Re: Be the first in your street to own Windows 10!
I betaed Windows 10 and all I got was an arrow to the knee.
5814 posts • joined 31 May 2010
I betaed Windows 10 and all I got was an arrow to the knee.
"Smaller footprint than its predecessors"
"faster start-up and shutdown"
Who cares? Everyone has SSDs, and we only reboot once a month when updates force us to.
Only if application developers take advantage of it. In the meantime, Microsoft is making us all give up privacy in order to get this possible security.
"allows you to run Universal apps"
This is not a positive thing.
"and brings you into the 21st Century."
Funny, I've many an operating system that is 21st Century-enabled. Why is this Microsoft's first?
" the .NET framework (which underpins much of Exchange nowadays) allocates memory and CPU threads ineffectively"
Which is a fucking joke. Especially considering the hardware that's available today.
"But hey, the software's architects, the support teams who troubleshoot this stuff day in and day out, and the guys who have deployed that system for multiple millions of users - they don't know what they're talking about. But some VMware guy - I guess he must be an _expert_."
Yeah, you know, "some VMware guy" very well might be the expert here. Microsoft and it's developers and systems administrators don't need to care about money, or efficiency. They don't pay for the software licenses and they don't seem to give a bent damn about making the most use out of the hardware or datacenter space.
Put simply: Microsoft's priorities are clearly not the same priorities as actual businesses. So yes, I don't believe Microsoft are the experts here.
Here's an idea: cut Microsoft in half. Azure Public Cloud to be it's own thing, and "them who sell software" to be another. Now let's give it a year and see what the Azure teams have to say about the software after they start having to pay for it, and they start having to sustain and grow only on the backs of their own profits.
"When having "only" 24 processors and 96 Gb of RAM is an "itsy bitsy"
Expanding from www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/27/supermicro_twin_server_review/
I can cram 18 cores per socket by two sockets by two threads for a total of 72 threads with 1TB per node. That's all in 1U, or 2 in 2U, 4 in 4U, etc. (I haven't seen any of the 1/2U units do 1TB RAM quite yet.)
24 threads and 96GB of RAM is a joke. A joke. Especially with NVMe SSDs out and I/O able to meet pretty much any demand you can throw at it.
I'm not enough of an exchange admin to weigh in on the VMware versus Microsoft view here, but I will say that on this one thing - limiting exchange to such low core/RAM counts - Microsoft doesn't serve it's customers well. Even cheap-o Supermicro systems can spank those specs today, so there wasn't a heck of a lot of future proofing built in to Exchange 2013.
Which may be what Microsoft wanted. Who knows?
The issue with "acceptable performance" is that it's hard to qualify with synthetics. You need to dupe actual workloads and then replay a day's worth of real world work on them. Personally, I like replay at 1.5x speed in order to allow for growth calculations, but that takes a lot of time and research beforehand to fully understand the workloads before testing.
I test with synthetics, but I find them almost meaningless. I far prefer to take the workloads I've babied every single day for the past 11 years and run them on $infrastucture. I know those workloads inside and out and i know how they respond to different types of kit. I can get a better feel for "good enough" or not using those workloads than any of the synthetics I run.
But that's me, and that's my workloads. Someone else is going to have a different mix. I think it's important we get as many different testers testing their real world mixes as possible so that we have a deep pool of knowledge available.
"Advertise my services"? To whom, precisely? Maxta? Maxta have me on speed dial. SimpliVIty? They know where to find me if they want me. Same for pretty much anyone else. I don't have to advertise. There aren't a lot of people writing technical content and there seems to be an unlimited demand for it.
If you think that my offering to settle the performance dispute for free is somehow "advertising" you're quite frankly insane. Do you have any idea - and idea at all - what it takes to do a full review on a hyperconverged solution? That's weeks of work, and VMware versus Nutanix is at least two units.
