Here you go. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/aa937791 Now if you are talking about the mods to allow the system to run pirated games, that is obviously a different matter.
Maybe, but imagine how cool it will be playing a DBZ based game and doing the Kamehame wave attack! Maybe if I get some really strong hair gell and spike my hair I'll automatically become a super saiyan!:-)
Obviously, dude, nobody is going to include J2EE and its more modern name of JEE.
Your faked comparison proves my point. Hope you're using your.NET/C-pound skills in your burger-flipping job...
Nobody is going to use it? YOU were the one who used it! I faked nothing. Not my fault you provided what you now claim is an invalid search "dude".
How is my post a troll? Parent was very specific in searchs to perform on specific websites to see the "real world" situation. I followed his exact instructions (using defaults for my area when any specific instructions were missing) and reported the results. I've reported the objective results based on the exact specification and that is trolling?
Dear Sir,
I've done exactly as you suggested and search for those exact term on Monster and Dice. Moster (on a nation wide search in the US) returned 4 hits for "Java/J2EE/JEE" and 323 hits for ".NET/C#". On Dice.com "Java/J2EE/JEE" returned 6 hits while ".NET/C#" returned 644 hits. Is there some other search criteria I should try to see the advantage JAVA has?
I'm a huge fan of WAN accelorators (though I prefer the products from Riverbed), but not sure of the fit here (and is certainly isn't anything like what the OP is asking about). First, these devices aren't cheap especially if you need to communicate between tons of locations as seems to be the case here as each location will require a unit. Even the lower-end product in the category will easily run 10k. Second we don't know how much the files being moved once a month are similar. If not a majority identical, this product wouldn't really provide any benefit. If the file is basically identical then you can do the same thing with rsynch or similar for free. Even if they are identical, the functionality you are talking about is based on local caching. Since the files being moved are only moved once a month (depending on other data moving between sites and size of disk cache the unit has) that cached could likely have been cleared by the next months data is moved. Again rendering this expensive solution useless.
use Again, I love WAN acceloration and if properly used and understood in the right situations, it is some of the most useful and worthwhile pieces of kit in any datacenter. However, for the use mentioned. Doesn't seem the right fit to me.
OK, forget the "peering" wording then. If any major backbone provider plans to disconnect ANY type of connection (peering or paid) they should have to give the warning.
At least Sprint did give Cogent the written notice in this case (about 90 days if I recall correctly). However, neither company notified any of thier customers.
I don't know what others have been suggesting for regulation, but I would strongly support two simple regulations on depeering.
1) Provider A must give provider B at least X days notice of intent to depeer (say 180 days)
2) If some agreement isn't reached between provider A and provider B, both providers must notify all thier customers of the planned depeering giving thier customers at least X days notice (say 90)
Nothing too invasive, just some basic comsumer protections.
Speaking of MS, I think it would be a very shrewd move for MS to move to ZFS. ZFS, is obviously light-years ahead of any of thier current file systems and if they moved to ZFS it would be a big step towards a new "default" file system amoung computers. Actually all computers except Linux (which is why I think it would be shrewd). If they see Linux as a threat, what better way to jab Linux with a sharp stick than to not only make a massive improvement to your file systems, but also the move would be a big step towards a "defualt" file system that every major OS can support except apparently Linux.
I'm obviously a bit crazy to even think there is a chance of this:-) However, with the complete lack of details about the new Windows 2008 Storage Server I was previously wondering if something like this was taking place. There wouldn't be a better place to begin use of ZFS than the storage server products.
Size, scale, criticality of the systems don't matter. If it is planned you can take steps to mitigate the risks, if it is unplanned you cannot to the same level simple as that. That isn't to say you cannot mitigate risks associated with unplanned down times with redundant systems, etc but it it is planned you can always mitigate further ensuring all critical staff are on site, etc, etc.
