Re: Reached number 3
Groklaw was -- still is -- an invaluable resource. Scanning some of the posts there this evening , I was struck by the truth of the words, "There is nothing new under the Sun".
18 posts • joined 15 Jan 2018
As someone already mentioned, Nova Launcher might be an option for anyone put off by a hideous shipping ui, especially when run on a model with a generous portion of memory. Of course maintaing the drumbeat over bad design may someday drive handset makers to see the error of their ways and change, so it's worth pointing out at every opportunity (same point for hardware: give us back the damned audio jack, lemmings!).
The 240/4 proposal, that is -- but AbeChen and gnarlymarley, et al. make a good point. The arrogance of proposing the wholesale replacement of the standard that the Internet was built on with a "new" and non-inclusive standard was not only socially inept, but a major engineering fail. Doubling down by rejecting solutions like NAT64 only makes it worse. After 20 years an objective mind might think, "I guess the market has spoken".
By this point in early computer history TCP/IPv4 had roared ahead of its rivals and made the expansion of the Internet possible.
The 240/4 proposal is a good stopgap and should definitely be pursued, but the "never NAT" IPv6 purists also need to give up on their opposition tot NAT64, which was itself proposed as early as 2002. Had NAT64 been supported back then, the transition to IPv6 might have been successfully completed a decade ago.
The correct metaphor here is the burglar who breaks into your house when the family is away on vacation and then leaves the door off its hinges when he escapes into a stormy night. The house, of course, gets inundated and probably visited by both other nefarious humans and hungry wildlife. By the time you get back the place is near uninhabitable and certainly not a safe place for your kids to sleep.
Tacked on that last sentence just to be able to say, "What about the children?"
Can't really blame the FBI. Their brothers over in the NSA and CIA have been playing the vandal burglar for years while pretending to protect the public, and have only recently been getting called out for it by the technical community.
The renaming of Lync was clearly... stupid. At the time some of us assumed they were going to re-platform or even drop consumer Skype. There's clearly a bit of competition going on behind the scenes, and MS Teams voice and video only make it more confusing. But Redmond can afford to muck things up, because they have no effective competition in the space (talk about stupid branding: what slacker at Google thought that "Hangouts" was a good name for an enterprise conference system -- it's like the 7th graders took over the schoolyard!).
It would have been far better if they'd classified that data as _personal property_ and established a value for it like Copyright's compulsory license for music, then provided a private right of action against infringers. _That_ would create a serious incentive for the proper handling of your info and returned us all to our traditiinal role as customers instead of product.
A private Exchange group and SharePoint site get created whenever a Team is set up by a user. By default I think retention is set to forever. I'll take your word for that being subject to global policy.
The ability for users to spin up these resources on their own with Teams is a big selling point for me. Traditionally enterprise IT has liked to maintain firm control of those kinds of things, but clearly MS is taking us in a different direction: probably for the better.
Oh, and if your rolling out Teams you'd best polish your PoweShell skills. A lot of what gets set up can't be managed in the current admin guis. But that's also inevitable since a moderately sized company is probably going to wind up with 1,000's, not 100's, of Teams in a short time.
Only because password reset mechanisms aren't governed by the protocol. LDAPv3 is just a transport protocol, it doesn't specify a whole lot of what goes into making a practical directory server. It's only because of the dominance of a major commercial firm (Sun) and an open source project (OpenLDAP) that it sometimes seems more. AD is mostly what we used to call an NOS directory, like Novell's. Its design is optimized for authentication and authorization. But it is more difficult to deploy in the role of a "white pages" directory than the Netscape-Sun line of products due to cumbersome schema extension, attribute access control and indexing mechanisms. The inability to change passwords over LDAP is a minor annoyance (or saving grace) by comparison.
The SMB protocol itself is pretty inefficient though, all its implementations suffer for it. Its security model has always been a root problem. NFS is better as a transport but has it's own security and management issues that make it a challenge to use for desktop file sharing -- not the least of which are prohibitively expensive or complex implementations for Windows.
If Microsoft were to roll out decent ssh client and server integration for its products that would be a big win for its customers, although the devil would, as always, be in the details.
It's the licensing model, and MS isn't only one at fault. Because setting up prod incurs eye-watering fees per core or seat, a lot of shops both large and small skimp on their test envs. Over time they don't look much like prod, or get borrowed (stolen) by "special" pet projects of some exec or another. Got spoiled running free ae s in beer OSS for many years, and was shocked to see this so prevalent
A lot of what has been written about open source in the cloud, like this artcle, simplistically treats it as if it were a brand like DirectX [TM] or Naugahyde [TM]. Clearly it's not. It is, first and foremost, a licensing choice. Depending upon the specific license it might also be about requiring contributing back useful improvements to the source project.
Which gets us to one point the article got right, the distinguishing feature that makes open source attractive to beheamoths like Amazon: the communities that exist in and alongside open source projects. Those communities aren't just customers, they're also part of the product. Big companies (Oracle?) who have stumbled in dealing with open source usually get their by ignoring or actively excluding those communities. Amazon, Microsoft, and to some extent even Google, have succeeded in not making that mistake. Of course, there's no accounting for what a megalomaniacal CEO might Tweet or fart out in the future, so the old adage still applies: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
The Peter Principle is an empirical observation that people within an organization rise to the level of their own incompetence. The Dilbert Principle describes one organizational self-preservation response to the reality of the Peter Principle, where those who have risen to their level of incompetence are shifted to roles where they can do the least harm. Unfortunately, the operation of the Peter Principle almost always dooms the application of the Dilbert Principle to failure: as those charged with its implementation are themselves too incompetent to succeed.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019