Advice Please; How to "Quarantine" Hard Drives

[David Maynard]

?!? I assume you don't understand that the "C" drive is the drive that
I want to isolate the other three from or that it is the one that will
be used when connected to the internet, correct?


How is the "C" drive "completely unprotected", when there are
anti-virus and firewall utilities?




See my last paragraph.




We've been through this already...

Yes. And since you're obviously not interested in a workable solution but
merely complaining that operating systems don't natively support your
'idea' then there's not really any need to go on about it.

 

[Darren Harris]

OK, here is a procedure for you:

1. Assume your drives you want to protect are formatted as NTFS. The example
goes for a drive E:
2. Create an user account, for example "PowerfulMe". It can be a limited
user, too. Set a password on it.
3. Run the following (while logged as an administrator):

cacls E: /g Everyone:r Administrators:f SYSTEM:f PowerfulMe:c
OWNER_CREATOR:f

4. When you want to copy files to E: (while logged as a regular user),
right-click on blue IE icon, select RunAs, enter PowerfulMe and its
password. Enter e:\ in the address line. Click on [Folders] button. Copy the
source files to the drive. It's assumed that you gave PowerfulMe
read-permissions to the source files. When you're done copying, close the
Explorer window, which runs as PowerfulMe. You can also run copy with a
command-line script, if you open a command console with Run As.

You can have a separate account with write privileges for each drive, if you
like.

Since "NTSF", "user accounts", and "command lines" are things I'm not
familiar with, I'll have to do some research.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Darren Harris]

It was on some drives. The market apparently gave a great big yawn and the
drive manufacturers decided that they had wasted the 2 cents or whatever it
is that the header for the jumper costs and quit providing such a feature.

If this is true, then having toopen ones case and navigate to a drive
to manipulate those jumpers would have been a stupid idea anyway.

Of course it doesn't. If you _were_ willing then you would go with one of
the solutions that does not require custom drive firmware.

If I were willing.

The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that his "mind is on
lock-down". It may mean that he has seen the feature you want come and go
in the market without anybody to speak of wanting it.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It is the inability to
see the obvious facets of what I'm talking about. And what I'm
referring to was definitely never an option in the market place.

Darren Harris
Staten Island New York.

 

[Darren Harris]

The cost and learning curve might be an issue. The "relative support" is
minor--once you have OS/2 and Novell up and running they don't need much in
the way of support, they just kind of sit there and work.

Are you looking for a solution for a personal machine or for some other
purpose? If some other purpose if you gave some details someone might be
able to propose a workable solution.

Well, it would be my personal machine.

I'd like too point out that I'd be frequently erasing and
re-installing the OS(along with basic software) from one of the
quarantine drives back to the "C" drive.(This would be sort of a
cleansing operation).

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[J. Clarke]

If this is true, then having toopen ones case and navigate to a drive
to manipulate those jumpers would have been a stupid idea anyway.


If I were willing.

If you aren't willing to do what you have to do to achieve an objective then
you don't _need_ to achieve that objective.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It is the inability to
see the obvious facets of what I'm talking about. And what I'm
referring to was definitely never an option in the market place.

OK, let me try to explain this clearly.

You want to be able to write-protect disks.

There are two ways to do this--you can do it in such a manner that it is
hardware-controlled or software-controlled.

If you make it hardware-controlled, that means a switch or jumper on the
drive to turn write-enable on or off. Such a feature used to be common on
drives and no longer is due to lack of interest. There are expensive
solutions that achieve the same objective today aimed at the forensics
market, which is a niche too small to make it worthwhile for the drive
manufacturers to re-implement this feature in their drives.

If you make it software controlled, any attack that circumvents your OS
security can also write-enable the drive, unless you put some kind of
elaborate security system in the drive firmware. Absent a clear demand for
a large quantity of drives with such a security system, that's not going to
happen.

