Re: Backup and restore?
Claiming a final winner will be quite the journey, I think. A lot of learning to do before I get there.
7021 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Claiming a final winner will be quite the journey, I think. A lot of learning to do before I get there.
Who needs to go toe to toe? They want to make billions. I'm happy carving out a few hundred thousand a year. An irrelevance to them, but the ability to copy my customers' data onto a hard drive and drive it down the road to them when things go phut is something that actually matters to some folks.
I don't want the whole pie, mate. Just a nice, comfortable niche. :)
IIRC, ProxMox doesn't do full SDDC-style isolation. That said, it's been a couple of years since I really dug into it, it's probably worth looking at again.
Not having the billing piece might be a bit of a killer though...
Open source. No real money for marketing, what ya going to do? ;)
That said, the VM provided seems fine. I've been poking at it for about a week now, and I can't see anything compromising about it. It just seems like someone packaged up OpenNebula on top of CentOS 7 and did the standard customizations so that when you deploy from OVA it doesn't do silly things like have its networking explode.
Having tried to install OpenNebula from scratch onto CentOS myself, I have to say I appreciate the packaging. OpenNebula isn't the easiest thing to get up and running the way it should be.
That said, I do think I might actually know someone who knows someone who is part of the vOneCloud team. Worth pointing it out to them. ;)
Man, if only I wasn't bound by NDA, I'd kick your ass so hard over this bullshit FUD...
Sorry, but you are presenting alternative facts as truths here.
Data loss events with Scale were way back in the old days before Scale was HCI, and IIRC, they involved not doing things as per the manual. Since then, a lot has changed. The entire underlying Scale storage platform has changed - at least twice - as has Scale's business model. (They've gone from external storage to HCI.)
I simply do not believe that there have been spontaneous data loss events with the Scale HCI platform, especially since the conversion to the HEAT storage engine. Indeed, I've had quite the run of bad hard drives (thanks, Dell) myself, and the system has adjusted brilliantly to each event.
Also, you know, I have spent literally hundreds of hours over the past year putting a concerted effort into trying to break Scale, to little avail. (There is geek cred to being able to bug report neat things in front of a Slack channel full of many of one's professional heroes.)
Scale isn't the most feature rich solution out there. This isn't because KVM is in some way limited, but becuase Scale automate or choose not to expose all features to the client. Fair enough. That's a design choice.
But what they do expose is pretty badass. It's easy to use, and above all it is solid. I bet my own business on Scale. Many of my customers now run Scale. My lab's infrastructure runs on Scale. I kick the crap out of their stuff - both GA and beta - all day, every day and have been doing so for over a year now.
There is nothing wrong with Scale Computing's HCI solutions. Oh, I could give a seminar on where I think they are off on business focus in one area, or where I don't think partnerships or development are going fast enough. I've had those conversations with them any number of times. But the tech itself is solid.
As for discussions of market share being too small, well...I'm bound by NDA and can't go into detail, but you are (unsurprisingly) not accurate here either. Scale has enough flowing through to justify an IPO, but they are also patient enough to wait for the right time. This SimpliVity deal has proven that "right now" isn't it.
And why should they? Between existing customers, and some of the deals in late stages they'll be profitable soon enough. Scale's channel partners are enthusiastic to the point of religion, and their customers (myself included) are basically a cult.
Scale only has to play the long game - and believe me, they're aware of all the possible scenarios, as we debate it all in excruciating detail regularly - and they'll win. They can either buy out their backers and stay a privately held company, or IPO at time of their choosing. Their backers seem (so far) cool with the idea of taking time and aren't pushing for some massively leveraged IPO with shockingly punitive run rates gushing red ink.
Scale has problems, don't get me wrong. any company does. What they aren't is a company that peddles broken gear. Debate the features or "inflexibility" or various design choices all you want, but don't spread "alternative facts" about them. They don't deserve it, and neither do El Reg's readers.
Just admit it, you're the TimeCube guy, aren't you?
That's a fantastic thing. removing the ability to completely censor information is always a good thing.
@Swarthy: except everything you said was bullshit.
Your choices were "everyone has their throat slit, their families' throat's slit, and everyone they ever knew's throat's slit" (Trump) or "a smallish chunk of people get beheaded but for the most part everything is status quo" (Clinton). Or, you could vote that you, personally, only get slapped in the face, while most of the rest of the country is randomly pushed into vats of acid (third party candidates).
