Don't worry ...
They're just "Method Acting". In order to think like an extremist you must "become" one..
196 posts • joined 10 Feb 2012
They're just "Method Acting". In order to think like an extremist you must "become" one..
I am in the same boat and the only thing I can think of it is that the GUI will ask you to install than restart after you update, but since I just use yum to update, I've never had to restart (minus Kernel) so I don't know.
I can't remember if the GUI asked me prior or not. My laptop is is at Fedora 20 currently.
Say I'm a techie, looking for a new computer (Which I am), and I'm looking for something that's going to meet all my entertainment and production needs (which it needs to do), why should I get/build a PC with Win 10, when I can build a PC cheaper with Linux, or be happy with an Apple?
This isn't even a price thing (Hence the Apple consideration). I still have not read anything from MS that's mind blowing, I want that "feature".
-- Faster boot times? Big deal, I rarely shut down my machine, and I'm a Sys Admin, which means I have the patients for that extra 30 sec.
-- Look and Feel? Apples got it, and I can customize my Linux to have too.
-- Games? All the ones I play have Mac run times, or I have been able to use WINE.
-- Killer App? I don't see the next killer app being MS exclusive without being heavily "persuaded" by MS.
I happen to feel the same way. Based on what I am reading, the commission doesn't have anything actually showing anti-competitive tactics, it's just an assumption because they both offer product and services. In fact based on the other articles, it would appear Google is ready to plaster these groups with statistics showing exactly that Google Services are more relevant that some of these other complaints.
In the interest of disclosure, I am unholy American, and so my presumption is that this commission is more politics than presence, and they are going to have have a legal case to move this forward. Or can these guys just go "I think your wrong, PAY US!"
"I don't like this app, because is allows people to rideshare, and thats just not right" - said the "professionals"
Modules ... and that "You need to be on this product, by this time, in this dimension, by this date ..." licensing/ support model.
For instance, I was planning on writing a PS script to setup Win2K servers. All the basic stuff, Computer Name, Setting Updates, Remote access, etc. I prefer to write them on my Laptop (Win 7 Pro) (and sadly on my own time). Ignoring the long naming conventions (not that bad considering I like understanding whats going on), I wanted to get/set IP Address.
Set-NetIPAddress seems reasonable right?
Minus its a module that is not supported in Win 7. Why I don't know, but i can get it if upgrade to Win8 (Can I give a bigger middle finger?) or I can do this strictly on Win2K Server, but that kinda of defeats the purpose of writing it on one system and testing it on the other.
To be fair, I can still write this out on the Win 7 box, but it just needs to be executed from the proper environment, BUT WHY? I never run into this shit with Python and I can cross platform that shit. I don't get all the pretty toys, but I love tools to make my life easier, I JUST WANT THE TOOL KIT INCLUDED.
My guess its the other way around, sort of like a, We're not gaining anything on our tablets, Apple doesn't give any fuck about us, and Android is the current wave, if we pay you money, can you force MS on people for us because everyone uses word still right?
I don't know if this is in Sammys best interest but we'll see. As a Sysadmin, the idea of a container product for enterprise applications is smart. The idea that ONE companies software (with a track record of fucking things up) is going to be preinstalled in those containers, is another thing,
I am still not enthused about 365 and in general its been nothing but problems for me, so I am back on Libre and Thunderbird and Google Apps.
Why would the Anit-MS brigade need to say anything? They may criticize the fact that there are privacy implication in the MS product if this happens, but there not the ones using it (per say). The XBOX debacle was MS fault over "Always On" and the added FUD after it. MS did not by any means use logic.
Your most likely voices are going to be from sys admins, security professionals, and general consumers because you know, their interests actually lay within the confines of protecting privacy, IP, and other such things.
No one is really being an apologist. I stated it before, Microsoft have control over there patching schedule, Google over their Zero day release schedule. These two are Major competitors, so they don't have any need to support one another.