Down time is down time, but the risks associated with down time can be mitigated to different levels depending on if it is planned or unplanned. Granted if you are just dealing with some generic web sites perhaps the risk of random sub-minute downtimes aren't major business risks for you. However, if you move up to larger more critical international financial market systems these are major issues. Even with these systems redundancies upon redundancies the unknown is always more of a concern than the known which you can plan for.
Hmmmm..... not long after introduction Google apps have 15 hours of unplanned downtime. We have apps that have been deemed critical and have had zero unplanned downtime since introduction (knock on wood). Our system was designed for absolute maximum 1 hour RTO and 1/2 hour RPO. Thus far, we haven't had to actually use DR plan in real life, but tests show we beat those numbers.
I'm sure Google "can" build better systems than I have, but like any other company they did a cost/benefit and decided what they have is good enough. For my company 15 hours down time isn't good enough for systems so we spent the money for a better system.
So.... yes you can at least do it better than Google "has" regardless of if they "can" do better or not. That isn't to say hosted apps aren't good enough in some cases, but to say you cannot provide better if needed is a bit silly.
Also have to remember Google (or any host) isn't the only variable. Every company between you and Google (from your personal ISP through all providers up to Google) also has to have the same uptime as Google for you to be able to benefit from Google's uptimes. Doesn't matter is Google's servers are up 100% if companies between you and Google don't also meet that.
Two completely different things (planned vs unplanned downtime). Planned downtime in your own corporate data center is an annoyance sure, but since it is planned it can be sure to be done at times not effecting or with minimal effect to the company. Very different animal from unplanned downtime. Planned downtime on large hosted services may be comparable to unplanned downtime as Google, Yahoo, etc have never asked my company when would be a convenient time for planned downtime. However, in an internal environment it isn't really comparable IMO.
As other previous posted stated Linux isn't that hard. However, if you are interested in this offering I suggest you purchase every book you can find on Lotus book you can and then hire a mental health professional. Those two things should help you through your first few weeks dealing with Lotus anyway. After that there will be little anyone can do. I wish you luck my son.
I wonder what this will eventually mean for the US economy (espeically the tech sector). For quite some time there have been some niche data services to promise your data won't be stored in the United States, but this seems to almost be a standard requirement for any such service now that at least deals with confidential data. Heck, even Microsoft now offers the option with thier Exchange Hosted Services services to allow you to choose to only have your data stored in data centers located outside the US. I'm just waiting for an update to the network stacks and routers to offer the option to set a flag which tells it to make every possible effort to avoid routing data over a network in the US:-) Kind of a joke that last part, but actually wouldn't shock me.
Actually it can hurt the company even if they don't actually need to raise more capital via issuing more stock. Health of the stock is also a factor in financing rates (loans, corporate bonds, etc). This does lead back to your point on issuing more stock, but often a company won't actually want to do that, but having a healthy stock price means you have the potential to do so, thus making you less of a risk to loan capital to through traditional channels.
That may not seem too huge of a deal, but how capital intensive CPU production can be (many billions for a new plant), even a 1/2 percentage point difference in the financing can have a major impact on the companies bottom line.
The fact of the matter is, everything we transmit outside of the firewall is subject to surveillance these days.
Obviously true. The above is the core and good beginning to any data security discussion/plan. The article talks a lot about Google because they are one of the main players in this area, but this topic isn't about Google. I don't care if god himself (whichever if any you belive in) offers a 3rd party online data storage facility. It doesn't matter who the 3rd party is, if you send your data to ANY 3rd party there is additional risk introduced of having that data compromised.
refusing to trust Google is a funny place to start enforcing data integrity.
Again obviously true. If you are involved in anyway with data security and Google's online apps are your first and only concern then you better find another line of work:-) However, I cannot imagine that is a common case. The reason this is mentioned is it is a relatively "new" risk to lookout for and perhaps some haven't considered the risk carefully enough.
In todays IT environment email is probably the largest risk where it is just so easy to send confidential information in unecrypted form within many companies. Of course there are TONS of other areas of common risk. Just because you haven't considered all areas of risk or have had to live with some areas of risk exposure (which all people/companies/orgainazations must) doesn't mean you should also then just blindly ignore all other future possiblities of risk exposure.