Maybe - maybe - I sell enough articles to make up my time, but not likely. And, to be entirely blunt about it, I could make a hell of a lot more money by basically rolling my face around on the keyboard and "writing what I know" instead of spending the time doing hard research.
Helping wingus and dingus grow up and stop cluttering everyone's twitter and news feeds doesn't really pay dividends except possibly as a portfolio item to say "here, look, I did this". But I have a Tintri review cooking, a SimpliVity one yet to write, I have a Scale versus Nodeweaver danceoff that's waiting and $diety knows what else. I have enough reviews that I could write until December and not need to look for more stuff to do.
That said, I want to see the end to this. Spy versus spy here is embarrassing, and it's clouding the issues. I end up taking a dozen calls a week now from people looking for the straight dirt on hyperconverged solutions, and half of them are trying to cut through the VMware versus Nutanix noise. Settling even one part of this loony tunes bullshit factory would earn me precious, precious hours of sleep.
As for the rest...
I don't know that Maxta have anything to lose by by open. You're probably correct in that Kiran and his lot are in a better position by being open than closed. But I can't agree with you on SimpliVity, or really, any of the others.
SimpliVity isn't the fastest of the lot. Full stop. They are the most consistent - that would be the accelerator card doing it's job - but they aren't the fastest. This is because Simplivity lays its blocks down on a RAID of magnetics and doesn't really cache to SSD quite as effectively as they should.
SimpliVity is absolutely open about this. They have no problems letting me - or anyone else - review the toys and publish the real world results. That buys them no real hoo-rah points except showing customers that they are honest and honourable. Which actually does count for a lot with some people.
Scale Computing? Scale doesn't even have flash! They certainly don't see benefit from letting me test their stuff. Yet Scale sent me some nodes, as well as to numerous other "thought leaders" and we've all had a right good go at them. We broadly agree on the pros and cons and so a picture of just what Scale is like from top to bottom has emerged.
That picture is not one that says Scale is the fastest, or the best priced, or the, well...best anything really. (Except possibly best support.) Scale has very specific tradeoffs and it seems rather a lot of companies are perfectly willing to accept those...and they're happy knowing right up front what the tradeoffs are.
On and on. Yottabyte, Nodeweaver, Tintri, Tegile, Nexenta, you name a storage company and - with a few childish exceptions - they're all open, helpful and friendly. Seems they understand that trust is hard to earn and easy to lose.
So here's an idea, mate: why don't you climb down off your high horse and learn a thing or two? The world is quite obviously far more complex than you imagine. Not to mention your terrible reading comprehension.
When you can conceive that people's motivations in the world extend beyond advertising and marketing and thwarting one's rivals maybe you'll be ready to play with adults. Maybe you'll even be person enough to use your real name, instead of lobbing accusations from behind the veil of an anonymous coward.
Until then, kindly get bent.
Kiran: I totally agree. Maxta, Scale Computing and SimpliVity have been entirely open and helpful hyperconverged companies. You've all been upfront about things and, in my opinion, earned your customers' trust.
What really chaps my ASCII about this is that the whole "just get things tested" has been brought up over and over and over and over. I have personally told Chuck Hollis and multiple people at Nutanix that I'm 100% ready and willing to do the testing for free if they'll just get the gear in front of me, and they'll relax their ridiculous "you can't publish your results" bullshit.
I've told both parties "hey guys, I'm willing to work with you to ensure that the configurations are identical, down to the firmware revisions of each component and each configuration". I've offered to work with both sides to ensure that testing regimens meet their standards and that they can see the results before I publish.
I have also told them that I will include both my own standard suite of "real world" tests - actual VMs replaying mixed workloads ranging from e-mail to database work to financials packages to VDI, all on one cluster - and I would even put the units in actual production environments for a few weeks to get a more "beyond the numbers" feel.
