True, it still needs a PIN. But that CAC works for every DoD website. As opposed to remembering hundreds of login/password combinations.
That has nothing to do with CAC, but rather how the authentication is propagated between sites. LDAP is the norm, multi-master with TLS connections between hosts and no, it's not crAptive Directory.
Cards would allow auth with either a PIN or a complete password, depending on the client set up. Most legacy systems would only be able to get your log in name from the card if they could use the card at all. Many times, you are only accessing a console with the card.
Long story short, Passwords are not going away. Legacy systems will be around for a long long time, and that is the biggest driver to keep them.
Sorry, but a SOPA does away with due process. This is our constitutional right, and not something that any bill should take away unless there is an amendment to the constitution.
By Law, we're supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Again, SOPA assumes guilty until proven innocent. Again this is not constitutional.
Want to fix this bill, write the bill where it follows due process and constitutional law. Not something that gives a thug at the RIA or BSA or anyone else the ability to bypass law.
Look, I'm all for making things legal and right. I do not think that people should use the internet to steal. But we have laws already in place that allow for prosecution. The issue is not that we don't have laws, but rather that the RIA, BSA, and a few other companies want instant gratification.
Lets extend this mind set. There are a few shoplifters that go out to lunch, steal a few goodies, then go back to the office. Do we allow Police to shut down a building because someone could have committed a crime at lunch?
Obviously the answer is no. It's foolish to even think about since we don't follow due process. But when it comes to the Internet we should suddenly allow the same?
Sorry, but fair application of sales tax is the basis for the request. It's written all over the place in a whole lot of ways to make sure people know that is the reason.
A small company that tried to go online would probably spend far greater a percentage, than amazon, of its revenue just collecting and remitting all the various taxes
Really? Sales tax is that complex? Sorry, but it really is not. Some items may have increased sales tax rates in some states, but I'd be willing to bet a donut that very few stores would carry more than 2 brackets worth. Even if you did, it's not that complex of a system and if you carry more (Wall Mart) I am sure you can afford the minor amount of programming it takes for each bracket.
Wholly crap! Wallmart may have to use a case instead of an if statement!
As a result, the bigger players will prosper and as the smaller ones die out they'll be able to raise prices to increase their profitability. They will be the real winners as this plays out; and the politicians will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened.
That is pretty much the point I started with. If a large player has an unfair advantage, it harms consumers. The playing field should be level. Long ago I would agree that the Internet was a level field, but not since Bush I, "Idea Patents", and so many other laws that distort the field in favor of big players.
As someone else mentioned, wars is a good one. Also if a rich person loses a dollar, the government will hand them 5 and apologize for the middle class stupidity that caused them to lose the dollar.
That local store receives services from the local taxation district and Amazon does not.
Which are covered under different taxes. Property tax, unemployment taxes, zoning taxes, service taxes, and income taxes for City, State and Federal for all employees including owners.
That local store chose to set up shop where they did, knowing that they had an additional cost to pass on to the customer.
And you believe that Amazon did not set up shop where they did for a reason also? So that they would be able to lure customers to them because of a tax loophole? Puhleeze
Mailorder isn't new. Sears and JCPenny were founded to deal with it, and their catalogs kept many rural residents warm and clean for decades.
Mail order always has sales tax associated with it. The same tax you pay if you purchase at the store applies to a mail order purchase from Sears.
What other costs accepted by the local stores should be arbitrarily added to the mail order companies just to make things "fair"? Should Amazon be charged "property taxes" based on an estimated amount of property? Well, where they are located they have X amount of property, and they do Y% of business in this state, so we'll charge them property tax on 100*Y*X. Yes? It's only fair.
They are assessed taxes for every location that they own. Those taxes have nothing to do with sales tax. Those are called property taxes, zoning taxes, and other special taxes that can be assessed to a business property.
Like I said at the start, the question is not legality of income, sales or property tax. The question here is whether or not the taxes are being applied fairly. They are not being applied fairly. Local retailers must charge sales tax, where as a web front store has been able to circumvent sales tax, giving them a huge advantage on sales especially with high dollar value items.
