There's no point in encrypting your email with something like GPG if you're the only one using it, and most people aren't going to use it until it's easy.
I know, you'll tell me it's easy. Just download this software, install it, and it'll work for your email client assume you're still using an email client and there's a plugin available for it, which there might not be. Otherwise you need to copy and paste and stuff, and... oh right, then there's also the whole issue of managing keys and keeping a backup copy safe. Most people don't back anything up.
You have to make it easy. Someone will get angry because I appear to be praising Apple, but take iMessage's encryption for example. Do people using it know that their messages are encrypted? Probably not. Are they given a choice? No. Do they know that they're generating encryption keys? Probably not. Are they asked to manage their own encryption keys? No.
That's easy. GPG isn't. Email encryption needs to be that easy, or people won't use it.
This seems really dumb to me. Having your bank track your whereabouts seems like a bad trade-off. How about we just fix the credit card system instead?
Like how about we use a private key encryption scheme instead of a credit card number in order to pay? If you want to have cell phones involved, they would make an easy method of storing and accessing the key, providing a digital signature when needed. Doing that would actually provide a huge improvement in security, and do so without having my bank constantly tracking my whereabouts.
Not that Sprint and T-Mobile aren't the worst already in customer service...
They aren't, or at least T-Mobiles not so bad. Verizon... boy, there's a company with some terrible customer service.
What worries me more is that Sprint is buying T-Mobile, and not the other way around. Though, I don't know why anyone would want to buy Sprint. My impression is that their customer service isn't so bad, but... boy, there's a company with some incompetent management.
Wait, maybe I'm a paranoid retard because I'm not living in a hysterical frenzy of fear over other people's stupid health decisions?
No, because you're taking a legitimate concern and interpreting it as a method of persecution, that is to say, as being "really about a whole lot of people who want to inflict their will on somebody... a way to designate a 'Them' that is opposed to 'Us'." Some suggests that it would be bad for polio to have a resurgence, and you're interpreting that as people coming after you personally, and instead suggesting that we all attack rich people as the villains-- as though those concepts are connected.
It's either ignorance or a mental health issue. Take your pick.
Yeah... I'm unimpressed by that argument. They copied a couple of features from Android. Android has copied things from iOS. Any smart technology company will copy the good things from their competition, as much as they can, without compromising their own product or breaking patent/copyright laws. And those features are relatively minor incremental improvements. Arguably obvious improvements. What, you think that Android invented the idea of widgets?
Google Glass is an experiment with the potential to turn into a good product at some point. Inductive charging is a bit of a gimmick with limited benefits. NFC has a greater capability to turn into something, but apparently the best use Android makers can come up with is swapping music playlists, which is about as silly as the old Zune "squirt" feature.
Yeah, it's unclear, but you can already do the same basic thing, either manually, or with mail client plugins (e.g. CargoLifter, which I haven't used, but seems to do that kind of thing). It won't be quite as seamless, but it's generally a good idea.
On a side note, I am generally tired of every cloud service trying to get you to use their own storage. There really needs to be a standard set of APIs for cloud storage that all of these different services can use, instead of having to copy/move files to different storage, or writing custom code to deal with APIs between every application combination. Of course, it'll never happen because businesses have abandoned the idea of standards.
The Mac interface will look more like the phone interface. (How'd that work out for Microsoft?)
Well it *looks* more like their phone interface, largely in that it uses a simplified and more "flat" design. Microsoft's problem was that they tried to make their new interface *behave* like their phone interface.
FTP that goes through Apple's servers.
Well it's more like a Dropbox competitor, I believe, but with better hooks into the OS for both the desktop and phone. That still might be unimpressive, but it's not the same as a FTP.
Last week, Apple execs were promising big announcements, the biggest since the Jobs era.
Were they definitely talking about this conference, or were they just saying that they have major things in the pipeline? I'm honestly asking, because I didn't see the quotes you're talking about, and they apparently still have new iPhone/iPad models to announce, as well as the rumored smartwatch. Also, some of their products (e.g. Mac minis) should be receiving updates soon, and it's possible there are redesigns coming. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new thinner 4K Thunderbolt display soon.
From the hype, you'd expect a competitor for Google Glass, or a VR system, or a rugged phone with no connectors and inductive charging, or an AI system that runs your life...
