" SwonSong ceased posting to its own blog ten months ago."
They don't seem to have had any faith in their own product if they couldn't set up a few decades' worth of posts in advance.
42420 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Great for delivering a most scathingly ad hominem attack on some deserving public figure (which'll get you into jail normally)?
Why wait?
The immediate thought that occurs is "how will they know you're dead?". Obvious: someone has to tell them. Next thought: "how do they know who you are?". Obvious: you have to tell them.
So set up the app with an entirely fictitious person and then report their death. All the company can do is point to an apparently dead customer. (Point of order - should this be an ex-customer?)
"They are almost certainly bugs in Windows, why wouldn't Microsoft want to buy them up and fix them ASAP. "
More to the point, why wouldn't the NSA release them to Microsoft? It's time for the rest of the world's governments to start giving US ambassadors serious grief each time their infrastructure or businesses are hit. For a start May could make it clear to Trump that his invite is cancelled and a new one will only be made once that's done.
"I mean, there are several distributions which could be up to this task as they stand even some which could be highly tuned (Gentoo, Arch anyone?) surely the better way forward would be to use an existing distribution and add any required packages/features as an additional repository/ppa?"
s/Gentoo, Arch/Ubuntu/ and you seem to have described what's described here.
"Clinical systems developers will simply charge more for developing systems on linux, since all they typically develop for just now is browser or Windows."
For a start those who develop for either are going to have to move on from XP only. That's unsustainable and they shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it.
Secondly, the NHS is a big customer. For many their only customer. Giving the customer a reason to review the market is a really, really bad sales strategy.
"In fact there are very few of the computers in an NHS trust that dont use software unavailable on linux , if you can unpack that string of negatives."
I think I've unpacked it correctly.
But let's make a slight change:
there are very few of the computers in an NHS trust that don't use functionality unavailable on Linux
As an example, if we discount Wine IE isn't available under Linux but other browsers are. It may well be that there are web-based applications that are tied to ancient versions of IE. That's something that has to be faced anyway, otherwise the NHS would be stuck on XP forever. When these are replaced there should be an insistence on cross-platform support so any browser can be used. The same insistence could be applied to any new web-based applications: if they're not sufficiently generic to run across multiple browsers the bid goes in the bin.
"it will become difficult to hire a different company to maintain it."
Why on earth should that happen? The source is available. The upstream, Debian>Ubuntu is already maintained. If NHSbuntu makes any more widely applicable code contributions - such as smartcard ID - they can also be passed back upstream and integrated with it. So what you'd be looking at would be a collection of userland add-ons which could be maintained separately. You (a) wouldn't need a single company to do that and (b) iit could be competitively tendered. This is a different world to what you're used to in Microsoft.
"Regular ransomware authors must be terribly frustrated that NotPetya did damage to their reputation of 'pay and you'll get your files back'," joked Martijn Grooten
I'm not sure that was a joke. For ransomware to work victims have got to trust they'll get their files back. So, odd though it might seem, victims need to rely on crooks being honest. A few episodes like this and the entire ransomware business model is destroyed. "Frustrated" probably understates it by an order of magnitude.
However, the assumption that it wasn't intended to be ransomware without further evidence violates the principle of never attributing to maliciousness that which can be attributed to stupidity and underestimates criminals' aptitude for screwing up.
"That's a problem decent public transport can solve cheaper and better."
In this context decent public transport borders on being an oxymoron. Stop crowding all the work into cities which need 1,000 square miles or more to house their workers. Don't take people to work, return work to where people live. It means reversing a life-time's planning policy but that's because it's taking more than a lifetime for planners to work out their policies were wrong.
"Don't blame those of my generation if said government has frittered away that money."
It wasn't so much frittering away the money as spending as intended. You were paying into a Ponzi scheme just as the rest of us have done. None of the money we paid in is left over because it was spent on pensions, healthcare and other benefits as we paid it in. It's been that way for a long time.
It's not a good scheme and not easy to break out of. Grey vote aside, a generation that decides to break with it will simply grow old to find itself unsupported.
What should have happened was to start off, back when Lloyd George set up old age pensions, with a fraction of the money paid in being invested. With time that investment could have grown so that gradually the income from it could have replaced contributions. Of course that would have meant public money favouring some investment targets at the expense of others, opportunities for corruption, putting undue power in Civil Servant's hands etc. So it didn't happen and here we are.
"Increasingly, as autonomous(ish) vehicles can take public transport passengers the last mile or so, it will be private transport that fades away."
How does that work? Is public transport going to invest in fleets of autonomous vehicles that will be used for an hour or so at each end of the working day? Private owners do so because they have to. Public owners won't because it's SEP.
"Public transport is conceptually flawed, based on the weird assumption that everybody has the same requirements."
