Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the do-it-yourself-toll-gate dept.
MC68040 writes "The guy at this site managed to build something together that's actually quite neat in the way he built it, all hand-crafted system that uses a linux box to unlock his door. Maybe not the coolest of solutions, but actually a pretty good idea as for security in my humble opinion."
Re:Slashdot effect (the good, bad, and the FAQ)
by
Hrunting
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
As for the staff, Slashdot people could email web site admins and ask about their bandwidth/web server. But what if the site owner doesn't read email on the weekends? (that isn't uncommon) What is to be done in that case?
Uh, they wait until they get a response? It's not as if Slashdot is going to get scooped on one of these. Heaven forbid that the editors, with all their journalistic rabidity, actually had to wait to post a story that was probably submitted a week ago.
I agree with the FAQ. Slashdot shouldn't have to mirror the sites, but for all their emphasis on being a community-oriented site, they sure aren't kind to small site owners. CNN, BBCi, C|Net, etc should all be able to handle the traffic. Some rinky-dink virtual site will never be able to handle it, and if the editors can't realize that, maybe they need to turn over their "community-oriented site" to someone more knowledgeable about the community.
Re:Why not -1, Redundant?
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
Come up with a legally sound solution and tell the editors about it (no, don't post it then whine about the -1 OT score that would be quickly dished out)
"Opt out/. ing"
Anyone with a/.ID can "opt out" of their/. ing. When a file on their TLD gets listed for a good/. ing, the editor gets flagged with a "site will crash" message, which would then pop up the/.er's perferred/. response: either a link to a TLD, up to a twelve hour warning, or a smallish temporary mirror.
Re:Honestly, really
by
KalvinB
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
My site is running on a 256K DSL connection and survived the beating. Sure it was running at 600bytes per second but I could still access it. People just need to make their pages more bandwidth friendly. From acceptance to front page my story took about a day to be posted. That's plenty of time to rework a page if it's too bulky.
However, if weren't possible to make it bandwidth friendly, Slashdot needs to take advantage of resources out there like their own server or SourceForge and work a deal to use temporary space upon request of the owner of the linked site. The owner could easily package up the relavent portion of the site and e-mail it over to be put up at the temporary location.
If nothing else it would at least eliminate all the stupid "hey look it's slashdotted" posts.
Currently, Slashdot is just a link site with commentary. If it's keeps killing all it's stories it's going to be a pretty irrelevent link site at that.
Current Page Text
by
Kaz+Riprock
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
This used to be an interesting page about the barcode scanner door entry system I built with Python and Linux. I posted this page because I'd like to share my project with others. I've answered emails giving people circuit diagrams, and I've had various online discussions about my design decisions. Now MC68040 and michael@slashdot.org decide that it's time for me to go down. They didn't ask me if they could link; they didn't ask if I'd like to put up a mirror somewhere else. At least michael-the-slashdot-editor knew that I'd be down in minutes if he made a link.
I'd love to put this page back up, and maybe in several days I'll remember to do so. If you're interested in interfacing Linux with serial devices or electric door strikes, drop me an email at drewp@bigasterisk.com.
Bitter?
-- Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Of course, most of the time, the commercial sites that actually have income from banner ads easily withstand the Slashdot Effect. So perhaps we could draw the line at sites that don't have ads. They are, after all, much more likely to buckle under the pressure of all those unexpected hits. But what happens if I cache the site, and they update themselves? Once again, I'm transmitting data that I shouldn't be, only this time my cache is out of date!
Who cares? For them to get noticed on Slashdot, the interesting bits will still appear in the cache. Also, having the content cached doesn't mean that a link to the original site couldn't still be provided.
I could try asking permission, but do you want to wait 6 hours for a cool breaking story while we wait for permission to link someone?
Bullshit. If I want "breaking news", I go to CNN. I can't remember the last time I read a Slashdot article where the content of the article was time sensitive. It's just casual information to entertain and maybe educate the bored geek. Six hours is nothing. By the time Slashdot gets the news, it's already out in the open. It's not like they're going to get scooped.
Not inconceivable, but I don't really think it's worth the work. Most of the sites that are Slashdotted are prepared for it, and the sites that get smashed usually are caught completely off guard; they wouldn't know of this mysterious opt-out meta tag. (See also Caching Slashdot Stories).
So if the site doesn't have the magical opt-out tag or extra instruction tag, then fire up your e-mail client and get permission. Or just cache it and be done with it.
People who put up websites should recognize that people are going to look at it. Sometimes, a lot of people might look at it, as a result of a link from Slashdot or any of hundreds of other sites. People who bitch and moan about being linked to from Slashdot remind me of the companies who whine when people link to "confidential" webpages -- guess what, if it's on the web, it's not confidential.
