I have my doubts how accurate or useful this "study" actually is...
550 posts • joined 24 Jun 2009
I have my doubts how accurate or useful this "study" actually is...
Close. You accidentally pressed A rather than U.
I wonder if Epic could create a free app on Play, which only creates a shortcut to a page on their website with instructions and the link to the .apk?
Not perfect but may help reduce the risk whilst still giving Google the middle finger.
That'll be the rape accusations that he was interviewed about in Sweden at the time, case was closed and they said he could leave the country. Then once in the UK it got reopened, he said he was happy to be interviewed by the Swedish police in the UK, and which the authorities dropped the investigation on back in May 2017.
He's a prize bell-end, and he shouldn't have skipped bail, but the now dropped rape charges sound like bollock.
1. Rather than a VIN, maybe a number that could be generated via the ECU and presented in the dash / iDrive. Appreciate the Evil Valet can still do it, but it's harder than walking up to the car and reading the VIN from the dashboard (some cars even have the VIN on the windows!)
2. If there's a dedicated button that needs pressing to connect the car to the online services, why not just have it so that if you press and hold the same button for - I don't know, 10 seconds? - the car will disconnect from the service?
Doesn't prevent the issue if the new buyer isn't aware, but both would help and could be implemented via a software update.
That’ll be the alcohol free cider, Shirley?
You can fill in the blank.
I've found the difference to be marginal personally. Image and video search I find is far superior on Bing, WHILST Google is slight better at Web / text searching.
Working in a team of geeks, I actually opt for Bing just because everyone else uses Google. A little difference isn't a bad thing.
Certainly Bing isn't terrible, to the point if you changes the styling and branding I doubt the majority would even notice.
Move your energy supplier to OVO.
5% interest on all credit up to £1500. Can withdraw it online and takes about 3 - 5 days.
Can then move banks to whoever you want.
We're a mid sized MSP and switched to Intel and Supermicro last year. 20% cheaper than Dell or HPE for the same spec and warranty is too good for us to kiss out on. Good competitive edge / cheaper for our clients.
And keep some humour please!
I rather like the 418 error code. Reminds me of a happier time before the marketing companies muscled into the Internet. Leave it be!
See above / ------->
That's certainly NOT what the Exec Summary states.
The summary says that neither ZTE nor Huawei answered the committees answers adequately, which in their own words does not prove they are a risk / are doing anything wrong - but does not answer security related questions the US state has.
Report seems to suggest that they cannot be trusted, but that there is no proof - yet.
I'm a HPE ProCurve / Aruba man personally, however after needing a DCB supported 10G switch for a project and a budget of just £5k (one of my team failed to estimate the networking costs earlier in the project) I'm now buying my first Huawei kit. £6k for 2 x 10Gig SPF+ datacentre grade switches is a price worth paying compared to £13k for HPE. As the switches are not going to be internet facing I'm comfortable with that trade off.
May I respectfully suggest that requesting Class A, controlled medications should be left to Doctors rather than patients, particularly if you fail to read the warnings or understand that Fent is an opiate that's used to knock out Great Elephants. It's clearly labelled at every junction how addictive it is, as all opiates are.
Sounds very odd to me that one of the most powerful and addictive controlled drugs were prescribed on request. I take oxycodone regularly and if I walked into any GP and asked for it, morphine or Fent I would be kicked out of the surgery. After the doctors finished laughing. If I'm not in handcuffs.
For what it's worth, in my unscientific view it seems that developers opt for AWS (PaaS) whilst infrastructure geeks opt for Azure (IaaS and SaaS).
I'm the chief geek for a mid sized MSP (circa 90 clients).
MS have a "story" with hybrid (I hate myself for using that term), and can be so very easy to use for even a small thing like as a file share witness in a cluster (great if you have a single site), as well as a massive hook with Office 365 and licensing. Amazon have development nailed from what my dev department tells me. They tell me that Azure is about 85% feature comparable to AWS with them both being equally easy to use.
Literally heard nothing about Google Cloud or others outside of the odd SaaS service (Salesforce, one Oracle for a cloudy CRM etc).
