Azure offers a lot of features that are not available in Windows clustering. It can appeal to enterprises that want highly available services without dependency on internet or hosted storage.
On Microsoft's side, this product is just repackaging and selling code that is 99% the same as what they run internally, so it has a lot of potential and relatively little cost.
Between this and VMware supporting Linux containers natively, mid-tier and smaller enterprises are getting a lot of new options thrown at them.
There is no application, OS, interface, etc that is immune to tampering.
This is why we have defense in depth strategies on the enterprise side. You put layers between a potential attacker and the data he may want, and you pray that one of those layers is something he can't crack yet.
If modern Linux distros have greater known vulnerability, it only means one thing: Microsoft is finally delivering on their promise to make Windows more secure. It's certainly taken long enough.
The increase in attacks on Linux is partly the result of its adoption as the platform-of-choice for IoT devices, which makes Linux exploits more valuable due to the increased number of devices and the longevity of those devices.
Worms and botnets target mismanaged devices because they intend to use them as resources. Well-managed and audited devices will get wiped, or else the malware will be turned over to security experts and AV companies---both cases are bad for the malware operator.
Now that Linux is running on this "unmanaged" hardware, it is low-hanging fruit too---and therefore a valuable target.
Your talents (the collective "your", not you specifically because this doesn't apply to anyone who can't follow this line of reasoning) are too valuable to offer them to someone who will abuse you.
My garbage collector and bank teller don't deserve to be screwed out of overtime pay, forced to work in hazardous conditions, etc. The skill requirements for their jobs are such that quitting puts no pressure on their employer. Millions of adults are qualified for these jobs.
So your "get another job" advice essentially ignores a huge part of the workforce. There is no reason these people should be treated poorly.
If an employer can't compete when held to such minimal standards, then it doesn't need to be in business at all. Someone else can step in with acceptable policies and take over that piece of the market if the original firm can't figure it out. We've done it before in other industries---housing, meat packing, electrical.
While encouraging competition is ideal, in the meantime it makes sense to prohibit abusive terms of service.
How long will it take the authorities to get their acts together? Good luck predicting that.
It takes somewhere in the range of months to years to build out a network, so even the best case scenario leaves people in a bad position for a long time.
Curtail the abusive practices now. Right now, binding arbitration is exclusively a tool of corporations which limits or prevents citizens from obtaining proper legal relief. I doubt it should be permitted at all, but it is particularly awful in this context.
You really need to know the details before pointing fingers.
If MLS granted rights to the photos that they never possessed, then MLS is wrong. Zillow is as much a victim as you, especially if they paid for distribution rights that MLS could not legally provide.
On the other hand, if Zillow is scraping content without securing permission then they are wrong.
And on the other other hand, if your agreement allows MLS to share your photos with their affiliates, then it's your fault for not understanding the ToS/contract.
and if you worked at a place with a large enough phone system you were able to do this in the 90's.
Wrong. The telco has to do it; your PBX cannot.
My company instantly started playing the company jingle
Ringback tones are played by the telephone network operator. They play from the time the call is dialed until it is connected---instead of the normal ringing sound that a caller hears. Your hold music can only start to play after the call is connected.
The two technologies are fundamentally different, but they can coexist since they operate within distinct periods of time.
A manager should not be hitting on his subordinates in a professional setting. That applies even more on the first day when the people don't even know each other.
And then there's the unwarranted details about his sex life, which can earn disciplinary action regardless of supervisor/subordinate status.
In most places, that's an automatic trip to HR. Where I work, it's likely an immediate termination unless his manager wants to fight for him.
In other words: "I expected they would fire him and promote me to his position."
I see you saying that. I don't see her or anyone else saying it.
The standard expectation is that the offender will be educated by HR on what constitutes appropriate behavior.
Repeated or egregious violations may result in termination, but only the strictest employers will terminate on the first offense. Mine probably would, but I expect most places would just make him knock it off.
So the shitstorm began, and... now HR will think twice before employing a female engineer.
