Can you buy basic necessities? Food, water, shelter?
Sure, you can probably get all the coke you want, and maybe some minor items... but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Also, I've never said it wasn't money, I'm just saying its not worth anything in the end pretty much, but let me emphasis also, there's nothing wrong with riding the wave while it's up, it's just that some people aren't going to be able to get off when it crashes.
a. Fight the system > possible legal consequences > huge legal fees > lose anyways. b. Give the system what it wants > move on with your day.
Notice how there's no laws governing either way: THAT is the real problem. Can't blame a business for being a business and being loyal to its stock holders, but then again teleco has never been known for doing the bare minimum in all aspects of business.
Which one of these is exactly affected by virtualization?
What scenario are you talking about exactly?
Having answered neither of my questions, I'm going to go ahead and assume you probably do work in telecom but as far as virtualization understanding is concerned you're full of shit, discussion over.
Yep, this is almost exactly like the.com boom and bust. At the end of the day when everything is said and done there is nothing physical to sustain bitcoin's value. While it's a great concept and I'm of the whole keep the government out of my business mindset, there is nothing to say it's worth $500 mil, or $5 outside of speculation.
As an underground currency though (non-mainstream)... it can work, but I still if anybody wants real money out of it, it defeats the purpose.
Which one of these is exactly affected by virtualization?
You might be thinking of a very niched scenario working in telecom, most telecom applications expect certain hardware (pbx switch though I've never heard one of these virtualized). Embedded OS are a completely different beast from 99.9% of usage scenarios.
The whole point of Android is freedom, as in secure your own shit as much as you want freedom, if you can't handle it I believe they make iOS for those people. Till them most of android's security apps come from the community / vendors.
Then again, these guys installed APK files they got in their email, there is little to no hope there, most ppl don't know what an apk file is much less whether to click on it. Solution? Treat APKs as.exe , which email providers block for the very reason listed in this article, problem solved.
your software does not interact with the VM, the OS does... Application > OS > VM.
One more time: your software as far as it's concerned is running on a physical OS, it has no way of telling it's virtualized.
Don't blame the vizor for something it'll never logically be responsible for. Now if somebody misconfigurated the networking that's operator error and can happen in any stack as far as I'm concerned.
Putting the high-traffic VMs on the same host makes sense and so does the host's internal routing via VMWare. I'd put this one in the works with best practices category.
What about when you have 20-30 VM hosts?:)
I can kinda see the usage in the small / mid business world and maybe a super solution for something larger involving multiple firewalls. And between recommending a 5-6 figure firewall and the vmware package that contains it I can see the justification.
I did read: http://www.virtualizationpractice.com/when-to-use-a-virtual-firewall-14564/ and found two things: these guys actually think a software firewall is more secure than a hardware firewall... a firewall is a firewall, wasn't sure if I should keep reading, but ultimately they say exactly what I'm saying, on a high load network it's not an option.
Performance i agree on, there's definitely differences, do you realize VMWare is at the top of this category?
Also, I happen to know that all major OS are supported just fine by any of the vizors we're talking about.
Also #2, it's been established that the networking works in these vizors by people better than you or I, so if it doesn't I'd blame the admin.
In regards to pfSense, it's an OS project, so they probably either haven't gotten around to offering support, or have principals against it, I doubt there's a legit reason they don't support VMWare / Hyper-V outside of that. Also a virtual firewall is a horrible idea on a network where performance matters.
No need to worry about additional traffic flying down the wire to / from your router.
How does this work?
If you have more than one host, the v-firewall can only reside on one host, causing the other host to fire through the switch to get to the firewall which then fires out = redundant, thus the popularity of physical hardware firewalls. Prove me wrong?
P.S. my knowledge applies to corporate and business environments, what people do with virtualization on their home machines is irrelevant to what we're talking about.
Support for RedHat or Windows Server is not a 100% guarantee that a product will work fine when the OS is virtualized.
I'd love your source on that, I've never had an issue with either OS you mentioned on VMWare. If somebody screws up sysprep, that's their fault, not the vizors.
Again no, AC is 100% right, anybody who puts a firewall within their virtual stack needs to not work with virtual machines, there's no justifiable scenarios for doing so in a production environment. Your switch would double up though running the traffic around effectively reducing network performance by a minimum of 50% or greater at high load.
Porting a large scale website to a mobile version can most millions of dollars. I'd say go buy a clue, but I'm afraid you're going to be broke after the port. Also, who browses your website is determined by it's function, not by current trends.
I agree that cross-browser consistency is important, but most business have requirements around that: here's what we support, if you're not on it... contact IT.
Even e-commerce websites monitor their user base and only support the top browsers in relevant versions.
So... you're obviously not a web developer, why are you talking critiquing us?