Two horse race, and personally I think it shows the true value of healthy competition. We have at least two very, very good cloud providers to use that continuously try to keep up with each other. I'm no economist, but this looks and feels to me like a textbook example of free market capitalism at work.
All of that said, I still would rather have business critical infrastructure hosted in a date center we can access on tin that we own. I'm enormously proud that multiple HA Exchange and SfB environments I've designed and implemented over the past 3.5 years have 100% uptime which beats Office 365.
Have you used the insider preview of 1803? There's a boat load of additional controls added to let you turn off lots more of the slurp.
So as it goes, release on release, we can actually rudce the slurp - it's not increased.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant
I work for a MSP and for a large client about 3 yeard ago I put in place a 4 node Exchange DAG with a pair of load balancers across 2 sites. Not a minute of downtime since it went live.
Hearing they were moving to O365 about 6 months ago saddened me after putting in place a system which I was extremely proud of. (Had a site failure and users didn't even know).
Whilst I'm sure this won't change their plans, hearing today from them that they had email issues for the users they've migrated did at least put a smile on my face briefly...!
Whilst I agree with everything written, I should say that after playing with the very latest W10 build, for the first time since W10 was released I'm genuinely impressed. Actually works and window dressing which was sorely overdue has made a positive impact.
Shame it's practically irrelevant
A couple of years ago I was saying the same thing about SBS, however even without Microsoft pushing cloud, the majority of SME's going for O365 is through the roof. (I work for a mid sized MSP). So Windows Server Essentials or whatever it's called these days is actually pretty reasonable. Does pretty much everything MacOS server offers plus a load more. (GPO, WDS). Only thing missing is email/collaboration, and let's face it no small business needs the overhead of running their own mail server these days, not when Exchange Online is £3 a month a user or thereabouts.
What really annoys me is that if I pop in to buy an unlocked phone they demand address and other details that are not required by law. No details, no sale.
Which is fine, I took my business elsewhere.
Rather glad I did now...
In fairness to Microsoft, well done. Shouldn't have taken what it has, but I congratulate them on putting their weight behind something that they still didn't have to do.
I switched our AV from Kaspersky to Webroot around May time, never had a single problem and it's detected a crap load more than K ever did.
That's on over 2990 endpoints with various hardware and software mixes. (I work for an MSP)
I went off Chrome a couple of years ago. The core project I still love, but I'm really falling out of love with Google for all sorts of reasons (many listed by other commentards).
Doesn't this seem rather heavy handed? According to the article, this is all about making it less "likely" that 15% of the 2/3rd's of Chrome users on Windows may have a crash.
"Roughly two-thirds of Windows Chrome users have other applications on their machines that interact with Chrome..."
"..., users with software that injects code into Windows Chrome are 15 per cent more likely to experience crashes."
Seems a tad overkill to me.
> it makes using the underground in London easier and safer (no getting wallet out in congested areas)
Because it's a very rare (and an exceptionally good) day when I have £300+ cash in my wallet which I then show off to all around me when I go through a turnstile.
Whilst I can do basic sys admin task to BSD, Linux, Windows and Android, I'm at my heart a Windows sys admin.
So whilst I think most of what StargateSg7 wrote sounds like bollocks, I can sympathise with what I believe he was trying to get across.
Being that the usability of Linux is still poor. Personally the biggest challenge is the mental names used for certain commands and even items in the various X window mangers. Names like yum, grep, sudo, apt, grub and applications like Thunderbird, The GIMP, Kate, Synapse, Pidgin etc. don't help usability.
I'm happy to use them, as I know what they do and how they work - and generally they are awesome. The tools on Linux is one of the reasons I love it so much. But for a new user, you need to spend ages learning what each command or application does as the name has little bearing.
Whilst nowhere near as powerful or flexible, Windows applications and commands like Mail, Explorer, Maps. Photoshop is a stark contrast to the names of tools and applications often found in a GNU environment.
I don't need to hear that there's alternative with more descriptive names, nor to have the examples above explained to me. I prefer to work in Linux/GNU, and I know why certain applications / commands are named that way, and I'm very happy to keep using them.
