Snowden's supposed MO is that he was willing to risk the ire of the US and throw away his cushy life because of how bad the NSA was. Now hes in bed with the Russians, and you want to say "maybe he got scared"?
Come on, hes the one who is supposedly in the know about this stuff, hes the one who chose Moscow. Youd have to be a special kind of stupid to have a security clearance, contract for the NSA, and not know how repressive Russia is.
We arent Russia, no matter how much you might try to paint it that way. None of the people you mentioned own the media, no matter how much they adore Obama. You wont be arrested for insulting or protesting Obama. You wont be arrested for reporting on his failings; there are huge websites dedicated to it.
He chose to flee to the two countries with the BIGGEST free speech / surveillance issues in the world-- China and Russia-- after publicly blowing the whistle on much lesser instances in the US.
I mean we're throwing a fit about the NSA's capturing of "metadata". China just snorts up every bit of cell and internet data that goes in or out of any ISP or carrier, and they barely attempt to hide it. Im sure Russia is pretty close.
So yes, he had a choice, and he made it about 8 months ago, and it was a remarkably bad one.
P2Ping software illegally is taking something that isnt yours-- the right to distribute. Thats the problem.
Joey loaned you his toy truck to play with. Is it OK to paint it red? Wouldnt he be right to be upset if you did that, as you violated the terms of your arrangement>
Its not about the transfer speeds, its about seek latency. HDDs seek on the order of 5-20ms; SSDs are roughly 10-1000x faster in seeks.
So if you're reading and writing sequentially, sure, a 2-3 drive RAID 0 could match the SSD. But for database apps? No way. SSDs maintain ~500MB/s on random workloads on fragmented drives. An HDD would be lucky to hit 10MB/s in such a scenario.
A bank executive... was on the scene in five minutes.
Sounds legit. I know if I were a bank executive, Id be hanging out near my ATMs just in case "the people" needed me, like some sort of financial batman.
Yes, it was sarcasm. I was referencing the circular linkage on the website. Click "learn more" and you go to page 2, which links you to about (the homepage).
The joke is that if you click the first link, then the second link, you end up back where you started. It doesnt look like anyone got the humor though.
Gideon won on appeal through SCOTUS. Thats the entire point. If anyone pulls another Gideon, the case will be immediately won on appeal by any first year law student.
Exchange / server 2003 dont tend to just randomly blow up. Usually if you investigate you'll find something the user did, or some bizarre extenuating circumstance.
My favorite is when people clear out the "log files" to free up disk space, and then wonder why the information store wont mount.
I think you are dismissing your relative's complaints as habit too quickly. I got my brother on LO a while back, and he gave it a serious try (would have saved $250!) for several weeks before showing me several features LO lacked, like proper callout notes in word.
I myself have written term papers in LO, and compared with MS Office some of its footnoting / endnoting / formatting conventions are nightmarish.
That comparison sort of demonstrates the issue that a lot of geeks have: technical superiority is irrelevant. What matters is:
1) Are the features included the ones that users actually want?
2) Are the features included easily discoverable?
3) Do those features work consistently, and fit with the user workflow?
4) Is the interface polished and well designed?
Its worth noting that even during the ribbon change, people were preferring Office over LibreOffice. So either the ribbon wasnt that bad, or Libreoffice was that much worse.
Too many geeks will look at a product and say "but it does this!" while ignoring that its not what the user wants.
Gideon makes such an outcome improbable, and if it happens will end up in an appeals court with the case being overturned due to lack of qualified representation.
What are they teaching kids in schools these days? Back in my day Gideon's Trumpet was in the curriculum and we went over all the key / formative SCOTUS rulings over the US's history.
It might have been funny, if I hadnt gotten complaints from every single person Ive recommended oOO to over the years, and had every single one end up buying office.
And its not even like its just that theyre familiar with Office; oOO lacks serious polish and is sometimes maddening to work with.
The OP claimed that you couldn't get support on very old OSS software from the vendor (though this in itself is a dubious claim).
That was me, and its not Dubious. RedHatLinux 4 is in "extended" support / the last phases of its support, and thats ~2005. Nothing older than that is supported by them. No commercial Linux distro from 2002 is currently supported; not even the kernel is actively maintained (it was EOL'd 2 years ago).
You can find a consultant to support it, Im sure, if thats any consolation.
I am the wrong person to get into the nitty gritty of it, but I believe this is handled by Side-by-Side dependencies (SxS) in windows. I have only very rarely seen dependency problems on Windows, even going back to the days when XP was new and 2000 still roamed the earth. Linux dependency problems are less common but theyre definitely a bigger issue than Windows ones.
Microsoft is still supporting Vista, which is ~9 years old at this point. No other major OS vendor is supporting an OS that old; as I said RedHat is the closest, with their RHEL 5 support.