Of course, you also knew full well that voting third party was futile and was never, ever going to amount to anything. But you voted that way anyways, instead of considering anyone other than yourself.
Your system sucks. Fix it. But don't waste your vote when so much is on the line. Join a political party and get them to change how they do things. Had this been Sanders versus Trump we wouldn't be in this situation. That's an example of where the system broke down, and nobody seems to give enough of a fuck in the US to actually fix it.
At least here in Canada we're having massive national debates about virtually all aspects of our electoral process, in large part because you guys showed us what not to do.
P.S. No third party stood a chance. This isn't because third parties can't win - the US has had changes in the bipartisan setup over it's history - but because your third party candidates were fucking lunatics. They didn't have a clue what they were doing and lacked either enough charisma to fake it or the osmium testes to just bullshit straight through. None of your third party candidates had a complete platform that was ready to lead a nation, nor enough money to buy one after the fact.
If you want a viable third party, get a platform together, get some politicians with history and cred to back it, build some consensus, put together enough money to make a real run of it, and you'll probably win. Trump has shown us that the US is ready for a third way. There just don't happen to be any leaders (or financiers) capable of forging that path.
@jimdandy: noone in their right mind would leave Canada to live in the United States. That's like moving out of an outdated condo to live in a cadmium tailings pond.
Whatever you're smoking, you should probably stop.
If you voted Gary Johnson I absolutely blame you. You know damn well how close the vote was, and you chose to shaft your fell Americans anyways. Sometimes, you have to hold your nose and vote strategically. This was one of those times.
You failed. You deserve everything that follows.
@Whiznot: not all American votes are equal. And the Americans that matter love the Nazi fuckwit and his entourage of hate.
@Lars Europeans have faced Trump-like decisions in 2016, and will be facing lots of them in 2017. As for the whole "you're not American, so it's not your problem" that you're trying to spew here...sorry, I don't accept it.
I'm Canadian. America heavily influences everything about our country down to the smallest detail. The difference is, we don't get to vote on who is screwing us over. We tend to be very - very - aware of USian politics. More so at times than our own.
Yes, the US had a shit choice. But it was a choice. And ultimately it chose quite possibly the least capable person on the planet. One who is driven entirely by a narcissistic need for fame and popularity. One whose only most vocal support base consists of racists, xenophobes, nationalists and actual neo-nazis. As he is driven entirely by who flatters him, he is going to follow through with threat of things like "putting identifiable groups on lists", and all the horrors that will follow.
In the meantime and between time he is going to ruin their economy, your economy, my economy and even the socio-political military alliance that enforces the balance of power in the world. For double-plus bad, the one leader who is flattering of him - Putin -now functionally controls US foreign policy...and that's going to end really, really badly.
@Jo_seph_B: the choices were shit, but Trump was still quite clearly the worst of the two. Both would have been bad for the US, but only Trump supports the alt-reich and promises to put identifiable groups on lists.
Never. Stop. Punching. Nazis.
If it came right down to it, a war with Russia is far better for the US than one with China. Sad that you can't see that.
Just because you didn't vote for Trump doesn't mean you aren't responsible for him. Anyone who voted for Trump or chose not to vote are directly responsible.
Those who voted for the other offering are indirectly responsible, because they neither did enough to get the vote out to prevent the neo-facists from taking over and, collectively, they promoted an political party and series of ideologies that led to the alienation of nearly half the country. And more importantly, the half whose votes matter far more per capita than those of people in dense urban agglomerations.
There might be people in the US who are blameless. People who were ardently pro-Sanders, worked their asses off to see him nominated, then continued to work their asses off to get the democrats to grok the problems ignoring economic disparity was causing. If those same people fought the good fight to the bitter end, held their nose and voted Clinton, all the while throwing every bit of effort they had to get as many people as humanly possible to vote against Trump...then they are among the rare few who are blameless.
But as a collective whole, the US populace is overwhelmingly responsible for the shitpile the world is facing. Just as the Canadian people were responsible for electing Harper, and for subsequently getting duped by the store-bought mannequin that promised all the right things but never had the courage to implement them.
