SwiftOnSecurity,
@SwiftOnSecurity@infosec.exchange avatar

I'm occasionally asked why Linux is less impacted by malware. My answer: It's largely due to historical factors – and quickly changing. Until Bitcoin, there wasn't much reason to target people who can't afford an operating system.

jerry,
@jerry@infosec.exchange avatar

@SwiftOnSecurity now you need a mansion and a monocle to be able to afford enterprise linuxeseses

severud,
@severud@vivaldi.net avatar

@jerry RHEL? 🫨😱😂@SwiftOnSecurity

juanzelli,
@juanzelli@infosec.exchange avatar
spmatich,
@spmatich@ioc.exchange avatar

@jerry @SwiftOnSecurity the whole rationale for enterprise anything, is that profit making enterprises have to do just enough to mitigate risk, so as not to be liable when shit hits the fan. Hence ITIL, hence Service Management, hence support contracts. That you are responsible for a service that someone pays for, and you are legally on the hook for, for SLAs (Service Level Agreements) is why you buy enterprise support, for the components of your service that you don't support in-house.
If you aren't legally on the hook for an SLA, I would argue you don't need enterprise support. That includes RHEL licenses or any other 'open' source paid support for that matter. hasn't been the same since it was acquired by . End of rant.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines