> * Only an idiot would attempt to run a meth lab by grinding up Sudafed.
Who said, "buy". I saw reports that pseudoephedrine/ephedrine containing products were being stolen off shelves. Of course, putting them behind the counter helps against this.
> It's way too expensive. It's better to just order a bunch of ephedrine from a chemical supply co.
Because that wouldn't raise any red flags!?
As far as the mentality of a law for logging purchases of such drugs... if the law said, "such drugs must be kept behind the counter", there would be many breaches of this rule, or it would be poorly implemented by the stores. If the law, instead, required strict inventory control with risk of fines... the stores would lock up the medicine themselves and take extra care in regards to its sale and prevention of theft.
I'll assume you're kidding, but if you're really serious.... He meant that the ISP is monitoring under the guise of catching pedophiles, not that they are monitoring him because he was catching pedophiles.
I don't know if you've been following what is happening in the world, but your data is being carefully analyized by the NSA and logged by your ISP.
I'm moving to Europe and it turns out that if I wish to take my cats with me.. they need to be "chipped". We're getting the RFIDs inserted in a couple weeks. I'm *really* against the idea, but... do I bring my cats, or not?
I've found that travel is the easiest place for people to become complacent with these restrictions. For example, RFID tags in passwords and fingerprinting at the border. Nobody complaints, but who would? If you do, you're a potential Terrorist, right? And, we know what happens to those that are merely suspected of terrorism...
>> Windows is lacking many significant features and qualities required of an enterprise operating >> system. > For example ?
Since this is the purpose of this thread, how about the lack of automatic updates for 3rd-party products? (macromedia flash and drivers being considered non-3rd-party as standard inclusions of the Windows OS)
>> I doubt that many Windows workstations are ever configured to levels of security even on par >> with even an average Linux distribution's default security. > Considering how relatively trivial that is, I'd have to say you're wrong.
First, with this statement being in regards to "workstations", which with the near impossibility of running with principle of least security under Windows, I would say that this is far from trivial. If it was so simple, there wouldn't be as many blogs, webpages, and discussions centered around accomplishing this.
> Which are exactly the same reasons Windows systems in the enterprise are poorly maintained.
Yes, as I recognized.
>> I've been around to clean up the mess after such guys, and it isn't pretty. > Yes, well, I've had the displeasure of dealing with Windows machines after the "unix guys" (or, > even worse, the "linux guys") have come in and try to run it like they think a unix environment > should be run, and it ain't pretty either.
Or perhaps your ignorance as to how it should be configured? The truth is that a good Linux/Unix admin has a significantly better understanding of general computer science, networking protocols, POSIX standards, etc. If your Unix/Linux guys are coming in and doing things, they're probably doing it right. Unfortunately, a lot of 3rd-party Windows applications don't like a secure system.
>> My argument is that Windows is less "enterprise ready" than other systems, but I agree that >> Windows is certainly "enterprise deployed". A system that is "deployed" doesn't necessarily >> mean it is "ready", or at the very least "less ready" than the competition. > If Windows had even half the problems people like you insist it does, then it wouldn't enjoy the > market share it does
Windows has the benefit of legacy. During at least one vital moment in history, Unix was too expensive and Microsoft stepped up with a less expensive product. There are many examples of better products not being the dominant platform.
These 3rd-party items are included in Windows update only because these are the same items that are also included on the initial installation CD of Windows. Both drivers and macromedia flash are installed in a stock Windows installation, so it makes sense that they will also be updated via Windows Update.
What does Microsoft being the authors of IE have to do with the lack of a centralized update system within Windows for 3rd-party applications? What does it have to do with the reliability or ease of updates of Firefox?
Try Ubuntu. See how it handles firefox updates. Now, look back at Windows and ask, "is Microsoft doing something wrong, or is the Mozilla foundation?"
I firmly believe in a centralized update tool. The reason that Firefox's auto-update mechanism doesn't suit you is because the Mozilla foundation is stuck with re-inventing the wheel to provide a feature that is SUPPOSED to be implemented by your operating system. Microsoft Windows is lacking an essential feature, and you're blaming Firefox. I don't blame you, because you probably don't know any better.
Have you ever used apt? No, Microsoft doesn't include any centralized auto-update feature worth discussing. Windows update doesn't update anything not made by Microsoft, so what is the point?