Beyond some initial talks that were a "well, maybe that could be a good idea, I suppose" both sides have largely gone dark on the topic of independent testing. But oh, the hatorade-fueled blog wars continue. It makes me ill. We - professionals of all stripes in this industry - should be better than this. We should be working to educated customers and better the experience for everyone. Not slinging FUD and muddying the waters.
So I'll say it again, Nutanix and VMware: put up or shut up. This childish back and forth has you both losing credibility by the day.
Hitler disliked the clergy, not the religion. He sought to reduce the influence of organised religions on society so that he could increase the power of the state. Things get muddled beyond that.
There are plenty of historical revisionists who try to paint Hitler as rabidly anti-christian, but precious little proof. They take his desire to see the christian influence on state matters broken as some sort of evidence that he was planning a purge. But Hitler was above all pragmatic. He didn't seem to care overmuch what people believed so long as they obeyed.
More interestingly, Hitler made constant references to "the almighty" and "the creator". So much so that a great many scholars feel that they went beyond mere pandering to the masses and that he, himself actually believed in a deity. This is typically believed to be the god of Abraham as his mother was Christian and he never seemed to talk about deities plural, only singular.
As for the rest, why people kill absolutely matters. It's what allows us to learn from the atrocities and prevent them in the future. There were no major killings in the past 125 years that can be attributed to killings in the name of atheism. Atheists do not kill others in order to eliminate religious beliefs.
But oh, the hundreds of millions that have been killed in the past 125 years in the name of religion, ethnic hatred or other forms of bigotry and intolerance! Funny how you'd have everyone simply ignore that so you can preach your own bigotry and intolerance.
And yes, atheists are soulless. So are you, by the way. Because souls don't exist. Being soulless, however, is not cognate with being immoral. This can be proven quite simply: there is no god (or gods) so all morality is godless. Whether you are taught your morality through the institution of a church or you come to your morality through some other means, no deity has any part in it because deities do not exist. Cut and dried.
The result of that, of course, is that we must accept that some people are pretty horrible, regardless of their upbringing. Atheist, christian, buddhist, shinto, worshiper of the almighty Kermit the Frog, it doesn't matter. Some people are genetically beyond redemption. Others are genetically on the fence and environmentally sent down the wrong path, and some are perfectly normal then broken by events and ultimately end up beyond hope.
So are there atheists who have done bad things? Sure! But they tend to do those bad things in the name of power or politics. Without a deity to hide behind the part where they're fucking loony tunes and evil as a bag of rancid wiener juice is pretty obvious from the beginning.
But theists are another story. For thousands of years they have bamboozled empire after empire into giving them special dispensation. They swindle and hoodwink billions into belief in something that doesn't exist. Hell, they can't even agree amongst themselves what does and doesn't exist. It's all lies upon bullshit upon scams from top to bottom.
So when one emerges from amidst the theocratic cesspool of irrationality and starts agitating for extra special layers of hatred and bigotry it's pretty hard to separate them from the rest, at least initially. And once you know for sure that you've got bona-fide fucksticks running about, they hide behind the "religious tolerance" laws and cause untold pain and suffering without anyone who is allowed to stop them.
Sometimes it's just harassment and bigoted trolling like Westboro Baptist Church. More often it's really fucked up beyond all accounting shit like Scientology. But every now and again you get an Inquisition or Crusade or Jihad. Then you have Chechnya or Sudan or the entire middle east forever and ever amen.
Religion is nothing but bigotry and hatred protected by law. It's about having everyone obey an unelected set of leaders who tell everyone what to think, believe and do and socially excluding, shunning, excommunicating or even killing those who refuse to bend their will to the crazy trying to use figments of everyone's imagination to obtain power over the masses.
There are lots of shitty reasons people to shitty things to eachother. Almost all of them are about someone's desire for power over others, and the milled masses being too afraid to say "no". But it is damned rare that someone kills is the name of atheism while killing in the name of theism happens all day, every single fucking day.
Religion is a problem. Perhaps the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. We need to grow out of this infancy, and quickly.