The difference is, it doesn't matter who we elect in Canada. Oh, yes, Harper was bad for a Canadian. He broke some social mores and did some questionable things. But a Canadian establishment conservative is almost indistinguishable from a Canadian establishment Liberal. We might get wrapped up in minor economic bun fights, but none of them are going to fundamentally alter what it means to be Canadian, or what Canada stands for. We're too risk averse for that. (Though there are some populists certainly trying with the latest Tory leadership race...)
Trump, on the other hand, is not, was not, was never going to be and won't be anything like a traditional candidate. He's more like playing Russian roulette with a live nuke. (Ignore the part where he actually is a Russian sockpuppet and now controls 1400 nukes.)
Not doing enough (or anything) makes you just as guilty as voting in the monsters. This isn't some game we're playing. This isn't some mild version of politics where there are two parties and all the candidates from both are effectively identical. Trump was billed as, billed himself as, and has promised loudly to be a huge game changer.
Trump can only feed his messiah complex by creating chaos and then proclaiming loudly that only he can fix it. This was known from the very beginning. And the American people either actively encouraged it or simply let it happen.
They're guilty. Of electing him, and of everything that follows.
USians just voted that monster in. Nobody to pretend "the people" aren't guilty of the shit their government gets up to any more.
Americans knew exactly what they were getting in Trump. Ex-fucking-actly. And they elected him anyways.
Sorry, but the American people are just as guilty as those who lead them.
Remember the good old days, where you were a tinfoil hatter if you thought anti-malware companies were writing malware?
I mean, maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but there was a certain level of trust that was normalized that I miss. Nowadays for every awful conspiracy theory you can come up with, it seems like it's only a matter of ti-
I trust companies that have had a good security/privacy scare more than those that haven't. Nothing causes a rethink on the howto than getting caught with your pants down. I'm willing to bet Google have refined their approaches aggressively. Remember: they're academics. Give a nerd a puzzle...
"We do not rely on internal network segmentation or firewalling as our primary security mechanisms"
Doesn't say they don't use firewalls. Just says they're not 1990s about it like the arrogant believers in eggshell security. Willing to bet Google are at the forefront of automated incident response. None of this "nothing can get through MY defenses" machismo. Instead: "things WILL get through, but we have crazy quarantine and RCA responses automated into every layer".
You know, like actual security experts would approach things. Anyone who uses firewalls as the primary security mechanism either doesn't have an adequate budget, or doesn't care enough about the data...
(Hell, even salting and hashing your passwords in a database is accepting that firewalls can and do fail to keep the bad guys out. C'mon!...)
That move sparked the ire of Carnegie Mellon University CERT boffin Will Dormann who says the toolkit significantly improved the exploit mitigation chops of Windows 10 and should be maintained, not dropped.
Maintaining the enhanced mitigation toolkit requires money, and doesn't directly contribute to the short term quarterly goals of Endpoint Antichrist. Nor does it help to push everyone onto Windows 10, some sort of subscription or provide any additional lock-in. The only purpose it serves is to make things better for customers.
Endpoint Antichrist hasn't given any fucks about customers thus far, I am unsure why anyone would think he'd start now. Or at any point in the future.
I am, however, impressed by the engineers and/or marketdroids who convinced Endpoint Antichrist to allow resources to be spent on Windows-internal security mitigation technologies. That must have been a truly fantastic conversation. To convince him to release even a bent copper for use on something that threatened to benefit customers...hat's off to 'em!
Because the thing we need to be doing is creating a weapon that turns mammals into reavers. Yep. That's exactly what the world needs as the neo-fascists rise to power.
yadda yadda context
Nope. The context here is the assertion that people can't be "traumatized" by looking at files. That's the bullshit assertion for which I'm taking you to task. If you want to have a fight about the propriety of Microsoft rifling through people's files an unknown amount for unknown reasons and for unknown masters, well, we can argue about that too, if you'd like.
You truly are a clueless worthless peice of shit, and I deeply regret the time I have wasted READING YOUR WORTHLESS FUCKING TRASH.
Life's full of bad decisions.
You make the claims about what you've done as a journalist yet you judge me and what I have suffered based on a few posts on here?
