Not entirely. You still have snapshots, you still have the ability to deal with catastrophic hardware failure by popping the card in another VM host and doing an offline vmotion. due to hardware abstraction. Yes, HA won't work, but recovery from hardware failure will be a lot faster than reinstalling on new/possibly different hardware.
Alternatively, when you order your PCs from your OEM, you will probably specify "EFI secure boot option ON/OFF", just like you do with PXE boot, VT instructions, etc. No big deal.
FUD. Dell machines still have plenty of BIOS options. I don't have one right here to check, but I do have a fleet consisting of 50% dell machines here and the BIOS can certainly have settings such as boot-sector protection and VT instructions turned on and off.
It leaves Canonical the option of A - spending 99 dollars on a code signing certificate or B - having their users turn off secure boot to install the OS - on machines that shipped with Windows 8 installed.
You know how purchasing code signing certificates works yes? You buy a cert, ONCE and then use the 99 dollar cert to sign all your code. yes, it can be revoked, that is the point of PKI. If someone steals your code signing cert and puts malware out with it, you get the cert revoked and issue a new one.
Exactly. Machines installed with Windows 8 by default will have secure boot turned on to protect the OS. End of story. Want to turn it off? Turn it off.
Thankyou. I just posted as much before reading your post. This hard code signing option, turned on by default. Any OS distributor who wants to get code-signed will be able to install and take advantage of code signing. Those who don't... can be installed by turning the BIOS/EFI option OFF.
There will be an EFI/bios option to turn this off. if you think microsoft would EVER get away with this in the post-antitrust over IE days, you're kidding yourself.
It might be turned on BY DEFAULT, but this is "secure by default" behaviour and should be the way it is.
If you want to run unsigned code, so be it. If redhat or another vendor want to get their code signed so be it. This is a lot of hot air over nothing.
The big difference is that microsoft maintain their code for X years. In open source land, the original author writes something, releases it, often moves on to something newer/shinier, screw users of the old version.
The fact that I can still get security updates for Windows XP, released in 2002 is of huge benefit to desktop end users. How many total interface revisions and utility program replacements have KDE and Gnome gone through since then? XP? Zero. Know how to use 2002 spec XP and you know how to use 2012 spec XP. I'm no lover of XP by any stretch (went from 2000 to vista x64, then 7 on the Windows side), but until there's some sort of UI, API and toolset stability its going to continue to be a clusterfuck for anyone other than nerds.
Be that as it may, it doesn't alter the reality of ensuring your emails get delivered. The breakage is/was common enough that I've run into it previously. Ditto for the case sensitivity thing as mentioned above.
Innocence / guilt is not the point. if he's guilty they should be able to take him down in a proper, legal manner. if they're not doing this, they're no better than the criminals they're trying to catch.
Slashdot Mirror
Not entirely. You still have snapshots, you still have the ability to deal with catastrophic hardware failure by popping the card in another VM host and doing an offline vmotion. due to hardware abstraction. Yes, HA won't work, but recovery from hardware failure will be a lot faster than reinstalling on new/possibly different hardware.
Correct. vSphere 5 also allows you to give priorities to VMs for IO.
vSphere 5 can prioritise IO
Lol, if you are running anything financial related on a machine overclocked, you're an idiot, let alone oc'd to 7ghz.
Nothing. but it does prove that with adequate cooling you can get to 7ghz on current generation silicon.
You mean other than kicking the crap out of AMD?
Alternatively, when you order your PCs from your OEM, you will probably specify "EFI secure boot option ON/OFF", just like you do with PXE boot, VT instructions, etc. No big deal.
You'll find that either MS will put out an updated version of Windows 7 that is signed, or you'll need to turn the BIOS option off.
FUD. Dell machines still have plenty of BIOS options. I don't have one right here to check, but I do have a fleet consisting of 50% dell machines here and the BIOS can certainly have settings such as boot-sector protection and VT instructions turned on and off.
It leaves Canonical the option of A - spending 99 dollars on a code signing certificate or B - having their users turn off secure boot to install the OS - on machines that shipped with Windows 8 installed.
You know how purchasing code signing certificates works yes? You buy a cert, ONCE and then use the 99 dollar cert to sign all your code. yes, it can be revoked, that is the point of PKI. If someone steals your code signing cert and puts malware out with it, you get the cert revoked and issue a new one.
Exactly. Machines installed with Windows 8 by default will have secure boot turned on to protect the OS. End of story. Want to turn it off? Turn it off.
Yeah right... because if you don't have code signing then how do you know your firmware updates are valid?
Thankyou. I just posted as much before reading your post. This hard code signing option, turned on by default. Any OS distributor who wants to get code-signed will be able to install and take advantage of code signing. Those who don't... can be installed by turning the BIOS/EFI option OFF.
There will be an EFI/bios option to turn this off. if you think microsoft would EVER get away with this in the post-antitrust over IE days, you're kidding yourself.
It might be turned on BY DEFAULT, but this is "secure by default" behaviour and should be the way it is.
If you want to run unsigned code, so be it. If redhat or another vendor want to get their code signed so be it. This is a lot of hot air over nothing.
trying to diagnose and fix a firewall ruleset under pressure on our core network? not so much...
By "it's" i mean Linux.
The big difference is that microsoft maintain their code for X years. In open source land, the original author writes something, releases it, often moves on to something newer/shinier, screw users of the old version.
The fact that I can still get security updates for Windows XP, released in 2002 is of huge benefit to desktop end users. How many total interface revisions and utility program replacements have KDE and Gnome gone through since then? XP? Zero. Know how to use 2002 spec XP and you know how to use 2012 spec XP. I'm no lover of XP by any stretch (went from 2000 to vista x64, then 7 on the Windows side), but until there's some sort of UI, API and toolset stability its going to continue to be a clusterfuck for anyone other than nerds.
Be that as it may, it doesn't alter the reality of ensuring your emails get delivered. The breakage is/was common enough that I've run into it previously. Ditto for the case sensitivity thing as mentioned above.
Actually he posted bug-reports.
The government over there in north america also kills plenty of innocent people who have fallen through the cracks in the justice system there.
Actually, its worse. They illegally took it from him, not a copy of it.
Innocence / guilt is not the point. if he's guilty they should be able to take him down in a proper, legal manner. if they're not doing this, they're no better than the criminals they're trying to catch.
well yeah, plus signs don't work with all SMTP daemons.
proper unix nerds don't run linux. they run proper unix, like solaris or bsd.