https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor
HyperviSor.
HyperviSor.
HyperviSor.
HyperviSor.
HyperviSor.
HyperviSor.
Either the Author or the Sub-editor needs a bit of a casual beating....
Posts by sjs298
12 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Jan 2011
Linux Foundation backs new ‘ACRN’ hypervisor for embedded and IoT
Web geeks grant immortality to Sir Terry Pratchett – using smuggled web code
Wednesday 18th March 2015 22:38 GMT
Re: El Reg has jumped on the bandwagon
It's a particularly half-assed implementation - it doesn't appear on the correct URL for el-reg or even the canonical URL for this article. It only seems to appear on the redirect for the bare domain.
[/Users/sam]$ curl -sI http://theregister.co.uk | grep X-
X-Reg-BOFH: PFY
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
[/Users/sam]$ curl -sI http://www.theregister.co.uk | grep X-
[/Users/sam]$ curl -sI http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/18/sir_terry_pratchett_http_header/ | grep X-
[/Users/sam]$
ACHTUNG! Scary Linux system backdoor turns boxes into DDoS droids
Cut-price Linode competitor spins up Singapore bit barn
Tuesday 11th February 2014 22:51 GMT
your maths is off...
The DigitalOcean server is $10 per month.
That's $10/744h ~= $0.015, not $0.0015 as stated in the article (you can even switch the DigitalOcean pricing page to Hourly to check my maths ;) - which makes it about 1/3 the cost of Rackspace's PERF1GB.
However what you have failed to account for in the article is the bandwidth costs.
Rackspace charges $0.12/GB for the first 10TB of bandwidth, so the 2TB of free transfer that DigitalOcean would give you would be charged by Rackspace at $246 - over a month, DigitalOcean would charge you $10 and Rackspace would charge you $276 if you were bandwidth heavy ;)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.5 ships, but still no RHEL 7 in sight
British armed forces get first new pistol since World War II
Saturday 12th January 2013 13:32 GMT
Re: a note on calibres and stuff
"Nice bit of kit? No it has a nice sight."
Are you talking from experience with the A2 version, or experience with the L85 in general? The L85 was shocking, best defect of all was that the magazine catch had no guard, so when you ran and it slapped across your chest, your magazine fell off. The A1 was better (because they put a guard on the magazine catch ;o), but the A2 was a complete overhall of the original weapon by H&K (who didn't make the original). It works better than both the previous versions, but it is not perfect, hence it is a "Nice bit of kit" - but it is not an "Amazing bit of kit".
"My dad had a better deal with his fn fal"
Ahh yes - the mythical L1A1 SLR. I've heard it was nice, but then again I wonder how it would stack up against a modern 7.62mm weapon, I mean it's hardly a Paratus-18 is it... http://youtu.be/SJ8Ndkg8urw - I agree your father may have had a good deal in comparison to other weapons available at the time, however I don't know whether issuing an FN FAL today would evoke a similar level of praise.
Saturday 12th January 2013 00:52 GMT
Re: a note on calibres and stuff
"I'm also slightly surprised that the UK govt didn't go with something from H&K"
They did. It's called an L85A2 and it's a pretty nice bit of kit ;)
But in all seriousness, they reason they use different manufacturers (see here for variety: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army) is because each weapon requirement is put out to tender.
The MoD then go through a purchasing process that includes user testing (as in they issue them to soldiers) and field trials. They then pick the weapon which has the best price/performance ratio, often unfortunately in the past caring more about "good enough and really cheap", rather than "best and affordable".
That's all been changing recently. Being a soldier is a shit job, but at least HMG is starting to issue shiny and working toys to while away the time with.
UK.gov: You didn't trust us with your ID, so we gave it to private biz
Sunday 30th December 2012 03:44 GMT
Re: Round II promises to be very busy
"the data and protocols used be 100% open"
Free and Open will definitely happen, as to quote the OJEU Tender [1] - "DWP is building interfaces to its systems for Identity Assurance that currently use standard SAML 2 profiles". SAML is an Open Standard [2].
As to whether Citizens will be able to run their own IdP as per SAML, I'm not convinced that is going to happen.
It would be quite feasible for groups of people to band together and run an IdP (I would guess subject to some minimum size limit), but smaller than that limit and the costs to the Government to perform all the due diligence would make the cost prohibitive. (Someone has to check that you are not a bad guy who is complying with all the standards).
[1] http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:068791-2012:TEXT:EN:HTML
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAML_2.0
Biting the hand that feeds IT
