It's especially ironic that you'd take to the Internet to complain about this.
You're more concerned about government using demographic data to target messaging, than google (or, erm, Dice)? One on these is accountable to voters, and the other is a private business.
reminding people that opening their WiFi is the socially responsible thing to do
No, it is not. This is like saying it's socially responsible to leave your keys in the ignition so your neighbors can barrow your car when they need to run to the store.
It's not socially responsible to suggest that it's OK for people to use Internet connectivity they don't know anything about, like who the man in the middle might be. It's not socially responsible to allow unknown third parties to rile though your personal belongings, like those tax returns you left on that unsecured windows share.
Finally, "legal protections" are for people who can afford lawyers.
That doesn't destroy the devies themselves. They're still turned on and chattering away looking for a network, at least until the batteries go flat. For most phones with a moderately charged battery, even an iPhone, that could be a day or more.
Even then, there's still records at your cell phone company that can be used to triangulate your last known position to at least tens of feet; usually better.
There is a big difference between seeing drugs on the back seat, or a dead body inside the car, and reporting that, and reporting on drugs found under the carpet in the trunk or in the glovebox if the car was brought in for an oil change...
The mechanic would have had no reasonable need to have searched those two areas to perform the job he was hired to do. Same with a PC tech, if someone brings in a PC to have a CD-ROM drive replaced, there is absolutely NO REASON for the tech to need to search the browser cache or the images directory...
The problem is, because there are different standards of service, what you you've purposed a construction that's beyond what the law and judges can apply equally. Each machanic does different things to the vehicals they're working on and because of that there would be different expectations as to what is private and what is not. A forgotten bag of weed under the seat? Oh, as part of your oil change service, we vacuum the inside carpet. Found a key of coke under the spare? They may have been inspecting it to see if it was still ok; they wouldn't want you to be surprised by a rotten spare on the side of the highway.
Shift this idea to computers. The cache directories are off limits, how about folders on the desktop named DONT_LOOK_HERE? The content of the system desktop backgrounds directory? Which parts of the system are private and which aren't, and how to you apply this equally? This is why you either abandon your expectation of privacy or you don't. If you turn your property over to a third party, you have abandoned any expectation you have in relation to that property.
As for not doing a filesystem search during a cdrom install, if I'm a pc tech, I'm going to run the standard diagnostics on each and every machine that enters my shop for two reasons. First, 90% of the machines I'm going to see are infected with something and I can't ethically allow that machine to leave the store in that state. Second, of that box has a ram problem, I want to know about it before I put a screwdriver to the case. It's not unreasonable to assume that a diagnostic scan is going to alert to a pile of suspiciously named image files in an obscure directory.
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
It seems to have worked with Vista.
If Microsoft's largest customers (IT departments) reject this version of windows over it's anti-piracy measures just like they rejected last version of windows over it's performance issues, you'll get your wish.
Ummmmmm... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves. Of course it would require much clearer and more straight forward laws and rules with less chance for built in loop holes for weasels to find their way through.
Funny, I've not had a day's worth of law school, but it's rare that I find a bill, law, legal brief or opinion that I don't understand at least at some level. Access to any of the case references often helps quite a bit. In other words, it's not anything more than reading comprehension just like we've all been doing since the 1st grade.
Legal documents are written in thick, complex language for a reason. The reason is to make it possible for judges to later infer legislative intent when interpreting laws later. Law written in loose language often cause us all problems later. See Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia as a classic example; in that case the Virginia Legislature passed a law that forbid "false" routing information on email as opposed to "fraudulent" routing information. The difference in the two terms led the judge to conclude that the use of false information was akin to hiding one's identity as opposed to the real goal of shifting the blame onto an innocent third party.
There is a reason they get well paid... it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit.
Well, our legal system is built upon 1000 years of case law, logic and legislation. As most lawyers will tell you, law school is less about learning the law than it is about learning logic of how law is constructed and how to find references (case law) to support your theory of a case.
And when Mr. Jobs was absent from last week's quarterly earnings conference call
Rubbish. Jobs is never on the call. He's only used on the quarterly calls when the Reality Distortion Field needs to be deployed to cover some sort of bad news.
Oh, the the difference between the Apple of the late 80's that ousted Jobs and the Apple of today is the senior leadership around Steve who actually understand him and his methods for running the company.
Uhh, no the ISP can not tell OP who is at an IP address and I would hope that you don't really expect that would really happen under any circumstances. An ISP isn't going to turn over personally identifying information with out a judges (or at least a sworn Law Enforcement Officers's) signature.
To answer the question: You found a guy who cares, you just need to get him to understand the evidence you have and how to follow the trail the point that he's willing to take action. Giving up in talking to him won't solve your problem. Calling him clueless won't either.
the "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" and therefore did not constitute "complete and corresponding source code" within the meaning of the license.
Sounds a little thin to me. Especially since SM licensed the offending code from a third party (Raritan) who will likely claim the the system used to build and install the image is their property.
Of course there's always captured zombie machines outside the great firewall to do the trick, but certainly here in the UK many ISPs take note of which computers are sending out suspicious traffic, I've known a couple of people have their net access disabled by their ISP for throwing out known virus traffic at least. Most responsible ISPs worldwide could no doubt do exactly the same things. Exactly. These guys are doing Command and Control from Internet cafes wherever they are, so there's very little traffic and it's surely wrapped in encryption anyway. Eventually the zombies get shut down, but that may be a matter of hours or days. Unfortunately, current detection and mitigation technologies don't keep up with the rate that new zombies are added to the horde.
The real question is could ISPs do this without introducing "feature" creep? My guess is, no, they'd quickly use the tools for blocking bad traffic for blocking things like BitTorrent, well, those few that don't already of course;) Just about everyone with a network bigger than a bread box has some type of attack mitigation gear in place. Most of the good stuff uses deep packet inspection, and many of them run in-line (Tipping Point, for example). I know it was a shock to most people when Comcast decided to target BitTorrent, but the reality is that deep packet inspection has been in the network for a long time.
Can you give me a specific example of what this breaks? Mail servers are a big one. When you inject mail into a mail server, it resolves the MX record for the domain you're sending mail to. If it gets NXDOMAIN, the mail server knows without a doubt that the domain you mailed to doesn't exist. It then generates the NDR (a bounce message), and sends it back to you.
Now that MXDOMAIN is broken, that misspelled domain you accidently typed on the To line now exists as a RoadRunner server. Two things can happen here: 1) the RR server will silently accept your misdirected mail giving them an opportunity to violate your privacy rights by somehow leaking your private communications, or 2) the RR server doesn't accept your mail, and the mail sits in your local mail queue for however many days it keep undeliverable mail before shipping a bounce message back to you.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, though. I can't tell from the link, but if RR is creating replacement records inside existing domains (say, they hand out a record for jkshdfkljh23sadf.google.com instead of correctly returning NXDOMAIN), then they've broken the DNS blacklist testing on almost all mail servers. Most mail servers are configured to check for the presence of a record in the black list domain instead of actually examine the data the MTA gets back for the lookup. Servers which are not configured check the DNS reply on the blacklist lookup now think that the entire Internet is blacklist causing them to reject mail, or treat that mail very suspiciously.
You'd think mail servers on Road Runner's cable network would be rare, but I'll state that they are not. Road Runner has a habit of mixing business (who have a terms of server that specifically allows servers, including mail servers) and consumer (who have a ToS that bans servers but that ban is unenforced for the most part) accounts in the same IP pool.
Your statement is only true if you are running a caching server Actually... OP's statement is only true if they were running a caching name server and they configured it to forward all requests to the upstream's dns servers using bind's forwarder's global option. That configuration would be insanity anyway.
Ignoring for a moment that Bruce is clearly Slashvertizing his blog. Again.
10 years, huh? I wonder what Bruce's friends from UC Berkeley would say. Sure seems like they had open source long before Bruce decided to get his name in the papers. Parens' and Raymond's instance on taking credit for free software is disgusting.
This is not news. The US intelligence community, including the fbi, has been a known user of key loggers and spyware for about a decade. My link is from 2001, but I have knowledge of a federal investigation in 1998 that used key loggers to track suspects' use of certain services.
1) Requires iTunes. Not quite. For upgrades, probably. That's a lot like complaining that your car requires tires, though. iTunes and the iPod are a single package, not two different systems tied together.