The fact is everyone must deal with some level of risk exposure. The key is to understand those areas and do what you can to mitigate those risks while not adversely impacting yourself/your business/etc. All companies/people will have different comfort levels when dealing with these risks. As such there is no one set of rules that will fit all cases but any new areas of potential exposure certainly deserve thoughtful consideration by all involved.
Personally (and for my company) these online services risk/reward just don't make sense. There are just too many other methods to accomplish what I/we need at no to very little cost to justify taking this additional risk. Do I/we have other areas of risk exposure we've had to accept? Of course, but that doesn't mean we also want to take on additional risk without a compelling reason.
Basics to data security:
1) Keep data internal and only available to those who need it (while implementing good controls to ensure this)
2) If data must leave your physical control, protect it (encryption, VPNs, SSL, etc, etc, etc)
3) If data must leave your control and you cannot provide protection for it, consider other mitigation methods (logging, monitoring, accounting, etc, etc)
These could actually be valid reasons, but as the OP asks why isn't this an issue also with online shoping and other online services? Same issues exist there as well.
Thank you for the insight about parenting. I'm trying to make a list so I have a question. Are you also a failure as a parent if you install porn blocking software, etc on the family computer or inspect the logs to see what sites your child has been visiting? I'd always thought either/both of those would be a good idea, but now that I'm learning using any tools besides peering over my child shoulder makes me a failure I'm not so sure. What is your expert opinion on this?
Fair enough, but Microsoft is trying to get street cred through a disingenuous use of the term "open source".
Except if you'd read TFA you'd see MS never even mentions the term "open source" or anything like it. They are very clear on what is and isn't offered and it being open source is certainly not one of thier cliams. That term come from a blog.
he made that crack about stabbing Mac users in the eye with a pencil
Granted, I certainly think he was trying to maximize the publicity and that statement certainly set the stage for the reaction that was to come. However, at least to me (and I'd assume many others) it was the reaction which was a bit surreal and made it interesting.
And now a secret NDA is up and he can talk about it. Well, good for him. It's about a year too late
I have seen many saying the same basic thing in response to this release of information, which I find a bit strange. A bit simplified view of what happened (at least in my eyes):
David Maynor: We found a successful attack which effects Mac OS X and this deomonstration will show it to you!!!! BTW you Apple guys are losers.
Apple supporters: Give us details on the attack or you are a liar!!!!!
David Maynor: I'm legally unable to at this time.
Apple supporters: Your a dirty liar!!! I knew it!!!! My Mac isn't vulnerable!
David Maynor: It is but I really cannot talk about it right now. I've shown it in action but cannot yet release details
Apple supporters: Shut up and die you lieing maggot!!!!! .......
David Maynor: OK, I'm now legally free to discuss the details of the attack and here are all the details. Enjoy!
Apple supporters: We don't care about your stupid details! Shut up and go away!!!!
Would this have been news if they had used a Dell or Lenovo laptop running Windows or Linux, even if they also still said that this affected multiple platforms, including Mac OS X?
It wasn't even all that interesting of news being OS X. Sure it was an interesting attack and would have had been carried by some security and trade publications and probably would have shown up on/. etc, like all interesting attacks do.
What made this story interesting and thus gave it legs (and why we are still discussing it today all this time later) is the reaction it got from Apple devotees. Consider it a parrallel to the Mohammad cartoon. It never would have been widely reported because it isn't all that interesting. What made it a huge worldwide story was the insane reaction it got from raging devotees of Mohammad. Same thing here. It was the insane reaction from so many of those who worship at the alter of Jobs which made this story interesting and thus have legs.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you jailbreak a phone though there is a lot more you can do than simply install unapproved apps.
Here you go. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/aa937791 Now if you are talking about the mods to allow the system to run pirated games, that is obviously a different matter.
