unless you install Wine (an application that lets you run some Windows - stuff under Linux) and even with Wine it's likely those viruses/malware would just crash. Windows is the most widely-used desktop OS, so most viruses/malware are for it and that's where the perceived security comes from -- any OS where Windows - viruses/malware don't run is considered more secure in practical terms.
sample text reacted to SolarNova in is it worth buying expensive headphones?
Yes but only if u dont have poor hearing and you have a good DAC.
No point spending money on a good pair of headphones and then run them of onboard sound, or some crapy MP3 stick, or your phone.
If you want somthing mobile, that can also be used with ur PC as a DAC, then conside a DAP, like the FiiO X3.
And then, try to get music in lossless format, like FLAC.
sample text reacted to Zodiark1593 in is it worth buying expensive headphones?
Leaving the EQ off was probably the least annoying setting I could find after a lot of listening. My music tastes vary so greatly that one setting cannot cover everything. The only music genre I actually don't like is Rap, though I listen to most everything else ranging from modern Electronic, to 80's rock, to Classical, and even Jazz, and the mastering itself introduces another variable.
It would be almost maddening to have to set the EQ for whatever I felt like listening to, so I did away with it altogether.
sample text reacted to Zodiark1593 in is it worth buying expensive headphones?
I kind of find the EQ annoying as different songs tend to require slightly different tuning to sound better to me. If I could put an EQ preset to each song, I might use it.
I have the Sennheiser Momentum On-Ear 1.0 that I bought on sale for $75 several years ago. They pretty much blow everything else I've owned out of the water, though doubtless headphones can get much better than that too.