Doesn't work with Linux. Only if you don't want it to.
Is laden with DRM. Only if you want it to be.
Doesn't support popular codecs like OGG. I object to the use of "popular codecs" and OGG in the same sentence.
ONLY supports iTunes Music Store and not other, cheaper services. wrong.
6) Doesn't allow simple drag-and-drop access to copy music. I believe manual music management was implemented for the Touch and the iPhone in 7.6, but I don't recall exactly. You've always been able to drag and drop into a play list (say, a master playlist that only syncs to your ipod...).
7) Software is locked down on the device. oh? A velvet rope is not lock down.
8) Non-removable storage. 9) Non-removable battery. The last 5 years tells us that no one cares. Over time more and more electronics manufactures are going to start doing this. There's really no need anymore to change the battery. The designed lifespan on the current generation of batteries is 3-5 years, which is just about the same as the designed lifespan for the devices themselves. Letting you add more storage to something that's basically a storage device makes little business sense.
10) Costs $500, much more than cheaper, more open-devices do. for example?
Why in the hell, in Texas, rich oil state with lots of land, do we need tolls? Because you and almost all of the rest of the tax payers of The Great State of Texas, and of the various other states refuse to pay enough in taxes to keep up with the congestion single occupant vehicles cause. Roads in Texas are paid for, like in many states, using gasoline taxes. The current gas tax is 20 cents per gallon of gas. The state would have to increate that to closer to 50-75 cents per gallon of gas which would be political suicide to anyone who tries to pass such a measure, and much like past attempts to sneak an income tax past the voters may actually cause the citizenry to overthrow the state government by force (if you think I'm kidding, you don't live in Texas; a little democracy by force never hurt anyone). As an interesting aside, voters in Texas didn't give the state highway department the ability to build roads on credit (public bonds) until 5 or 6 years ago; everything was pay-as-you-go before that.
Unfortunately, decades of electing electing "fiscally conservative" Republicans has caused the state to get years and years behind normal road and bridge maintenance. It's a little too late to play catch up now without finding other funding sources. Usage taxes (tolls) are the least politically charged source, at least at the state level.
I think the implicit question is, "who is the tarket market?" Does anyone care that much about thickness that they're willing to give up a removeable battery, hard drive space, an optical drive, and pay a ton more? I do, though it's not a "ton more" by any stretch of the imagination. I carry a 15" MBP back just about everywhere I go in a 10lb backpack (5 for the machine, 2.5 for the pack itself, and another 2.5 in extra crap I carry around needlessly). I'd like to have some very small and light I can grab and take to a meeting, down stairs to the data center, or out in my back yard. I don't need an optical drive (hell, I use the optical drives in my systems that have then in an annual bases as it is), I've never removed the battery from any of the laptops I've owned over the years other than to get at the maintenance port Apple invariable puts under the battery, and I don't need a lot of storage on a box I use for ssh, mail, web, and meeting notes.
The EEE pc is one possibility for this, but the screen isn't of sufficient quality for my requirements (I have a rule about displays: if I can't read it without my glasses then it's a non-starter for me; hunching over and squinting is ok, but it still has to be [mostly] readable); also the keyboard on the EEE blows.
This entire thread reminds me of the iPhone bit from a year ago; no one could figure out who the hell would buy a smart phone without Exchange support. We know, now, that there's at least 4M people who didn't think Exchange support was a deal killer.
justice delayed is justice denied - and it was obvious a LONG time ago that this was a frivolous case It stopped being about SCO's case a long time ago. The Judge Kimball ruled on almost the entirety of SCO's case in August. Read Judge Gross's (part of) order:
... allow Novell to proceed with the Lawsuit at the convenience of the District Court [...] on the following issues: (1) the amount of the royalties to which Novell is entitled from certain SCOSource licenses that the District Court determined to be SVRX Licenses and any additional licenses that are determined to be SVRX Licenses; and (2) whether SCO had the authority to enter into licensing agreements with Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems. The judge ruled that this can go to trial so the court can figure out how much money SCO stole from Novell. I'm not saying the system is working here, but it's important to remember that Novell's goal is to strangle SCO to death. It's working.
