How many employers could support employees working from home, but continue to hold on to an obsolete mentality of forcing people to waste countless hours commuting to a building and sit in a cube or office all day?
My current work is great, they're flexible in this approach, but we have problems with some (a lot) of employees that just really don't do much work at all when they're at home. So, we tend to tell those people in particular, we need them in the office more often.
With regards to that whole "supervision" excuse, people are either mature and engaged enough to succeed, or they are not, and the burden of babysitter should not be thrust upon teachers or employers.
The problem is, we need people to operate... And, the people involved are actually good at their job, just not always working from home.:/
But in this paradigm, where company uses all this data for analytics and third party access, how is compromised data server kept separate from keys used to unencypt it's data all the time?
I have yet to see piece of binary software that wasn't available for both Linux and MacOS, both native. And in extreme cases, if I needed software to run on MacOS that was available on Linux, I could download the source and compile it so I can run it natively. But I have NEVER had to do that.
I have and MacOS is a problem when it comes to following the UNIX certification it has, because it certifies it for something it can't do (likely didn't test for the cases I encounter).
An example of this is basic functionality like fork(). MacOS does not forbid you to fork(), but it expects you to fork() and exec() when it cannot guarantee you that the libraries you are using are safe from async-signal-safe. POSIX demands you guarantee your code can be forked even in a signal handler at any time.
I have had to port software that does a fork() without exec(), this is allowed by POSIX standards, however MacOS couldn't guarantee the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and in turn it crashes the thread.
So while I can compile a fair few applications across to MacOS, there are annoying system dependent bugs that require to write workarounds in, this is why some applications in darwinports, macports and brew have unexpected segfaults during certain operations on macOS. Theres an even bigger issue with the pthreads issue, but it takes too long to explain. Anything graphical wise like OpenGL (for doing headless rendering work) is a PitA to deal with on MacOS too, since it's OpenGL implementation adds unnecessary constraints in a similar way.
Meanwhile, Windows's Linux subsystem runs native ELF executables and doesn't suffer any of these issues. In short, even if you have an application that's been already pre-compiled for MacOS, it does not mean it will function correctly in all cases.
the truth of the matter is I very rarely need to run the same software on my Mac than I do on my Linux servers.
In today's common administration/devops/development world, technology like Docker, Puppet, Chief and Ansible is generally developed, tested and maintained on desktops machines. Even if you do push that off to a server to handle for your systems later on. By the way, these technologies have bugs relating to some of the issues I talked about above on MacOS.
If I need to do something on the servers, I just login with ssh, run whatever program
If that's the case then there isn't really a good justification for you to be using MacOS. It's more expensive for less for what is just a dumb terminal by your usage scenario.
In Windows-world, you always needed some piece of client software to do those kinds of things (but perhaps this has changed?)
In Windows, you turn on a feature called 'Bash for Windows', which installs a minimal native Ubuntu userland image. Then you can install anything like ssh the same way you would under Ubuntu, 'sudo apt-get install openssh-client' from the CLI.
But if Windows now has Ubuntu compatibility, then why not just run Ubuntu?
To go back to original need of running commercial software. Windows is the best platform for running almost any type of commercial software out there to. Additionally, if any of your work involves Windows servers and such, it's an immense time saver to be able to use the Windows desktop management interfaces locally.
Also, Microsoft's handling of the Windows 10 roll-out and subsequent apparent spying on their user base has not inspired my confidence in suddenly becoming a Windows convert.
I'm not really interested in converting you. I'm just raising a specific issue with some of what you were saying earlier because it's simply not true today. If you're going to say don't use or use something, say it for the right reasons.
I usually pay careful attention to renewal rates. Which, in GoDaddy can be lowered by simply visiting the website around the time of renewal, go through the process and then stop before paying. A day later you'll get a code for lower rates etc.
Then I really have no idea what you are trying to say!
You were talking about data from internal networks being leaked on to untrusted networks. I was thinking of captive portal networks, where all webservice traffic gets intercepted and modified an example based on your particular proposed scenario.
As an example, let's say that I configure a server on my network to respond to requests to http://www.slashdot.org./
There is your problem. You didn't use TLS and pin the certificate. And you have broken my understanding of doing "your setup right".
But lets say the network configuration changes (either because I physically relocate, somebody fat fingers a local DNS entry, et cetera). Now I go to load those URLs. I'm suddenly sending data to the real slashdot.org. Data that I probably don't wan to be sending to a third-party because it may be confidential.
But if you used TLS and pinned the certificate that wouldn't have happened.
This doesn't expose me to MiTM at all other than the general MiTM problem when sending http over untrusted networks.
Well, again, if it was setup correctly, there wouldn't be a problem. No, MitM issues, no insecure network issues etc.
Which inflates the price of a home server appliance by that of a domain registration.
There are really cheap domains, but if that isn't good enough. There are quite a few free subdomain providers out there too, usually offering dyndns options and the like.
If I have a bunch of URLs like myserver.dev that work on my corporate network and then I leave the office, I could accidentally load those URLs and leak data to a third-party.
If your setup is that insecure, you could do MITM-capture anyway for any 3rd party network.
So even if the RFCs allowed this it would be foolish.
Honestly, it depends on whether you do your setup right.
The issue here is that people aren't using the TLDs in the RFCs.
That is the issue, because if they had done so, then there wouldn't be an issue right now.
Google is making a change to Chrome to push them in the right direction. I have no idea why this wouldn't be universally celebrated.
Because changing anything is effort and people don't want to put effort into something that was "fine" before.
already 2 clients wanted to add my number to their special project Whatsapp group. On a device and connectivity that I pay for out of my own pocket, that I have no contractual obligation to possess or to provide the number for to them. So imagine the looks and snide remarks I got when telling them: I don't want to install Whatsapp, and even if I wanted to, I am unable to install it on my device.
Honestly, the bigger annoyance for me is when they announce stuff on whatsapp groups and you don't hear about it until some arbitrary deadline has past (I don't use whatsapp). I've never had snide remarks about not using whatsapp, I just say "I don't have it" and people seem to accept that.
This is going to sound silly, but why didn't you use letters? There are plenty of online services that allow you to type and send online and then look at received mail online even... So, convenience wise, it isn't that big of deal either.
I don't have a cell phone. At all. I'm nearly 40, work a white collar job that requires about 40 nights of travel per year. I've got a wife, a young school aged child, and a pre-school aged child. We live a perfectly normal American urban/suburban lifestyle. How do I manage without a phone (smart or otherwise)? Well, I've got lots of phones. I've got one at my desk at work. I've got a landline at home. My wife has a cell, so if we're traveling as a family we've got access to one. The rest of the stuff is a combination of good planning (let's meet at a place that serves beer or is out of the rain or whatevs), knowing where to find a payphone (they're still out there), and having a tablet or laptop handy to use email/texting/Internet.
I see no problem with this.
But what if there's a convenience call, like asking the wife if she needs anything from the grocery store on the way home?
Well convenience, it's not the end of the world. But it would be convenient to have it.
What emergency could I really solve on the telephone that the person on the other end of the line couldn't solve for himself or herself?
In my experience, thinking clearly - I found a lot of people panic and are unable to do this. In the few emergency situations I've been involved with, I think the situation would have unfolded very differently if those persons hadn't access to a mobile phone.
I'm a successful IT professional who has never owned/needed a smartphone, just a flip phone circa 2006 for emergency calls from my family, i.e., I almost never use it. This choice has not hurt my career nor my social life one bit.
I'm similar, except I have a smart phone.
I use Facebook and Twitter every day...
I don't.
For texting, I use an email-to-text gateway.
I don't really use texting either (although I receive text messages from specific numbers for certain events). I do have my work e-mails on my phone and read it while traveling, but no notifications otherwise. Other than that, I have instant messaging on my phone for my social life outside of work. I primarily use stuff like Slashdot while traveling for work purposes.
Sometimes people have to wait awhile for me to reply, but I have (intentionally) never set expectations that I reply immediately
When it's work related and I'm at work, I tend to reply immediately that I have seen their message at the very least (of course, I have to be looking at my e-mail client for that to happen, since I don't get notifications on my phone about it). I don't work on sleepy projects, so taking 'awhile' leads to blockers and waste of hours where people use me as the excuse. I don't like that and I'm quick to unblock people whenever I can.
When you and I have a conversation, you get my full attention because there are no phone notifications.
I don't have this problem on my smartphone. I do admittedly have this problem in person when there are several people trying to get my attention for all "urgent" issues.
I never have to wonder whether a buzzing in my pocket might be more important than talking to you.
I know how urgent a notification is based on the tone. I only have notifications for meeting notifications (five minutes before), critical (mission critical system needs immediate attention or high risk health and safety matters (generally need to be addressed immediately).
I noticed you didn't mention how you handle telephone calls. Generally, anyone work-related that calls me is treated as an urgent call and if they are not needing something urgent, I direct them to send a meeting invite or e-mail me.
So what should a hobbyist who needs modern browser features do?
