kjs3

4 ms·

1.
by kjs3 5d ago
Support contracts never cover a "site" they always cover individual devices Wrong. I've signed many support contracts that were negotiated basically to "one flat fee for everything we sell that you use, including futu
2.
by kjs3 5d ago
And bots don't buy lunch.
3.
by kjs3 5d ago
Please do not treat it as a challenge box; I can restore from tape, but that ruins it for everyone else. Unfortunately, for a disturbing percentage of the Internet, ruining things for everyone else is the goal. I'd turn off telnet.
4.
by kjs3 6d ago
By that logic most people do not need backups too. You need to go back for remedial logic.
5.
by kjs3 7d ago
Since it doesn't run the software I need, why would I buy it? Unthinking fanboi-ism or simple stupidity?
6.
by kjs3 7d ago
Or go the other way and make web pages not programs at all, like they originally were. Unfortunately, just communicating information isn't cool, doesn't monetize, and certainly doesn't get clicks.
7.
by kjs3 8d ago
You might have done barely working duck-taped Bash scripts; not eveyone who calls themself a 'system admin' is competent. But actual professionals who ran these systems since the 1970s had carefully written, fully functional scrip
8.
by kjs3 8d ago
This. I can see the utility of systemd and probably would have liked to have it when my team was riding herd on a DC full of Sun E15Ks and HP Superdomes. But for basically everything else that I use Linux for, every time someone says &quo
9.
by kjs3 8d ago
I'm not sure why that's relevent, particularly since Ubiquity's approach wouldn't have remotely competed with Fujitsus custom ASICs if they were actual contemporaries, but you clearly have an agenda you're in love w
10.
by kjs3 8d ago
The XG series switches? Force10 sold them until Dell bought Force10 and continued to sell them (although the firmware changed a lot along the way). They were, AFAIK, pretty popular in the US under the Dell brand. My home network is XG2000
11.
by kjs3 9d ago
I guess we aren't really close. You're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that data sovereignty laws are unconditionally bad because they inevitably lead to totalitarian followon laws and there's nothing to stop them. I&#
12.
by kjs3 9d ago
That's fair, and it sounds like we aren't that far apart. It is, in fact, about control. So I'll restate my central theme as "until the idea of enforceable data sovereignty requirements were enshrined in law, the clo
13.
by kjs3 9d ago
I'm printing this out and mounting it on the wall. Well played, my friend...well played.
14.
by kjs3 9d ago
I'm disagreeing with you. I in the before time, I had all sorts of conversations around this topic with any number of cloud providers that were like: Us: We are concerned about our citizens (US) data, how are you managing the database
15.
by kjs3 9d ago
Your analogy is better than mine. :-)
16.
by kjs3 9d ago
You apparently don't do business out here with the unwashed masses where "whadda mean with all that nonsense? It's cloud...it's by definition safe[1][2]!" is an all too common preconception. [1] That's a quo
17.
by kjs3 9d ago
and start talking about where administrative access and encryption keys lived Yeah, that was/is just another problem. Considering how that was actually handled in the real world before data residency laws came into force, I'm g
18.
by kjs3 10d ago
While I don't disagree with you, they shouldn't have to. This should be one of those things like covering your mouth when you cough in a crowd and not playing loud music in your cube that people with basic social skills should kn
19.
by kjs3 10d ago
What is 'insane' here is the shear level of entitlement displayed here, including lumping a niche, free, volunteer supported service in with billion dollar, for profit corporations and demanding they pander to your inflated expect
20.
by kjs3 10d ago
Probably true. My bad.
21.
by kjs3 10d ago
You're right...I didn't think that through.
22.
by kjs3 11d ago
If we're looking at 'future' filesystems, is fragmentation really an issue in an SSD world? Not that there isn't a lot of spinning rust (and will be for quite a while), I don't think it's unreasonable to assum
23.
by kjs3 11d ago
Now at the risk of over generalizing And yet you couldn't help yourself.
24.
by kjs3 12d ago
The smart engineer always reads the errata carefully.
25.
by kjs3 12d ago
MS-DOS 1.25 supported 8" disks. I think 2.0 still did.
26.
by kjs3 12d ago
MS-DOS 1.25 supported 8" disks. I think 2.0 still did.
27.
by kjs3 12d ago
MS-DOS didn't have built in support for 3.5" drives until version 3.2.
28.
by kjs3 13d ago
Oh, and be sure to include "you're scanning a pool address so you're probably scanning a lot of other sites that don't belong to your customer". They should know it's potentially not one little web site.
29.
by kjs3 13d ago
Try search on LinkedIn. Often turns up folks who work there who you can reach out to.
30.
by kjs3 13d ago
Sure...pretty clear there's a use case. I just recall our ops folks having to retool some of their playbooks because of the assumption there would be a standard filesystem on every active slice. Fortunately, the whole "load a par

More ›