If this isn't a strong argument that blacklisting systems are unethical, I don't know what is. It's a strong argument for changing providers more than anything else. The abuse department that found and killed the previous customer should have done a sweep of those IPs with all the usual places then get them removed. For professional abuse departments this is a matter of doing business, and is unfortunately part of what makes the Internet go 'round whether anyone likes it or not.
A black list is a list of domain or IPs the provider of the black list wishes to list. The provider of the list gets to decide who is listed, why they're listed and under what circumstances under which people get removed. They don't even have to give you any way to know you're on their list. Blacklists do not block mail. They're simply a list. It's a list of people that one party doesn't think other parties should accept mail from. It really nothing more than an opinion. There are of course bad lists and good lists. The fact is, the open market is pretty good at selecting the good ones and weeding out the bad ones.
The consumers of these lists, on the other hand, do have choices. One of them is to choose to not accept your mail for whatever reason they deem fit. Those people, whom you call, "vigilantes," the rest of us call Mail Server Administrators. We use tools such as RBLs, content filters and other other technologies to stop the deluge of bullshit into your mailbox. I will say that blocking any given piece of mail just because it shows up in one black list is probably asking to block mail someone wants. The system administrators run the system, they decide what mail comes in and what goes out. They have to work the tickets if it's broken for everyone or just the handful that got a spammy piece of mail blocked this week.
Anybody who buys into blacklist-based technology is a reactionary and a bigot. No, I'm a realist who knows from years of experience that they work with a minimum of side effects and do so far more efficiently than a lot of other less effective technologies.
Go read up on Lefthand's SAN/iQ sometime, that's pretty much what that does The biggest issue I had with the Lefthand solution is that they sell it an an open solution; you, supposedly, can pick anyone's hardware and use Lefthand's software to implement your storage cluster. Only not so much.
Lefthand certifies exactly three systems. The Prolient SL320s, the IBM System x3650 and a box they OEM from somewhere. Let's see... The prolient hold 12 drives, the ibm box hold 6 drives and Lefthand's OEM box holds 4. The density sucks. A lot.
Yes, yes. 6 drives/rack unit is really good. I agree. Just don't start the sales meeting telling me that you have an open software solution then try to sell me an HP box I don't want.
Slashdot Mirror
It's especially ironic that you'd take to the Internet to complain about this. You're more concerned about government using demographic data to target messaging, than google (or, erm, Dice)? One on these is accountable to voters, and the other is a private business.
I'm not sure, but I think you misspelled "ruin" in the headline.
reminding people that opening their WiFi is the socially responsible thing to do
No, it is not. This is like saying it's socially responsible to leave your keys in the ignition so your neighbors can barrow your car when they need to run to the store. It's not socially responsible to suggest that it's OK for people to use Internet connectivity they don't know anything about, like who the man in the middle might be. It's not socially responsible to allow unknown third parties to rile though your personal belongings, like those tax returns you left on that unsecured windows share.
Finally, "legal protections" are for people who can afford lawyers.
That doesn't destroy the devies themselves. They're still turned on and chattering away looking for a network, at least until the batteries go flat. For most phones with a moderately charged battery, even an iPhone, that could be a day or more.
Even then, there's still records at your cell phone company that can be used to triangulate your last known position to at least tens of feet; usually better.
Don't cell phones already provide a better solution to this "problem" while solving most of the privacy issues?
This year, for the first time since its inception, Norad is not making a simple .kml file available for download to track Santa.
NORAD's been putting out .kml files since 1958?
Apple maintains their own gcc fork which supports blocks/closures.
The probability that Apple migrates away from gcc is approaching 1 at great speed.
There is a big difference between seeing drugs on the back seat, or a dead body inside the car, and reporting that, and reporting on drugs found under the carpet in the trunk or in the glovebox if the car was brought in for an oil change...
The mechanic would have had no reasonable need to have searched those two areas to perform the job he was hired to do. Same with a PC tech, if someone brings in a PC to have a CD-ROM drive replaced, there is absolutely NO REASON for the tech to need to search the browser cache or the images directory...