Hitler was a Christian. To my knowledge none of those individuals killed people for being religious. Oh, they committed terrible crimes, but not in the name of "atheism".
The crimes that have been committed in the name of theism, however, are insane. And that's just in the bast year or so. If you want to tally one notch against the other for the past 125 some odd years, I think you'll struggle to find a handful of notches for the "killed in the name of atheism" stick and you'll run out of sticks upon which to notch the "killed in the name of theism".
Next to theism racial/ethnic intolerance is probably the biggest single reason for humans to murder eachoether. After that would be economic strife.
It's also worth pointing out that the French resistance refined the concept of a resistance movement into a fine science. Their concept of breaking into individual cells, where no one member can reveal more than one other cell worked well. They took what others had done, tweaked it and reworked it and came out with a resistance movement that was highly effective and crucial to winning the war.
Perhaps more to the point, French civilians - including women, who were not considered combat-ready individuals during WWII - fought and died in the resistance. The French government surrendered to save it's people, but the French people fought for their homes and and repeatedly risked everything to help all of Europe.
Add in groups like the Maquis and I think you'll find the French weren't faint of heart during the war.
I accept that to you, personally the narrow definition you've espoused is what you, personally consider Big Data. That said, there are thousands of fairly influential people in our industry who disagree with you.
You are essentially arguing semantics about a marketing term that was long ago coopted. It's like trying to say "cloud" means "X and exactly X". That's bunkum. Cloud - like Big Data, Software Defined Storage or any number of other marketing terms - means essentially nothing. Like it or not, "Big Data" has become a catch all term that encompasses everything from analytic to automation to novel data mining.
I recognize that you have an emotional attachment to a specific definition of Big Data which has, as you put it, "captured your imagination". But I must humbly submit that what you are talking about isn't Big Data. It is data science.
Data science is a discipline related to but not limited to some aspects of Big Data. Similarly, not all things which fall under the moniker Big Data are relevant to data science. The buzzwords have evolved. The marketing people took over Big Data ages ago.
And no, you can't fight it. You can't be a definition hipster. You can't single handedly change what everyone is going to mean when they use a term. The tide of marketing in tech is simply too powerful. It will defeat your preferred definition of Big Data as surely as it defeated me with cloud.
So use a new term. Until that one gets coopted. Then choose a new term. And another. And another, and another, and another.
Welcome to the terminology rat race. Life sucks and then some fish eat you.
The difference between "data" and "Big Data" is not cut and dried. Most agree it's a matter of scale, but where the line begins and ends varies wildly. This is, I think, a key point.
What seems like merely "data" to one organization that is good at systems integration can seem like "Big Data" to another. And a Big Data dataset, once tamed and understood and become "data" within a single refresh cycle. (Especially if you can bring GPUs and NVMe SSDs to bear on the problem!)
The issues that plague Big Data are identical to the issues that plague traditional systems integration and "data": you need to know what you want from your data before you go forth and create systems to achieve it. Merely collecting all data points under the sun is worthless. You need a goal in mind. You do not simply store bits and bytes on hadoop and *poof*, your company is magically saving money.
Information captured without purpose provides no benefit. Regardless of the size or scale of the data in question, and the purpose of that data is just as often automation as analytics. Indeed, anyone who thinks Big Data stops at providing the raw resource for human-readable analytics has failed to learn from history! Once we've managed to turn large quantities of unstructured data into something a human can understand from an anayltics standpoint we can then start acting on that information in an automated fashion.
Big Data inevitably becomes "just data". No matter the size of the dataset, it inevitably drives automation.
Now, I'm happy to argue the point with anyone willing to put forth an exacting definition of the difference between "data" and "Big Data" that doesn't rely on the underlying technologies used. (Just because you use Hadoop doesn't mean it's Big Data, etc.) And that definition should be one you're willing to put your real names to, and one most practitioners in the field would get behind. Oh, and make the definition one that will forever separate Big Data from data...even as the march of technology moves on and terabyte or even petabyte datasets become commonplace and easy to plow through.