First off, none of us like paying taxes, including sales tax. This legislation in question won't do away with sales taxes, and the discussion here should not really be about the legality of sales taxes.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I agree with the business owners. If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax? Simply put, it's not fair at all. Taxes should be based on the consumer's location, not the outlet's location. We do the same with insurance premiums, some interest rates, etc..
The loophole for internet stores hurts smaller businesses. It favors large companies that can pack up and move to places with the lowest tax rates to attract consumers. Much the same way that interest rate premiums favor the state with the highest legal rates *caugh* Delaware *caugh*.
As long as taxes are legal, I am all for making them as fair as possible.
I have no idea why you are on a tangent accusing someone else of wanting censorship. The point was that your rant (now two of them) is being directed at technical people in the US, not the Chinese Government.
How about writing mean letters to the Chinese Government, or getting involved in Politics instead of ranting here on/.?
Trust me, personally I'm not for anything that China does. With out of control IP laws, rampant corruption, and pay-for-politics in the US we have a shitload to worry about at home. With things like SB1867 being passed on 1/31/11 by our President, and now the big push for SOPA we are on our way to becoming a whole like like them.
Oh.. one more thing.. The US Government will not censor anything like you mentioned. What better way of distracting people from the fucked up shit they are doing than to spoon feed people stuff like that?
I get it, we all do (or at least I hope). But do you really think that the Chinese government reads/.? We can hope, but sheesh if world leaders can't get them to open up why would they listen to someone vent on/. and say "Eureka! He's on to something!"
This simply gives more excuses for maintaining the pollution driven economy we have now. The same reason that so many people argue that there is no human induced global warming will now say "Not only are we not doing anything wrong, but we are helping."
Unfortunately, our society is based on greed. The people in power have a lot of money invested, and make a whole lot of money from polluting and destroying the environment. They pay lots of money to keep people ignorant, and make anything that makes them profit legal. Sad really, but the truth.
Maybe if people had the intelligence to not believe in imaginary beings created by the brain we wouldn't be in this mess. Lack of critical thinking skills is correlated with belief in god...blah blah blah
Sorry, but you don't know any better than anyone else does. Your opinion is just that, and you know what they say about opinions.
Bias on the other hand, such as what you show, seems to be a shared belief. Bias on either side is the problem, not Theology or the lack of Theology.
And no, the jury has not closed to those with an open mind. To you it may have closed. The big bang does not answer questions of the origin of the Universe. Theories of a multiverse just confuse the issues more. Plato's questions regarding the "Origin of Good" and Aristotle's questions regarding "The un-caused "cause" are just as valid now as when they were asked originally. Those theories are just as sound as anything you can show me regarding theories of a godless Universe.
Funny how many people evangelize atheism with the same, or more, conviction you get from some of those in traditional Religions.
The backing of patenting an "IDEA" is ludicrous, sorry but there is no other way to describe it.
Do you think that only 1 person had the idea of using a shopping cart icon, or calling their on line store "a Shopping cart" back when the WWW became available to the average consumer? or even back during DARPA when we were dreaming of the WWW?
If you answer "yes", quite frankly you are a moron so please don't read any further. If you answer "no", then why would the USPTO give 1 company a patent for a shopping cart icon, an on-line store, or a name for an idea on a web page? Before you say "but.. but.. but.." it was done, and lawsuits have been flying ever since on the stupid things that they allow to be patented.
Microsoft is now suing B&N over 5 patents, all relate to either: Background downloading, Icons changing based on activity, or status bars and their placements. These are not things that should have ever been patented. It's like GM getting a patent on the wheel, and Ford getting a patent on the gear.
How can anyone think that it's beneficial? I'm baffled, and every person I talk to only likes patents for 2 reasons. 1, it gets their name on one and 2. they can now barter with other people that have patents. It does nothing for innovation and only protects people now a days from other people with patents.
