What exact benefit does this supposedly 'open' laptop have over just buying something like a Thinkpad that uses Intel components that are well-supported by open source drivers on open source operating systems (Linux, *BSD, etc.)? If it's to promote the use of standardized components that can be re-used in different laptop designs, it may serve to reduce costs or to increase the useful life of some of those parts. On the other hand, the standardization would also limit designs and prevent some cutting edge innovations from being utilized. All-in-all, as great as it's been to have interchangeable components on desktop builds, there's a reason why there's been limited standardization on laptops and servers, where innovation has more benefit. And considering how inexpensive laptops have already become simply due to competition, I see there being little to gain but much to lose from this approach.

Yes, Darwin does use a MACH kernel. But the MACH kernel itself is also derived from BSD, originally developed as additional code written directly into the 4.2BSD kernel.

Hosting their Internet facing servers at the office, behind a sonicwall firewall, is also a recipe for disaster in general let alone when being attacked. If they had hosted their servers in a proper data centre with DDoS mitigation services, the 'hackers' would have had a much harder time taking their servers offline.

Not nearly enough has been presented to demonstrate whether or not the technology is truly compelling or not. Is this purely a storage enclosure, or is there some type of cpu/mainboard for which this can be used as a high density, low cost SAN? Why type of bus/connectors/interfaces are used? Does this use fiber channel or 10Gb Ethernet? Can the full potential of all the drives' IO and IOPS be realized? What is the latency involved? Also, what's so specialized that the technology can be patented, and not easily replicated by a competitor?

Martha Stewart's prosecution was highly publicized so that it would appear that white collar criminals were being cracked down. If you're going to make the argument that this goes beyond an isolated case, and was a general and significant trend, please provide a citation.

Uhh, the Xeon E3 V2's which are the single socket Ivy Bridge server processors have been out for several months. However, the Xeon E5 V2's i.e. Ivy Bridge-E(P|N) for 2 sockets aren't going to come out until Q3 2013, which is quite the delay from Ivy Bridge's initial release, and well after Haswell will be released.

It's Jordan Hubbard, not John Hubbard. He was one of the original founders of FreeBSD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hubbard http://www.turbofuzz.com/jkh/

Serverbeach is a dedicated hosting company. They're not going to be scanning memory as they don't have local access to the server. It must be some sort of web crawling or spidering that they do.

If content is visible to your dedicated (not managed) hosting company, who doesn't have any login access to your servers, then yes, the content is visible to the public. Access to it may be obscured, due to removed links to it or however it was supposedly 'removed', but still available to the Internet and henceforth public.

That's because you're trying to buy an old CPU in brand new condition, long after production has stopped. Usually, the best window to buy a CPU new is when the next generation comes out, but you are already 4 (2 ticks + 2 tocks) generations behind. You can easily find the Q9550s used for less than $100.

Read more carefully. It was the husband of one of the partners at the firm representing Samsung, which does not appear to have even been actively involved in the case. Your bias is showing.

You can have a distributed DDoS protection service, where you BGP anycast the IP range being attacked to multiple cities, and deploy DDoS mitigation equipment to each of those locations. In the event that the attack is concentrated in one region, where your DDoS mitigation equipment is unable to keep up, you can then do a localized null route (that doesn't get advertised to the rest of your iBGP mesh), to drop the traffic for that particular region but still stay up for the rest of the world.

Null routes work on destination IPs only, not source IPs, so if one were to take your advice, they would effectively be doing the attackers' job for them. Null routes are for preventing a DoS attack from affecting other customers/services, not for keeping a server up and available during an attack. The only way to block source IPs on routers is with ACLs, but these are only effective against very simple DOS where a small number of sources are attacking you. For a large scale DDoS, with sources from several different ranges attacking protocol/ports on IP addresses where legitimate traffic needs to go (which any smart attacker would do), ACLs aren't going to do it.

CLI commands are not necessarily hacks; they are often the proper way of doing things. Just because they are powerful and flexible enough, that they allow for people who don't know what they're doing to break their systems, doesn't mean that they are inherently bad. It's the GUI's that are often the hacks; they've just been vetted to perform tasks in a standardized, predefined manner. For the most part in Linux land, they are effectively workarounds so that people don't need to learn the proper commands. It's when the GUI is incomplete that users are forced to run the proper commands using the CLI, but those commands themselves are not hacks.