Actually, I don't make a lot of claims about "what I've done as a journalist". Usually, I talk about what I've done as a consultant, or as a sysadmin. Sometimes even as an analyst. I've actually done very little as s journalist. Oh, I've done research into some things that is probably worth a bit of braggadocio, and I've cultivated contacts (which I hear is an important thing), but I still consider myself quite "green" as a journalist.
As for judging you, I think you need to look at it more as questioning you. Based on what you have written, the tone you present and your word choice I absolutely question the veracity of your statements. I question that veracity based on what you write. And yes, that is a form of judgement. It is not, as you seem to imply, a final or binary judgement, but what you write absolutely influences and informs my opinion of you.
That, believe it or not, is an important part of being a journalist: taking the information you have available to you and making judgements. You choose what to pursue, and what not. Who to believe, and who not.
One part of handling people is that you work their emotions to get them to reveal things. This not only helps you further classify them, but it helps the journalist find the truth of something. Truth is more than just facts. It contains intricacies of motivation, the interplay of individuals, events, emotions and circumstances.
Truth versus simple facts is the difference between describing the reality of living with crushing poverty and quoting bland statistics. It is injecting sympathy, empathy, theory of mind and a sense of shared humanity into stories instead of dehumanizing, distancing and ostracizing the subject of your stories.
With each new post a little bit more is revealed. How I perceive you changes and evolves based on that information. So far, I have enough information to have serious questions as to your veracity. I also question your capability for empathy. More data is required to make additional calls.
HURRY UP AND FUCKING DIE YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT.
Working on it.
Given how you respond to other people's pain, I strongly suggest it is you who is the sociopath.
Ah, wouldn't that be nice? Sociopaths don't have to worry about so many things. I wish I was one!
It would be nice, for example, to be able to kill a mosquito without feeling horrible about it for weeks, months or even years afterwards. I'd really love to dispense with this part of me that insists on trapping them alive and dumping them outside. It's super annoying because they keep eating me.
Then there's that whole "inability to read the news without becoming super depressed because I tend to over empathize with the people discussed". It's a bummer, and it means I have to tightly control what I read, and when. Otherwise I become depressed and anxious to the point that it interferes with my ability to sleep or do my job.
I'd love to be a sociopath. Not caring about the feelings and problems of others, being able to dehumanize them or to lack a theory of mind such that I am unable to imagine that they suffer not only what I suffer, but also in ways I (hopefully) don't, won't and maybe even can't.
Given the diversity in our huge population, there's no reason to believe that I, personally, am able to feel every feeling there is to feel, or to think that I would respond in the same way to something as someone else, or that their experiences would mirror my own. Too much science exists to show that different people experience the same events in different ways.
A sociopath wouldn't care about that. They might not even consider or even be able to conceive of that. Several, for example, have tried to convince me that all people are innately selfish and every single thing, even sympathy is based in selfishness. That is how many sociopaths see not only themselves, but literally everyone else. They can't feel empathy, so they can't conceive that others feel this thing that they cannot.
Most people aren't like that. Most people feel sympathy and empathy. I suspect, deep down, that i feel it more than most, and possibly for a greater circle of people than most. Either way, it's wearing. Especially now, with the rise of the neo-fascists. I wish I was cold and unfeeling. Unfortunately for me, I am not.
And I have no sympathy for people who wear their emotions on their sleeves, "feel" everything, and so on. That should be obvious. Natural selection would've "selected them out" back in the cave-days. Unfortunately, in the modern era, NEGATIVE genetics like *that* are being re-enforced by enriching them via wimpy-ass LAWSUITS. Idiocracy anyone? 'Nuff.
And sometimes you just have to admit that Patton was right. "Man up". PTSD is real, but a swift kick in the ass should be a major part of the therapy.
Say that to my face. I fucking dare you.
First off, yes, those sorts of videos do exist. Boy do I (and a lot of traumatized journos) wish they didn't. And yes, there are scary groups of horrible people doing exactly these sorts of terrible things. It's one of the reasons that, for example, those ISIS fuckpantaloons are so hated. Though there are a whole bunch of genocidal asshats in sub-saharan Africa and south-east Asia that also get their rocks off doing that sort of shit and then posting it online, too.
