Two phones, two tablets, two Kindles, three laptops, a printer, a TV, two consoles, a few dozen squirrels, and a partridge in a pear tree.
TL;DR: Linux was NOT trusting chips and doing a variant of what FreeBSD plans to do now since quite a bit before.
You mean “a variant of what FreeBSD has been doing since 2003”
I wouldn't trust chip based encryption either, and I wouldn't trust anybody else that did.
Assuming we're only talking about ciphers and not protocols: by definition, there is one and only one possible ciphertext for any given combination of key and plaintext. Thus, there is no way to introduce a weakness in an implementation which would not be trivially detectable by comparison with any other implementation; in fact, the result would be unusable as it would not be interoperable with other implementations.
(With a caveat for algorithms which require a random initialization vector; don't let the implementation choose the IV for you.)
You can't be sure with true randomness. With cryptographically secure randomness you can be (at least within a specified tolerance around 2^-128).
You can never be sure. The keystream of a good stream cipher is fully deterministic, yet statistically indistinguishable from the output of a good PRNG.
FreeBSD has been using Yarrow for 10+ years, and no FreeBSD release has ever shipped with the option to feed the stream from a HWRNG directly to
Dell subcontract the actual hands-on work to a InfoCare [...]
s/a InfoCare/InfoCare/ obviously.
"K" (note capital K as distinct from 'k', the SI prefix for 1000) is a unit meaning 2^10 bytes
No, K is the SI unit for temperature, named after Lord Kelvin, who first suggested the concept of “absolute zero”.
The problem came with the storage industry and their pious "oh, but that's not what SI says the units mean". If you think that conforming to strict SI is the reason they made their change [...]
You're the one who's confused here. The storage industry never “made their change”. They've always used powers of 10.
Memory is allocated in increments of at least 4096 bytes and a maximum of 1,073,741,824 bytes.
Assuming you are talking about MMU page sizes and not memory allocation: that may be true of the computer architectures with which you are familiar, but it is not universally true. The Sparc64 architecture, for instance, supports page sizes of 8 kiB, 64 kiB, 4 MiB, 256 MiB and 2 GiB. Older systems such as early Motoroal MMUs or early MIPS implementations had smaller page sizes (1 or 2 kiB).
That's how prefixes have always been used in the IT world and always will be. The International System of Units can go to hell.
Absolutely wrong. The use of kB to mean 1,024 bytes started around 1960, and only for memory. Bandwidth has always been, and is still, measured in powers of 10, not 2. Disk space was measured in powers of 10 until Microsoft came along and muddled the issue. Disk manufacturers still use powers of 10, like they always have. Software is a mixed bag, with some developers using powers of 10 and others using powers of 2.
Since someone mentioned Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_binary_prefixes
In any case, a disk labeled 2 TB will never have exactly 2 TB or 2 TiB of storage space. The number on the label is just an approximation; the exact number is “as much as we can cram in and still have a reasonable amount left over for reallocation”.
Are those actually the "resolve the issue" times? Or the "we will acknowledge your ticket and provide a 'first response'", MAYBE have someone show up onsite to begin troubleshooting...
HP usually resolve the issue (deliver parts and if necessary dispatch a tech) within the specified time frame. Dell rarely do. I haven't read the support contracts, so I don't know the details, but I _do_ know that the people who have negotiated those support contracts get royally pissed off when I tell them that Dell once again refused to replace a DIMM or disk on the basis of a predictive failure warning, or that our payroll database will have to run on only one server for a week while Dell scour warehouses on all five continents to scrounge up six DIMMs for the other.
I am in Norway as well. Dell subcontract the actual hands-on work to a InfoCare (as do HP, coincidentially), but handle all communication with the client themselves. They have a support center in Ireland staffed with techs from many different nationalities and generally try to route calls from Norway to Norwegian- or Swedish-speaking techs.
FWIW, we do most repairs ourselves, so the issue is “how fast can you send the parts” rather than “how fast can you dispatch a technician”. HP deliver most parts (disks, DIMMs, CPUs, RAID controller batteries) within a couple of hours but sometimes have to ship less common parts from other parts of the country or from Sweden. Dell deliver parts whenever they feel like it, which usually means within a day or two, but sometimes longer.
I work for an organization that has a large number of Dell servers, all of them with 5-year support contracts: a mix of 4-hour and next-business-day. In my experience, Dell have never, ever, ever solved an issue within the specified period of time. They also frequently refuse to replace failing parts until after they've actually failed (which AFAIK is a breach of the support contract), and they once told me that six DIMMs were a “large order” that would take a week to fill (after I'd already spent a week just getting them to agree that they needed replacing). They simply don't give a shit. I've had far better experiences with HP, but they also far more expensive.
She won at least one case in court against the contractor based on the previous work (he sued her for pay, she claims the work wasn't done, she won the case).
IIUC this is one of the statements which the current lawsuits claims are materially false.
How do you decide if someone did a "bad job" or not?
That may be open to interpretation, but "billed for work that was not performed" (IIUC he already sued her over those bills and won) and "stole jewelry from my house" is not. Those are statements of fact which she will have to either prove or retract.
Best summary I've read, by someone who is usually opposed to this kind of lawsuit but sees this particular case in a different light: