And, as with anything, faster means hotter
I think we need something faster that doesn't produce so much heat. Anyone got a revolutionary idea handy?
89 posts • joined 31 Mar 2011
Microsoft teases Linux. They definitely do not love Linux.
If they loved Linux they would support their products on it. They don't. You say, "but what about Teams? SQL Server? Powershell? WSL?"
Actually, it's part of my point. Because in all of those cases where Microsoft has a temporal port or build or integration to Linux, it is very poorly supported. And their track record for long term support on Linux is horrendous. It's a closed source company, and they believe in their model (only). That is, you drive your workers to make your software better by giving them rewards/punishment. You will not find a lot of coding pride there, because it's just the wrong culture. Software that costs them money to make/support and nets them nothing, gets cut.
So, with regards to NTFS. Don't use it.
It's a primitive file system in many ways, it's designed for Windows. I say, leave it there.
Let's just leave Windows on its rapidly becoming deserted island. They don't want to leave their island, and they certainly do not want to be helped. They're happy there.
You're not thinking Microsoft. The protocol is old, but the devices still relying on it aren't that old, and that's the point. Experts (that is, people outside of Microsoft) hacked SMB1 eons ago, but it didn't stop appliances from continuing to rely on it.
So, you say, Microsoft is smart... ok then, then they knew 15+ years ago that it was hack city, just like the rest of us. So, it took them 15+ years to close this down? Whatever....
Some companies are masters of "creative accounting". Probably need to see several consecutive quarters before making any determination.
And IBM is "big", which means they can masquerade "stuff" at will via acquisitions and sell offs. So, even after a year, we might still not truly know what is going on.
You can get the official report if you install the Jira Oopsie Plugin, which is free for up to 10 users, then a mere $10/mo. per user greater than 10. There's also a Premium level that removes some important redactions at $20/mo. per user. The ability to go beyond page 1 of any report is supplied through the Atlassian Markeplace with plugins such as Money Money Money, you will have to check the marketplace for current pricing.
11/11/2021 - SUSE was awarded with the Common Criteria Certification (NIAP OSPP) for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP2. This certification is mandatory for work with the United States (US) Federal Government. It demonstrates compliance to NIAP Protection Profile for General Purpose Operating Systems, Version 4.2.1 (CCEVS-VR-PP-0047) with the Extended Package for Secure Shell (SSH), Version 1.0 (CCES-VR-PP-0039). This certification extends our Common Criteria Certification track by US Compliance Regulations enabling US federal entities to profit from SUSE’s Certified Secure Software Supply Chain while complying with all necessary national regulations.
I have a network scanner, Canon ScanFront, and while it's running the latest available firmware, it can only write to an SMB1 exposed fileshare.
Thank you Samba for keeping this out of landfill. It's a great device.
We scan and just pick up the scanned image off the drive.
I'd like to keep the device for as long as I can (hint).
I remember when I liked Red Hat as a company, and even wouldn't mind the cert.
The world is huge now and Red Hat is just another proprietary lock-in style old school Microsoft-like software company.
Sort of hoping that they get ZERO takers. But, somehow, pretty sure Red Hat would not understand the message.
At IBM, how those outside of IBM perceive them is everything.
The CentOS takeover and destruction, while it might not seem like a "big deal", was sort of a black eye to IBM reputation wise.
"Thou shall not do that."
Have a feeling this wasn't a simple "step down" by Whitehurst.
The problem with moving to something new, is that there are many things in play that won't work with it.
Which is why the delay.
So, what is basic auth?
While BA could mean submitting your credential over an unencrypted connection, usually, this is not the case.
The problem is that long accepted industry standards allow for encrypted auth using a username and password. For example, just about any https web site where you enter data you'd rather people not see. It's deemed "ok", because the connection is encrypted.
So, what's the problem?
Obviously there are some sites that allow people to hammer attempts without restriction (even Microsoft). So, in theory, somebody could brute force a login after trying many times (since Internet services are involved, there's latency, so this could actually take many many years to brute force, even an 8 character password).
The other problem, and this is actually bigger, is how the end point is using/storing your data. A lot of data exposure happens as those service providers get compromised (happens all the time).
But, again, overall, the reason why encrypted tunneling of personal id info is allowed, is because the world still depends on it... a lot. And some protocols are even weaker B2B (even bank to bank, for example, or medical provider to medical provider). That is, there's a ton of even lower hanging exploitable stuff out there.