>> If anything, your argument is to mean that Windows has no place in the corporate world yet.. >> which, is true, but not in practice. > It's true in your delusional mind - hundreds of millions of corporate workstations running Windows > without problems and hundreds of millions of users refute your insane claims.
Windows is lacking many significant features and qualities required of an enterprise operating system. In practice, it is deployed, but in comparison to other operating systems, I believe it is difficult to deploy and maintain on a large scale. Even on a small scale, it is not easy to protect.
Give me a random list of 5 (home) windows users. How many of them have had a virus at one time or another? Spyware? How updated are their "3rd party" applications? Now, give me a list of (home) Linux users and let me know how far behind on their updates? How many of them have been 'hacked'? Linux provides a much more secure environment by default, and can be tuned to become even more secure. I doubt that many Windows workstations are ever configured to levels of security even on par with even an average Linux distribution's default security.
Enterprise deployments are a bit difficult, but I'll venture to say that enterprise Linux systems could possibly be less up-to-date than Windows systems within the enterprise, on average, for two major (and closely related) reasons: 1) lazy or inexperienced systems administrators, and 2) "it just works". Some administrators that do know how to work with the systems simply don't care, or are too swamped to worry about breaking something that "just works" -- but I imagine the percentage of such behaviors amongst administrators is the same with either Windows or Linux. However, in the small business world, I believe there are a number of "windows admins" that are simply placed in front of a Linux box. I've been around to clean up the mess after such guys, and it isn't pretty. If something works, they won't want to fix it because if upgrading breaks something, they don't know how to fix it. The number of such cases on Linux is probably higher, so on average, the number of broken, insecure, and outdated Linux machines is likely higher. Regardless, Linux is just as easy to update as Microsoft windows, in fact, even easier since updates also usually include "3rd-party" applications.
I would refute your argument that there are hundreds of millions of corporate workstations running windows WITHOUT PROBLEMS. You know just as well as I do that a Windows workstation without problems doesn't exist, in fact, no system is without problems -- not Linux systems, not Windows systems, probably not even calculators. My argument is that Windows is less "enterprise ready" than other systems, but I agree that Windows is certainly "enterprise deployed". A system that is "deployed" doesn't necessarily mean it is "ready", or at the very least "less ready" than the competition.
>> The problems you cited are problems in Windows, not in Firefox. In fact, Firefox has a built-in >> auto-update feature. On Linux systems, it is included in in the distribution's auto-updates. > So are you suggesting that regular users get write access to Firefox' directory? That's a no-no. Do you > give all users on your Linux/UN*X boxen write access to/bin,/sbin,/lib,/usr/lib...? Are you saying > that users on Linux get to update the one and only copy of Firefox on the system, sans sudo?
First, I never claimed that regular users should be applying updates. The argument is the the grandparent complained that Firefox isn't ready for the enterprise because there aren't any updates, but IE gets updates. The counter-argument is that Firefox provides an update feature, while IE doesn't. If you are to claim that the user shouldn't have rights to upgrade firefox, then the same argument should apply that they shouldn't be allowed to update IE. If a secure installation of a Windows machine won't let a user install updates, why would you think that a linux system allow it?
Secondly, in practice, a lot of companies give their users administrative access to their Windows computers, esspecially to traveling laptop-warriors. I think that giving users an Ubuntu installation, which includes graphical sudo for all basic administrative tasks has significant advantages over an "always run as administrator" setup on Windows. While some versions of Windows have "Run As", this feature is poorly implemented and must be manually, not automatically invoked.
If you have a controlled network environment, it would not be difficult to install SSH and a public key to every Linux desktop and execute apt-get on each machine (there are plenty of utilities available to facilitate this). If you do not have a controlled network environment, then you could give your users access to apt-get, or an apt-get frontend, via sudo. If you run Red Hat Enterprise Workstation, you can manage this all from a web-frontend.
> Also, your assertion that Windows does not provide a centralized auto-update feature is patently wrong. > Be knowledgeable before criticizing. You make open source advocates look like ignorant, frothing > zealots when you blow up into a clueless rant. Google for Software Update Services (or SUS). It is > exactly what you claim does not exist, and it works for all of the mainline MS products (Windows, > Office, IE, and their server products).
