Note that frequently one nation or another caves and has a 'tax holiday' on repatriating money. So they stockpile and invest even if it's a dead end and one day they can shuffle it around. So deferral of the tax can have very nice situations. I'm sure there's other accounting games that probably revolve around repatriating during some period with relatively poor business results to be able to avoid it looking like profit.
Note that a 'chroot jail' is distinct from somewhat more thorough use of namespaces and cgroups for isolation. I also have the opinion that having HA is something that is better done up the stack rather than making a particular VM instance HA.
That said, in practice the namespace/cgroup isolation is coming from a somewhat permissive perspective and locking it down, whereas virtualization tends to be a bit more closed off. So in theory, the container approach should be fine and better, though the area for mistakes is larger, so I'd be wary. Additionally, with HA the same applies, sometimes you don't have the ability to make the application behave as you'd like...
I agree with you. Note I think that the value of the two together is actually less than the two separate. I don't see a lot of upside to having those under one umbrella, on the flipside I see a great deal of headwinds as former partners of EMC and VMware push competitors harder now while they were content to partner with those companies before.
Netapp, IBM, and Microsoft are in a pretty good position to get Dell competitors behind their products. Not crazy about MS' implementation, but expect there to be a push for it like never seen before.... I wouldn't be surprised to see something like an HP acquisition of Netapp in the future as a reaction to this, which too would be a shame.
Lenovo partnerned with EMC on the low end, and EMC's ownership of iomega became a shared ownership with Lenovo. LenovoEMC is a shared ownership thing between the two companies and has zero technical relation to other EMC products.
Of course this becomes one of those interesting things, with Lenovo and Dell co-owning something. I suspect one side, the other, or both will walk away from that product line.
I haven't seen it in Wayland per se, but look at xpra. The way it implements remote app execution is in theory possible based on my understanding of wayland architecture. It doesn't have problems with detaching windows, etc. It currently requires a dummy X server, but it's not really in the actual display stack. It's a project that gives me hope for Wayland being able to provide a decent experience. Of course I don't know if Wayland is badly needed or not, but at least I could see a tolerable way of coping with applications that could not run over X without something like a dumb VNC session.
It doesn't slow down, but they also don't help. That's the point I was making, that the lines, text, and pattern primitives that X was able to simply describe aren't leveraged in modern UI.
Now I can't speak to the question of what Wayland fixes in exchange for getting to ignore having X11 as part of the core, and whether it's worth it. I can say that even if it Xorg, it's time for most folks to move on to strategies like Xpra that preserve the awesome facets of seamless remote applications, perform better, and are not sensitive to things like network disconnects trashing the ability for the application to keep running.
Ok, they don't have the cash or equity either to 'acquire'. Merger might be another thing, but the story has said 'Dell looking to acquire' not 'looking to merge'.
I suspect the sentiment is that X11 is better because of the network transparency angle. Of course the underpinnings of how X11 does it are actually decrepit and inefficient and compare poorly to other strategies that leverage different entry points that Wayland actually preserves. Injection into the compositing and WM provides a simpler and nowadays better performing strategy than X11 primitives. It meant something when the X11 primitives were actually used in the typical X applications with some sort of relevance, but now pretty much applications running over remote X are pretty much dumping bitmap data rather than any useful shorthand for complex UI concepts. Meanwhile intejecting the payload via compositor and the context via WM avoids a lot of the complexity that X contends with and allows a compositor freedom in picking good client-server protocol/compression.
Dell can't 'acquire' EMC, there's no way they have the cash.
"Another report, this time fromre/code,HYPERLINK "http://recode.net/2015/10/07/emc-is-looking-to-sell-part-of-its-business-to-dell/"citesits own sources to the effect that EMC was merely trying to offload its VNX line"
This rumor is more credible, Dell could probably afford something like the VNX line.
No, they know the medical costs, which do not reflect loss of value. If I get cancer, the health insurance costs are super high. If I get instantly decapitated in an accident, the health insurance costs aren't terribly high. In both cases, however, the 'loss of value' would be similar. The tab is picked up by my life insurance, but that 'value' was set by me, not by some third party.