Maybe, but imagine how cool it will be playing a DBZ based game and doing the Kamehame wave attack! Maybe if I get some really strong hair gell and spike my hair I'll automatically become a super saiyan! :-)
Obviously, dude, nobody is going to include J2EE and its more modern name of JEE. Your faked comparison proves my point. Hope you're using your .NET/C-pound skills in your burger-flipping job...
Nobody is going to use it? YOU were the one who used it! I faked nothing. Not my fault you provided what you now claim is an invalid search "dude".
How is my post a troll? Parent was very specific in searchs to perform on specific websites to see the "real world" situation. I followed his exact instructions (using defaults for my area when any specific instructions were missing) and reported the results. I've reported the objective results based on the exact specification and that is trolling?
Dear Sir, I've done exactly as you suggested and search for those exact term on Monster and Dice. Moster (on a nation wide search in the US) returned 4 hits for "Java/J2EE/JEE" and 323 hits for ".NET/C#". On Dice.com "Java/J2EE/JEE" returned 6 hits while ".NET/C#" returned 644 hits. Is there some other search criteria I should try to see the advantage JAVA has?
I'm a huge fan of WAN accelorators (though I prefer the products from Riverbed), but not sure of the fit here (and is certainly isn't anything like what the OP is asking about). First, these devices aren't cheap especially if you need to communicate between tons of locations as seems to be the case here as each location will require a unit. Even the lower-end product in the category will easily run 10k. Second we don't know how much the files being moved once a month are similar. If not a majority identical, this product wouldn't really provide any benefit. If the file is basically identical then you can do the same thing with rsynch or similar for free. Even if they are identical, the functionality you are talking about is based on local caching. Since the files being moved are only moved once a month (depending on other data moving between sites and size of disk cache the unit has) that cached could likely have been cleared by the next months data is moved. Again rendering this expensive solution useless.
use
Again, I love WAN acceloration and if properly used and understood in the right situations, it is some of the most useful and worthwhile pieces of kit in any datacenter. However, for the use mentioned. Doesn't seem the right fit to me.
OK, forget the "peering" wording then. If any major backbone provider plans to disconnect ANY type of connection (peering or paid) they should have to give the warning.
At least Sprint did give Cogent the written notice in this case (about 90 days if I recall correctly). However, neither company notified any of thier customers.
I don't know what others have been suggesting for regulation, but I would strongly support two simple regulations on depeering. 1) Provider A must give provider B at least X days notice of intent to depeer (say 180 days) 2) If some agreement isn't reached between provider A and provider B, both providers must notify all thier customers of the planned depeering giving thier customers at least X days notice (say 90) Nothing too invasive, just some basic comsumer protections.
Speaking of MS, I think it would be a very shrewd move for MS to move to ZFS. ZFS, is obviously light-years ahead of any of thier current file systems and if they moved to ZFS it would be a big step towards a new "default" file system amoung computers. Actually all computers except Linux (which is why I think it would be shrewd). If they see Linux as a threat, what better way to jab Linux with a sharp stick than to not only make a massive improvement to your file systems, but also the move would be a big step towards a "defualt" file system that every major OS can support except apparently Linux.
I'm obviously a bit crazy to even think there is a chance of this :-) However, with the complete lack of details about the new Windows 2008 Storage Server I was previously wondering if something like this was taking place. There wouldn't be a better place to begin use of ZFS than the storage server products.
If IBM hasn't already patented the below, I sure plan to!
//here is the inovative part!!!!!!
private decimal IBMPatentValue()
{
Patent newPatent;
foreach (Patent oldPatent in PatentOffice.Patents)
{
newPatent = oldPatent.Clone();
newPatent.Text += " with a computer.";
newPatent.Submit();
}
return decimal.MaxValue;
}
Size, scale, criticality of the systems don't matter. If it is planned you can take steps to mitigate the risks, if it is unplanned you cannot to the same level simple as that. That isn't to say you cannot mitigate risks associated with unplanned down times with redundant systems, etc but it it is planned you can always mitigate further ensuring all critical staff are on site, etc, etc.
