The Two Faces of Open Source: ECT News Roundtable, Episode 5

The Two Faces of Open Source: ECT News Roundtable, Episode 5

The open source software movement has evolved dramatically over the past two decades. Many businesses that once considered open source a threat now recognize its value.

On the other hand, in spite of increased enthusiasm among enterprises, consumer interest by and large has not materialized.

With large companies increasingly embracing open source, what does it mean to be a part of the free and open source software, or FOSS, “community”?

Why have consumers been so slow to adopt open source software?

Our roundtable of industry insiders tackled those questions during their lengthy virtual conversation on technology trends.

Participants in the discussion were Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group; Ed Moyle, partner at SecurityCurve; Denis Pombriant, managing principal at the Beagle Research Group; and Jonathan Terrasi, a tech journalist who focuses on computer security, encryption, open source, politics and current affairs.

A Chaotic Community

For enterprises, adoption of open source “means better control and understanding of the code they use and how it is progressing,” said Rob Enderle. “In effect, it lowers their operational risk IF they properly fund the effort. If they don’t, it results in a bigger exposure due to the misuse of these tools.”

“Big companies have taken on fully commoditized infrastructure tech. That’s normal and it will continue,” said Denis Pombriant.

Being part of the FOSS community “really just means providing value back to others in whatever way you’re able,” offered Ed Moyle. “This can be as a developer but also as a user, tester or financial supporter. Anyone providing value back — small or large — is part of the community.”

Jonathan Terrasi, Tech Journalist

The freedom in adapting open source to one’s own particular needs — one of the hallmark principles of the FOSS movement — can pose problems for a community that is at best loosely knit.

“Considering the degree to which bigger tech companies with traditionally proprietary models are incorporating open source projects, the FOSS community looks to be on course for a schism,” warned Jonathan Terrasi.

“The Linux Foundations and the Red Hats of the community will likely keep progressing in the direction they’re headed, while smaller scrappier projects with more ideological grounding in FOSS will eschew those projects and go their own way,” he predicted.

“With each set on their own course, their challenges will be different,” Terrasi continued.

“In the former case — that of the standouts in FOSS, like Linux — their job will increasingly center on balancing the demands of very different clients, such as Microsoft and Google in Linux’s case,” he said.

“For the latter case, the obstacles are less foreseeable, but will probably have to do with keeping from getting starved for oxygen when their larger cousins scoop up most of the corporate investment,” Terrasi speculated.

Those cautionary notes aside, “now is a really exciting time in open source,” maintained Moyle.

“Everything DevOps is open source: Source control (git), CI/CD (jenkins, ansible), containers (docker, rkt), orchestration (kubernetes). Desktop Linux is more viable than it’s ever been, and Linux is the primary cloud platform, by a wide margin. That’s the positive side, and it’s tremendously exciting,” he said.

“The less positive side, though, is that there’s a trend of ‘faux-pen source’ projects out there that seem to be increasing in prevalence,” observed Moyle.

“By this I mean one of two things: 1) projects that claim to be open source and are marketed or hyped that way, but that have bogus — that is non-free — licenses; or 2) where the source is technically open, but the functionality is broken in some fundamental way unless you pay someone money,” he explained.

“I have NO problem with someone wanting to make a buck for their work,” Moyle emphasized.

Ed Moyle, Security Advisor

“For example, a company charging for support, charging for additional data and services — in the security world, for example, charging for signatures/rules, etc. These are all reasonable to me,” he said.

“But it does really irritate me when something is released as ‘open source,’ seemingly for marketing purposes, but in order for it to do anything useful you need to pay someone money. While such an offering might adhere to a strict reading of a free license, it’s hard to argue that it’s in keeping with the ‘free and open’ community-based nature of open source. It seems disingenuous to me,” Moyle said.

“I had never heard of the ‘faux-pen source’ moniker, but it is a pithy term for a real phenomenon,” Terrasi responded.

“I wholly agree that people should be paid for their work, but as Ed put it, it is disingenuous to lean on the goodwill that open source communities strive to engender as a way of deriving revenue,” he added.

“There is no doubt that open source software enjoys better representation now than it ever has — even the Linux desktop — but this may owe partly to the exploitation of FOSS’ conspicuous weaknesses of being free and open,” Terrasi suggested.

“Because they are open, they invite any code contribution of sufficient merit, and because developers need to eat, they invite any monetary contribution whenever feasible,” he pointed out.