If they demand the use of a TLD - They could use RFC compliant TLDs that cannot be reserved, such as.test..example,.invalid,.localhost or alternatively, register a domain or TLD for themselves.
Seriously are people really using.dev URLs to point to local resources where there could be a name collision with a real TLD?
Yes.
And we don't all see why that is an awful problem?
I don't, because it complies fine with RFCs. We even have RFCs to declare which TLDs to use, which are.test,.example, invalid and.localhost.
Additionally, they could have registered an actual domain to reserve for such purposes too. The issue lies in the IT professionals not following standards.
1. MacOS plays well with Linux. MacOS natively speaks the same protocols that Linux does, most importantly ssh.
Of course, in today's world, Windows is better than macOS at this sort of thing, it can run Linux binaries natively on the platform.
But to say that Apple is the last platform a tech user should use is completely wrong, especially if you deal with the Linux world on a regular basis. I would say MacOS is essential if you're a tech user that needs some compatibility with commercial software but also works in the Linux world, and is FAR superior to Windows in that context.
No, it's worse than Windows now. I can run Ubuntu userland natively under Windows, can't do that under MacOS. You also have full access to development tools like Visual Studio that supports integration with it.
The problem is the ISP and the communication Infrastructure are one and the same.
And yet we have competitors for both in most European countries.
Now with broadband, as a necessary standard we normally pay a company who controls the wires and the service. In rural areas you may have only one choice usually Cable or DSL. But once you get the communication infrastructure you also have to rely on the whims of the same company for hosting the ISP.
In some European countries, we have whole-sellers available to offer the connectivity to ISPs, some of it brought by business interests, other by law.
Now governments local, state and federal have a slew of laws around these, because this infrastructure is rather invasive. Running across private property. So even if you were to start you own company you will still need to be politically involved to try to get these laws changed so you can be allowed to distribute your service to your customer base.
A problem that also exists in Europe. However, it's been over come in most instances.
Slashdot Mirror
My current work is great, they're flexible in this approach, but we have problems with some (a lot) of employees that just really don't do much work at all when they're at home. So, we tend to tell those people in particular, we need them in the office more often.
The problem is, we need people to operate... And, the people involved are actually good at their job, just not always working from home. :/
DIRECTIVE 4: (CLASSIFIED)
Homomorphic encryption.
I have and MacOS is a problem when it comes to following the UNIX certification it has, because it certifies it for something it can't do (likely didn't test for the cases I encounter).
An example of this is basic functionality like fork(). MacOS does not forbid you to fork(), but it expects you to fork() and exec() when it cannot guarantee you that the libraries you are using are safe from async-signal-safe. POSIX demands you guarantee your code can be forked even in a signal handler at any time.
I have had to port software that does a fork() without exec(), this is allowed by POSIX standards, however MacOS couldn't guarantee the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and in turn it crashes the thread.
So while I can compile a fair few applications across to MacOS, there are annoying system dependent bugs that require to write workarounds in, this is why some applications in darwinports, macports and brew have unexpected segfaults during certain operations on macOS. Theres an even bigger issue with the pthreads issue, but it takes too long to explain. Anything graphical wise like OpenGL (for doing headless rendering work) is a PitA to deal with on MacOS too, since it's OpenGL implementation adds unnecessary constraints in a similar way.
Meanwhile, Windows's Linux subsystem runs native ELF executables and doesn't suffer any of these issues. In short, even if you have an application that's been already pre-compiled for MacOS, it does not mean it will function correctly in all cases.
In today's common administration/devops/development world, technology like Docker, Puppet, Chief and Ansible is generally developed, tested and maintained on desktops machines. Even if you do push that off to a server to handle for your systems later on. By the way, these technologies have bugs relating to some of the issues I talked about above on MacOS.
If that's the case then there isn't really a good justification for you to be using MacOS. It's more expensive for less for what is just a dumb terminal by your usage scenario.
In Windows, you turn on a feature called 'Bash for Windows', which installs a minimal native Ubuntu userland image. Then you can install anything like ssh the same way you would under Ubuntu, 'sudo apt-get install openssh-client' from the CLI.
To go back to original need of running commercial software. Windows is the best platform for running almost any type of commercial software out there to. Additionally, if any of your work involves Windows servers and such, it's an immense time saver to be able to use the Windows desktop management interfaces locally.
I'm not really interested in converting you. I'm just raising a specific issue with some of what you were saying earlier because it's simply not true today. If you're going to say don't use or use something, say it for the right reasons.