All current major operating systems except Windows 9x/ME provide some
mechanism for controlling write-access to the drives. If an exploit
manages to circumvent this mechanism then it will also be able to
circumvent any software-controlled write-enable mechanism on the drives
unless that mechanism has its own independent security enforced by the
drive firmware. So by using the mechanisms in the OS you're going to be
able to protect the drives from unauthorized writes as securely as could be
done with any reasonably simple software-controllable mechanism built into
the drive.

 

[Darren Harris]

I have no idea what you mean by 'unable' to 'use' your 'other drives' 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." Not
to mention I can't figure out what the heck that has to do with
'quarantining' drives.

Me either. I never said anything about "a third of the OS missing"
from the "C" drive.

I did read your originals and don't recall this new 'criteria' about the OS
spread over three drives, which would make 'quarantining' them rather
unworkable to begin with.

Again, I never said anything about the "OS spread over three drives.

Frankly, I think you just want to 'complain' that operating systems aren't
made the way you think they should be and are artificially manufacturing
'requirements' to suit your preconceived 'solution' rather than seeking
workable ones. But since you've decided 'it' is, whatever 'it' is now,
impossible I'll leave it at that.

I hope so. Since you have completely failed to understand what I've
said.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Darren Harris]

If I were willing.

If you aren't willing to do what you have to do to achieve an objective then
you don't _need_ to achieve that objective.

Well since you don't understand the "objective", you cannot say that.

OK, let me try to explain this clearly.

You want to be able to write-protect disks.

I want to protect my three disks from malicious code that would come
from my "C" disk which of course would be the "doorway" since it would
have whatever software needed for surfing the internet. I'm told in
this thread that the only way to protect the three disks is to
write-protect them.

There are two ways to do this--you can do it in such a manner that it is
hardware-controlled or software-controlled.

I know that.

If you make it hardware-controlled, that means a switch or jumper on the
drive to turn write-enable on or off. Such a feature used to be common on
drives and no longer is due to lack of interest. There are expensive
solutions that achieve the same objective today aimed at the forensics
market, which is a niche too small to make it worthwhile for the drive
manufacturers to re-implement this feature in their drives.

Again, if that was done, then it it obvious why such a feature
wouldn't be popular. Who would want to have to unscrew their case and
navigate to their drives to manipulate a tiny jumper everytime they
had to save something to any of their disks?

If you make it software controlled, any attack that circumvents your OS
security can also write-enable the drive, unless you put some kind of
elaborate security system in the drive firmware. Absent a clear demand for
a large quantity of drives with such a security system, that's not going to
happen.

Obviously. And certain people seem to have a problem with me conveying
that the developers/manufacturers have the technology to impliment
something as simple as what I said, but refuse to. To say they are
incapable of doing it, is to say they are extremely stupid.

All current major operating systems except Windows 9x/ME provide some
mechanism for controlling write-access to the drives. If an exploit
manages to circumvent this mechanism then it will also be able to
circumvent any software-controlled write-enable mechanism on the drives
unless that mechanism has its own independent security enforced by the
drive firmware. So by using the mechanisms in the OS you're going to be
able to protect the drives from unauthorized writes as securely as could be
done with any reasonably simple software-controllable mechanism built into
the drive.

And you do't think that an easily accessable switch on the outside of
one's case to control writes to individual drives would be a good idea
if implimented?

As far as controlling drive write via the OS, I was looking for a way
to *easily* and *quickly* turn off/on the write to any of the other
three drives, but again, going by what is said in this thread it
cannot be done. And obviously from what I'm told here powering down
the three drives *easily* and *quickly* to prevent writing to the
drives also cannot be done.

That's it.

Darren Harris
Staten ISland, New York.

 

[David Maynard]

Me either. I never said anything about "a third of the OS missing"
from the "C" drive.

Neither did I.

You said "the OS on all three drives" followed by "if my "C" drive went
down." If 'the OS' is "on all three drives" and one of them goes down, you
said the "C" drive, then that portion of the OS is now 'missing' because
the damn drive it's located on isn't operating.

Like I said, you're not interested in solving any 'problem' but in just
complaining.

Again, I never said anything about the "OS spread over three drives.

The exact quote from your own text, still up there, is "the OS on all three
drives."