If this is such a big deal, why was MS releasing Patch notes a WEEK in advances for upcoming security updates? I'm sure half the people blaming Google for this release, were in the last article discussing how MS took away notification systems for non-paying users, and how that made them vulnerable.
Yes, by proxy, Google got in a Jab, MS are trying to make it out to be Google fault, but in the end this is why we have competition in the market place. Security is no exception.
Are are you all suggesting it's OK for MS to demand that Google extend their Zero day policy by two days for the sake of keeping MS's patch Tuesday in line, when "supposedly" Microsoft HAS A FIX, and can't just release it? At least they have control over that process right?
Look, this is nothing new in the security community, some people want to disclose everything and some nothing, but guess what, we still are paid by companies trying to make money and quite frankly, a little forced competition is good.
This wasn't really a Google PR stunt, not by a long shot. This is actually MS taking a well defined policy of there competitor and trying to make themselves look like saints.
We know two things:
1) MS managed to complete a patch for this in 90 days (so you can't say the time frame is unreasonable)
2) MS patching policy didn't line up with Google's release policy.
MS can control it's release schedule if it wants, Google can control is Zero Day policy if it wants, stop blaming each other when they both have a plenty of control for there users.
Firstly, to temper any dev who takes this the wrong way, blacklisting pastebin is sad state of affairs, HOWEVER, even the dev communities understand piss poor coding is a problem and that not enough diligence has been done for secure coding.
So looking at this from a InfoSec perspective, the question I would put to an organization is, Are you confident in the quality of your apps to prevent this type of attack, and if not, this is a risk, and it can be mitigated by blocking pastebin.
We all have ideas of how things should be, from context of addressing this problem now, if you're susceptible to attack from pastebin codes, I'd say reducing that risk immediately by block pastebin is not a bad idea.
And what, prey tell, does checking that a laptop turns on and boot to the OS achieve? If you're using this example as a means to show how the French are excelling at technological policy, I'm left wanting.
While I tend to agree with the board case made by researcher, the reason we are actually fueling this fire is due to the security firm Norse Security, which hasn't actually proven it was an inside hack,just that it has a strong correlation between 6 people, one whom presumably had high level access to Sony systems, and that it was talking with the FBI, etc about it.
I mean the whole blast of media appearances Norse top brass did, with out verification, wasn't to promote the company, but to provide another story right?
I have no trust of my country's three letter organizations as much as the rest of the world, but I've dug a little on the the whole Insider attack thing, and its still pretty vague, even if it's released clues lead to a logical argument for it not being NK. I'd like some more info on it.
I say there biggest problem is that Apache is understood and works fine, plus it tends to be a defacto standard in many distros. I've played NGINX and in general the way I see it, it's not spectacular enough for me to uninstall Apache and replace it withe NGINX, The "Speed" things is rarely a pain point for most of our applications.
Granted if RHEL or what not, had NGINX installed by default I'd probably say the same thing about Apache.
Its not that they are two conflicting forces. Security and Accessibility are opposing forces, not ease of use. As we increase security, we need to give up a certain level of accessibility to gain that security, but there is absolutely no reason, that setting up that security can't be easier.
Here's the real crux, security is not sexy to the general populace, it's a matter of need, but it's implementation is largely done by people with knowledge. Look at something as common as TLS and the now defunct SSL. To a general user, this just "works", but have you actually ever setup a CA and pushed that out to more than 1 or systems? It's an effort.
You can't ask a person (even a "Power User") to just setup security, but there is no reason that we couldn't give a user a package that sets up a certain level of security and accessibility that was point an click. It's a matter of time, cost, price, and marketability for the general populace.
If VPN's were cool to use, like running your iPhone or Android, things would be different.
Krebs on Security has a good write up and who some of these people possibly are:
If anyone is interested.
I read through the letter mentioned in the story that the ISP quote, but all I get out of it was:
"We did some studies on ourselves and we think will "slow" down investment because fuck you."