Lacking such a concrete definition I'm going back to my original one: the difference between "data" and "Big Data" is in the eye of the beholder, and the questions about how to use both categories of data to benefit a business are usually the same.
You are going to let your companies run without security updates for a year? Good luck!
I don't personally believe the mobile division will be annihilated entirely, but it will be restructured and made to come to heel.
"Regarding tweeking the thinkpad ... no. Not unless they sorted out that FN+CTRL mess. There was an unofficial BIOS for the thinkpad to swap them, "
This is an OFFICIAL feature of all modern Thinkpad BIOSes for several years now.
Ah the nipple mouse. I always disable the trackpad on my Thinkpads. Nipple mouse is the only way to go.
"Since you are all so keen on the ThinkPad, what is the biggest appeal?"
Standard layout keyboards. Sometimes they swap the Ctrl and FN keys (bastards!) but they put an option in the BIOS to swap them.
Understand me here: standard layout keyboards. All the buttons. Delete and backspace. Page up, Page down and so forth! No goddamned "macro" keys on the left side. No stupid "clever" rearrangements of things that make going from your M.C. Escher notebood of fuckwittery to a real desktop a mental gear change that requires hours of retwigging your muscle memory.
Standard. Layout. Keyboards.
Also: the part where I can get both an extended life battery AND a battery that clamps on the bottom and uses the expansion port is fucking amazing. I have a 13" notebook that is perfectly portable, weight-wise, and gives me 22 hours of compute off battery.
Oh, and the power plugs are a decent size, and they are properly soldered to the keyboard so that they take abuse. The notebooks aren't designed to disintegrate in 1 year.
If Lenovo would make the things out of something other than horrifically shittastic plastic that shatters at the slightest provocation, they'd be perfect.
An Aluminimum Thinkpad would be amazing. World-endingly, the-end-is-night class holy WTF amazing.
But yeah, thems the reasons.
I use the Thinkpad light to read papers in the dark and the lit up keyboard on my Thinkpad to see the keys in the dark. Proper Thinkpads have both. HURRAY!
"Its like owning a mechanical watch. Sure I have a phone that syncs to a time source so its accurate enough, but to think about what it takes to design and build a watch with 500 moving parts and fits on your wrist? Now that's a combination of art and function that I can appreciate.
Is there something wrong in striving to do the best you can do or have we become a society of where 'good enough' is the best we can do?"
The best timekeeping device would be the digital one that regularly synchronizes to the NTP pool, possibly with a backup to plug time from GPS signals. The mechanical timekeeping device, while nostalgic, is not better in any way.
You are confusing "better" with "requires more effort". Very protestant of you.
Get an XP boxed retail license off ebay.
"and didn't expect anyone to care"
Rightly so. What business does anyone have knowing whom he sleeps with? That's between him and the people he sleeps with.
" His company (Commercial Network Services) has a service which customers of TWC want to access."
Really? Because that's not what I get. My understanding is that very, very few customers of TWC want to access CNS and that CNS is mostly looking for free transit between the IXes, and possibly to a tiny handful of customers for the camera thing. If I'm wrong, please, do link me to the where. It's one of those issues that totally could go either way, it really depends on the details.
"Net Neutrality was all about getting a free ride."
No, jackass, Net Neutrality is about not being allowed to discriminate based on source or destination, only by content type or by capacity.
Let's use a practical example:
It is okay for an ISP to prioritize VoIP traffic so long as they prioritize all VoIP traffic. As a general rule we can all agree that VoIP has realtime requirements, and it even carries with it safety and security concerns in that it is a means to dial 911.
It is emphatically not okay for a company to prioritize only it's own VoIP traffic or - even worse - to degrade traffic from VoIP offerings other than it's own.
