Everybody has a different set of principles by which they judge a gateway router...but here's an approach I recommend. Insofar as I know, it's damned hard to "beat" this solution, unless the invader is able to modify the routers' own firmware:
In a solution I call "Friday's Folly," I use TWO cascaded routers: The first is in my ISP's connection equipment, which has it's own configuration. I use that to assign a distinct and unique IP address range (don't use 192.168....; it's too often used for novices, so they don't have to think.). Pick a different range altogether...that's the first point of confusion for the erstwhile hacker. The time delay through both routers is virtually undetectable.
The SECOND cascaded router has, on its' input side, an incoming address (as odd-looking as possible within the first router's LAN range). On the other side (multiple outlets for the LAN), i use a completely different IP Address range, picked almost at random. It is that range (which is masked down to just a small range) to access the protected LAN resources.
Why would any hacker/cracker want to work so long to get inside the LAN; he(/she) would have to find a way to "probe" for the valid ranges inside the cascaded routers. At that point, I make the choice to install routers for which any signal on the WAN side can't be used to configure the router...therefore, its' configuration is withheld from all but qualified parties on the INSIDE of the network, on the LAN.
Anybody figured out how, with a $20 second router in place, that cascaded router scheme can be easily hacked? The goal was to make the solution so cumbersome (from the WAN side), that they'll go try to invade some other, simpler, less well protected target.
The opponent may be able to get past the first router by peeking inside the ISP vendors' equipment...but that's a chimera, reaching only the SECOND router...for which they have no resources inside the first router to leverage to open up the second router. So, now they're constrained to fashion some tool on the first router that will arbitrarily scan the second router, looking for a hit.
Nonsense! 100% daily backups of systems, using a suite of tools kept offline except during backups activity is ALWAYS a solution....simply because an attack starts at a particular time; anything you've kept offline prior to that time is a resource to be used to recover. Yes, there is the problem of recapturing the lost data in that time interval, but it's a LOT better than having to start redesigning software from scratch AFTER the attack has occurred!
100% daily backups, with recycling of media over a period of a few weeks is a MANDATORY requirement for every computer under my management. Since I started doing that in 2001, I have never had (nor has any client had) an unrecoverable loss of data.
The other trick is keeping data separated from executables. My mantra is "C: is for Code, D: is for Data". The idea that everything should be on the same logical drive is simply WRONG.
There are no perfectly secure systems, and perfection is a fools game. But, simple strategies, unerringly repeated over time, can make recovery from assaults (or hard-disk failure) a straight-forward solution.
I concur. And, if you add a tool named SimpleSYN, you can automatically share and manage a workgroup's combined, integrated Contacts, Calendar and Tasks/ToDos, so you can schedule meetings without waiting for everybody to tell you they're busy then. That sharing can be local, within a LAN to preserve the privacy of the data, or via the Internet, for people on the road, or other fixed locations (the usual caveats about security apply).
Of course, you have to deal with Microsoft's ideosyncratic approach to software design ("Not the best way, OUR way!"), and usual regular rash of bug fixes.
1. When companies make a good, useful product, customers will buy it. 2. When investors dictate that they must have a particular financial product, quality and features go to hell. 3. I weaned myself off Adobe several years ago, when it was clear they were MORE interested in income than in CUSTOMER satisfaction. When they stopped providing any meaningful "Customer Service." 4. I have, so far, been steadfast in my decision to only buy from companies who are focused on CUSTOMER satisfaction, rather than short-term greed.
Adobe is dead to me. Ghostscript has so many useful front-ends that make it viable in many environments (e.g., producing a PDF from a webpage, which most products do by making "snapshots" of the text). Tools like Bullzip (the browser add-in relying on Ghostscript) produces near-perfect PDF files that can be imported into good text editors for annotation, amendment and incremental improvement.
...are these vendors to stay attached to their "income is the most important thing in the world" mindset, or do they take the more mature view that "customer satisfactions is vital to survival?" Clearly, most of all major industry is focused on the first, at the expense of long-term survival.