If this was really the case wouldn't the uncertainty of it's status already cause a "slow down" in infrastructure roll out? I guess the feel they have enough claws in congress to at least avoid Title II.
"I think user interface designers collectively went insane about 5 years ago and it's just getting worse."
I think its because at some point a bunch of managers thought the Graphics Designer and the GUI designer should be the same person, and what we get is hit or miss.
Yes, marketing has a nice catch phrase, but from a general corporate standpoint (for how much power Google really does have) Google's not doing too bad. They have there hand in everything and it's easy to point problems and say "That thing I don't like invalidates everything you try to do." I don't see companies like Apple and Microsoft challenging the status quo of things (back to cars, fiber, etc) they are focused on what they've done in the past. I don't doubt we will see some good tech in the future from MS or Apple, but I doubt I'll see Apple or MS trying to challenge ISP's even if its just to sell me more ads.
I felt Uber was a good benefit to MN. My friends and I started using them (even though they had cost more), because of the cleaner / safer driving. We're likely to get a cab to our favorite pub and than get one back. It didn't take long for the other companies to clean up there act. I'd say with the shift more and more of us look around for best fair/ times since word spreads quickly if a cab company (even if its just a few driver) are shit.
It would be naive to if it weren't for those middlemen...If we had different middlemen we may have had a better, more sane content delivery system all those years. There angry now because they built a closed system based on brick and mortar and physical content and hate losing that control.
Remember Windows doesn't like to give users any control so make sure its done properly:
#> rm -f Windows.exe
Be careful on this. MS likes to fuck with you.
XP Pro for Embedded System (Which is what these devices are using, we have to deal with this also) is only supported through April 8 2014, with its distribution being longer. Windows Embedded Toolkits and Runtimes are all supported through 2016.
The ironic thing about this is that PCI has all over thier web abuot XP ending, but in none of the docs do the say you lose compliance.
I would also suggest that companies rely to heavily on the consultant and demand less knowlege from thier IT staff regarding the ability to analyize and spec servers/equipment. (This is more from a SME standpoint where I see this a lot). Many IT admin are constanly updating, maintaining, or drowning fires.
Besides all the wants / needs of a project, I still run into many issues (mostly due to lack of time allowed) to properly specify server specs, and I often work with consultants or third parties to do this work and recommend specs. I've had issues with this other than I probably could have shaved a good chunck of costs by diggin deeper into stats. I don't disparage consultants, on the contrary, (Unless I hire for soultions and all you want to sell is product A), but I know personally, if I had time on my side, I could save time and money doing that work.
I've not met a PM for a network project that actually can really talk to the wants and needs without deffering to the opinions of there more technical teammates and I tend to be anal when it comes to IT details.
I now have blackmail for any need of my unpaid IT services for friends...
"Oh, you have malware...I know what you were thinking but no I don't have naked videos of myself. "
Quite a few of us, and your right to point, its not going to replace FB and twitter, but I've never met a marketing team that doesn't want "social" interaction at work. I think this is to justify calling it collboration, instead of pointless.
It's not really colboration, its part of the new office change where everyone is everyone's best friend, and makes for excellent smoke screen about workplace happiness. After all, if it "feels" like a social network we must all collborate.
It really isn't productivity at all. Company chat, Email, Calanarding, filesharing, etc are collaboration, but really if it intended use was to keep people abreast of anything, you could just add an RSS feed.
Personally, I think its just a data mining thing for Office 365. I just wonder how long before MS starts selling your corporate data to the highest bidder, or when the TOS change to include Ad's based on your socal history in Office 365.
@bpfh I thought this was universal sysadmin behavior? At first its a test, than its just considered on-going training.
I should proclaim that MS doesn't even have a cloud datacenter and its just a direct sharred storage plattform for the NSA?
Its like Skynet decided to emphanmize its exsitance by changing its name to ONE.
...like some Apple engingeers thought:
E1: "Hey, you know what would really clean up my space? If I could somehow clear my desk of this Mac Pro."
