I've been a true blue IT pro foss loonix guy for most of the last 16 years. And every year. Nay. Every 6-10 months some hardware designed to "thwart" crackers, and other crypto attackers goes the way of the dodo.

I think the industry looks at security the wrong way and the lulzsec guys weren't wrong in that ideological rant they made. You can't predict the unpredictable. Firewalls aren't a wall in any meaningful sense. "Software defined" networks are just a catchphrase for networking complex things in a dynamic manner. Intrusion Prevention Systems do not prevent. Hell, if you let your cisco guy deploy it, it wont even log a thing and when it dies you will have no idea why.

Bollocks, Shenanigans and costly Stupidity (don't get me started on "hardware routers" or "storage networks"). This is what I have found in my years in the battlefields, young grasshoppers. And a deeply felt wish that I had chosen archeology instead.

No.

What is this "virtualizing" the "interface" kerfufelisch nonesense.... no no, my friend. You are severely mistaken. Sand Boxing is NOT "about" virtualizing. Sand boxing is about isolating upper layers from lower layers. This can be achieved by virtualization or through not virtualization. How about that?

No. Sand Boxing is not necesarily virtualisation, although any virtualization technology by definition sandboxes whatever runs on top of it (some do it very paranoically, some less so).

And you post as AC. I chastize you with my very intelligent gaze.

Course not. What kind of a thai chick with a dick has hair in her balls. That is so very insensitive of you tu suggest.

I dont see a place for analysts and architects. Well. Architects that design buildings maybe. But not in software.

And i have never, ever met a competent Project Manager that boasts the title.

Just my 10 bits.

There is closed hardware in networking. Any monkey can do that. They are glorified old PC's and all their value is in the software anyway. Hell there is no such thing as a "hardware networking appliance". Those only exist in the imagination of people that think learning to configure an IP stack is a somehow complex ordeal.

Oh for fucks sake.

The greatest ireland gave to the world is the best artists and scientists that shat on the face of the idea of race.

I have not a hair of irish, and i can see this. Why cant you?

....was eager to know... :/

Of course. By now, they dont need cookies: they have all the data they need already through simple transparent snort and span ports.... man oh man....

Some more than a hundred billion dollars beg to disagree with your statement there, sir. As for your final question, I propose as an answer "Who cares?". Nobody cares about intrinsic built-in trust of a civilised society. All they want is profit to have as many bitches sucking on their dicks and their kids dicks. Human lifespan is short and the rich are accutely aware of this. This is why they take what they can when they can.

You seem to believe someone out there in industryland cares even a little bit about the rest of society and their future: good luck with that.

Okay, point granted on rural access, but I think you miss the important part. WE pay for access. WE have a contract for speed delivered. ISPs make deals or charge for access and interconections: the value of their bussiness is the bandwidth.

I dont give a flying fuck if Mary McBrotherFuck up in the Kentucky mountains cant see House of Cards because she doesnt have the bandwidth: if she wants more bandwidth so much, then she should pay for it or move to civilization. I pay for bandwidth, netflix pays for bandwidth. Why in the world would they, or us, have to pay for 'heavyer content' like high resolution video? If the video rate is more than my bandwith, then I cant see it instantly. Period. If I want to see it instantly, then I should pay more and thus, the incentive of the ISP is merely mantaining infrastructure and its growth: a low margin bussiness it is, but a huge profit cow in the long run.

Why in the world should I, or netflix, pay more than our bandwith usage? Because ISPs, on the one hand, FAILED in the projection of bandwidth demand and thus heavyer content eats into their projected profits. On the other, because ISPs are also cable companies, and to them the cable bussiness, which is clearly a content-control racket, is more profitable than a flat internet.

And this is what is in front of us: the 'channelization' of internet content. They want it to be like cable tv.

Well yeah. But if this was the case, then the buyers are to blame: if they were going to wing it, they would have been way, way better hiring opensource consultants and an open source database and then get to coding like hell and even open source their whole op. If the case is that the state didnt purchase a fire and forget project, then they are as stupid as the oracle salesmen is a ghoul.

A word for 'buyers': if you are going to go macho on a thing like this, you cant be a little bitch and buy oracle. You go at it like a man and actually learn to code.

Why you trollin? Everything is flammable.

Whats the recoil on this thing?

I believe you, but i think youd agree that arround that, lies the problem. Its not an easy problem, but I dont think liberally charging whomever is to blame for extra demand than planned is a good solution either. Thats why I say '*or* be agressively and intelligently modified is the oversubscription model'. Hey, if we all have to pay for the extra demand, then we should: be transparent and fair about it and maybe it can be handled.

And yeah, maybe some small ISP's can't handle the increase in demand and yeah I feel shitty for thiking this, but hey, the market is obviously different than what the current model can handle.