The problem is, because there are different standards of service, what you you've purposed a construction that's beyond what the law and judges can apply equally. Each machanic does different things to the vehicals they're working on and because of that there would be different expectations as to what is private and what is not. A forgotten bag of weed under the seat? Oh, as part of your oil change service, we vacuum the inside carpet. Found a key of coke under the spare? They may have been inspecting it to see if it was still ok; they wouldn't want you to be surprised by a rotten spare on the side of the highway.
Shift this idea to computers. The cache directories are off limits, how about folders on the desktop named DONT_LOOK_HERE? The content of the system desktop backgrounds directory? Which parts of the system are private and which aren't, and how to you apply this equally? This is why you either abandon your expectation of privacy or you don't. If you turn your property over to a third party, you have abandoned any expectation you have in relation to that property.
As for not doing a filesystem search during a cdrom install, if I'm a pc tech, I'm going to run the standard diagnostics on each and every machine that enters my shop for two reasons. First, 90% of the machines I'm going to see are infected with something and I can't ethically allow that machine to leave the store in that state. Second, of that box has a ram problem, I want to know about it before I put a screwdriver to the case. It's not unreasonable to assume that a diagnostic scan is going to alert to a pile of suspiciously named image files in an obscure directory.
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
It seems to have worked with Vista.
If Microsoft's largest customers (IT departments) reject this version of windows over it's anti-piracy measures just like they rejected last version of windows over it's performance issues, you'll get your wish.
Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves. Of course it would require much clearer and more straight forward laws and rules with less chance for built in loop holes for weasels to find their way through.
Funny, I've not had a day's worth of law school, but it's rare that I find a bill, law, legal brief or opinion that I don't understand at least at some level. Access to any of the case references often helps quite a bit. In other words, it's not anything more than reading comprehension just like we've all been doing since the 1st grade.
Legal documents are written in thick, complex language for a reason. The reason is to make it possible for judges to later infer legislative intent when interpreting laws later. Law written in loose language often cause us all problems later. See Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia as a classic example; in that case the Virginia Legislature passed a law that forbid "false" routing information on email as opposed to "fraudulent" routing information. The difference in the two terms led the judge to conclude that the use of false information was akin to hiding one's identity as opposed to the real goal of shifting the blame onto an innocent third party.
There is a reason they get well paid... it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit.
Well, our legal system is built upon 1000 years of case law, logic and legislation. As most lawyers will tell you, law school is less about learning the law than it is about learning logic of how law is constructed and how to find references (case law) to support your theory of a case.
And when Mr. Jobs was absent from last week's quarterly earnings conference call
Rubbish. Jobs is never on the call. He's only used on the quarterly calls when the Reality Distortion Field needs to be deployed to cover some sort of bad news.
Oh, the the difference between the Apple of the late 80's that ousted Jobs and the Apple of today is the senior leadership around Steve who actually understand him and his methods for running the company.
The ISP can tell you who is at an IP address
Uhh, no the ISP can not tell OP who is at an IP address and I would hope that you don't really expect that would really happen under any circumstances. An ISP isn't going to turn over personally identifying information with out a judges (or at least a sworn Law Enforcement Officers's) signature.
To answer the question: You found a guy who cares, you just need to get him to understand the evidence you have and how to follow the trail the point that he's willing to take action. Giving up in talking to him won't solve your problem. Calling him clueless won't either.
Sounds a little thin to me. Especially since SM licensed the offending code from a third party (Raritan) who will likely claim the the system used to build and install the image is their property.
I wish the plaintiffs luck with discovery.
Now that MXDOMAIN is broken, that misspelled domain you accidently typed on the To line now exists as a RoadRunner server. Two things can happen here: 1) the RR server will silently accept your misdirected mail giving them an opportunity to violate your privacy rights by somehow leaking your private communications, or 2) the RR server doesn't accept your mail, and the mail sits in your local mail queue for however many days it keep undeliverable mail before shipping a bounce message back to you.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, though. I can't tell from the link, but if RR is creating replacement records inside existing domains (say, they hand out a record for jkshdfkljh23sadf.google.com instead of correctly returning NXDOMAIN), then they've broken the DNS blacklist testing on almost all mail servers. Most mail servers are configured to check for the presence of a record in the black list domain instead of actually examine the data the MTA gets back for the lookup. Servers which are not configured check the DNS reply on the blacklist lookup now think that the entire Internet is blacklist causing them to reject mail, or treat that mail very suspiciously.
