Sending machine guns to drug lords may well have had the desired outcome, to justify increased spend on crime prevention, arming the polce better, etc.
Well with VMs you no longer need to worry about hardware support - and if they do the job, and can be adequately protected from exploitation... why change? Yes, its a dead platform, but has been for some time. Migrating to something else will be a huge project and in terms of return vs spend I doubt you'll get much out of it?
^ that. we just ditched a SCO box a few years ago because long ago our ERP software was installed on it (I'm talking like... 1997?) and the vendor ran it as one of their supported platforms. We migrated to RHEL about 5 years ago. I'm sure there are plenty of others who are running installs of it who haven't migrated yet. The only times it got upgraded were when the hardware was due for refresh.
Yup, and you can avoid a lot of Windows reboots too by re-starting services. Agreed with the above post pretty much 100%. I'm a Unix (Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD) admin since 1996, and a Windows admin since 2000 (we run both).
Windows does infuriate me from time to time, but all of the above is pretty on the money. Other than spaces in filenames, you can use them, you just need to escape them with \ or use quotes around them.
Not to say that Windows fares too much better if you do things properly with regards to software installation and security; but point being: if administered properly (adequate time invested), Windows is not a fischer price OS. Linux isn't some magical pancea either.
I have had zero unscheduled reboots in the past 5 years for my Windows servers (all running on vSphere). Unix is not immune to kernel patching or operating system upgrades either.
Pretty much. It's not 1995 any more kids - microsoft have lifted their game significantly. And I'll tell you now that any enterprise running vSphere (suspect: virtually all of them in some form) is running at least a few Windows servers to run vCenter.
You're joking right? Try calling your enterprise application vendor with a problem, have them log in to remotely diagnose and find their app running under WINE.
WINE is a good thing. I run it myself - but to expect support from your vendor on a platform they have no control over and do not list as supported means one thing. YOU become application support. YOU are now responsible for every quirk, annoyance or major catasrophe to befall your application and can expect pretty much zero help from the vendor.
vSphere supports fault tolerance between hardware platforms with VMware FT. It runs two copies of the VM in lockstep. So yes, you can do complete, zero data loss resiliency in vSphere with two independent, non-fault tolerant servers, so long as there is resiliency in the network and SAN.
And this is part of the reason it is happening. Newsflash: It's not 1996 any more.
A few things have happened: RAM is very cheap. Windows isn't anywhere near as crap any more (yes it has its warts). The free unix world is still faffing about with per-application specific configuration file formats (sendmail.cf or sendmail.mc vs XML, for example) and wasting time reinventing the wheel every 18 months. There is massive resistance to change in the Unix world for things that need to change (e.g., unified configuration file format that can be understood and processed reliably by a single parser), but no resistance to change for things that break end user workflow for little benefit (Gnome? KDE?)
OS X gets a lot of lower level stuff right, but the free desktop world is too busy skinning whatever window manager is flavour of the month to look like Aqua to notice.
Newsflash: there are groups who will profit from anything. The guys running wikileaks and risking their lives to get this info out aren't making any money out of it.
No, 4 crazy reasons were listed fro killing Snowden. Given that this "insurance" is to protect people like him, there's no reason to believe that killing him will give any of the puported benefits.
I know you crazy americans think the Russians are just bloodthirsty psychopaths looking for an excuse to murder people, but seriously, that post takes the cake.
Russia stands to gain FAR more from this politically by keeping him safe.
Most of the civilized world outside the US is sick to death of the bullshit.
The only way the insurance file could affect decisions is if it revealed misconduct by specific high-ranking politicians, and these politicians know that their personal ass is on the line.
Which is probably why the people involved have already been sent the decryption key.
As per one of the above posters, it would not surprise me if wikileaks sent the NSA, US Government, etc. they encryption key to take a look at the content themselves. It isn't the NSA they want to prevent access to this from.
The NSA likely already knows all this stuff. Giving them access to it would "prove" to them that wikileaks has dirt that they might not want to be released.
Otherwise, they could just upload 350GB of/dev/random and bluff. Giving those mentioned the keys will prove they are serious.
Given that... lends more credence to the assertion that the terrorists were put up to it by the government(s) as a mandate for widespread surveillance of the population, erosion of civil liberties, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Hasn't really stepped up a notch, it's merely in the media due to the leaks.
Sending machine guns to drug lords may well have had the desired outcome, to justify increased spend on crime prevention, arming the polce better, etc.