Do I critique you on how you interact with your mom on a daily basis?
This has been a long time coming, but before going all crazy on knocking VMWare... we wouldn't have VMs without them? VMs that revolutionized IT infrastructure.
I don't think they've even begun to react to the competition or perceive it, maybe this move by paypal will put Xen on their radar, but for the longest time they were THE ONLY virtualization provider because nobody else could do it, people who call VMWare a monopoly simply do not understand the nature of technology and innovation.
Ex. name one anti-competitive practice they've employed? I can name one that's not ESXi has always been free, and that is actually what openstack is starting to surpass ESXi making it a viable alternative to the ESXi full blown vizor.
You folks are right though, the licensing structure completely bends the little guys over, a simple solution (w vCenter) can easily run up in the 50k range for like 200-300 users, unacceptable. But... all they have to do is bring their licensing costs down... right?
The thing with mass shooters is they take responsibility for their actions,there is no standard not guilty listen to my side of the story type thing. Nor do they show any remorse. This is confusing to society, it's just not what people expect from people... which brings up why do people expect anything (2nd Amen. art anyone?).
So here we are, looking for a motive, what could've gone wrong... blame the parents, blame the schools, blame peers, society... video games?
what about bb guns (you can learn to shoot w one)?:)
I'll choose to blame bb guns, it makes about as much sense.
What the saddest part of all this is that the ISP seemingly has no review process. Why? Because they know people will use them (being the only ISP available probably) regardless of whether they censor people or not without just cause or review. Anti-trust anyone...?
I agree, it's more of a general problem with single step auth (session hijacking)... but if somebody's getting a hold of your cookies you've got all sorts of problems, twitter being the least of them compared to say a financial account (though those tend to be more secure, the connection/machine are still compromised).
Also, firesheep is overrated, nobody respectable uses hubs on their network.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you buy basic necessities? Food, water, shelter?
Sure, you can probably get all the coke you want, and maybe some minor items... but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Also, I've never said it wasn't money, I'm just saying its not worth anything in the end pretty much, but let me emphasis also, there's nothing wrong with riding the wave while it's up, it's just that some people aren't going to be able to get off when it crashes.
They're businesses they look at it like this:
a. Fight the system > possible legal consequences > huge legal fees > lose anyways.
b. Give the system what it wants > move on with your day.
Notice how there's no laws governing either way: THAT is the real problem. Can't blame a business for being a business and being loyal to its stock holders, but then again teleco has never been known for doing the bare minimum in all aspects of business.
Simply put: why should the police have access to anything without a reason? are they better than us? do they know better? are they magical?
Nope they're just people like you and me.
Short or long term neither they, or you and I should have access to anybody else's non-public information without a compelling reason.
Which one of these is exactly affected by virtualization?
What scenario are you talking about exactly?
Having answered neither of my questions, I'm going to go ahead and assume you probably do work in telecom but as far as virtualization understanding is concerned you're full of shit, discussion over.
Yep, this is almost exactly like the .com boom and bust. At the end of the day when everything is said and done there is nothing physical to sustain bitcoin's value. While it's a great concept and I'm of the whole keep the government out of my business mindset, there is nothing to say it's worth $500 mil, or $5 outside of speculation.
As an underground currency though (non-mainstream)... it can work, but I still if anybody wants real money out of it, it defeats the purpose.
Enterprise applications technologically consist of the following:
1. registry keys
2. file directories
3. framework
4. web services
5. database
Which one of these is exactly affected by virtualization?
You might be thinking of a very niched scenario working in telecom, most telecom applications expect certain hardware (pbx switch though I've never heard one of these virtualized). Embedded OS are a completely different beast from 99.9% of usage scenarios.
What scenario are you talking about exactly?
In case you failed to read my post somehow let me restate it for you: Android is as secure as you make it. Now go read some books or something.
The whole point of Android is freedom, as in secure your own shit as much as you want freedom, if you can't handle it I believe they make iOS for those people. Till them most of android's security apps come from the community / vendors.
Then again, these guys installed APK files they got in their email, there is little to no hope there, most ppl don't know what an apk file is much less whether to click on it. Solution? Treat APKs as .exe , which email providers block for the very reason listed in this article, problem solved.
your software does not interact with the VM, the OS does... Application > OS > VM.
One more time: your software as far as it's concerned is running on a physical OS, it has no way of telling it's virtualized.
Don't blame the vizor for something it'll never logically be responsible for. Now if somebody misconfigurated the networking that's operator error and can happen in any stack as far as I'm concerned.
Putting the high-traffic VMs on the same host makes sense and so does the host's internal routing via VMWare. I'd put this one in the works with best practices category.
