Containers are even less separate than jails, of course they're near the bottom of the barrel in terms of security. Why the Container fad when the overhead of proper virtualization is now so very low it's negligible on any modern server processor?
Because you can run three to four more server apps on the same architecture than you can using even efficient VMs such as KVM. That, in turn, means you have o pay for fewer servers.
This guy isn't talking about our current student loan mess. He's talking about 30+ years ago... and somehow he never got around to dealing, never mind paying, his student loans from the 80s!? What a jerk.
I mean, Skype has always had troubles, but seriously simply entering http:/// causes not just a message crash, but wrecks the program! This is amazingly bad for a freshman project, much less an "enterprise" ready program from a major vendor.
When it comes to training employees on data privacy, 82% of the largest organizations do tell the people who work for them the right way to handle personally identifiable data and other sensitive information. Similarly, 71% of the businesses with 1,000-5,000 employees offer such training.
However, even though smaller companies are equally concerned about the subject, that concern does not trickle down to the employees quite so effectively. Half of the midsize businesses offer no such training; just 39% of organizations with under 100 employees regularly train employees on data privacy.
Presumably, your employer cares about data security and privacy, too (if for no other reason than to keep its name out of the news). But what is it really doing to ensure that protection?
There are several forms of [Resistive RAM], but they all store data by changing the resistance of a memory site, instead of placing electrons in a quantum trap, as flash does. RRAM promises better scaling, fast byte-addressable writes, much greater power efficiency, and thousands of times flash’s endurance.
RRAM's properties should enable significant architectural leverage, even if it is more costly per bit than flash is today. For example, a fast and high endurance RRAM cache would simplify metadata management while reducing write latency.
...and plenty more, of course.
Actually, to sum up what I said in the linked to article, Lollipop came out with multiple problems and Google was really slow both to get the first OTA and the updates out. It's not because as the person who posted this to
If you work in a large company with the backup solutions residing in the datacenter, you likely have experienced this phenomenon. It’s been described by some as “the worst day of the year for their infrastructure load.”
You know the painful process of trying to get the services up-and-running again after it crashes. You may find yourself struggling as the servers continue to crash as all those endpoints relentlessly try to shove photos of pets in Santa hats and bad Christmas sweaters through your precious network pipes and clog up the storage pools.
The authors have four suggestions for how sysadmins can avoid or minimize the damage, no matter what kind of backup system you use.
IT has to change its basic perspective: All endpoints are untrusted. That’s a big statement and the automatic response might be, “Not if I lock it down!” But, according to Smith, the days of saying no to users is dead. The new reality is that if you say no, users will go around you.
It might not be hopeless, though:
How do we possibly protect our data when things change so fast? Smith thinks the answer is in what he calls his “Lord of the Rings” philosophy: one system to rule them all, or what Gartner refers to as Unified Endpoint Management (UEM). UEM is a consistent, single approach to managing all aspects of endpoint data protection. It encompasses a whole range of features (identity management, app management, data access, etc.) and requires that vendors work together, ensuring their separate services and/or apps talk to each other and work together without necessitating IT involvement.
This sounds like utopia. The good news? According to Smith, vendors have already started to do it. The bad news? IT departments, with their legacy Windows XP and Windows 7 deployments, aren’t ready to support it.
Do you think this all is on the mark? Or are there ways to support users that don't drive both IT and end-users crazy?
As to why RHEL 6 applications cannot just simply run natively on RHEL 7, Bhavna Sarathy, technology product manager in the Platform Business Unit at Red Hat explained explained that applications that were built and certified to run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 have to be rebuilt and re-certified to run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, as the software stack between the two major releases is vastly different.
It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes