|
Caged posted:It's not really flashing anything, you're using a program that understands your car to change values stored in a sort of database. HalloKitty posted:I was trying to make it general, but to be specific about it, my car is a Vauxhall Astra H (so, Opel - built in 2007), and there's a nice cheap Chinese clone of some expensive Opel specific diagnostic kit called "opcom" that can be bought on ebay. They often ship it with some software which you run on a Windows machine. So essentially, the setup looks like a black box that plugs into my OBDII connector, a USB port on the other end that goes into my Windows laptop, and some slightly ghetto looking software. I guess I should rephrase. I'm broadly familiar with how ODBII works and aware of the existence of CANBUS, but I wouldn't know where to start procuring software which actually lets me change values on the ECU. I've used generic tools for checking fault codes, and Torque is installed on my phone talking to a generic bluetooth ODBII adapter, but where do I find something which lets me use drop-downs instead of garbage strings? And where do you find information on what ECU values to change to enable cruise, automatic window control, etc?
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
evol262 posted:I guess I should rephrase. I'm broadly familiar with how ODBII works and aware of the existence of CANBUS, but I wouldn't know where to start procuring software which actually lets me change values on the ECU. I've used generic tools for checking fault codes, and Torque is installed on my phone talking to a generic bluetooth ODBII adapter, but where do I find something which lets me use drop-downs instead of garbage strings? And where do you find information on what ECU values to change to enable cruise, automatic window control, etc? I wouldn't honestly know what works for your car specifically, you'd definitely have to do some searching. Because although there are standard OBDII fault codes, for example, the actual control systems for each manufacturer are different, so the only thing I can suggest is to search online about your specific car and see if anyone has had any luck with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Reguarding cars: If anybody hasn't seen the horror that is Toyota's ECU/Drive By Wire system, you really should, because holy poo poo it is awful. It was so awful that they got sued and lost 3,000,000,000$. Such horrible things are in the findings such as: - No overflow protection. - No ECC ram. - Using a testing, unverified branch of the RTOS that was loaded onto their ECUs. And probably the worst of them all? Servicing the watchdog with a IRQ.  http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer-firmware--Bad-design-and-its-consequences
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Was that an in house Toyota development or some garbage they bought in from a company like Visteon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Caged posted:Was that an in house Toyota development or some garbage they bought in from a company like Visteon? Does it really matter? The code shouldn't be like that ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Bohemian Cowabunga posted:[VMWare Tools errors] Ah, RPC error spam, my old friend. The consultants we hired to oversee our virtualization had no idea what to do about those errors and apparently couldn't find the answer on Google. Took me all of 5 minutes or so but what the hell do I know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Does it really matter? The code shouldn't be like that ever. Well if it's the latter then it will affect a lot more cars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Caged posted:Well if it's the latter then it will affect a lot more cars. True, however a quick search for Toyota + ecu + Visteon shows up nothing, so I think it's just Toyota being poo poo heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I think that's what happens when the team who previously only wrote code for rain sensors or checking for failed lamps gets assigned to something important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Caged posted:I think that's what happens when the team who previously only wrote code for rain sensors or checking for failed lamps gets assigned to something important. No, that's where management gets upset because the parts that engineering needs will cost 15$ more per ecu. The entire thing reeks of cheap decisions to keep costs down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Megaman posted:I know this is on the first page but I just had to say that I've heard this before so many times, and it only comes from what's known as "corporate service people". The phrease "Open Source software is a security and legal liability" translates very clearly to "I know absolutely nothing about software and security, and this is a generic statement I'm using that someone told me to say to you when you ask me if you can install something better than what I gave you which is most likely total poo poo we had to spend a ton of money on and probably doesn't work the way you want." To be fair, there CAN be totally valid times when OSS is a security and (OK this one is the real biggy) legal liability. Without getting into details, I've been in presentations on how and why open source is managed in $BIG_COMPANY, and there are some interesting liability angles that I never thought of. You are right, however, in that "No open source because hackers" is usually a sign that the person making the policy doesn't understand what open source is, and an intelligent company will at least have some sort of open source approval program if they limit open source use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:To be fair, there CAN be totally valid times when OSS is a security and (OK this one is the real biggy) legal liability. Without getting into details, I've been in presentations on how and why open source is managed in $BIG_COMPANY, and there are some interesting liability angles that I never thought of. The most convincing complaint I've heard from a corporation w.r.t. OSS is that they can't get good tech support. I haven't exactly had my world rocked by the quality of support you get from $BIG_SOFTWARE_VENDOR for 5-6 figures per year SLAs, but at the very least for that money you usually get people who develop a relationship with you and know their own software AND your own systems intimately enough to remember quirks and past fixes and workarounds and configurations. I know a lot of mature OSS also has forks by companies who exist to provide these kinds of SLAs to big companies, too, but if $Director hasn't heard of them because it's not a Fortune 500, good luck getting him to give them a passing glance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:To be fair, there CAN be totally valid times when OSS is a security and (OK this one is the real biggy) legal liability. Without getting into details, I've been in presentations on how and why open source is managed in $BIG_COMPANY, and there are some interesting liability angles that I never thought of. Any elaboration here? I'm genuinely curious, because I've heard this assertion many times, but never seen it borne out in any real logical way. I've worked in shops that had 'security' problems with any code they didn't write themselves, but that's neither here nor there. Legal liabilities are hard to imagine unless you've tied some community project into licensing (using RHEL/OEL support resources for CentOS issues or whatever) and you're not violating the GPL by selling modified GPL software without sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:The most convincing complaint I've heard from a corporation w.r.t. OSS is that they can't get good tech support. I haven't exactly had my world rocked by the quality of support you get from $BIG_SOFTWARE_VENDOR for 5-6 figures per year SLAs, but at the very least for that money you usually get people who develop a relationship with you and know their own software AND your own systems intimately enough to remember quirks and past fixes and workarounds and configurations. The variant of that which I've heard isn't that there's no support, it's that there's no one to turn around and sue if a software fault happens which costs your company money. Edit: quote:Any elaboration here? I'm genuinely curious, because I've heard this assertion many times, but never seen it borne out in any real logical way. The AGPL is a good example of why to be paranoid, but the most memorable thing pointed out was the concept that any software which performs a transformation on some existing thing may actually apply the license to the output. As such, there is frequently a clause in licenses saying that the transformed output from the software is under a different license. This is all going off memory however. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Ahh good to see the blizzard took out the AC which interm shutdown the servers I had... They autoshutdown because of heat, but oh joy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Pissing me off today a Dell Poweredge 840 server from 2007. It works for a bit then becomes unresponsive, no blue screen, it just forces you to manually restart it because nothing works on the screen. Hard Drives check out fine, RAM checks out fine, nothing in the event log, sometimes it won't make it through the POST, Sometimes it can't find the array. The motherboard looked like it had a bursting capacitor so hey that's got to be the problem, replaced that today and the problem persists. Looks like a refurbished Raid Controller is in order. It's actually working at the moment. This is an old Fax Server, I've been working here about 4 months. Do you guys have any recommendations regarding multiple line fax server configs? We need to replace this thing and I'm wondering if there is anymore to than it getting a server and choosing which BrookTrout fax card you want to spend your money on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:The variant of that which I've heard isn't that there's no support, it's that there's no one to turn around and sue if a software fault happens which costs your company money. Volmarias posted:Edit: AGPL is particularly awful in this regard, but it's the only OSS license I know of with a "over the network" proviso, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:This is an old Fax Server, I've been working here about 4 months. Why aren't you using some fax to email (or vice versa) thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Why aren't you using some fax to email (or vice versa) thing? This fax server interacts with an electronic medical records system and I'm not sure that that is an available option. Also it has to be sent as a fax because of HIPAA regulations. Medical offices send loads of records to each other on a daily basis and