Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Maybe if HP didn't make crap... (Score 2) 116

It's pretty much a "day in the life" for HP to make people redundant. I'm convinced they only do it to boost their stock price.
If you look at the HP Origins movie which they show to all new hires, HP brags of a company that cares about it's employees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Excuse me while I feel violently ill. Maybe that used to be the case when Bill and Dave were alive..... but now....?
How the mighty have fallen. It's very sad watching that video.

The real problem for HP is that they now make "Made in China" crap and ride on their brand name and it's past glories. I can't think of a worse brand for computers now. Quality seems to be an afterthought in the drive to produce stuff that only barely just scrapes past the warranty period. Every HP I have come across has had some lingering issue with it. Dead and dying keyboards, broken hinges off the bottom of laptops, laptops that fall apart, random blue-screens on their business docks, glitchy displays, Windows 10 upgrades that cause serious display issues, their custom HP BIOS that blocks third party hardware from being used (forcing the consumer to endure phone support to buy HP parts at greatly inflated prices), their printers from barring 3rd party ink through firmware updates, etc. etc. etc. and that's just what I've seen.
Sure all brands have the occasional bad egg, but HP seem to create more than others.

And yet, HP equipment floods the market where I live, and given the choice... it's just cheap and nasty. ... and heaven help you if you have to deal with their support.

So these days they're almost irrelevant in the consumer space. Microsoft pushed people away from Windows with Windows 8 and has been scrambling to bring them back. Then of course most computers these days are good enough for most people and don't need to be upgraded constantly.
Then, you have iPads for most people who just want email and to surf the internet
Then you have Macs for most people who want to do stuff rather than wrestle with a computer ...and then you have Windows PCs for most everyone else who hasn't got the memo yet - but yet relies on office and the like.
That said, Windows computer issues keeps most home IT techs in business.... as they'd otherwise be working for HP.... if HP didn't send their jobs overseas.

Comment Re:gimme a pitch on FreeBSD (Score 2) 121

FreeBSD has been traditionally used in ISPs, primarily for it's networking.
It also supports native ZFS for storage

It's usually been the base OS for other projects like pfsense, and FreeNAS

Also given it's licence, any changes made to the source don't have to be shared... so code gets creatively "borrowed" from it a lot.
Just ask Apple.

Comment Re:Best selling computer? (Score 2) 290

It's because Apple keeps messing with the operating system on iPhones that it doesn't really qualify (and nor does it come with a keyboard)

The C64 had the same BASIC and KERNAL ROMs for the entire production run, meaning that each revision of the hardware was equally 100% compatible with any other C64.

You can't really say that for most computer lines. Take the Atari 8-bit line, the Apple II series, or the Commodore Amigas..... All different revisions of essentially the same computer in different memory, kernel, and language configurations. Oftentimes the different cases prevented certain expansions from working correctly, but not the C64.

Sure there was the C64 breadbin and C64C cases, and yes there were motherboard revisions of the circuitry including some sound and CPU chip revisions which were different yet otherwise 100% compatible... but other than that the Commodore 64 was a consistant platform for it's entire decade-long production run. Perhaps because of that, it held it's own defacto standard to which all demo coders could pitch towards in the demo scene. They weren't shit-fighting over using different hardware chips or memory expansions as the Amiga demoscene had to put up with. Most demos (with some notable exceptions) all used the stock hardware with a 1541 disk drive.... and that was it, and those were the rules that everyone understood (and still understands)

For that reason the demoscene on the C64 has stayed more or less constant too, and hasn't died like the other demo scenes.

Comment Cheaper to get hacked than do security maintenance (Score 5, Interesting) 56

Wasn't Slashdot only a number of articles ago talking about how much cheaper it is to get hacked than to deploy proper security and maintenance?

We've known this for ages....and I learnt about it the hard way years ago as a webmaster.

In my junior sysadmin pre-ITIL cowboy days, I was tasked with managing a web server, and it turned out that PHP needed an immediate update.
Without further ado, to avoid the risk of getting hacked, I went and updated PHP to the next version up.
Turns out that doing so broke a number of customer webpages - which were reliant on some old broken and unmaintained code. The website owners then complained and whined to our company that we threatened their businesses. (Fortunately they only made peanuts to our bottom-line, so luckily we didn't care that much)

Lesson was simple: it is much easier to maintain old versions that keep things working AND DO NOTHING than to do any proactive security maintenance. This works in a number of ways.

Firstly, when you eventually get hacked IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. It is the fault of some hacker and things will be seen that way. Blame gets shifted away from the admins anyhow.

Secondly, doing nothing is CHEAPER. It involves less risk, less change, and less responsibility. In a world where shareholders, finance and management dictate the aims of IT - you may as well fire the sysadmins because it's risky if they do any maintenance, meaning that since they're not going to do anything you may as well fire them. Just get contractors to build things to work once, then leave the systems on the internet indefinitely until they either end up getting hacked to the point of failure, or the hardware breaks down. Then rebuild the system from scratch with more contractors when that time eventuates.

That's how security patching works in the real world. In other words, it doesn't.

The thing is, it's ALL ABOUT SHIFTING BLAME in the world of IT, and IT is a risk, and it is expensive.
That's why there is so much outsourcing combined with support contracts so company managers can point the finger at vendors when things go to hell and then walk away with legal indemnification and still keep their job and their pensions while saying that they kept costs down when things eventually go to pot.

So in this Yahoo case, someone finally has to guts to call Yahoo out on it.

Comment Patching is less risky than getting hacked (Score 3, Insightful) 184

We've known this for ages....and I learnt about it the hard way years ago as a webmaster.

I was tasked with managing a web server, and it turned out that PHP needed an immediate update.
Without further ado, to avoid the risk of getting hacked, I went and updated PHP to the next version up.
Turns out that doing so broke a number of customer webpages - who were reliant on some old broken and unmaintained code, who then complained and whined to our company that we threatened their businesses.

Lesson was simple: it is much easier to maintain old versions that keep things working AND DO NOTHING than to do any proactive security maintenance. This works in a number of ways.

Firstly, when you eventually get hacked IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. It is the fault of some hacker and things will be seen that way. Blame gets shifted away from the admins anyhow.

Secondly, doing nothing is CHEAPER. It involves less risk, less change, and less responsibility. In a world where shareholders, finance and management dictate the aims of IT - you may as well fire the sysadmins because it's risky if they do any maintenance, meaning that since they're not going to do anything you may as well fire them. Just get contractors to build things to work once, then leave the systems on the internet indefinitely until they either end up getting hacked to the point of failure, or the hardware breaks down. Then rebuild the system from scratch with more contractors when that time eventuates.

That's how security patching works in the real world. In other words, it doesn't.

The thing is, it's ALL ABOUT SHIFTING BLAME in the world of IT, and IT is a risk, and it is expensive. That's why there is so much outsourcing combined with support contracts so company managers can point the finger at vendors when things go to hell and then walk away with legal indemnification and still keep their job when things eventually go to pot.

Slashdot Top Deals

A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.

Working...