Yes. 10.8 was also a fixes update. I avoided 10.7 but used 10.8. Right now though:
a) People want new stuff b) People want stuff to be heavily integrated between iOS and OSX which means changes to the architecture c) People want less bugs
I don't know if that is true I suspect there were more bugs in 10.4 than 10.1; 10.4 did a lot lot more. But even if it were \ OSX 10.0 was a huge increase in bugs from OS9. Apple is doing incremental improvements now so new features bring out new bugs.
That being said though, Apple has never been great about bugs. They are just better on average than Microsoft and the Linux community.
Google uses multiple container systems and a lot of their infrastructure isn't Linux but Docker is a key component of their containerization strategy. If it were even 10+% Docker you talking well in excess of 100m Docker containers in production.
DevOps style production has less bugs, better reliability and much higher satisfaction than classic approaches. Turns out, ADD works. You may not like it but the research is unequivocal for complex and changing systems.
Yes. All the time. One of the core idea of modern PaaS systems is that from an OS standpoint what runs in dev runs in test and production no configuration during migration. Google for example last year was running over a billion containers in production.
It is a bit more complex but yes. A much better message might be something like "plumbing 2 of 4 steps functional -- passed" or even "checksum passed: note if you don't know how the Docker checksum works you probably don't have enough auxiliary plumbing for it to be working for you, so please be cautious". which would make it clear that nothing is really being tested at this point for most users.
No Docker implementation is any worse than it was before. They went from no security to slightly better security that in practice in most install is unlikely to be useful but with a misleadingly reassuring message.
There could very well be problems since people could be letting down their guard when they shouldn't. My point is that there isn't much debate since the Docker people explained what was going on, everyone agrees that is what is going on and the Docker people agree the message everything is OK shouldn't be in place before the plumbing is to make everything OK.
Yeah sorta of, except you can't have a single repository playing the role of the distribution. So you need a vastly more complex package manager than anything we invented before, hence the wheel spinning.
Why? Why would you ever trust a company like Apple
History and an alignment of interests. You have to trust somewhere, life is simply too complex to do everything yourself. So you put faith where it is warranted and then verify when easy.
Because the truth is you simply can not trust these corporations, they have shown that multiple times.
I don't see that with Apple. I don't trust them not to overcharge me for hardware. I do trust them to mostly have my best interests at heart in using their stuff because that has been their established pattern.
Read the update. Pretty much the Docker team is implementing a container verification system and working through the details of decentralized security. v1 is part of the mechanism being in place. It assumes that an upstream verification is in place which is at best-semi helpful. Everyone agrees that the current system does nothing and the message is highly misleading in that it might lead someone to believe that there is a security system in place when the plumbing isn't finished.
So there is no argument here between the parties (what nothing to fight about on/.). Worth pointing out to the/. community however not to take that message seriously yet.
Governments don't have magical (technical) powers (on the Internet) that others don't possess
Of course they do. 1) They have more money 2) They have access to broad resources 3) They can coordinate resources 4) They can provide a safe haven from law enforcement for hackers 5) They can provide a safe haven from law enforcement for people who compromise systems 6) They have specialists in social engineering 7) They can provide bribes of money, sex, drugs... etc..
As for special forces. Most nation states have both special forces and large battalions. Most criminal groups have neither.
Well exactly. In this case the FBI and the President are saying it. Ergo that carries some weight they don't think they will be proven wrong. The issue is not how to start trouble with an enemy. The issue is how credible is such a statement when it does come from a high official. You are forgetting what you are supposed to be cynical about.:)
That conspiracy theory was big in the early 1960s. Today of course that's changed and everyone buys into the lone gunman. We've had far more assassins with little ties to organizations since then.
That's actually a counter example similar to speculation of Soviet involvement in the JFK assassination. The yellow journalist press was sure it was Spain but the USA government never made that assertion. Even when we declared war 2 months later McKinley did not cite the sinking of the Maine as a reason.