“However, larger companies exploit this to swoop in, colonize the code and/or funding base, and then take control of the project from within. A recent article about Twitter’s Bluesky project quoted experts who warned of exactly that phenomenon,” Terrasi said. “The challenge going forward will be for FOSS projects to reconcile continuing to exist with preserving the integrity of their mission.”

Consumer Resistance

There’s a simple reason for low consumer interest in open source software, suggested Enderle.

“They aren’t coders,” he said.

Denis Pombriant, Author, Analyst and Consultant

Open source is “mostly infrastructure,” noted Pombriant.

“Customers still need service, and therefore adhere to brands and their support. Open source is problematic from a business model approach and from a customer service one,” he maintained.

“As far as the open source revolution has come, there are still pervasive misconceptions surrounding it,” said Terrasi.

“There is still the unfounded but stubborn perception on the part of the consumer that open source software is insecure, that because it’s ‘free’ the quality is inferior — in the vein of the old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ — and that it’s not as flashy or glossy,” he continued.

“I think most developers know better than to buy into these myths, but because their customers don’t, they’re not going to try to deliver open source products over their customers’ objections,” Terrasi reasoned.

“Frankly, there have been, and still are, significant barriers to entry for many FOSS tools,” Moyle pointed out.

“For example, I use Linux as my primary platform and it’s a nonstop PITA — I say this lovingly,” he said.

“The ongoing challenges are legion. For example, the integrated fingerprint scanner on my laptop doesn’t work — no drivers. I’ve had to tweak the BIOS to get it to run appropriately. I’ve had to write code to get dual monitors to work, make changes to support HDMI audio output, etc.,” Moyle said.

“For many orgs, the hassle factor of having to deal with these tweaks yourself — not just in Linux, but in any FOSS that is primarily community driven — is more expensive than paying a vendor for a COTS alternative. This is why you see such an uptick in open source that has industry backing: docker, SaltStack, Kubernetes, etc. — because that minimizes the hassle,” he explained.

Rob Enderle, Tech Analyst

“For me it still comes down to consumers not having, and not wanting to develop, the needed skills,” Enderle said.

“Working on things is becoming a lost art. I’ve had kids ask me what an air cleaner on a car is. To the younger generations, much of what they get is kind of like magic. It just works, and they don’t really care how until it doesn’t — and then they only want someone else to fix it. Granted, with some of the newer complex technical products that is probably the safer path,” he added.

“My Linux use has very seldom required anything so drastic as what Ed has encountered, but I know that it can definitely break down like that,” said Terrasi.

“Linux has come a long way, and there are definitely distros that are as stable as any consumer would expect their operating system to be, but the bad press from Linux’s Wild West days has taken its toll,” he noted.

“Also, at least with open source OSes — namely Linux — I think there’s just a real apprehension about changing one’s system that fundamentally. There’s this idea many users have that the developers who made the device know best and have your best interests at heart, so you shouldn’t contravene them by installing your own OS,” Terrasi observed.

“It’s this deference to authority — in a specific context — that is weirdly dissonant with a social climate right now where perceived ‘elites’ are distrusted in favor of the expressed will of the community of non-elites, but it’s a real thing and you see it every day like in the way people flock to the Apple Genius Bar and unconditionally trust the intentions of a roughly (US)$1 trillion company,” he pointed out.

“Open source on the whole, and Linux in particular, are never going to enjoy any home consumer market share to speak of until that misconception is overcome,” Terrasi maintained.

Aside from the technical difficulties consumers may encounter with open source, there’s the issue of visibility. Many consumers may not even be familiar with the term, much less with what it means.

“It’s difficult for open source projects to market and advertise the same way that closed-source technology vendors do,” noted Moyle.

“It’s also difficult for them to use the same techniques to gain marketshare — for example, establishing VAR arrangements or channel partnerships,” he said.

“From an end-user point of view, the support experience is a whole different ballgame. If a commercial product doesn’t work or has an issue, you can work with someone directly to solve the problem,” Moyle said.

“In the open source world, the onus is on you in many cases to solve your own problem with support from the broader community. This can be a tall hill to climb for someone with little or no technical expertise,” he pointed out.

“I concede that the lack of support is a a genuine and understandable barrier,” said Terrasi.