E2: "Why not just put it in the IT room?"
E1: "Yeah, its like a server right? "
E2: "Yeah, but you should make functional for the IT team."
E1: "Right! Almost wasn't thinking! I should put it on a shelf!"
Arn't they the people who couldn't make it as Graphic Designers, and didn't want to take a job as a barista?
Except there tends to be a large cost assocaiated with it, unless your dealing P2P Encryption devices which are completely devoid of your network infrastrucutre. For instance:
Take a new merchant installing software for the first time, lets say its a SME with 300-700 people.
There is a good chance that:
1) The have no one trained on security nor staffed by security.
2) Don't have the network configured properly for PCI.
3) Are about to scream at the software vender when they need to improve the network.
So lets start by the first most obvious and basic requirement. A firewall. Now, most companies have one at the edge but not all have two or three doing DMZ work. If the only have one you have really three choices.:
1) Segregrate off a port on the current one (If you have the ability too, I'm thnking UTM's) works ok for smaller deployments,
2) Purchase another FW for DMZ (A requirement for PCI, but more than I care to explain)
3) Bring in a separte ISP line and add a firewall.
Were trying to keep it cheap so lets say we have a FW in place and have ports we can use off the FW for DMZ work and segregration requirements. Right now were running on our admin time (a cost I'd assocate with any project). We now must consider our servers.
Physical servers are actually less complex regarding PCI IMO, but even smaller SME are virtualized so this tends to be either an additional cost in hardware, or we need to go through the process of configuring our Virtual Environment, which with virtual you run into the problem of PCI servers and non pci servers on the same hardware. (Larger facilities can afford to have dedicated VM hosts for PCI VM's, SME don't really.)
I could keep going on this, I see it every day. We havn't even got into the cost of having a QSA come in, or the added requriements for remote access (most SME's I come accross don't use two-factor) and being SME's with no security professional or trained staff they don't have:
1) An Information Security Charter
2) Don't perform risk assessment, vulnerablity assesments, or gap analysis
3) Have no method for Incident Response
4) Have piss poor physical access
5) Have no documentation on log analysis, network maps, etc
So,cost tends to be a big point.
...start with problem solving and logic as it relates to computers but that would be useful information.
When asked about getting a new PC, I give them four options (I know, I'm quite generous for a BOFH):
- Buy a iPad or Andriod tablet
- Buy a Chromebook
- Buy a Mac
- Install a Linux distro
If the user does one of these, my life continues as is with minimal impact, if however, they did not listen to me, the have likely bought into Windows 8 in which I reply:
- Downgrade to Windows 7
You see, I can find my way around Win8 to solve problems (its fucked up mostly, but dicking around poor development decisions seems to be part of my gig). I don't really have to bitch about windows 8 at all, the entire time I'm fixing thier problem, the user will happliy tell me how much they hate the product, upon which the time comes where I feel the need to iterate over the former options again.
What the need is to make it just work for the customer, while making it feel cool.
Than the need the tools behind it to make sysadmins lives easier to manage it, making us more willing to adopt it into out networks.
Right now, the don't do either, and try to tac on cloud as a solution to shitty development.
Microsoft is never going to be the company I want it to be (and I would guess most of are hoping for). Quite frankly, we are only getting more diverse in our technology and these technologies are largely being focues on open source platforms with target of interoperability.
I don't need companies that take standards and fuck them up adding propritary BS and claim its the norm, nor do I want this. I want companies to make my life easier by allowing any technology I use to intergrate with the other tech I use. (Not saying FOSS is perfect, but still its the better option)
My last real bitch. Licensing. Fuck you MS and your damn licensing. (I feel better). I hate feeling like I am getting screwed and so I'll push stong open source alternates. I'd much rather MS created epic cross platform tools that are easy to use, but hey the FOSS community struggles with that too
I still trying to figure out why the IT world still thinks standalone desktops are going to be the norm for the next 10-15 years. It would be more likely that between the push to cloud (or what is essientally the re-invention of mainframe computing) and virtual infrastruction improvments even CADD Junkies, Renders, and source code cowboy's will be hard pressed to argue the power of computering on servers vs local high end systems.