QoS is okay - even necessary, in the real world - but it must be neutral. Providers don't get to prioritize their services just because they own the pipes.
Another example: a provider could exempt a class of traffic from bandwidth metering, so long as they exempt all traffic in that class, not merely the traffic that they provide themselves. For a practical example: an ISP could exempt all video traffic from metering, but they could not exempt only their own video offering and yet have Netflix or Youtube count against bandwidth consumption.
That's not about a "free ride" in any way shape or form. That's about preventing monopolies and duopolies from leveraging dominance in one area (bandwidth provisioning or "being a dumb pipe") in order to gain dominance in another (voice or video provisioning, as two examples.)
Now, there are certainly people who will push for extreme forms of Net Neutrality, were even neutral QoS is not allowed. They're idiots. They're also a fairly minor fringe faction.
Net Neutrality is about ensuring that everyone has equal access to providers of content. Nobody gets to play favourites. If an ISP wants to offer over the top services they have to compete fairly for customers, they can't leverage pipe ownership. It isn't about free anything.
"I can't imagine YouTube's upstream bandwidth requirement being within an order of magnitude of the downstream..."
Now, but every ISP on Earth's subscribers want access to Youtube. Explain to me what about the camera stream/HFT supplier's network appeals to any but a tiny, tiny subset of any ISP's subscribers?
Peering doesn't have to be about equal amounts of traffic in either direction, it can simply be that it makes rational business sense to freely interconnect due to subscriber demand. I don't see how there is massive subscriber demand for the complainant's services, or that the complainant is offering anything that puts them on remotely equal footing. They seem - at least at first glance - to just want cheap bandwidth for lashing together equipment they have at different IXes.
I don't understand what's "not having nice things" here. This doesn't sound like the complainant wants to actually "peer", it sounds like they want cheap low latency bandwidth without paying for it. Peering is separate from transit. Peering requires both networks have something the other wants.
Two ISPs peer because those two ISPs have subscribers that want to talk to eachother. An ISP might peer with Netflix because all of the customers of that ISP want access to Netflix. In this case, as described by the author, it sounds like a company that strings up stuff for the likes of high frequency traders wants really high speed, low latency access between major internet exchange points without having to pay for it...and without there being anything on the HFT networks that the ISP in question might actually care about.
I.E. There simply is not rational reason to "peer" here, as oppsoed to simply charging for a dark fibre strand. How is that preventing us from having nice things?
A 50gal and a 200gal. They do just fine in both. There's nothing in either tank that really gets the red tail's Irish up. The 50 gal has an angelfish, a bristlenose, a cloud of raspies and a whole mess of cories. The 200 gal has the red tail, a bunch of bristlenose and an unlimited pile of cories. (I like catfish. They're cute.)
The sharks just shark around. For the one in the big tank there's literally nothing that bothers her. Everything's albino except her and a couple of cories she probably never sees. (Though she will chase away anything that tries to park in her jar.)
In the small tank, the shark periodically chases a cory or tries to mess with the pleco, but the pleco is 1.5x her size and the cories are 5x as fast as her. So other than occasionally trolling something she can't bully for more than a few seconds she spends her time shooing cories from her jar and helicoptering upside down being a shark.
Right at the moment, she's busy chasing a massive bronze cory that's about 0.75x her size who has decided to turn around and chase her right back. None of them seem overly stressed by the arrangement.
Now, I have been toying with the idea of putting another jar in the downstairs tank and putting both sharks in one tank for a while. It would take some monitoring. 200 gal might be enough, but they're territorial. If it works, however, then I can get another shark for upstairs. Carpmouth! Nam nam nam nam nam nam nam...
"Only those who realise that a goldfish needs a LOT of space"
Hence why I don't have goldfish in my tanks. They take up WAY too many fish-inches. For my carp fixation, I keep a red-tailed shark in each tank. Watch that carpmouth go!
