To have true high-availability, even 2 VMware servers isn't enough, you need a reliable shared storage system that both servers can access.
Even then, the storage chassis itself will be a central point of failure.
To have true HA you need a pair of independent shared storage units with continuous synchronous replication and some reliable mechanism of failover.
But even without HA...
There are still benefits of running only on one server and using virtualization.
Getting higher utilization of a smaller volume of hardware still saves money, since you aren't running 10 servers sitting at 10% load all the time.
You can run multiple OSes.
You can run applications that require their own OS install.
For example: domain controller can run on its own without other apps running on the DC. The major apps have their own server
Finally, there are security benefits of isolating apps to their own server. If one server is compromised, it can be taken out of service without affecting the other apps.
You can run the bleeding edge server OS version only for the app that needs it, and run more stable code for other apps.
If one server crashes due to an OS bug, the others keep running.
The hypervisor itself is a thin OS, and if run on proper hardware is highly stable.
Driver issues are unlikely to bring down your servers, especially when utilizing advanced CPU features such as processor VT and IOMMU which provide sophisticated I/O and device isolation functions.
Of course, your hardware is a single point of failure. But backups/disaster recovery is easier to manage in a virtual environment, you just VCB and regular copies of your VMDKs to a secondary piece of metal to prevent data loss.
If there is extra budget then consider adding more or better hardware and services.
Shouldn't that be... if there's extra budget, think a little farther ahead, about how your requirements are likely to increase in the future?
So you can try to meet the anticipated future requirements earlier, to be more efficient, in saving money on delaying future upgrades that will otherwise be needed.
It's like the guy who wants to start a bank, who leaves the doors to the building in the default position (unlocked) always, and leaves the money vault's combination, set to the default "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16", which is printed on a sticker at the top of the lock he didn't bother to remove "Default combination:..
If you don't bother reading the documentation and such, to ensure you use the "passwd" command as directed, then you have no business jailbreaking or using a jailbroken phone.
Because you're going to screw up in some other way too. (Default password isn't the only mistake you can make)
It gives Apple more ammo to use against jailbreakers, even justification for bricking them -- to protect Apple's good name against being tarnished by reports of "iPhone-based botnets".
Part of the sales pitch of Apple software is that there's no risk of Malware or Worms anything like there is for Windows users.
Microsoft would want you think there's nothing about Apple's OS that is more secure -- there's just no Malware problem, because hardly anybody uses their OS, and hackers aren't interested in it.
By allowing jailbroken iPhones to continue to function, and worms to arise targetting jailbroken phones, more credibility is lent to the Anti-OSX / Anti-UNIX security argument (the position that UNIX / OS X / Linux/ etc, are no more secure than Windows in any way, or that Windows is just as more secure).
Greg Yardley confirms that getting ripped off by pirates is the rule rather than the exception.
It didn't say that piracy was the rule, rather than the exception. It said having some people rip off your software was the rule rather than the exception.
I would say that the/. headline kicked it up a notch. Either someone didn't read the article, or they decided to bend the truth with a sensationalist headline, to attract more readers.
It's not widespread use when Microsoft is giving you freebies and (in effect) paying you/making deals that cost them money, to use the technology, just so more people will be required to install the software and become aware of it.
IOW, the Netflix and Olympics using silverlight are very likely specific efforts by MS marketing/sales.
With the right freebies from MS (where using Flash costs something), or with the right kickbacks/sponsorships/friendly meals bought for the right people to discuss silver light.....
IOW: these few high profile sites using it don't indicate widespread use, only very strong efforts by MS.
If your app doesn't require such a continuous connection normally, then it's not the type of app that pirates copies incur a constant drain on your resources.
If it only connects intermittently, then perform the authentication and usage subtractions at the time it does connect, based on the amount of server resources used when it connects...
If an app is popular enough, and there are people who pirate apps, then there's a higher probability of one of the persons who pirates apps finding that particular app and not wanting to pay for it.
With high probability, at least 1 person would pirate each of the most popular apps they instrument, and they'd detect it.
In this case, they're losing money because they have to pay for bandwidth and server resources that unpaid app users are utilizing.
What the developers should do is utilize in-app purchase capability, that produces a unique transaction id# kept on their servers for each purchase, username/password, that the developer gets associated with the unique device ID.
Cut the initial cost of the app, and charge a consumable fee.
A fee for "X hours" of app usage, which gets tracked by the server, e.g. 1000 hours of app usage.
If multiple iPhones are using the same ID# at the same time, it deducts the time associated with both sessions.
The statement means exactly what it says. 60% of apps have been pirated at least once.
TFA says
When an application is pirated, an average of 34% of all installs are cracked -- in other words, about half of legitimate paid downloads.