I know right now about about 60% of my office could be on tablets/laptops/etc and have no need for a standalone setup, and if we had the infrastrucutre the other 40% wouldn't need there high systems either.
Hell, I only fire up my fat box when I need to check something in WIndows, but between my Tablet, Laptop, and phone I pretty much have my environment covered.
Are thier pacemakes going to be banned? It's pretty wearable tech to me.
My perspecitive from SME's being sold on cloud is: ACCESS ANYTHING ANYWHERE. Which sound really great right? Until we remever that most companies probably had this ability already and thier staff (if they had any) had little knowledge or support on the matter. On top of it, most SME's run into the "Oh, our data is safe in the cloud" syndrome, when looking at any contract's for cloud service backup services, regional seperation, and archiving are additional costs.
Granted SME's tend to run on a lot of risk that largely they are unaware of, and the big things that work effectively as cloud services (Email, Calandaring, Chat) are a lot less mission critical for SME's since uptime is less of a factor.
I don't know why you where downvoted, but from my perspective (and since we have quite the number BOFH's here) for what most SME's are getting from there cloud solution it's usually missing a shit ton from what BOFH understand should be there.
It's timeframe. For indivdals, I think its fairly easy to switch to teamviewer, for a business well, that where this hurts. I'm glad a moved away from LMI, I VPN into the network, and than use TightVNC / SSH to connect to remote servers.
Regardless, PII for most legally defined cases include a Mailing Address, because it can be linked to you in some way. It's less about how accurate it is on its own and more to do with the ability to take broad pieces of information and provide an acurate decription of you, your location, or for contact.
The case seems pointless unless the three can prove that Apple:
1) Sold the information
2) If it was collected when not required. I don't know, how one would judge using it for security, even if the CC companies don't require you collect it.
... coffee reduced memory by 50% and I'd still be here sipping and smiling. (We need a coffee Icon)
Yes .... Yes I was.
... WFH is a blessing for users, but a curse for IT.
Oh, you're on vacation? .... But you can do that remotely right? EVERY GOD DAMN TIME.
They plan on changing it to do something else every release until the system is so fragmented we'll be taking about how MS Mod - eXt3m3 Sweetness was way better than MS Mod- Bunny Foofoo, but how we all can't wait for the last MS Mod - Facepalm.
Granted, I completely support a Linux Mobe/ Desktop interface where much of my work runs of servers in my datacenter, but I can load all the lovely tools of nix-ness that I want using a docking station as the thin client. My larger concern is how many Sysadmins will go postal from all the users looking to replace lost phones, etc.
And, I just can't see business wanting to supply smart phones to say thier marketing intern.
It's more likely that ISO 7 is just fucking around with developers and the way they design interfaces.
There is no logic is MS forcing Nokia to pull HERE in sutle ploy to get them to move WP8. First fanbois are not going to up and switch for this. Not only is it web base and easily access, you also have googles maps which will work for much of anyhting needed.
Also while MS wants to grow its moblie devices, it's still a software company, and I don't know why you'd sacrafice software market penetration (IE a popular maps app on IOS devices) be taking the risk of pushing the software into absurcirty.
HERE might be good, but its not the "killer" app MS needs for device switching. Its more of a "you need this app to even conisder looking at the phone." Granted they could have just as easily partnered with google for that <---------- Last line is a snowballs chance in hell..
I read it as Apple had someone on the inside and Apple was just letting us know that thier guy didn't do the killing. I think work is getting to me...
I don't know ... compared to the dreadful office staples around here, Fisher Price in the cubical industry might be a good thing. I could really use a bouncy chair with an attachedable arm that holds my tablet.