4359 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: can't afford to test?
The overwhelming majority of my clients can't afford a testlab, yet they need $100K worth of storage. They need storage to make their business go, but for them that $100K of storage is a *huge* chunk of annual revenue.
Buying one because without it the business ceases to function is something that can be managed, with sacrifice. Buying two is likely not even possible, given the revenue situation, and certainly not because the nerds "need to test things on the second one" but can't really articulate what they need to test or why.
This is why people like me build up test labs: multiple businesses combined can afford a proper lab, and someone to run it (me) even when they couldn't afford it on their lonesome. Testlab as a Service, wot?
I understand LSI is in a bit of disarray following the acquisition. Methinks very, very few people will be getting to review these beasties.
Re: XP will only be insecure if connected
Indeed sir, however, my "how to survive the XPocalypse" article is a few days down the road. I have a list of methods, refined from keeping NT4 and Windows 2000 systems going all this time...
Latency is a mostly factor of distance. Some latency can be dealt with by refining the server's config, but mostly it's just down to "the speed of light says no."
Azure can't solve that, no matter how many buzzwords are applied.
"Trevor sucks at Titanfall"
I've never played Titanfall, but yes, I'll admit to sucking out loud on this one. My reflexes in other FPSes are bad enough for me to be among the crappy "cannon fodder" players in any FPS.
Josh, however, is a professional gamer who cut his teeth on Quake. He can hit you with a rocket/rail combo whilst spinning multiple 360s and bouncing around the map enough to make me puke with nausea. The man is a bloody *god* when it comes to this stuff. He isn't the best of the best, but he's good enough to be set apart from the rest.
Some times storage is included in a VM package. Additional storage is extra. All depends on the AUUUGH! PRICING TENTACLE MONSTER!
"A Linux-based Standard A5 instance with 14GB of memory, two CPU cores and up to 4TB of attached disk storage will fall from $0.320 per hour down to $0.22"
AKA $1927.2 /year
Locally redundant storage: 1TB = 294.912 /year
Zone redundant storage: 1TB = 368.64 /year
Geo-redundant storage: 1TB = 589.824 /year
*Does not include cost of Azure bandwidth or your own bandwidth to move files.
Re: @Trevor Pott
My understanding of how this works comes from reading Michael Geist's blog (he's a PhD who makes it a business to know about such things) and talks with the OpenMedia.ca folks. (Digital media lobby here in Canada.)
You are 100% correct in that CSEC believes it does not need court approval for metadata collection. This, however, is in violation of our charter of rights and freedoms and is currently winding it's way through court. Unlike in the US, we can challenge activities of our spooks, even when they are "secret."
Again: hearings are indeed held in secret when national security is on the table, (as is logical) and the only folks in the room as those with security clearances, but the forms and rules of a proper trial are followed. It is not a deliberation by judges nor dictation by fiat.
How secret decisions are allowed to remain is currently under review by both politicians and the judiciary. There is an acknowledged requirement for some decisions to remain secret while national security interests remain active, however, pretty much everything about the rest of our laws says no judicial decisions should ever be private.
The generally agreed upon middle ground is that decisions will be reviewed regularly and declassified as soon as possible instead of kept classified for decades past any possible relevance. Who exactly sits on the review panel and the frequency of reviews are currently the subject of political manoeuvrings, but the government has been warned that the judiciary will brook no US-style "forever secrets" in order to cover up political blunders or breaches of law by the government.
So yes, things are not as open as I would ideally like, but our judges are still pretty firm on the concept that nobody - from spooks to politicians - is above the law. The spooks disagree, and the next two or three years of suits about this will be quite entertaining...but at least we can take the bastards to court here.
What's really interesting is the push from many politicians - and several members of the judiciary - to have foreign data stored within Canada given the same rights and protections as data belonging to Canadian citizens. America barely acknowledges that non-Americans deserve basic human rights; There is basically zero chance that within my lifetime the USA is going to declare that I, a dirty furriner, have the same rights to privacy, due process and so forth as an American citizen.