faxing is the easiest and most "secure" way to send stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I used the words "management policy" to explain something about the way that a proxy (which uses those literal exact words to describe the same thing) is set up to a partner in my firm and they basically tried to get me fired because they thought I was telling them they couldn't watch youtubes at work. I will be so glad when the new hire is up to date and I can abandon IT forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:Pissing me off today a Dell Poweredge 840 server from 2007. It works for a bit then becomes unresponsive, no blue screen, it just forces you to manually restart it because nothing works on the screen. Hard Drives check out fine, RAM checks out fine, nothing in the event log, sometimes it won't make it through the POST, Sometimes it can't find the array. That sounds like the same issue we had with some PE 860. The RAID card had a bad cap. The donor card from a retired 860 developed the same issue about a year later. Ended up replacing the failed cap with one that was ordered from digikey. I think I still have a couple if you want to try replacing it. (Don't do this. They may tell you it's temporary and they'll order something to replace it, but they won't until it's absolutely necessary.) As for the fax server, I think the options they gave us were to either migrate to the 'Enterprise solution' (fax servers located in the corporate datacenter) or we could purchase a new server, brooktrout card and Rightfax software since all of our stuff was so far out of date. We went with the enterprise solution since that meant that any issues would fall on corporate, rather than us. One less thing to worry about. Not sure who you work for, but you might want to ask if there's an option like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:The variant of that which I've heard isn't that there's no support, it's that there's no one to turn around and sue if a software fault happens which costs your company money. There is a small percentage of people who need patches and custom kernels for special devices, but the HUGE majority of companies pay for OEL and RHEL because they want someone to support them, and for someone to sue if their production breaks or goes down. Why would a company want this? Because their staff is incompetent and thus can't support it themselves. I've been supporting Centos almost my whole career, not once have I, or any sysadmin group that I've worked with, had to call someone for help. That's what you do when you're a grown up, you take care of them problem yourself. You find workarounds, hacks, or you write it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:That sounds like the same issue we had with some PE 860. The RAID card had a bad cap. The donor card from a retired 860 developed the same issue about a year later. Ended up replacing the failed cap with one that was ordered from digikey. I think I still have a couple if you want to try replacing it. (Don't do this. They may tell you it's temporary and they'll order something to replace it, but they won't until it's absolutely necessary.) Cool, thanks for the input, I've go not corporate office just our EMR vendor who may have a fax solution that we can lease/rent, not sure that it's an option for self hosted clients though. I'll check that out. This current build seems to use the Windows native fax software. One big question I have relates to incoming faxes. It seems for incoming faxes to be dropped into separate inboxes you have to have multiple incoming DID lines setup. line 1 = email inbox 1, line 2 = email inbox 2, etc. Anyone know if that's the case or are there ways to route incoming faxes to specific inboxes if they come through on a single DID number?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Some old Engineer kept calling his laptop a labtop, and then he said back in the 70's or 80's they made lab-tops that sat 'on top of your laboratory table' and that's why they were called that. I wonder if you spent an hour Googling old magazines or something if that turns out to be a real thing. Sounds like the good old Compaq Luggable  About the size of a suitcase and weighing around 13kg. You certainly wouldn't want that balanced on your lap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Megaman posted:There is a small percentage of people who need patches and custom kernels for special devices, but the HUGE majority of companies pay for OEL and RHEL because they want someone to support them, and for someone to sue if their production breaks or goes down. Why would a company want this? Because their staff is incompetent and thus can't support it themselves. I've been supporting Centos almost my whole career, not once have I, or any sysadmin group that I've worked with, had to call someone for help. That's what you do when you're a grown up, you take care of them problem yourself. You find workarounds, hacks, or you write it yourself. Nope. We pay for support to cover our rear end. It's much better in the land of corporate IT to have someone to blame. We've opened a P1 ticket with <vendor>, they're looking into the issue right now sounds a lot better than "Oh Chuck down in IT is reading some man pages and blogs trying to figure the issue out right now". Corp IT is 110% cover your rear end at all times. Do we need VMware support? Not really, but we pay them an absurd amount of money