Taking into account servers for all sites covering all domains, Microsoft holds a healthy lead over Nginx, accounting for 14.46 percent of sites for a total of around 84.2 million. Nginx runs on 56.1 million of all sites, representing 9.63 percent. Apache dwarfs them both: 64.9 percent for a total of 378 million sites. Google rests in the fourth spot with a 7.9 percent market share, covering 14.4 million sites.
How is this web ranged as the 2nd highest used and IIS rated number 3?
64.3(apache) > 14.46(IIS) > 9.63(Ngingx)
Ok, maybe the author missed their own statistics. But the last paragraph:
Finally, among the world's 1 million busiest sites, Apache holds a market share of 64.4 percent (640,547 sites), down 0.36 percent since December; Microsoft's share is 14.99 percent (149,209 sites), down 0.01 percent; Nginx represents 8.49 percent (84,541 sites), up 0.28 percent month over month; and Google handles 2.4 percent (23,894 sites), an increase of 0.09 percent.
Once again, 64.4(Apache) > 14.99(IIS) > 8.49(Ngingx)
The top statement in the article, the 11.1% number and the 12.1% usage numbers do not match anything else in the article. They sure don't match any statistic I can find on web server use.
Sounds like someone is spinning some yarn trying to make a hype sweater for something they bought some stock in.
Do we expect anything else from them? Nothing new to see here, but it is always refreshing to see the M$ Fanboys come out and say "really, it's the bestest thing ever!
My choice was LXDE, which worked ok, until (lx-)panel broke in the unstable branch of the distro that I use.
You are using an unstable branch, why would you expect _anything_ to work? If stability is something you find important, stick with stable releases!
Tired of using the terminal to run stuff, I replaced the standard panel with the one from Xfce. That made me realize that we really don't need a packaged desktop environment, there are pieces ready for assembly. If you customize your graphical environment, what elements do you use?
True, but you need to look at trade offs. Parts and pieces you put together gets you to the same place you were with an unstable branching. If you want stable, why are you not using a stable release and stable package set?
Which window manager, file manager, panel(etc.) would you recommend? Do you have a panel with a hardware usage monitors, how do you switch between workspaces?
For the window manager I use KDE, Stable releases only. I need my systems to work all of the time every time. I have bells and whistles when I want to show off Linux to the ignorant, but turn them off when I need to actually work. It's always worked and I don't have to worry about them re-arranging things to make it look like the latest M$ product as some windows managers do. KDE provides me options to look like others, but I'm not being force fed "their way. I set up my tool bar, my quick launch buttons, put button placement where I want, and whallah I can work for years without worry.
File manager? People use those in Linux? The terminal is the best file manager ever, and I stick with that.
Graphical panel with usage monitors? No, but I don't need to either. It's my servers and workstations I work on. I know what the disk use is, and I know what the memory use is. If I'm testing code I run text based tools to figure out what's wrong, outside of kgdb or xgdb.
To me the moral of the story is that I found what I needed and stuck with it. The more you play with things the more they tend to break, I'm sure your mom warned you about something similar.:)
I know, it's probably deemed as a baited question but I asked it anyway. Why is the patent not overturned in the US when it's turned down in the EU as to obvious?
I'm not looking for the "Because they have money and can pay people off" answer, or the "they suck and are the Debil answer".
Should not the EU patent finding be valid evidence to the USPTO that the patent should be invalidated therefor Android vendors do not have to pay Microsoft any fees?
Really we need to get a movement together and get the issue ruled on by the Supreme court, and make it illegal as it was 30 years ago.
"I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no moh!"
And how are they supposed to determine what is overlapping when we no longer describe inventions but concepts? It's simply not possible and the system much like so many other Government institutions needs to be formatted and started over!
The Business process patent legislation in the 90s has been proven to be an economic failure. Lets make Legislature call it over and be done with it!
Software patents were not allowed until the Business Process Patent act which opened Pandora's box. This was in the late 1990's, which is much less than 30 years.
Is there evidence that it hurts the economy? yes there is tremendous evidence. Look at market, trends, and innovation levels between the 1970s and 1980s and look what happened in the late 1990s after the first patent law suites were filed.
