desentizised

What do you mean? Hasn't lost and never will. /s

If an HDD doesn't work in every conceivable way out of the box it must be an RMA. These devices are too delicate to settle for anything less than flawless on arrival.

Not the guy you're asking but I agree. There would be no need for Falcon Sensor on every Windows-machine deployed inside an Enterprise (assuming that Falcon Sensor serves a purpose worth fulfilling in the first place) if the critical devices on their network were sufficiently hardened. The main problem (presumably the basis of such a solution existing) is that as soon as you have a human factor, people who must be able to access critical infrastructure as part of their job, there will be breakages of some kind. Not all of those must be malicioius or grow into an external threat. They still need to be averted of course.

I feel that CrowdStrike is an idea that seems appealing to those making technological decisions because it promises something that cannot be done by conventional means as we have known and deployed them before. I can't say whether or how often this promise has ever enabled companies to thwart attacks at their inception, but again, I feel that in a sufficiently hardened environment, even with compromisable human actors in play, you do not need self-surveillance (at the deepest level of an OS) to this extent.

And to also address OP's question: of course there is no need for this in a *NIX environment. There hasn't been any significant need for antivirus of any kind in any of the UNIX-based world including macOS. So really this isn't about whether an anti-malware solution in itself can satisfy the needs of a company per se, the requirements very much follow the potential attack vectors that are opened up by an existing infrastructure. In other words, when your environment is Windows-based, you are bound to deploy more extensive security countermeasures. Because they are necessary.

Some may say that this is due to market-share, but to those I say, has the risk-profile of running a Linux-based server changed over the last 20 years? They certainly have become a lot more common in that timeframe. One example I can think of was a ransomware exploit on a Linux-based NAS-brand, I think it was QNAP. This isn't a holier than thou argument. Any system can be compromised. Period. The only thing you can ensure is that the necessary investment to break your system will always be higher than the potential gain. So I guess another way to put this is that in a Windows-based environment your own investment into ensuring said fact will always be higher.

But don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say Windows needs to be removed from the desks of office-workers. Really this failure and all these photographs of publically visible bluescreens (and all the ones in datacenters and server-rooms that we didn't see) shows that Windows has way too strong of a foothold in places where plenty smart people are employed to find solutions that best serve the interests of their employers, including interests (i.e. security and privacy) that they are unaware of because they can't be printed on a balance-sheet.

Not having DOS-Mode anymore must've been a bummer though.

Serious question how do you get bored of Windows during its heyday?

My first experience with Linux was Ubuntu 4.10 and it seemed super cool and all but I could've never switched fully during those days. And if we're honest most legit Linux users up until not too long ago were forced to have a dual boot setup because so many things just hadn't been universalized yet.

So just to illustrate where I'm coming from asking that question, my first personal computer (as opposed to family PC) ran XP and that was a pretty exciting time when it comes to market dominance and all the advantages that came with being a user of the biggest platform. Looking back I just don't see how I could've ever made that switch in the noughties let alone the 90s. The adoption just wasn't there yet.

Wait so we're getting Jan 6 Part 2 if Trump wins?

I get that. SATA can be hot plug these days. I'm not saying it should rival the number of USB ports we get on motherboards, but I remember there were also these USB eSATA hybrid ports. Which would probably only work with USB 2.0 but still, would be nice to have.

Will definitely check to see if I can work OpenSuperClone into my workflows. Haven't had failing drives drop out like that before so I can't speak to that scenario. I imagine if it drops out why would that software have a harder time to recover under SATA?

Nobody is doubting the growth potential of "BICS" (if you will), countries which aren't currently spending heaps on destruction. China is making one hell of a bargain at Russia's expense too.

But I do envy the person that is able to see potential in a country that needs to contract North Korean soldiers for its war efforts.

Let's hope so. With every passing day this situation is more likely to become a mixture of East Germany and North Korea. Whether the West recognizes eastern Ukraine as Russian or not will be irrelevant. The only "upside" is that Putin's Russia doesn't look like it will be able to sustain itself for as long as the Soviet Union could after WW2.

Mark my words. Don't ever use SATA to USB for anything other than (temporary) access to non critical preexisting data. I swear to god if I had a dollar for every time USB has screwed me over trying to simplify working with customers' (and my own) drives. Whenever it comes to anything more advanced than data level access USB just doesn't seem to offer the necessary utilities. Whether this is rooted in software, hardware or both I don't know.

All I know is that you cannot realistically use USB to for example carbon copy one drive to another. It may end up working, it may throw errors letting you know that it failed, it may only seem to have worked in the end. It's hard for me to imagine that with all the individual devices I've gone through that this is somehow down to the parts and that somewhere out there would be something better that actually makes this work. It really does feel like whoever came up with the controlling circuits used for USB to SATA conversion industry-wide just didn't do a good enough job to implement everything in a way that makes it wholly transparent from the view of the operating system.

TL;DR If you want to use SATA as intended you need SATA all the way to the motherboard.

tbh I often ask myself why eSATA fell by the wayside. USB just isn't up to these tasks in my experience.

Absolutely loving this comment-chain.