anyway. Same with our Microsoft Premier contract. I don't really need to pay them 6 figures a year, but they are handy to have when some poo poo goes down. If it's production, it gets support. No support contract? No Corp IT support. We don't let CentOS in production, you go get a RedHat license and run it on that. Need someone to blame when poo poo goes wrong. You don't want to pay for it? OK, no support from us then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Megaman posted:There is a small percentage of people who need patches and custom kernels for special devices, but the HUGE majority of companies pay for OEL and RHEL because they want someone to support them, and for someone to sue if their production breaks or goes down. Why would a company want this? Because their staff is incompetent and thus can't support it themselves. I've been supporting Centos almost my whole career, not once have I, or any sysadmin group that I've worked with, had to call someone for help. That's what you do when you're a grown up, you take care of them problem yourself. You find workarounds, hacks, or you write it yourself. To repeat what skipdogg just said, I currently work for Red Hat. But I've spent the majority of my career as a sysadmin and systems engineer of some variety, and a very good one, not to be too  Not once did Red Hat engineering come up with a solution that we hadn't already thought of, tried, or implemented. We paid for support anyway, for two reasons: One: it allows us to make our business priorities Red Hat's business priorities. Want LUKS support for loading keys over the network so yanked drives are useless? Talk to your TAM. Don't pay for support? Patches welcome. Two: covering our rear end. If there's any possible way that there's a bug which causes data loss or loss of revenue, we want to be able to point the finger at somebody else and say "nope, I didn't cowboy up some poo poo that made you lose six figures". It doesn't matter how good you are and that these problems rarely happen, if ever. It doesn't matter how good you are. You cover your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:The variant of that which I've heard isn't that there's no support, it's that there's no one to turn around and sue if a software fault happens which costs your company money. I understand the CYA aspect: I just don't see any shareholder (or owner, or partner, or whatever) value in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
I would guess that a company like Microsoft is under 1,000 lawsuits at any given time. But don't the disclaimers/license agreements say you can't sue them for poo poo anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
There are definitely support benefits beyond being able to point a finger at someone. With Red Hat, For example, we used an extremely long resolv.conf search entry, up to the limit of the RFC (256 chars), during kickstarting through PXE. However RHEL 5.3 (?) didn't support the length. We opened a ticket and they actually patched the issue for the next release and then backported the patch into a custom PXE image and forwarded it for us to use. I'd have a hell of a time trying to replicate the fix. I could have probably managed it, but it'd have probably taken me days to get it right. There are downsides, too, though. Like the way they Red Hat forces servers to connect to RHN (external internet access) for licensing purposes. You can't simply download security patches for servers unless you buy a $XXk "Satellite Server" which will internally mirror the repositories, or "Proxy Server" which is basically a proxy passthrough. There is no quick, convenient rsync solution to provide local, easily updated repo mirrors for your systems like there is with CentOS, Debian, and basically every other linux distro. Unless, of course, you hack together some awful solution like one "patch" server that downloads and installs every single RPM available while using the "save the the RPM" flag, then shoves all those RPMs into some repo. (Don't do this!) Edit: for the record, Satellite Server AKA spacewalk is a barely-functioning turd of a tomcat application that was created in-house and some bright guy realized they could sell to customers for lots of money because some companies don't actually want every server to be able to have internet connectivity but still want patches and updates. AVOID! I must have submitted a dozen bugs I found in the first 3 months we used it, to which the reply was "This will be fixed in the next version, there is no workaround, sorry". Hate. Hate. Hate. Bhodi fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
So where's a good start for SQL that isn't loving oracle? I tried oracle before and it was loving horrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I've heard this before, too, and the question I always pose is: when was the last time a major software company was (successfully) sued due to a defect in its software? I understand settlements for this type of thing would be private, but seriously: when was the last time someone sued Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, Salesforce.com, Informatica, NetSuite, <pick your vendor> because of a bug? Never, and they laugh all the way to the bank with that fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Pissing me off today: I'm not sure we want to use this data hub you've created. Don't worry, it has every possible piece of business data you'd ever want. It's way better than that old data warehouse. Okay, um, I'd like such-and-such data with the employee ID stamped on it please. The what? The employee ID. You know, the unique business key for employees? It's used enterprise-wide. We don't have that. You don't have the unique business key for employees. Why would we need that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