I am working for a large company and we are only just finishing the transition from XP to 7.
I imagine a transition from RedHatLinux 7 (Valhalla) to RHEL 6 would be similarly nightmarish. Lets compare apples to apples, shall we?
It is karmawhoring because Firefox is a far bigger problem these days than IE10 / 11 / soon-to-be-12, and at the moment the single biggest security vulnerability out there is a FOSS one.
Arguing that Microsoft is "bad" because theyre not FOSS (which is really what you are driving at) is irrelevant. Everyone knows they ship proprietary software, but that has no relevance either to this story or to the quality of their code. As we've seen, OpenSSL has a bug that has been hemorrhaging private keys and passwords for days while the closed-source Schannel has not seen such a bug.
Ideological spiels about how Windows sucks simply because its proprietary are really getting kind of old. If you dont like closed-source software, dont use it, but dont pretend that the license has an impact on code quality; there are a number of FOSS vs proprietary examples where FOSS is horribly deficient.
Thats from a blogger who very clearly is attempting to paint this as negatively as possible. Generally I prefer facts, not hysterical opinion.
Microsoft's official statement was that you must install a certain update in order to get further updates. Im sure I could find examples of that in all OSes; dependencies are nothing new.
Generally Windows bugs get patched fairly quickly. Obviously there are outliers. Making the claim that Windows or IE in particular are security nightmares is karmawhoring, becuase its generally not accurate; Internet Explorer 11 for example is generally considered more secure than firefox which is currently a bit of a problem child. How long did it take them to get TLS 1.2 implemented? And they still dont have the browser sandboxed?
Could you explain why "Microsoft has a bigger problem with having to support old platforms" than anyone else
They are the only big-name vendor who was supporting a 12-year old OS until a week ago. RHEL just a few years ago committed to supporting RHEL 5(?) for 13 years, which matches Microsoft's commitment to Windows 7 (both 2007-2020). The thing is, you can still call MS and get them to support XP if you beg with enough money. Good luck calling RedHat and getting them to support RedHat Linux 7 (not the enterprise one, the 2002 one).
Slashdot Mirror
Snowden's supposed MO is that he was willing to risk the ire of the US and throw away his cushy life because of how bad the NSA was. Now hes in bed with the Russians, and you want to say "maybe he got scared"?
Come on, hes the one who is supposedly in the know about this stuff, hes the one who chose Moscow. Youd have to be a special kind of stupid to have a security clearance, contract for the NSA, and not know how repressive Russia is.
We arent Russia, no matter how much you might try to paint it that way. None of the people you mentioned own the media, no matter how much they adore Obama. You wont be arrested for insulting or protesting Obama. You wont be arrested for reporting on his failings; there are huge websites dedicated to it.
Nice false equivalence, tho.
He chose to flee to the two countries with the BIGGEST free speech / surveillance issues in the world-- China and Russia-- after publicly blowing the whistle on much lesser instances in the US.
I mean we're throwing a fit about the NSA's capturing of "metadata". China just snorts up every bit of cell and internet data that goes in or out of any ISP or carrier, and they barely attempt to hide it. Im sure Russia is pretty close.
So yes, he had a choice, and he made it about 8 months ago, and it was a remarkably bad one.
In this thread: Geeks attempt to use technical devices to create legal loopholes, discover that that doesnt work.
P2Ping software illegally is taking something that isnt yours-- the right to distribute. Thats the problem.
Joey loaned you his toy truck to play with. Is it OK to paint it red? Wouldnt he be right to be upset if you did that, as you violated the terms of your arrangement>
Except, the overwhelming majority of the traffic both by incidence and volume is illegal, and the law DOES take such things into effect.
You can argue it, but theres not much point; judges arent stupid, and the hammer is going to come down eventually.
Its not about the transfer speeds, its about seek latency. HDDs seek on the order of 5-20ms; SSDs are roughly 10-1000x faster in seeks.
So if you're reading and writing sequentially, sure, a 2-3 drive RAID 0 could match the SSD. But for database apps? No way. SSDs maintain ~500MB/s on random workloads on fragmented drives. An HDD would be lucky to hit 10MB/s in such a scenario.
A bank executive... was on the scene in five minutes.
Sounds legit. I know if I were a bank executive, Id be hanging out near my ATMs just in case "the people" needed me, like some sort of financial batman.
Yes, it was sarcasm. I was referencing the circular linkage on the website. Click "learn more" and you go to page 2, which links you to about (the homepage).
The joke is that if you click the first link, then the second link, you end up back where you started. It doesnt look like anyone got the humor though.
It was a joke; if you check you will see that the two pages I linked to form a circular reference.
Gideon won on appeal through SCOTUS. Thats the entire point. If anyone pulls another Gideon, the case will be immediately won on appeal by any first year law student.