“I don’t see Canonical setting up ‘Einstein Lounges’ anytime soon. I do take some solace in the fact that we live in an age where no one makes a purchase without reading numerous online reviews and, jointly, in the fact that some of the beginner-friendly Linux distros have welcoming and knowledgeable communities who want newcomers to stick around,” he added.

“I’m not proclaiming the Year of the Linux desktop anytime soon,” Terrasi said, “but taking Linux as an example, there are some things that open source projects are doing right to attract users from the mainstream consumer base.”

Mick Brady is managing editor of ECT News Network.

Oops – Google May Have Sent Your Embarrassing Private Video to a Stranger

Oops – Google May Have Sent Your Embarrassing Private Video to a Stranger

Google misdirected a number of private videos that users of its Google Photos app intended to back up to Google Takeout, sending them instead to strangers’ archives, 9to5 Google reported Monday.

The company emailed affected users to inform them that a technical issue caused the error, which incorrectly transferred videos for several days before it was fixed.

Google recommended that affected users back up their content again and delete their previous backup. They were advised to contact Google Support for further assistance.

Google Photos passed the 1 billion user mark last summer.

Although it said just 0.01 percent of users were affected, Google did not indicate whether that percentage applied to Google Photos or Google Takeout users.

“Google did fix the issue quickly,” acknowledged Erich Kron, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4.

“However, the notification process to those impacted was less than satisfactory and left out a lot of details, leaving those possibly impacted unsure of what the exposure risks were for them,” he told TechNewsWorld. “When dealing with an issue that impacts privacy in the way that improperly sending files as sensitive as photos and videos is, the communication needs to be very clear and informative.”

Google’s notification “reads like they really don’t care about what happened to the users, and that could backfire badly with organizations like the European Commission,” noted Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group.

The issue “highlights the challenge with protecting and managing personal photos and videos,” said Josh Bohls, founder of Inkscreen.

People use their mobile devices to scan business documents, and they use a broad range of photos, video and audio for everyday tasks that drive business processes, he told TechNewsWorld.

“If you work for a law firm, healthcare provider, insurance company, or in another regulated industry and take photos or record videos as part of your job, your company should strongly consider a solution to protect and manage this content — especially if you use Google Photos,” Bohls said.”

Fear and Anger

The problem “shouldn’t happen at all, and it once again points to Google as a firm that can’t be trusted with your data,” Enderle told TechNewsWorld.

“If the video content was sensitive and private, then you could have a violation of the GDPR or California’s CCPA, remarked Mike Jude, research director at IDC. “That sort of thing could trigger fines and remedial action.”

Google’s failure to disclose who wrongly received videos could lead to more trouble for the company, Enderle pointed out. “Users should have a right to that information, and they likely could sue Google to get it. Then, depending on what’s in the video, sue them for damages.”

Any indemnification clause in the user agreement might not protect Google because the issue was due to negligence, he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a class action suit come out of this.”

While the victims can file suit, or file a complaint under applicable privacy laws, it could backfire on them, IDC’s Jude told TechNewsWorld.

“In the case of provocative material, the temptation would be to pay the ransom rather than face public disclosure,” he said.

By the Numbers

“It is possible that thousands were impacted,” Jude remarked. “It wouldn’t pay for Google to announce something like this unless it had a pretty wide reach.”

The issue “could be quite serious for those affected,” said Paul Bischoff, privacy advocate at Comparitech.

However, the scale of the problem depends on who really was affected, he told TechNewsWorld.

Google pinned that number at 0.01 percent, but “do they mean 0.01 percent of Takeout users or of Photo users?” Bischoff asked. “The former would be a much smaller number.”

Further, the leaked videos went to other users, not malicious actors, he noted, and “it was not intentional on Google’s part. For me, those two facts make this less of a big deal.”

If Google had let an attacker hack its systems or had been hiding a nefarious practice, its privacy or security standards would be called into question, Bischoff said, but “bugs happen, and I think people are more forgiving for that sort of thing.”

What Google Can or Should Do

Google “should do whatever it takes to secure the mis-sent videos,” Enderle recommended.

“It probably won’t be enough, but if they wait for regulatory action, the result could be very expensive,” he warned.

“Ethically, Google should help them,” said IDC’s Jude. “Would they? Probably not, unless there’s some explicit guarantee that the data stored with Google is secure.”

