jeffgus

6 ms·

1.
by jeffgus 2y ago
yeah, could be. IBM has been working on AI for ages. They have been able to make a splash with events in chess and Jeopardy, but can't seem to keep up the interest. Of only IBM had the marketing skills as good as some of their research
2.
by jeffgus 2y ago
Why not? Seems to me that IBM is trying to differentiate their AI from others by offering a complete solution that can be self-hosted. The part that cannot be produced locally, the core model, IBM publishes the inputs and indemnifies. From
3.
by jeffgus 3y ago
Ah, AOLServer! I remember using it when it was NaviServer. I helped to launch my employer's website (packardbell.com) on NaviServer on Solaris way back then. Some of the things I liked: * It had a decent HTML editor that our marketing
4.
by jeffgus 4y ago
You are correctly. I was imprecise. They were trusting another company to peer for them. They thought they were purchasing "CDN services". The problem is that one of those companies was Cogent. Cogent prides itself with settlement
5.
by jeffgus 4y ago
But Netflix was NOT paying transit. They were paying for peering. Transit costs more. To reduce costs, they peered with large networks. The problem is that the company they paid to setup peering (Cogent) didn't want to risk their settl
6.
by jeffgus 4y ago
That is my reaction. Am I missing something here? Are Net Neutrality rules getting in the way? I know when the NN topic was really hot, many were conflating treating the packets the same with peering agreements. Peering has nothing to do wi
7.
by jeffgus 9y ago
> I mean, sure, if you define "right" in that way, then you can say you have the "right" to literally anything. If? No, that is how rights are defined in the US. As long as a right doesn't violate the right of an
8.
by jeffgus 10y ago
Yeah, docker, initially, didn't use SELinux, but that was before RedHat took interest. RedHat likes making things more secure with SELinux.
9.
by jeffgus 10y ago
Wouldn't it have been easier to check the audit.log? Pump out the contents to audit2allow and you will have a nice new config that would allow your setup. Heck, it would even tell you if there is already a boolean for that config. I re
10.
by jeffgus 10y ago
Did you consult the audit.log? Did you pump it through audit2allow? The audit2allow tool will even tell you if the issue can be fixed by setting a boolean on the SELinux config. Most of the stuff I have run into recently can be fixed by set
11.
by jeffgus 10y ago
I have always run SELinux on Fedora/CentOS/RHEL and I don't remember a time where I had issues with authorized_keys. The only thing recently I recall about ssh is that is complains if the files in .ssh are not mode 600. SELin