So your idea of "innovating" and "groundbreaking" is a me-too Google Glass product, or inductive charging? That stuff actually doesn't sound innovative to me at all. If you really want inductive charging, you can get a case for that, but I think most people have found that it's not all it's cracked up to be. But an AI that runs your life-- their new home automation stuff, in combination with Siri, edges slightly closer to that kind of thing. Real AI is still a ways out, and I'd expect it to come in small incremental changes instead of a fully fledged AI being announced all at once.
Meanwhile, Apple has announced health monitoring and home automation. They've announced a new programming language. They've announced various incremental improvements throughout their software lineup. Also interesting, though not unprecedented, is the "Mail Drop" feature, which will automatically throw files onto their "iCloud Drive" Dropbox competitor and include a link to that file in lieu of email attachments. But what I find most interesting is the description of the "Continuity" interaction between various Apple devices-- that your iPhone, iPad, and Mac might all start talking to each other in a more seamless way, allowing you to access the resources of each device from the other devices.
At this point, i'd rather it just stay the way it is.
I don't agree with that.
Really, Windows 8 is generally a substantial improvement over Windows 7. There are a lot of small fixes, improvements, and additions that make is much better to work on. The file copying dialog box alone is almost worth the price of an upgrade. The problem is that it was saddled with the horrible "Metro" stuff, which really doesn't work on the workstation side. I don't particularly want to rehash all the old arguments, but I really found 8.1 to be an improvement, and I will be much happier when they put the start menu back in. If they could get rid of the metro stuff entirely (or make metro apps run in windows), I would think Windows 8 was a really good OS.
How exactly do you plan on doing this? Would you block access by default and only allow a whitelist of sites that have paid your ransom to allow access? Or would you only block sites that you've targeted as "sites that we want to pay us" and then only unblock them when they've paid? And what technical methods would you use for blocking?
How would you select which companies you'd like to pay you, and how would you approach them? Like would you block Amazon? And if so, is your plan to just email their customer service and say, "Yo, we want you to pay us to allow access for 35k students!" Because you'd need contacts within the company to hope to broker a deal. Who's going to negotiate the deal? And I'll tell you what, it'll be a tough negotiation because, even assuming you have enough prospective consumers to get their attention, you'd be asking them to set a very dangerous precedent. Smaller companies might be stupid enough and short-sighted enough to make that kind of agreement, but they're not going to have enough money to make the whole venture worthwhile.
And now, lets assume that you've created an appropriate system and signed a deal with the businesses you're interested in. Who are you going to get to monitor and maintain this system? That's going to cost money too. Add up the money you're going to pay out to create this system, to broker the deals, to monitor/maintain/enforce the system. Is that amount of money substantially less than the money you're making from all this?
Putting aside questions of whether it's moral or appropriate, I just don't see how you would pull it off.
That's your argument? "We all die"? Sure, we all die, so might as well play Russian roulette. Why all the childish fear mongering about Russian roulette? "Putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger is DANGEROUS!" they say. They're historical. They should wake up and attack rich people!!
You're insane. The "hysteria over anti-vaxxers" is mostly real, valid concern about a bunch of nutcases bringing on a resurgence of dangerous diseases for no reason except paranoia.
Odds are the mutant registration has far more to do with the Holocaust than the Japanese internment camps IMHO the adding in of the Japanese internment is just a bit of political correctness pandering.
Are you saying that I'm pandering because I think that the fictional "Mutant Registration Act" was probably partially inspired by the real-life "Alien Registration Act"?
I think you're being overly sensitive and being weirdly reverse-politically correct. Instead of being "politically correct" by being sensitive and demanding that nobody say anything that might be construed as "offensive", you're being sensitive and demanding that nobody say anything that might be construed as "inoffensive". Lighten up.
It doesn't even need to be a mutation. The fact is that immunizations are not 100% effective, and immunized people can get sick. They're just less likely to get sick.
Aside from that, some people don't have the option of being immunized.
I wasn't saying those two things were equivalent. I'm saying that both helped to inspire the whole "mutant registration" thing in the X-Men. I'm surprised to encounter controversy.
How did this get on the front page? Comparing vaccination registrations with mutant registration? A remotely educated person would have at least tried to compare it to the real-life events that inspired the idea of "mutant registration", which were the treatment of Jews in Europe and of the Japanese in the US during WW2.