Google could offer identity theft protection for the victims, “but there’s not much it can do until the damage is done,” Comparitech’s Bischoff noted.

If it can find out exactly which videos and photos were sent incorrectly, Google “should absolutely inform the owners of what was compromised,” Bischoff recommended. It might step in as a mediator to protect both parties’ privacy in case any victims wanted to communicate with those who received their videos by mistake.

Google “is a free service, more or less, that provides access in exchange for looking over your shoulder as you use the service,” Jude remarked. “It is not a public commons, and there really should be no expectation of privacy.”

Users should opt for a paid storage service, suggested Enderle, while Jude said storing videos and photos locally might be a better option.

“I saw a 2-TB SSD the other day for (US)$69,” he said. “Back when I was in college, I saw an article in the magazine ‘Datamation’ that said the total computer storage of the planet was about 1 TB.”

Richard Adhikari has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2008. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, mobile technologies, CRM, databases, software development, mainframe and mid-range computing, and application development. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including Information Week and Computerworld. He is the author of two books on client/server technology. Email Richard.

Bridging the IoT Innovation-Security Gap

Bridging the IoT Innovation-Security Gap

There is a problem with the Internet of Things: It’s incredibly insecure.

This is not a problem that is inherent to the idea of smart devices. Wearables, smart houses, and fitness tracking apps can be made secure — or at least more secure than they currently are.

The problem, instead, is one that largely has been created by the companies that make IoT devices. Many of these devices are manufactured by relatively small, relatively new companies with little expertise when it comes to cybersecurity. Even large companies, however, and even those that produce thousands of hackable smart TVs a year, cannot be forgiven so easily.

In truth, when it comes to the Internet of Things, many companies have prioritized connectivity and “innovation” (read popular but insecure features) over cybersecurity.

These approaches have led to a variety of security vulnerabilities in IoT devices.

Insufficient Testing and Updating

Perhaps the biggest problem when it comes to the cybersecurity of IoT devices is that many companies simply don’t support them after release. In fact, many IoT devices don’t even have the capability of being updated, even against the most common types of cyberattack.

This means that even a device that was secure when it was released quickly can become highly vulnerable. Manufacturers often are more focused on releasing their new device than on spending time to patch “historic” security flaws. This attitude can leave these devices in a permanently insecure state.

Failing to update these devices is a huge problem — and not just for consumers who have their data stolen. It also means that a company’s devices can fall victim to a single, large cyberattack that could ruin their reputation, and erase their profitability.

Default Passwords

A second major — and avoidable — problem with IoT devices is that they ship with default passwords, and users are not reminded to change them in order to secure their home IoT networks. This is despite industry and government-level advice against using default passwords.

This vulnerability led to the highest-profile IoT hack to date, the Mirai botnet, which compromised millions of IoT devices by the simple method of using their default passwords.

Though some UK-based Web hosts detected the attack and blocked it from reaching consumer devices, dozens of manufacturers had their devices hacked in this way. Nevertheless, in the absence of legal requirements against using default passwords, they continue to do so.

New Types of Ransomware

IoT devices are particularly susceptible to hacking for a more complex reason: They are integrated into the home and corporate networks to a degree unprecedented in traditional systems.

IoT devices typically have a very rapid development process, and during this rush there appears to be no time to think through what such devices actually need access to. As a result, a typical IoT device, or app, will ask for far more privileges than it needs to complete its basic functions.

That’s a huge problem, because it can mean that spyware in the IoT can access far more information than it should be able to.

Let’s take an example. IP cameras typically are sold as IoT devices for smart homes, or for use as webcams. The manufacturer of the device typically will ship it without hardened or updated firmware, and with default passwords (see above). The problem is that if hackers know this default password (and they do, trust me), it is a simple matter to access the feed from the camera.

It gets worse. Using the camera, a hacker can capture sensitive information such as credit card details, passwords, or footage intended for “personal use.” This then can be used to execute a larger hack or to blackmail the victim.

AI and Automation

A more exotic issue with IoT security stems from the fact that IoT networks already are so large and complicated that they are administered via artificial intelligence algorithms rather than by people. For many companies, using AI is the only way to handle the vast amounts of data produced by user devices, and their profitability relies on this functionality.

The issue here is that AIs can make decisions that affect the lives and security of millions of users. Without the necessary staff or expertise to analyze the implications of these decisions, IoT companies can — albeit accidentally — compromise their IoT networks.