The only people that benefit from Software Patents are attorneys and big businesses. Many of which spend millions of man hours a year doing nothing but submitting patent requests. Microsoft for example submits over 1,000,000 patent requests per year. Most of these are dismissed as "trivial" and "obvious". What do they actually innovate when these requests are for things like status bars, mouse clicks, and shared object use.. which has been around for 40+ years. They search for the holy grail patent wording to get things through the system. All this in the name of getting patent's and stifling competition and innovation, contrary to what patents are supposed to be for.
Did his IT professional tell him that he could not attach his root kitted iphone to the network? Did he get told that they lack the infrastructure to make an Xbox HPC cluster?
Sorry, I work in a very large environment that has had 3 years of shitbag cowboys doing what they want and what someone says to do and not thinking of how to have a functional and supportable environment. I'm not an IT priest, but I know what best practices are and build systems to those standards. Ever try to support 600 servers running 7 different distro's of Linux at what ever release level was available at the time? Mix in 4 versions of Solaris and of course 0 documentation on anything.
Want toys? Great, you support them on your own and not on my network!
>>We've long known that malicious parties might try to distribute a trojan Nmap installer, but we never thought it would be C|Net's Download.com, which is owned by CBS! And we never thought Microsoft would be sponsoring this activity!
Sorry, but anyone that believes Microsoft is above playing dirty... #%^#@& I'll just say that you are very ill informed. Microsoft has paid Oracle to do the same thing with the Java installer that CNET did here. Microsoft has paid countless companies to do the same thing in order to try and gain market share on Google's search engine. They play dirty, they do dirty things. Hence more than trips to the DOJ for illegal monopolist practices than any company in history.
I'm also surprised that Microsoft has not released a Powertool yet that looks and acts just like NMAP, but is patented and copyright protected by Microsoft. Maybe that will come out after Windows 8 is released...
You do realize that your encrypted container means nothing when stored on a remote server where you can't see who's on the server right?
You do realize that if I am root, I can stack trace any process you start and watch everything you do?
That is just the most obvious technique for me to hack in to your shared container after you disconnect. If you are using a "Cloud" server, someone else hosts the VM, you simply have access to it. Your access is not unique, and can not be unique, if you are in a Cloud. The hypervisor layer is what defines a server as being a member of a Cloud.
Your encrypted answer would only prevent another customer from easily accessing your data. Other customers are not the biggest point of concern, but rather the person making 25 cents a day in Cambodia with super user access to the cluster heads!
What you ask is something that has been a concern of mine since the buzz word started being tossed around by Executives as "Must Have" services.
Let's just say that everything is set up correctly. Services boot new OS's on servers and format drives between clients, restrict access or properly wipe disks prior to the new OS going. Lets just say that accounts are host based, ACLs control access as opposed to standard Unix permissions, snort stations watch for and disable systems trying to probe the network, etc.. etc..
John Doe working in China is offered $5,000.00 by the Iranian Government to watch for foreign DOD customers to put data on servers in the data center in China, and copy that data to a USB stick. For every USB stick he makes he gets another $5,000 USD. What does John Doe do? He's offered 5-6 years salary for doing one thing against policy. Does he do it?
Lets take things a bit of a different direction. Lets say the Chines Government tells him that he must copy any foreign Governments DOD data to USB or spend his life in jail for treason.
The problem is that the human factor is a huge risk. When you pay for generic services there is no one looking out for your best interests. When you pay for the lowest bidder you often end up with people on the other side that are under payed and disgruntled, which means no vested interested in the Cloud Company or it's customers.
Lets face facts here people. You can not possibly protect your servers when you are not in control of them. It's a difficult chore even when they are in your control, but impossible when housed somewhere else.
I imagine that Microsoft may be cooking some stew in the back ground which would help India. What a better way for them to gain market share in an area that they have struggled with!
When you look at how Microsoft already filters content for users, is it that much of a leap?
Slashdot Mirror
The same can be said for spell checking, and pressing the shift key when appropriate. Did I spot a trend perhaps?
True, it still needs a PIN. But that CAC works for every DoD website. As opposed to remembering hundreds of login/password combinations.