So yeah, Canada has a ways to go to clean this up, but I think we're on the right track towards a more free and equitable society. Unlike the US, I think the worst of this big brother bullshit is behind us here.
I don't believe that this is being done (from the political side) because of morality and goodwill. I think that politicians are biting on this because they see a real economic advantage to cultivating high privacy standards here in Canada. "Put your data on this side of the border, eh? We're close enough to the yanks that you can suck the money out of 'em, but our laws are ever so slightly less asstastic."
Re: @Trevor Pott
So far as I understand, the judges who review national security issues have an extremely limited mandate, and their decisions can be challenged in the Supreme Court. (Though the hearing will be sealed until the court makes a decision.) The laws they implement aren't secret, nor are the legal interpretations they arrive at. What is kept secret (for obvious reasons) are the details of cases involving national security.
What should be pointed out is that these judges don't exist simply to rubber stamp requests for spying. They handle all cases involving national security. In any rational world, it makes perfect sense for such a panel of judges to exist, so long as there exist concepts such as "national security."
I've never had an issue with the concept of a court that handles secret things. I've had all sorts of issues with how those courts are run, specifically, the ability to challenge decisions and the ability to even gain access to the results of past judgements. I.E. are the people expected to be held to the standards of what amount to secret laws?
There are lawyers in this country with security clearance. Even if their clients cannot be party to a a suit, they can be represented appropriately.
Have the conservatives done a shitload of damage to our rights and freedoms since taking over? Yes...but the difference between Canada and the US is that we can (and do!) challenge this crap in court...and win. The conservatives try to give sweeping powers to CESC and CSIS; the Supreme Court kills the laws on constitutional grounds and then makes the government go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's actually constitutional. It doesn't take decades here; it takes only a few years.
More to the point, to my knowledge there is no concept of "you aren't able to sue the government for that because you aren't clear to see the information about whether or not you have standing." If you believe there's something untowards going on, you can get a lawyer with clearance and the trial can be held, even if you cannot yourself participate. (Bizzare, but there it is.)
And if the government loses one of those...it isn't covered up. If the government does something unconstitutional then it must be declassified. At least, such is the theory. We are currently seeing how this will all play out in practice.
I agree wholeheartedly that governments will be governments, but the separation of powers still exists here in Canada, despite the PMO trying to eliminate it. The government can be as corrupt as it wants, the court will slap them down and the mounties will still haul their asses off to jail one asshole at a time.
Ultimately, there's the difference. I don't believe for a second in the American courts. I don't believe for a second that they will stand up for your rights or freedoms. Your government has gotten away with obliterating the fourth amendment of your constitution without a fight and they are working damn hard at obliterating the first.
My government would like to do the same thing. Our courts repeatedly deny them the option. For now, at least, there's the gap: we are still nominally in control of our government.
It's getting worse. Day by day. Conservative judicial appointment by conservative judicial appointment. But we're a long way from as corrupt as America. A long way.
Re: @Trevor Pott
"However, Canada has the CSEC and its own FISC-like secret courts"
Wrong. We have CSEC, but no secret courts. CSEC still works out in the open, and our Supreme Court has absolutely zero issue with slapping those bastards - or the conservative government - upside the head with a trout if they get out of line.
Besides, even if we did have secret courts, they'd be our secret courts, not American ones. The only laws in play with be those of my own nation. That's a huge difference, especially as regards my legal, moral and ethical obligations to protect the data of my clients.
As for Switzerland, their legal processes regarding privacy are far better than anywhere else. I trust them more than any other country on earth, and far more than I trust America or Americans.
It isn't about keeping the information secret, it's about due diligence. It is about doing everything I can to keep that information away from those who would misuse and abuse it. America has misused information, is misusing information and will misuse information in the future. That country nor her people can be trusted. They conduct economic espionage even against their allies, and they spy on innocent civilians (even amongst their allies) and then hand that data off to people like their bottom-of-the-barrel border patrol. There, power corrupts quickly and absolutely.
