I mean, I guess "you do you," but if you were really a big fan you could've just called HER Shirley and HIM Fred and not insulted his fashion choices... He might still be trying to figure that shit out and is playing "catch up".

I apologize. I should have used my sarcasm tags, but I'm not sure how to escape the angle bracket on these boards. The parent wouldn't be shocked.

I am also aware that at one point the company had a good reputation. In fact, in the late 90s and early oughts they sponsored the CA that *I* now work for by cross-signing our roots and my company did the same for Let's Encrypt many years later.

This was my point: corner cutting and executive complacency led to their downfall. It seems to me that the parent experienced at least the beginnings of that in that, when presented with solid evidence of poor practice, the executives at Entrust didn't care. The parent's statement that "I brought this up to management and they didn't care. They just wanted to cover their asses and be able to blame the employees for bad passwords." is probably earlier evidence of what the CA/B forum saw later which caused them to revoke their public trusted status.

I suppose you will be shocked to hear, then that Entrust just lost their webtrust and their certificates are no longer going to be trusted by browsers any longer...

...Or Foreman deployed using the Katello scenario. It supports both apt and yum repos, and much, much more. Satellite is the Red Hat branded version.

As a Salt Lake resident, honestly - I'm more worried about the dust that kicks up. There are a lot of heavy metals and chemicals in the lake and as it dries out, it leaves behind a lot of loose soil that kicks up in wind storms. Long-story-short, that wind blows into the city and blows toxic chemicals into our homes, schools and businesses.

My family has been doing property management for almost half a century now. It's a family business - grandpa started it, and my parents took over after he passed. They do small properties - apartment complexes with 8 units, duplexes, individual houses, etc. They make between 4% and 8% of the monthly rent on the property. So yeah - add a 3% credit card processing fee on top of that, and the economics don't make any sense. That's half or nearly all of their management fee And you can bet the owners aren't going to eat that cost. For many of them, that's their retirement, or they are trying to make their own mortgages.

It's also worth remembering that for all-big-tech not named "Google", they are *also* customers of those same ISPs - paying for connection. Even then, Google probably still pays for some internet service in many places - Google Fiber isn't ubiquitous.

This is "adaptive cruise control" - not "forward collision avoidance" - In other words, not covered by the mandate.

Yeah, and "My friend would have died if he was wearing his seatbelt - I'm never wearing mine!" This belief that this data doesn't *already* exist and that automation in part or whole is less safe than drivers is hogwash. Robots don't get tired, and glitch far less than humans do. They might glitch differently, but the binary robots are much safer than the biological bipedal ones.

And cost H&R Block, Turbo Tax and the like 5.6 million... Oh noes! But in all seriousness, the fact that the IRS already knows what they think I owe them, but then makes me fill out a 2+ page form to tell *them* what I owe them and can imprison me if I make a mistake is bonkers. We should not have to have an entire industry to help me do that. Just tell me what I owe, and let me write a check. If I think it's wrong, let me make an appeal. But we should not be propping up a multi-million dollar industry that is unnecessary with our convoluted tax system.

Get ready for the Fanbois to tell you it is a security issue... Ask me how I know - despite all evidence to the contrary.

...or greedy. Pick your narrative.

There were some signs that they were starting to... In OSX Lion they introduced the app store to Mac. It's not that much further to "no side loading" Fortunately, they haven't done that (which is why I still use Mac laptops) but it seemed like they were trending in that direction. Of course, it's a little harder to prevent me from rooting my mac...

Yes.

No, iOS covers private use, BYOD, Corporate owners, and government owners of devices. Private individuals, and even some corporations want the ability to side load. If Apple nukes the option to sideload, that affects BYOD users and private users. So yes, this is part of the BYOD scenario. And for that matter many governments and government departments support BYOD. You are the one that says it is BS for an enterprise to want to control what their users install on their equipment. You turn what should be an noncontroversial topic as an anti-Apple screed.

That's actually not something I said, but you seem to think I did. Did you read what I posted? The fact that this is a news article and wasn't someone simply sidling up to an Apple exec to say "hey, if you can't support sane device management, we can't keep purchasing Apple phones" to the extent they purchase them at all tells me this isn't about solving the technical problem and Apple is just trying to get the EU to back off of their position so they don't have to impelement a change that they don't want to because it affects their bottom line.

Yes, and on Android you have to install the APK for "Mike's App Emporium" by unchecking the box. Apple uses IPAs. Even in the scenario in which Facebook in "Mike's App Emporium" repos, Facebook is capable of using Code Signing to guarantee that Facebook's app in Mike's App Emporium is the genuine article. If Apple implements side-loading in a way that is broken, that's really on Apple and says a lot about the security of their device. If they aren't capable of implementing side-loading in a secure and reasonable way, then they are incapable of coding a number of other things in a way that aren't fundamentally broken and have far more widespread security issues than just side-loading.

That's correct. You can't disable a non-existent setting using a device policy management system. This article presents as "see sideloading is iNsEcUrE!" - so you shouldn't support it, not "Hey, Apple doesn't support proper device management" - do you see the difference? One is spreading FUD to try to continue to drive profits, the other one just tries to fix a technical problem. But crucially, we don't know that Apple isn't going to give this device management capability to corporate/government customers on their as-yet-unreleased feature.