There's a reason that some automobiles are preferred over others, but many customers will STILL buy the cheaper model...only to become disgusted with it's quality in due time. Same issue, same ultimate result: Mercedes outlives the likes of virtually all domestic automobile companies (aka "Detroit"). Business success is measured by the number of customer who COME BACK, rather than try to find another vendor (who, in this renewal of the "Gilded Age") who will dazzle them with trinkets to sell them junk that needs to be replaced every few years, and an ever-increasing price.
Who is the Mercedes of the Operating System market? (My assessment: Nobody trying to make a profit fulfills that role, as more customers take the attitude: "If it's going to be junk, why shouldn't I just rely on what's free? At least I'm paying a fair price for it!"
If customer satisfaction were the standard by which they judged their success, "free software" would just be a testing ground for new ideas to gain a foothold, not a significant fraction of the adopting population.
It's electing people who are committed to CITIZEN'S INTERESTS to Congress. They can actively appoint qualified, and public-interest-minded heads of departments, like the FCC.
During Obama's presidency, we had Tom Wheeler, who ruled (almost universally) in favor of citizens' interests...and, in fact, established the "Net Neutrality" rules in 2015...against the wishes of one of his Commission members, Ajit Pai. When Wheeler retired, Ajit Pai (who is a legal shill who worked at Verizon, who benefits from his decisions) ascended to the Chairman post, and started dismantling the good work done by Mr. Wheeler...mostly (I posit) because he wants that job back at Verizon, when he is replaced in the future.
The Republicans are notoriously favorable to providing more advantages to large corporations (e.g., Verizon) and couldn't care less about you and me. With the Buffoon in the White House, and a Republican dominated Congress, we can expect virtually every government-sponsored benefit to citizens to be abolished or diminished.
So, to my mind the ONLY ONE SOLUTION is to restore our government to attending to benefits for citizens...it's not going to be done by a party that passes legislation to give Fat Cats tax breaks, and make you and I pay MORE taxes to cover the giveaway. Have YOU figured out the solution yet? It's a plain as the nose on your face! Make sure that we elect people who CARE about the citizens' interests, not just lining their own pockets. They will do the work of replacing the people who are engaged in wholesale destruction of every potential good for citizens. I reason that there is NO REASON our country should be favoring large businesses over individual citizens. Others' may believe differently.
...who tests his own code as the final authority is a fool, claiming omnipotence that is quite common to the breed.
To be sure, I now--in retirement--only write code for my own needs. But, when I was programming as a profession, I accepted the fact that I am not omnipotent. I have "blind spots" in my knowledge, I have unknown things about which I've never thought before. Just because the language is as simple as BASIC doesn't mean that the writer of that code doesn't have blind spots in logic or comprehension...or even understanding of the customers' needs.
Bypassing a) The writing (and vetting) of a formal specification, and b) independent testing...may lower the cost of programming, but it has the hazard of completely overlooking something that is obvious ONLY after you've triggered the defect....as Equifax recently found out, to their financial peril.
When I program for somebody else, I require they understand the costs in both time and money of a) Writing a comprehensible specification, and b) Independent testing to ensure compliance with that specification. The extensive of each of these is dependent upon the risks at stake. If it's a personal novelty or utility, I can let these rules lapse, because I'm "evolving" code. But one cannot "evolve" code by subjecting it to test by the end-customer. That way lies frustration and ultimate dissatisfaction.
In my experience, the best programs written are developed by teams made up of members with (intentionally) different viewpoints and experiences, who respect--yet challenge--each other. I can recall, in the early 60's (IBM 709 and 1401 days, for you ole timers) when I was part of a team developing one of the first "shareware" packages for the 1401: We critiqued, debated, evolved and distributed a robust program that was a platform for quick application development. It was a delight, and when I happened to be in Australia, eight years leter, tripped across a team using our shareware as the basis for other application programs...and they'd never experienced a failure because the package (and the documentation) had been vetted by so many experienced (yet divergent) people.