Down time is down time, but the risks associated with down time can be mitigated to different levels depending on if it is planned or unplanned. Granted if you are just dealing with some generic web sites perhaps the risk of random sub-minute downtimes aren't major business risks for you. However, if you move up to larger more critical international financial market systems these are major issues. Even with these systems redundancies upon redundancies the unknown is always more of a concern than the known which you can plan for.
Hmmmm..... not long after introduction Google apps have 15 hours of unplanned downtime. We have apps that have been deemed critical and have had zero unplanned downtime since introduction (knock on wood). Our system was designed for absolute maximum 1 hour RTO and 1/2 hour RPO. Thus far, we haven't had to actually use DR plan in real life, but tests show we beat those numbers.
I'm sure Google "can" build better systems than I have, but like any other company they did a cost/benefit and decided what they have is good enough. For my company 15 hours down time isn't good enough for systems so we spent the money for a better system.
So.... yes you can at least do it better than Google "has" regardless of if they "can" do better or not. That isn't to say hosted apps aren't good enough in some cases, but to say you cannot provide better if needed is a bit silly.
Also have to remember Google (or any host) isn't the only variable. Every company between you and Google (from your personal ISP through all providers up to Google) also has to have the same uptime as Google for you to be able to benefit from Google's uptimes. Doesn't matter is Google's servers are up 100% if companies between you and Google don't also meet that.
Two completely different things (planned vs unplanned downtime). Planned downtime in your own corporate data center is an annoyance sure, but since it is planned it can be sure to be done at times not effecting or with minimal effect to the company. Very different animal from unplanned downtime. Planned downtime on large hosted services may be comparable to unplanned downtime as Google, Yahoo, etc have never asked my company when would be a convenient time for planned downtime. However, in an internal environment it isn't really comparable IMO.
As other previous posted stated Linux isn't that hard. However, if you are interested in this offering I suggest you purchase every book you can find on Lotus book you can and then hire a mental health professional. Those two things should help you through your first few weeks dealing with Lotus anyway. After that there will be little anyone can do. I wish you luck my son.
I wonder what this will eventually mean for the US economy (espeically the tech sector). For quite some time there have been some niche data services to promise your data won't be stored in the United States, but this seems to almost be a standard requirement for any such service now that at least deals with confidential data. Heck, even Microsoft now offers the option with thier Exchange Hosted Services services to allow you to choose to only have your data stored in data centers located outside the US. I'm just waiting for an update to the network stacks and routers to offer the option to set a flag which tells it to make every possible effort to avoid routing data over a network in the US :-) Kind of a joke that last part, but actually wouldn't shock me.
Actually it can hurt the company even if they don't actually need to raise more capital via issuing more stock. Health of the stock is also a factor in financing rates (loans, corporate bonds, etc). This does lead back to your point on issuing more stock, but often a company won't actually want to do that, but having a healthy stock price means you have the potential to do so, thus making you less of a risk to loan capital to through traditional channels.
That may not seem too huge of a deal, but how capital intensive CPU production can be (many billions for a new plant), even a 1/2 percentage point difference in the financing can have a major impact on the companies bottom line.
blame Apple and/or Adobe as you will
:-)
You must be new here, I don't even need to read the article to know MS and thier monoply is to blame for this
The fact of the matter is, everything we transmit outside of the firewall is subject to surveillance these days.
:-) However, I cannot imagine that is a common case. The reason this is mentioned is it is a relatively "new" risk to lookout for and perhaps some haven't considered the risk carefully enough.
Obviously true. The above is the core and good beginning to any data security discussion/plan. The article talks a lot about Google because they are one of the main players in this area, but this topic isn't about Google. I don't care if god himself (whichever if any you belive in) offers a 3rd party online data storage facility. It doesn't matter who the 3rd party is, if you send your data to ANY 3rd party there is additional risk introduced of having that data compromised.
refusing to trust Google is a funny place to start enforcing data integrity.
