The 19.10 bump was to get some fresh base libraries to build something as I recall. I think it might have for Remmina. Otherwise totally agree with you, LTS is always preferable
The bootloader was broken for this laptop model in 19.10 and I've been deferring going through the same pain upgrading to 20.04. Totally aware of the support situation and upgrade sequence, but an unsupported machine sure beats a bricked machine
It would probably only take a handful of engineers to mount a solid DoS attack by requesting approval for every shell script they write, home Ubuntu ISO they install, or neighbour's printer they fix to get this policy a little more sensibly refined. In any case whoever wrote that e-mail to him is not someone I would possibly tolerate working for
This sounds like a needlessly strict interpretation of GDPR. Taken from the UK regulator's site:
> The lawful bases for processing are set out in Article 6 of the UK GDPR. At least one of these must apply whenever you process personal data:
> (a) Consent: the individual has given clear consent for you to process their personal data for a specific purpose.
> (b) Contract: the processing is necessary for a contract you have with the individual, or because they have asked you to take specific steps before entering into a contract.
> (f) Legitimate interests: the processing is necessary for your legitimate interests or the legitimate interests of a third party, unless there is a good reason to protect the individual’s personal data which overrides those legitimate interests. (This cannot apply if you are a public authority processing data to perform your official tasks.)
...
> Legitimate interests is the most flexible lawful basis for processing, but you cannot assume it will always be the most appropriate. It is likely to be most appropriate where you use people’s data in ways they would reasonably expect and which have a minimal privacy impact, or where there is a compelling justification for the processing.
> The processing must be necessary. If you can reasonably achieve the same result in another less intrusive way, legitimate interests will not apply.
> You must include details of your legitimate interests in your privacy information.
I included the legitimate interests bits because they seem most relevant to testing, but even if testing is not considered "necessary" in a particular use case, there still remain at least two more criteria that might satisfy the use of live data in testing, including explicit user consent. Much of the focus of GDPR is on privacy-invasive intrusive processing and prevention of harm, I think a lot of fuss around it can be dispelled when viewed from this angle.
The biggest difficulty I've experienced is "librification", where some common code ends up in a little library, and soon that library is not so little any more, and not long after starts to look like half of every service. I can maintain discipline when working on small systems alone, but on a team there will always be one lazy person or urgent need which means eventually some shared component gains enough gravity to start sucking code out of their nice isolated homes
Giving up and dumping everything into a monorepo, that's not going to help at all. At that point probably better off just giving up any hope of carefully split up and individually managed services
I dislike RMS' opinions, therefore.. the GPL is dead? A little bit of a leap there buddy.
Cloud providers profiting from free software is an important issue, but it is largely orthogonal to the continuing need to protect free works in numerous traditional use cases
> Is there any technical reason why it is not supported?
No familiarity with these devices, but there is at least a slim chance if it was an embedded device, they needed the flash or RAM for something else. Seen this happen elsewhere before
Gentle reminder when receiving something for free, it's useful to keep in mind what the other party is receiving from you in return, and in this case, from all your users through your consent. I'm not sure what CloudFlare gain from offering this, but traffic data would seem the most obvious angle.
So I guess from my perspective, I'd treat this with roughly the same scepticism as a free hosting service provided by Google Analytics, at least until the bigger picture is made a little more clear.
> Since its introduction in 1973 and refinement in the 1970s and 80s, the model has become the de-facto standard for estimating the price of stock options
The only contemporary use for BS by professionals is as a convention for quoting volatility. As a pricing model it does not account for key effects such as the permanent "volatility smile" appearing in the aftermath of the 1987 crash (significantly increased price of downside options), and well understood behaviours like jumps and volatility clustering.
Seems we're both triggered by this emphasis on "_very_", or even use of that word at all. Obviously Iran has a variety of technical capabilities, such as evidenced by their national firewall and internal infrastructure, but are there any documented offensive campaigns successfully mounted against a foreign target?
The only attacks I know of are low brow phishing, DoS and web site defacements.
Please elaborate on this. As someone with direct exposure to this area and in this geography, my experience could not be described this way at all.
Let's not forget Iran's first "military satellite" was launched with an over the counter unencrypted amateur cubesat transponder manufactured by a Californian company