To date, Pinch Analytics has received data from approximately 4.0 million jailbroken devices. About 38%, or around a million and a half of those, have used a pirated application.
(Of the phones that are Jailbroken and running software that they instrument, they indicate 38% were determined to be running at least 1 pirated app.)
The internet gained about 6 billion pounds after the release of Windows Vista, due to all the additional beefier systems needing to be purchased in place of older systems.
It's far time the Internet went on a diet.
Oh WTF is with the supposition that Viruses or web pages "weigh" something?
It's already factored in by the weight of the hard drives of internet connected PCs... actually, that counts free disk space too.
Technically.. the entire weight of the PC is not all attributable to the Internet.
For example, the weight of the internet has nothing to do with the weight of that extra-large display you happened to have installed so you could watch DVDs on your computer.
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.
Just because phones have been wired to contracts for years, doesn't mean it was ever legal, or that it failed to be illegal product tying.
It may very well be that it wasn't an issue until now, or there wasn't enough outrage or damage to actually bring the matter to the courts.
The iPhone is certainly a very unique product compared to most phones.
Also, even in the past when phones were tied to a contract, it was possible to unlock them and use the phones with other service, without arbitrary restrictions imposed by the manufacturer.
And certainly the manufacturer did not come back and set out to brick unlocked devices in a new sw update.
Well, even sparklines in Excel is not Microsoft's innovation. They're implementing something that has already been implemented by an existing open-source add-in.
This is the equivalent of Microsoft hearing about "Emacs"
Developing their own text editor that is extensible using embedded lisp,
And 6 months later, patenting+claiming the concept of a text-editor extensible using embedded LISP.
Microsoft has done no invention here, only coding their own implementation of a function Excel users are already utilizing via 3rd-party enhancements.
This is embrace, extend, extinguish, all over again.
This is just a synthesis of existing technologies.
Spreadsheet software already automatically updates graphs and charts based on changes in the spreadsheet.
A sparkline is nothing more than a graph reduced in size and placed in-line within the text.
It follows that a combination of the existing graph technology, with the reduction in size, automatically leads to a sparkline that automatically updates.
Nothing new or novel is accomplished by the combination, so the synthesis isn't an invention.
It would certainly help with the epidemic of bogus patents, if those exaggerating or being deceptive on applications (such as claiming to have invented a graphical design while doing so much as acknowledging that someone else invented the design) would lead to some serious justice.
They probably have a background daemon always running as user "rpm" or something with a UNIX domain socket that accepts UID-verified install commands from a user logged into the graphical console.
And then passes on install commands to some daemon running as root that only accepts install commands from the "package manager UI daemon"
Or whatever... they don't have to use a SETUID bit, they just need an always-running starts-on-boot system process to stand ready to authenticate and implement the request.
If a root exploit is discovered, the installation of the package can be turned off, or an update can be published: then requesting to install will install the fixed version.
Also, there aren't that many packages that need to start or leave processes in place running as root, those packages could be special-cased...
Well, taser'ing seems reasonable, it's a well-recognized method of non-lethal defense.
If they die, you have a product manufacturer to point the finger at, at least, and it's not a gun or other weapon definitely designed to deliver fatal/permanent injury.
Reasonable force would probably involve you not kicking him when he was on the floor and stopped being a threat.
You think someone being on the floor makes them no longer a threat?
What consolation is that, when you deem them no longer a threat, so you decide to just walk home, and as you've turned their back to them, they pull out a concealed pistol and shoot you down?
Naturally, you have no way of knowing for sure whether they're armed or not.
Reasonable caution would be to expect treat it as the worse case scenario in that regard: shoot first, ask questions later, it's the only way you can really adequately defend your safety.
Wouldn't the chinese position be vindicated if it were demonstrated that the US ignores chinese IP rights to materials such as fonts, that the chinese hold subject to copyright?
p.s. much like the chinese ignore IP rights to material such as music, DVDs, software, that the US hold subject to copyright
If they developed the script for work.. what meaningful method can you use to distinguish it from the work they have been paid to perform?
If the programmer is your employee (not a contracter), the employment agreement most likely spells out ownership of such things.
If not, there's no way the programmer can prove they developed the script outside the scope of their work for the employer -- and the employer has strong evidence that they did (E.g. they were hired to write certain software, and making the script is clearly part of writing the software)..
This is different from teachers who are hired to educate students, not hired to write things and develop tools.
Just the same way as a restaurant hiring a musician to perform on a regular basis doesn't give them ownership of the lyrics the musician writes for their music.
Slashdot Mirror
To have true high-availability, even 2 VMware servers isn't enough, you need a reliable shared storage system that both servers can access.