That has nothing to do with CAC, but rather how the authentication is propagated between sites. LDAP is the norm, multi-master with TLS connections between hosts and no, it's not crAptive Directory.
Cards would allow auth with either a PIN or a complete password, depending on the client set up. Most legacy systems would only be able to get your log in name from the card if they could use the card at all. Many times, you are only accessing a console with the card.
Long story short, Passwords are not going away. Legacy systems will be around for a long long time, and that is the biggest driver to keep them.
Sorry, but a SOPA does away with due process. This is our constitutional right, and not something that any bill should take away unless there is an amendment to the constitution.
By Law, we're supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Again, SOPA assumes guilty until proven innocent. Again this is not constitutional.
Want to fix this bill, write the bill where it follows due process and constitutional law. Not something that gives a thug at the RIA or BSA or anyone else the ability to bypass law.
Look, I'm all for making things legal and right. I do not think that people should use the internet to steal. But we have laws already in place that allow for prosecution. The issue is not that we don't have laws, but rather that the RIA, BSA, and a few other companies want instant gratification.
Lets extend this mind set. There are a few shoplifters that go out to lunch, steal a few goodies, then go back to the office. Do we allow Police to shut down a building because someone could have committed a crime at lunch?
Obviously the answer is no. It's foolish to even think about since we don't follow due process. But when it comes to the Internet we should suddenly allow the same?
This isn't about fairness -
Sorry, but fair application of sales tax is the basis for the request. It's written all over the place in a whole lot of ways to make sure people know that is the reason.
A small company that tried to go online would probably spend far greater a percentage, than amazon, of its revenue just collecting and remitting all the various taxes
Really? Sales tax is that complex? Sorry, but it really is not. Some items may have increased sales tax rates in some states, but I'd be willing to bet a donut that very few stores would carry more than 2 brackets worth. Even if you did, it's not that complex of a system and if you carry more (Wall Mart) I am sure you can afford the minor amount of programming it takes for each bracket.
if(classofShippedGood == hazmat){Saletax == 12.5}else{Salestax == 8};
Wholly crap! Wallmart may have to use a case instead of an if statement!
As a result, the bigger players will prosper and as the smaller ones die out they'll be able to raise prices to increase their profitability. They will be the real winners as this plays out; and the politicians will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened.
That is pretty much the point I started with. If a large player has an unfair advantage, it harms consumers. The playing field should be level. Long ago I would agree that the Internet was a level field, but not since Bush I, "Idea Patents", and so many other laws that distort the field in favor of big players.
As someone else mentioned, wars is a good one. Also if a rich person loses a dollar, the government will hand them 5 and apologize for the middle class stupidity that caused them to lose the dollar.
I love partial truths.
That local store receives services from the local taxation district and Amazon does not.
Which are covered under different taxes. Property tax, unemployment taxes, zoning taxes, service taxes, and income taxes for City, State and Federal for all employees including owners.
That local store chose to set up shop where they did, knowing that they had an additional cost to pass on to the customer.
And you believe that Amazon did not set up shop where they did for a reason also? So that they would be able to lure customers to them because of a tax loophole? Puhleeze
Mailorder isn't new. Sears and JCPenny were founded to deal with it, and their catalogs kept many rural residents warm and clean for decades.
Mail order always has sales tax associated with it. The same tax you pay if you purchase at the store applies to a mail order purchase from Sears.
What other costs accepted by the local stores should be arbitrarily added to the mail order companies just to make things "fair"? Should Amazon be charged "property taxes" based on an estimated amount of property? Well, where they are located they have X amount of property, and they do Y% of business in this state, so we'll charge them property tax on 100*Y*X. Yes? It's only fair.
They are assessed taxes for every location that they own. Those taxes have nothing to do with sales tax. Those are called property taxes, zoning taxes, and other special taxes that can be assessed to a business property.
Like I said at the start, the question is not legality of income, sales or property tax. The question here is whether or not the taxes are being applied fairly. They are not being applied fairly. Local retailers must charge sales tax, where as a web front store has been able to circumvent sales tax, giving them a huge advantage on sales especially with high dollar value items.