The point is that it would be a decent thing for Slashdot to provide some mechanism to minimize the inconvenience caused by having a site or page linked on the front page. The points listed in the FAQ are weak. The bottom line is that some sort of cacheing would benefit both the owners of the content being linked (it wouldn't nuke their site) and the readers of Slashdot (no more seeing a cool story on Slashdot only to have to wait to read it because the Slashdot effective is already underway).
Truth be told, there is already an informal Slashdot cache -- you often see kind users copying the meat of the page into a comment which always gets modded up to +5. Further proof that an official Slashdot cache would be well received.
The only real argument against a cache would be the load that it would place on the Slashdot servers. They are tuned to handle their current content, but I wonder if they would be able to handle the load of serving up all that extra content in addition to the stuff that they already do.
Re:Slashdot effect (the good, bad, and the FAQ)
by
Fastolfe
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
I agree with the fact that Slashdot shouldn't have to mirror sites. I think most of their excuses as to why they don't are fairly absurd, though. This problem can be solved in a site-friendly, banner-ad-friendly and legal-friendly way through the use of run-of-the-mill HTTP proxies.
But however that goes, Slashdot really does need to be a little friendlier towards site operators when it's fairly clear up front that their site probably won't handle the traffic.
For the record, I've had news sites (e.g. MSNBC) do a story that involved some piece of content on my site, and generally, they ask my permission first, checking that I'm OK with it and that my servers can handle it. If they can take a few moments to do this, surely Slashdot can as well.
Re:What A Beautiful Mind
by
tacocat
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
I'll be forty in two months
Are you expecting me to stop posting to/. in two months? Am I allowed to do cool shit anymore?
Would I be willing to wait 6 hours on a 'cool breaking story'?
In a word: YES!
Most news on Slashdot is NOT BREAKING. If I didn't hear about barcode keys until tomorrow, or Wednesday, or next bloody MONTH for that matter, my life is not going to be significantly impacted.
When was the last time you saw a Slashdot story that you just absolutely had to read RIGHT THEN? There have been a few over the years (and I've been reading since close to the beginning; my number is so high because I didn't bother getting an account for six months or so after they started registrations.) There are occasional bits of 'breaking news' that make it here, but they're not nearly as common as the editors seem to think.
Slashdot, I think you are ignoring/abusing a responsbility here. You have the net equivalent of an Uzi; almost any small site you point to is going to die. Yes, the solution to the problem is tricky and would require some real thought and effort to implement. But you have had YEARS to think about this; I don't think 'it's hard!' is an adequate excuse anymore. Your other FAQ reasons are, in my opinion, fluff. The REAL reason is because it's hard, and I don't think that washes anymore.
If you actually DO have a breaking story, you always have the option of linking it directly. But if I have to wait an extra day before hearing about barcoded house keys, well.... I imagine I'll cope. Somehow.
Enough is enough. It's time to get started on some kind of caching system. If you're really lost, call Google. They're geeks. Many of them probably read this site, and I'll bet most would at least talk to you about the problem free of charge. If you want to start a discussion list on the project, I'll be happy to join and help as much as I can.
This is a problem that really needs to be solved, and I'm sure that many of us are ready and willing to help solve it.
Slashdot Mirror
As for the staff, Slashdot people could email web site admins and ask about their bandwidth/web server. But what if the site owner doesn't read email on the weekends? (that isn't uncommon) What is to be done in that case?
Uh, they wait until they get a response? It's not as if Slashdot is going to get scooped on one of these. Heaven forbid that the editors, with all their journalistic rabidity, actually had to wait to post a story that was probably submitted a week ago.
I agree with the FAQ. Slashdot shouldn't have to mirror the sites, but for all their emphasis on being a community-oriented site, they sure aren't kind to small site owners. CNN, BBCi, C|Net, etc should all be able to handle the traffic. Some rinky-dink virtual site will never be able to handle it, and if the editors can't realize that, maybe they need to turn over their "community-oriented site" to someone more knowledgeable about the community.
Come up with a legally sound solution and tell the editors about it (no, don't post it then whine about the -1 OT score that would be quickly dished out)
/. ing"
/.ID can "opt out" of their /. ing. When a file on their TLD gets listed for a good /. ing, the editor gets flagged with a "site will crash" message, which would then pop up the /.er's perferred /. response: either a link to a TLD, up to a twelve hour warning, or a smallish temporary mirror.
"Opt out
Anyone with a
My site is running on a 256K DSL connection and survived the beating. Sure it was running at 600bytes per second but I could still access it. People just need to make their pages more bandwidth friendly. From acceptance to front page my story took about a day to be posted. That's plenty of time to rework a page if it's too bulky.