If you debug all your own code, and are the sole party declaring it "Good and Finished," you are deluding yourself. None of us are quite that perfect, especially in anticipating situations or environments which we've never imagined or experienced.
Amazing success of the "new-HP" business model: The profit is in the INK, not the printer. At today's pricing, each HP 5640 page costs 16 CENTS per single-sided page in ink charges alone (and that's to the common customer; NASA pays a LOT more). But, of course, the promo features the cheap PRINTER price. What great advertising for HP, and many buyers will assume that, because NASA likes it, it'll work for them, too.
Whenever income can be increased irrespective of the harm done to the customer, Capitalism shows its' darkest side. We need Federal agencies like CFPB and FDA (among others) to have even stronger rules and enforcement powers...which will never happen so long as those businesses consider their income more important than citizens' and customers' needs and satisfaction. (Yea, I'm lookin' at YOU, Wells Fargo, and the NRA.),
...they STILL can't produce a product that will properly and reliably update itself when defects are identified and updates issued. The persistent internal corruption of it's own code/data arrangements are legendary. Without third-party programs for repair (e.g., those at Tweaking.com, including "Windows Repair"), I'd've had to give up many good end-user applications and migrate to Liniux...and my family would have to start all over, learning the ideosyncracies of a FREE product.
This book, and the companion "interview tour" is nothing but TRUMP -level self-aggrandizement, trying to convince people of things that simply aren't true. Simple example: I called Microsoft tech support last week to find out why Outlook was hiding my Appointments (but the calendar showed, with bold letters, the appointments were there to be viewed!). I asked the agent, politely, to transfer me to someone who could speak English...his was broken, and deeply accented, and I had to keep asking him to repeat himself. He promised to have someone call me back in 10 minutes. Needless to say, of course, I never got any callback; he just blew this paying customer off.
Microsoft is STILL broken, Mr. Nadella, and you're trying to convince us you're better to salve your own ego. No, you're the same "better than thou" company you've always been since Balmer destroyed your culture!
Big companies want your money, and they'll do as little as possible to get it.
Other companies, not run by oligarchs, want to provide good service for a fair income.
There's a difference. And, it's why large corporations tend to be able to create rules that block others from competing in "their" territory. You gotta make your local government more willing to see that people get better service, instead of having some public officials' palms greased.
This is for the benefit of Verizon. The current FCC Chair is Ajit Pai, who took leave from his lawyer job at Verizon to mastermind this kind of crap (and, he's being the Net Neutrality destruction effort.
We gotta VOTE the kinds of maniacs OUT that appoint these kinds of soulless minions to public office. More "TRUMPcare..." this time, for Internet standards and prices.
...they are apparently complete scam merchants. The products on offer could be cardboard mockups of the product being sold, not the product itself, for all the backup and support you can get. There is no way to examine the merchandise, ask questions about it, or validate the product at all. See http://www.ripoffreport.com/re... It will inevitably be a home for scammers to accumulate money from rubes.
I would encourage/. management to vet advertisers before taking their money for ads in this respected web service.
Given the Russian Government's utter reliance on subversive means, and their absolute control over the activities of every business, I cannot have confidence that Kaspersky has been granted any exception from those totalitarian rules. I would NEVER trust a product from a Russian business, and even abandoned Acronis (backup} for the same reasons some years ago. There IS no integrity in the service of customers in other nations that is safe from corruption in service to malevolant forces at play in the USSR government.
Please learn something about the subject, the agency and the players. Your ignorance is showing.
Thank you to our former FCC Chair for stepping up. Pai is but a tool of his former (and future) employer, Verizon, and it shows in his actions. The man is a threat to all that is good for citizens.
It IS the FCCs job to avoiding favor one vendor over another, or one CLASS of vendor over another. Any other assertion is rooted in "fake news." Read the FCC's charter (and, yes, I have!).
Convenient explanation, but where is the DOCUMENTATION from Microsoft?
They can SAY all they want, but unless they, essentially, engage in a clear contract with their customers about what they will and will not collect, they are treating us as ignorant customers they can deceive at will.