First off, none of us like paying taxes, including sales tax. This legislation in question won't do away with sales taxes, and the discussion here should not really be about the legality of sales taxes.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I agree with the business owners. If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax? Simply put, it's not fair at all. Taxes should be based on the consumer's location, not the outlet's location. We do the same with insurance premiums, some interest rates, etc..
The loophole for internet stores hurts smaller businesses. It favors large companies that can pack up and move to places with the lowest tax rates to attract consumers. Much the same way that interest rate premiums favor the state with the highest legal rates *caugh* Delaware *caugh*.
As long as taxes are legal, I am all for making them as fair as possible.
I have no idea why you are on a tangent accusing someone else of wanting censorship. The point was that your rant (now two of them) is being directed at technical people in the US, not the Chinese Government.
How about writing mean letters to the Chinese Government, or getting involved in Politics instead of ranting here on /.?
Trust me, personally I'm not for anything that China does. With out of control IP laws, rampant corruption, and pay-for-politics in the US we have a shitload to worry about at home. With things like SB1867 being passed on 1/31/11 by our President, and now the big push for SOPA we are on our way to becoming a whole like like them.
Oh.. one more thing.. The US Government will not censor anything like you mentioned. What better way of distracting people from the fucked up shit they are doing than to spoon feed people stuff like that?
I get it, we all do (or at least I hope). But do you really think that the Chinese government reads /.? We can hope, but sheesh if world leaders can't get them to open up why would they listen to someone vent on /. and say "Eureka! He's on to something!"
This simply gives more excuses for maintaining the pollution driven economy we have now. The same reason that so many people argue that there is no human induced global warming will now say "Not only are we not doing anything wrong, but we are helping."
Unfortunately, our society is based on greed. The people in power have a lot of money invested, and make a whole lot of money from polluting and destroying the environment. They pay lots of money to keep people ignorant, and make anything that makes them profit legal. Sad really, but the truth.
Maybe if people had the intelligence to not believe in imaginary beings created by the brain we wouldn't be in this mess. Lack of critical thinking skills is correlated with belief in god...blah blah blah
Sorry, but you don't know any better than anyone else does. Your opinion is just that, and you know what they say about opinions.
Bias on the other hand, such as what you show, seems to be a shared belief. Bias on either side is the problem, not Theology or the lack of Theology.
And no, the jury has not closed to those with an open mind. To you it may have closed. The big bang does not answer questions of the origin of the Universe. Theories of a multiverse just confuse the issues more. Plato's questions regarding the "Origin of Good" and Aristotle's questions regarding "The un-caused "cause" are just as valid now as when they were asked originally. Those theories are just as sound as anything you can show me regarding theories of a godless Universe.
Funny how many people evangelize atheism with the same, or more, conviction you get from some of those in traditional Religions.
The backing of patenting an "IDEA" is ludicrous, sorry but there is no other way to describe it.
Do you think that only 1 person had the idea of using a shopping cart icon, or calling their on line store "a Shopping cart" back when the WWW became available to the average consumer? or even back during DARPA when we were dreaming of the WWW?
If you answer "yes", quite frankly you are a moron so please don't read any further. If you answer "no", then why would the USPTO give 1 company a patent for a shopping cart icon, an on-line store, or a name for an idea on a web page? Before you say "but.. but.. but.." it was done, and lawsuits have been flying ever since on the stupid things that they allow to be patented.
Microsoft is now suing B&N over 5 patents, all relate to either: Background downloading, Icons changing based on activity, or status bars and their placements. These are not things that should have ever been patented. It's like GM getting a patent on the wheel, and Ford getting a patent on the gear.
How can anyone think that it's beneficial? I'm baffled, and every person I talk to only likes patents for 2 reasons. 1, it gets their name on one and 2. they can now barter with other people that have patents. It does nothing for innovation and only protects people now a days from other people with patents.
I don't get it, at all.