And this:
It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.)
Is this a joke? Is the suggestion that they won't use sentinels sarcastic?
And it's not "fear based on misinformation", it's fear based in real risk. When large numbers of people refuse to get vaccinated from serious infectious diseases, they're putting everyone else in the population at greater risk of infection.
Yeah, it doesn't quite make sense up. First, why has the page suddenly dropped all styling and logos? And then there's the quote at the top:
The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. Windows 8/7/Vista and later offer integrated support for encrypted disks and virtual disk images. Such integrated support is also available on other platforms (click here for more information). You should migrate any data encrypted by TrueCrypt to encrypted disks or virtual disk images supported on your platform.
It seems to imply that the following thought process: The only purpose of TrueCrypt was in order to support Windows XP, which is no longer supported, so it's not useful for that purpose anymore. Since new operating systems provide their own encryption mechanisms, there is no value in the project, so we're shutting things down.
However, the fact that Windows XP has lost official support does not mean that no one is using Windows XP anymore. Further, one of the valuable aspects of TrueCrypt was that it was open source (meaning the encryption could be independently verified) and cross-platform (meaning a disk encrypted on Mac could be accessed on Windows and vice versa). There's still a lot of potential uses for such a project.
Aside from that, what would possibly be the harm in continuing to provide the source code? If the intention were to deny people binaries as a method of providing a stern warning to potential users, surely they could still provide the source and say, "... but if you know what you're doing well enough to make use of the source code, go ahead and use at your own risk."
Something's wrong here, unless the people maintaining the project are just kind of retarded.
Of course I don't know, but I think it's likely that they will eventually honor the GPL to some extent because of the inherent non-legal punishment for not honoring the GPL: increased maintenance costs.
If I take your code and build my own version, making changes, and then you make substantial improvements to your code, then I'm left with 4 choices:
1) Ditch my changes and use your new code.
2) Go back and re-impliment my old changes on your new code, possibly needing to rewrite my changes to account for changes in your code.
3) Live without the improvements of your new version.
4) Submit my code to your project so that they become part of the parent project, and then I can continue to get updates from you without additional work.
Unless you have some reason to keep your changes secret, option number 4 is actually pretty attractive.
...included things the NSA is *supposed* to do - spy on non-US countries...
I guess some of that depends on your interpretation of what the NSA is "supposed to do". The Intelligence world is a bit funny in that, probably every country's Intelligence agencies are doing some things that they're are in some ways illegal and unethical, like spying on private communications of their allies' leaders. Are they "supposed to do" those things? I don't know.
Well if you're saying that virtualization is useful for IT departments, then yes, I'd certainly agree. If you said distributed/redundant virtualization would be useful for IT departments, I'd agree there too. For example, I would love to be able to do the following quickly, easily, and with FOSS: Set up multiple provide datacenters in different locations, each with a couple of computers that can serve as hosts and some form of mass storage, and link them all together as some kind of cluster for virtualization such that any one (or even a few) of those locations could be permanently destroyed without notice, and (a) no data would be lost; and (b) any virtual machines that had been running on the destroyed nodes could simple be turned on somewhere else, without significant downtime.
And that's the kind of dream scenario that has me paying attention to OpenStack. I'm not ignoring it. However, what I'm reading about OpenStack gives me the impression that it's not being built and designed for people like me, who would like to be able to do that kind of thing. I'm left with the impression that it's more aimed at allowing web developers, who might otherwise write their scalable web app to run on AWS, to instead run it on their own hardware.
If I'm wrong, please let me know, because I'd love some high-tech free distributed virtualized computing. I'd be willing to put in some work to learn a bunch of stuff if I needed to in order to make it work. It's just that the things I read are all telling me "OpenStack is great for Hadoop!" Well I'm not doing that kind of thing. I'm running Active Directory and Exchange servers, and it seems like OpenStack currently doesn't offer me anything that can't be done more easily with vCenter.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no point in encrypting your email with something like GPG if you're the only one using it, and most people aren't going to use it until it's easy.