Nope. Not at all.
I doubt this incident will change many minds. The places that want to be clean-cut and professional will remain so, and the places that accept locker room behavior or "bar talk" will continue to do.
The places that break the law and allow illegal sexual harassment will simply stop doing that.
a board certified anesthesiologist who says children change when they get a cellphone
So an M.D. has an opinion on education, socialization, and behavior? Great, but he gets the same weight as my mechanic and the pool guy.
If we can get a Psy.D. to agree, then maybe I'll listen. Or better yet, make it a consensus of the field that actually studies child development. Hint: not anesthesiology.
It's great that he cares about kids. But he really, really needs to prove he's right if he wants to make it a law.
Every citizen petitioner has the right to access to the same avenues of petition regardless of their message.
If people are disruptive or uncooperative, they can be removed from places where they would otherwise have a legitimate and legal reason to be. This includes government facilities and legal proceedings. I don't see why Twitter feeds should be any different.
In this case, it doesn't really matter. You can view public tweets without being logged in at all. These "blocked" users still have access to the message, and they have access to the existing methods of filing a grievance---you know, the legal processes and telecommunications infrastructure that exist outside of Twitter.
When the President or the administration make official statements, they do not take any and all questions. There is no reason to expect them to listen to every word from everyone on Twitter (and to give those users a platform) when the White House press corps doesn't even get that level of access.
This whole issue is nothing more than a distraction anyway. I already know more about his stupid Twitter posts than I really want to, and anyone who wants to waste time discussing them on Twitter can.
Cool story, but you forgot to adjust for inflation.
Could you have lived on $250/month? Because that's the equivalent in 1995 dollars. (Per AIER's calculator... nit-pick with them if you object to the numbers)
With $200 of that going to rent, you would have been left with ~$12 per week. Not a particularly glamorous lifestyle.
The social safety net in this country is laughable.
A system can be unbreakable at this point in time.
It could be so expensive to break a system that it is not worth the cost to do it for every single case.
It is also possible that the system was broken by an intelligence agency who has a vested interest in keeping that brokenness a secret so people will continue to use the system.
I.e., if the CIA or NSA could break into a modern iPhone, they're not going to do it just to bust one criminal---no matter how bad.
If the government breaks in without (a) disclosing their methods and (b) allowing defense experts to review the process, then they probably cannot use that evidence in court. The FBI probably decided they needed to know what was on that phone, even if it means they will not be able to use it as evidence in the future.
If you have some encrypted file on your hard drive that was created a decade ago, you may have reasonably forgotten the password to decrypt that file.
On the other hand, we have people with smartphones---that they used every day for months---who suddenly "forgot" the password/pattern when they were taken into custody. The police are asking them to do something they have literally done hundreds (or even thousands) of times before.
It is almost inconceivable that these people honestly forgot their passwords. Hell, I can usually unlock my phone without even looking at it. And I'm not one of these social media addicts that's going into it every five minutes either.
In order to validate the firmware, there would need to be a master control module that has read access to all components before they initialize. It is possible the tractor isn't designed this way.
Most vehicle buses are unsecured and shared---a security nightmare. Assuming John Deere uses a traditional CAN bus, this approach is the only one that ould work without extensive rearchitecturing on their end.
If each component is simply a peer communicating over a shared transport, then an outside authority would need to validate the fingerprint or certificate of the new component when it is introduced. This is presumably what the technician is doing, and it is why he is required. The technician is performing the same role on that network that public CAs perform for the internet.
From a security standpoint, I can understand why they would go this route. But I don't understand why they decided to lock customers out of their own equipment to begin with.
John Deere uses software lockouts to ensure only authorized parts are used, supposedly to ensure the equipment meets emissions standards. Any potential lawsuit would be addressing copyright law (DMCA circumvention) rather than patents, and John Deere has a rationale beyond price gouging for their restrictions.
We can certainly argue that the owner would assume responsibility for emissions if 3rd-party parts are installed. This is already the case with automobiles---the EPA doesn't go after Chevy or Ford when some idiot turns his truck into a coal roller.
