Linux IMA at LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/227937/, https://lwn.net/Articles/326747/
IBM (involved in Trusted Computing Group) link: http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_people.nsf/pages/sailer.ima.html

Bullet-point summary of EVM:
EVM Mailing-list announce: https://lwn.net/Articles/393673/

We would definitely herald 2012 as the Year Of Linux On The Desktop if we had a UI which used a 20-dimensional hypercube. Redmond's Photocopiers couldn't keep up with that kind of innovation!

Can I bring my laptop to you and you install a hypervisor and partition it up with some virtual machines so I have one partition for your work environment and one for my stuff? You can pick the hypervisor...

Nice dream, but this can never be a win because, soon as I have access to the hardware and run my instrumenting hypervisor, your disk encryption is compromised and any secrets you might want to keep -- and that's no matter how obscure the notion of a secret: logins, handshakes, keyfiles, and onward to company confidential or technical know-how -- those secrets are now theirs to leak.

They're racking their brains as to what to do next.

I would aim for kernel threads running directly through CUDA and the Scheduler knowing the performance profile of suitable work for the GPU and the message-passing cost of moving work to the GPU^H^H^H parallelism co-processor. Make the interface right and you should be able to shift tasks across heterogeneous processing units. Do it perfectly and you can have a Linux Virtual Processor model which allows you to start running a task on your desktop, shuffle it to a laptop for transit, pare it down to use on your mobile phone, buy some CPU time from an internet cluster to grind through some calculations before transferring it home. Choose x86: there's already enough x86 junk in other trees, and it might fix up the ARM shenanigans too!

Expensify's got 7 people total in their huddle but they want more. They've trolled successfully to get your and my attention -- and got worldwide press for this. For a company at 7 seats, everyone has to pitch in at everything: 'not my job' and 'not my skillset' are unacceptable and only 'what can I do to help us get the win?' is the only thing that will get this company to success.

Maybe you didn't like the style and wouldn't work there. It reminded me that I enjoy being the sort of person who uses any skill and the best tool to do what I've chosen to get into. And it's good to know that there are other people out there who will celebrate and encourage that.

(But still, I've been trolled and this is a post in a troll thread.)

You aren't a mainstream Christian if you think that*. Penal Atonement is a minority view of what the Cross does for mankind's relationship with God. It makes sense to a human but it can't be the true explanation because it requires God to make humanity susceptible to fail God's rules, then have God step in and sacrifice God to God to break those rules and 'satisfy' God of something when most of it is breaking God's rules.

Any idea how unfair it seems of God has to hold you or me to God's rules? Or that we must 'adore' or 'worship' such a deity in such a setup?

*: Penal atonement, that Jesus on the cross is a sacrifice which satisfies God's need to have someone pay for the sins of the world.

Perhaps we need to add steganographic noise to the other elements on your photo-sharing sites, just so that your messages don't stick out like a sore thumb.

That was added after (in response to?) my comment post. The mods can do that, and thumbs up to them for improving this content-free front-page post.

This is a really terrible review. You could have said that Business Process Management (BPM) and Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) are important to know for this book. Or it's so esoteric that, if you need to know what BPM is, you already know BPM.

Actually, the word in the botnet IRC channels is that it's a dotNETclr.elop.trojan.

I don't know if there are domain experts or a client-base whose desires a traditional engineering effort can be aimed at. So the internal crowd get to be the client-base and to provide feature requests or feature enhancements themselves.

I can't work out if that's a good thing. Perhaps they'll be doomed like Sun to have a closed culture (as Valerie Aurora pointed out http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2010/02/13/sleeping-with-the-enemy/) which will only scratch the itches that people within Facebook need for Facebook. On the other hand, they've built a substantial internal culture which mimics a successful free software culture.

We've had to justify creating auto test suites where I work.

Over the last decade our product has grown from one code-base into three strands, each with separate customer foci, and we've had a healthy amount of staff turnover so that there are still brilliant, creative and skilled people working on it but some of the original knowledge has left us.

We found* numbers to justify that automated testing of existing features, applied later will protect against regressive changes. Even where there are complicated features which were not modular in design, or which lack good interfaces, the tests have saved us massive amounts of time testing by hand. The real win is hidden under something we didn't realise until later: creating the tests have forced us to really document what the features are and how they work**, sometimes from a unit-test level, sometimes at the interface level and sometimes in a top-to-bottom vertical slice. Once you have a record of what your software does, in a computer which is skilled at remembering exactly and repeating exactly what some former staff member told it a couple of years ago, you have a decent reason to be confident that your bug fixes won't cause more harm than good.

*: ballpark figures / educated guesses / made up.
**: We favour working code over comprehensive documentation, until our agile team is reassigned to other projects or leaves the company.

I'll bite: as long as the anyone in computer science writes software which is licensed with a disclaimer of warranty attached (even GPLv3 has "THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND") then they're failed engineers. Real engineers have insurance for liability and warrant that their work is suitable for its intended use. Sure, there are support contracts available but when the majority of the computing workforce produce software that's 'good enough' and it's sold, installed and used without someone meeting their duty to care for the impact of their work, then they deserve the label 'failed engineer'.

I put an SSD in as system disk on my desktop,and it made me feel like a 12-year old boy again (guessing parent poster was once girl). When I was 12 we had a 25MHz ARM-powered desktop (Acorn A5000) which had its system software in ROM and which remains my definition of snappy. Windows 7 with 4GB of RAM and 4 2.5GHz AMD Phenom cores is nearly as snappy; Kubuntu 10.10 on the same hardware was dead on.

But to reply to TFA: no, I want spinning storage for the terabytes of archives my life will create, and the availabiliy of another speed/capacity tier of data cache will mean I'm always going to be sold the option of having both.