The U.S. and Soviets did this for decades and no hot war ever broke out. Sabotage, assassination, espionage, territorial incursion and the whole ball of wax.
"Cold War" did not involve sabotage, killing of government officials or members of the military.
Nothing is an act of war unless war is actually declared subsequent to that.
No. There is a clear definition what is and what isn't an act of war, and it is consistently used when countries have to deal with each other. What is a war in the opinion of some US government officials has nothing to do with it.
Actually, it shows your lack of intelligence that you cannot think of a single thing to improve in UNIX design.
This is not what I claim. Anything can be improved. I claim that no EXISTING system is better or even comparable.
That does not prove anything other than Plan9 did not gain significant momentum or developer interest.
The fact that Plan9 didn't reach wide acceptance, indeed, proves nothing. The fact that Plan9 was never implemented in a way superior to modern Unix-like system, stands by itself.
LOL.. None of the currently popular OS has survived because of technical merits. Windows survived because of monopoly. Linux only became popular because it was free.
There are plenty of systems that are "free" in whatever meaning you use that word.
After that initial small level of success lots of Linux services companies have hired people to improve Linux and it has become quite good, but the primary reason it took off was that it was free and a "good enough" clone of UNIX. In a capitalist society, 'technical merits' are useless talking points in marketing brochures. Its like CPU Megahertz wars.
And if it wasn't Linux, it would be another Unix-like system. There were no alternatives, and there are unlikely to appear in a foreseeable future. Maybe 5-10 decades after Microsoft OS will be eradicated, there will be a worthwhile OS with a non-Unix design. Until then, it's all pointless mental masturbation, there is Microsoft and there are Unix-like systems. Everything else is specialized or irrelevant.
Where has anyone claimed that UNIX is satan? Are you high or something? The majority of the people that worked on NT have a UNIX background and they sought to improve it - Which they did.
Every time Microsoft tries to imitate a feature of a Unix-like OS, they do it terribly wrong. It demonstrates that Unix-like thinking is incompatible with Microsoft culture.
Nobody 'rejected' IBMs architecture, they just find it cheaper and easier to buy someone else's chip instead of designing their own around zArchitecture (IBM does not sell those chips to anyone else).
"Someone else" (all of them) chosen a simpler CPU architecture for a reason.
EAL5 does not say or imply that there are no bugs. EAL5 says that specific international standards were followed in the design and implementation. Suse and Red Hat enterprise Linux have been certified at EAL4, as has Windows 7 and Windows XP.
And as long as there are full-compromise bugs slipping through certifications, those "standards" are meaningless.
That said, I'm not 100% sure Google is right here. Microsoft seems to be fairly open about wanting a slice of the Android phone cash bonanza, and is negotiating with phone manufacturers (as it should be - those are the people actually selling devices that have a price on them) without demanding amounts that would make Android phones impossible or uncompetitive.
You are right, extortion is ok if it doesn't kill you. Please send me $655.37 every month, or else...
If you have the required brain capacity to understand that UNIX isn't some mythical "perfect design".
Unix isn't perfect, however it's the best OS design that currently exists.
UNIX has deep flaws (as even the creators have acknowledged.)
And then those creators (actually Dennis Ritchie) demonstrated how wrong they are when they tried to make a system without those flaws. It (Plan9) did not work as they thought.
and many OS designs have either fixed or eliminated those glaring flaws.
Those "glaring flaws" you have heard of are from one book (The Unix-haters Handbook) that contains nothing but an incoherent rants and claims that were debunked ages ago. The only non-Unixlike general-purpose OS that survived is Windows, and it certainly did not survive because of its technical merits.
Only a moron (for e.g. you) will argue this point.
Only a Microsoft employee would claim this, as Unix-like design is supposedly some Great Satan there.
Much like a Linux distro then? It will not accept a non-UNIX kernel without rewriting OS interfaces.
Currently there are two kinds of operating systems in exitence:
1. Unix-like. 2. Shit.
What the fuck are you talking about? NT kernel will allow ANY binaries to run under it.
In the same way how Javascript allows ANY binaries to run under it. It's true, there are CPU emulators in Javascript.
Win32 is just a sub-system and running Linux, OS2 or any other sub-system with equal performance is possible. Nothing in the NT kernel requires Win32 to be present.
Just because Dave Cutler worked on it, and Microsoft claimed that it imbued NT kernel with magical properties, it does not make it true. NT kernel is an old, shitty implementation of something that looks like microkernel. No one uses it for anything but running Win32. Once, someone (Interix) tried to make a Unix-like system on top of it. It was the worst Unix-like system in history. Microsoft devised another layer on top of it in Windows 8, and everyone hates it already.
LPAR is an IBM term, and it's only applicable to their platform, a legacy of what I have already describes as stone age of computing. Generic non-virtualization mechanism for achieving the same is hardware partitioning, and it works great with operating systems that were developed as an alternative to ancient IBM architecture.
Lots of people use Windows. Many of the heavy-hitting companies depend on Windows quite heavily for their day-to-day mission critical operations - and it delivers, despite your hyperbole.