Good question. Used to be I could pull walleye out of almost any lake in Alberta that was legal limit in size with about 1/2 hr, a fishing rod and a canoe. Now they're almost impossible to find, and when they are found they're far under limit. But damn, they were good eating.
"9/10 times they have a swim bladder issue and can be "resurrected" by simply cleaning the tank out for a change and treating it."
Actually, swim bladder issues can creep up in perfectly clean tanks. Goldfish are just inbred mutants that fall over at the slightest provocation. Also: they have a tendency towards constipation that can cause the same issues. 95% of the time you can solve "floaty goldfiish" by feeding the thing a few shelled, boiled peas.
Alberta has more waterfoul than just about any place on earth. That's why it's scary these things are being found in the wild. The rate at which they are breeding must be pretty exceptional, since carp are favoured delicacies for many of the honking winged atrocities that darken our skies.
It's also not just Alberta. There's a lot of lakes on the island that have this problem too, including the one I eventually want to retire to. :(
Whatever happened to lakes full of perch and walleye? Ah, for the halcyon days of yore...
After the news article went up and the original thread filled with a few other upset folks, yes. The real issue, however, is that this wasn't broadcast immediately via e-mail. Lastpass suffers a breach and I know about it via e-mail before it's made known to the press.
In the case of the Spiceworks breach, I was informed, then went to bed, woke up, had breakfast, coffee and then wrote the article. And there still was no e-mail from Spiceworks by this point!
I did not jump down Spiceworks' throat on this immediately. I'm sure my editors would have preferred it, but I had been up for 32 consecutive hours and couldn't write a thing without at least 8 hours sleep.
Spiceworks had been given time to do the right thing and to come up with a proper response. They failed. Miserably.
That Spiceworks chose to be a little more transparent after the issue was published and then broadcast over every social media channel available is closing the barn door after the horse frelled off, nothing more.
"Where do you store your money, under your pillow?"
RAIDed across multiple banks as tax free savings accounts and RRSPs as well as precious metals in safe deposit boxes so that no one bank failure can take out my retirement. Doesn't everyone?
"just pointing out the obvious - that humans have always found God in the Unknown."
It's called "god of the gaps".
"so far no-one seems to have solved the underlying trust issue"
I thought some of the new blockchain-based technologies were the best we had on solving the trust issue.
"Too old to be secured ? What kind of cop-out is that ? You can always add a firewall in front of it, no ?"
Yeah, but you can't add two factor authentication or various other features. "Secured" may have a meaning here based in legislation or regulation that means something different to you and I.
"So you are going to send profanities to someone for the sake of it?"
Fuck all y'all.
"sometimes comments here can get a bit feisty but nowhere near the level implied by the article"
Yo mama's data is so unstructured CERN can't write visualizations for it!
We have evidence for the NSA backdoors in Cisco Kit. Meanwhile, GCHQ has cleared Huawei as backdoor free.
I'm buying Huawei.
In Lenovo systems this is somethign you can change in the BIOS.
Cortana, please send all my searches to the US of NSA to be datamined.
Good luck winning China without packing you your HQ and moving to Switzerland. Oh, and cutting the overwhelming majority of your legal ties and entanglements with the US as well.
Cisco, your American Legal Attack Surface is simply too high, and your government has proven time and again that they care for you only so long as they can use you to spy on their enemies. Should've spent more money lobbying Washington back in the days that you were the unchallenged masters of your market and everyone locked in to your product.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. CAGR will be a bitch from here on out, so get used to the new normal.
Because privacy isn't only for the privileged.
"and the company faces competition"
That explains things. Won't be allowed to last long.
No. The lander was in fact awake before this, and it did some science. Unfortunately, Rosetta wasn't in place to receive it's data (and/or the comet's rotation means that Philae couldn't relay to Earth directly) so the data sat in the buffer, waiting to transmit.
