Think about integrating calendars, corporate contacts (from AD), handling RSVP replies said mx server receives and updating the calendar server, securely deal with modern auth (+ legacy krb5 auth, yuk). It's a huge hassle and everything except Exchange only handles 80% of this.
Modern expectations now want: web clients (OWA), todo lists, integrated storage (SP/OneDrive), and push notifications to any phone from any vendor.
So yeah, the only on prem solution is still Exchange.
I don't think these things are as important as you think.
RSVP for example. Nobody read or cares who and what people reply. In the last 4 companies I worked for (including one in Switzerland), nobody cared if I accepted or confirmed my attendance to the meeting and would try to call me/force me into a meeting even when my status showed I was on another shsring my screen. And nobody seems to respond nowadays nor check calendars for availability and avoiding conflicts.
But what about push notifications to mobile? I'm not aware of anything that handles this as well as Exchange ActiveSync. it's reasonable that you get an email within sub 1 minute latency, not 15 min polling.
The IMAP protocol has an IMAP IDLE extension for that purpose.
But is that use case really common in practice? With chat tools people don't tend to use email for instant messaging (well, appart from deltachat users, which can be a solution too!) and my experience is that it doesn't even work like that / that well for office 365 users. I am regularly told on teams that an email has been sent to me (same org and same region) yet it still takes more than a couple of minutes to have it visible on my desktop outlook client.
if you dont mind asking, what dont you like about kerberos? I personally like it quite with certs / hardware token
to be honest, most things you list can be setup with some research. The only one I am not sure about is integrated storage, but then I am also not entirely sure what that even is supposed to mean exactly
The user experience between a phone, tablet and computer should be symbiotic. Krb is not a first class thing in the mobile world. So users now hav great Krb experience with Outlook.exe but are typing passwords into Safari at owa.example.com (anywhere you type an AD password that isn't lsass or ADFS is really not good posture)
So, passwords are bad and the password is a key component of krb. Moving away from passwords is a step in the right direction eg OIDC.
right given the product names I assume you are on windows. with kerberos people shouldnt have to type their passwords into apps at all, and if you use pkinit there are no passwords at all?
i give you the mobile part, I dont know how well it is supported - iOS claims to have support though, and android through third parties I believe. Never tried that. Its just that I personally have a preference for auth methods that dont require opening a browser for desktop apps
>But without access to a big-endian machine, how does one test it? QEMU provides a convenient solution. With its user mode emulation we can easily run a binary on an emulated big-endian system
Nice article! But pity it does not elaborate on how...
No it didn’t. That was just like the first free sample from the drug dealer. Give a “good” free service to rope them in, always with the next steps in mind.
I disagree. I feel like earlier social networks hadn't yet huffed the "lean startup" gas and weren't obsessed with engagement and thus were not yet trying to hook their users into an engagement cycle like where we are today.
I feel like the Myspace/Friendster and early Facebook were nowhere near as harmful (albeit for addiction, those sites were still vulnerable to grooming) as where we are today.
OG Facebook was perfectly fine. In your analogy it’d be more like someone replacing your Diet Coke with actual cocaine. Like, yeah Diet Coke isn’t great for you, but it’s not cocaine.
But the fact that a company can manufacture consumer(ish) routers in Latvia means it's very practical that another company could manufacture consumer routers in the US.
Usually the argument is that X can't be made in the US because China's so good at it that the US could never compete, so we shouldn't even try. But if a company with 367 employees in a country with the population of a medium-size metro area can do it, it proves that argument is bunk.
> But the fact that a company can manufacture consumer(ish) routers in Latvia means it's very practical that another company could manufacture consumer routers in the US.
Assembling them in Latvia, or the US, from internationally sourced components isn't a solution to anything.
> Usually the argument is that X can't be made in the US because China's so good at it that the US could never compete, so we shouldn't even try. But if a company with 367 employees in a country with the population of a medium-size metro area can do it, it proves that argument is bunk.
Unless Latvia is a much better environment for this kind of industry than the US is.
> Assembling them in Latvia, or the US, from internationally sourced components isn't a solution to anything.
I disagree. It's the first step. I mean, how did China do it? They started with assembly and low-value manufacturing and worked their way up the value chain. The US still had fabs. Once you get assembly reshored, start pushing to to reshore components (which are mostly chips, and pretty soon the equipment is mostly domestic.
> Unless Latvia is a much better environment for this kind of industry than the US is.
In what way?
Even if the US is utterly terrible for this kind of industry, we're talking about a small-medium sized tech company. It seems extremely doable.
Indeed, particularly given that ICE agents are going to be deployed to airports. Their penchant for killing civilians and otherwise violating civil rights only to lie about their actions hardly seems like a good fit for airport security duties they haven’t been trained to perform.
>It is not so much about whether the USA could do this and expect to win, of course they can. Nobody has any doubt about that.
Um, lots of us have doubts about that. The USA couldn't win against Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq; why do you think it could win against Greenland? Greenlanders actually have a lot of guns; and likely most of Europe and Canada would also go to war against the USA.
>"and likely most of Europe and Canada would also go to war against the USA."
Canada and the US share border and almost all meaningful infra of Canada is located in that thin border area. The US can obliterate much of Canada with artillery, various types of missiles, bombs etc. etc. Canada has nothing to counter it with. So no, I doubt Canada is that suicidal (I am Canadian btw).
I'm Danish. There are 56k people in Greenland and almost half of them live in Nuuk. The USA could frankly "take" greenland simply by putting a warship there and saying it was theirs. Not really sure why it was ever on the table though. The USA has basically free reign to expand it's military bases there, aside from the ban on nuclear weapons. Sure it would need approval by both Greenland and Denmark, but up until recently we were frankly more allied with the USA than the EU, and I doubt we've ever really said no before. We even bought the damn f35's despite them being so much more expensive than the alternatives, primarily because our history with the F16's. Which would probably have been a possiblity considering we're now debating whether or not to have french nuclear weapon carrying planes stationed on Danish soil in the fallout of the USA no longer being a trusty NATO ally.
If it was because of resources, then American companies are frankly free to extract them as long as they reach deals with Greenland about it. If the USA had waited a few years for Greenland to gain more independence then it would have been even easier.
Not the parent poster but, while I acknowledge your point on Canada and Europe entering the conflict (and I'd add that the highly motivated Dutch punch well above their weight in intelligence and economic spheres and this whole scenario of US invasion is a Putin dream), when you ask "why do you think it could win...", the 50k population of Greenland is smaller than Granada (100k) and three orders of magnitude smaller than Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq (~40m). So I find its insurgency potential hard to compare to those examples you give.
reply