I'm merely highlighting that for someone moving from Windows to Linux/GNU there's a hell of a learning curve which I know does put a lot of people off. Rectifying this wouldn't be a be idea if trying to encourage more people from the dark side into the light.
My 2 pence worth.
Agree entirely with Access for the backend, but for a rapid, business focused, low cost front end to a real DB, Access is a reasonable product.
VBA front end, reports engine, built in packager to MSI, no licence or Access installation for runtime. Shove in a MSSQL / MySQL backend and you can have a flexible, multiuser little application without needing multiple experienced developers coding in "big boy" languages.
As a front end, power user tool for accessing business data in a real DB's it's not bad.
"...being a £1000 phone, true enough, but a Samsung S8 is not much further behind (price-wise)..."
Um, £515 says you're wrong.
I brought a S8 yesterday evening after always assuming the S8 was up there with the iPhone an Pixel 2 price wise. The non + was brought for £515 plus it has a microSD slot so I don't need to even contemplate a higher capacity model for insane prices.
"The sex and ethnic breakdown of the population is irrelevant unless it precisely mirrors the breakdown of qualified candidates"
Couldn't agree more. The expectation of all jobs to reflect the POPULATION is bonkers. At a minimum we should be starting with the demographics of the local workforce, which will then at least take into account the bias of having more women being a housewife than men being a househusband. I'm no expert, but I would assume there are more potential male candidates generally than female across the board for this reason.
Your ideal of going further and basing 'diversity targets' on the total potential eligible candidates for each specific role sounds incredibly sensible.
So I doubt it'll happen.
Sure, shit can happen - although as nearly everyone else has said above - proper testing would have prevented this.
But what struck me is they have a single cluster. Is there not a mirrored version elsewhere using different infrastructure, where the changes get applied later? Sounds nuts to me that a BANK is depending on a single tech stack that they don't fully understand without a different stack running in a different environment in a different datacentre.
Like their debrief, but I wouldn't let them hold my money.
I must say the new hyperconverged web UI looks very tempting...
Had some excellent results in using Win 2016 as Hypercovereged platform so far. HyperV 16 and Storage Spaces Direct are actually really quite impressive for the same price we'd pay for Win Datacenter anyway for HyperV hosts. Cost for deploying hosts and storage have gone through the floor as a result.
Where's it's been lacking has been on the management tools side of things, presumably to get people to shell out for Sys Centre which unless you have 2 years and a deep loathing for yourself, your time and your life isn't viable for all but the largest of estates. Good to see improvements in this area.
Although long term the effort to upgrade every 6 months does dilute the benefits somewhat...
Is this a sponsored article?
Virtualisation is no silver bullet. I probably virtualise about 95%, but there's always a fringe case.
Good example is wanting to have HA for a service rather than just for a VM. In which case you'll need application level HA. Application level HA takes the wind out of virtualising somewhat, as you'll likely gain no benefit from the VM being HA (as you'll have multiple VM's running the service), and also likely that each VM will have it's own copy of the data - meaning you're taking up a sh!t tonne of space on your very expensive SAN.
Using Exchange as an example;
Lets say you use Exchange for the application level HA via a DAG. This is great, but means we're getting very little benefit in terms of HA by running as a VM. I've got two Exchange servers running on separate VM hosts, but regardless if the VM crashes or one of the hosts dies, Exchange keeps running... Exactly the same as if I had two physical Exchange servers rather than virtual.
Now running our imaginary Exchange servers as VM's, we're now making things expensive, as each Exchange VM has it's own copy of the mailbox databases - so that's twice the data I'm storing on the expensive shared storage SAN.
Things like Exchange can eat up your storage, to the point where you may need 10TB for each Exchange server, yet your SAN is only 30TB in total. So that's 2/3rd of your SAN used up straight away, and the cost per TB isn't usually that great with the typical SAN.
All of a sudden, you take a step back and realise that it would be considerably CHEAPER, and you get the same levels of resilience if you just buy 2 x DL380's or 730xd's and use local cheap storage instead.
You then have a load of extra capacity on your virtual hosts, plus your SAN has oodles of space left on too, saving your a fortune as you don't need to ask the FD for another £20k for a new shelf on your SAN that you brought only 6 months ago.