What about when you have 20-30 VM hosts? :)
I can kinda see the usage in the small / mid business world and maybe a super solution for something larger involving multiple firewalls. And between recommending a 5-6 figure firewall and the vmware package that contains it I can see the justification.
I did read: http://www.virtualizationpractice.com/when-to-use-a-virtual-firewall-14564/ and found two things: these guys actually think a software firewall is more secure than a hardware firewall... a firewall is a firewall, wasn't sure if I should keep reading, but ultimately they say exactly what I'm saying, on a high load network it's not an option.
Lol, you must work for tonka.
Performance i agree on, there's definitely differences, do you realize VMWare is at the top of this category?
Also, I happen to know that all major OS are supported just fine by any of the vizors we're talking about.
Also #2, it's been established that the networking works in these vizors by people better than you or I, so if it doesn't I'd blame the admin.
In regards to pfSense, it's an OS project, so they probably either haven't gotten around to offering support, or have principals against it, I doubt there's a legit reason they don't support VMWare / Hyper-V outside of that. Also a virtual firewall is a horrible idea on a network where performance matters.
No need to worry about additional traffic flying down the wire to / from your router.
How does this work?
If you have more than one host, the v-firewall can only reside on one host, causing the other host to fire through the switch to get to the firewall which then fires out = redundant, thus the popularity of physical hardware firewalls. Prove me wrong?
P.S. my knowledge applies to corporate and business environments, what people do with virtualization on their home machines is irrelevant to what we're talking about.
Support for RedHat or Windows Server is not a 100% guarantee that a product will work fine when the OS is virtualized.
I'd love your source on that, I've never had an issue with either OS you mentioned on VMWare. If somebody screws up sysprep, that's their fault, not the vizors.
Again no, AC is 100% right, anybody who puts a firewall within their virtual stack needs to not work with virtual machines, there's no justifiable scenarios for doing so in a production environment. Your switch would double up though running the traffic around effectively reducing network performance by a minimum of 50% or greater at high load.
Porting a large scale website to a mobile version can most millions of dollars. I'd say go buy a clue, but I'm afraid you're going to be broke after the port. Also, who browses your website is determined by it's function, not by current trends.
I agree that cross-browser consistency is important, but most business have requirements around that: here's what we support, if you're not on it... contact IT.
Even e-commerce websites monitor their user base and only support the top browsers in relevant versions.
So... you're obviously not a web developer, why are you talking critiquing us?
Do I critique you on how you interact with your mom on a daily basis?
This has been a long time coming, but before going all crazy on knocking VMWare... we wouldn't have VMs without them? VMs that revolutionized IT infrastructure.
I don't think they've even begun to react to the competition or perceive it, maybe this move by paypal will put Xen on their radar, but for the longest time they were THE ONLY virtualization provider because nobody else could do it, people who call VMWare a monopoly simply do not understand the nature of technology and innovation.
Ex. name one anti-competitive practice they've employed? I can name one that's not ESXi has always been free, and that is actually what openstack is starting to surpass ESXi making it a viable alternative to the ESXi full blown vizor.
You folks are right though, the licensing structure completely bends the little guys over, a simple solution (w vCenter) can easily run up in the 50k range for like 200-300 users, unacceptable. But... all they have to do is bring their licensing costs down... right?
No they're not.
Applications run on software, which then runs on hardware, RedHat is still Redhat & Windows server is still Windows server.
If you're thinking something like vSphere, that's not an enterprise app either.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/enterprise_application.html
The thing with mass shooters is they take responsibility for their actions,there is no standard not guilty listen to my side of the story type thing. Nor do they show any remorse. This is confusing to society, it's just not what people expect from people... which brings up why do people expect anything (2nd Amen. art anyone?).
So here we are, looking for a motive, what could've gone wrong... blame the parents, blame the schools, blame peers, society... video games?
what about bb guns (you can learn to shoot w one)? :)
I'll choose to blame bb guns, it makes about as much sense.
What the saddest part of all this is that the ISP seemingly has no review process. Why? Because they know people will use them (being the only ISP available probably) regardless of whether they censor people or not without just cause or review. Anti-trust anyone...?
Step one: Make digital card game.
Step two: Print cards and sell them.
Step three: Profit more from WOW.
So I did :)
I agree, it's more of a general problem with single step auth (session hijacking)... but if somebody's getting a hold of your cookies you've got all sorts of problems, twitter being the least of them compared to say a financial account (though those tend to be more secure, the connection/machine are still compromised).
Also, firesheep is overrated, nobody respectable uses hubs on their network.
Step one: Make digital card game.
Step two: Print cards and sell them.
Step three: Profit more from WOW.
At least part of the problem is DigilRev isn't much smarter on the law and bent over on the DMCA when they didn't have to.