Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Oh great (Score 1) 66

Compellent and Equalogic are to of the great examples of Dell buying a competent lineup, and ruining it forever. They are forever a day late, dollar short. There is, however, a class of bosses who value "Enterprise" labels on things, because it removes them from poor decisions. Dell is the new IBM that nobody got fired for buying. And eventually, they will end up like IBM as Just Another IT Services Company. I'll let you decide if that is worth anything in the long run.

Comment Re:Oh great (Score 1) 66

Their "enterprise" level support is excellent and the products generally perform as advertised

No. They buy good products, and turn them into bad products with "Enterprise" support, which is enough to keep pointy head bosses happy. You'd be surprise how much leverage "Enterprise" matters to people.

Comment Re:I guess they realised... (Score -1, Flamebait) 46

Well, it's funny how something with "the underpinnings of how X11 does it are actually decrepit and inefficient and compare poorly to other strategies that leverage different entry points that Wayland actually preserves" still manages to solve the problem, and Wayland doesn't.

X11 isn't perfect. Nobody's ever argued that. It's just nobody's really asking for a replacement, and if they were, they wouldn't be asking for Wayland. X11 is an extraordinary piece of technology, it takes some gal to claim everyone should just throw it out and replace it with a ground up rewrite that adds no new features and doesn't support the major features X11 is famous and loved for.

It's not like init/SystemD, where init really was a bug ridden piece of garbage that's needed replacing now since before Linux itself came on the scene, and SystemD implements everything init did but does it right.

Comment Re:Not quite (Score 1) 207

While not an OEM per say, I have done this with a Windows 7 System Builder version. Install Win7 System Builder, Upgrade to Win10, reinstall Win7. I did not do the rollback: an actual fresh Windows 7 installation which then requires activation. The activation of Windows 7 upon reinstall worked just fine. Granted, System Builder != OEM, but still...

Now, whether I could -for example- replace the HDD in that machine and try to install Windows 10, that I don't know. The hash is indeed for the machine you upgraded with all hardware it had at that point. However, for many machines upgrading is not somethiing that will happen (think laptops). I had planned to try such a situation (upgrade with 4GB RAM, nuke, install 8GB RAM and then install a fresh 10 and see whether it activates), but I have only limited time.

Besides, they're so desperate to see 10 adoption, they'll look a lot though the fingers.

Comment The money quote (Score 5, Insightful) 170

Hayden said that losing the first Crypto War on the Clipper Chip did not stop the US government from obtaining the information it needed.

âoeIn retrospect, we mastered the problem we created by the lack of the Clipper Chip,â he said. âoeWe were able to do a whole bunch of other things. Some of the other things were metadata, and bulk collection and so on.â

So... "don't ban encryption, we don't need to!"

Comment Re:Waaaahhhhh!! (Score 1) 668

Your summary is missing the 500lb gorilla, which makes it extraordinarily misleading to anyone following the discussion.

Let's correct and add information to one dubious statement here:

And, one of my own questions: Why do we want/need PE binaries when ELF are extensible [the "E" in ELF] and have widely supported tool chains? Answer: Because MS is pushing it.

No, the answer is: Because Microsoft only signs PE binaries.

And then let's go up to:

why do you bother with the MS keysigning of Linux kernel modules to begin with?

Here is the 500lb gorilla: Because most implementations of secure boot only accept keys signed by Microsoft.

So in order to get a random Linux-based distribution to run on a generic secure boot enabled PC, your choices are either to remove secure boot (which isn't always possible), hope that the firmware maker included your distribution's key (highly unlikely), or have it signed by Microsoft, which means going the PE route.

ELF may be superior to PE, but that doesn't make it a solution to the problem that RedHat raised. X.509 keys may be an international standard, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this.

It was a legitimate issue to raise, and it was handled badly by Torvalds and others. A legitimate response would have been "The inability of our kernel to be installed on what's likely to be the majority of computers in a few years is a small price to pay for using superior technologies", not "RedHat just wants to give Microsoft blow jobs", which is immature, pathetic, and doesn't answer anything.

Comment Re: Waaaahhhhh!! (Score 1) 668

In this case, it's a poor example, because RedHat wasn't showing any signs of proposing this because they wanted to please Microsoft. RedHat was, instead, saying they felt practical concerns meant that accepting Microsoft has de-facto control over the signing process needed to be recognized.

But if they did? What's wrong with "please" or maybe "serve", as in "If RedHat wants to serve Microsoft, then..."?

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley