From husmith at calpoly.edu  Thu Apr 12 06:18:43 2007
From: husmith at calpoly.edu (husmith)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:18:43 -0400
Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] [CPLUG] Please Help Make Cal Poly Email Stop
	Sucking
Message-ID: <461E31B3.4060205@calpoly.edu>

I moved this over to the chatter list since I think it's a better place 
for this discussion.

I use CalPoly's email and have no complaints.  I get a significant 
amount of email and rarely have problems.  Yes, last year it sucked for 
a while but it appears that problem has been fixed.

I do get some span but then again I get span on my gmail.com address.

So other than hating the man and rebelling against the injustices of the 
CalPoly administration... what's wrong with CalPoly email? 
Specifically?  Just sucks is not a very good data point.

Hugh


> If people would lose sensitive data through private e-mail, they are
> still at risk with the Cal Poly e-mail system.  Many users connect
> from home, exposing them to all sorts of security exploits.  If they
> are responding to one of the many scam e-mails present within the Cal
> Poly network, they also face great risks.  If we are simply talking
> about network security with the mention of proprietary documents, can
> we honestly say that Cal Poly's network is more secure than Google's?
> 
> 
> I just want a reliable e-mail system to use for education purposes
> here at Cal Poly at the very minimum.  The current e-mail system
> fails to meet this expectation.  Therefore, what choice do I have?
> If the cost for reliable communication in an efficient format is
> Google farming for my browsing habits to advertise to me, I am
> willing to accept that cost.
> 
> On a bit of a tangent, has there ever been an accurate statistic of
> how many students actually use the Oracle system?
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/12/07, Neil Hockaday <nhockada at calpoly.edu> wrote:
> 
> The Cal Poly email system does indeed have its problems, but I don't 
> believe that turning everything over to Google is necessarily the
> answer.
>> From a CIO / ITS Director perspective, I can certainly understand
>> the
> temptation to do so - Gmail and its brethren of hosted applications
> are very slick and useful packages that are being offered at little
> or no cost, and the desire to offload a troublesome and
> high-maintenance system that generates freqent problems and
> complaints must certainly seem appealing.
> 
> But the hidden costs and ramifications involved in such a move are 
> significant in my opinion.  Google's original mindset of "do no harm"
> has been with it since the company's inception, but that altruism is
> tempered by the simple fact that it is a for-profit company
> answerable to its shareholders.  The reason it offers its services
> for free is because of the money it makes from the targeted marketing
> services it provides by data-mining the information Google users
> provide it by using its products. Google is shopping around these
> products to universities because of the potentially tens to hundreds
> of thousands of new "data-points" they can add to their marketing
> side.
> 
> I don't mean imply that Google is evil, that they're bent on global 
> domination by sucking in all global information, or anything like
> that. But there are very real privacy concerns with outsourcing a
> system like email.  One hopes that the average user knows enough not
> to send personal or sensitive data via an unsecured plain-text system
> such as email, but we all know that isn't always the case.  Even if
> everyone were perfect all the time, as an employee I know I deal with
> documents on a regular basis for Cal Poly that while not personal and
> confidential are certainly non-public and possibly proprietary.
> Google has admitted that very little of what passes through their
> systems is ever truly deleted, and that fact certainly gives me
> pause.  Even without specific data sensitivity concerns, Google's
> data-mining is becoming sufficiently advanced that it can generate
> highly detailed and specialized profiles of individual users, which
> is what should give everyone else some pause.
> 
> It seems that Google has been heavily shopping for universities, and
> while some have taken them up on their offer plenty have not simply
> because of the privacy concerns involved, many of which stem from
> mandates of both state and federal law.  As I said above I can
> certainly understand the desire to use all of the great features and
> nifty widgets, and I have no problem with people *choosing* to use
> their services in a personal setting.  I just don't believe Google's
> business model is compatible with the university environment.
> 
> - Neil
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Dear everyone awesome,
>> 
>> <WARNING> Kind of a long email.  If you do not wish to read this
>> whole thing, please at least take the survey linked at the bottom
>> of the page. </WARNING>
>> 
>> As you all know, Cal Poly email sucks.  Like, seriously. I
>> personally have not used it for the past 4 years because it is such
>> a huge steaming pile of shit.  I thought at one point there was
>> hope: the migration to Oracle email appeared as though it would be
>> the light at the end of the tunnel, the dark tunnel of our webmail
>> misfortunes.  Sadly, this was not the case.  Oracle managed to be
>> just as crappy OpenMail, although to its credit it did manage to
>> look slightly better.  Great job Cal Poly, tax payer dollars well 
>> spent. Ehhh, high five!
>> 
>> However, there is a solution.  Google has recently been pushing
>> their Google Apps for Academia, offering to provide the enterprise
>> edition of their product to Universities completely free of charge.
>> Not only would the product be free, but Google would provide all
>> the hosting, and additionally handle pretty much all the IT
>> responsibilities of the system, effectively providing universities
>> with an enterprise grade Web Application suite with essentially
>> zero-cost of ownership. If we can convince Cal Poly that:
>> 
>> 1. using Google Apps, which includes Gmail, for academia will make 
>> students much happier, 2. this improved happiness will lead to less
>> bitching to ITS, and therefore less work and employee frustration,
>> and 3. the system and operational cost savings Cal Poly would
>> achieve by using Gmail for Academia could bring the total cost of
>> ownership for the system below that of Oracle system currently in
>> place,
>> 
>> then maybe, just maybe, we can convince Cal Poly to rid us of the 
>> festering behemoth that is Oracle and provide us instead with GMail
>> for Cal Poly. This is not an unattainable goal; because of the
>> problems that ITS has been having with the current system, reliable
>> sources (Victor) have noted that Tim Kearns (current ITS Director)
>> is already seriously considering Google Apps for Cal Poly as a
>> possibility.
>> 
>> Although there are a lot of ways to mobilize students to make this
>> happen, it ends up sometimes the most effective tasks are the
>> easiest ones to complete.   As such, I'm requesting that all of you
>> complete this Google survey regarding your experiences with
>> University email systems.  Its seriously only 5 questions, and only
>> took 3 minutes to complete.  So it is nice and easy.  You like?
>> Very nice!
>> 
>> Here it is! http://www.google.com/studentsurvey
>> 
>> Did you do it yet? No? Okay well here it is again just in case you
>> didn't see it 2 lines up.
>> 
>> http://www.google.com/studentsurvey
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you all in advance for being good Samaritans. I'll see you
>> all at Free Your Machine this Saturday! Derek "Let's make it
>> happen" Lockhart _______________________________________________ 
>> Cplug mailing list Cplug at lists.cplug.org 
>> http://lists.cplug.org/mailman/listinfo/cplug
>> 


-- 
---
Dr. Hugh Smith
Department of Computer Science
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo CA 93407
http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~husmith
(805) 756-2801



From rohen.peterson at gmail.com  Fri Apr 13 16:21:30 2007
From: rohen.peterson at gmail.com (Rohen Peterson)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:21:30 -0700
Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] Open Source Survey from ISU
Message-ID: <beaa4af10704131621q1607b2bemafb7b62eb6f449a3@mail.gmail.com>

The following message is a survey from ISU.  I thought some of you might be
interested in participating.
---------------------------------

We are a group of researchers from Illinois State University, conducting a
study on how personal values influence decision making in open source
software.  The goal of this study is to understand more about how values
influence software design decisions, and whether participants in open source
software projects hold the values which have often been attributed to them
such as a culture of information sharing, the desire for increased
reputation and voluntary cooperation.  We are currently pilot-testing our
survey which will later be administered to larger number of participants in
open source projects.

We have selected Linux and other free operating systems user groups as a
population suited to pilot test our survey, since those using Linux or other
free operating systems are familiar with open source and many are involved
at some level with open source projects.  We ask for your participation in
this survey.  As an incentive to participate, we will be conducting a
drawing for 6 $30 gift certificates to Amazon.com <http://amazon.com/>.

Our survey will require approximately 20 minutes to complete.  All responses
will only be used anonymously, and email addresses will only be used to
contact individuals who are winners of gift certificates. You will not be
contacted for any other purpose, nor will your email address be shared with
any other party.

The survey is available now, at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?A=185278222E53548 and will be available
for two weeks (until April 17, 2007).  We will send a reminder email in one
week.


Thank You,

Bryan Hosack, PhD
bhosack at ilstu.edu

Glen Sagers
gsagers at ilstu.edu

School of Information Technology
Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-5150

-- 
Rohen Peterson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cplug.org/pipermail/chatter/attachments/20070413/e48a2819/attachment.htm>

From cappaberra at gmail.com  Thu Apr 26 13:35:29 2007
From: cappaberra at gmail.com (Noah Pritikin)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:35:29 -0700
Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] [CPLUG] feedback wanted on a networking
	document I authored!!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261040270.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
References: <8d603bcc0704252031kca1eb05wc778ad0037173044@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260818440.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261035w52c9125ckac113370e407c03f@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261040270.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
Message-ID: <8d603bcc0704261335w242c1ff3if1bcc151dbe96792@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/26/07, Philip Shuman <philip at shuman.org> wrote:
> > As for your comment about layer 3 switches, i'm really confused.  What
> > I'm solving has nothing to do with layer 3... it's spanning tree,
> > which is a layer 2 protocol.  Can you clarify your question?
>
> With some of the cool layer 3 cisco switches, you can use routing
> protocols to determine best paths. Switches actually receives packets and
> forwards them to the correct interface based on the Layer 3 destination
> address. If it isn't an option for you, perhaps you could indicate why
> PVST+ makes sense in your situation. This first link below directly
> addresses STP vs Layer 3 routing:

The purpose of a spanning tree protocol is not to determine best
paths... it's to remove physical loops from your network.  So, how
does a layer-3 switch figure into this again? :)

-Noah


From cappaberra at gmail.com  Thu Apr 26 16:27:46 2007
From: cappaberra at gmail.com (Noah Pritikin)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:27:46 -0700
Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] [CPLUG] feedback wanted on a networking
	document I authored!!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261430180.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
References: <8d603bcc0704252031kca1eb05wc778ad0037173044@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260818440.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261035w52c9125ckac113370e407c03f@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261040270.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261335w242c1ff3if1bcc151dbe96792@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261430180.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
Message-ID: <8d603bcc0704261627m729c5d76if562633ff8f78616@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, so by that logic, if you have a physical loop then being able to
"router" packets won't matter since the network is down due to a
broadcast storm... :)

On 4/26/07, Philip Shuman <philip at shuman.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Noah Pritikin wrote:
>
> > The purpose of a spanning tree protocol is not to determine best
> > paths... it's to remove physical loops from your network.  So, how
> > does a layer-3 switch figure into this again? :)
>
> You allow multiple physical paths and let the switches pick the next hop
> based on your routing protocol.
>
> --
> Philip Shuman
> http://www.shuman.org
>


-- 
"Energy is Eternal Delight" -William Blake

Website: http://noah.cappaberra.com


From cappaberra at gmail.com  Fri Apr 27 07:48:59 2007
From: cappaberra at gmail.com (Noah Pritikin)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:48:59 -0700
Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] [CPLUG] feedback wanted on a networking
	document I authored!!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704262225020.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
References: <8d603bcc0704252031kca1eb05wc778ad0037173044@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260818440.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261035w52c9125ckac113370e407c03f@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261040270.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261335w242c1ff3if1bcc151dbe96792@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261430180.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261627m729c5d76if562633ff8f78616@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704262225020.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
Message-ID: <8d603bcc0704270748o66ccbd6dq9f72f7dab72fae4e@mail.gmail.com>

Ah, ok.. Yes, you are correct.  So, what layer-3 will do for you is if
you break up your broadcast domains (via VLANs), you can still build
redundancy in without using STP since there's no logical loops--each
link runs its own spanning tree.  In your opinion, why would you want
do this over a more "typical" layer-2 design?  I can see several
drawbacks...

-Noah

On 4/26/07, Philip Shuman <philip at shuman.org> wrote:
> Did you read the cisco page on using Layer 3 switching in place of STP?
> Clearly not.
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Noah Pritikin wrote:
>
> > Ok, so by that logic, if you have a physical loop then being able to
> > "router" packets won't matter since the network is down due to a
> > broadcast storm... :)
>
> --
> Philip Shuman
> http://www.shuman.org
>


-- 
"Energy is Eternal Delight" -William Blake

Website: http://noah.cappaberra.com


From philip at shuman.org  Thu Apr 26 11:12:18 2007
From: philip at shuman.org (Philip Shuman)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] [CPLUG] feedback wanted on a networking
	document I authored!!
In-Reply-To: <8d603bcc0704261035w52c9125ckac113370e407c03f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d603bcc0704252031kca1eb05wc778ad0037173044@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260818440.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261035w52c9125ckac113370e407c03f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261040270.4253@x.mikeynet.com>

(moved to chatter)

> First off, thanks for the note.  Let me clarify if it wasn't clear:
> The sole purpose of the document is to identify the optimizations for
> a very specific Layer-2 case.

Ok.

> RSTP was slightly discussed in section 1.7 
> (http://www.cappaberra.com/boeing/PVST+.html#1.7_Loop_free). Would it be 
> best to include the statement that 802.1w replaces 802.1D?

Cool. Sorry, I missed that.

> As for your comment about layer 3 switches, i'm really confused.  What
> I'm solving has nothing to do with layer 3... it's spanning tree,
> which is a layer 2 protocol.  Can you clarify your question?

With some of the cool layer 3 cisco switches, you can use routing 
protocols to determine best paths. Switches actually receives packets and 
forwards them to the correct interface based on the Layer 3 destination 
address. If it isn't an option for you, perhaps you could indicate why 
PVST+ makes sense in your situation. This first link below directly 
addresses STP vs Layer 3 routing:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk621/technologies_tech_note09186a00800951ac.shtml
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html
http://www.netcordia.com/tnm/tnm54/WhyDeployLayer3Switching.html

Philip

-- 
Philip Shuman
http://www.shuman.org


From philip at shuman.org  Thu Apr 26 14:32:09 2007
From: philip at shuman.org (Philip Shuman)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [CPLUG Chatter] [CPLUG] feedback wanted on a networking
	document I authored!!
In-Reply-To: <8d603bcc0704261335w242c1ff3if1bcc151dbe96792@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d603bcc0704252031kca1eb05wc778ad0037173044@mail.gmail.com> 
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704260818440.4253@x.mikeynet.com> 
	<8d603bcc0704261035w52c9125ckac113370e407c03f@mail.gmail.com> 
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261040270.4253@x.mikeynet.com>
	<8d603bcc0704261335w242c1ff3if1bcc151dbe96792@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704261430180.4253@x.mikeynet.com>

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Noah Pritikin wrote:

> The purpose of a spanning tree protocol is not to determine best
> paths... it's to remove physical loops from your network.  So, how
> does a layer-3 switch figure into this again? :)

You allow multiple physical paths and let the switches pick the next hop 
based on your routing protocol.

-- 
Philip Shuman
http://www.shuman.org