So even if Canada's spooks are just as secretive (and I don't believe that for a second), Canadians and Canadian data have a path to address any issues within the framework of Canadian law. We have no rights and now powers to address abuse by Americans...and abusing information is simply what they do down there.
"So, judging by the comments here, despite Microsoft going out of their way to tighten up their privacy, that's still not good enough?"
Microsoft are not going out of their way at all, and they certainly aren't tightening privacy nearly enough. They also are one of the few major technology companies not out there fighting the good fight to the tune of a few billion to ensure that their lobbying might is used to pressure the government into reducing the instances where our mails can be read by busybodies or spooks to as near zero as is realistically possible.
In addition, Microsoft have the technology available to them to decouple their cloudy services from America, but choose not to. They have this "cloudOS" thing: install a private cloud on your own servers, on the servers of service providers, or use the Microsoft Azure public cloud. But they don't offer Office 365 for Service Providers. They don't offer the backend for Hotmail or many of the other "cloudy" services. If you want this stuff your only choice is an American company, and that is completely, utterly and totally unacceptable.
If I am going to shot my stuff int eh cloud it will be with a Canadian (or Swiss) company that hosts in Canada (or Switzerland) and has no American legal presence what soever. Zero legal attack surface in the USA is the only acceptable means to obtain privacy. Microsoft can choose to do this tomorrow. Until they do, they absolutely haven't done enough.
"Microsoft can't win because despite zero evidence to support the position, people still believe Microsoft are the bad guys."
Microsoft are the bad guys. Microsoft have repeatedly said "fuck you" to developers, customers and partners. It isn't ever any one thing with them...it's the hundreds and thousands of things over the years that ultimately boil down to their attempt to force the market to conform to their wishes instead of finding out what the market wants and providing that.
I could provide Microsoft with a list of over 100 specific action items that would not only rebuild trust amongst developers, partners and customers it would increase their profits and ultimately serve their long-term strategic interests. I have to believe that Microsoft, for all it's money, has people smarter than me working for them. Thus it is that I am absolutely Microsoft chooses not to implement any of the tactical changes required to rebuild trust. From that I deduce that they don't give a bent fuck about developer, partner or customer trust.
We are, to Microsoft, their chattel. We exist to serve them. They have forgotten that in markets where competition exists, the exact opposite is true.
Re: Mobile SIP Clients
I use an Asterisk server for company phone provisioning. We use Polycom phones, some desktop clients, the native Android client, etc. TL;DR comparison: 3CX is way easier to get set up and it seems to be a heck of a lot easier to use advanced features with. Call quality is about the same.
For any clients that want the ability to twiddle the knobs of their own deployment, 3CX is the easiest SIP system I've encountered yet. That makes they worth serious consideration for future rollouts, at least to me. I dislike faffing about with phones, so "easy" sells. :)
I wonder how accurate those stats are. I number of XP boxes are hanging around running industrial machinery so they never hit the web. A bunch more have automatic update disabled, lest the AU flaw that pins your CPU all day long bite you. I suspect there are quite a few more XP boxes out there than are officially counted.
Re: chess playing
Explain to me how any chess grandmaster does anything other than "brute force" the game? They think multiple steps ahead, exploring dozens if not hundreds of simultaneous potential scenarios. Experience teaches them which moves are "generally good" and which are "generally bad." All of this is just a less efficient way of doing what the computer does, less accurately.
Re: " all intelligent devices - notebook, slabbies and smartphones"
"I don't understand why my initial post attracted so many downvotes"
Have you considered "because you're a tool?"
DNT is nothing but a parlor trick for the masses and you know it. Beyond licensing there is a lot to be upset with MS about. How they've treated partners, for one. For another, their outright hostile attitude towards their customers.