The essentially unanimous ruling in this case offers some hope, but legally these are entirely different cases. First-sale doctrine doesn't apply to software, for example. Philosophically, I see both case the same way---an issue of buyer's rights. But that doesn't mean the law will apply the same in the end.
It takes a long time to work all the kinks out of a system like that.
AMD has been working on their heterogeneous system architecture for at least five years, and very few applications really use it so far.
Maybe there would be more uptake if Intel did something similar, so it would essentially become a standard part of x86. But Intel is taking a somewhat different approach, offering FPGAs on some Xeon and Atom models. Their paths seem to diverge.
At the consumer level, there is little apparent benefit until it is widely used and available---thus, no demand exists. Most consumer workloads are perfectly fine on big hyperthreaded cores.
if we get the protectionism out of the picture and new companies are allowed to compete we the people will vote with our wallets
The last-mile infrastructure that connects to your house is the expensive part of competing. ISPs are bordering on a natural monopoly.
We have a good solution with the electrical grid. You have one connection to your house, but you can buy electricity from a variety of providers.
We could easily install fiber at the municipal/county level and allow ISPs to connect at a central office to provide peering/routing out to the rest of the world. And, of course, I mean "easily" in the technical sense only. The political and legal obstructions are obviously strong enough to prevent this from happening.
While I agree that poorly-secured public wifi networks are basically irrelevant to enterprise security, I am somewhat concerned about:
servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information
Why are guys cruising along the road connecting to public wifi able to see any business servers at all? Nevermind unsecured login facilities. This network is not properly segmented, which is so fundamental that I assume everything else is a disaster too.
If the president, his staff, and foreign functionaries are going to be on the premises, this security is woefully inadequate.
The article did itself no favors by mentioning wifi (because anyone with a brain assumes public wifi is a cesspool), but the other claims are indicative of serious problems.
Attempting to bankrupt the coal industry is outrageous---but not illegal in and of itself. Some methods of applying financial pressure to the coal industry are legal, e.g., taxes, fees, and regulations. His goal is not illegal, and there are legal means of pursuing it. It may be a terrible idea, but it is legal.
Attempting to ban members of a particular religion violates the First Amendment. It does not matter how you try to do it, as the goal itself is prohibited. Since Trump and his administration basically admitted the purpose of the Executive Order is a Muslim ban, they do not have much wiggle room to defend it.
Trump ran his mouth and sabotaged himself. If he had said nothing about restricting Muslim travel, he may have skated by. It would still be illegal to discriminate based on religion, but there would be no proof if he kept silent. It's just amateur-hour politics.
They have no interest in allowing the VR market to die and render their patents meaningless.
They may be in a position to require licensing for a large number of devices, which is the primo spot for any tech company to be in.
If you can assure yourself licensing revenue, then everyone else can take the risks associated with development, production, and distribution. You get to tax the winners.
Since I have heard nothing about Zenimax VR gear, I assume their development is stalled. We hear about a lot of VR hardware from others, though, so patent enforcement may be the only way Zenimax makes money at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
I approve.
As long as we maintain good unemployment benefits and job placement programs for the displaced workers, that is.
As scummy as this company was, most of the employees were regular people who did nothing wrong.
Azure offers a lot of features that are not available in Windows clustering. It can appeal to enterprises that want highly available services without dependency on internet or hosted storage.
On Microsoft's side, this product is just repackaging and selling code that is 99% the same as what they run internally, so it has a lot of potential and relatively little cost.
Between this and VMware supporting Linux containers natively, mid-tier and smaller enterprises are getting a lot of new options thrown at them.
Wasnt the point of linux to have choice? Systemd was straight up forced on us.
You have to earn your options.
You can build an OS based on the Linux kernel. Linux itself doesn't require systemd; only the pre-built distros do.
Now, all of their experts have decided that systemd should a required component of their operating systems. You are free to disagree.