The point stands, we don't have a concrete 'value' associated with loss of life and diminished quality of life associated with various energy strategies.
Except market research is an indirect and often flawed amount of knowledge. It's also generally based on data sources generally available to the public.
Here the knowledge is a more direct representation of the needed data. You are betting according to the very straightforward assumption that all popular 'fantasy sports' sites have similar behavior among their members. Essentially, those with access to one site's membership data knows the odds to payoffs of a typical site, while the rest of the participants are somewhat blind to the odds to payoffs. With this knowledge, folks are able to find combinations that are almost certainly going to be profitable in aggregate, which wouldn't be possible if things were actually fair.
The challenge being that the dust is far from settled on the quantum-resistant asymmetric hashes, and none of them have been anywhere near as well researched as RSA or even elliptic curve.
I can't reasonably today set up a website certificate using any quantum resistant algorithm. More research and consensus are required. It may be pessimistic to say no meaningful encryption for decades (it ignores symmetric encryption, this step actually isn't *practically* any closer to producing the theoretical quantum computer that could derive private keys from public keys, and even if it were closer, algorithms that are credibly being considered quantum resistant are out there, so it may be years, but not decades from now unless something is deeply wrong with *all* the candidates).
Problem being that folks running Windows typically have a lot of applications that are not universal apps and likely never to become universal apps. Continuum *specifically* helps a phone provide the desktop/laptop support when paired with appropriate input/output setup, which is nice for generic applications, but more critically relevant to the applications that people run that are not in this mold.
MS without x86 has been a very very uphill situation from a business perspective.
Of course the issue being that AES isn't useful in many contexts without key exchange, which is generally rooted in asymmetric algorithms. Pre-shared key circumstances exist, but are exceptionally rare and not particularly feasible in most internet contexts.
Such a strategy using username/password as foundation of the strategy can work once a relationship is boot strapped, but no good way to bootstrap a new secure relationship.
Whatever judgement call you want to make (I hate the phrase SJW because it is pretty much used indiscriminately toward folks who have legitimate gripes and those who are senselessly whining).
I personally have found Linus' perspective a bit refreshing. He will call out bad code, erring on the side of brutal honesty. I've seen way too many projects fall pray to the other phenomenon, everyone is too polite and in fear of discouraging folks, and ends up accepting mediocre stuff rather than offend. It's generally not a problem for a small project, but the bigger the project is and the more interest attracts, the more dangerous this can get.
I know if I can get code in easily without a lot of commentary/debate, I take it as a sign that the project is being too nice.
Of course this is a *problem* for MS, this is causing their partners to be at least somewhat concerned. I think getting dug in too hard into hardware is a mistake for MS. They overwhelmed Apple with partners to win in the past, trying to beat apple at their own game seems perilous.
If they went with Atom processors for the phones.. Without access to the library of existing x86 applications,Windows continues to fail to take advantage of their one key advantage, that dwindles more and more by the day.
MS should have been pushing the x86 phone story *hard*. I was skeptical when Surface RT happened, and that did turn out to be a bust. MS should have learned from this. While continuum lays the groundwork for an interesting story, it falls short when paired with an ARM device with respect to MS ecosystem.
I think that McD gets a lot of heat and serves more as a symbol than the primary cause. As a symbol, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, people who don't care about healthy diet eat there. Those who do care avoid it like the plague. However those two sets of folks are also doing a whole lot more than deciding whether they eat at McD or not. In France that anti-McD stigma may not be as severe, and as such McD might not cause such health problems.
Or we have incorrectly stereotyped one nation or the other in a good or poor light...
I think it's not a matter of blindly allowing, IIRC google explictly said they would block any site that does not actually give the user the content that appeared in the search results. So a lot of news sites had to allow google referalls or else not show up in results. Also experts exchange had to start showing their answers (amusingly they would have at the top of the page a redacted 'pay to reveal answer' or something, but right underneath the answer was in the clear because of the google thing.