I suppose that's another example of how 'clearly' you've explained everything.

I hope so. Since you have completely failed to understand what I've
said.

No, it's because you failed to explain anything with any clarity; instead
using such 'clear as mud' generalities as "work with" and "the OS on three
drives."

 

[J. Clarke]

Well since you don't understand the "objective", you cannot say that.


I want to protect my three disks from malicious code that would come
from my "C" disk which of course would be the "doorway" since it would
have whatever software needed for surfing the internet. I'm told in
this thread that the only way to protect the three disks is to
write-protect them.


I know that.


Again, if that was done, then it it obvious why such a feature
wouldn't be popular. Who would want to have to unscrew their case and
navigate to their drives to manipulate a tiny jumper everytime they
had to save something to any of their disks?

I believe that I pointed out earlier that it is very easy to attach a switch
to the pins on which the jumper is normally installed and put that switch
outside the computer case. If not, then I am pointing this out again.

Obviously. And certain people seem to have a problem with me conveying
that the developers/manufacturers have the technology to impliment
something as simple as what I said, but refuse to. To say they are
incapable of doing it, is to say they are extremely stupid.

If in fact they have that technology please be kind enough to describe it in
detail.

And you do't think that an easily accessable switch on the outside of
one's case to control writes to individual drives would be a good idea
if implimented?

Again, that feature _was_ implemented and nobody wanted it.

 

[Darren Harris]

Me either. I never said anything about "a third of the OS missing"

Neither did I.

Yes you did. Anyone can look and see that that is your exact quote. In
fact here is the entire paragraph:
"I have no idea what you mean by 'unable' to 'use' your 'other drives'
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."
Not
to mention I can't figure out what the heck that has to do with
'quarantining' drives."

You said "the OS on all three drives" followed by "if my "C" drive went
down." If 'the OS' is "on all three drives" and one of them goes down, you
said the "C" drive, then that portion of the OS is now 'missing' because
the damn drive it's located on isn't operating.

Your massive incomprehension is unbelieveable. *You* asked, "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?"

And I attempted to convey that *my first system* had the OS on all
three drives. So obviously the idea is that there would be a complete
copy of the OS on each of the four hard drives in the *new* system I
want to build. Now why would anyone want to stripe an OS across
multiple hard drives? I went on to say, "But thanks to the way
software is written, if my "C" drive went down, I still wouldn't be
able to use my other drives without major changes to my system first."
Which means that an entire copy of the OS on *each* of the drives
still wouldn't help me.

Now why is this so difficult for you to understand???

Like I said, you're not interested in solving any 'problem' but in just
complaining.

I've come to the conclusion that what I want to do cannot be done. It
is you who are instigating.

The exact quote from your own text, still up there, is "the OS on all three
drives."

I suppose that's another example of how 'clearly' you've explained everything.

How can you possible believe you can get away with false info when the
evidence is up there as you say. Anyone can read the posts. The key
word is "spread", which *you* said. Not me. And again I was referring
to a previous system("my first system") I had, and a copy of the OS on
each of it's three drives. But of course that could not have possibly
occurred to you, because it was logical.

No, it's because you failed to explain anything with any clarity; instead
using such 'clear as mud' generalities as "work with" and "the OS on three
drives."

The problem is your inability to comprehend what everyone else can.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[David Maynard]

Yes you did. Anyone can look and see that that is your exact quote. In
fact here is the entire paragraph:
"I have no idea what you mean by 'unable' to 'use' your 'other drives'
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."
Not
to mention I can't figure out what the heck that has to do with
'quarantining' drives."

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.

I said "a third of the OS missing from, as you put it,"
----> "the C: drive going down" <----
NOT "the C: drive" as you claimed.

Your massive incomprehension is unbelieveable. *You* asked, "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?"

Not a surprising 'opinion' coming from someone who can't read nor type with
any clarity.

And I attempted to convey that *my first system* had the OS on all
three drives.