Whether you use a phalanx of servers, or a bunch of old XP systems on a LAN is irrelevant. It's the QUALITY of the software that makes a difference, and quality costs money. Unless and until business executives understand that design is not a whiteboard exercise, and coding is not programming, and programming is not design, and start to develop LIFETIME budgets, they will sow these seeds of failure. Taking the lowest bid is like gambling; Looking for the most comprehensive solution IS more expansive, and it pays dividends.
Good design is focused on measurable outcomes, not how many lines of code need to be written. Outcomes like profitability, and customer satisfaction, and employee retention are not arbitrary; they are quantifiable, and lack of quantification of every milestone to the outcome is the source of most catastrophes, in my experience. I don't know how many projects I've salvaged from the "coders" by introducing the novel (it was originated in 1960!) PERT/CPM model to force the answering of "how much," "how many" and "how high" questions BEFORE a lick of code is written. Then after they've instituted some rigor, they can start forecasting resources required. SWAGs are NOT design!
It's cheap companies that contract the losers. It's those focused on the business benefits and outcomes that make it to the F500 (until they hire "quicky solution" executives).
Walmart is hardly a leader in the annals of robust development of the technology-driven enterprises.
You're making the assumption that he acts because of what's "Good for the Country," instead of trying to drive wages down across the board so his 1% friends can make MORE money...which they'll make sure he gets some of, too. It's just that this blatant importing of inferior talent is undermining the very businesses of those plutocrats. Methinks you give him credit for something he doesn't even understand!
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. They can't interview customers, they can't write a report, they're incompetent at writing a spec, and they lack basic programming skills. But they're CHEAP! (And, I've never seen a client who found them less expensive on an overall-project-wide effort. Only bean counters love 'em.)
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody has a different set of principles by which they judge a gateway router...but here's an approach I recommend. Insofar as I know, it's damned hard to "beat" this solution, unless the invader is able to modify the routers' own firmware:
In a solution I call "Friday's Folly," I use TWO cascaded routers: The first is in my ISP's connection equipment, which has it's own configuration. I use that to assign a distinct and unique IP address range (don't use 192.168....; it's too often used for novices, so they don't have to think.). Pick a different range altogether...that's the first point of confusion for the erstwhile hacker. The time delay through both routers is virtually undetectable.
The SECOND cascaded router has, on its' input side, an incoming address (as odd-looking as possible within the first router's LAN range). On the other side (multiple outlets for the LAN), i use a completely different IP Address range, picked almost at random. It is that range (which is masked down to just a small range) to access the protected LAN resources.
Why would any hacker/cracker want to work so long to get inside the LAN; he(/she) would have to find a way to "probe" for the valid ranges inside the cascaded routers. At that point, I make the choice to install routers for which any signal on the WAN side can't be used to configure the router...therefore, its' configuration is withheld from all but qualified parties on the INSIDE of the network, on the LAN.
Anybody figured out how, with a $20 second router in place, that cascaded router scheme can be easily hacked? The goal was to make the solution so cumbersome (from the WAN side), that they'll go try to invade some other, simpler, less well protected target.
The opponent may be able to get past the first router by peeking inside the ISP vendors' equipment...but that's a chimera, reaching only the SECOND router...for which they have no resources inside the first router to leverage to open up the second router. So, now they're constrained to fashion some tool on the first router that will arbitrarily scan the second router, looking for a hit.
Nonsense! 100% daily backups of systems, using a suite of tools kept offline except during backups activity is ALWAYS a solution....simply because an attack starts at a particular time; anything you've kept offline prior to that time is a resource to be used to recover. Yes, there is the problem of recapturing the lost data in that time interval, but it's a LOT better than having to start redesigning software from scratch AFTER the attack has occurred!
100% daily backups, with recycling of media over a period of a few weeks is a MANDATORY requirement for every computer under my management. Since I started doing that in 2001, I have never had (nor has any client had) an unrecoverable loss of data.