Taking into account servers for all sites covering all domains, Microsoft holds a healthy lead over Nginx, accounting for 14.46 percent of sites for a total of around 84.2 million. Nginx runs on 56.1 million of all sites, representing 9.63 percent. Apache dwarfs them both: 64.9 percent for a total of 378 million sites. Google rests in the fourth spot with a 7.9 percent market share, covering 14.4 million sites.
How is this web ranged as the 2nd highest used and IIS rated number 3?
64.3(apache) > 14.46(IIS) > 9.63(Ngingx)
Ok, maybe the author missed their own statistics. But the last paragraph:
Finally, among the world's 1 million busiest sites, Apache holds a market share of 64.4 percent (640,547 sites), down 0.36 percent since December; Microsoft's share is 14.99 percent (149,209 sites), down 0.01 percent; Nginx represents 8.49 percent (84,541 sites), up 0.28 percent month over month; and Google handles 2.4 percent (23,894 sites), an increase of 0.09 percent.
Once again, 64.4(Apache) > 14.99(IIS) > 8.49(Ngingx)
The top statement in the article, the 11.1% number and the 12.1% usage numbers do not match anything else in the article. They sure don't match any statistic I can find on web server use. Sounds like someone is spinning some yarn trying to make a hype sweater for something they bought some stock in.
Do we expect anything else from them? Nothing new to see here, but it is always refreshing to see the M$ Fanboys come out and say "really, it's the bestest thing ever!
My choice was LXDE, which worked ok, until (lx-)panel broke in the unstable branch of the distro that I use.
You are using an unstable branch, why would you expect _anything_ to work? If stability is something you find important, stick with stable releases!
Tired of using the terminal to run stuff, I replaced the standard panel with the one from Xfce. That made me realize that we really don't need a packaged desktop environment, there are pieces ready for assembly. If you customize your graphical environment, what elements do you use?
True, but you need to look at trade offs. Parts and pieces you put together gets you to the same place you were with an unstable branching. If you want stable, why are you not using a stable release and stable package set?
Which window manager, file manager, panel(etc.) would you recommend? Do you have a panel with a hardware usage monitors, how do you switch between workspaces?
For the window manager I use KDE, Stable releases only. I need my systems to work all of the time every time. I have bells and whistles when I want to show off Linux to the ignorant, but turn them off when I need to actually work. It's always worked and I don't have to worry about them re-arranging things to make it look like the latest M$ product as some windows managers do. KDE provides me options to look like others, but I'm not being force fed "their way. I set up my tool bar, my quick launch buttons, put button placement where I want, and whallah I can work for years without worry.
File manager? People use those in Linux? The terminal is the best file manager ever, and I stick with that.
Graphical panel with usage monitors? No, but I don't need to either. It's my servers and workstations I work on. I know what the disk use is, and I know what the memory use is. If I'm testing code I run text based tools to figure out what's wrong, outside of kgdb or xgdb.
To me the moral of the story is that I found what I needed and stuck with it. The more you play with things the more they tend to break, I'm sure your mom warned you about something similar. :)
I know, it's probably deemed as a baited question but I asked it anyway. Why is the patent not overturned in the US when it's turned down in the EU as to obvious?
I'm not looking for the "Because they have money and can pay people off" answer, or the "they suck and are the Debil answer".
Should not the EU patent finding be valid evidence to the USPTO that the patent should be invalidated therefor Android vendors do not have to pay Microsoft any fees?
Really we need to get a movement together and get the issue ruled on by the Supreme court, and make it illegal as it was 30 years ago.
"I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no moh!"
And how are they supposed to determine what is overlapping when we no longer describe inventions but concepts? It's simply not possible and the system much like so many other Government institutions needs to be formatted and started over!
The Business process patent legislation in the 90s has been proven to be an economic failure. Lets make Legislature call it over and be done with it!
Software patents were not allowed until the Business Process Patent act which opened Pandora's box. This was in the late 1990's, which is much less than 30 years.
Is there evidence that it hurts the economy? yes there is tremendous evidence. Look at market, trends, and innovation levels between the 1970s and 1980s and look what happened in the late 1990s after the first patent law suites were filed.
