Extended Validation SSL, More Secure or Just a Racket?
Nalfeshnee writes "The Register is reporting on the new 'Extended Validation SSL' cert currently being touted by Verisign. Vista and IE7 will be using this but not, apparently, Firefox anytime soon. For this the Verisign Product Marketing Director Tim Callan squarely blames the Firefox dev team for 'not keeping up' with their new technology. However, the whole thing just seems to be a way for Verisign to enjoy ridiculous markup on selling 'more secure' certs."
Somebody post this story.. I'm too lazy and I've got enough karma to care. Here's the article. Published 1 hour ago.
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/061025/19242_id. html?.v=1
this just in..
"Oracle starts with Red Hat Linux, removes Red Hat trademarks, and then adds Linux bug fixes," the company said in a new release. "Oracle's new Unbreakable Linux program will provide bug fixes to future, current and back releases of Linux. In other words, Oracle will provide the same level of enterprise support for Linux as is available for other operating systems."
Oracle says it will provide Linux support for "substantially less" than Red Hat now charges. The company said the Unbreakable Linux support program will be available for as low as $99 a year per system.
The company said it will maintain compatibility with Red Hat Linux. The Linux code itself is being distributed free on Oracle.com.
Kudos to Rick Sherlund of Goldman Sachs, who has been predicting this move by Oracle for months.
Red Hat shares are getting clobbered on the news. In after hours trading, Red Hat is down $2 at $17.51. Novell, which sells Suse Linux, is down 8 cents at $6.02. Oracle is up 8 cents at $18.70.
Presumably you are saying that something just flew over my head? Or are you saying it flew over the head of the parent? If you are saying something flew over my head, then I would love to hear what it is supposed to be that I missed.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I'm wondering that too. Maybe the joke is that the author can't count in binary either.
Maybe the joke is that he's one of the people who can't count in binary? See, it plays against the standard "10 types of people" joke.