The other trick is keeping data separated from executables. My mantra is "C: is for Code, D: is for Data". The idea that everything should be on the same logical drive is simply WRONG.
There are no perfectly secure systems, and perfection is a fools game. But, simple strategies, unerringly repeated over time, can make recovery from assaults (or hard-disk failure) a straight-forward solution.
I concur. And, if you add a tool named SimpleSYN, you can automatically share and manage a workgroup's combined, integrated Contacts, Calendar and Tasks/ToDos, so you can schedule meetings without waiting for everybody to tell you they're busy then. That sharing can be local, within a LAN to preserve the privacy of the data, or via the Internet, for people on the road, or other fixed locations (the usual caveats about security apply).
Of course, you have to deal with Microsoft's ideosyncratic approach to software design ("Not the best way, OUR way!"), and usual regular rash of bug fixes.
1. When companies make a good, useful product, customers will buy it.
2. When investors dictate that they must have a particular financial product, quality and features go to hell.
3. I weaned myself off Adobe several years ago, when it was clear they were MORE interested in income than in CUSTOMER satisfaction. When they stopped providing any meaningful "Customer Service."
4. I have, so far, been steadfast in my decision to only buy from companies who are focused on CUSTOMER satisfaction, rather than short-term greed.
Adobe is dead to me. Ghostscript has so many useful front-ends that make it viable in many environments (e.g., producing a PDF from a webpage, which most products do by making "snapshots" of the text). Tools like Bullzip (the browser add-in relying on Ghostscript) produces near-perfect PDF files that can be imported into good text editors for annotation, amendment and incremental improvement.
...are these vendors to stay attached to their "income is the most important thing in the world" mindset, or do they take the more mature view that "customer satisfactions is vital to survival?" Clearly, most of all major industry is focused on the first, at the expense of long-term survival.
There's a reason that some automobiles are preferred over others, but many customers will STILL buy the cheaper model...only to become disgusted with it's quality in due time. Same issue, same ultimate result: Mercedes outlives the likes of virtually all domestic automobile companies (aka "Detroit"). Business success is measured by the number of customer who COME BACK, rather than try to find another vendor (who, in this renewal of the "Gilded Age") who will dazzle them with trinkets to sell them junk that needs to be replaced every few years, and an ever-increasing price.
Who is the Mercedes of the Operating System market? (My assessment: Nobody trying to make a profit fulfills that role, as more customers take the attitude: "If it's going to be junk, why shouldn't I just rely on what's free? At least I'm paying a fair price for it!"
If customer satisfaction were the standard by which they judged their success, "free software" would just be a testing ground for new ideas to gain a foothold, not a significant fraction of the adopting population.
It's electing people who are committed to CITIZEN'S INTERESTS to Congress. They can actively appoint qualified, and public-interest-minded heads of departments, like the FCC.
During Obama's presidency, we had Tom Wheeler, who ruled (almost universally) in favor of citizens' interests...and, in fact, established the "Net Neutrality" rules in 2015...against the wishes of one of his Commission members, Ajit Pai. When Wheeler retired, Ajit Pai (who is a legal shill who worked at Verizon, who benefits from his decisions) ascended to the Chairman post, and started dismantling the good work done by Mr. Wheeler...mostly (I posit) because he wants that job back at Verizon, when he is replaced in the future.
The Republicans are notoriously favorable to providing more advantages to large corporations (e.g., Verizon) and couldn't care less about you and me. With the Buffoon in the White House, and a Republican dominated Congress, we can expect virtually every government-sponsored benefit to citizens to be abolished or diminished.
So, to my mind the ONLY ONE SOLUTION is to restore our government to attending to benefits for citizens...it's not going to be done by a party that passes legislation to give Fat Cats tax breaks, and make you and I pay MORE taxes to cover the giveaway. Have YOU figured out the solution yet? It's a plain as the nose on your face! Make sure that we elect people who CARE about the citizens' interests, not just lining their own pockets. They will do the work of replacing the people who are engaged in wholesale destruction of every potential good for citizens. I reason that there is NO REASON our country should be favoring large businesses over individual citizens. Others' may believe differently.
