As other replies show here, DECnet is not something you can get away with mentioning in polite company. Strangely this is the second time I see that beast to be mentioned in the last week. If we mentioned it a third time I am afraid every neck bearded hipster would start to use it on their Sinclair Spectrums...
As obvious I used to wrangle DECnet setups and unfortunately miss those good old days when you need a drill to tap a new terminal or a DECnet bridge to Ethernet cable. I personally do not like MAC addresses to be modified on the general principle, however there are times you really need to do that.

This is the most pathetic clickbait piece of news I have ever seen in /.

Let me put it that way; I have realised that it was a comedy only in my second attempt to watch, as I slept in my first try. However I guess that movie has a cult potential, in ten or more years.

Although I do not like this classification in general, it somehow applies here: On the tactical level I completely agree with you, proper revocation implementation is the responsibility of software developers. At the end if a software do not check a certificate against a revocation database at all or if the procedure implemented poorly, CA has nothing to do with it under the current paradigm. You are right...

However CAs has the overall responsibility of the system, as we as the users (either as end user or as content provider) rely on CAs for authentication process, not software developers. Hell we even check the authenticity of software by using keys issued by a CA in some (most??) commercial scenarios. So it is up to CAs to develop a procedural solution to the problem. For example (and I am sure that there are pitfalls here, otherwise we would not be talking about this right now. This is just a general musing about a solution.) CAs can make their keys accessible only to software that implements OCSP in a proper way and can certify this fact by issuing very short term (like 30 days) keys for software package signing. So any software provider would be required to update their software signing keys along with their regular patches. Or CA can issue regular patches to any given specific version of a software from their servers in case of a software provider's commercial failure etc...

In general I think that revocation problems are mostly caused by implementers, but solving those are issuers' problem. This requires some aggressively proactive stance from CAs but it seems they are in defence for some reason. That I do not understand.

BTW, not because I give a flying fuck about my karma in general as frankly it does not have any actual effect on me. But I really wonder what kind of fucking moderator would down vote a neutral and purely technical post, while some of my more "dramatic" posts are upvoted.

That being said, I admit it would reduce the amount of tainted certificates, so is a positive step. However I believe the actual solution would be develop a better and more effective revocation procedure.

Also as a user of Let's encrypt, I think even a very short life span, with proper tools, would cause no headache to the market. CAs need to clean up their mess.

Thanks for the tip.

I do not want to sound neither pretentious nor old fashioned. I am both of these, mind you, but I do not want to impress my views based on these two factors. That being said, being an electronics technician since 1989, programmer since 1996 and product manager since 2008.... Apple and some of their competitors are pushing all the workload of "news features" in their products to either software or optional hardware they sell separately. That, besides being unethical, is stupid as well, if for nothing else, for the negative press that creates.

Yes I use my headphone jack on my NB, maybe once in a month. So that was one of the reasons making me question of buying another Apple when this one eventually bite the dust. There are lots of other horror stories related to Apple computers like problematic keyboards, monitor problems usability issues related to those dynamic key thingies etc.

However, probably unknowingly, you provided the final nail for a new apple's coffin on my account. Are they going to remove fucking SD interface? Or did they already removed it from current models and I missed in the cacophony of all other problems? I am already carrying two adapters, one for HDMI and one for ethernet cable that I am forced to use in one customer's office.I do not one to add two more adapters; one for audio, one for SD....

So dear Apple; It would take a miracle to make me buy any new Apple NB when my current one dies. I would change my battery when needed, I would upgrade disk and RAM if it comes to that and sorry you lost a customer who on average uses three computers and you lost anybody who would listen my advice, starting with my own company and advisees. Oh shit, I would need to find a stable Linux desktop, which also would be a miracle.

Thanks, this is an interesting take. I seem to remember excuse MS used was the inefficiencies and security issues with Kazaa, which I assume would be easier to improve without a complete re-write. I am not sure, but wasn't it the time they were trying to market Azure and its (non existent back then) ecosystem as the next big thing?

As mentioned in my other post below somewhere, I am not claiming MS's history is as clean as a milk white sheet and it is safer to assume if they saw any profit potential it is/was natural for them to break things instead of spending the same effort to improve the system. My point was MS is better than Facebook, as it is almost impossible to fall down to their level...

I guess it is difficult to READ on Sundays. I wrote and you quoted

Does that expression contain anything like "totally trust worthy" or even "trust". If in your inner grading "trust worthy" is just above whatever the level you see Facebook at, that is the problem. I know pimps and government officers who are above Facebook's level, which does not mean they are trust worthy.

I think you are right, Skype was not "bad" to begin with, it is not bad per se even now. My problem with WhatsApp is that, they (FB) are destroying their main premise about ability to reliably identify your correspondent by using their phone number and communicate with them securely.

For the Skype, I have three problems (client performance, network performance and recently market penetration), none of which are directly related to privacy. I am/was not very concerned about privacy related to communications I have/had via Skype. That is because I was not expecting to be secured against eavesdroppers with that platform to begin with...

You do not seem to be neither new, nor dormant, so forgetting the "dickishness" standards of /. on your part is inexplicable on my part, but frankly I do not care so much, it is a problem between you and any professional support specialist you are using services of.

If you can bother to check following URLs in your research in order to reduce your ignorance, your would see that WhatsApp has a serious user base, especially in countries with oppressive governments or countries with populations valuing their privacy (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.messengerpeople.com%2Fglobal-messenger-usage-statistics%2F) (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstatistics%2F291540%2Fmobile-internet-user-whatsapp%2F)

Claiming WhatsApp being used by children however is more harmful, than being just idiotic, because you are normalising the degeneration of a tool used by people with actual concerns about privacy. I do not know which country you are from but WhatsApp is being used by more people than actual phone users in your country.

Yes, they do. WhatsApp had three root design parameters those were different than Skype and all other messaging platforms:

• It was bound to a Phone Number
• It was encrypted site to site
• It was paid, so no advertisements

Facebook after their share purchase, is in the process of removing all these features from WhatsApp. So you do not need to be downvoted to oblivion but need to learn to research and remember, preferably some thinking would also be useful.

Skype had no such features/promises so not providing those would not be a problem. However with WhatsApp the promise was basically a paid, hassle free, secure and reliable alternative to SMS, and VoIP later on, services. These days I would very much like to use Skype, and waiting for a very big scandal with WhatsApp in order to see an increase in Skype penetration again. MS' reputation is far more better than Facebook's, and that is something you do not see or hear very often here in /. about MS.

"Using" the cloud and "trusting" the cloud are two distinct concepts. We all are using fiber and copper infrastructure laid down by some telco provider's lowest bidder. Do we trust them? No, disregarding their honesty level, we do not know company, never heard of them and never will. Do we use fruits of their labour? Certainly with some precautions, with protocols that removes most if not all potential problems those can be caused by infrastructure...

The "problem" with cloud is that we usually treat it like server in a DC managed by our own team. Nope they are not. My servers are in Singapore due to historical and legal reasons, a country with laws difficult to follow, a country which, while most people describe as a very beautiful one I have no intentions to visit, I do not like international travel. So if I treat those server like servers run by myself, I am open to some problems.

Him/her not being able to win the primaries. I have just realised that I do not even know if this candidate is male or female or at any other point of the spectrum, that is all Google's fault, naturally.