Yes that's a fair characterization. For companies below the line, i.e. those that would lose a lawsuit easily this is helpful.
A server not connected to a network in a physically secure location was the situation for the computer that Bradley Manning stole from.
Centcom is interested in starting to build a government infrastructure for defense. They agree this needs more collective action and government assistance. Right now the public is pulling in the opposite direction however.
I agree there are terrible auditors that don't understand what they are doing. But in most companies you can push back against that, it is just that then the burden switches to you. You have to verify and certify that alternative approach X is better than industry standard approach Y.
As far as the rest, the purpose of an insurance company is to pool risk. The person being insured should likely not want to have to file a claim because that means something bad happened. The company doesn't want to give nothing in return because then there is no need for their product.
Industry handles this in other areas and for that matter security as well by having auditing firms and engaging in a "best practices" audit. "Best practices" doesn't actually mean best practice but rather not doing stupid or dangerous stuff. The audit is how that gets determined.
They ran into financial trouble as Mandrake. The distribution was moderately profitable but they lost their shirt on an educational software venture that failed.
I liked them late 1990s (Mandrake) they were my favorite distribution because so many things "just worked" and their configurations were often more sensible. You started off far closer to a working system.
Didn't try the server product much though did use it once for a RAID product and it did a great job on defaulting the RAID.
Linux driver support definitely is a bit crappier, but it's a lot better than it was even say 5 years ago.
My experience is that it has gotten worse. 5 years ago I could pretty much run an arbitrary Linux distribution on an arbitrary 1 year old laptop and have say an 80% chance of few if any problems. Today most interesting laptops have whole swaths of features not covered and many drivers not included. I think hardware got more interesting and the Linux community has gotten less focused on desktop (understandably) and the result has been a huge downgrade in terms of compatibility.
Which raises the question, why is this even news? Is it more Linux/open-source bashing by the commercial OS crowd?
In fact not all of them even run Linux. AFAIK, Zyxel use their own proprietary OS, call ZyNOS (Zyxel Network Operating System).
The fact that their are listed here shows that the worm doesn't rely on a Linux vulnerability.
If Windows Embed had made any significant inroads as a router OS (haha...) it would probably also be among the vulnerable targets.
I'm surprised they aren't all cross-platform.
Well, Apple is still mostly a company selling hardware. So keeping Siri restricted to iOS makes sense, it's an extra bullet-point to sell of their hardware (from which their profit).
Opening Siri to Android would reduce the perceived advantage of iDevices and bring less money to Apple.
Microsoft - in the phone arena at least - is currently selling *OS* and *software*. Keeping Cortana restricted to Windows would have been a selling point for Windows (and thus selling more license to Windows-based phone makers)... but Windows has completely and utterly failed to attract any significant interest.
iOS and Android are the 2 big player, and there's little room for a 3rd one(*), specially given the network effect.They have no point in actually keeping Cortana restricted, Windows on phone is a lost cause anyway.
So having failed that, of course Microsoft will move to the next possibility: indeed, there's massive value in mining information. Siri and Cortana are running locally, they are just thin clients that record vocal commands and send them to data center for interpretation.
There's a high potential to monetize that, so Microsoft has a strong incentive to push it to as many devices as possible.
(*) a 3rd *incompatible* one which uses yet another different standard for apps.
There are plenty of small niches for different OSes (mainly full blown Linux) that still retain compatibility with Android apps.
e.g: Black Berry, Sailfish OS, etc.
Don't pay attention. It's basically just trolls pretending to be outraged just because mozilla decided to give the option to end users to use a 3rd party binary plug-in to handle DRM decryption in HTML5 videos.
(you know, the same way Flash, Java, Silverlight, etc. had always been plug-ins too. Except that DRM is much more restricted in what it can do, as it runs in a sand box that only allows it to work as a decryption filter).
If you don't like it, you can also try to play around with semantic patching (like coccinelle)
LAN Manager was multiuser. The client wasn't but that doesn't make much difference as the non-multiuser smartphones phones using apps and websites today proves quite well.
I see turbidostato below made the same point.
OS/2 had networking (really good networking) and multitasking. Lan Manager (based on OS/2) as well as Novell (worked with OS/2) had file permissions. So they produced a product with those 3 facets.