The only people that benefit from Software Patents are attorneys and big businesses. Many of which spend millions of man hours a year doing nothing but submitting patent requests. Microsoft for example submits over 1,000,000 patent requests per year. Most of these are dismissed as "trivial" and "obvious". What do they actually innovate when these requests are for things like status bars, mouse clicks, and shared object use.. which has been around for 40+ years. They search for the holy grail patent wording to get things through the system. All this in the name of getting patent's and stifling competition and innovation, contrary to what patents are supposed to be for.
Did his IT professional tell him that he could not attach his root kitted iphone to the network? Did he get told that they lack the infrastructure to make an Xbox HPC cluster?
Sorry, I work in a very large environment that has had 3 years of shitbag cowboys doing what they want and what someone says to do and not thinking of how to have a functional and supportable environment. I'm not an IT priest, but I know what best practices are and build systems to those standards. Ever try to support 600 servers running 7 different distro's of Linux at what ever release level was available at the time? Mix in 4 versions of Solaris and of course 0 documentation on anything.
Want toys? Great, you support them on your own and not on my network!
When I read "Combining Microsoft's open, interoperable health platforms and software expertise with..." I laughed out loud, then I choked.
I guess they define "open" and "interoperable" from some dictionary that reverses normal language from the equation.
>>We've long known that malicious parties might try to distribute a trojan Nmap installer, but we never thought it would be C|Net's Download.com, which is owned by CBS! And we never thought Microsoft would be sponsoring this activity!
Sorry, but anyone that believes Microsoft is above playing dirty... #%^#@& I'll just say that you are very ill informed. Microsoft has paid Oracle to do the same thing with the Java installer that CNET did here. Microsoft has paid countless companies to do the same thing in order to try and gain market share on Google's search engine. They play dirty, they do dirty things. Hence more than trips to the DOJ for illegal monopolist practices than any company in history.
I'm also surprised that Microsoft has not released a Powertool yet that looks and acts just like NMAP, but is patented and copyright protected by Microsoft. Maybe that will come out after Windows 8 is released...
Until the next time we need a bonus anyway...
You do realize that your encrypted container means nothing when stored on a remote server where you can't see who's on the server right?
You do realize that if I am root, I can stack trace any process you start and watch everything you do?
That is just the most obvious technique for me to hack in to your shared container after you disconnect. If you are using a "Cloud" server, someone else hosts the VM, you simply have access to it. Your access is not unique, and can not be unique, if you are in a Cloud. The hypervisor layer is what defines a server as being a member of a Cloud.
Your encrypted answer would only prevent another customer from easily accessing your data. Other customers are not the biggest point of concern, but rather the person making 25 cents a day in Cambodia with super user access to the cluster heads!
What you ask is something that has been a concern of mine since the buzz word started being tossed around by Executives as "Must Have" services.
Let's just say that everything is set up correctly. Services boot new OS's on servers and format drives between clients, restrict access or properly wipe disks prior to the new OS going. Lets just say that accounts are host based, ACLs control access as opposed to standard Unix permissions, snort stations watch for and disable systems trying to probe the network, etc.. etc..
John Doe working in China is offered $5,000.00 by the Iranian Government to watch for foreign DOD customers to put data on servers in the data center in China, and copy that data to a USB stick. For every USB stick he makes he gets another $5,000 USD. What does John Doe do? He's offered 5-6 years salary for doing one thing against policy. Does he do it?
Lets take things a bit of a different direction. Lets say the Chines Government tells him that he must copy any foreign Governments DOD data to USB or spend his life in jail for treason.
The problem is that the human factor is a huge risk. When you pay for generic services there is no one looking out for your best interests. When you pay for the lowest bidder you often end up with people on the other side that are under payed and disgruntled, which means no vested interested in the Cloud Company or it's customers.
Lets face facts here people. You can not possibly protect your servers when you are not in control of them. It's a difficult chore even when they are in your control, but impossible when housed somewhere else.
I imagine that Microsoft may be cooking some stew in the back ground which would help India. What a better way for them to gain market share in an area that they have struggled with!
When you look at how Microsoft already filters content for users, is it that much of a leap?