Complain to them if need be, but otherwise just shut up already. No one is going to change anything based on some random whine on Slashdot.
To paraphrase for this situation: "You're not making Linux better. You're just making Slashdot worse."
There is no application, OS, interface, etc that is immune to tampering.
This is why we have defense in depth strategies on the enterprise side. You put layers between a potential attacker and the data he may want, and you pray that one of those layers is something he can't crack yet.
If modern Linux distros have greater known vulnerability, it only means one thing: Microsoft is finally delivering on their promise to make Windows more secure. It's certainly taken long enough.
The increase in attacks on Linux is partly the result of its adoption as the platform-of-choice for IoT devices, which makes Linux exploits more valuable due to the increased number of devices and the longevity of those devices.
Worms and botnets target mismanaged devices because they intend to use them as resources. Well-managed and audited devices will get wiped, or else the malware will be turned over to security experts and AV companies---both cases are bad for the malware operator.
Now that Linux is running on this "unmanaged" hardware, it is low-hanging fruit too---and therefore a valuable target.
If this is what Chinese academics are publishing now, I wonder how long this has been possible in less-publicized circles.
Everybody knows that certain governments buy up crypto expertise as soon as the ink on the PhD dries. Or sooner, in some cases.
Your talents (the collective "your", not you specifically because this doesn't apply to anyone who can't follow this line of reasoning) are too valuable to offer them to someone who will abuse you.
My garbage collector and bank teller don't deserve to be screwed out of overtime pay, forced to work in hazardous conditions, etc. The skill requirements for their jobs are such that quitting puts no pressure on their employer. Millions of adults are qualified for these jobs.
So your "get another job" advice essentially ignores a huge part of the workforce. There is no reason these people should be treated poorly.
If an employer can't compete when held to such minimal standards, then it doesn't need to be in business at all. Someone else can step in with acceptable policies and take over that piece of the market if the original firm can't figure it out. We've done it before in other industries---housing, meat packing, electrical.
While encouraging competition is ideal, in the meantime it makes sense to prohibit abusive terms of service.
How long will it take the authorities to get their acts together? Good luck predicting that.
It takes somewhere in the range of months to years to build out a network, so even the best case scenario leaves people in a bad position for a long time.
Curtail the abusive practices now. Right now, binding arbitration is exclusively a tool of corporations which limits or prevents citizens from obtaining proper legal relief. I doubt it should be permitted at all, but it is particularly awful in this context.
This is exactly what my electric bill does.
The distribution is a monopoly because they own the wires. However, I can choose my energy producer and get a better rate on production.
Or I can pay more if I really want. Some people did this because they wanted to use renewable energy before it became competitive on price.
You really need to know the details before pointing fingers.
If MLS granted rights to the photos that they never possessed, then MLS is wrong. Zillow is as much a victim as you, especially if they paid for distribution rights that MLS could not legally provide.
On the other hand, if Zillow is scraping content without securing permission then they are wrong.
And on the other other hand, if your agreement allows MLS to share your photos with their affiliates, then it's your fault for not understanding the ToS/contract.
and if you worked at a place with a large enough phone system you were able to do this in the 90's.
Wrong. The telco has to do it; your PBX cannot.
My company instantly started playing the company jingle
Ringback tones are played by the telephone network operator. They play from the time the call is dialed until it is connected---instead of the normal ringing sound that a caller hears. Your hold music can only start to play after the call is connected.
The two technologies are fundamentally different, but they can coexist since they operate within distinct periods of time.
No, simple "not interested" was insufficient.
A manager should not be hitting on his subordinates in a professional setting. That applies even more on the first day when the people don't even know each other.
And then there's the unwarranted details about his sex life, which can earn disciplinary action regardless of supervisor/subordinate status.
In most places, that's an automatic trip to HR. Where I work, it's likely an immediate termination unless his manager wants to fight for him.
In other words: "I expected they would fire him and promote me to his position."
I see you saying that. I don't see her or anyone else saying it.