What did the USA blame Iraq for having done to us they didn't do? I can't think of much of anything. Now they certainly got stuff wrong about what was happening in Iraq and our record isn't so hot on that but accusations of specific violations we are pretty good on.
And Iraq on WMDs is somewhat exceptional in that they were sending out fake signals for internal and external reasons.
The reason is the USA government has a pretty good track record of not blaming foreign countries for stuff they didn't do. Meanwhile US opponents have a long history of denying involvement when they were. Comparing what is know 10 years later is pretty close to what you get from blindly believing the USA government on culpability.
Its hard to see how it would apply. The two local actors most likely to act against North Korea other than ourselves is South Korea and Japan. And as you point out we already back South Korea. We are talking about substantially arming Japan, though Japan's goals are still defensive. The analogy might be to encourage the more militant elements in Japan. Though I'm not sure we have that much influence over Japan for it to matter.
But anyway your original claim is we didn't do anything in those other cases and you can see we did.
What do you imagine we will do against (nuclear armed and sitting on the border of China right next to Russia) Korea?
If our goal is not to annoy them then we either have to shift Japan to being more responsive or China to being less protective. I can think of things we could offer China for them to sell out North Korea. Heck I'm not sure if we promised an orderly dismantlement they might not go for it. China sends out very mixed signals when N Korea acts up.
As for nuclear armed in a real war I have serious questions about how much damage their nuclear program is capable of, though there is always risk. North Korea is a dangerous foe.
We'd blame them and condemn them and attempt to get sanctions. We already do all those things so it's an empty threat.
We don't have a full on blockade. Though a full on blockade would likely mean ship to ship battles and they could respond with attacks against South Korea. So escalating to blockade we have to be at least willing to have a war.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. 10.8 was also a fixes update. I avoided 10.7 but used 10.8. Right now though:
a) People want new stuff
b) People want stuff to be heavily integrated between iOS and OSX which means changes to the architecture
c) People want less bugs
I suspect they aren't getting all 3.
I don't know if that is true I suspect there were more bugs in 10.4 than 10.1; 10.4 did a lot lot more. But even if it were \ OSX 10.0 was a huge increase in bugs from OS9. Apple is doing incremental improvements now so new features bring out new bugs.
That being said though, Apple has never been great about bugs. They are just better on average than Microsoft and the Linux community.
IBM / Rational, Forrester research, GE. I could keep going.
Google uses multiple container systems and a lot of their infrastructure isn't Linux but Docker is a key component of their containerization strategy. If it were even 10+% Docker you talking well in excess of 100m Docker containers in production.
DevOps style production has less bugs, better reliability and much higher satisfaction than classic approaches. Turns out, ADD works. You may not like it but the research is unequivocal for complex and changing systems.
Yes. All the time. One of the core idea of modern PaaS systems is that from an OS standpoint what runs in dev runs in test and production no configuration during migration. Google for example last year was running over a billion containers in production.
Yes. You have to run an out of band security system at this point for Docker same as before.
It is a bit more complex but yes. A much better message might be something like "plumbing 2 of 4 steps functional -- passed" or even "checksum passed: note if you don't know how the Docker checksum works you probably don't have enough auxiliary plumbing for it to be working for you, so please be cautious". which would make it clear that nothing is really being tested at this point for most users.
No Docker implementation is any worse than it was before. They went from no security to slightly better security that in practice in most install is unlikely to be useful but with a misleadingly reassuring message.
There could very well be problems since people could be letting down their guard when they shouldn't. My point is that there isn't much debate since the Docker people explained what was going on, everyone agrees that is what is going on and the Docker people agree the message everything is OK shouldn't be in place before the plumbing is to make everything OK.
Yeah sorta of, except you can't have a single repository playing the role of the distribution. So you need a vastly more complex package manager than anything we invented before, hence the wheel spinning.
I agree it is a bad idea. And they agree it is a bad idea. Not sure what we can argue about if both sides agree they screwed up with this mesage.
