Oh it is still "free as in beer".
They are paying for extra support.
741 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Nov 2012
They already covered the "unfit for purpose" in the warranty.
There is no warranty that it is "fit for any purpose"....
From the EULA:
"The manufacturer or installer, and Microsoft, exclude all implied warranties and conditions, including those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose., and non-infringement. If your local law does not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, then any implied warranties, guarantees, or conditions last only during the term of the limited warranty and are limited as much as your local law allows. If your local law requires a longer limited warranty term, despite this agreement, then that longer term will apply, but you can recover only the remedies this agreement allows."
So you get nothing more than what you paid for it...
Don't you remember the demonstrations of something like a 232 mile record distance with wifi?
https://www.wired.com/2007/06/w_wifi_record_2/
This one did use some special antenna, but the range limits are
NOT limited to 100 feet by design. It is only limited by construction.
Even then, it is entire possible to build a slow cruse missile...
No. Using the initrd separates/eliminates that restriction.
The only requirement is that the ZFS module must exist in the initrd.
The only filesystem mandatory in the kernel (with the initrd) is the one for a RAMFS, as that is what the initrd (a compressed cpio file) is put into, then that is used for the root filesystem while hardware and partition inventory is completed.
Only modules available for the hardware (and filesystems needed) will be loaded.
Thus the ZFS module would be loaded from the initrd, then the real root filesystem mounted... and the system uses "pivot_root" to exchange the real root for the RAMFS, which can then be dismounted and deallocated.
What MIGHT be a problem is for grub to be able to load the kernel and initrd from a ZFS based filesystem.
Even exposing SMBv1 on private networks is a vulnerability for the network.
Refusing to patch it is just unethical, immoral, and should be illegal.
Now patching by giving the administrators the ability to disable it, yes. Patching it by giving the administrators the ability to restrict it to specified networks, yes.
Both of those fixes should be present ANYWAY.
Best of all would be ACTUALLY FIXING THE BUG.
Anything else... just being stupid.
AGAIN.
A mirror works quite well for that... put the camera in a lead box with a view of the camera - then put a lead backing around the mirror.
So long as there is no direct line between the camera sensor and the radiation source, visible light is appropriately filtered of radiation.
systemd
'oh! DNS lib underscore bug bites everyone's favorite init tool, blanks Netflix
In very simple environments, it works fairly well.
But it sucks when you need to add a new service...
People
* keep having to add sleep times before they start...
* keep trying to get the service started
* resort to even using cron to start them via @boot
* still lose log data
* still have to put up with boot/shutdown hanging... sometimes
But in a simple environment... it isn't too bad. Last time I checked though, Slackware still booted faster.
"Even the US government would not be stupid enough to build a NY-DC tunnel without somebody to operate the entire system"
Certainly they would. Every road system in the US has separate contracts - one for building, another for maintenance, a third for improvements.
That way each contract gets to underbid... and different companies get to blame the cost overruns on a different company.
"But all have a duty to obey the law, to pay any taxes they owe, etc."
Except when they can make more money by not obeying the law or pay taxes they owe...
One of the reasons Microsoft and AT&T keep ending up in court for NOT doing it... then pay a pittance to "get out of jail".
"How about just appying security critical patches in a timely manner? or am i missing something?"
Part of the problem is that the patches tend to break other things... and make the system unusable.
So, do you want a useless MRI machine with a patched controller...
OR
A usable MRI machine with an unpatched controller?
Linux already does get attacked - daily. Before I retired all the linux systems in the center were attacked. constantly.
Most of the attacks just didn't work.
Linux has a much better foundation for security, better partitioning, better design, better implementation.
Unlike proprietary systems, ALL bugs get action, including the security bugs. Anyone can look and work on the bugs they find.
Windows... Nope.
Will you be able to find a company capable of, and willing to, take on someone else's hacked and undocumented spaghetti code? If so, will they charge you less than a commercial supplier would for support?
YES. Open source code being available that "alternate support" will also be cleaner and cheaper.
Will you be able to find a company capable of, and willing to take on someone else's hacked and undocumented spaghetti code from a proprietary company?
NO. The code is not available.
Fission did cease, the rods were properly in place. The shutdown went just fine. No problems.
The problem was that even a shutdown reactor still has latent heat that needs to be removed.
Which by the way, is the SAME reason that CPU fans continue to run after the CPU is halted. The latent heat STILL has to be removed, or damage to the core will occur.
The PROBLEM was that the pumps doing the cooling had their power source flooded.