Last I checked, "Windows Update" and "SUS" will not look into a central repository on the internet to locate and apply updates to Firefox, OpenOffice, Norton AntiVirus, Photoshop, Winamp, iTunes, or any other application that isn't made by Microsoft.
I'll go so far as to claim that Microsoft unfairly leverages their monopoly to apply easy, integrated updates to their products without providing facilities for 3rd-party products. To say that Firefox isn't ready for the enterprise because it isn't included in Windows Update is to blame Firefox for Microsoft's actions.
> Firefox is nice for home users, but it has no place in the corporate world yet.
The problems you cited are problems in Windows, not in Firefox. In fact, Firefox has a built-in auto-update feature. On Linux systems, it is included in in the distribution's auto-updates.
The problem is that MS Windows does nothing to provide a centralized auto-update feature. If anything, your argument is to mean that Windows has no place in the corporate world yet.. which, is true, but not in practice.
As someone that used dual-processor, noise-poluting desktops for years, I can tell you that there is a major benefit for having dual-core on the desktop. Does everyone need this? Of course not, but there are significant advantages for systems administrators and programmers, the heaviest multitaskers. Compile, listen to your Ogg-Vorbis encoded music, burn a cd, and browse the web at the same time without fear or slowdown. I've been "back" to single-core for two years now and I've dreaded every day of it -- hopefully I'll get a dual-core desktop again.
Businesses can really use these technologies off the desktop. Personally, I've switched from AMD to Intel for my servers due to the low cost of dual-core Intel chips. I currently own four or five dual-core servers. On one machine, I have Xen running with 14 guest operating systems -- I'll likely add more once I receive my new SAN array. Even if one of my guests uses 100% of CPU, I can still browse webpages served by another guest without any indication of a problem.
First, VMWare is a company, not a product. I'll assume your speaking of VMWare Workstation or VMWare Server.
Xen can do this already, which is a better analogy to this described attack than VMWare Workstation or VMWare Server is anyway. Xen becomes your "host os" and then sets up your standard OS (Linux or BSD currently) as a "domain 0" -- the initial guest. Domain-0 full hardware access, just as if it was booted normally from the iron -- 3d acceleration on your latest Nvideo card runs fine. The described attack could be done today with a modified Xen kernel.
By the way, in Xen, like in VMware, subsequent guests (DomU) do NOT get full hardware access, but can be assigned hardware resources on a case-by-case basis. Some users have added PCI-based USB and video controllers, assigned them to their DomU, and setup multi-user workstations (two independent keyboards/video/mouse on a machine).
First, laws against breaking encryption have nothing to do with this argument, because the broken law isn't regarding communication, it is regarding encryption. No encryption is involved in this case, only communication.
Second, they were shooting packets his way, into his vehicle, his property, first. By the argument that he had no express rights to send signals into their property, they had no rights to send signals into their property. In fact, we KNOW he is allowed to send signals into their property, and visa-versa, because the 2.4ghz radio-spectrum is unregulated.
Now, he sent signals to their property, and their property sent signals back to him. Both acts were legal.
What the Cafe is upset about is that they sent him signals that they didn't want to. If they didn't want to send the signals, they shouldn't have. However, they did send the signals, and they had him arrested because THEY sent him signals! The cafe was in control of their signals and if they didn't want them sent to this man, they shouldn't have sent them, or they should have encrypted them for protection under the DMCA.
Now, they could arrest him for physical trespass, maybe, but not for violating communications laws. He didn't "access their systems", he legally operated over the 2.4ghz radio spectrum.
There is substantial benefit for the higher-ups to have end-to-end encryption. With an end-to-end encryption, the parties at both ends can discuss things like terminating the systems administrator or confidential information that may affect stock prices. With SSL, the systems administrator(s) can snoop.
Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's licensing for web hosts is actually *very* affordable. I say this as the owner of a Linux-based hosting company that has researched this.
With the SPLA, a hosting company can pay less than $20/mo for all their software licensing needs from Microsoft.
My company isn't yet offering any MS-based services, but we are looking to possibly add MSSQL Server as an option for those looking to transition their.NET applications from IIS to Apache+Mono.
> For one thing, this is currently being discussed for immigrants,
America is a country of immigrants. What would you think if your great grandparents were chipped? How would you feel if your great grandparents were slaves? I don't see much difference.