I know, you'll tell me it's easy. Just download this software, install it, and it'll work for your email client assume you're still using an email client and there's a plugin available for it, which there might not be. Otherwise you need to copy and paste and stuff, and... oh right, then there's also the whole issue of managing keys and keeping a backup copy safe. Most people don't back anything up.
You have to make it easy. Someone will get angry because I appear to be praising Apple, but take iMessage's encryption for example. Do people using it know that their messages are encrypted? Probably not. Are they given a choice? No. Do they know that they're generating encryption keys? Probably not. Are they asked to manage their own encryption keys? No.
That's easy. GPG isn't. Email encryption needs to be that easy, or people won't use it.
This seems really dumb to me. Having your bank track your whereabouts seems like a bad trade-off. How about we just fix the credit card system instead?
Like how about we use a private key encryption scheme instead of a credit card number in order to pay? If you want to have cell phones involved, they would make an easy method of storing and accessing the key, providing a digital signature when needed. Doing that would actually provide a huge improvement in security, and do so without having my bank constantly tracking my whereabouts.
Not that Sprint and T-Mobile aren't the worst already in customer service...
They aren't, or at least T-Mobiles not so bad. Verizon... boy, there's a company with some terrible customer service.
What worries me more is that Sprint is buying T-Mobile, and not the other way around. Though, I don't know why anyone would want to buy Sprint. My impression is that their customer service isn't so bad, but... boy, there's a company with some incompetent management.
Wait, maybe I'm a paranoid retard because I'm not living in a hysterical frenzy of fear over other people's stupid health decisions?
No, because you're taking a legitimate concern and interpreting it as a method of persecution, that is to say, as being "really about a whole lot of people who want to inflict their will on somebody... a way to designate a 'Them' that is opposed to 'Us'." Some suggests that it would be bad for polio to have a resurgence, and you're interpreting that as people coming after you personally, and instead suggesting that we all attack rich people as the villains-- as though those concepts are connected.
It's either ignorance or a mental health issue. Take your pick.
Yeah... I'm unimpressed by that argument. They copied a couple of features from Android. Android has copied things from iOS. Any smart technology company will copy the good things from their competition, as much as they can, without compromising their own product or breaking patent/copyright laws. And those features are relatively minor incremental improvements. Arguably obvious improvements. What, you think that Android invented the idea of widgets?
Google Glass is an experiment with the potential to turn into a good product at some point. Inductive charging is a bit of a gimmick with limited benefits. NFC has a greater capability to turn into something, but apparently the best use Android makers can come up with is swapping music playlists, which is about as silly as the old Zune "squirt" feature.
It doesn't sound like they're dropping support for existing languages. Couldn't you keep using whatever you're using?
Yeah, it's unclear, but you can already do the same basic thing, either manually, or with mail client plugins (e.g. CargoLifter, which I haven't used, but seems to do that kind of thing). It won't be quite as seamless, but it's generally a good idea.
On a side note, I am generally tired of every cloud service trying to get you to use their own storage. There really needs to be a standard set of APIs for cloud storage that all of these different services can use, instead of having to copy/move files to different storage, or writing custom code to deal with APIs between every application combination. Of course, it'll never happen because businesses have abandoned the idea of standards.
The Mac interface will look more like the phone interface. (How'd that work out for Microsoft?)
Well it *looks* more like their phone interface, largely in that it uses a simplified and more "flat" design. Microsoft's problem was that they tried to make their new interface *behave* like their phone interface.
FTP that goes through Apple's servers.
Well it's more like a Dropbox competitor, I believe, but with better hooks into the OS for both the desktop and phone. That still might be unimpressive, but it's not the same as a FTP.
Last week, Apple execs were promising big announcements, the biggest since the Jobs era.
Were they definitely talking about this conference, or were they just saying that they have major things in the pipeline? I'm honestly asking, because I didn't see the quotes you're talking about, and they apparently still have new iPhone/iPad models to announce, as well as the rumored smartwatch. Also, some of their products (e.g. Mac minis) should be receiving updates soon, and it's possible there are redesigns coming. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new thinner 4K Thunderbolt display soon.
From the hype, you'd expect a competitor for Google Glass, or a VR system, or a rugged phone with no connectors and inductive charging, or an AI system that runs your life...