And they are welcome to use three layers of virtualization above it, for all I care.
Windows used to have very shitty security but now they're top-notch in security practices.
Windows has crap security design that they are trying to compensate by fine-grained control-freakery that does not actually make anything secure.
Linux has security holes too. But hey, we can gloss over that...
You know what else has more security holes than Linux? Hypervisors and VM management software. Good luck recovering your whole data center once any of those get exploited.
Few legitimate purposes, non-virtualization-dependent solutions exist.
2) Hardware abstraction layer
Bullshit.
2.a) Hardware upgrades with no downtime to any service
You forgot the time it takes to copy things and switch the data under it. Proper data storage/application separation accomplishes this without virtualization, virtualization itself does not really do this.
2.b) VM failover on the fly
By the time VM notices anything, your application is long dead. Proper high-availability application architecture accomplishes the same goal without virtualization.
3) Cloned spinup
No legitimate purposes.
4) Snapshot backups (with OS integration)
Operating systems do that already without virtualization. Database backup has to be applcation-driven anyway due to transaction mechanism in place. Virtualization adds absolutely nothing there.
5) On-the-fly storage expansion
Already done by OS.
6) multi-SAN connectivity
Already done by OS.
7) Resource pooling
Not achieved by virtualization.
8) Cost effectiveness
Only compared to severely mismanaged systems, bullshit otherwise.
9) Resource oversubscribe (production, but typically unimportant machines get things like the memory balloon driver)
Bullshit, OS (partitioned or non-partitioned hosts) already does that better.
10) Rebalance of resources as workloads change.
Does not work with virtualization, actually accomplished by proper application architecture, implemented easily by existing databases and web services.
chroot is a legitimate mechanism of partial host partitioning. It does not create layers of interfaces upon interfaces and hardware that virtualization does.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in the sense of "Tolstoy wrote about cowboys and Indians."
Maybe he did, but they were search/replaced with Russian soldiers and Tartars?
lol butthurt
The U.S. and Soviets did this for decades and no hot war ever broke out. Sabotage, assassination, espionage, territorial incursion and the whole ball of wax.
"Cold War" did not involve sabotage, killing of government officials or members of the military.
Nothing is an act of war unless war is actually declared subsequent to that.
No. There is a clear definition what is and what isn't an act of war, and it is consistently used when countries have to deal with each other. What is a war in the opinion of some US government officials has nothing to do with it.
Actually, it shows your lack of intelligence that you cannot think of a single thing to improve in UNIX design.
This is not what I claim. Anything can be improved. I claim that no EXISTING system is better or even comparable.
That does not prove anything other than Plan9 did not gain significant momentum or developer interest.
The fact that Plan9 didn't reach wide acceptance, indeed, proves nothing.
The fact that Plan9 was never implemented in a way superior to modern Unix-like system, stands by itself.
LOL.. None of the currently popular OS has survived because of technical merits. Windows survived because of monopoly. Linux only became popular because it was free.
There are plenty of systems that are "free" in whatever meaning you use that word.
After that initial small level of success lots of Linux services companies have hired people to improve Linux and it has become quite good, but the primary reason it took off was that it was free and a "good enough" clone of UNIX. In a capitalist society, 'technical merits' are useless talking points in marketing brochures. Its like CPU Megahertz wars.
And if it wasn't Linux, it would be another Unix-like system. There were no alternatives, and there are unlikely to appear in a foreseeable future. Maybe 5-10 decades after Microsoft OS will be eradicated, there will be a worthwhile OS with a non-Unix design. Until then, it's all pointless mental masturbation, there is Microsoft and there are Unix-like systems. Everything else is specialized or irrelevant.
Where has anyone claimed that UNIX is satan? Are you high or something? The majority of the people that worked on NT have a UNIX background and they sought to improve it - Which they did.
Every time Microsoft tries to imitate a feature of a Unix-like OS, they do it terribly wrong. It demonstrates that Unix-like thinking is incompatible with Microsoft culture.
Nobody 'rejected' IBMs architecture, they just find it cheaper and easier to buy someone else's chip instead of designing their own around zArchitecture (IBM does not sell those chips to anyone else).
"Someone else" (all of them) chosen a simpler CPU architecture for a reason.
EAL5 does not say or imply that there are no bugs. EAL5 says that specific international standards were followed in the design and implementation. Suse and Red Hat enterprise Linux have been certified at EAL4, as has Windows 7 and Windows XP.
And as long as there are full-compromise bugs slipping through certifications, those "standards" are meaningless.
That said, I'm not 100% sure Google is right here. Microsoft seems to be fairly open about wanting a slice of the Android phone cash bonanza, and is negotiating with phone manufacturers (as it should be - those are the people actually selling devices that have a price on them) without demanding amounts that would make Android phones impossible or uncompetitive.
You are right, extortion is ok if it doesn't kill you. Please send me $655.37 every month, or else...
Everything that old MUST be worse than new stuff, right?