Which usually comes to the conclusion that everyone wants to commute into the centre of $city in the morning and back out at night.
This starts to fail when you have clusters of towns & cities such as Manchester, Oldham, Huddersfield, Bradford, Leeds/, Wakefield and Sheffield (plus a few others on t'wrong side of t'Pennines) or the equivalent in the Midlands & the North East. You then find that the only public transport offered is $home to $(centre you don't want to go to) to $(centre nearer where you want to go to) to $(where you want to go to) and it takes 2 hours each way with one connection involving a 40 minute wait and another just 40 seconds. It doesn't help to move house because different members of the household commute in different directions.
"Let 'em all retire at 60, and then expect the rest of us to pay for them and their health care for the next quarter century?"
OTOH we keep getting told that AI and robotics are going to take everyone's jobs and it's difficult to see how anyone will be able to work at any age.
Somewhere between the extremes there should be a compromise.
"For those not in a big city, how often do they drive?"
Let's see.
Mondays SWMBO to gym. We each pick up one of the grandkids from school.
Tuesdays SWMBO to her patchwork class (used to be me who drove her before some equipment changes were made & a smaller car was enough). Then SWMBO to art class.
Wednesdays SWMBO to gym then one of other of us take grandkids to tennis.
Thursdays Me take SWMBO to charity shop, collect her later then go for meal, one week in 3 go to local auction viewing.
Fridays SWMBO to gym, then often both of us out to where-ever (it's often the only weekday with nothing fixed for the afternoon).
Shopping? Oh, mostly me, two or three times a week.
The thing is, we both grew up in a time when private vehicles were rare. When they became generally accessible it was a change which had probably only been equalled once in human history and that was the introduction of the bicycle. It represented a huge expansion of individual freedom to travel at will. The introduction of railways probably came somewhere close but even then there was a constraints of distance from station, routes and timetables.
I suspect the entrenched hostility of TPTB to the private car is an expression of their instinctive opposition to any form of personal freedom - much the same as their current opposition to privacy of communication.
“A strong background in not only the technical and tooling side of DevOps, but also in driving enterprise-wide people and process changes.”
Translation: "At least twice as long in $LatestFad ad $LatestFad has existed"
"Any organization that’s successfully changed is tripping over itself to tell others how awesome it went."
Translation: "Any organisation that's persistently chased rainbows to no good effect is ever going to admit to itself let alone anyone else that it's gone nowhere and will take any chance to boast how great it is".
"time for you to do some much needed research into systemd"
Maybe it's time for you to realise that many of us have been using Unix and Unix-like systems for decades without systemd. Those systems have done sterling work for us and for those who've paid us over those years. We have not experienced any problems that systemd would have been needed to solve. We therefore see no more need to install systemd to our systems than, say, a mechanical apple-picker (unless, of course we were to work in the cider* industry in which case the apple-picker might well be of use).
In short systemd is irrelevant to us. If the word irrelevant is unfamiliar to you look it up in a dictionary. Systemd does nothing useful for us that its predecessor didn't do. And, by long experience, we know better than to install something more complex than it needs to be.
We do not argue from ignorance. We argue from experience.
*Mmmm- cider ->
"I think your living in the wrong century... beside, I was not pointing to historical material, but rather modern publications that already exist in or were created in digital formats."
Date of publication 2015.
Don't get me wrong here, if the translated and edited publication had been in digital format it would actually have been better. It's easier to cut and paste or otherwise process stuff when it's in digital format. Some of the earlier published volumes were scanned and I have them in that format.
The point is that if you require a specific item that's only in printed format then that's what you use. There's no value at all in taking the approach of phablet (or, come to that, print) only.
"One of our Linux servers went flat on it's arse the other day.....because Marketing didn't bother to patch Wordpress (they insist on using it, so they deal with it)"
Marketing insist on a particular application. It's had a reputation of having security holes for some time. So IT didn't insist on ensuring it was patched. What's the IT department's role there if it isn't to maintain the IT facilities that users need for their work*?
*Given that it's marketing "work" is used in its loosed possible sense. OTOH, because it's Marketing they probably need a closer eye kept on them than most.
"it's very hard to convince someone they need to expend funds preventing something they haven't seen happen"
Unless it were established as a general principle in law that those withholding the funds would be held personally responsible when it happens.
Hint for PowerPointers making a pitch for such funds. Put a picture of a hook in the corner of the template. During the pitch make the occasional reference along the lines of "..and there's the hook". Inevitably someone will ask "What's the hook". "That's the hook your balls will be hanging from if $(predicted disaster} happens".
"And registered professionals means ones who are our members."
Quite. The whole tenor of it - e.g. "assure hospital Boards that computer systems were fit for purpose" - suggests a dedication to the paperwork than the reality. Wouldn't "ensure that computer systems were fit for purpose" have been a better statement?