So your idea of "innovating" and "groundbreaking" is a me-too Google Glass product, or inductive charging? That stuff actually doesn't sound innovative to me at all. If you really want inductive charging, you can get a case for that, but I think most people have found that it's not all it's cracked up to be. But an AI that runs your life-- their new home automation stuff, in combination with Siri, edges slightly closer to that kind of thing. Real AI is still a ways out, and I'd expect it to come in small incremental changes instead of a fully fledged AI being announced all at once.
Meanwhile, Apple has announced health monitoring and home automation. They've announced a new programming language. They've announced various incremental improvements throughout their software lineup. Also interesting, though not unprecedented, is the "Mail Drop" feature, which will automatically throw files onto their "iCloud Drive" Dropbox competitor and include a link to that file in lieu of email attachments. But what I find most interesting is the description of the "Continuity" interaction between various Apple devices-- that your iPhone, iPad, and Mac might all start talking to each other in a more seamless way, allowing you to access the resources of each device from the other devices.
Windows 8 is not really that bad.
I agree with that.
At this point, i'd rather it just stay the way it is.
I don't agree with that.
Really, Windows 8 is generally a substantial improvement over Windows 7. There are a lot of small fixes, improvements, and additions that make is much better to work on. The file copying dialog box alone is almost worth the price of an upgrade. The problem is that it was saddled with the horrible "Metro" stuff, which really doesn't work on the workstation side. I don't particularly want to rehash all the old arguments, but I really found 8.1 to be an improvement, and I will be much happier when they put the start menu back in. If they could get rid of the metro stuff entirely (or make metro apps run in windows), I would think Windows 8 was a really good OS.
How exactly do you plan on doing this? Would you block access by default and only allow a whitelist of sites that have paid your ransom to allow access? Or would you only block sites that you've targeted as "sites that we want to pay us" and then only unblock them when they've paid? And what technical methods would you use for blocking?
How would you select which companies you'd like to pay you, and how would you approach them? Like would you block Amazon? And if so, is your plan to just email their customer service and say, "Yo, we want you to pay us to allow access for 35k students!" Because you'd need contacts within the company to hope to broker a deal. Who's going to negotiate the deal? And I'll tell you what, it'll be a tough negotiation because, even assuming you have enough prospective consumers to get their attention, you'd be asking them to set a very dangerous precedent. Smaller companies might be stupid enough and short-sighted enough to make that kind of agreement, but they're not going to have enough money to make the whole venture worthwhile.
And now, lets assume that you've created an appropriate system and signed a deal with the businesses you're interested in. Who are you going to get to monitor and maintain this system? That's going to cost money too. Add up the money you're going to pay out to create this system, to broker the deals, to monitor/maintain/enforce the system. Is that amount of money substantially less than the money you're making from all this?
Putting aside questions of whether it's moral or appropriate, I just don't see how you would pull it off.
That's your argument? "We all die"? Sure, we all die, so might as well play Russian roulette. Why all the childish fear mongering about Russian roulette? "Putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger is DANGEROUS!" they say. They're historical. They should wake up and attack rich people!!
Or maybe you're a paranoid retard.
Why bother? Even the printed one won't date you.
You're insane. The "hysteria over anti-vaxxers" is mostly real, valid concern about a bunch of nutcases bringing on a resurgence of dangerous diseases for no reason except paranoia.
Odds are the mutant registration has far more to do with the Holocaust than the Japanese internment camps IMHO the adding in of the Japanese internment is just a bit of political correctness pandering.
Are you saying that I'm pandering because I think that the fictional "Mutant Registration Act" was probably partially inspired by the real-life "Alien Registration Act"?
I think you're being overly sensitive and being weirdly reverse-politically correct. Instead of being "politically correct" by being sensitive and demanding that nobody say anything that might be construed as "offensive", you're being sensitive and demanding that nobody say anything that might be construed as "inoffensive". Lighten up.
It doesn't even need to be a mutation. The fact is that immunizations are not 100% effective, and immunized people can get sick. They're just less likely to get sick.
Aside from that, some people don't have the option of being immunized.
I wasn't saying those two things were equivalent. I'm saying that both helped to inspire the whole "mutant registration" thing in the X-Men. I'm surprised to encounter controversy.
How did this get on the front page? Comparing vaccination registrations with mutant registration? A remotely educated person would have at least tried to compare it to the real-life events that inspired the idea of "mutant registration", which were the treatment of Jews in Europe and of the Japanese in the US during WW2.