One big benefit that the article didn't touch one was how much easier virtualisation can make backup and DR. Agentless backup solutions (like Veeam, others are available) just rock my world - if it's on the virtual cluster it's getting backed up. No agents, no tapes, super fast restores.
After providing hardware HA for a server, it's the portability, manageability and backups that make virtualisation a default choice personally - but still it's not for everything, everytime.
P.S On a side note, who the hell is working in IT in 2017 and doesn't know where to start / hasn't used any virtualisation? Seriously?!
In the 2017 manifesto Labour said it will scrap University tuition fees.
And in an interview with NME, Mr Corbyn said that "there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that.."
No idea why people may have thought Labour was going to scrap student debt...
Having to install patches as soon as your friend got the unit sounds entirely reasonable to me. I'd much rather devices are fully patched as soon as possible as the device has probably been sitting in the channel for 6 months or so.
And not wanting patches to be applied at the coffee shop - I'd suggest going to Settings -> Updates & Security -> Windows Update and click the "Change active hours" link.
You can specify what time of day you want to exclude any patching. I have mine set between 7am and 10pm, so any patching gets done when my laptop isn't in use.
I agree, have an upvote.
Unfortunately, the way the cloud providers are going, particularly MS, it's not that clear cut. Have your data on prem, but use Azure for monitoring... Meets your requirements but the security, profiling and accessibility / cost risks still exist.
It's a blurry, hybrid world - or at least that's the way MS are going.
Christ, I drive past TWO RAF stations on my way into work every day.... Literally alongside the airstrip!
"...a platform for edge clouds that pushes cloud computing closer to devices themselves..."
That sounds amazing! Innovation at it's finest, what will they think of next?
Running clouds in actual offices in small rooms maybe? Who knows?
Let's hope they remember the iLO IP and credentials... Just in case!
I'm not saying it's easy or ideal, but it's entirely possible.
I'm not familiar with Kaspersky, but most AV's have the core product, the engine and definitions split out. Checksums for the base software matching what the DHS had from their compiled version is easy enough.
Depending on how often the engine updates, it's pretty easy to do the same. Could be as simple as a special version for us.gov, code reviewed where engine updates are done by updating from a us.gov update server, where Kaspersky ping the source for us.gov to compile. Release notes and code audit is possible, just means us.gov may have delays in the latest engine, but it's certainly possible.
Definition updates are much harder to review in a timely manner, but surely have the source for todays definitions that have been reviewed as a starting point, then when a definition updates, Kaspersky send us.gov the compiled new definition, plus source, plus change notes. Us.gov compiles and checks it matches the checksum of the public definitions, and if us.gov make the same changes that Kaspersky detail in the change record and it also matches you're certain you know the source / compiled / public releases are all the same and you know it's all clean.
That plus ad-hoc full audits would probably do it.
I'm sure that's a very crude, inefficient and basic suggestion as I'm an infrastructure guy, not a developer. But if I can come up with the above - albeit crap - solution where I'm far from qualified to come up with anything, then I'm sure the brightest and best developers in Russia and US can come up with something solid. I dare say that the development inclined pros reading El Reg can come up with a proper solution in a matter of minutes.
My 2 - 3 year old Lumia 950 XL (stop laughing at the back!) has Qi and face unlock.
Sammy nailed edge screens a couple of years ago.
So what's new other than wanky emojis?
And £1000! A fool and their money.. .
Appreciate this isn't great, but running without a firewall and with local admin is kind of asking for trouble these days.
I was in total agreement with wireless charging...
Right up until my Lumia 950 XL had a USB-C port. As it can go in any way round you want, and it has fast charging I no longer bother with wireless charging.
To be fair, if I still had my previous car (where I refused to pay > £500 for inbuilt Sat Nav) then I would still need to use a holder in the car to show my phone's display for it's Sat Nav.... my holder did wireless charging which was amazing in the car and something I'd still demand if the current car didn't already have Sat Nav built in.
The advent of fast charging where wireless charging is still a trickle plus having the ability to insert a USB-C cable in without looking at the port has me thinking that wireless charging may end up similar to 3D TV - not a bad idea but the world has moved on.