However, if weren't possible to make it bandwidth friendly, Slashdot needs to take advantage of resources out there like their own server or SourceForge and work a deal to use temporary space upon request of the owner of the linked site. The owner could easily package up the relavent portion of the site and e-mail it over to be put up at the temporary location.
If nothing else it would at least eliminate all the stupid "hey look it's slashdotted" posts.
Currently, Slashdot is just a link site with commentary. If it's keeps killing all it's stories it's going to be a pretty irrelevent link site at that.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
This used to be an interesting page about the barcode scanner door entry system I built with Python and Linux. I posted this page because I'd like to share my project with others. I've answered emails giving people circuit diagrams, and I've had various online discussions about my design decisions.
Now MC68040 and michael@slashdot.org decide that it's time for me to go down. They didn't ask me if they could link; they didn't ask if I'd like to put up a mirror somewhere else. At least michael-the-slashdot-editor knew that I'd be down in minutes if he made a link.
I'd love to put this page back up, and maybe in several days I'll remember to do so. If you're interested in interfacing Linux with serial devices or electric door strikes, drop me an email at drewp@bigasterisk.com.
Bitter?
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Who cares? For them to get noticed on Slashdot, the interesting bits will still appear in the cache. Also, having the content cached doesn't mean that a link to the original site couldn't still be provided.
Bullshit. If I want "breaking news", I go to CNN. I can't remember the last time I read a Slashdot article where the content of the article was time sensitive. It's just casual information to entertain and maybe educate the bored geek. Six hours is nothing. By the time Slashdot gets the news, it's already out in the open. It's not like they're going to get scooped.
So if the site doesn't have the magical opt-out tag or extra instruction tag, then fire up your e-mail client and get permission. Or just cache it and be done with it.
The point is that it would be a decent thing for Slashdot to provide some mechanism to minimize the inconvenience caused by having a site or page linked on the front page. The points listed in the FAQ are weak. The bottom line is that some sort of cacheing would benefit both the owners of the content being linked (it wouldn't nuke their site) and the readers of Slashdot (no more seeing a cool story on Slashdot only to have to wait to read it because the Slashdot effective is already underway).
Truth be told, there is already an informal Slashdot cache -- you often see kind users copying the meat of the page into a comment which always gets modded up to +5. Further proof that an official Slashdot cache would be well received.
The only real argument against a cache would be the load that it would place on the Slashdot servers. They are tuned to handle their current content, but I wonder if they would be able to handle the load of serving up all that extra content in addition to the stuff that they already do.
I agree with the fact that Slashdot shouldn't have to mirror sites. I think most of their excuses as to why they don't are fairly absurd, though. This problem can be solved in a site-friendly, banner-ad-friendly and legal-friendly way through the use of run-of-the-mill HTTP proxies.
But however that goes, Slashdot really does need to be a little friendlier towards site operators when it's fairly clear up front that their site probably won't handle the traffic.
For the record, I've had news sites (e.g. MSNBC) do a story that involved some piece of content on my site, and generally, they ask my permission first, checking that I'm OK with it and that my servers can handle it. If they can take a few moments to do this, surely Slashdot can as well.
I'll be forty in two months
Are you expecting me to stop posting to /. in two months? Am I allowed to do cool shit anymore?
What is this place? Logan's run?
Would I be willing to wait 6 hours on a 'cool breaking story'?
In a word: YES!
Most news on Slashdot is NOT BREAKING. If I didn't hear about barcode keys until tomorrow, or Wednesday, or next bloody MONTH for that matter, my life is not going to be significantly impacted.
When was the last time you saw a Slashdot story that you just absolutely had to read RIGHT THEN? There have been a few over the years (and I've been reading since close to the beginning; my number is so high because I didn't bother getting an account for six months or so after they started registrations.) There are occasional bits of 'breaking news' that make it here, but they're not nearly as common as the editors seem to think.
Slashdot, I think you are ignoring/abusing a responsbility here. You have the net equivalent of an Uzi; almost any small site you point to is going to die. Yes, the solution to the problem is tricky and would require some real thought and effort to implement. But you have had YEARS to think about this; I don't think 'it's hard!' is an adequate excuse anymore. Your other FAQ reasons are, in my opinion, fluff. The REAL reason is because it's hard, and I don't think that washes anymore.
If you actually DO have a breaking story, you always have the option of linking it directly. But if I have to wait an extra day before hearing about barcoded house keys, well.... I imagine I'll cope. Somehow.
Enough is enough. It's time to get started on some kind of caching system. If you're really lost, call Google. They're geeks. Many of them probably read this site, and I'll bet most would at least talk to you about the problem free of charge. If you want to start a discussion list on the project, I'll be happy to join and help as much as I can.
This is a problem that really needs to be solved, and I'm sure that many of us are ready and willing to help solve it.