It's available for linux, go to the forums at their site, the UniFi section and look at any version announcement. They even have a Debian/Ubuntu repo, if you're on RHEL/CentOS you just grab a tarball and install the mongodb bits yourself.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
*tucks plaid scarf into ironic sweater vest* "It's a small indie brand, you wouldn't have heard of it."
Actually, we're just as you describe, tons of Dell in the computer room and on the desktop. No real troubles with any of it, and anything that needs to be replaced is quickly handled.
Probably more like 12 years, if WIkipedia and the U.S. Govt are right about this bust drying up 90% of the world's LSD supply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard
There's nothing foolish about it, he's wrong. That is, provided you continue to keep up-to-date with patches. Given two equal SSH daemons, both fully updated but one on a random high port, the one listening on 22 will log hundreds or thousands of attempts per day, the one on a random port will log *zero*. Which do you think makes log auditing easier to look for truly dangerous threats? (If you see failures on your "obscured" SSH daemon, you _know_ you have a problem because someone has fully scanned your address(es) and is actively attempting a break in, while those attempts just disappear in the noise on the port 22 daemon). Similarly, if/when that next SSH 0-day hits, which of the two is in immediate danger of being rooted? The one that is in the logs of dozens or hundreds of scanning script kiddies, or the one that has never been hit a single time by an unknown user, that nobody in the world even knows exists?