Why do you say "only Ubuntu/Upstart"? All distro, nowadays, are using different init systems. Fedora is using systemd, Ubuntu uses upstart, Gentoo uses OpenRC, and Debian still uses sysvrc/insserv. None are compatible with each other. In other words: there's no way any daemon will work properly (and I'm not even talking about dependency booting...). How do you deal with that?
I have an unusual name and my accent makes it hard for me to spell things out, I have to start talking Golf, Oscar, Whiskey, Alpha etc.
Gowa is indeed a quite unusual name!:)
And I hate the awkward pauses when they're doing something at their end and we're both sitting there in silence.
Oh, exactly! And on the other side, it's stressful after 10 seconds. And putting the customer on hold listening to the stupid music doesn't feel right either.
Reading you, it looks like I'm trying to be bad with our customers. That's not at all the case. I do my best to serve them as much as I can. I just find it more easy and less stressful on the chat than on the phone. Is there something wrong with it? Absolutely not! I agree with the other guy commenting: get a cup of coffee and relax.
My system is MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, AIM, GTalk or Skype. Customers love to use that instead of a stupid proprietary web based chat system. Last time I checked, pidgin supports multiple conversations at once!:)
Oh, and the evaluation is the customer's satisfaction, and it seems ok for them...:P
Funny that I read this, when I have the total opposite experience. I found that it's cool to use the chat, so that people can actually type their domain names, account names, or whatever. I found restful that people aren't on the phone and expect you to fix in the second, or find their account immediately. It's also very nice that I can cut/past URL, like for example the one explaining what a glue record is on wikipedia and so on. It's also quite cool if a customer types slowly, that way, I can continue to do what I was doing at the same time, but anyway, it's very rare that our customers are typing that slow.
Maybe this has to do with the type of customers you get on the other side of the line (ours might know more).
Frankly, mod parent up. A simple check on taobao shows that the first price for a 8GB USB key is around 25 Yuan, or about 4 USD, which is 10 times less than the 50 USD difference. So yes, $50 for 8GB really is a terrible deal.
- Or google closing all of your accounts because you don't fit in the TOS
- Or google reporting all of your moves to your boss
- Or google deciding your company is worth nothing and its stock going down leading to bankruptcy
- Or google refusing to drive you somewhere, and refusing that you drive yourself
- Or google...
Well, yes, I did imagine all of them, and it scares me.
Data center redundancy isn't "cheap" to write for a complex software. So you got risk a lot of money per hours of down time to invest in that. I don't think that's something a lot of companies can afford, unless they start their software design with this in mind to begin with. So the problem to me, is that data center redundancy is often an after though, and IaaS hardly has easy answers to this problem yet.
Re:When multiple major versions aren't installed
on
The PHP Singularity
·
· Score: 1
Gosh! Are you really maintaining some PHP4 stuff in 2012? What's the site(s) so we can hack it?
What you are describing is exactly what's happening in the history of PHP. Things got deprecated in PHP 5.3, and they actually don't work at all in PHP 5.4! The mysql_escape_string isn't one of these IIRC, but that's truth for many other stuff.
Instead, to do the same thing you now have to write: return $var = &new ProtectedClass();
This, in PHP 5.3 would do "Return new as reference is deprecated". This would crash in PHP 5.4 IIRC.
Now, on that same page, I'm seeing a pattern of people doing the usual rant about the === thing, but this goes absolutely nowhere. It's equally stupid to write == in C in an if statement, but nobody is complaining about it. The rest of the argumentation is crap too. I just don't buy into such silly rants.
This doesn't change the fact that in 2 days, we have 2 article using the war hyperbole, when no real weapon have been used. This is fear mongering, nothing else. Writing something like:
Negotiation only buys them more time.
is really harmful. As if a real war wasn't avoidable. Truth is, the only country trying to go on war is USA (and probably Israel too, but not openly). Do you work for the NSA?
Let's say USA had bombed the facility ONCE, then went away. Would you call this a war? I don't think so. Maybe "an act of war" but not a war in itself, as opposed to Afghanistan or Iraq.
Could we stop such stupid wording? There's no war here. Nobody has died or is dying because of what they are pretending are weapons, which are in fact just a bunch of bits. This is becoming very silly, and I don't buy into this propaganda.
And by the way, instead of falsely using an important word such as "war", we'd better highlight and focus on how much Microsoft is the responsible here. Responsible in both having stupid security holes (come on... executing code in a.lnk!!!) and not doing security house keeping correctly (files signed with certs they should be in the control of in the case of flame, and windows update not being totally unsafe).
We aren't talking about a company which goal would be to make money. We're talking about the Internet governance. You should be comparing such a position with a job at the UN rather than at a big corp. You're being fooled by the word CEO here.
I agree. Plus exactly what risk taking is this position about that would justify the salary? (btw: how can one fuck-up the ICANN more than it is at the moment?)
$800,000 isn't even all that much, when you're talking about executive pay.
We're talking about an honorific position here, of someone who should be listening to the world. We aren't talking about the CEO of a big corp/bank making billions. Oh and when we're at it: even bankers shouldn't get that much. Let's put it this way: for ANY position, this is too much money, yet even more in the case of ICANN, where it should be a charge rather than a gift.
Do you know how to run it? Seriously, everyone here has an opinion but do you have the expertise to run it? In a way that would make everyone happy and that would be net neutral and that would satisfy politics? In the real world? In a way that would allow Nepal to bitch and China to still express an opinion and have both the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Premier ready to come visit you at your house for drinks and a round of golf with you and Bill Murray?
Hell, yes I'd do it better. It wouldn't be hard to. Currently, the TLD thing shows how corrupt the system is. And I really don't understand why you are talking about WenJiaBao, or the Dalai Lama in the same sentence when we are talking about ICANN: you must have smoked weed or something. But when we're at it: that's the problem, politics should not be involved in something that should stay neutral.
Bitch about $800k all you want, but at $400k I think we get a $400k run internet. Pay for performance is a world-wide metric. Do I want someone to do it for free? No, because that is what I will get in return.
At the beginning of the Internet, it wasn't run by a company, and it was working well. The way ICANN runs things, and how much it is sold to the cause of super corporations and corrupt government goes together with such outrageous salary, so I'm not surprised. Oh, and by the way, what's so hard in distributing/assigning a bunch of numbers to the world, and a bunch of words in the alphabet? Nothing technically hard to do in my book. I hope you will agree with that at least.
Open source it? Ok, which nation gets to run THAT? Anarchy? No thanks.
The ICANN isn't a software, I don't understand why you are talking about open source here. By the way, for the moment, it's USA gets all, and it's not fair, so yes, change would anyway go in the right direction. I don't think that anyone wants anarchy, but a say in whats going on.
The internet is not utopia.
It doesn't have to be one, but if at least, it could escape the control of big corps and gets back to the hands of the people, that'd be a great thing.
It is actually, however, the one resource no world power controls.
Are you sure of that? Think again please...
RIAA and MPAA and a lot of other corporate powers would like to control it, a lot of nations would like to control it, but for $800k I am happy to let someone run one part of it who (a) Knows what he is doing and (b) makes enough doing so that bribery is not a major source of income.
Do you really think there isn't going to be some lobby trying to push their agenda? Do you confirm that this never happened in the past?
I have perfectly understood what the problem is. BTW, to the best of my knowledge, encryption isn't involved here, only signing of blobs.
My point is, why do we even need what you call "remote attestation" as you call it? Why can't the user decide by itself which key it will trust, and enter their fingerprint of the keys used to sign the content he runs? Why are we forced into trusting Microsoft keys by default? If this was the case in the UEFI secure boot, we wouldn't have problems. UEFI vendors would make it super easy to add new keys, and maybe, we would have had what is really missing in the UEFI specification: a description of a standard GUI so that we can direct our users on how to add a key. Currently, we have to say, somewhere in your BIOS, there must be a way to add a new key (oh, well, if you're lucky... otherwise, you're fucked and you can only boot windows).
Well, if you have the possibility to load any boot loader, then you can do anything, including a hacked kernel, driver and apps, which will make you think that it was signed. So basically, this adds no security if everyone is capable of having his bootloader signed.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you say "only Ubuntu/Upstart"? All distro, nowadays, are using different init systems. Fedora is using systemd, Ubuntu uses upstart, Gentoo uses OpenRC, and Debian still uses sysvrc/insserv. None are compatible with each other. In other words: there's no way any daemon will work properly (and I'm not even talking about dependency booting...). How do you deal with that?