As for the ""snuff video" hysteria of a few decades ago"...you know, that wasn't entirely overhyped. I can remember one video in particular that I ran across that I couldn't close fast enough. What I saw still haunts me in the dark hours of the night as I lie in bed trying to sleep...and I am pretty sure that having closed it less than 10 seconds in to a two minute .avi, I missed the really horrible stuff. I don't buy into the idea that organized crime was depopulating small towns to make snuff porn for the deranged westerner or any of that...but you know what? There's some really sick fucking shit on the internets.
Never, ever doubt the depth of man's inhumanity to man.
Secondly, regarding your "YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT HELL I HAVE EXPERIENCED. And it is not for you to know, either. But I do know, from first hand experience, what lows people are capable of." diatribe...put simply: I don't believe you. If you had seen the lows of humanity I'd fully expect you to be capable of empathy towards those who have also had to deal with witnessing traumatic events, and your posts indicate that you don't have that empathy.
Unless, of course, you're a sociopath. They tend to be able to take a "just suck it up and move on with it" approach to witnessing trauma. I'd hardly call that a positive thing, but it is what it is...
Big difference between watching some grainy TV bomb video from a get at 40k feet bomb some truck and watching a 9 year old girl get gang raped and then burned to death with acid. Especially if she's the first of hundreds. That day.
Humans are awful, and it is quite clear you've live so sanitized a life that you haven't the first clue exactly how awful it is that we get. ...or how that affects non-sociopaths.
But you're right about one thing, unintentional that it is. A lot of people would be shocked to realize just how common sociopaths really are.
Onedrive is built into Windows 10 and Office and made the default location. It's actually quite hard to change the defaults and even harder to pull the thing out entirely. Certainly not something the average user can be reasonably expected to do.
My water, power and natural gas providers have to play by certain rules that basically mean they can't screw me. That's what utilities have to put up with. I submit that the large public cloud providers are utilities - especially if they are building their services directly into operating systems - and thus need to submit to the same sort of regulations.
"Dad runs the generator and it supplies power to our house" is a world away from "FuckYouCorp supply power to 1 billion souls". In the same vein "employee #18642 whom can be sued into oblivion if he gives us shit can access your corporately owned files that are located on our corporately owned servers" is a world away from "any of these employees here can access the personal files or the corporate files of your personal company of over one billion souls on this utility-class public cloud we stood up".
Scale changes things. Also, ownership of that data maters. Microsoft don't own the data that I put into Onedrive. I do. And it doesn't matter what their Ts&Cs say, they legally can't claim ownership of that data without my say so: the laws of my nation say so.
Why should anyone else have their rights removed because you couldn't keep your legs closed? Why is it our problem you reproduced?
I am upset because one highly untrustworthy organization (Microsoft) has unrestricted access to our files and is using this to not only search our files but then report on us to another highly untrustworthy set of organizations (LEAs/spooks). You, personally, may like the fact that one of the net results of this is that content that you find disturbing is reported. Grand. I disagree.
I am not remotely a fan of child pornography, or snuff videos, etc. That said, I do rather enjoy sex that goes beyond bland missionary position where everyone is clothed in Victorian attire and accompanied by a dozen chaperones. What I watch is probably illegal in the UK (though not in Canada), and I'm sure it's illegal in half the states of the USA. NOW we're into some murky waters.
Just who gets to play moral guardian? And where did they obtain that power? If I'm in Canada and my files are in ????, and the US is all over the fucking world, who gets to tell me what I can or can't watch/download/put in OneDrive, etc?
And who is to say that trawling for things that you, personally, consider "sickening" content is all they're trawling for? Maybe they also hunt dissidents for China? Or for the US? Are you okay with Microsoft going through everyone's Onedrive in order to help build lists of Muslims? What about finding out if someone is, or knows an illegal immigrant? How about pictures of weed? Or going through Skype conversations where someone talks about smoking weed?
Where does this all end? Should we be using our cloudy surveillance powers and ability to force updates on OSes (and remember, the FBI can hack anyone int he world for any reason now!) to make sure nobody puts out an extra bag of garbage?
I'm all for stringing up pedos and murders...but let's not lose sight of the outrageous dangers of unrestricted warrantless fishing expeditions. Especially with so many neo-facists running around wanting to lock up identifiable groups and/or hunt down political dissidents.
I seem to recall the last time we ignored that, it ended really, really badly.
Looking through files for things that disturb normal people would be the use to which I was suggesting the sociopaths be put...