I also wonder about how well the concept would scale up..... Very complex projects I've found have very little correlation between how costly it was to implement and the lines of code involved. I think this would be a case where the complexity of the task is not well represented by lines of code (lot's of code was created and eventually deleted that still represents work that would be likely to occur for an organization seeking to indepentently implement the same sort of stuff).
They said it would take approximately 30 years for approximately 1300 developers to get there. We know because we have an idea of how things evolved that estimate is actually a bit short. Some of that codebase is about 30 years old, and well more than that many developers have contributed. Things have been done, discarded, redone. The estimate is actually a pretty optimistic one that assumes the developers get it 'mostly' right the first time when actual history has had many many dead ends that caused a total rethink. One would expect the same out of a private endeavor. So there's some balancing out.
Given modern monitors and the reality of USB, the worst case for non-KVM is hit input select on two monitors and move a single usb cable between three ports. A fancy KVM is pretty expensive to save the trouble of moving a cable and one extra button press.
It may be best to figure out a way to wire up your monitor multiple inputs up to the various desktops, and using the monitor input switch buttons. For the input, synergy (http://synergy-project.org/) which I haven't had use for in a long time. Otherwise, just have some close at hand usb hubs close and move the cables around. There exist 'cleaner' KVM devices to do this, but they are way expensive. If your monitor inputs are lacking, new monitors are likely cheaper than the KVM device you would need to not get new monitors. Monitors with three digital inputs would probably be the easiest thing to meet the requirements verbatim.
For another, I'm really wondering why you feel this need so strongly. What tasks are you spreading amongst all these systems? How many of these tasks *really* indicate need for directly using the attached 'head' versus remote access (RDP, VNC, ssh, whatever). Is there a good reason that the things that really need direct connectivity can't be grouped into a single system? If not a single system, narrow down to 2 PCs and comfortably fit on your monitor inputs.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that frequently one nation or another caves and has a 'tax holiday' on repatriating money. So they stockpile and invest even if it's a dead end and one day they can shuffle it around. So deferral of the tax can have very nice situations. I'm sure there's other accounting games that probably revolve around repatriating during some period with relatively poor business results to be able to avoid it looking like profit.
Note that a 'chroot jail' is distinct from somewhat more thorough use of namespaces and cgroups for isolation. I also have the opinion that having HA is something that is better done up the stack rather than making a particular VM instance HA.
That said, in practice the namespace/cgroup isolation is coming from a somewhat permissive perspective and locking it down, whereas virtualization tends to be a bit more closed off. So in theory, the container approach should be fine and better, though the area for mistakes is larger, so I'd be wary. Additionally, with HA the same applies, sometimes you don't have the ability to make the application behave as you'd like...
I agree with you. Note I think that the value of the two together is actually less than the two separate. I don't see a lot of upside to having those under one umbrella, on the flipside I see a great deal of headwinds as former partners of EMC and VMware push competitors harder now while they were content to partner with those companies before.
Netapp, IBM, and Microsoft are in a pretty good position to get Dell competitors behind their products. Not crazy about MS' implementation, but expect there to be a push for it like never seen before.... I wouldn't be surprised to see something like an HP acquisition of Netapp in the future as a reaction to this, which too would be a shame.
Lenovo partnerned with EMC on the low end, and EMC's ownership of iomega became a shared ownership with Lenovo. LenovoEMC is a shared ownership thing between the two companies and has zero technical relation to other EMC products.
Of course this becomes one of those interesting things, with Lenovo and Dell co-owning something. I suspect one side, the other, or both will walk away from that product line.
I haven't seen it in Wayland per se, but look at xpra. The way it implements remote app execution is in theory possible based on my understanding of wayland architecture. It doesn't have problems with detaching windows, etc. It currently requires a dummy X server, but it's not really in the actual display stack. It's a project that gives me hope for Wayland being able to provide a decent experience. Of course I don't know if Wayland is badly needed or not, but at least I could see a tolerable way of coping with applications that could not run over X without something like a dumb VNC session.