Microsoft tries to force the market instead of responding to it. At the end of the day, that's the crux of it. Google responds to the market. Both of them track you, but Google's better at it.
I see the odd person - myself included - saying "Chromebooks have a place and I see them increasingly displaying Windows." I have yet to see someone say "Chromebooks rule the world" or anything similar.
I do agree that Windows is gasping it's last as an endpoint OS, but that isn't because "Google = good" it's because "Microsoft = bad". This is Microsoft's market to fuck up, and they're doing so with gusto.
There are commentards who like Android, myself among them. Fucking deal with it. It has over 60% of the endpoint market. If you don't like it, go cry in a corner because it's coping time, sir, and you aren't doing well there. Again: this was Microsoft's market to lose, and Android isn't winning because it's awesome. It's because Microsoft are fucking clownshoes and Apple are just too damned expensive. (Well, and some few among us actually *like* Android's UI better than iOS...though iOS 7 is a hell of a lot better than 6...)
As for Google datamining you...who has ever denied this? I don't know of any commenttards denying this. I haven't seen a single one. I have seem some shrug and say "who cares." Many say "that's a price I'm willing to pay."
Most of the rest of us, however, know damned well that Microsoft et al are datamining also, so when everyone is datamining the pants off of you what about that makes Google more evil than the next guy? They're all evil, but Google periodically does things that benefit us proles while they're busy being evil.
Also, you don't "refute" my Google = lesser evil argument at all. You refuse it, but you don't provide an iota of evidence or reasoning. Microsoft are just as guilty of datamining as Google. So are Apple, Oracle, Facebook, Amazon and oh, so many others. These companies - Microsoft included - have all sunk billions into the technologies that enable this. Google just happens to be the best at it; that doesn't mean they are solely responsible for the privacyocalypse.
Are Google evil? Yes; but no more so than any of the other tech giants...and slightly less so than Microsoft. Microsoft treats their customers and partners alike as the enemy while treating end users with hostility and contempt. Google treats their customers and partner warily and end users like pets.
But Google does make an effort to take mediocre care of their pets. That's more than any other tech company out there is willing to do.
In my years here I have never witnessed "unbridled adoration of Google on these forums". I have witnessed a lot of shitting on Google, but no "unbridled adoration".
I think, perhaps, you are mixing up "choosing Google as the least terrible option amongst a sea of soulless peckerheads" with "unbridled adoration". That has more to do with your brand tribalism than any real-world pro-Google bias in these forums.
Google are completely, utterly, unrepentantly evil. But they happen to do something that benefits the average Joe from time to time, which makes them that ever so slightly less asstastic than the alternatives. Never mistake the fatalistic choice of "the assholes who will do the least amount of damage" for genuine affection.
Re: The most effective way of generating high entropy in anything is to set it on fire.
You are a terrible person. I like the way your mind works. :)
Re: What? No cattleprod!!
A clear oversight. I shall flog myself appropriately.
Re: The most effective way of generating high entropy in anything is to set it on fire.
Lava Lamp-based entropy is almost as cool, I do have to admit.
Re: Java - banned. Can I ban Flash yet?
What do you honestly need flash for that isn't covered by HTML5? Most places you'd go fetch a training video will offer it up through HTML5 if flash isn't there. Maybe you can ThinApp a browser with flash for the really rare instances there's a business case for flash?
Re: The most effective way of generating high entropy in anything is to set it on fire.
I now want a fire-based random number generator. That sounds awesome.
This is an example of the national interest and the public interest being divergent.
There are many others.
Re: Can't hear
4. Those illegible because they were crudely scratched onto dead trees by someone who doesn't do it often enough to be good at it.
Re: So they...
"Scarier is that they let it loose on YouTube.
Now, imagine that it reads YouTube comments...."
Yeah, 5 minutes of that and the thing would have enough general disdain for humanity it would be indistinguishable from your average UI developer.
Re: So many WTFs!