No. However the fact that everyone except IBM rejected their architectural decisions, suggests that those decisions are pretty bad.
What are the security statements for each? LPAR - certified EAL5, worldwide.
Wake me up when "certifications" are revoked at the first update to the "certified" system or first security bug found in it.
VServer - 'we hope it's secure' (from the Vserver FAQ).
That's a great metric of system security -- amount of boasting the developers produce about it.
The article is about sabotage.
Actually everyone but US, Israel and Saudi Arabia wants Iran to have nuclear weapons as soon as possible -- then US will shut up about Iran forever.
lol
Espionage is not an act of war. Sabotage is.
If you have the required brain capacity to understand that UNIX isn't some mythical "perfect design".
Unix isn't perfect, however it's the best OS design that currently exists.
UNIX has deep flaws (as even the creators have acknowledged.)
And then those creators (actually Dennis Ritchie) demonstrated how wrong they are when they tried to make a system without those flaws. It (Plan9) did not work as they thought.
and many OS designs have either fixed or eliminated those glaring flaws.
Those "glaring flaws" you have heard of are from one book (The Unix-haters Handbook) that contains nothing but an incoherent rants and claims that were debunked ages ago. The only non-Unixlike general-purpose OS that survived is Windows, and it certainly did not survive because of its technical merits.
Only a moron (for e.g. you) will argue this point.
Only a Microsoft employee would claim this, as Unix-like design is supposedly some Great Satan there.
Much like a Linux distro then? It will not accept a non-UNIX kernel without rewriting OS interfaces.
Currently there are two kinds of operating systems in exitence:
1. Unix-like.
2. Shit.
What the fuck are you talking about? NT kernel will allow ANY binaries to run under it.
In the same way how Javascript allows ANY binaries to run under it. It's true, there are CPU emulators in Javascript.
Win32 is just a sub-system and running Linux, OS2 or any other sub-system with equal performance is possible. Nothing in the NT kernel requires Win32 to be present.
Just because Dave Cutler worked on it, and Microsoft claimed that it imbued NT kernel with magical properties, it does not make it true. NT kernel is an old, shitty implementation of something that looks like microkernel. No one uses it for anything but running Win32. Once, someone (Interix) tried to make a Unix-like system on top of it. It was the worst Unix-like system in history. Microsoft devised another layer on top of it in Windows 8, and everyone hates it already.
Anybody who wants to their users to take a certain action?
Think of websites (as stated in TFS) or focus group testing (also stated in TFS).
My response to that is identical to the comment you are replying to.
s/hardware partitioning/host partitioning/
LPAR is an IBM term, and it's only applicable to their platform, a legacy of what I have already describes as stone age of computing. Generic non-virtualization mechanism for achieving the same is hardware partitioning, and it works great with operating systems that were developed as an alternative to ancient IBM architecture.
lol butthurt
Lots of people use Windows. Many of the heavy-hitting companies depend on Windows quite heavily for their day-to-day mission critical operations - and it delivers, despite your hyperbole.
And they are welcome to use three layers of virtualization above it, for all I care.
Windows used to have very shitty security but now they're top-notch in security practices.
Windows has crap security design that they are trying to compensate by fine-grained control-freakery that does not actually make anything secure.
Linux has security holes too. But hey, we can gloss over that...
You know what else has more security holes than Linux? Hypervisors and VM management software. Good luck recovering your whole data center once any of those get exploited.
1) Moving VMs between hosts with no downtime.
Few legitimate purposes, non-virtualization-dependent solutions exist.
2) Hardware abstraction layer
Bullshit.
2.a) Hardware upgrades with no downtime to any service
You forgot the time it takes to copy things and switch the data under it. Proper data storage/application separation accomplishes this without virtualization, virtualization itself does not really do this.
2.b) VM failover on the fly
By the time VM notices anything, your application is long dead. Proper high-availability application architecture accomplishes the same goal without virtualization.
3) Cloned spinup
No legitimate purposes.
4) Snapshot backups (with OS integration)
Operating systems do that already without virtualization. Database backup has to be applcation-driven anyway due to transaction mechanism in place. Virtualization adds absolutely nothing there.
5) On-the-fly storage expansion
Already done by OS.
6) multi-SAN connectivity
Already done by OS.
7) Resource pooling
Not achieved by virtualization.
8) Cost effectiveness
Only compared to severely mismanaged systems, bullshit otherwise.
9) Resource oversubscribe (production, but typically unimportant machines get things like the memory balloon driver)
Bullshit, OS (partitioned or non-partitioned hosts) already does that better.
10) Rebalance of resources as workloads change.
Does not work with virtualization, actually accomplished by proper application architecture, implemented easily by existing databases and web services.
No, I am suggesting that there are better ways of achieving it than stuffing everything under VMWare.
chroot is a legitimate mechanism of partial host partitioning. It does not create layers of interfaces upon interfaces and hardware that virtualization does.
That's not "prototyping", that's "staging".
Manufacturer-crippled car service manual readers do not run in datacenters.
If FACTORY WORKERS run IT department, you have incompetent IT department.