Yes. And the word "the" is singular, as in one: I.E. "the O.S." The first
impression for "the O.S." 'on three drives' is "the O.S." 'spread' across
them, not 3 bloody COPIES of the silly thing as you now seem to indicate.
Why anyone would want 3 COPIES on three drives is another mystery you leave
unanswered.

So obviously the idea is that there would be a complete
copy of the OS on each of the four hard drives in the *new* system I
want to build.

And what is so 'obvious' about someone being nutty enough to want 4
"complete" COPIES of their OS on 4 drives?

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.

And it's a hell of a lot more common that someone keeping '3 copies on 3
hard drives'.

I went on to say, "But thanks to the way
software is written, if my "C" drive went down, I still wouldn't be
able to use my other drives without major changes to my system first."
Which means that an entire copy of the OS on *each* of the drives
still wouldn't help me.

Well, it might if it were installed on each; you could simply boot from the
alternate. But then no one knows what the heck YOU mean by a 'copy' ('copy'
of the CD? Copy of just the install files? a 'copy' of the files as
installed on C:? an INSTALLED to THAT drive 'copy'?), nor why you had 3
copies on 3 drives in your previous system, nor what the heck you mean by
(would or wouldn't) 'help me' (do WHAT? boot? clean C:? repair C:? recover
data from C:? or lord knows.).

Now why is this so difficult for you to understand???

Because you talk in generic riddles, adding information only when you want
to shoot down something (and you've shot down every suggestion from every
poster in the group who was trying to help you) and, even then, not
explaining enough of it to know what the hell you're trying to do or why.

I've come to the conclusion that what I want to do cannot be done. It
is you who are instigating.

The case is that your proposed 'solution' for whatever it is you're
actually trying to accomplish but which, for some bizarre reason, you seem
compelled to keep as friggin secret and unexplained as possible, is not
commonly available.

Whether what you're actually "trying to do," whatever the hell it is, could
be done or not is an unanswerable question given the current lack of any
sensible information about it.

How can you possible believe you can get away with false info when the
evidence is up there as you say. Anyone can read the posts. The key
word is "spread", which *you* said. Not me. And again I was referring
to a previous system("my first system") I had, and a copy of the OS on
each of it's three drives. But of course that could not have possibly
occurred to you, because it was logical.

It didn't occur to me because it's nonsensical.

The problem is your inability to comprehend what everyone else can.

<chuckle> Yes, I've read the 'understanding' of the others and they've all
given up trying to make sense of what you're posting too.

 

[Darren Harris]

Yes. And since you're obviously not interested in a workable solution but

merely complaining that operating systems don't natively support your
'idea' then there's not really any need to go on about it.

I'm the one who decides what is or isn't a "workable solution" for me. Not you.
Who are you to get angry and rant just because I will not use any idea that
*you* consider "workable"? If you want to do it that way, then fine. That is
your perogative. I also merely pointed out thatwhat I envision can be done if
the manufacturers really wanted to do it. And If you want to disagree with that
too, then fine.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Darren Harris]

Again, if that was done, then it it obvious why such a feature

I believe that I pointed out earlier that it is very easy to attach a switch
to the pins on which the jumper is normally installed and put that switch
outside the computer case. If not, then I am pointing this out again.

No, you didn't say that before.

If in fact they have that technology please be kind enough to describe it in
detail.

That would only give cause to continue a useless argument. But
obviously in involves present day technology. I already said that
there are no technological hurdles to overcome. Nevertheless, you
already said that it was done, so why ask?

Again, that feature _was_ implemented and nobody wanted it.

Again, there would be no readon for me to describe it then. But since
you said it was implemented, would you be kind enough to describe that
technology in detail? Hmmmmm?

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[J. Clarke]

No, you didn't say that before.


That would only give cause to continue a useless argument. But
obviously in involves present day technology. I already said that
there are no technological hurdles to overcome. Nevertheless, you
already said that it was done, so why ask?


Again, there would be no readon for me to describe it then. But since
you said it was implemented, would you be kind enough to describe that
technology in detail? Hmmmmm?

Set the jumper, the write line is disconnected. Or set the jumper, the
onboard processor ignores any write commands. I suspect that both
approaches were used at different times.