The standard expectation is that the offender will be educated by HR on what constitutes appropriate behavior.
Repeated or egregious violations may result in termination, but only the strictest employers will terminate on the first offense. Mine probably would, but I expect most places would just make him knock it off.
So the shitstorm began, and... now HR will think twice before employing a female engineer.
Nope. Not at all.
I doubt this incident will change many minds. The places that want to be clean-cut and professional will remain so, and the places that accept locker room behavior or "bar talk" will continue to do.
The places that break the law and allow illegal sexual harassment will simply stop doing that.
a board certified anesthesiologist who says children change when they get a cellphone
So an M.D. has an opinion on education, socialization, and behavior? Great, but he gets the same weight as my mechanic and the pool guy.
If we can get a Psy.D. to agree, then maybe I'll listen. Or better yet, make it a consensus of the field that actually studies child development. Hint: not anesthesiology.
It's great that he cares about kids. But he really, really needs to prove he's right if he wants to make it a law.
Dogma is a plague that retards progress. It is what organized religion and organized political parties devolve into. But dogma != religion.
Almost, but not quite right. Dogma is any essential or inarguable belief. All religions have dogma.
Some religions have less dogma than others. But, in general: spirituality + dogma = religion. Every religion has both of those things at a minimum.
That taxpayer money put equipment into orbit. And that service is cheaper than buying from ULA, who has been in the business for decades.
So that means he is saving taxpayer money and developing his own vision for space... way, way better than anything Ballmer has done.
Every citizen petitioner has the right to access to the same avenues of petition regardless of their message.
If people are disruptive or uncooperative, they can be removed from places where they would otherwise have a legitimate and legal reason to be. This includes government facilities and legal proceedings. I don't see why Twitter feeds should be any different.
In this case, it doesn't really matter. You can view public tweets without being logged in at all. These "blocked" users still have access to the message, and they have access to the existing methods of filing a grievance---you know, the legal processes and telecommunications infrastructure that exist outside of Twitter.
When the President or the administration make official statements, they do not take any and all questions. There is no reason to expect them to listen to every word from everyone on Twitter (and to give those users a platform) when the White House press corps doesn't even get that level of access.
This whole issue is nothing more than a distraction anyway. I already know more about his stupid Twitter posts than I really want to, and anyone who wants to waste time discussing them on Twitter can.
Cool story, but you forgot to adjust for inflation.
Could you have lived on $250/month? Because that's the equivalent in 1995 dollars. (Per AIER's calculator... nit-pick with them if you object to the numbers)
With $200 of that going to rent, you would have been left with ~$12 per week. Not a particularly glamorous lifestyle.
The social safety net in this country is laughable.
My point was that NO system is unbreakable.
A system can be unbreakable at this point in time.
It could be so expensive to break a system that it is not worth the cost to do it for every single case.
It is also possible that the system was broken by an intelligence agency who has a vested interest in keeping that brokenness a secret so people will continue to use the system.
I.e., if the CIA or NSA could break into a modern iPhone, they're not going to do it just to bust one criminal---no matter how bad.
If the government breaks in without (a) disclosing their methods and (b) allowing defense experts to review the process, then they probably cannot use that evidence in court. The FBI probably decided they needed to know what was on that phone, even if it means they will not be able to use it as evidence in the future.
If you have some encrypted file on your hard drive that was created a decade ago, you may have reasonably forgotten the password to decrypt that file.
On the other hand, we have people with smartphones---that they used every day for months---who suddenly "forgot" the password/pattern when they were taken into custody. The police are asking them to do something they have literally done hundreds (or even thousands) of times before.
It is almost inconceivable that these people honestly forgot their passwords. Hell, I can usually unlock my phone without even looking at it. And I'm not one of these social media addicts that's going into it every five minutes either.
In order to validate the firmware, there would need to be a master control module that has read access to all components before they initialize. It is possible the tractor isn't designed this way.