Get a new manager!
Ah, but you can't know the extent and scope of what you don't already know!
...who tests his own code as the final authority is a fool, claiming omnipotence that is quite common to the breed.
To be sure, I now--in retirement--only write code for my own needs. But, when I was programming as a profession, I accepted the fact that I am not omnipotent. I have "blind spots" in my knowledge, I have unknown things about which I've never thought before. Just because the language is as simple as BASIC doesn't mean that the writer of that code doesn't have blind spots in logic or comprehension...or even understanding of the customers' needs.
Bypassing a) The writing (and vetting) of a formal specification, and b) independent testing...may lower the cost of programming, but it has the hazard of completely overlooking something that is obvious ONLY after you've triggered the defect....as Equifax recently found out, to their financial peril.
When I program for somebody else, I require they understand the costs in both time and money of a) Writing a comprehensible specification, and b) Independent testing to ensure compliance with that specification. The extensive of each of these is dependent upon the risks at stake. If it's a personal novelty or utility, I can let these rules lapse, because I'm "evolving" code. But one cannot "evolve" code by subjecting it to test by the end-customer. That way lies frustration and ultimate dissatisfaction.
In my experience, the best programs written are developed by teams made up of members with (intentionally) different viewpoints and experiences, who respect--yet challenge--each other. I can recall, in the early 60's (IBM 709 and 1401 days, for you ole timers) when I was part of a team developing one of the first "shareware" packages for the 1401: We critiqued, debated, evolved and distributed a robust program that was a platform for quick application development. It was a delight, and when I happened to be in Australia, eight years leter, tripped across a team using our shareware as the basis for other application programs...and they'd never experienced a failure because the package (and the documentation) had been vetted by so many experienced (yet divergent) people.
If you debug all your own code, and are the sole party declaring it "Good and Finished," you are deluding yourself. None of us are quite that perfect, especially in anticipating situations or environments which we've never imagined or experienced.
Amazing success of the "new-HP" business model: The profit is in the INK, not the printer. At today's pricing, each HP 5640 page costs 16 CENTS per single-sided page in ink charges alone (and that's to the common customer; NASA pays a LOT more). But, of course, the promo features the cheap PRINTER price. What great advertising for HP, and many buyers will assume that, because NASA likes it, it'll work for them, too.
What a crock...
Precisely WHEN did integrity die?
With the advent of advertising, I'll warrant!
AC, indeed; only a Coward would respond with such an idiotic idiom
To scared to own your own pathetic attempt at humor?
Whenever income can be increased irrespective of the harm done to the customer, Capitalism shows its' darkest side. We need Federal agencies like CFPB and FDA (among others) to have even stronger rules and enforcement powers...which will never happen so long as those businesses consider their income more important than citizens' and customers' needs and satisfaction. (Yea, I'm lookin' at YOU, Wells Fargo, and the NRA.),
As CEO of Facebook has said (I paraphrase): "It's income; why should I bother vetting is as to source or truthfulness???"
...they STILL can't produce a product that will properly and reliably update itself when defects are identified and updates issued. The persistent internal corruption of it's own code/data arrangements are legendary. Without third-party programs for repair (e.g., those at Tweaking.com, including "Windows Repair"), I'd've had to give up many good end-user applications and migrate to Liniux...and my family would have to start all over, learning the ideosyncracies of a FREE product.
This book, and the companion "interview tour" is nothing but TRUMP -level self-aggrandizement, trying to convince people of things that simply aren't true. Simple example: I called Microsoft tech support last week to find out why Outlook was hiding my Appointments (but the calendar showed, with bold letters, the appointments were there to be viewed!). I asked the agent, politely, to transfer me to someone who could speak English...his was broken, and deeply accented, and I had to keep asking him to repeat himself. He promised to have someone call me back in 10 minutes. Needless to say, of course, I never got any callback; he just blew this paying customer off.