Of all the issues on this list, this arguably is the most worrying. That’s because AI-driven IoT systems now handle many critical functions in society, from the time tracking software used to pay employees to the machines that keep patients alive in your local hospital.

The Solutions

The actions of individual companies or individual consumers are not going to solve this problem, however. Instead, there needs to be a paradigm shift in the industry. It’s telling that no (respectable) company would sell, say, time tracking software without committing to keeping it updated. There is no reason this idea is not equally absurd when it comes to physical devices.

Indeed, many of the problems mentioned here — the use of default passwords, or a careless approach to app permissions — were overcome long ago in relation to traditional software. What is required, then, might only be a common-sense approach to locking down IoT devices. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ECT News Network.

Sam Bocetta has been an ECT News Network columnist since 2019. A freelance journalist specializing in U.S. diplomacy and national security, Bocetta’s emphases are technology trends in cyberwarfare, cyberdefense and cryptography.

Coronavirus Pandemic: 6 Things We Should Be Doing

Coronavirus Pandemic: 6 Things We Should Be Doing

As I write this, the first studies of the Coronavirus outbreak are coming in. The count now exceeds 17,500 cases in 24 countries with more than 360 deaths, almost all in China.

Most at risk are older males with pre-existing chronic diseases that weaken their immune symptoms. Women appear to have a higher natural resistance to viruses. The main Coronavirus symptoms are cough, headache, muscle pain and fever.

You can follow the progression of the virus on this real-time map. China is being hit hard, and it is now an epidemic there.

Since it has spread across the world, it can be considered a pandemic.

The World Health Organization has declared it a global health emergency.

Airlines have been shutting down routes, at least one cruise ship is under quarantine, and countries are scanning aggressively for the virus at their borders.

I think there are six things we should be doing immediately. I’ll share my suggestions and then close with my product of the week

1. Rule Out Physical Greetings

One of the obvious practices to discourage shaking hands and casual kissing. These are the most likely ways people transfer viruses directly to others, and these anachronistic practices are widely credited with making us sick in general.

The original purpose of handshaking was to compel armed men effectively to disarm themselves in greeting one other. It is just a habit now, and with this virus spreading rapidly, it is a habit that should be discouraged.

Kissing also would spread the virus and is effective at spreading other diseases. I’m not suggesting we give up romance, but we could do without the practice of kissing as a greeting. Particularly when you are talking about a male manager and a female employee, in this #metoo world we live in, it is a practice that should be discouraged for other reasons as well, but if we don’t want to spread the virus then casual contact should be avoided.

Given this would limit the spread of other diseases — we are in flu season, after all — these practices likely should be permanently retired.

One of the reasons to make this formal is so that peer pressure doesn’t push you into doing something unsafe. If you refuse to shake hands or kiss, it can look like you are antisocial, but if it is a general recommendation, you won’t stand alone.

2. Cut Back on Travel

The most likely places to catch and spread a virus are places where people congregate or are held together for long periods. Airplanes, trains and ships are all places where you are in proximity with others for long periods. If a single person presents with symptoms on any of these conveyances, it is likely the entire vehicle will be quarantined, which would have a significant impact on your life and ability to do your job, regardless of whether you get sick or not.

There are few things worse than being sick away from home. Being unable to get home can be so problematic that some will try to conceal their illness so they can travel. If you don’t have to take a trip or use public transportation, avoid it as much as possible, and that should lower your chance of getting the virus.

You also might want to consider this practice during flu season, when an unusually large number of contagious people may be traveling, even in a good year.

Staycations can be fun and far more relaxing than traveling, considering that you may return more tired than you were when you left.

3. Keep Your Hands Away From Your Face

With this virus, chances are you’ll pick it up through something or someone you touched and then become infected by bringing your hands to your face. Maybe your nose itches or there is something in your eye. As I was writing this, I caught myself rubbing my eyes.

At my desk in my home office, there is probably little risk, but our habits move with us, and what might be safe to do at home is far less safe around a lot of people. So, I recommend practicing using your sleeve rather than your hands, and aggressively wash your hands every chance you get.

4. Heads Up

Generally, you can tell at a glance if someone isn’t feeling well, but not if your head is in your smartphone and your mind is someplace else. This recommendation is also good advice for life in general, because not looking where you are going can be more dangerous than any virus if you lose track of your surroundings and step in front of a vehicle or off a ledge.