It doesn't slow down, but they also don't help. That's the point I was making, that the lines, text, and pattern primitives that X was able to simply describe aren't leveraged in modern UI.
Now I can't speak to the question of what Wayland fixes in exchange for getting to ignore having X11 as part of the core, and whether it's worth it. I can say that even if it Xorg, it's time for most folks to move on to strategies like Xpra that preserve the awesome facets of seamless remote applications, perform better, and are not sensitive to things like network disconnects trashing the ability for the application to keep running.
Ok, they don't have the cash or equity either to 'acquire'. Merger might be another thing, but the story has said 'Dell looking to acquire' not 'looking to merge'.
I suspect the sentiment is that X11 is better because of the network transparency angle. Of course the underpinnings of how X11 does it are actually decrepit and inefficient and compare poorly to other strategies that leverage different entry points that Wayland actually preserves. Injection into the compositing and WM provides a simpler and nowadays better performing strategy than X11 primitives. It meant something when the X11 primitives were actually used in the typical X applications with some sort of relevance, but now pretty much applications running over remote X are pretty much dumping bitmap data rather than any useful shorthand for complex UI concepts. Meanwhile intejecting the payload via compositor and the context via WM avoids a lot of the complexity that X contends with and allows a compositor freedom in picking good client-server protocol/compression.
This is enlightment. They've never ever had a '1.0' release in decades of existing.
Dell can't 'acquire' EMC, there's no way they have the cash.
"Another report, this time fromre/code,HYPERLINK "http://recode.net/2015/10/07/emc-is-looking-to-sell-part-of-its-business-to-dell/"citesits own sources to the effect that EMC was merely trying to offload its VNX line"
This rumor is more credible, Dell could probably afford something like the VNX line.
No, they know the medical costs, which do not reflect loss of value. If I get cancer, the health insurance costs are super high. If I get instantly decapitated in an accident, the health insurance costs aren't terribly high. In both cases, however, the 'loss of value' would be similar. The tab is picked up by my life insurance, but that 'value' was set by me, not by some third party.
The point stands, we don't have a concrete 'value' associated with loss of life and diminished quality of life associated with various energy strategies.
My wife's ancient desktop could be matched by an Atom x7. If I bought a handset with an Atom x7 and dock, she has a new phone and a new desktop.
Except market research is an indirect and often flawed amount of knowledge. It's also generally based on data sources generally available to the public.
Here the knowledge is a more direct representation of the needed data. You are betting according to the very straightforward assumption that all popular 'fantasy sports' sites have similar behavior among their members. Essentially, those with access to one site's membership data knows the odds to payoffs of a typical site, while the rest of the participants are somewhat blind to the odds to payoffs. With this knowledge, folks are able to find combinations that are almost certainly going to be profitable in aggregate, which wouldn't be possible if things were actually fair.
The challenge being that the dust is far from settled on the quantum-resistant asymmetric hashes, and none of them have been anywhere near as well researched as RSA or even elliptic curve.
I can't reasonably today set up a website certificate using any quantum resistant algorithm. More research and consensus are required. It may be pessimistic to say no meaningful encryption for decades (it ignores symmetric encryption, this step actually isn't *practically* any closer to producing the theoretical quantum computer that could derive private keys from public keys, and even if it were closer, algorithms that are credibly being considered quantum resistant are out there, so it may be years, but not decades from now unless something is deeply wrong with *all* the candidates).
Problem being that folks running Windows typically have a lot of applications that are not universal apps and likely never to become universal apps. Continuum *specifically* helps a phone provide the desktop/laptop support when paired with appropriate input/output setup, which is nice for generic applications, but more critically relevant to the applications that people run that are not in this mold.
MS without x86 has been a very very uphill situation from a business perspective.
Of course the issue being that AES isn't useful in many contexts without key exchange, which is generally rooted in asymmetric algorithms. Pre-shared key circumstances exist, but are exceptionally rare and not particularly feasible in most internet contexts.
Such a strategy using username/password as foundation of the strategy can work once a relationship is boot strapped, but no good way to bootstrap a new secure relationship.