Btw, my wife is a (legal) immigrant, I wouldn't let her get chipped any more than I'd let myself be chipped.
PA is a similar story. They can now pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. No other infraction is necessary. The scary thing is that this pretty much gives them the ability to pull you over for anything, since you can't prove that you were wearing it, and a cop's word is golden in the eyes of a judge.
Meanwhile, in my experience, I've rarely had a failure of an OEM machine, while I've had failures in all my whitebox systems to date. For me, it is piece of mind, and also "someone else's problem". With my wife, for instance, if a system I built was to break for any minor reason, it would be my fault -- if a machine from Dell breaks, it is Dell's fault. I don't like being at fault, if I don't have to.
> My bet [other than you're making this up to troll] is that you bought returned > items which were damaged. EVERY SINGLE computer I've bought that was AMD used the > nvidia series of chipset. They all worked properly and never had a "plug usb in > and die" problem.
Potential Effect on System: Data corruption leading to eventual system hangs and failures. Long term component reliability problems due to bus contention.
Suggested Workaround: Disable the internal USB controller. An external PCI-USB adaptor can be used if required.
Resolution Status: Fix planned for future silicon revision.
Gigabyte.. I've bought two of their motherboards. The first had an AMD chipset and would reboot upon plugging in a USB device. No fix from Gigabyte was ever provided. I believe that a Windows driver fix was made available, which did something silly like disable the +5V line. It never worked on Linux. I ended up buying an add-on PCI card for USB.
The other gigabyte motherboard I bought was crashing at high loads, even with low temperatures. The jury is still out on that one, as it could still possibly be another component, but my tests showed the disk, memory, and power supply to be fine.
nVidia chipsets. I admit they're not too bad, but I wouldn't recommend them for a server. For a workstation, they're not too bad, I've used them. The Linux drivers could use some improvement. The onboard components tend to be pretty top notch with nVidia, as far as onboard components are concerned. If you don't have need for onboard components, nVidia chipsets are overkill.
Slashdot Mirror
> * Only an idiot would attempt to run a meth lab by grinding up Sudafed.
Who said, "buy". I saw reports that pseudoephedrine/ephedrine containing products were being stolen off shelves. Of course, putting them behind the counter helps against this.
> It's way too expensive. It's better to just order a bunch of ephedrine from a chemical supply co.
Because that wouldn't raise any red flags!?
As far as the mentality of a law for logging purchases of such drugs... if the law said, "such drugs must be kept behind the counter", there would be many breaches of this rule, or it would be poorly implemented by the stores. If the law, instead, required strict inventory control with risk of fines... the stores would lock up the medicine themselves and take extra care in regards to its sale and prevention of theft.
I'll assume you're kidding, but if you're really serious.... He meant that the ISP is monitoring under the guise of catching pedophiles, not that they are monitoring him because he was catching pedophiles.
I don't know if you've been following what is happening in the world, but your data is being carefully analyized by the NSA and logged by your ISP.
I'm moving to Europe and it turns out that if I wish to take my cats with me.. they need to be "chipped". We're getting the RFIDs inserted in a couple weeks. I'm *really* against the idea, but... do I bring my cats, or not?
I've found that travel is the easiest place for people to become complacent with these restrictions. For example, RFID tags in passwords and fingerprinting at the border. Nobody complaints, but who would? If you do, you're a potential Terrorist, right? And, we know what happens to those that are merely suspected of terrorism...
If you're going to go that far, why not just run:
;-)
echo $((100-64))
Sheesh... noobs
> And honestly. FLAC and APE get about 2:1 compression.
> So does ZIP, GZ and BZ2 when applied to PCM. What, exactly, is the difference?
My uneducated guess is the speed of decryption. FLAC may be better than, say, BZ2 when seeking.
>> Windows is lacking many significant features and qualities required of an enterprise operating
>> system.
> For example ?
Since this is the purpose of this thread, how about the lack of automatic updates for 3rd-party products? (macromedia flash and drivers being considered non-3rd-party as standard inclusions of the Windows OS)
>> I doubt that many Windows workstations are ever configured to levels of security even on par
>> with even an average Linux distribution's default security.
> Considering how relatively trivial that is, I'd have to say you're wrong.
First, with this statement being in regards to "workstations", which with the near impossibility of running with principle of least security under Windows, I would say that this is far from trivial. If it was so simple, there wouldn't be as many blogs, webpages, and discussions centered around accomplishing this.
> Which are exactly the same reasons Windows systems in the enterprise are poorly maintained.
Yes, as I recognized.
>> I've been around to clean up the mess after such guys, and it isn't pretty.
> Yes, well, I've had the displeasure of dealing with Windows machines after the "unix guys" (or,
> even worse, the "linux guys") have come in and try to run it like they think a unix environment
> should be run, and it ain't pretty either.
Or perhaps your ignorance as to how it should be configured? The truth is that a good Linux/Unix admin has a significantly better understanding of general computer science, networking protocols, POSIX standards, etc. If your Unix/Linux guys are coming in and doing things, they're probably doing it right. Unfortunately, a lot of 3rd-party Windows applications don't like a secure system.
>> My argument is that Windows is less "enterprise ready" than other systems, but I agree that
>> Windows is certainly "enterprise deployed". A system that is "deployed" doesn't necessarily
>> mean it is "ready", or at the very least "less ready" than the competition.
> If Windows had even half the problems people like you insist it does, then it wouldn't enjoy the
> market share it does
Windows has the benefit of legacy. During at least one vital moment in history, Unix was too expensive and Microsoft stepped up with a less expensive product. There are many examples of better products not being the dominant platform.
These 3rd-party items are included in Windows update only because these are the same items that are also included on the initial installation CD of Windows. Both drivers and macromedia flash are installed in a stock Windows installation, so it makes sense that they will also be updated via Windows Update.
What does Microsoft being the authors of IE have to do with the lack of a centralized update system within Windows for 3rd-party applications? What does it have to do with the reliability or ease of updates of Firefox?
Try Ubuntu. See how it handles firefox updates. Now, look back at Windows and ask, "is Microsoft doing something wrong, or is the Mozilla foundation?"
I firmly believe in a centralized update tool. The reason that Firefox's auto-update mechanism doesn't suit you is because the Mozilla foundation is stuck with re-inventing the wheel to provide a feature that is SUPPOSED to be implemented by your operating system. Microsoft Windows is lacking an essential feature, and you're blaming Firefox. I don't blame you, because you probably don't know any better.
Have you ever used apt? No, Microsoft doesn't include any centralized auto-update feature worth discussing. Windows update doesn't update anything not made by Microsoft, so what is the point?
>> If anything, your argument is to mean that Windows has no place in the corporate world yet..
>> which, is true, but not in practice.
> It's true in your delusional mind - hundreds of millions of corporate workstations running Windows
> without problems and hundreds of millions of users refute your insane claims.
Windows is lacking many significant features and qualities required of an enterprise operating system. In practice, it is deployed, but in comparison to other operating systems, I believe it is difficult to deploy and maintain on a large scale. Even on a small scale, it is not easy to protect.
Give me a random list of 5 (home) windows users. How many of them have had a virus at one time or another? Spyware? How updated are their "3rd party" applications? Now, give me a list of (home) Linux users and let me know how far behind on their updates? How many of them have been 'hacked'? Linux provides a much more secure environment by default, and can be tuned to become even more secure. I doubt that many Windows workstations are ever configured to levels of security even on par with even an average Linux distribution's default security.
Enterprise deployments are a bit difficult, but I'll venture to say that enterprise Linux systems could possibly be less up-to-date than Windows systems within the enterprise, on average, for two major (and closely related) reasons: 1) lazy or inexperienced systems administrators, and 2) "it just works". Some administrators that do know how to work with the systems simply don't care, or are too swamped to worry about breaking something that "just works" -- but I imagine the percentage of such behaviors amongst administrators is the same with either Windows or Linux. However, in the small business world, I believe there are a number of "windows admins" that are simply placed in front of a Linux box. I've been around to clean up the mess after such guys, and it isn't pretty. If something works, they won't want to fix it because if upgrading breaks something, they don't know how to fix it. The number of such cases on Linux is probably higher, so on average, the number of broken, insecure, and outdated Linux machines is likely higher. Regardless, Linux is just as easy to update as Microsoft windows, in fact, even easier since updates also usually include "3rd-party" applications.