Extra.... Microsoft believes that it, and it alone, owns all email world wide. And they don't want to support non-Microsoft clients (if possible). They believe this, and want this to be so true. So with that said, an even bigger security problem is when you place all your trust, all your business, everything... in the hands of a singular player with a not so great track record when it comes to security. Just something to think about.
Red Hat can continue to provide CentOs (remember, was once an independent non-Red Hat entity, that Red Hat took over in order to "control") as well as having a "test bed" for down the road.
In the beginning, you have to remember that Red Hat believed that Fedora was their sufficient "test bed", but due to community "politics" they had to take their hand off of that one, and it quickly started going in directions away from Red Hat.
And this has been true for many years.
Not sure why Red Hat is making a change now. But they've decided to nuke CentOs (something that would not have been nuked if Red Hat hadn't insisted on "controlling" it). And since Fedora has "gone wild", they want a "test bed" (where you and I are the testers) for their enterprise ($$$$) distribution.
All this says is that Red Hat can't afford to do both a "test bed" and maintain control of something they never should have had control over to begin with.
It takes money and effort... Red Hat is trying to escape both. Real reason? Unknown.
Usually big transactions by an insider require a lot of "up front" notification about what is being "planned", that is, difficult to be "in response" to an event, etc...
Not saying that you can't do (evil) planning months in advance, just pointing out it's different for them.
If this was done rather adhoc, you can bet that the SEC will want to take a look...
Probably the worst thing about any usage of any flavor of Microsoft Exchange is that once you're in.... you're in. And you can never ever leave. It will consume you and force you do to use more and more and more and more Microsoft systems and services over time.
With that said, if you've already drank the Microsoft Kool-aid, it's a slam dunk.
Summary: Bridge players have a document that is formatted like how your grandmother does formatting, without thought or structure. And, it only displays correctly using the software it was created on (please don't touch it though), Microsoft Office. Conclusion: Anything that is not Microsoft Office is crap.
When systemd was being discussed, the idea was to not force carry a large FOSS shell (emphasis on FOSS btw) for handling "init". The mantra was that we needed something simpler.
1.3 million lines of code in systemd.
365 thousand lines of code in bash.
Just something to thing about.
So... really, there are some things in Catalina to be aware of.
1. No more 32bit support. If you're holding on to old software, like a bought copy of Office 2011, you will be frustrated. Also, even venerable apps like Creative Cloud have had some problems with add-ons that are still 32bit. So, IMHO, this is probably the biggest thing to be aware of as "important" stuff might not work for you on Catalina. Is there a list of software somewhere? Not sure. There might be some kind of "checker" program out there.
2. Apple's version of UAC. More things are going to ask your permission. Interesting that during the MS Vista days, Apple ran ads mocking the UAC feature of Windows and now, they sort of have the same thing. Hopefully this is just more of a nuisance.
3. Protected OS area. With Catalina you can lock down the OS areas from external modification. This might cause problems for some software, but usually not.
(there are other "big things"...)
Anyway, like most Apple shops, we have been kicking the tires so to speak, and at least for our users, we don't view much of Catalina to be a big problem, sure... we have some rough things relating to TCC (#2) that we still need to work through, but in general, we're ok. Has Apple been making some fairly radical changes in Mojave and Catalina... definitely. And some of these changes can frustrate an Apple shop where processes and procedures for "imaging" or "network install" were used. Probably nothing big for the user community. With that said, not sure there's anything terribly great or awesome forcing you to upgrade. You might just wait until you need a new device (talking home users) and accept whatever OS version it comes with.
Recently the rumors are that Microsoft may be ditching Edge for a new browser based on Chromium (or maybe just WebKit?). Microsoft deploys a Linux enivronment, tries to support Powershell (by the way, poorly) on real Linux, attempts to move away from Wrm to ssh, yes you're Windows has an ssh daemon now.... etc...
Maybe Microsoft should just buy Slack and go with that...
Gnome is broken by design. Why have a background if you can't use it? It's just weird.
With that said, RHEL's KDE implementation was also pretty broken. Maybe Red Hat's goal is to make every DE non-functional? They've done a pretty good job.
If you want a good KDE experience there's always SUSE. IBM's crush of Red Hat could mean opportunity for SUSE. Maybe they can hire back some of their talent?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022