Even then, the storage chassis itself will be a central point of failure. To have true HA you need a pair of independent shared storage units with continuous synchronous replication and some reliable mechanism of failover.
But even without HA...
There are still benefits of running only on one server and using virtualization. Getting higher utilization of a smaller volume of hardware still saves money, since you aren't running 10 servers sitting at 10% load all the time.
You can run multiple OSes.
You can run applications that require their own OS install. For example: domain controller can run on its own without other apps running on the DC. The major apps have their own server
Finally, there are security benefits of isolating apps to their own server. If one server is compromised, it can be taken out of service without affecting the other apps.
You can run the bleeding edge server OS version only for the app that needs it, and run more stable code for other apps.
If one server crashes due to an OS bug, the others keep running.
The hypervisor itself is a thin OS, and if run on proper hardware is highly stable. Driver issues are unlikely to bring down your servers, especially when utilizing advanced CPU features such as processor VT and IOMMU which provide sophisticated I/O and device isolation functions.
Of course, your hardware is a single point of failure. But backups/disaster recovery is easier to manage in a virtual environment, you just VCB and regular copies of your VMDKs to a secondary piece of metal to prevent data loss.
If there is extra budget then consider adding more or better hardware and services.
Shouldn't that be... if there's extra budget, think a little farther ahead, about how your requirements are likely to increase in the future?
So you can try to meet the anticipated future requirements earlier, to be more efficient, in saving money on delaying future upgrades that will otherwise be needed.
And when you need it back up within 5 minutes, and no data loss (other than data that didn't occur due to downtime)?
It's like the guy who wants to start a bank, who leaves the doors to the building in the default position (unlocked) always, and leaves the money vault's combination, set to the default "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16", which is printed on a sticker at the top of the lock he didn't bother to remove "Default combination: ..
If you don't bother reading the documentation and such, to ensure you use the "passwd" command as directed, then you have no business jailbreaking or using a jailbroken phone.
Because you're going to screw up in some other way too. (Default password isn't the only mistake you can make)
It gives Apple more ammo to use against jailbreakers, even justification for bricking them -- to protect Apple's good name against being tarnished by reports of "iPhone-based botnets".
Part of the sales pitch of Apple software is that there's no risk of Malware or Worms anything like there is for Windows users.
Microsoft would want you think there's nothing about Apple's OS that is more secure -- there's just no Malware problem, because hardly anybody uses their OS, and hackers aren't interested in it.
By allowing jailbroken iPhones to continue to function, and worms to arise targetting jailbroken phones, more credibility is lent to the Anti-OSX / Anti-UNIX security argument (the position that UNIX / OS X / Linux/ etc, are no more secure than Windows in any way, or that Windows is just as more secure).
The gamasutra link in the /. article stated:
Greg Yardley confirms that getting ripped off by pirates is the rule rather than the exception.
It didn't say that piracy was the rule, rather than the exception. It said having some people rip off your software was the rule rather than the exception.
I would say that the /. headline kicked it up a notch. Either someone didn't read the article, or they decided to bend the truth with a sensationalist headline, to attract more readers.
It's not novel. Businesses have been uploading .EXE files to their websites, to allow deployment to the web for decades.
It's not widespread use when Microsoft is giving you freebies and (in effect) paying you/making deals that cost them money, to use the technology, just so more people will be required to install the software and become aware of it.
IOW, the Netflix and Olympics using silverlight are very likely specific efforts by MS marketing/sales.
With the right freebies from MS (where using Flash costs something), or with the right kickbacks/sponsorships/friendly meals bought for the right people to discuss silver light.....
IOW: these few high profile sites using it don't indicate widespread use, only very strong efforts by MS.
And here I was... thinking of it as more like the MS Bob of application frameworks.
If your app doesn't require such a continuous connection normally, then it's not the type of app that pirates copies incur a constant drain on your resources.
If it only connects intermittently, then perform the authentication and usage subtractions at the time it does connect, based on the amount of server resources used when it connects...
I think it's a meaningless statistic.
If an app is popular enough, and there are people who pirate apps, then there's a higher probability of one of the persons who pirates apps finding that particular app and not wanting to pay for it.
With high probability, at least 1 person would pirate each of the most popular apps they instrument, and they'd detect it.
In this case, they're losing money because they have to pay for bandwidth and server resources that unpaid app users are utilizing.
What the developers should do is utilize in-app purchase capability, that produces a unique transaction id# kept on their servers for each purchase, username/password, that the developer gets associated with the unique device ID.
Cut the initial cost of the app, and charge a consumable fee.
A fee for "X hours" of app usage, which gets tracked by the server, e.g. 1000 hours of app usage.