I have an unusual name and my accent makes it hard for me to spell things out, I have to start talking Golf, Oscar, Whiskey, Alpha etc.
Gowa is indeed a quite unusual name! :)
And I hate the awkward pauses when they're doing something at their end and we're both sitting there in silence.
Oh, exactly! And on the other side, it's stressful after 10 seconds. And putting the customer on hold listening to the stupid music doesn't feel right either.
Reading you, it looks like I'm trying to be bad with our customers. That's not at all the case. I do my best to serve them as much as I can. I just find it more easy and less stressful on the chat than on the phone. Is there something wrong with it? Absolutely not! I agree with the other guy commenting: get a cup of coffee and relax.
You didn't get it: that's what you get with windows 8.
They should have call it how it looks like: Sokoban
My system is MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, AIM, GTalk or Skype. Customers love to use that instead of a stupid proprietary web based chat system. Last time I checked, pidgin supports multiple conversations at once! :)
:P
Oh, and the evaluation is the customer's satisfaction, and it seems ok for them...
{vi,emacs} /etc/hosts
Problem solved, no need to remember.
Funny that I read this, when I have the total opposite experience. I found that it's cool to use the chat, so that people can actually type their domain names, account names, or whatever. I found restful that people aren't on the phone and expect you to fix in the second, or find their account immediately. It's also very nice that I can cut/past URL, like for example the one explaining what a glue record is on wikipedia and so on. It's also quite cool if a customer types slowly, that way, I can continue to do what I was doing at the same time, but anyway, it's very rare that our customers are typing that slow.
Maybe this has to do with the type of customers you get on the other side of the line (ours might know more).
That's exactly why people should be using http://owncloud.org/
Frankly, mod parent up. A simple check on taobao shows that the first price for a 8GB USB key is around 25 Yuan, or about 4 USD, which is 10 times less than the 50 USD difference. So yes, $50 for 8GB really is a terrible deal.
- Or google closing all of your accounts because you don't fit in the TOS ...
- Or google reporting all of your moves to your boss
- Or google deciding your company is worth nothing and its stock going down leading to bankruptcy
- Or google refusing to drive you somewhere, and refusing that you drive yourself
- Or google
Well, yes, I did imagine all of them, and it scares me.
Data center redundancy isn't "cheap" to write for a complex software. So you got risk a lot of money per hours of down time to invest in that. I don't think that's something a lot of companies can afford, unless they start their software design with this in mind to begin with. So the problem to me, is that data center redundancy is often an after though, and IaaS hardly has easy answers to this problem yet.
Gosh! Are you really maintaining some PHP4 stuff in 2012? What's the site(s) so we can hack it?
What you are describing is exactly what's happening in the history of PHP. Things got deprecated in PHP 5.3, and they actually don't work at all in PHP 5.4! The mysql_escape_string isn't one of these IIRC, but that's truth for many other stuff.
Instead, to do the same thing you now have to write: return $var = &new ProtectedClass();
This, in PHP 5.3 would do "Return new as reference is deprecated". This would crash in PHP 5.4 IIRC.
Now, on that same page, I'm seeing a pattern of people doing the usual rant about the === thing, but this goes absolutely nowhere. It's equally stupid to write == in C in an if statement, but nobody is complaining about it. The rest of the argumentation is crap too. I just don't buy into such silly rants.
Negotiation only buys them more time.
is really harmful. As if a real war wasn't avoidable. Truth is, the only country trying to go on war is USA (and probably Israel too, but not openly). Do you work for the NSA?
I doubt they could get sanctions, since there is no definitive proof the U.S. wrote it.
It has been declassified.
If they did somehow try to get them passed anyway, wouldn't we just veto the motion?
That's more the way you should look at UN, yes! :)
Let's say USA had bombed the facility ONCE, then went away. Would you call this a war? I don't think so. Maybe "an act of war" but not a war in itself, as opposed to Afghanistan or Iraq.