This time around, the lander came online long enough to negotiate communications, but did not have time to empty it's buffer. We are hoping that future communications windows will occur, and will allow the lander to transmit it's data. After that, if there is power to spare, it will be assigned to do more science, again, in the hopes that we will have future communications windows for the data to be transmitted.
220 mail.example.org ESMTP service ready
250-myserver.fuckoffNSA.com knows encryption won't actually stop the NSA
220 Go ahead
"For people whose major asset is their Facebook account, it might not matter, but it does to the rest of us."
It matters to everyone, or it matters to noone. You do not get privacy for the privileged but not for the proles. That's how revolutions start.
You're right, I had gotten things mixed round in my brain. I was thinking of the Alliance Key Manager for Azure that everyone had been touting as the ultimate solution to Azure security problems (hah!) before Thales came around. What garbage.
Microsoft did have pre-thales stuff too. The previous generation's broken, expensive and Microsoft-vulnerable Windows RMS-based setup, for example. That's pre-Azure RMS that didn't use the hardware modules.
Oh, and the Cloudlink "we'll encrypt your VMs" offering that uses Bitlocker, which everyone is well aware was designed weak from the start and pwned by the NSA bloody ages ago. That was a laugh riot.
With Thales HSMs enterprises with Azure subscriptions and which have Thales hardware on their premises can secure (quoted from https://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/library/dn440580.aspx)
application that integrates with Azure RMS. This includes cloud services such as SharePoint Online, on-premises servers that run Exchange and SharePoint that work with Azure RMS by using the RMS connector, and client applications such as Office 2013
You cannot secure Exchange online, general VMs, general storage or, well...most of the stuff on Azure with Thales HSM. The things you can secure with Thales HSM you are trusting Microsoft that the key can't be extracted, intercepted or used because, well, it's pretty much Microsoft's own applications that use it at this point. (Though, to be fair, non-Microsoft applications that integrate with Azure RMS could in theory benefit.)
So you're still back to trusting Microsoft (and Thales, who are slightly more trustworthy), though you can't use Thales for a lot of things. It's a start. And maybe once it can be used for every element of the public cloud computing experience and we can guarantee every nanosecond of the chain of custody for the keys from you to the hardware device on Microsoft's premises can't be spied upon Azure will be ready for mildly sensitive workloads.
Amazon probably never will be.
Better still to just run the workloads on a regional service provider that lives in your own legal jurisdiction and not take the risk. You'll be less likely to sued into oblivion, probably get better service and you won't be putting your testicles in the vice of a convicted monopolist! Win/win/win.
"And the major alternatives like OS-X and Linux have vastly more security holes in than current versions of Windows."
Except they don't. Because - again, like a goddamned broken record - you are counting every security issue in every package of a distro against the core Windows OS, without regard to vulnerability type or severity.
Linux distributions include hundreds if not thousands of applications whereas the Windows operating system only includes dozens to low hundreds. Windows does not, for example, include a full productivity suite nor a full suite of vulnerability assessment tools, multiple web servers and databases, multiple development environments and IDEs and so forth.
Windows' issues tend to be far more severe, and they take far longer to get fixed. Open source's issues are mostly that issues can (and do) go unnoticed (sometimes for years) because there simply aren't enough penetration testers willing to test open source. (Bounties are paid by proprietary companies!) Of course, Microsoft will gleefully discover a bug then sit on the damned thing for years, so that is somewhat moot.
You are correct in that it is harder to not run Windows in the specific circumstance where you are already deeply wedded to the Windows ecosystem and have critical Windows only applications. It's been a long time since that was a universal experience for all businesses, and more and more are getting out...and staying out of Microsoft's clutches.
Microsoft and Windows absolutely have their advantages. But you, sir, purposefully and knowingly distort statistics and facts to turn complex - but quantifiable - truths into blatant lies.
Give me three good sysadmins and budget enough for Puppet licenses and I'll show you how to run Twitter without needing a large IT staff.