Again obviously true. If you are involved in anyway with data security and Google's online apps are your first and only concern then you better find another line of work
In todays IT environment email is probably the largest risk where it is just so easy to send confidential information in unecrypted form within many companies. Of course there are TONS of other areas of common risk. Just because you haven't considered all areas of risk or have had to live with some areas of risk exposure (which all people/companies/orgainazations must) doesn't mean you should also then just blindly ignore all other future possiblities of risk exposure.
The fact is everyone must deal with some level of risk exposure. The key is to understand those areas and do what you can to mitigate those risks while not adversely impacting yourself/your business/etc. All companies/people will have different comfort levels when dealing with these risks. As such there is no one set of rules that will fit all cases but any new areas of potential exposure certainly deserve thoughtful consideration by all involved.
Personally (and for my company) these online services risk/reward just don't make sense. There are just too many other methods to accomplish what I/we need at no to very little cost to justify taking this additional risk. Do I/we have other areas of risk exposure we've had to accept? Of course, but that doesn't mean we also want to take on additional risk without a compelling reason.
Basics to data security:
1) Keep data internal and only available to those who need it (while implementing good controls to ensure this)
2) If data must leave your physical control, protect it (encryption, VPNs, SSL, etc, etc, etc)
3) If data must leave your control and you cannot provide protection for it, consider other mitigation methods (logging, monitoring, accounting, etc, etc)
These could actually be valid reasons, but as the OP asks why isn't this an issue also with online shoping and other online services? Same issues exist there as well.
Thank you for the insight about parenting. I'm trying to make a list so I have a question. Are you also a failure as a parent if you install porn blocking software, etc on the family computer or inspect the logs to see what sites your child has been visiting? I'd always thought either/both of those would be a good idea, but now that I'm learning using any tools besides peering over my child shoulder makes me a failure I'm not so sure. What is your expert opinion on this?
Fair enough, but Microsoft is trying to get street cred through a disingenuous use of the term "open source".
Except if you'd read TFA you'd see MS never even mentions the term "open source" or anything like it. They are very clear on what is and isn't offered and it being open source is certainly not one of thier cliams. That term come from a blog.
he made that crack about stabbing Mac users in the eye with a pencil
.......
David Maynor: OK, I'm now legally free to discuss the details of the attack and here are all the details. Enjoy!
Granted, I certainly think he was trying to maximize the publicity and that statement certainly set the stage for the reaction that was to come. However, at least to me (and I'd assume many others) it was the reaction which was a bit surreal and made it interesting.
And now a secret NDA is up and he can talk about it. Well, good for him. It's about a year too late
I have seen many saying the same basic thing in response to this release of information, which I find a bit strange. A bit simplified view of what happened (at least in my eyes):
David Maynor: We found a successful attack which effects Mac OS X and this deomonstration will show it to you!!!! BTW you Apple guys are losers.
Apple supporters: Give us details on the attack or you are a liar!!!!!
David Maynor: I'm legally unable to at this time.
Apple supporters: Your a dirty liar!!! I knew it!!!! My Mac isn't vulnerable!
David Maynor: It is but I really cannot talk about it right now. I've shown it in action but cannot yet release details
Apple supporters: Shut up and die you lieing maggot!!!!!
Apple supporters: We don't care about your stupid details! Shut up and go away!!!!
Would this have been news if they had used a Dell or Lenovo laptop running Windows or Linux, even if they also still said that this affected multiple platforms, including Mac OS X?
/. etc, like all interesting attacks do.
It wasn't even all that interesting of news being OS X. Sure it was an interesting attack and would have had been carried by some security and trade publications and probably would have shown up on
What made this story interesting and thus gave it legs (and why we are still discussing it today all this time later) is the reaction it got from Apple devotees. Consider it a parrallel to the Mohammad cartoon. It never would have been widely reported because it isn't all that interesting. What made it a huge worldwide story was the insane reaction it got from raging devotees of Mohammad. Same thing here. It was the insane reaction from so many of those who worship at the alter of Jobs which made this story interesting and thus have legs.