Could we stop such stupid wording? There's no war here. Nobody has died or is dying because of what they are pretending are weapons, which are in fact just a bunch of bits. This is becoming very silly, and I don't buy into this propaganda.
.lnk!!!) and not doing security house keeping correctly (files signed with certs they should be in the control of in the case of flame, and windows update not being totally unsafe).
And by the way, instead of falsely using an important word such as "war", we'd better highlight and focus on how much Microsoft is the responsible here. Responsible in both having stupid security holes (come on... executing code in a
We aren't talking about a company which goal would be to make money. We're talking about the Internet governance. You should be comparing such a position with a job at the UN rather than at a big corp. You're being fooled by the word CEO here.
I agree. Plus exactly what risk taking is this position about that would justify the salary? (btw: how can one fuck-up the ICANN more than it is at the moment?)
$800,000 isn't even all that much, when you're talking about executive pay.
We're talking about an honorific position here, of someone who should be listening to the world. We aren't talking about the CEO of a big corp/bank making billions. Oh and when we're at it: even bankers shouldn't get that much. Let's put it this way: for ANY position, this is too much money, yet even more in the case of ICANN, where it should be a charge rather than a gift.
Do you know how to run it? Seriously, everyone here has an opinion but do you have the expertise to run it? In a way that would make everyone happy and that would be net neutral and that would satisfy politics? In the real world? In a way that would allow Nepal to bitch and China to still express an opinion and have both the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Premier ready to come visit you at your house for drinks and a round of golf with you and Bill Murray?
Hell, yes I'd do it better. It wouldn't be hard to. Currently, the TLD thing shows how corrupt the system is. And I really don't understand why you are talking about WenJiaBao, or the Dalai Lama in the same sentence when we are talking about ICANN: you must have smoked weed or something. But when we're at it: that's the problem, politics should not be involved in something that should stay neutral.
Bitch about $800k all you want, but at $400k I think we get a $400k run internet. Pay for performance is a world-wide metric. Do I want someone to do it for free? No, because that is what I will get in return.
At the beginning of the Internet, it wasn't run by a company, and it was working well. The way ICANN runs things, and how much it is sold to the cause of super corporations and corrupt government goes together with such outrageous salary, so I'm not surprised. Oh, and by the way, what's so hard in distributing/assigning a bunch of numbers to the world, and a bunch of words in the alphabet? Nothing technically hard to do in my book. I hope you will agree with that at least.
Open source it? Ok, which nation gets to run THAT? Anarchy? No thanks.
The ICANN isn't a software, I don't understand why you are talking about open source here. By the way, for the moment, it's USA gets all, and it's not fair, so yes, change would anyway go in the right direction. I don't think that anyone wants anarchy, but a say in whats going on.
The internet is not utopia.
It doesn't have to be one, but if at least, it could escape the control of big corps and gets back to the hands of the people, that'd be a great thing.
It is actually, however, the one resource no world power controls.
Are you sure of that? Think again please...
RIAA and MPAA and a lot of other corporate powers would like to control it, a lot of nations would like to control it, but for $800k I am happy to let someone run one part of it who (a) Knows what he is doing and (b) makes enough doing so that bribery is not a major source of income.
Do you really think there isn't going to be some lobby trying to push their agenda? Do you confirm that this never happened in the past?
I have perfectly understood what the problem is. BTW, to the best of my knowledge, encryption isn't involved here, only signing of blobs.
My point is, why do we even need what you call "remote attestation" as you call it? Why can't the user decide by itself which key it will trust, and enter their fingerprint of the keys used to sign the content he runs? Why are we forced into trusting Microsoft keys by default? If this was the case in the UEFI secure boot, we wouldn't have problems. UEFI vendors would make it super easy to add new keys, and maybe, we would have had what is really missing in the UEFI specification: a description of a standard GUI so that we can direct our users on how to add a key. Currently, we have to say, somewhere in your BIOS, there must be a way to add a new key (oh, well, if you're lucky... otherwise, you're fucked and you can only boot windows).
Well, if you have the possibility to load any boot loader, then you can do anything, including a hacked kernel, driver and apps, which will make you think that it was signed. So basically, this adds no security if everyone is capable of having his bootloader signed.