Some companies, notably IBM, Salesforce.com, Oracle.com and others are touting outsourcing, or "On Demand Computing," as an innovative way to reduce costs. There are some successes, but many more failures.
The recurrent theme of this analysis is that "On Demand" computing is only economical for very CPU-intensive (100,000 instructions per byte or a CPU-day per gigabyte of network traffic) applications.
This must be considered an attack on IBM's fairly visible On-Demand Computing campaign.
Beowulf clusters have completely different networking economics. [...] That is why rendering farms and BLAST search engines are routinely built using Beowulf clusters.
This reminds me of those Microsoft-funded TCO reports. They concede that Linux has cost advantages in a very specific field (webhosting; Beowulf clusters), because anyone intuitively knows it's true. For all the rest: use Microsoft stuff. That's what they are saying.
Linux, BSD. How about Minix?
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Will they be going after Professor Tanenbaum as well?
I asked the SCO director here in the Netherlands and although he said they had no plans to sue Tanenbaum, he didn't want to rule it out either...
I have been told that security problems are often the result of using existing technology for things it was not designed for.
I am interested to know from one of the people involved with the design of SSL whether he feels this is case with SSL VPNs.
I have done my research (see homepage). Yes, I know Googling will come up with marketing info from either side. I am looking for some (hopefully) independent insight into this.
And I imagine that there are or will be other third party solutions such as a rechargeable power brick for using routers with batteries before too long...
Hey, what about those fuel cells you have these days!?
According to the FreeS/WAN documentation, Aggressive Mode is not required for an IPSEC implementation, as long as you support Main Mode. Fix those hardware boxes, I'd say. If they don't support Main Mode, are they still IPSEC compliant?
The only reason I can think of why you want this, is when you have a dynamic IP address and you want to use a Preshared key. Get a fixed IP or start using X.509 certs.
Aggressive Mode exposes some information, plus it might make DDoS easier to do.
Years ago I stumbled into a bug in OS/2 Warp 4. I got the SMB networking process to crash after a sequence of smbclient commands.
So I downloaded a bug report form from the IBM website, filled in all details and sent it off. After a while I got a response. I could not make heads or tails of it. It was in some kind of IBM speak. (IBM speak really exists. Do they still call a harddisk a "hard file"?:-)
So I forwarded the message to Timothy Sipples, who had been very active on Usenet and had just started working for IBM. He translated it for me: I was not a big account customer so they would not accept the bug report. Sigh...
Soon after that, Linux became my main OS.
(I actually made a patch for smbclient so that it would not kill OS/2, but I never forwarded it to the Samba people).
Slashdot Mirror
A Bluetooth headset for mobile phones, I meant.
That's what they said about Bluetooth too.
And how much does a Bluetooth cost nowadays? $100? $200? That's absurd.
The recurrent theme of this analysis is that "On Demand" computing is only economical for very CPU-intensive (100,000 instructions per byte or a CPU-day per gigabyte of network traffic) applications.
This must be considered an attack on IBM's fairly visible On-Demand Computing campaign.
Beowulf clusters have completely different networking economics. [...] That is why rendering farms and BLAST search engines are routinely built using Beowulf clusters.
This reminds me of those Microsoft-funded TCO reports. They concede that Linux has cost advantages in a very specific field (webhosting; Beowulf clusters), because anyone intuitively knows it's true. For all the rest: use Microsoft stuff. That's what they are saying.
Will they be going after Professor Tanenbaum as well?
I asked the SCO director here in the Netherlands and although he said they had no plans to sue Tanenbaum, he didn't want to rule it out either...
(What are the chances of two Alan Coxes in this field of business!? Bummer for the other Alan Cox. Probably often mistaken as Linus' lieutenant...)
I have dug up my copies of Unixware, SCO Vision, OpenLinux (== Caldera == SCO) and Oracle for SCO.
I intend to send the CDs to my local representative. After I have treated them with sandpaper, that is...
1500 Amp? Yikes! :-)
only outlaws will have sp...
Uh. Ok.
Get another provider with a reliable mailserver and connect to it with POP-before-SMTP or through a VPN?
Just an idea...
Good question.
Simply go to Properties and check the digital signature. It should be signed by Microsoft.
I have been told that security problems are often the result of using existing technology for things it was not designed for.
I am interested to know from one of the people involved with the design of SSL whether he feels this is case with SSL VPNs.
I have done my research (see homepage). Yes, I know Googling will come up with marketing info from either side. I am looking for some (hopefully) independent insight into this.
However, I was not referring to the same kinds of VPNs the AC mentions. I understand why TCP over TCP is a bad idea.
I was thinking of these kinds of products:
What's your opinion on VPNs based on SSL/TLS, instead of those using protocols such as IPsec or PPTP?
Are SSL VPNs up to par? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Was SSL designed for such applications?
Walt Disney was spinning in his cryogene chamber!
Insurance companies will probably give you a discount if you let them install a data recorder in your car... :-/
(But what if it turns out that wrecking your car was your own fault...)
Hey, what about those fuel cells you have these days!?
Microsoft has been raiding the University of Waterloo for programmers for years now.
With reviews like this the thiefs can use them only as paperweights!
If only Microsoft would send their lawyers after those WinFix spammers...
I don't get it. If there is a bug in this ActiveX control by Microsoft, why do you have remove certificates of all other Trusted Publishers?
Dell must have gotten a very big discount on PocketPC 2002...
And here is a mirror for the slides.
The PDF on this mirror seems to work.
The only reason I can think of why you want this, is when you have a dynamic IP address and you want to use a Preshared key. Get a fixed IP or start using X.509 certs.
Aggressive Mode exposes some information, plus it might make DDoS easier to do.
So I downloaded a bug report form from the IBM website, filled in all details and sent it off. After a while I got a response. I could not make heads or tails of it. It was in some kind of IBM speak. (IBM speak really exists. Do they still call a harddisk a "hard file"? :-)
So I forwarded the message to Timothy Sipples, who had been very active on Usenet and had just started working for IBM. He translated it for me: I was not a big account customer so they would not accept the bug report. Sigh...
Soon after that, Linux became my main OS.
(I actually made a patch for smbclient so that it would not kill OS/2, but I never forwarded it to the Samba people).