It's easy to say "the industry knows how to do this". That doesn't get the
job done. In 1940 the statement that "American scientists know how to make
an atomic bomb" was true. But getting from theory to product took one of
the largest engineering development programs in history. In 1960 the
statement that "American scientists know how to put a man on the Moon" was
true. Getting from theory to footprints was another huge engineering
program.

Write protecting drives is not so difficult an engineering challenge, but if
you don't have any idea how it would be accomplished then you should not
expect claims such as "the developers/manufacturers have the technology to
impliment something as simple as what I said, but refuse to" to go
unchallenged.

But getting back to the original point, there is not enough market for this
to make it worthwhile for the drive manufacturers to continue to implement
it, so it's not going to happen.

You might find <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/sciencetech/cftt.htm> to be of
interest. Given the price of those devices, if there is a real mass-market
for this capability, seems to me that you could make yourself rich by
coming out with a hardware write blocker for, say, $50 instead of $500.

 

[David Maynard]

I'm the one who decides what is or isn't a "workable solution" for me. Not you.
Who are you to get angry and rant just because I will not use any idea that
*you* consider "workable"? If you want to do it that way, then fine. That is
your perogative. I also merely pointed out thatwhat I envision can be done if
the manufacturers really wanted to do it. And If you want to disagree with that
too, then fine.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

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.

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.

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'.

 

[Darren Harris]

Me either. I never said anything about "a third of the OS missing"

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.

I said "a third of the OS missing from, as you put it,"
----> "the C: drive going down" <----
NOT "the C: drive" as you claimed.

Are really that dense? I know what you said. I reposted that quote
didn't I? I'm looking at where you placed your quotation marks and I
have no idea what argument you are trying to conjure up this time in
your head. Are you on medication? I only quoted exactly what you said.
That means LOOK IN BETWEEN THE QUOTATION MARKS. Anything else would be
*my* words.

Not a surprising 'opinion' coming from someone who can't read nor type with
any clarity.

Everyone else understands but you. So if it is not clear then
obviously you are the problem.

Yes. And the word "the" is singular, as in one: I.E. "the O.S." The first
impression for "the O.S." 'on three drives' is "the O.S." 'spread' across
them, not 3 bloody COPIES of the silly thing as you now seem to indicate.
Why anyone would want 3 COPIES on three drives is another mystery you leave
unanswered.

That's right. Like you said "the O.S." means one operating system.
You're the only one who would be dense enough not to understand that
one operating system can be copied to three different drives. If I
said I had the O.S. on three computers you would still be dense enough
to find an issue, when everyone else would easy understand. 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.

And what is so 'obvious' about someone being nutty enough to want 4
"complete" COPIES of their OS on 4 drives?

Honestly, this is like arguing with a mentally handicapped individual,
but since I have nothing else to do...

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?
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.

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. 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.""

Duh, is right.

And it's a hell of a lot more common that someone keeping '3 copies on 3
hard drives'.
Sigh...


Well, it might if it were installed on each; you could simply boot from the
alternate. But then no one knows what the heck YOU mean by a 'copy' ('copy'
of the CD? Copy of just the install files? a 'copy' of the files as
installed on C:? an INSTALLED to THAT drive 'copy'?), nor why you had 3
copies on 3 drives in your previous system, nor what the heck you mean by
(would or wouldn't) 'help me' (do WHAT? boot? clean C:? repair C:? recover
data from C:? or lord knows.).

The sheer stupidity of everything you said in that paragraph is just
more proof that you just feel like finding issue with everything said,
but at this point you are starting to look extremely retarded.

Because you talk in generic riddles, adding information only when you want
to shoot down something (and you've shot down every suggestion from every
poster in the group who was trying to help you) and, even then, not
explaining enough of it to know what the hell you're trying to do or why.

You cannot comprehend what a novice would understand and then blame me
for not being clear enough for you. There is a reason that no one else
is asking the questions you are asking. They are probably laughing at
this point.

