No meaning? Look up CVC3 security. Apple did nothing new here. It is all standard. It just works because the credit card companies have been building this stuff up for years and years. You don't have to know about the counter, it is there to prevent cloning.
What if you decrement? That is the whole point! You can't clone a transaction! Even if you get the CC number, the counter would prevent it from being used. This is a low level security measure that makes NFC payments more secure than magstripe. It is a good thing. I'm happen that Apple finally added NFC.
NFC has a counter feature as part of the standard. Each time a credit card number is used, the counter goes up one. This is to prevent a replay attach. The problem is you can't take a plastic credit card with NFC and put that number into the phone and expect the counter to work correctly. Use the phone, the counter goes up, use the plastic, the counter goes up. Use the phone again, counter is wrong. To fix this problem, Google creates a new credit card number for tap and pay. Apple says they go one step further and create a new number for each transaction. That seems to go a bit further than needed. The counter would prevent replay attacks since this virtual card would only be used for tap and pay. I just wonder if the wording by Apple today was slightly off. Just a guess.
The main point is what Apple was doing is, by and large, standard stuff. Both Google and Apple just implemented a standard. Yeah, a few tweaks here and there, but it is certainly now revolutionary!
RedHat 7 ships with systemd. But, but, but, we all know that RedHat totally and completely abandoned the desktop years ago.
So we have two options. Either systemd is not just for desktops or RedHat never completely abandoned the desktop. Either way, there is no need to split distros. RedHat does provide a nice tool called 'tuned' that helps tweak kernel and system parms for desired load.
Then I guess I'm not in my right mind.
I like Fedora a lot. I like the desktop environment (Gnome3 has really grown on me). Fedora moves at a decent clip to track with the latest and greatest without a lot of hassle. I have always liked RedHat/Fedora's PXE/kickstart installer. I like the big projects RedHat/Fedora is working on like FreeIPA, OpenStack packaging, GFS2, KVM, OpenLMI, CloudForms, and oVirt. RedHat has spent a lot of money buying some of the companies that created some of that software and the turn around and open source all of it. FreeIPA is a big one. A seriously great project that took old code from Sun/Netscape and made it usable.
I know the big gripe is systemd, but so far I like it. It makes writing start/stop/status configuration easy and reliable.
Did you know that systemd will run standard sysV scripts? You could have done that. If you were making your own script. I don't know why you would want to make your own script since the package includes one.
Did you notice the line above ExecStart? EnvironmentFile= points to a possible place that IRQBALANCE_ARGS is located. This is a normal place for things like that in a RedHat/CentOS/Fedora system. Nothing new here.
Since you wanted apache to start up at boot, did you try '/sbin/chkconfig httpd on'? This is the normal RHEL/Fedora way. It will *tell* you the systemd way when you run it on a systemd system (Note: Forwarding request to 'systemctl enable httpd.service'.)
Maybe you aren't familiar with the RHEL tools and filesystem layout?
We are an agile shop. We have pair programming, continuous integration, and continuous delivery to AWS. The pipeline runs RedHat. We have also have some CentOS.
Fedora is not a bone, it is a great way to know what is coming in RHEL. CentOS (which RedHat supports) is a great server distro for everyone.
The tension is stability versus the latest tech. RedHat purposely moves very, very slowly. The same can be said about Debian stable. As an admin I like slow moving targets. The problem is that developers want to use the latest stuff. So what does RedHat do about this? I think they are trying to solve it in two ways. First is their Software Collections. These are packages that site outside the base OS and are easy to pivot to the newer version. This allows for multiple versions of things like Python to be installed in parallel. Very handy!
Another thing that is helping quite a bit is Docker. RedHat is big on Docker. By packaging containers as apps, this allows a developer to easily control the dependencies outside of the OS that the app is running on. This makes everyone happy! Fedora is tracking some interesting tooling with Docker (geard, os-tree).
I like that RedHat tries to solve bigger problems than just packing and releasing a distro. They are trying to make things manageable (see FreeIPA, OpenLMI, RDO, CloudForms, oVirt)
Personally, I like RedHat. I like Debian. I run Fedora on my desktop and notebook. I maintain a CI/CD pipeline on RedHat at work. I never jumped on the Ubuntu bandwagon. It seems to me that Ubuntu has made quite a few more mis-steps in their short existence than RedHat has over the years. I get the feeling that a lot of people are just dropping back to Debian, which is just fine with me!
Thanks for this! Both you and the previous poster explaining BGP. So many people have misconceptions on how the Internet works. Then there is the added complexity of business.
I really proves nothing that Netflix over a VPN is faster than without a VPN. We already know Verizon-Level3 peering is saturated. Both sides have admitted it. It comes down to how to solve the problem. It is not a technical problem. It is a business problem
So what if Level3 offers to pay for the upgraded link. If the existing agreement is settlement-free upgrading the link will likely push the traffic exchange outside the agreement. So if Level3 starts sending more traffic than it received from Verizon, then they should pay Verizon for transit of that traffic. Verizon has probably told them that. Level3 comes back and says, "But we'll pay for the upgraded equipment." Verizon says, "So what? If the traffic isn't equal, then you pay." And on and on it goes. So, as stated above, the best thing to do is for Netflix to create peering connections with Verizon that have no expectation of equal traffic. They will have to pay Verizon for these connections.
This is NOTHING new people. This is how the Internet has always worked.