I would refute your argument that there are hundreds of millions of corporate workstations running windows WITHOUT PROBLEMS. You know just as well as I do that a Windows workstation without problems doesn't exist, in fact, no system is without problems -- not Linux systems, not Windows systems, probably not even calculators. My argument is that Windows is less "enterprise ready" than other systems, but I agree that Windows is certainly "enterprise deployed". A system that is "deployed" doesn't necessarily mean it is "ready", or at the very least "less ready" than the competition.
>> The problems you cited are problems in Windows, not in Firefox. In fact, Firefox has a built-in /bin, /sbin, /lib, /usr/lib...? Are you saying
>> auto-update feature. On Linux systems, it is included in in the distribution's auto-updates.
> So are you suggesting that regular users get write access to Firefox' directory? That's a no-no. Do you
> give all users on your Linux/UN*X boxen write access to
> that users on Linux get to update the one and only copy of Firefox on the system, sans sudo?
First, I never claimed that regular users should be applying updates. The argument is the the grandparent complained that Firefox isn't ready for the enterprise because there aren't any updates, but IE gets updates. The counter-argument is that Firefox provides an update feature, while IE doesn't. If you are to claim that the user shouldn't have rights to upgrade firefox, then the same argument should apply that they shouldn't be allowed to update IE. If a secure installation of a Windows machine won't let a user install updates, why would you think that a linux system allow it?
Secondly, in practice, a lot of companies give their users administrative access to their Windows computers, esspecially to traveling laptop-warriors. I think that giving users an Ubuntu installation, which includes graphical sudo for all basic administrative tasks has significant advantages over an "always run as administrator" setup on Windows. While some versions of Windows have "Run As", this feature is poorly implemented and must be manually, not automatically invoked.
If you have a controlled network environment, it would not be difficult to install SSH and a public key to every Linux desktop and execute apt-get on each machine (there are plenty of utilities available to facilitate this). If you do not have a controlled network environment, then you could give your users access to apt-get, or an apt-get frontend, via sudo. If you run Red Hat Enterprise Workstation, you can manage this all from a web-frontend.
> Also, your assertion that Windows does not provide a centralized auto-update feature is patently wrong.
> Be knowledgeable before criticizing. You make open source advocates look like ignorant, frothing
> zealots when you blow up into a clueless rant. Google for Software Update Services (or SUS). It is
> exactly what you claim does not exist, and it works for all of the mainline MS products (Windows,
> Office, IE, and their server products).
Last I checked, "Windows Update" and "SUS" will not look into a central repository on the internet to locate and apply updates to Firefox, OpenOffice, Norton AntiVirus, Photoshop, Winamp, iTunes, or any other application that isn't made by Microsoft.
I'll go so far as to claim that Microsoft unfairly leverages their monopoly to apply easy, integrated updates to their products without providing facilities for 3rd-party products. To say that Firefox isn't ready for the enterprise because it isn't included in Windows Update is to blame Firefox for Microsoft's actions.
> Firefox is nice for home users, but it has no place in the corporate world yet.
The problems you cited are problems in Windows, not in Firefox. In fact, Firefox has a built-in auto-update feature. On Linux systems, it is included in in the distribution's auto-updates.
The problem is that MS Windows does nothing to provide a centralized auto-update feature. If anything, your argument is to mean that Windows has no place in the corporate world yet.. which, is true, but not in practice.
As someone that used dual-processor, noise-poluting desktops for years, I can tell you that there is a major benefit for having dual-core on the desktop. Does everyone need this? Of course not, but there are significant advantages for systems administrators and programmers, the heaviest multitaskers. Compile, listen to your Ogg-Vorbis encoded music, burn a cd, and browse the web at the same time without fear or slowdown. I've been "back" to single-core for two years now and I've dreaded every day of it -- hopefully I'll get a dual-core desktop again.
Businesses can really use these technologies off the desktop. Personally, I've switched from AMD to Intel for my servers due to the low cost of dual-core Intel chips. I currently own four or five dual-core servers. On one machine, I have Xen running with 14 guest operating systems -- I'll likely add more once I receive my new SAN array. Even if one of my guests uses 100% of CPU, I can still browse webpages served by another guest without any indication of a problem.
First, VMWare is a company, not a product. I'll assume your speaking of VMWare Workstation or VMWare Server.