You'd think mail servers on Road Runner's cable network would be rare, but I'll state that they are not. Road Runner has a habit of mixing business (who have a terms of server that specifically allows servers, including mail servers) and consumer (who have a ToS that bans servers but that ban is unenforced for the most part) accounts in the same IP pool.
Ignoring for a moment that Bruce is clearly Slashvertizing his blog. Again.
10 years, huh? I wonder what Bruce's friends from UC Berkeley would say. Sure seems like they had open source long before Bruce decided to get his name in the papers. Parens' and Raymond's instance on taking credit for free software is disgusting.
This is not news. The US intelligence community, including the fbi, has been a known user of key loggers and spyware for about a decade. My link is from 2001, but I have knowledge of a federal investigation in 1998 that used key loggers to track suspects' use of certain services.
9) Non-removable battery. The last 5 years tells us that no one cares. Over time more and more electronics manufactures are going to start doing this. There's really no need anymore to change the battery. The designed lifespan on the current generation of batteries is 3-5 years, which is just about the same as the designed lifespan for the devices themselves. Letting you add more storage to something that's basically a storage device makes little business sense. 10) Costs $500, much more than cheaper, more open-devices do. for example?
Unfortunately, decades of electing electing "fiscally conservative" Republicans has caused the state to get years and years behind normal road and bridge maintenance. It's a little too late to play catch up now without finding other funding sources. Usage taxes (tolls) are the least politically charged source, at least at the state level.
The EEE pc is one possibility for this, but the screen isn't of sufficient quality for my requirements (I have a rule about displays: if I can't read it without my glasses then it's a non-starter for me; hunching over and squinting is ok, but it still has to be [mostly] readable); also the keyboard on the EEE blows.
This entire thread reminds me of the iPhone bit from a year ago; no one could figure out who the hell would buy a smart phone without Exchange support. We know, now, that there's at least 4M people who didn't think Exchange support was a deal killer.
... allow Novell to proceed with the Lawsuit at the convenience of the District Court [...] on the following issues: (1) the amount of the royalties to which Novell is entitled from certain SCOSource licenses that the District Court determined to be SVRX Licenses and any additional licenses that are determined to be SVRX Licenses; and (2) whether SCO had the authority to enter into licensing agreements with Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems. The judge ruled that this can go to trial so the court can figure out how much money SCO stole from Novell. I'm not saying the system is working here, but it's important to remember that Novell's goal is to strangle SCO to death. It's working.A black list is a list of domain or IPs the provider of the black list wishes to list. The provider of the list gets to decide who is listed, why they're listed and under what circumstances under which people get removed. They don't even have to give you any way to know you're on their list. Blacklists do not block mail. They're simply a list. It's a list of people that one party doesn't think other parties should accept mail from. It really nothing more than an opinion. There are of course bad lists and good lists. The fact is, the open market is pretty good at selecting the good ones and weeding out the bad ones.
The consumers of these lists, on the other hand, do have choices. One of them is to choose to not accept your mail for whatever reason they deem fit. Those people, whom you call, "vigilantes," the rest of us call Mail Server Administrators. We use tools such as RBLs, content filters and other other technologies to stop the deluge of bullshit into your mailbox. I will say that blocking any given piece of mail just because it shows up in one black list is probably asking to block mail someone wants. The system administrators run the system, they decide what mail comes in and what goes out. They have to work the tickets if it's broken for everyone or just the handful that got a spammy piece of mail blocked this week. Anybody who buys into blacklist-based technology is a reactionary and a bigot. No, I'm a realist who knows from years of experience that they work with a minimum of side effects and do so far more efficiently than a lot of other less effective technologies.
Lefthand certifies exactly three systems. The Prolient SL320s, the IBM System x3650 and a box they OEM from somewhere. Let's see... The prolient hold 12 drives, the ibm box hold 6 drives and Lefthand's OEM box holds 4. The density sucks. A lot.
Yes, yes. 6 drives/rack unit is really good. I agree. Just don't start the sales meeting telling me that you have an open software solution then try to sell me an HP box I don't want.