Well, there is this:
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/3...
Whatever judgement call you want to make (I hate the phrase SJW because it is pretty much used indiscriminately toward folks who have legitimate gripes and those who are senselessly whining).
I personally have found Linus' perspective a bit refreshing. He will call out bad code, erring on the side of brutal honesty. I've seen way too many projects fall pray to the other phenomenon, everyone is too polite and in fear of discouraging folks, and ends up accepting mediocre stuff rather than offend. It's generally not a problem for a small project, but the bigger the project is and the more interest attracts, the more dangerous this can get.
I know if I can get code in easily without a lot of commentary/debate, I take it as a sign that the project is being too nice.
Of course this is a *problem* for MS, this is causing their partners to be at least somewhat concerned. I think getting dug in too hard into hardware is a mistake for MS. They overwhelmed Apple with partners to win in the past, trying to beat apple at their own game seems perilous.
If they went with Atom processors for the phones.. Without access to the library of existing x86 applications,Windows continues to fail to take advantage of their one key advantage, that dwindles more and more by the day.
MS should have been pushing the x86 phone story *hard*. I was skeptical when Surface RT happened, and that did turn out to be a bust. MS should have learned from this. While continuum lays the groundwork for an interesting story, it falls short when paired with an ARM device with respect to MS ecosystem.
I think that McD gets a lot of heat and serves more as a symbol than the primary cause. As a symbol, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, people who don't care about healthy diet eat there. Those who do care avoid it like the plague. However those two sets of folks are also doing a whole lot more than deciding whether they eat at McD or not. In France that anti-McD stigma may not be as severe, and as such McD might not cause such health problems.
Or we have incorrectly stereotyped one nation or the other in a good or poor light...
I assume they are blindly checking the referrer.
I think it's not a matter of blindly allowing, IIRC google explictly said they would block any site that does not actually give the user the content that appeared in the search results. So a lot of news sites had to allow google referalls or else not show up in results. Also experts exchange had to start showing their answers (amusingly they would have at the top of the page a redacted 'pay to reveal answer' or something, but right underneath the answer was in the clear because of the google thing.
I also wonder about how well the concept would scale up..... Very complex projects I've found have very little correlation between how costly it was to implement and the lines of code involved. I think this would be a case where the complexity of the task is not well represented by lines of code (lot's of code was created and eventually deleted that still represents work that would be likely to occur for an organization seeking to indepentently implement the same sort of stuff).
They said it would take approximately 30 years for approximately 1300 developers to get there. We know because we have an idea of how things evolved that estimate is actually a bit short. Some of that codebase is about 30 years old, and well more than that many developers have contributed. Things have been done, discarded, redone. The estimate is actually a pretty optimistic one that assumes the developers get it 'mostly' right the first time when actual history has had many many dead ends that caused a total rethink. One would expect the same out of a private endeavor. So there's some balancing out.
Given modern monitors and the reality of USB, the worst case for non-KVM is hit input select on two monitors and move a single usb cable between three ports. A fancy KVM is pretty expensive to save the trouble of moving a cable and one extra button press.
It may be best to figure out a way to wire up your monitor multiple inputs up to the various desktops, and using the monitor input switch buttons. For the input, synergy (http://synergy-project.org/) which I haven't had use for in a long time. Otherwise, just have some close at hand usb hubs close and move the cables around. There exist 'cleaner' KVM devices to do this, but they are way expensive. If your monitor inputs are lacking, new monitors are likely cheaper than the KVM device you would need to not get new monitors. Monitors with three digital inputs would probably be the easiest thing to meet the requirements verbatim.
For another, I'm really wondering why you feel this need so strongly. What tasks are you spreading amongst all these systems? How many of these tasks *really* indicate need for directly using the attached 'head' versus remote access (RDP, VNC, ssh, whatever). Is there a good reason that the things that really need direct connectivity can't be grouped into a single system? If not a single system, narrow down to 2 PCs and comfortably fit on your monitor inputs.