dogstile posted:So where's a good start for SQL that isn't loving oracle? I tried oracle before and it was loving horrible. For a traditional relational DB, considering Oracle owns mysql now, postgres is your most common other option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
dogstile posted:So where's a good start for SQL that isn't loving oracle? I tried oracle before and it was loving horrible. It's Oracle, DB2, or MS SQL in my experience. Either way you might as well smash your dick with a hammer
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Looks like its MS SQL for me then. Its funny, I requested that they move me more towards Sysadmin in my review because that's what I had experience in. They said "hah, no, you've done oracle once" and moved me onto data while moving a new guy who doesn't know anything about sysadmin towards that path. I cannot  quick enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Like the way they Red Hat forces servers to connect to RHN (external internet access) for licensing purposes. You can't simply download security patches for servers unless you buy a $XXk "Satellite Server" which will internally mirror the repositories, or "Proxy Server" which is basically a proxy passthrough. There is no quick, convenient rsync solution to provide local, easily updated repo mirrors for your systems like there is with CentOS, Debian, and basically every other linux distro. Unless, of course, you hack together some awful solution like one "patch" server that downloads and installs every single RPM available while using the "save the the RPM" flag, then shoves all those RPMs into some repo. (Don't do this!) Bhodi posted:Edit: for the record, Satellite Server AKA spacewalk is a barely-functioning turd of a tomcat application that was created in-house and some bright guy realized they could sell to customers for lots of money because some companies don't actually want every server to be able to have internet connectivity but still want patches and updates. AVOID! I must have submitted a dozen bugs I found in the first 3 months we used it, to which the reply was "This will be fixed in the next version, there is no workaround, sorry". Hate. Hate. Hate. We sold satellite because foreman didn't exist, cfengine was underutilized, puppet was brand new, and people wanted a systems management product. Nobody disputes that it's troublesome; it's one of those things like virt-manager that everyone sort of wishes were different, but it's the least bad option. Do not use most of the features. With foreman/puppet/chef and reposync, you don't need it at all (and reposync works fine without satellite). But if you're a legacy shop or you want web management to manage package sets/enforcement, or you're heavily invested in cobbler, go for it. But new deployments should use katello. And you should look into reposync
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Well, the last time I touched it was almost 3 years ago, at my last job, but I was pretty sure RH disallowed reposync of the updates repo back then due to licensing issues (as our rep explained it to us). We looked REALLY HARD for alternatives. I'd like to say Sat Server was so bad RH desperately looked for something, anything else.  I haven't used katello yet, but I'm just glad SS is on long term support. Edit: 3 years, not 2. Yikes. Time is passing, passing... Edit2: just remembered our issue with reposync at the time, it only allows (allowed?) you to sync repos of the same arch and OS type as the server it's running. Not good for a heterogeneous environment where we literally just wanted a local yum mirror of all OS rpms, and own repos, to be updated with createrepo. Plus random 3rd party stuff like rsyncing vmware tools RPMs. Bhodi fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I would guess that a company like Microsoft is under 1,000 lawsuits at any given time. Read the EULA, you'll find a liability limitation that says they're liable for some absurdly small amount, like $5 USD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Edit2: just remembered our issue with reposync at the time, it only allows (allowed?) you to sync repos of the same arch and OS type as the server it's running. Not good for a heterogeneous environment where we literally just wanted a local tum mirror of all OS rpms, and own repos, to be updated with createrepo. Plus random 3rd party stuff like rsyncing vmware tools RPMs. Yeah, you can only sync channels you're subscribed to, which is a pain for multiarch, but it should be easy to have one itanium (or whatever) server reposync then rsync via cron, and there's no problem with creating your own repos with our rpms+your own+VMware+whatever, though generally keeping multiple repos is best practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Paladine_PSoT posted:Read the EULA, you'll find a liability limitation that says they're liable for some absurdly small amount, like $5 USD. The EULA says a lot of things, many of which may not be enforceable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:45
|
|