If you see someone who appears to be ill, maintain your distance, but you can’t avoid someone if you aren’t looking. If you see a lot of sick people and aren’t in a hospital, you need to get out of there before you join the club.

This lesson is something we should be teaching our kids more aggressively. Too many are buried in their phones and oblivious to what is going on around them, which can be problematic for their life expectancy in general.

5. Work From Home

The streets in much of China are nearly empty. So are the mass transit systems and stores. Folks have been asked to shelter in place.

If you aren’t set up to work from home or you lack critical supplies, you’ll be unable to do your job, or you’ll have to risk going out to get supplies. Make sure that if you have to work from home, you can. Keep enough of your medications on hand for several weeks, and enough food for at least a week.

It might be wise for companies to encourage working at home at this time, as that will reduce the number of people coming into the office and the related opportunities to spread the virus throughout the company.

6. Hold Drills

We should have drills that showcase what to do in case the pandemic hits your area. These drills should not be limited to EMTs and other first responders — they should include the general population. Certainly companies should dust off their disaster preparedness plans and make sure they are up to date and capable of dealing with a pandemic.

One product to consider is BlackBerry’s AtHoc platform, which is designed to coordinate disaster response while rapidly and effectively ensuring employee safety. Problems become disasters through a lack of planning, and most firms do not have an up-to-date disaster plan, let alone one that is set up to deal with epidemics or pandemics. Now is the time to fix that.

Wrapping Up: Don’t Panic

One way to deal with a pending disaster is through thorough planning and practice. A major disaster is far less frightening if you already know what to do. Much of the terror is a result of not knowing what to do to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your employees.

Simply making sure you and your people know what to do can mitigate not only the danger but also the fear associated with it. Right now, your chances of getting sick are very slim, but that will change — either with the Coronavirus or some future threat.

Knowing what to do when that happens can influence not only whether you survive, but also how much trauma you experience. You have some control over both, and I’m suggesting you start now to exercise that control.

I get a lot of laptops in, but the machine I live on is a desktop PC, and I generally build my own. This does lead to some interesting support and failure experiences. For instance, my last water-cooled machine didn’t have enough airflow through its radiator, and it overheated, bleeding its blue cooling liquid all over my office floor. It looked like I’d murdered a Smurf (thank heaven for tile floors and the fact Smurfs don’t exist — otherwise I’d be in trouble).

It was surprisingly upsetting to walk into my office that morning to find my PC sitting in what appeared to be a pool of Smurf blood. I’d been mucking around with trying to improve the cooling to avoid such a crime scene when I got in a 32 Core Threadripper Talon system from Falcon-NW and fell in love.

32 Core Threadripper Talon System

32 Core Threadripper Talon System From Falcon-NW

Once again, I was reminded that moving from PC to PC, particularly when you are on Windows 10 and Office 365, has become a ton easier. I did the swap in about 30 minutes, though it took the better part of an hour for the system to patch itself fully and sync with the Microsoft cloud while I did other things.

I can still remember this same process taking days in the past, and being so annoying that I dreaded a new PC. Now I look forward to it again. I should add that Office 365 migrations have improved since my last swap, and just clicking on the Office icon brought me to a download screen, and from then on, the installation was largely automatic.

The Talon with this Threadripper processor comes with an Asetek sealed liquid cooling system, which means I shouldn’t have to worry about my PC bleeding out on me again. It has a 1-TB SSD drive from Corsair (MP600), and one of the new AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT graphics cards.

My typical loading test is to install and run Ashes of the Singularity in Crazy mode, with massive numbers of vehicles, and see how long it takes for the system to overheat or fail. This box took the test with relative ease. I got some frame drops, but generally the game remained playable. While my prior Ryzen 9-based desktop system was powerful, this one blew it off the wall. This 32 Core Threadripper system is AWESOME, and it is my product of the week. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ECT News Network.

Rob Enderle has been an ECT News Network columnist since 2003. His areas of interest include AI, autonomous driving, drones, personal technology, emerging technology, regulation, litigation, M&E, and technology in politics. He has an MBA in human resources, marketing and computer science. He is also a certified management accountant. Enderle currently is president and principal analyst of the Enderle Group, a consultancy that serves the technology industry. He formerly served as a senior research fellow at Giga Information Group and Forrester. Email Rob.