In a cycle of economic downturn, where IT departments are waiting to determine where to spend their budgets, this is not a bleak forcast for Red Hat. Many IT managers have about a 2-3 year cycle on when they purchase new equipment, and after a large buying period prior to Y2K, it's not inconceivable that their new purchases will start happening this year or the next.
This cycle, combined with the current economic downturn means a lot of technology providers are not spending large budgets, and new servers are not popping up. When the buy cycle returns, and IT managers look to purchase the systems that will give them the best bang for the buck, Red Hat will obviously be near the top of those systems.
XP's release will also probably send many systems managers looking into solutions, and may also send RedHat sales upward. If the IT manager gets a new budget earmarked for XP, but decides to spend it more wisely, RedHat sales might see a boost. Then again, it may also take a dent out of RedHat's sales, we'll have to wait and see.
I think this is pretty good news (considering the state of the economy) for RedHat.
I would doubt that a site that receives as many hits as Yahoo would deliver their news stories "served up dynamically". More reasonable to assume is that this "web-based content control system" is some sort of template which allows the news editors, or journalists the ability to pull up a web page, and submit or edit their stories via a web form.
When entering the article, the private key could be entered into the submit field to create the signature at the bottom of the article. Every time the article was edited/changed (which I can't imagine happens very often), a new signature would be generated.
If the hacker doesn't present the correct key to generate the signature when submitting the article, it wouldn't match the public key.
If the hacker hacked into the main server, and manually edited the article, the sig wouldn't match the contents.
Also great would be a Mozilla plugin that would automatically flag any web page that didn't match its signature with a warning that the page doesn't match. How difficult would that be?
Is there any reason that the major news organizations don't PGP or MD5 sign their stories as posted on the web, to verify they are posted and mirrored correctly?
It could easily be ascertained that the site was being changed if Yahoo News were to include a signature at the bottom to check the veracity of the article. Obviously this guy was making minor changes to the stories early on, just to see if he could get away with it.
A simple spider/crawler that checks the signature could be run by Yahoo against any and all of their posted stories, and if they don't match the copy editor's , then a flag can be raised!
The AP could do this as well for any stories that go across the newswire, and are posted across the Internet.
Isn't this the guy who talks to dead people on the Sci-Fi channel? That show Crossing Over?
I can't imagine Crossing Over will do a show on John Edwards talking to firey salmon.
I also can't imagine how this relates to file sharing, unless John Edwards is sharing files to the dead. If he is, I bet he uses BearShare.
Slashdot Mirror
And in other news... Scientists in Idaho have discovered a method of cold fusion.
But can I play Tiger Woods golf on this thing?
This cycle, combined with the current economic downturn means a lot of technology providers are not spending large budgets, and new servers are not popping up. When the buy cycle returns, and IT managers look to purchase the systems that will give them the best bang for the buck, Red Hat will obviously be near the top of those systems.
XP's release will also probably send many systems managers looking into solutions, and may also send RedHat sales upward. If the IT manager gets a new budget earmarked for XP, but decides to spend it more wisely, RedHat sales might see a boost. Then again, it may also take a dent out of RedHat's sales, we'll have to wait and see.
I think this is pretty good news (considering the state of the economy) for RedHat.
When entering the article, the private key could be entered into the submit field to create the signature at the bottom of the article. Every time the article was edited/changed (which I can't imagine happens very often), a new signature would be generated.
If the hacker doesn't present the correct key to generate the signature when submitting the article, it wouldn't match the public key.
If the hacker hacked into the main server, and manually edited the article, the sig wouldn't match the contents.
Also great would be a Mozilla plugin that would automatically flag any web page that didn't match its signature with a warning that the page doesn't match. How difficult would that be?
Is there any reason that the major news organizations don't PGP or MD5 sign their stories as posted on the web, to verify they are posted and mirrored correctly? It could easily be ascertained that the site was being changed if Yahoo News were to include a signature at the bottom to check the veracity of the article. Obviously this guy was making minor changes to the stories early on, just to see if he could get away with it. A simple spider/crawler that checks the signature could be run by Yahoo against any and all of their posted stories, and if they don't match the copy editor's , then a flag can be raised! The AP could do this as well for any stories that go across the newswire, and are posted across the Internet.
Isn't this the guy who talks to dead people on the Sci-Fi channel? That show Crossing Over? I can't imagine Crossing Over will do a show on John Edwards talking to firey salmon. I also can't imagine how this relates to file sharing, unless John Edwards is sharing files to the dead. If he is, I bet he uses BearShare.