If multiple iPhones are using the same ID# at the same time, it deducts the time associated with both sessions.
The statement means exactly what it says. 60% of apps have been pirated at least once. TFA says
(Of the phones that are Jailbroken and running software that they instrument, they indicate 38% were determined to be running at least 1 pirated app.)
The internet gained about 6 billion pounds after the release of Windows Vista, due to all the additional beefier systems needing to be purchased in place of older systems.
It's far time the Internet went on a diet.
Oh WTF is with the supposition that Viruses or web pages "weigh" something?
It's already factored in by the weight of the hard drives of internet connected PCs... actually, that counts free disk space too.
Technically.. the entire weight of the PC is not all attributable to the Internet.
For example, the weight of the internet has nothing to do with the weight of that extra-large display you happened to have installed so you could watch DVDs on your computer.
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.
Just because phones have been wired to contracts for years, doesn't mean it was ever legal, or that it failed to be illegal product tying.
It may very well be that it wasn't an issue until now, or there wasn't enough outrage or damage to actually bring the matter to the courts.
The iPhone is certainly a very unique product compared to most phones.
Also, even in the past when phones were tied to a contract, it was possible to unlock them and use the phones with other service, without arbitrary restrictions imposed by the manufacturer.
And certainly the manufacturer did not come back and set out to brick unlocked devices in a new sw update.
Well, even sparklines in Excel is not Microsoft's innovation. They're implementing something that has already been implemented by an existing open-source add-in.
This is the equivalent of Microsoft hearing about "Emacs"
Developing their own text editor that is extensible using embedded lisp,
And 6 months later, patenting+claiming the concept of a text-editor extensible using embedded LISP.
Microsoft has done no invention here, only coding their own implementation of a function Excel users are already utilizing via 3rd-party enhancements.
This is embrace, extend, extinguish, all over again.
This is just a synthesis of existing technologies.
Spreadsheet software already automatically updates graphs and charts based on changes in the spreadsheet.
A sparkline is nothing more than a graph reduced in size and placed in-line within the text.
It follows that a combination of the existing graph technology, with the reduction in size, automatically leads to a sparkline that automatically updates.
Nothing new or novel is accomplished by the combination, so the synthesis isn't an invention.
It would certainly help with the epidemic of bogus patents, if those exaggerating or being deceptive on applications (such as claiming to have invented a graphical design while doing so much as acknowledging that someone else invented the design) would lead to some serious justice.
They probably have a background daemon always running as user "rpm" or something with a UNIX domain socket that accepts UID-verified install commands from a user logged into the graphical console.
And then passes on install commands to some daemon running as root that only accepts install commands from the "package manager UI daemon"
Or whatever... they don't have to use a SETUID bit, they just need an always-running starts-on-boot system process to stand ready to authenticate and implement the request.
If a root exploit is discovered, the installation of the package can be turned off, or an update can be published: then requesting to install will install the fixed version.
Also, there aren't that many packages that need to start or leave processes in place running as root, those packages could be special-cased...
Well, taser'ing seems reasonable, it's a well-recognized method of non-lethal defense.
If they die, you have a product manufacturer to point the finger at, at least, and it's not a gun or other weapon definitely designed to deliver fatal/permanent injury.
Reasonable force would probably involve you not kicking him when he was on the floor and stopped being a threat.
You think someone being on the floor makes them no longer a threat?
What consolation is that, when you deem them no longer a threat, so you decide to just walk home, and as you've turned their back to them, they pull out a concealed pistol and shoot you down?
Naturally, you have no way of knowing for sure whether they're armed or not. Reasonable caution would be to expect treat it as the worse case scenario in that regard: shoot first, ask questions later, it's the only way you can really adequately defend your safety.
How about kicked to near death (but not killed)?
Wouldn't the chinese position be vindicated if it were demonstrated that the US ignores chinese IP rights to materials such as fonts, that the chinese hold subject to copyright?
p.s. much like the chinese ignore IP rights to material such as music, DVDs, software, that the US hold subject to copyright
The programmer is employed to write code.
If they developed the script for work.. what meaningful method can you use to distinguish it from the work they have been paid to perform?
If the programmer is your employee (not a contracter), the employment agreement most likely spells out ownership of such things.
If not, there's no way the programmer can prove they developed the script outside the scope of their work for the employer -- and the employer has strong evidence that they did (E.g. they were hired to write certain software, and making the script is clearly part of writing the software)..
This is different from teachers who are hired to educate students, not hired to write things and develop tools.
Just the same way as a restaurant hiring a musician to perform on a regular basis doesn't give them ownership of the lyrics the musician writes for their music.