retains access to the AI startup's technology until 2032, including models that achieve AGI
Exactly how do they envision an autocomplete gaining sentience?
It hasn't been "autocomplete" in a long time. Sure, there's a training step based on a corpus of Human language, and the autoregressive process outputs a single token at a time, but reinforcement learning trains specific behaviors beyond merely completing a sentence.
Besides, the best way to write something indistinguishable from what a Human might write is to, well, "think" like a Human.
Proprietary service drops support for proprietary protocol..
Nope. That's why I changed all my players to BlueOS.
I replaced all my SONOS connects with BlueSound node Nano devices. A pricey replacement, but worth it.
As a bonus I was now able to turn off SMB1 on my home Samba server !
The whole world has realized that they need to start air-gapping databases
I've worked at government contractors that had real air-gaps for things like their databases, but that does not seem to be the norm for the rest of the world. How would ordinary businesses make use of their databases if they are not network accessible under any circumstances, printed reports? Some sort of unidirectional transmission? What sort of data ingress are they using?
I ask this because I have been involved in the transfer of data in highly regulated, air-gapped systems, and they are incredibly expensive. Are you really indicating that true air-gap databases will be ubiquitous (or at least commonplace) in the forseeable future?
> Every large NAS vendor (Synology, QNAP, etc) has their own SMB server they wrote themserlves
That's untrue. Both Synology and QNAP use Samba. QNAP contributes code and bugfixes back to samba.org (Hi Jones !).
The upstream Linux kernel doesn't differentiate between security bugs and "normal" bug fixes. So the new kernel.org CNA just assigns CVE's to all fixes. They don't score them.
Look at the numbers from the whitepaper:
"In March 2024 there were 270 new CVEs created for the stable Linux kernel. So far in April 2024 there are 342 new CVEs:"
Yes ! That's exactly the point. Trying to curate and select patches for a "frozen" kernel fails due to the firehose of fixes going in upstream.
And in the kernel many of these could be security bugs. No one is doing evaluation on that, there are simply too many fixes in such a complex code base to check.
Oh that's really sad. I hope they use a more up to date version of Samba
I don't see that argument in the blog or paper.
Did you read them ?
There are many more unfixed bugs in vendor kernels than in upstream. That's what the data shows.
You're missing something.
New bugs are discovered upstream, but the vendor kernel maintainers either aren't tracking, or are being discouraged from putting these back into the "frozen" kernel.
We even discovered one case where a RHEL maintainer fixed a bug upstream, but then neglected to apply it to the vulnerable vendor kernel. So it isn't like they didn't know about the bug. Maybe they just didn't check the vendor kernel was vulnerable.
I'm guessing management policy discouraged such things. It's easier to just ignore such bugs if customer haven't noticed.
The first time, it's a KLUDGE! The second, a trick. Later, it's a well-established technique! -- Mike Broido, Intermetrics