The case is that your proposed 'solution' for whatever it is you're
actually trying to accomplish but which, for some bizarre reason, you seem
compelled to keep as friggin secret and unexplained as possible, is not
commonly available.

How would you know when you can't comprehend what I'm trying to
accomplish?

Whether what you're actually "trying to do," whatever the hell it is, could
be done or not is an unanswerable question given the current lack of any
sensible information about it.

I already have the answer. The rest of this thread is garbage.

It didn't occur to me because it's nonsensical.

To you...

<chuckle> Yes, I've read the 'understanding' of the others and they've all
given up trying to make sense of what you're posting too.

Actually they have understood and posted their answers. You on the
other hand...

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Darren Harris]

And you do't think that an easily accessable switch on the outside of

Set the jumper, the write line is disconnected. Or set the jumper, the
onboard processor ignores any write commands. I suspect that both
approaches were used at different times.

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?

It's easy to say "the industry knows how to do this". That doesn't get the
job done. In 1940 the statement that "American scientists know how to make
an atomic bomb" was true. But getting from theory to product took one of
the largest engineering development programs in history. In 1960 the
statement that "American scientists know how to put a man on the Moon" was
true. Getting from theory to footprints was another huge engineering
program.

?!? In 1940 America did *not* know how to make an atomic bomb. 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.

Write protecting drives is not so difficult an engineering challenge, but if
you don't have any idea how it would be accomplished then you should not
expect claims such as "the developers/manufacturers have the technology to
impliment something as simple as what I said, but refuse to" to go
unchallenged.

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 to
a drive and routing control of same to a switch bank that is easily
accessible *outside* of the PC case? There would be no oprning up of
the case or swapping drives between bays just to turn off the write.
I'm merely *attempting* to convey that it would take little for the
manufacturers to implement this.

But getting back to the original point, there is not enough market for this
to make it worthwhile for the drive manufacturers to continue to implement
it, so it's not going to happen.

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?

You might find <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/sciencetech/cftt.htm> to be of
interest. Given the price of those devices, if there is a real mass-market
for this capability, seems to me that you could make yourself rich by
coming out with a hardware write blocker for, say, $50 instead of $500.

Would you buy a Grey Hound bus just to take yourself to work?

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

I'm looking at where you placed your quotation marks and I
have no idea what argument you are trying to conjure up this time in
your head. Are you on medication? I only quoted exactly what you said.
That means LOOK IN BETWEEN THE QUOTATION MARKS. Anything else would be
*my* words.

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."

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.

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.

That's right. Like you said "the O.S." means one operating system.
You're the only one who would be dense enough not to understand that
one operating system can be copied to three different drives.

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'.

If I
said I had the O.S. on three computers you would still be dense enough
to find an issue, when everyone else would easy understand.

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.

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

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.

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."

Honestly, this is like arguing with a mentally handicapped individual,

I admit to not being a mind reader.

but since I have nothing else to do...

That's apparent.

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.

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).

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?

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.

Sigh...

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

The sheer stupidity of everything you said in that paragraph is just
more proof that you just feel like finding issue with everything said,
but at this point you are starting to look extremely retarded.

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

You cannot comprehend what a novice would understand and then blame me
for not being clear enough for you. There is a reason that no one else
is asking the questions you are asking. They are probably laughing at
this point.

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

How would you know when you can't comprehend what I'm trying to
accomplish?

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

I already have the answer. The rest of this thread is garbage.

Be happy in your misery.

To you...

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.

Actually they have understood and posted their answers. You on the
other hand...

Enjoy the fantasy.

 

[J. Clarke]

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.

?!? 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.

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.

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.

to
a drive and routing control of same to a switch bank that is easily
accessible *outside* of the PC case? There would be no oprning up of
the case or swapping drives between bays just to turn off the write.
I'm merely *attempting* to convey that it would take little for the
manufacturers to implement this.

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?

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"?

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.

 

[Darren Harris]

Are really that dense? I know what you said.

Obviously not.

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.

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?


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.

That's apparent.

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

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.

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.

Oh really? I guess that's why it's so commonly done, eh?

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

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.