I know that at my company we don't "restart servers" as much as re-deploy another VM instance, switch all trafrfic to that, then kill the old VM. Yet sometimes it is over a year between reboots of the actual ESX servers themselves, as they are sometimes hosting dozens of VM's on a single box.

There was another person who looked at it before the commit, apparently they also missed it. So apparently a better code reviewing policy is also needed here.

Exactly! Everyone can get to the source, the whole point of OSS is that the companies themselves can (and should, from a risk-analysis point) be reviewing all the code too before implementation...it's along the lines "you get what you pay for" yet at least here everyone is given the chance to see exactly what's being run (as opposed to pre-compiled apps). IMHO, this really isn't an OpenSSL issue as much as a failing of due diligence by all the companies using it. The admin's excuse of "well, we don't actually know what the code says" fails here, and anyone over the past two years could have reviewed it themselves and fixed this! Maybe this will spur corps to actually review code of critical infrastructure when it's avalible as part of corp policy from now on, perhaps the insurance companies who do "Errors and Omissions" policies will start forcing corps to do that; kinda surprised that this isn't already a standard policy, as code review of OSS is one of it's main strengths and if your company doesn't do it then their missing out on one of the biggest assets of using OSS.

some clues might be buried in there somewhere, but until Snowden's "cache" is publicly released we'll never actually know...but I'm guessing The Guardian et al are currently combing through the archive looking for some references.

lol...Maybe he was sent a stack of cash with a USB flashdrive and a note "You know what needs to be done. Love, NSA"

luckily for me, even though I work for HP, we are in a bomb-proof building built to survive the Cold War nukes...the original SABRE home, so that sounds like job security to me.

The Baghdad Battery tends to disagree with your statement...it was invented somewhere around 250BC to 400AD, and was probably used for electroplating jewelry. But they didn't really understand what they had made...but still, we had made a very simple battery work way before Newton.

thus why I make any member of my family who "gets ill" go out into the woods for no less than 14 days to purify themselves. After 16 days if they haven't returned we set the woods on fire to finalize the purification, per the commandments of Ahura Mazda.

lol, right! You can't "game" most modern slot machines...their not even actual "slot machines" anymore, most of them are Windowz boxes running the games. I've seen many of them bluescreen before LOL...

According to Neil Tyson on Cosmos, he said ghosts DO exist. He was, of course. referring to Hubble's father telling Hubble that the stars in the sky are sometimes ghosts, as we see a star when it's actually long-gone. Well, I think it was actually Patrick Stewart's voice...so that makes it even MORE real, as Captain Pickard would never lie to us! /sarcasm

Just because your NOT paranormal doesn't mean ghosts aren't following you.


FTFY

yet every assumption is not a hypothesis...or at least a scientific hypothesis. Not saying you fall into this category but many people use the word incorrectly, without the ability to test the hypothesis. If it can't be tested and proven false, it's pseudoscience. But yeah, the AC's post seems to be from the mid 1920's and ignoring all progress after that.

Even Darwin himself made note of potential objections to his theory, as his original "Origin of the Species" was published before the Burgess Shale discovery, and he stated that "as of yet" the fossil record didn't back up his hypothesis. Yet we've found many (well, a few lol) pre-Cambrian fossils now...but many Creationist still will adamantly scream and yell that Darwin himself "said the theory was wrong" because 1. they don't understand the times it was published and 2) refuse to recognize anything that changes their internal world view.

the last thing is the big issue, tech support from vendors. That is a major influence on your management too...they know they have to maintain their SLAs!

like the people in various UK goverment offices have any idea what "vendor lock-in" even is...some of them have been using Office since it first came out, no one outside of us techies cares about "proprietary" vs. open-source. Often, a corp will go with the proprietary software because there is a vendor they can engage in a 24/7 SLA. Linux has Redhat under Novell, I don't know of any other company that can provide 24/7 under 30 minute support. This isn't some private company that can call up their local tech shop...they have to have SLA's with certified vendors, lists of phone numbers, etc.

I do ITSM for AA, if it can't be nailed down in a run book then it's just not done.

so Skynet can easily re-purpose them to make weapons to destroy us, why else?