History and an alignment of interests. You have to trust somewhere, life is simply too complex to do everything yourself. So you put faith where it is warranted and then verify when easy.
I don't see that with Apple. I don't trust them not to overcharge me for hardware. I do trust them to mostly have my best interests at heart in using their stuff because that has been their established pattern.
There are two settings:
Allow updates automatically
Install system data files and security updates
The 2nd is different from the 1st. The 2nd is what this went across as while most updates use the first mechanism.
Anything they want. Apple is trusted by its customers and uses this mechanism rarely as the lead mentioned. 2 years and this is the first time.
I don't have automatic updates installed. I like to decide on the when. It installed and just notified me of the installation. Worked as intended.
Read the update. Pretty much the Docker team is implementing a container verification system and working through the details of decentralized security. v1 is part of the mechanism being in place. It assumes that an upstream verification is in place which is at best-semi helpful. Everyone agrees that the current system does nothing and the message is highly misleading in that it might lead someone to believe that there is a security system in place when the plumbing isn't finished.
So there is no argument here between the parties (what nothing to fight about on /.). Worth pointing out to the /. community however not to take that message seriously yet.
Of course they do.
1) They have more money
2) They have access to broad resources
3) They can coordinate resources
4) They can provide a safe haven from law enforcement for hackers
5) They can provide a safe haven from law enforcement for people who compromise systems
6) They have specialists in social engineering
7) They can provide bribes of money, sex, drugs...
etc..
As for special forces. Most nation states have both special forces and large battalions. Most criminal groups have neither.
No I'm claiming yellowcake and WMD weren't done to us. 9/11 we attributed to Al Qaeda correctly.
Well exactly. In this case the FBI and the President are saying it. Ergo that carries some weight they don't think they will be proven wrong. The issue is not how to start trouble with an enemy. The issue is how credible is such a statement when it does come from a high official. You are forgetting what you are supposed to be cynical about. :)
That conspiracy theory was big in the early 1960s. Today of course that's changed and everyone buys into the lone gunman. We've had far more assassins with little ties to organizations since then.
That's actually a counter example similar to speculation of Soviet involvement in the JFK assassination. The yellow journalist press was sure it was Spain but the USA government never made that assertion. Even when we declared war 2 months later McKinley did not cite the sinking of the Maine as a reason.
Those weren't done to us.
What did the USA blame Iraq for having done to us they didn't do? I can't think of much of anything. Now they certainly got stuff wrong about what was happening in Iraq and our record isn't so hot on that but accusations of specific violations we are pretty good on.
And Iraq on WMDs is somewhat exceptional in that they were sending out fake signals for internal and external reasons.
The reason is the USA government has a pretty good track record of not blaming foreign countries for stuff they didn't do. Meanwhile US opponents have a long history of denying involvement when they were. Comparing what is know 10 years later is pretty close to what you get from blindly believing the USA government on culpability.
Its hard to see how it would apply. The two local actors most likely to act against North Korea other than ourselves is South Korea and Japan. And as you point out we already back South Korea. We are talking about substantially arming Japan, though Japan's goals are still defensive. The analogy might be to encourage the more militant elements in Japan. Though I'm not sure we have that much influence over Japan for it to matter.
But anyway your original claim is we didn't do anything in those other cases and you can see we did.
If our goal is not to annoy them then we either have to shift Japan to being more responsive or China to being less protective. I can think of things we could offer China for them to sell out North Korea. Heck I'm not sure if we promised an orderly dismantlement they might not go for it. China sends out very mixed signals when N Korea acts up.
As for nuclear armed in a real war I have serious questions about how much damage their nuclear program is capable of, though there is always risk. North Korea is a dangerous foe.
We don't have a full on blockade. Though a full on blockade would likely mean ship to ship battles and they could respond with attacks against South Korea. So escalating to blockade we have to be at least willing to have a war.