Microsoft is STILL broken, Mr. Nadella, and you're trying to convince us you're better to salve your own ego. No, you're the same "better than thou" company you've always been since Balmer destroyed your culture!
...will be very happy.
Big companies want your money, and they'll do as little as possible to get it.
Other companies, not run by oligarchs, want to provide good service for a fair income.
There's a difference. And, it's why large corporations tend to be able to create rules that block others from competing in "their" territory. You gotta make your local government more willing to see that people get better service, instead of having some public officials' palms greased.
This is for the benefit of Verizon. The current FCC Chair is Ajit Pai, who took leave from his lawyer job at Verizon to mastermind this kind of crap (and, he's being the Net Neutrality destruction effort.
We gotta VOTE the kinds of maniacs OUT that appoint these kinds of soulless minions to public office. More "TRUMPcare..." this time, for Internet standards and prices.
...they are apparently complete scam merchants. The products on offer could be cardboard mockups of the product being sold, not the product itself, for all the backup and support you can get. There is no way to examine the merchandise, ask questions about it, or validate the product at all. See http://www.ripoffreport.com/re... It will inevitably be a home for scammers to accumulate money from rubes.
I would encourage /. management to vet advertisers before taking their money for ads in this respected web service.
Given the Russian Government's utter reliance on subversive means, and their absolute control over the activities of every business, I cannot have confidence that Kaspersky has been granted any exception from those totalitarian rules. I would NEVER trust a product from a Russian business, and even abandoned Acronis (backup} for the same reasons some years ago. There IS no integrity in the service of customers in other nations that is safe from corruption in service to malevolant forces at play in the USSR government.
Please learn something about the subject, the agency and the players. Your ignorance is showing.
Thank you to our former FCC Chair for stepping up. Pai is but a tool of his former (and future) employer, Verizon, and it shows in his actions. The man is a threat to all that is good for citizens.
It IS the FCCs job to avoiding favor one vendor over another, or one CLASS of vendor over another. Any other assertion is rooted in "fake news." Read the FCC's charter (and, yes, I have!).
Convenient explanation, but where is the DOCUMENTATION from Microsoft?
They can SAY all they want, but unless they, essentially, engage in a clear contract with their customers about what they will and will not collect, they are treating us as ignorant customers they can deceive at will.
Whether you use a phalanx of servers, or a bunch of old XP systems on a LAN is irrelevant. It's the QUALITY of the software that makes a difference, and quality costs money. Unless and until business executives understand that design is not a whiteboard exercise, and coding is not programming, and programming is not design, and start to develop LIFETIME budgets, they will sow these seeds of failure. Taking the lowest bid is like gambling; Looking for the most comprehensive solution IS more expansive, and it pays dividends.
Good design is focused on measurable outcomes, not how many lines of code need to be written. Outcomes like profitability, and customer satisfaction, and employee retention are not arbitrary; they are quantifiable, and lack of quantification of every milestone to the outcome is the source of most catastrophes, in my experience. I don't know how many projects I've salvaged from the "coders" by introducing the novel (it was originated in 1960!) PERT/CPM model to force the answering of "how much," "how many" and "how high" questions BEFORE a lick of code is written. Then after they've instituted some rigor, they can start forecasting resources required. SWAGs are NOT design!
It's cheap companies that contract the losers. It's those focused on the business benefits and outcomes that make it to the F500 (until they hire "quicky solution" executives).
Walmart is hardly a leader in the annals of robust development of the technology-driven enterprises.
You're making the assumption that he acts because of what's "Good for the Country," instead of trying to drive wages down across the board so his 1% friends can make MORE money...which they'll make sure he gets some of, too. It's just that this blatant importing of inferior talent is undermining the very businesses of those plutocrats. Methinks you give him credit for something he doesn't even understand!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! ...
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. They can't interview customers, they can't write a report, they're incompetent at writing a spec, and they lack basic programming skills. But they're CHEAP! (And, I've never seen a client who found them less expensive on an overall-project-wide effort. Only bean counters love 'em.)
Superb! I hadn't even thought of Trump trumping the bureaucrats!