@Palpy there are absolutely solutions. I can even tell you exactly how this should be handled. Of course, because we are humans and only accept extremes, it will never be implemented. Here's how this should be handled:
1) Software should be designed such that the vendor can not crack open the storage. Period. Absolute privacy.
2) They key (or password) that unlocks the storage should be mandated by law to be stored with a third party in key escrow. That third party should be a quasi-government body that is subject to civilian oversight by civil liberties organizations.
3) If there is reasonable suspicion of a major crime, the police should be able to get a warrant to get the key/password from the escrow entity and then go to the vendor and unlock the storage.
4) That data should, by law, only be reviewable by specially trained and bonded individuals who work for the law enforcement agencies (not the vendor). These people should not be allowed to perform industrial espionage or to comb the storage for evidence of minor crimes.
This provides a balance between the good of society to hunt down violent criminals/rapists/organized crime and the good of society in restricting police from going on broad fishing expeditions.
It's one thing to crack open the safe in order to get at videos of rape and murder. It's another to install cameras in everyone's home to ensure you never smoke a joint, do a side job without declaring it, or put out one extra bag of garbage to the curb.
Of course, the police would never accept this because they believe in thier "right" to go on massive fishing expeditions. The people, consequently, won't have that because lawmakers put in place ridiculous and dumb laws designed to damaged identifiable groups, and then use them against everyone for decades. Nobody can be trusted, and thus everyone needs to work within limits. Of course, nobody is willing to accept any limits whatsoever.
Society has a ton of sociopaths. Why can't we use them for this sort of work, where they might be actually useful, instead of making them politicians?
Neither OneDrive nor Dropbox (and presumably not Google Drive) can be trusted. Use Sync.com for a sync-n-share solution that is designed from the start such that the vendor can't crack open the storage and poke around inside. Not only that, they're Canadian, so it's at least a wee bit harder for the government to useless try to demand they do so.
Now consider this: Onedrive is built both into the OS and into Office. It is a miserable to change and nearly impossible to remove default. The fact that Microsoft can and do go rifling around in our Onedrive accounts means that everything Microsoft tells us about their "commitment" to privacy and security are absolute bullshit.
Microsoft's continual demands of "trust us" aren't just wearing thin...they should, at this point, be considered criminally misleading.
Nobody has a problem with them going after child pornographers and murders. The problem is that just as soon as they can automate the trawling they'll be going after someone with a dime bag of weed or who fixed their neighbor's deck for $100 and a case of beer, but didn't have the proper permits or report to the taxman.
If we allow LEAs and spooks an inch, they'll take the whole fucking galaxy. This has been proven time after time after time after time.
I, for one, do not consent to live in a fucking panopticon. Especially since I do not accept the morality of the batshit crazy protestant fundementals that run the place I live in. A place I never had a choice about, but was born into their puritanical laws and hateful bigotry.
I don't think it's okay to create a society in which every single infraction is catalogued (and eventually automatically prosecuted). Change requires the ability to dissent. Dissent isn't possible in the panopticon. Do remember: it's only a few of us that get the opportunity to choose which laws we live under.
Put the screws to people long enough and eventually they'll be more than willing to choose death rather than submission. At that point, you've got a problem on your hands.
HAH. You're funny. Everything he touches with his tiny hands will turn to shit. He is probably the only person currently in any position of real power who could try to launch an anti-trust investigation against monopolists and have that end up being worse for the customer. If you're counting on him to solve literally anything, I have several river traversal mechanisms I think you may be interested in...
I see you've had your be-more-crazy pills today. I hope that thought keeps you happy when the world comes to a swift end under the dickless wonder.
I can kill Win 7's telemetry features using a hosts file. Windows 10 has all its shit hardcoded in so that I need to control the local network's firewall to prevent it from sending my data to the MS/the spooks/Trump's muslim-list concentration camp "solution". (Windows firewall or third-party firewalls installed on the Windows 10 system can't block MS's spyware.)
Big fucking difference.
That, and MS keeps turning all shit back on. So they can't be trusted, and they keep proving it over and over. What's more, the government they must answer to can't be trusted either. Doubly so now that Trump is in charge.
$deity help you if you're a political dissident in the US with the wrong skin colour and you use Windows 10...
WRONG. Totally relevant. Everyone knows.