And this:
It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.)
Is this a joke? Is the suggestion that they won't use sentinels sarcastic?
And it's not "fear based on misinformation", it's fear based in real risk. When large numbers of people refuse to get vaccinated from serious infectious diseases, they're putting everyone else in the population at greater risk of infection.
The rumor seems to be (and this makes sense to me) that Beats was purchased for their licensing deals and personnel more than for their headphones.
The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. Windows 8/7/Vista and later offer integrated support for encrypted disks and virtual disk images. Such integrated support is also available on other platforms (click here for more information). You should migrate any data encrypted by TrueCrypt to encrypted disks or virtual disk images supported on your platform.
It seems to imply that the following thought process: The only purpose of TrueCrypt was in order to support Windows XP, which is no longer supported, so it's not useful for that purpose anymore. Since new operating systems provide their own encryption mechanisms, there is no value in the project, so we're shutting things down.
However, the fact that Windows XP has lost official support does not mean that no one is using Windows XP anymore. Further, one of the valuable aspects of TrueCrypt was that it was open source (meaning the encryption could be independently verified) and cross-platform (meaning a disk encrypted on Mac could be accessed on Windows and vice versa). There's still a lot of potential uses for such a project.
Aside from that, what would possibly be the harm in continuing to provide the source code? If the intention were to deny people binaries as a method of providing a stern warning to potential users, surely they could still provide the source and say, "... but if you know what you're doing well enough to make use of the source code, go ahead and use at your own risk."
Something's wrong here, unless the people maintaining the project are just kind of retarded.
... which falls nicely under option #2, which may be quite easy or may be quite hard.
Of course I don't know, but I think it's likely that they will eventually honor the GPL to some extent because of the inherent non-legal punishment for not honoring the GPL: increased maintenance costs.
If I take your code and build my own version, making changes, and then you make substantial improvements to your code, then I'm left with 4 choices:
1) Ditch my changes and use your new code.
2) Go back and re-impliment my old changes on your new code, possibly needing to rewrite my changes to account for changes in your code.
3) Live without the improvements of your new version.
4) Submit my code to your project so that they become part of the parent project, and then I can continue to get updates from you without additional work.
Unless you have some reason to keep your changes secret, option number 4 is actually pretty attractive.
Good. They should be considering Linux. We all should be.
...included things the NSA is *supposed* to do - spy on non-US countries...
I guess some of that depends on your interpretation of what the NSA is "supposed to do". The Intelligence world is a bit funny in that, probably every country's Intelligence agencies are doing some things that they're are in some ways illegal and unethical, like spying on private communications of their allies' leaders. Are they "supposed to do" those things? I don't know.
the byproducts of the ammonia processing by these bacteria produced nirites and nitric acid which inhibited staph growth,
And this sort of thing is going to become very important once antibiotics stop working.
Well if you're saying that virtualization is useful for IT departments, then yes, I'd certainly agree. If you said distributed/redundant virtualization would be useful for IT departments, I'd agree there too. For example, I would love to be able to do the following quickly, easily, and with FOSS: Set up multiple provide datacenters in different locations, each with a couple of computers that can serve as hosts and some form of mass storage, and link them all together as some kind of cluster for virtualization such that any one (or even a few) of those locations could be permanently destroyed without notice, and (a) no data would be lost; and (b) any virtual machines that had been running on the destroyed nodes could simple be turned on somewhere else, without significant downtime.
And that's the kind of dream scenario that has me paying attention to OpenStack. I'm not ignoring it. However, what I'm reading about OpenStack gives me the impression that it's not being built and designed for people like me, who would like to be able to do that kind of thing. I'm left with the impression that it's more aimed at allowing web developers, who might otherwise write their scalable web app to run on AWS, to instead run it on their own hardware.
If I'm wrong, please let me know, because I'd love some high-tech free distributed virtualized computing. I'd be willing to put in some work to learn a bunch of stuff if I needed to in order to make it work. It's just that the things I read are all telling me "OpenStack is great for Hadoop!" Well I'm not doing that kind of thing. I'm running Active Directory and Exchange servers, and it seems like OpenStack currently doesn't offer me anything that can't be done more easily with vCenter.