"Did you forget: -Get rid of Windows?"
Did you forget - they need to be able to do work from these computers... ;)
I agree, but the cost for capacity SSD's are too high for SME's like us and our clients.
However using 3.5" 7200 RPM 2Tb - 4Tb drives for capacity and some decent enterprise SSD's to sit as a write cache have turned some spare Dell 730xd's into a 2 node hyperconverged SAN with performance that literally kicks the shit out of our HP Lefthand P4500 SAN which uses 15k RPM drives if memory serves.
(Literally some 730xd's, 10Gig NIC's with RDMA and Windows Server 2016 using their Storage Spaces Direct software SAN thing. It's actually incredible)
Cost 1/3 of the price for twice the performance.
Another few years when SSD will be the capacity and if you need faster you can use NVMe as the cache will be the end of spinning rust in my opinion. Certainly at scale and for new deployments.
I respectfully disagree.
If you're only backing up when you think your HDD is about to pack it in, then the data isn't worth backing up in the first place.
Whilst you are right that often a HDD can show signs it's on it's way out, it's far from a certain method. The analogy strikes me that I have a burglar alarm which should tell me if I'm about to be robbed, but I'd still make sure I had contents insurance regardless.
If your data is worth backing up at all, it's worth backing up regularly, regardless if you have a shiny new HDD, a mid-life SSD or if you hear noises from your old HDD. The media used shouldn't make a difference to your backup strategy.
And with the cost per gig dropping like a stone for consumer capacity drives unless you need whopping amounts of space it just makes more sense to use SSD's for anything under 500Gb these days.
Oh I don't know, I've always insisted on manual transmission, but took a BMW with their wizz-bang / charge the earth "sports" gearbox and it blew me away.
I brought the car and whilst I can drop it into flappy paddle mode or use the center console stick to go ma ual I never do.
The dual turbos gets around the tradition lag on kickdowns and the sat nav is integrated with the gearbox too so incline / decline and corners are taken into account, as well as the driving mode too.
Certainly changed my mind. YMMV.
I have plenty of gripes about SfB as a fully telephony product ( see my previous comment / we use it as our phone system and I've put in place for many clients over the years), but nearly all of your points are about the headsets and hardware, not the application itself. Points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are crazy hardware which has nothing to do with the phone system itself.
Try Jabra headsets - great selection to fit your needs and certainly the ones we use have excellent call quality, range, LED status for battery and status and the noise cancellation is great in our open plan office.
Tweaking networking for decent quality is the same as any other VoIP system. Whilst we and my clients (one with over 3000 users) don't use / need QoS, I've had to use it for ShoreTel, Nortel and Cisco VoIP deployments. SfB uses G.711 by default from memory - it's industry standard and is NOT a SfB codec. My point is you'd have the same issues regardless of system used.
Having ALL conversations - IM, voice, conferences etc - stashed in a dedicated folder in Outlook, allowing access from OWA, any ActiveSync client as well as Outlook itself is actually something I think is a great feature. I know it seems backwards as first glance but remember this is a UNIFIED COMMS product. Means you have all the benefits of Exchange when dealing with your phone and IM records. So you can use Outlook searching to see your communications to someone regardless of medium used, admins can use Legal Hold and eDiscovery, you have a single address book and can raise conferences as simply as creating a normal meeting in Outlook.
I can't disagree with your points 1 and 7 - the UI leaves a lot to be desired. And SfB has lots of other issues too which we haven't touched on, but the rest of your points aren't - IMHO - really SfB specific issues.
I liked Lync as a PBX replacement and UC system for business.
Skype wasn't bad either for free consumer stuff.
If there was great integration, a similar UI and people could move from Skype for Skype for Business then I could understand the re-brand. But Just rebranding Lync to SfB is mental considering how different SfB is from Skype.
Had some very small business clients of mine move to O365 and I pointed them to SfB. Every single one has stuck with consumer Skype as the learning curve from Skype to SfB is just too high for what they want.
Should have kept it as Lync which has some limited Skype integration IMHO.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018