I'm usually able to find cheap domain offers on registrars like GoDaddy, for example, I just did a look up:
afmiefaffiae.us: $1.99
afmiefaffiae.online:$0.99
afmiefaffiae.club: $0.99
afmiefaffiae.xyz: $0.99
afmiefaffiae.today: $1.99
I usually pay careful attention to renewal rates. Which, in GoDaddy can be lowered by simply visiting the website around the time of renewal, go through the process and then stop before paying. A day later you'll get a code for lower rates etc.
You were talking about data from internal networks being leaked on to untrusted networks. I was thinking of captive portal networks, where all webservice traffic gets intercepted and modified an example based on your particular proposed scenario.
If it's that terrible of an issue for them, they'll have to pony up the $2/year for a domain. Can't say I'm really distressed about it.
Or C. Create your own CA certificate and install the CA into your system certificate store since this is meant for internal usage anyway?
s/drawing/driving/
I think I only saw a guy texting once in my life while drawing, haven't seen the others.
I didn't say anyone should use .dev? In fact I pointed to the RFCs and what they declared to use in this thread?
I never argued for the use of .dev?
There is your problem. You didn't use TLS and pin the certificate. And you have broken my understanding of doing "your setup right".
But if you used TLS and pinned the certificate that wouldn't have happened.
Well, again, if it was setup correctly, there wouldn't be a problem. No, MitM issues, no insecure network issues etc.
There are really cheap domains, but if that isn't good enough. There are quite a few free subdomain providers out there too, usually offering dyndns options and the like.
If your setup is that insecure, you could do MITM-capture anyway for any 3rd party network.
Honestly, it depends on whether you do your setup right.
That is the issue, because if they had done so, then there wouldn't be an issue right now.
Because changing anything is effort and people don't want to put effort into something that was "fine" before.
Honestly, the bigger annoyance for me is when they announce stuff on whatsapp groups and you don't hear about it until some arbitrary deadline has past (I don't use whatsapp). I've never had snide remarks about not using whatsapp, I just say "I don't have it" and people seem to accept that.
This is going to sound silly, but why didn't you use letters? There are plenty of online services that allow you to type and send online and then look at received mail online even... So, convenience wise, it isn't that big of deal either.
I see no problem with this.
Well convenience, it's not the end of the world. But it would be convenient to have it.
In my experience, thinking clearly - I found a lot of people panic and are unable to do this. In the few emergency situations I've been involved with, I think the situation would have unfolded very differently if those persons hadn't access to a mobile phone.
I'm similar, except I have a smart phone.
I don't.
I don't really use texting either (although I receive text messages from specific numbers for certain events). I do have my work e-mails on my phone and read it while traveling, but no notifications otherwise. Other than that, I have instant messaging on my phone for my social life outside of work. I primarily use stuff like Slashdot while traveling for work purposes.
When it's work related and I'm at work, I tend to reply immediately that I have seen their message at the very least (of course, I have to be looking at my e-mail client for that to happen, since I don't get notifications on my phone about it). I don't work on sleepy projects, so taking 'awhile' leads to blockers and waste of hours where people use me as the excuse. I don't like that and I'm quick to unblock people whenever I can.
I don't have this problem on my smartphone. I do admittedly have this problem in person when there are several people trying to get my attention for all "urgent" issues.
I know how urgent a notification is based on the tone. I only have notifications for meeting notifications (five minutes before), critical (mission critical system needs immediate attention or high risk health and safety matters (generally need to be addressed immediately).
I noticed you didn't mention how you handle telephone calls. Generally, anyone work-related that calls me is treated as an urgent call and if they are not needing something urgent, I direct them to send a meeting invite or e-mail me.
If they demand the use of a TLD - They could use RFC compliant TLDs that cannot be reserved, such as .test. .example, .invalid, .localhost or alternatively, register a domain or TLD for themselves.
Yes.
I don't, because it complies fine with RFCs. We even have RFCs to declare which TLDs to use, which are .test,.example, invalid and .localhost.
Additionally, they could have registered an actual domain to reserve for such purposes too. The issue lies in the IT professionals not following standards.
That would be IANA.
Of course, in today's world, Windows is better than macOS at this sort of thing, it can run Linux binaries natively on the platform.
No, it's worse than Windows now. I can run Ubuntu userland natively under Windows, can't do that under MacOS. You also have full access to development tools like Visual Studio that supports integration with it.
What if there were and he just didn't choose them?
And yet we have competitors for both in most European countries.
In some European countries, we have whole-sellers available to offer the connectivity to ISPs, some of it brought by business interests, other by law.
A problem that also exists in Europe. However, it's been over come in most instances.
Wrong. 20 years ago, we would have said "use WHOIS records".