"They are American crimes because the company is American."
Actually, wouldn't the company he committed crimes against be an entity registered in Lebanon, presumably "Microsoft Lebanon"? That is a separate and distinct legal entity from "Microsoft USA". Or at least, so I am told by tax lawyers...
Re: VMware Virtual SAN and Shared Storage Support? Not in 5.5
"You can't fold SAN storage 'underneath' vSAN as additional capacity managed by that software - that's not supported."
Not supported, yes. "Can't"? No.
vSAN + EMC
You have more budget. We know you do. Spend it on our hegemony. Or we will take your firstborn!
Obviously there was no wifi, so the poor fellow couldn't get El Reg. Must have decided that without something good to read the fondletat was pretty worthless. What good's a consumptive device with nothing to consume?
Re: is it criminal watching criminals?
You can't be charged for an intent to commit a crime unless you actually go forth and do so. (Or threaten someone.) Unless your nation has embraced authoritarianism so fervently that thoughts are now actually a crime there. (Wouldn't surprise me.)
Aye. I do believe that your words indicate a belief that men are of less value than women. That their nature, desires, thoughts, emotions and so forth are a secondary to those of women. I get this in large part from your lashing out at people who call for equality while praising those who demand special treatment for women.
So yeah, misandrist. I do believe you are one.
Exactly what is sexist about wanting to see some jiggling boobies? Please explain this in detail. I'm genetically programmed to want to see jiggling boobies. Reproduction/mate acquisition is quite literally one of the most fundamental instincts our species has.
Are you honestly trying to say that it is somehow not sexist to demand that an entire gender repress/deny their own base instincts while it is somehow sexist for that same gender to acknowledge those same base instincts with the full participation of consenting adults? And what does this say about your views on women that you feel they don't have the right or capability to choose when and where they allow men to ogle them?
What right does anyone - man or woman - have to tell me whom I may or may not ogle, except the person whom I happen to be ogling at the time? If $individual doesn't want me to look at them they have every right to tell me to piss off. By what right does a third party - any third party, regardless of gender - insert themselves?
Are they next to tell me whom I can mate with? Perhaps I cannot mate with a member of my own gender? Or perhaps I cannot mate with a member of the opposite gender? Or perhaps I must undergo some meaningless religious ceremony before I am allowed to mate? Maybe I need to get a form signed in triplicate before I can even attempt to initiate a mating encounter?
There is nothing wrong withe human sexuality. It is an absolutely normal and natural part of life. There is everything with forcing unwanted sexual advances upon someone else, but nothing at all wrong with consenting adults having whatever fun they wish with however many layers of sexual - or, for that matter non-sexual - overtones.
Where in any of this does it say the hola-hooping ladies weren't digging the attention? And frankly, why wouldn't they? What we have is a third party getting upset because she observed a consensual display of interpersonal amusement that may potentially have had very mild sexual overtones. There is no indication anyone forced her to watch, to participate or even to acknowledge that the event was occurring.
Based on the evidence available she chose to insert herself into the interpersonal activities of others without invitation or desire on behalf of anyone else.
Your comments come across as misandrist. Pure and simple.
That is her interpretation of those events. It could just as easily be that she's incorrect and that the two events were not related at all. There is no rational reason to believe her interpretation of events until evidence is presented.
"Unless she was forced to take part then there would be a grievance."
Technically that's not entirely accurate. If she were somehow punished or experienced retribution for not taking part then there would also be a grievance. That isn't the same as "being forced to take part" as the "forced" indicated there is a threat at the time of the event, as opposed to petty vindictiveness afterwards with no advance warning.
A minor quibble, but the latter is a heck of a lot harder to prove than the former, but constitutes some pretty up there douchebaggery all the same.
Re: Awful lot of misogynists here
"I doubt these people even wonder why there are so few women in IT, let alone what to do about it."