Most vehicle buses are unsecured and shared---a security nightmare. Assuming John Deere uses a traditional CAN bus, this approach is the only one that ould work without extensive rearchitecturing on their end.
If each component is simply a peer communicating over a shared transport, then an outside authority would need to validate the fingerprint or certificate of the new component when it is introduced. This is presumably what the technician is doing, and it is why he is required. The technician is performing the same role on that network that public CAs perform for the internet.
From a security standpoint, I can understand why they would go this route. But I don't understand why they decided to lock customers out of their own equipment to begin with.
John Deere uses software lockouts to ensure only authorized parts are used, supposedly to ensure the equipment meets emissions standards. Any potential lawsuit would be addressing copyright law (DMCA circumvention) rather than patents, and John Deere has a rationale beyond price gouging for their restrictions.
We can certainly argue that the owner would assume responsibility for emissions if 3rd-party parts are installed. This is already the case with automobiles---the EPA doesn't go after Chevy or Ford when some idiot turns his truck into a coal roller.
The essentially unanimous ruling in this case offers some hope, but legally these are entirely different cases. First-sale doctrine doesn't apply to software, for example. Philosophically, I see both case the same way---an issue of buyer's rights. But that doesn't mean the law will apply the same in the end.
It takes a long time to work all the kinks out of a system like that.
AMD has been working on their heterogeneous system architecture for at least five years, and very few applications really use it so far.
Maybe there would be more uptake if Intel did something similar, so it would essentially become a standard part of x86. But Intel is taking a somewhat different approach, offering FPGAs on some Xeon and Atom models. Their paths seem to diverge.
At the consumer level, there is little apparent benefit until it is widely used and available---thus, no demand exists. Most consumer workloads are perfectly fine on big hyperthreaded cores.
if we get the protectionism out of the picture and new companies are allowed to compete we the people will vote with our wallets
The last-mile infrastructure that connects to your house is the expensive part of competing. ISPs are bordering on a natural monopoly.
We have a good solution with the electrical grid. You have one connection to your house, but you can buy electricity from a variety of providers.
We could easily install fiber at the municipal/county level and allow ISPs to connect at a central office to provide peering/routing out to the rest of the world. And, of course, I mean "easily" in the technical sense only. The political and legal obstructions are obviously strong enough to prevent this from happening.
While I agree that poorly-secured public wifi networks are basically irrelevant to enterprise security, I am somewhat concerned about:
servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information
Why are guys cruising along the road connecting to public wifi able to see any business servers at all? Nevermind unsecured login facilities. This network is not properly segmented, which is so fundamental that I assume everything else is a disaster too.
If the president, his staff, and foreign functionaries are going to be on the premises, this security is woefully inadequate.
The article did itself no favors by mentioning wifi (because anyone with a brain assumes public wifi is a cesspool), but the other claims are indicative of serious problems.
Attempting to bankrupt the coal industry is outrageous---but not illegal in and of itself. Some methods of applying financial pressure to the coal industry are legal, e.g., taxes, fees, and regulations. His goal is not illegal, and there are legal means of pursuing it. It may be a terrible idea, but it is legal.
Attempting to ban members of a particular religion violates the First Amendment. It does not matter how you try to do it, as the goal itself is prohibited. Since Trump and his administration basically admitted the purpose of the Executive Order is a Muslim ban, they do not have much wiggle room to defend it.
Trump ran his mouth and sabotaged himself. If he had said nothing about restricting Muslim travel, he may have skated by. It would still be illegal to discriminate based on religion, but there would be no proof if he kept silent. It's just amateur-hour politics.
They have no interest in allowing the VR market to die and render their patents meaningless.
They may be in a position to require licensing for a large number of devices, which is the primo spot for any tech company to be in.
If you can assure yourself licensing revenue, then everyone else can take the risks associated with development, production, and distribution. You get to tax the winners.
Since I have heard nothing about Zenimax VR gear, I assume their development is stalled. We hear about a lot of VR hardware from others, though, so patent enforcement may be the only way Zenimax makes money at this point.