The US lost either way. By electing Trump, however, the fuckers ensured the whole world loses too.
But governments are also part of the problem space! They are also threat actors against which we, the people, need defending!
Microsoft's pick to run Windows and related concerns is one of the most tone deaf and customer hostile executives in our industry. He could be replaced by a grade school collage of a middle finger and a shrug emoji and the entire world would never notice the difference. Now that's "fuck you" money.
Must be nice.
Pfffffft. Not even close.
"Seems you either can't read or have comprehension problems. Try harder."
I do have problems comprehending why you think you're so important people should be developing graphics subsystems with features you want, instead of features that everyone else wants.
Get out there and convince people that what you want is important to more than just yourself and go fund development of the features you want. It isn't that hard, really. The rest of us managed to get an entire distribution without systemd funded, because we didn't like what TPTB were doing. Surely, if you're so correct, and your view so common or important you can rally your vast social circle to accomplish the same.
Oh, that's right...you're a friendless bigot without any social skills! Too bad. Suck it up princess, 'cause ain't noone got time for you.
Beer, because after this thread, everyone could use one.
"They can implement or not implement whatever they like. But if they want their system to be a serious replacement to something that DOES have certain functionality then yes, they need to implement it. Not doing so is just arrogant and lazy."
Wrong. Their system will be the serious replacement to X because the number of people who want the remote windowing is too small to matter. The functionality you are moaning about isn't important. That may be lazy, but it isn't arrogant. They are correct and you are not.
"Oh FFS spare us that write-it-yourself argument you zealots always fall back on when you're backed into a corner. You think many sys admins are experts in linux graphics subsystems programming in C? You fucking clown."
You can get together with all those numerous people whom you claim want this functionality and fund development. There are umpteen crowdfunding sites. Get over yourself, you self-important goblin.
"Oh well clearly you have your finger on the pulse of the linux desktop community. So give us a quick rundown then of all the people around the world who've been demanding a replacement for X and some stats about what percentage of all linux users they are. Take your time."
I couldn't list all the people who want it, because there isn't space enough. Suffice it to say that the last time the numbers were run (I know about this having been done in 2012), over 70% of respondents (and it was 1000+ respondents) wanted X burned down and replaced outright. And so it was.
"You seriously need to get a clue mate. I mean that."
Okay. Got one. Several in fact. Why haven't you gone out and gotten some of your own?
You're the one bellyaching that people won't volunteer to build a graphics subsystem to your personal specifications, mate. "Bigot believes others should do as they demand, and has a tantrum when they don't: news at 11." When you cry alone in the dark, can anyone stand you enough to notice, let alone care?
Why should devs writing this for free implement something that only a small fraction of the userbase have been shown to want, especially if those devs don't want or need it? You're free to add the capability if you want. I don't want it. Nobody I know in the real world wants it. (But we *do* want RDP compatibility.)
As for your narrow view of the community, who cares? I know lots of people who complain about X all the time. Hell, I'm one of them. X is fucking broken, and has needed to be burned to the ground for ages. I'm glad it's finally happening. So very, very many things that have plagued people so many of us for so long can finally start being ironed out.
Now, as to your desire to have remote window drawing instead of using RDP and doing full remote sessions, that's stupid, and you're stupid for wanting it that way. That said, nothing prevents you from building a Wayland compositor that will support this. If there are so many people who want this, you can take the reference compositor (Weston) and build that functionality into it.
The majority of us will use remote session capabilities like normal people and thank our respective deities (or lack thereof) that we don't have to use remote windowing over WAN links like it was the bloody stone ages anymore.
I could theoretically create "just an interface" where by moving my dick up, down and side to side I work out letters using tap code. It's an interface. It's just a completely pointless and utterly moronic interface.
Just because an interface exists doesn't make it a good idea.
Bullshit on all counts. But keep peddling there, sonny.
Switches, routers and cameras of the sort D-Link makes aren't all that expensive to keep in support, if you know what you're doing. Unfortunately, internal politics, egos and technical pride make these sorts of things nearly impossible.
We're long past the days where you can claim, for example, that Linux is inadequate for running a switch or a router. There are even distributions that run on the very gear D-Link sells. Working with these sorts of communities, and in cooperation with other vendors, can result in systems that keep themselves up to date, have decent QA, formal beta programs, release rings and so forth.