Well with VMs you no longer need to worry about hardware support - and if they do the job, and can be adequately protected from exploitation... why change? Yes, its a dead platform, but has been for some time. Migrating to something else will be a huge project and in terms of return vs spend I doubt you'll get much out of it?
^ that. we just ditched a SCO box a few years ago because long ago our ERP software was installed on it (I'm talking like... 1997?) and the vendor ran it as one of their supported platforms. We migrated to RHEL about 5 years ago. I'm sure there are plenty of others who are running installs of it who haven't migrated yet. The only times it got upgraded were when the hardware was due for refresh.
Solaris x86 disagrees with you.
Less useful? Serious question: Have you actually run any windows servers in production between Windows 2000 and 2008 R2?
Yup, and you can avoid a lot of Windows reboots too by re-starting services. Agreed with the above post pretty much 100%. I'm a Unix (Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD) admin since 1996, and a Windows admin since 2000 (we run both).
Windows does infuriate me from time to time, but all of the above is pretty on the money. Other than spaces in filenames, you can use them, you just need to escape them with \ or use quotes around them.
Not to say that Windows fares too much better if you do things properly with regards to software installation and security; but point being: if administered properly (adequate time invested), Windows is not a fischer price OS. Linux isn't some magical pancea either.
Windows: You're doing it wrong.
I have had zero unscheduled reboots in the past 5 years for my Windows servers (all running on vSphere). Unix is not immune to kernel patching or operating system upgrades either.
Pretty much. It's not 1995 any more kids - microsoft have lifted their game significantly. And I'll tell you now that any enterprise running vSphere (suspect: virtually all of them in some form) is running at least a few Windows servers to run vCenter.
Not sure if trolling or just retarded...
You're joking right? Try calling your enterprise application vendor with a problem, have them log in to remotely diagnose and find their app running under WINE.
WINE is a good thing. I run it myself - but to expect support from your vendor on a platform they have no control over and do not list as supported means one thing. YOU become application support. YOU are now responsible for every quirk, annoyance or major catasrophe to befall your application and can expect pretty much zero help from the vendor.
vSphere supports fault tolerance between hardware platforms with VMware FT. It runs two copies of the VM in lockstep. So yes, you can do complete, zero data loss resiliency in vSphere with two independent, non-fault tolerant servers, so long as there is resiliency in the network and SAN.
And this is part of the reason it is happening. Newsflash: It's not 1996 any more.
A few things have happened: RAM is very cheap. Windows isn't anywhere near as crap any more (yes it has its warts). The free unix world is still faffing about with per-application specific configuration file formats (sendmail.cf or sendmail.mc vs XML, for example) and wasting time reinventing the wheel every 18 months. There is massive resistance to change in the Unix world for things that need to change (e.g., unified configuration file format that can be understood and processed reliably by a single parser), but no resistance to change for things that break end user workflow for little benefit (Gnome? KDE?)
OS X gets a lot of lower level stuff right, but the free desktop world is too busy skinning whatever window manager is flavour of the month to look like Aqua to notice.
Newsflash: there are groups who will profit from anything. The guys running wikileaks and risking their lives to get this info out aren't making any money out of it.
No, 4 crazy reasons were listed fro killing Snowden. Given that this "insurance" is to protect people like him, there's no reason to believe that killing him will give any of the puported benefits.
State sponsored hacking isn't who these documents are intended to be protected from. And yes, chances are china has much of it already :)
I know you crazy americans think the Russians are just bloodthirsty psychopaths looking for an excuse to murder people, but seriously, that post takes the cake.
Russia stands to gain FAR more from this politically by keeping him safe.
Most of the civilized world outside the US is sick to death of the bullshit.
And just how can you mitigate the damage from 400 GB of seriously incriminatiing disclosure?
Which is probably why the people involved have already been sent the decryption key.
As per one of the above posters, it would not surprise me if wikileaks sent the NSA, US Government, etc. they encryption key to take a look at the content themselves. It isn't the NSA they want to prevent access to this from.
The NSA likely already knows all this stuff. Giving them access to it would "prove" to them that wikileaks has dirt that they might not want to be released.
Otherwise, they could just upload 350GB of /dev/random and bluff. Giving those mentioned the keys will prove they are serious.
2TB drives are well under a hundred bucks.
What can they do to "prepare"?
Wikileaks are non-profit, and risking personal safety to get this stuff out. The US Government and cronies are very much FOR profit.
Given that... lends more credence to the assertion that the terrorists were put up to it by the government(s) as a mandate for widespread surveillance of the population, erosion of civil liberties, etc.
They're torrents.
How do you lock your house?