Exchange / server 2003 dont tend to just randomly blow up. Usually if you investigate you'll find something the user did, or some bizarre extenuating circumstance.
My favorite is when people clear out the "log files" to free up disk space, and then wonder why the information store wont mount.
I think you are dismissing your relative's complaints as habit too quickly. I got my brother on LO a while back, and he gave it a serious try (would have saved $250!) for several weeks before showing me several features LO lacked, like proper callout notes in word.
I myself have written term papers in LO, and compared with MS Office some of its footnoting / endnoting / formatting conventions are nightmarish.
That comparison sort of demonstrates the issue that a lot of geeks have: technical superiority is irrelevant. What matters is:
1) Are the features included the ones that users actually want?
2) Are the features included easily discoverable?
3) Do those features work consistently, and fit with the user workflow?
4) Is the interface polished and well designed?
Its worth noting that even during the ribbon change, people were preferring Office over LibreOffice. So either the ribbon wasnt that bad, or Libreoffice was that much worse.
Too many geeks will look at a product and say "but it does this!" while ignoring that its not what the user wants.
Gideon makes such an outcome improbable, and if it happens will end up in an appeals court with the case being overturned due to lack of qualified representation.
What are they teaching kids in schools these days? Back in my day Gideon's Trumpet was in the curriculum and we went over all the key / formative SCOTUS rulings over the US's history.
It might have been funny, if I hadnt gotten complaints from every single person Ive recommended oOO to over the years, and had every single one end up buying office.
And its not even like its just that theyre familiar with Office; oOO lacks serious polish and is sometimes maddening to work with.
Look, its easy. On the https://wiki.debian.org/Freedo... page, theres a link to Learn about Freedombox, which Im sure gives useful information on the project. Heck, that page even links to additional resources here.
Like I said: Easy.
The OP claimed that you couldn't get support on very old OSS software from the vendor (though this in itself is a dubious claim).
That was me, and its not Dubious. RedHatLinux 4 is in "extended" support / the last phases of its support, and thats ~2005. Nothing older than that is supported by them. No commercial Linux distro from 2002 is currently supported; not even the kernel is actively maintained (it was EOL'd 2 years ago).
You can find a consultant to support it, Im sure, if thats any consolation.
I am the wrong person to get into the nitty gritty of it, but I believe this is handled by Side-by-Side dependencies (SxS) in windows. I have only very rarely seen dependency problems on Windows, even going back to the days when XP was new and 2000 still roamed the earth. Linux dependency problems are less common but theyre definitely a bigger issue than Windows ones.
Microsoft is still supporting Vista, which is ~9 years old at this point. No other major OS vendor is supporting an OS that old; as I said RedHat is the closest, with their RHEL 5 support.
I am working for a large company and we are only just finishing the transition from XP to 7.
I imagine a transition from RedHatLinux 7 (Valhalla) to RHEL 6 would be similarly nightmarish. Lets compare apples to apples, shall we?
It is karmawhoring because Firefox is a far bigger problem these days than IE10 / 11 / soon-to-be-12, and at the moment the single biggest security vulnerability out there is a FOSS one.
Arguing that Microsoft is "bad" because theyre not FOSS (which is really what you are driving at) is irrelevant. Everyone knows they ship proprietary software, but that has no relevance either to this story or to the quality of their code. As we've seen, OpenSSL has a bug that has been hemorrhaging private keys and passwords for days while the closed-source Schannel has not seen such a bug.
Ideological spiels about how Windows sucks simply because its proprietary are really getting kind of old. If you dont like closed-source software, dont use it, but dont pretend that the license has an impact on code quality; there are a number of FOSS vs proprietary examples where FOSS is horribly deficient.
Thats from a blogger who very clearly is attempting to paint this as negatively as possible. Generally I prefer facts, not hysterical opinion.
Microsoft's official statement was that you must install a certain update in order to get further updates. Im sure I could find examples of that in all OSes; dependencies are nothing new.
Generally Windows bugs get patched fairly quickly. Obviously there are outliers. Making the claim that Windows or IE in particular are security nightmares is karmawhoring, becuase its generally not accurate; Internet Explorer 11 for example is generally considered more secure than firefox which is currently a bit of a problem child. How long did it take them to get TLS 1.2 implemented? And they still dont have the browser sandboxed?
Could you explain why "Microsoft has a bigger problem with having to support old platforms" than anyone else
They are the only big-name vendor who was supporting a 12-year old OS until a week ago. RHEL just a few years ago committed to supporting RHEL 5(?) for 13 years, which matches Microsoft's commitment to Windows 7 (both 2007-2020). The thing is, you can still call MS and get them to support XP if you beg with enough money. Good luck calling RedHat and getting them to support RedHat Linux 7 (not the enterprise one, the 2002 one).