Here's a better question: why should I care why there are "so few women in IT?" I treat women as equally as I know how. They get the same respect I would show any man. I see no reason to do anything differently than that. If women want to be in IT, I have no problem with that. Some of the smartest IT practitioners I've ever met are women and I think gender plays zero role in one's ability in this field.
If women don't want to be in IT, I'm okay with that too. I have never had this whole issue adequately explained to me such that anyone can convince me that every single field on earth should have gender equality. Women should have the right to choose what they want to do and I think it's sexist for us to dump umpteen squillion dollars into trying to change their minds en masse.
There are fields where women dominate and men are the distinct minority. We don't dump anywhere near the amount of money into attracting men into those professions that we lavish on women. Why? If absolute gender equality is the goal shouldn't all things be equal in this regard?
It isn't my job to worry about the grand cosmic gender balance. It's my job to treat everyone the same regardless of gender. So I do. They can choose to do whatever the hell they want for a living, I refuse to presume to direct their desires just to fill some fucking quota.
Re: I don't like....
"You're right, those women who happily took part in the hula-hooping incident must be forced to change so that they conform to the standards that this particular woman believes are acceptable.
They must come to understand that they have failed their gender, that women everywhere will be abused, maybe even raped, because they thought they could engage in such an activity."
This. 10,000x this.
Why does a company's culture get to be determined by the loudest individual? At what point is it "one person with a problem" and not "everyone else in the company" who has the problem?
I am not saying that there is or is not real gender prejudice occurring here. I am not there so I can't possibly know for sure. Despite this, the lady's own account contains incidences of other women being perfectly chill with the corporate culture; enough to make me question "is this the culture or the individual?"
If I am uncomfortable with ladies walking around with clothing that sexually excites me against my will am I allowed to request that they alter their behavior? Or will I go to jail for making the request because the mere fact of making that request is sexual harassment? Why then can this lady demand others change their behavior when it when it would seem everyone involved is totally okay with things (the hula hooping incident) except her?
Why does having been born with one's reproductive organs on the inside as opposed to the outside confer upon the person in question a socially acceptable "right" to demand dramatic changes in behavior in others whilst simultaneously providing a blanket immunity to similar standards for that individual?
This is a complex issue and one that cannot be judged based upon hearsay. And if saying that makes me a misogynist in the minds of some, so be it.
I don't think the majority of people here are "dismissing her claims as false." What we aren't doing is "taking her word for it." We are aware that the world is a complicated place and the - shock of fucking shockers - women are just as capable of lying, misrepresenting the truth, being mentally ill, being prejudiced or being out of touch with reality as men.
None of us in this thread where there, we have no possible way to know how this played out in the real world. To take the lady's side on this without question is just as fucking sexist as to say "she must be wrong because she's a woman." Maybe she's right. Maybe it was a hostile environment. Maybe she's wrong, and it was a perfectly rational environment where people were treated equally and she's just a special flower lashing out because of her own prejudices or mental issues.
How can you unequivocally take one side in this without all the facts?
Men and women must be treated equally by law. It's also ethical to do so; there's no rational reason to treat them differently in most circumstances. (Bathroom-related items to one side.)
Men and women are also treated equally by law. This means both genders are expected to behave without prejudice, are expected to be capable of accepting criticism, are expected to be able to deal with differences in culture, gender behavior and more. There are no absolutes here. This is why discrimination issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
You are as guilty of rank sexism as the worst chauvinist in these threads. Your pervasive misandry is offensive and I demand an apology.
"Deal with people. Some people need different things, that's the world."
Equality isn't giving some people more and some people less so that we meet a minimum standard of "cuddly friendly happy" with effort, remuneration and tone adjusted to match the emotional state of each person.
Equality is ensuring equality of access; that everyone gets the same chance, the same opportunity, the same treatment, with appropriate adjustment for any disabilities that may be required to insure quality of access.