Of course, that then requires agreeing on standards, putting aside egos and thinking of the customer. So don't expect it to happen without regulatory intervention.
Oh, look, that's exactly what's about to happen...
DougS: Short version? Netgear are cleaning up their own house. Linksys are too. Asus are too big to fight with as a first go-round. The rest are too hard to get at.
D-Link have a significant US presence, are small enough to be a great test case, and can't show that they've made any significant movement towards righting the ship whatsoever. They're easy pickings, and the FTC needs to establish precedent before going after everyone else.
This isn't about D-Link. They're irrelevant to the larger agenda. This is all about setting the stage for minimum security standards as a regulatory requirement. The FTC wants to make the power grab and claim enforcement before Congress gets around to it. This is mostly because "what do we do about the internet of shit" has started to become an election issue.
The FTC has to move now, or they lose their chance. D-Link is just the wrong company, doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Hi, djzoey. My day job is working with vendors. Normally, I write marketing content for them. You know, whitepapers, blogs, technical marketing content, or channel-facing stuff like sell sheets or training. Some of this leads into consulting with the customers, often spanning the whole of the organization.
On the side, I write for technology magazines (including The Register), and have a tech consulting business where I am the systems administrator for a number of clients. (Keeps me honest if I actually have to work at the coalface from time to time!) I even write software.
Among the software I have written is code for embedded systems. These include (but are not limited to) switches and routers. I have even been responsible for packaging my code along with a standardized switching or routing operating system (both Linux and VxWorks) and creating firmware images, along with QA, bug fixing and more.
I thusly submit my experience as someone who has greater than "zero knowledge and experience on what goes one behind the scenes of Mfr'g and how routers really work". I won't speak for any of the other commenters directly, but I suspect many have equal or greater experience.
As a D-Link customer, I have become appalled by how D-Link handles updates. As someone who operates in the broader IT industry at multiple levels, I'm not just appalled at how D-Link handles updates, I'm furious at what I believe to be criminal negligence on D-Link's part that has affected not just the millions of D-Link customers, but potentially billions of individuals via second-order effects related to the compromise of D-Link products as a result of the aforementioned negligence.
As a consultant, I am horrified by the business decisions made and I believe they will ultimately be hugely detrimental to D-Link. As a channel partner, I'm terrified by what D-Link's decisions mean in terms of shifting a truly abominable support burden to the channel partner. As an IT marketing writer, I'm saddened by pretty much everything you have written in this thread.
The real question that needs to be asked is - despite your assertions - will D-Link learn from this? And if so, what will they learn?
Register readers will, I'm sure, be nearly unanimous in what we hope that D-Link will learn. Regulatory entities and security professionals are pretty up front about what they want D-Link to learn. But D-Link themselves? I personally have my doubts that A) they're corporately capable of learning lessons and B) they give enough fucks to do so.
The time where the security of unattended computers (from switches and routers to more modern "internet of things" devices) can be blatantly neglected is coming to a sharp end. The problems are now affect so many people that the ongoing criminal neglect of IT vendors has attracted regulatory attention. This is becoming a politically important issue requiring regulatory intervention to resolve.
Now, I don't know if you've noticed, but when politicians have to regulate something they don't understand, they tend to be pretty damned heavy handed about it. The wrist slap D-Link is going to get from the FTC is irrelevant. You and I both know they don't have the ability to hit D-Link for enough to matter in the medium term. D-Link doesn't care about the FTC's intervention, and from a purely business sense, nor should it.
But the FTC intervention heralds something for more damning for D-Link: the cautious gaze or wary elected officials, in the USA and everywhere else. If D-Link (and the other vendors) don't get their houses in order the FTC slapdown will be but the first of a series of increasingly more uncomfortable regulatory interventions ultimately resulting in crushing new regulations that will drive commodity vendors whose business model is built on peddling shit without support out of business.
Thus, being perfectly clear about this: D-Link has three choices: shut down the company and return all the money to shareholders, get pummeled into oblivion by increasingly punitive fines and eventually obliterated by regulation, or start properly supporting the things you sell.
You choose. Choose wisely.
Now, if you want to call me a "troll" for saying the above, that's fine. But I think we'll leave it to the reader to decide if I have the experience necessary to make the analysis I just emitted believable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017