I can't say that I've followed the whole secure boot thing too closely, but if history tells us anything, you just KNOW that it will be designed/implemented wrong and will be hacked around before you know it. I would not count on it being your be-all-end-all protection mechanism.
That's exactly how I'm reading it too. So it's ok to run this pile of garbage code, but not good enough to look at and quite possibly improve. Does that make it official that Google just doesn't 'get it' when it comes to open source?
It still pisses me off that Fedora Linux does not recognise "Edinburgh" as a capital when selecting the TZ during installation but it does recognise USA state capitals.
New York and Miami are state capitals? Man, I'll bet Albany and Tallahassee will be pretty pissed to learn that.
If Adobe was able to actually make Flash ubiquitous and platform independent, it wouldn't suck so bad and would actually be used for much more useful stuff. If you look at Java, even as much as Sun screwed the pooch with it, they got it onto dang near any and every platform and it worked pretty much the same on every one. Flash on Windows works alright, on Linux it lags way behind (64 bit version in beta for how many years now???). Mac version buggy and crash prone, no availability on mobile devices. Doesn't really sound like a standard at all. Sounds like a 'feature' just waiting to be replaced by the thing that actually works.
If Frontpage extensions are not available for Apache 2, that sounds like an extremely compelling reason to use 2.0! Frontpage extensions should never be used in any way, shape or form IMHO. I suppose they can actually be secured in some fashion, but I've never encountered any organization that succeeded at it. These are always backdoors into web defacements and depending on the architecture, the organization itself.
Compaq/DEC certainly didn't turn out fruitful. I don't know that I would say that HP/Compaq has failed just yet. IBM/Lotus certainly hasn't taken over the industry, but Notes is still out there and IBM pushes it all the time. 3Com/USR - that was a failure!
http://www.symark.com/powerbroker.htm
Powerbroker is a sudo-like commercial app. It does a means to run as a daemon process in a client-server type environment to allow the configured policy to work between different systems. Googling on it turns up posts from the mid 90's so it's been around for a while.
I've been running with Con's patches for a few months now and they work great. I'm on the 2.4.20-ck7 right now and things fly. More importantly, my VMWare works without a hitch which is pretty critical. Stability has not been a problem at all.
If you don't stick close to the stock RH packages (roll your own kernel or apache, etc), there would really be no reason to go with a support plan, etc. If you stick closely to the RH packages, roll your own RPMS etc, it may be helpful to go with Advanced Server or the like. One thing to consider is if your org will be the same 5-6 years down the road as it is today. If it is a nice small shop that doesn't change a lot, it may very well be. If it is a traditional corporate environment, your dept may be filled with bean-heads in the next few years and it may be very helpful to leave them with a more vendor maintained rev with a support plan.
Unfortunately, McNealy is so jealous of Gates (possibly moreso than Ellison), Sun looks destined to never come out of their downward spiral. They can't seem to realize that hardware is commodotizing and becoming almost irrelevant and that no one cares about Solaris when you have Linux and the BSD's running around for free with arguably the same stability often often plenty of scalability for what most folks need. They never really seem to know what they want to do with their lives. Kind of like that crazy uncle on your Mom's side of the family. I can't see them around in any form after a few more years. They grow less and less relevant every day.
The thing I find disturbing from MS' KB article is that if it was Win2K or XP that had the architectural problems that would take a lot to fix and would likely break compatibility, what would they do? On the one side, they leave you vulnerable but on the other, they break many/all of your applications. They are 'fortunate' in that the problem is in a legacy OS that is on it's way out the door so people don't get too up-in-arms about it.
Of course, I find it difficult to believe that it would be a massive archtectural redesign to patch this problem. I think they just don't want to go through the effort on an old platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't say that I've followed the whole secure boot thing too closely, but if history tells us anything, you just KNOW that it will be designed/implemented wrong and will be hacked around before you know it. I would not count on it being your be-all-end-all protection mechanism.
And to think we somehow thought maybe they were better than everybody else...
That's exactly how I'm reading it too. So it's ok to run this pile of garbage code, but not good enough to look at and quite possibly improve. Does that make it official that Google just doesn't 'get it' when it comes to open source?
It still pisses me off that Fedora Linux does not recognise "Edinburgh" as a capital when selecting the TZ during installation but it does recognise USA state capitals.
New York and Miami are state capitals? Man, I'll bet Albany and Tallahassee will be pretty pissed to learn that.
Except that it's been around for far too long. At least HTML5 is new and may be able to get things right.
If Adobe was able to actually make Flash ubiquitous and platform independent, it wouldn't suck so bad and would actually be used for much more useful stuff. If you look at Java, even as much as Sun screwed the pooch with it, they got it onto dang near any and every platform and it worked pretty much the same on every one. Flash on Windows works alright, on Linux it lags way behind (64 bit version in beta for how many years now???). Mac version buggy and crash prone, no availability on mobile devices. Doesn't really sound like a standard at all. Sounds like a 'feature' just waiting to be replaced by the thing that actually works.
If Frontpage extensions are not available for Apache 2, that sounds like an extremely compelling reason to use 2.0! Frontpage extensions should never be used in any way, shape or form IMHO. I suppose they can actually be secured in some fashion, but I've never encountered any organization that succeeded at it. These are always backdoors into web defacements and depending on the architecture, the organization itself.
Compaq/DEC certainly didn't turn out fruitful. I don't know that I would say that HP/Compaq has failed just yet. IBM/Lotus certainly hasn't taken over the industry, but Notes is still out there and IBM pushes it all the time. 3Com/USR - that was a failure!
http://www.symark.com/powerbroker.htm Powerbroker is a sudo-like commercial app. It does a means to run as a daemon process in a client-server type environment to allow the configured policy to work between different systems. Googling on it turns up posts from the mid 90's so it's been around for a while.
I've been running with Con's patches for a few months now and they work great. I'm on the 2.4.20-ck7 right now and things fly. More importantly, my VMWare works without a hitch which is pretty critical. Stability has not been a problem at all.
If you don't stick close to the stock RH packages (roll your own kernel or apache, etc), there would really be no reason to go with a support plan, etc. If you stick closely to the RH packages, roll your own RPMS etc, it may be helpful to go with Advanced Server or the like. One thing to consider is if your org will be the same 5-6 years down the road as it is today. If it is a nice small shop that doesn't change a lot, it may very well be. If it is a traditional corporate environment, your dept may be filled with bean-heads in the next few years and it may be very helpful to leave them with a more vendor maintained rev with a support plan.
Unfortunately, McNealy is so jealous of Gates (possibly moreso than Ellison), Sun looks destined to never come out of their downward spiral. They can't seem to realize that hardware is commodotizing and becoming almost irrelevant and that no one cares about Solaris when you have Linux and the BSD's running around for free with arguably the same stability often often plenty of scalability for what most folks need. They never really seem to know what they want to do with their lives. Kind of like that crazy uncle on your Mom's side of the family. I can't see them around in any form after a few more years. They grow less and less relevant every day.
The thing I find disturbing from MS' KB article is that if it was Win2K or XP that had the architectural problems that would take a lot to fix and would likely break compatibility, what would they do? On the one side, they leave you vulnerable but on the other, they break many/all of your applications. They are 'fortunate' in that the problem is in a legacy OS that is on it's way out the door so people don't get too up-in-arms about it. Of course, I find it difficult to believe that it would be a massive archtectural redesign to patch this problem. I think they just don't want to go through the effort on an old platform.