Xen can do this already, which is a better analogy to this described attack than VMWare Workstation or VMWare Server is anyway. Xen becomes your "host os" and then sets up your standard OS (Linux or BSD currently) as a "domain 0" -- the initial guest. Domain-0 full hardware access, just as if it was booted normally from the iron -- 3d acceleration on your latest Nvideo card runs fine. The described attack could be done today with a modified Xen kernel.
By the way, in Xen, like in VMware, subsequent guests (DomU) do NOT get full hardware access, but can be assigned hardware resources on a case-by-case basis. Some users have added PCI-based USB and video controllers, assigned them to their DomU, and setup multi-user workstations (two independent keyboards/video/mouse on a machine).
First, laws against breaking encryption have nothing to do with this argument, because the broken law isn't regarding communication, it is regarding encryption. No encryption is involved in this case, only communication.
Second, they were shooting packets his way, into his vehicle, his property, first. By the argument that he had no express rights to send signals into their property, they had no rights to send signals into their property. In fact, we KNOW he is allowed to send signals into their property, and visa-versa, because the 2.4ghz radio-spectrum is unregulated.
Now, he sent signals to their property, and their property sent signals back to him. Both acts were legal.
What the Cafe is upset about is that they sent him signals that they didn't want to. If they didn't want to send the signals, they shouldn't have. However, they did send the signals, and they had him arrested because THEY sent him signals! The cafe was in control of their signals and if they didn't want them sent to this man, they shouldn't have sent them, or they should have encrypted them for protection under the DMCA.
Now, they could arrest him for physical trespass, maybe, but not for violating communications laws. He didn't "access their systems", he legally operated over the 2.4ghz radio spectrum.
There is substantial benefit for the higher-ups to have end-to-end encryption. With an end-to-end encryption, the parties at both ends can discuss things like terminating the systems administrator or confidential information that may affect stock prices. With SSL, the systems administrator(s) can snoop.
Microsoft's licensing for web hosts is actually *very* affordable. I say this as the owner of a Linux-based hosting company that has researched this.
.NET applications from IIS to Apache+Mono.
With the SPLA, a hosting company can pay less than $20/mo for all their software licensing needs from Microsoft.
My company isn't yet offering any MS-based services, but we are looking to possibly add MSSQL Server as an option for those looking to transition their
Perhaps then we will see "Logan's Run" before we get to 1984? It almost makes me happy that we don't yet have public healthcare in the USA.
> For one thing, this is currently being discussed for immigrants,
America is a country of immigrants. What would you think if your great grandparents were chipped? How would you feel if your great grandparents were slaves? I don't see much difference.
Btw, my wife is a (legal) immigrant, I wouldn't let her get chipped any more than I'd let myself be chipped.
PA is a similar story. They can now pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. No other infraction is necessary. The scary thing is that this pretty much gives them the ability to pull you over for anything, since you can't prove that you were wearing it, and a cop's word is golden in the eyes of a judge.
Meanwhile, in my experience, I've rarely had a failure of an OEM machine, while I've had failures in all my whitebox systems to date. For me, it is piece of mind, and also "someone else's problem". With my wife, for instance, if a system I built was to break for any minor reason, it would be my fault -- if a machine from Dell breaks, it is Dell's fault. I don't like being at fault, if I don't have to.
> items which were damaged. EVERY SINGLE computer I've bought that was AMD used the
> nvidia series of chipset. They all worked properly and never had a "plug usb in
> and die" problem.
The chipset was an AMD 768, a first-generation chipset for the original Athlon processors. Checkout page 14 of the following document.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/whit
Gigabyte.. I've bought two of their motherboards. The first had an AMD chipset and would reboot upon plugging in a USB device. No fix from Gigabyte was ever provided. I believe that a Windows driver fix was made available, which did something silly like disable the +5V line. It never worked on Linux. I ended up buying an add-on PCI card for USB.
The other gigabyte motherboard I bought was crashing at high loads, even with low temperatures. The jury is still out on that one, as it could still possibly be another component, but my tests showed the disk, memory, and power supply to be fine.
nVidia chipsets. I admit they're not too bad, but I wouldn't recommend them for a server. For a workstation, they're not too bad, I've used them. The Linux drivers could use some improvement. The onboard components tend to be pretty top notch with nVidia, as far as onboard components are concerned. If you don't have need for onboard components, nVidia chipsets are overkill.