It is not equality to demand that I alter my natural - read, genetically precoded - behavior patterns to suit the whims of others whilst they are required to adjust to nothing. It is rank insanity to suggest that is somehow "equal".
Everyone has to learn to fucking cope. Whether you have a penis, a vagina, or a 40 ft tall spider robot body.
Re: On tech journalism shills: a freelancer's view from the bottom
It was a Monday. I dislike Mondays. I decided the only way to be sure I quashed the relevant bug was to deorbit several dozen kinetic rods directs on top of the target.
It is the only way to be sure.
Besides, this way I can link back to it the next time someone accuses me of the same thing, yawn, and go back to sleep.
Re: Other tools
I've been pondering this one pretty much all day. How exactly do you compare a vulnerability assessment tool? The number of knobs there are to turn? How well it's configured default out of the box? Speed? Price?
If we assume for a moment that - within a reasonable margin of error - all the tools pick up the same number and criticality of vulnerabilities then you're down to "soft" issues. How scriptable is it? How easily does it integrate into other systems? How appropriately does the tool rank vulnerabilities?
Then we get into other things. Are you going to use the assessment tool mostly in a scripted, automated fashion, or will you basically be living in the UI? If the former then the design doesn't matter. If the latter, then "adjunct functionality" really starts to mean something.
In most environments I use a combination of OpenVAS for vulnerability assessment, Spiceworks for monitoring and Languard 2.0 for discovery. Cost being the biggest driver for a lot of these folks. But the Languard 2014 can reasonably do all of that - and more - with easier configuration and scriptability. (OpenVAS is cool and all, but I don't find it as easy out of the box, something that matters if you are just showing up to do a sweep on demand.)
Nessus is something I find easier to use - as I should, given that it's a commercial version of an antecedent of OpenVAS - but more restrictive, despite being more feature rich. I'm intrigued but the "multi-scanner" approach, and I start to wonder if they have enough components and technology to challenge Thousand Eyes and offer that sort of "premises-to-the-cloud" monitoring as part of their offering as well.
Without question Nessus is a staunch competitor to Languard, and for good reason. The number of plugins available alone has created an ecosystem around Nessus that's hard to ignore. I do happen to like GFI's on-premises tool a bit more then Tenable's offering, but I wonder how much of that is simply habituation and familiarity.
There's also SAINT, PSI, Retina and whatever that Cisco one got renamed to that we should all consider. Add to the mix Nexpose/Metasploit and CI (if you're rich) and this is a field with bountiful competition.
So how do we compare A to B, C, D, E, F, G, and H? What matters to you won't necessarily matter to me and we may both differ from that guy over there. It's honestly hard to call a "better" - though I would entertain arguments for CI - when there is such a diversity of need. If the key need is being met (the detection, alerting and remediation of vulnerabilities) the rest is the sort of trite shite that ends up in emacs versus vim arguments or GUI wars.
At the end of the day, I honestly don't know how to compare these products. I lack the knowledge to do so without greater context for the specific target application. The answer to "which is better" is that ages old IT answer that so rankles certain people who believe in a black-and-white universe: it depends.
So when I review products in categories like this I measure them on merit alone, largely on the basis of meeting claims put forth. By that measure, I stand by what I said in the article. Languard does a fine job. It does what it says on the tin and does it for what I consider to be a fair price. It is exactly the sort of tool that no sysadmin should be without.
If Languard itself isn't the precise combination of twiddly knobs that meets your needs, there are others out there worth a look to. More important than which tool you choose is that you choose one and use it. Securing your network makes the internet a safer place for us all.
- NASA boffin: RIDDLE of odd BULGE FOUND on MOON is SOLVED
- SOULLESS machine-intelligence ROBOT cars to hit Blighty in 2015
- BuzzGasm! Thirteen Astonishing True Facts You Never Knew About SCREWS
- Worstall on Wednesday YES, iPhones ARE getting slower with each new release of iOS
- Microsoft's Euro cloud darkens: Redmond must let feds into foreign servers