Microsoft Teams actually has a whiteboard feature built in. When you go to 'share' one of the features is a shared whiteboard.

I had an iPad and it was fine when it was just me using it. When my kid started to get old enough to play games on a tablet I found I wanted something multi-user and with parental controls. I eventually went with the Kindle because of said parental controls. I can leave wireless on and he can do streaming of things without being able to drain my bank account. Let him have the iPad with wireless on and within about 60 seconds he had purchased and downloaded a movie (from flailing about more than from doing it on purpose). While you can lock down an iPad to some extent I found it to be a lot more user friendly and flexible when using the Kindle.

So I think besides the issue(s) that people have talked about already with they bought one and it is still good enough, I think that they are also not really starting to think about families using them. They still want you to buy an iPad for everyone if you secure it which isn't very realistic. Even if the device is 'better' if it is missing something that is crucial to most people they are going to move on. It is suffering from good enough syndrome, cost comparisons, a lack of good multi-user functionality and parental controls far behind their competition.

I have read about these off and on for a few years, but a few years ago they said this standard wasn't really taking root because at these resolutions people were experiencing motion sickness when viewing the images. I wonder if they have been able to do anything to alleviate that in the newer televisions or if that is still going to be an issue.

I would sign-up for something like this. I can also see it being a win-win for readers and publishers.

Now you just need to convince Amazon or Barnes and Noble (is anyone else left?).

Schools nowadays deal with a lot of cyber bullying and the like. These students/teachers know who the poster is and who the intended target is in most cases. So there is no anonymity there and people still act like jerks.

I think in reality it is not being anonymous that leads people to be jerks, it is the knowledge that they have no consequences for their actions. The internet seems to be a fine line between no consequences for being a jerk and massive overkill if you piss off someone with the appropriate technical skills (or a stalker I suppose).

Just because anonymous people are jerks does not mean that being a jerk is caused by being anonymous. So really all you are going to do is make it easier to harass people on the internet without really weeding out the people being jerks. So not only is this solution infringing on a lot of rights, real and perceived, it wouldn't even accomplish anything.

You can use PowerShell and plink to write PowerShell scripts. You can login to a router, run commands, go into enable mode and tftp off a backup for instance.

You can also do something semi-dynamic by dumping the output to a script file with PowerShell and using plink to run the commands in the script file.

Not a built-in cmdlet, but you can still accomplish what you want pretty easily.

The cost and list of phones looks very similar to the phone sets that support Microsoft's Exchange Active Sync push technology. Is the lawsuit definitely something to do with Linux or could it just be licensing fees for synchronizing email?

Are there any options that would work for internally hosted solutions (your data center not theirs) that would have support?

I have heard this question multiple times, but one of the requirements for some enterprises is to have support. Do any of these products (or similar, open source or not) that include support?

A lot of compliance audits have requirements that are not OS specific and one of them is having anti-virus (among other things). So a lot of large companies just find it easier to have something that supports all their systems so they don't have to get into an argument on every audit.

Whether it is right or wrong, or a system needs it, isn't the point. Audits can be very expensive and sometimes having those boxes checked can be an easier route to go.

I haven't tried it, but some of the Linux administrators at work just download the add-on from Sysinternals.

It doesn't come with the operating system but it is free, produced by the vendor and most people seem happy with it. Of course this only applies if you actually want to use virtual desktops over slamming Windows - but if so here is the link:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881.aspx

You are missing the point between what you consider quality software and software that passes a government audit. Just like the parent said, if we are looking at a product and it doesn't pass regulations - we can't even really look at it.

Now the question you should ask here is what passes regulations. With the laws being so vague and having so many contradictions, the real answer about what passes and what doesn't is what the big third party auditors say passes. So what you consider assured is much different than what the government will let us consider assured.

This isn't to say open source software doesn't get in - we have many linux server farms, apache and a host of other open source products that we use (happily).

A for instance though is that one of the requirements for compliance is that all servers need to have anti-virus. You could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that concreteBox1 sans internet attachment cannot get a virus - yet you still need to prove it has an updated AV product on it. You can try to fight it, but with 50,000+ systems it just isn't worth it.

Another example is two factor authentication being required for any remote VPN solution, requiring AV and firewall. To meet this requirement we use third party products such as F5 (Juniper has some, etc). They all have the built-in scanning engines for Windows and even Mac (e.g. OPSWAT), but not Linux. This means that Linux is pretty much not acceptable as a workstation due to compliance.

Does Linux NEED AV/Firewall? It doesn't *matter*. It matters that we as a company are required to be able to scan to prove they have it and most third party products don't support it yet. We keep pushing though (can you hear the frustration?).

I am not saying in any way that open/closed is better, cheaper or less anything. What I am saying is if you are in a company that is that regulated sometimes it really is cost prohibitive to look at any company that can't provide you with an easy pass to your audits. The companies that the parent listed - RedHat, Novell, Microsoft - and anything they support are what we tend to go with because we know our audits will fly.

The people you have to convince of your theories are the companies that do the audits for PCI, SOX and a whole host of others.

If you took away auditing a lot of companies our size might have a completely different perspective.