I use email all the time, and I post my email address prominently in places where people try to find my real name. Every 553 points people at a website that contains explicit instructions on how to email me. Every random person who wants to contact me, has plenty of information to do so.
I give email addresses out to hundreds of websites, and I post with valid email addresses on tens of websites, forums, and mailing lists.
How is an alias list of over 600 aliases "not using email"?
"Cumbersome"? As opposed to combing through thousands of spams weekly just to double-check that bogofilter didn't accidentally file an email in the wrong place?
Less than three seconds of effort every five months is cumbersome in ongoing maintenance?
Less than five seconds to set up a new alias is cumbersome when I'm already wasting a pile of time typing in one of those endless sign-up forms to access a website that might or might not be useful to me in the long run?
"Core functionality"? Just what kind of random people do you think are going to be able to guess my email to begin with? Anyone who tries to write to one of the old cast-offs gets an informative 553 message directing them at my website. Anyone who wants to email me can do so; people who learn of me through Slashdot or any of the other sites I frequent--well I'm not really interested in receiving private emails from people interested in emailing a persona they see in a forum. If they want to engage me--as you have done--they can respond to my posts here and elsewhere. Seems you were able to get your point across to me pretty easily.. don't you think?
You're making the same mistake that the people in the comments of the story did. You're assuming my "private" alias is immutable.
Since there are only a handful of people, changing my email to something new is practically non-impact. They're welcome to give the alias out. Also, my relatives and friends happen to have more than two braincells to rub together, so I can say that knowing full well they're all savvy enough not to actually do it. I'm sorry if yours aren't. The beauty of the system is that, through simple management of aliases and *who knows about those aliases* it is no longer an issue to track where the alias leaked from, nor is it an issue to deal with problems.
If whoever did give it out doesn't fess up, I'll just divide the private group in two and give one side one alias, and the other the other. Eventually, I'll find out who leaked it and stop giving them aliases. With only a handful of people who know my private alias, the process will take at most two iterations, and chances are 50% that one side of the division will only need a single alias update email, so overall damage in terms of a potential communication barrier is minimal to nil.
Besides that, the entire handful has my telephone number, so in reality, the email address is no more than a simple convenience for them.
Who gives a shit? If you'd (a) read the article, you would've known who my target audience is. If you are not among those people, you aren't capable of implementing it. So go look elsewhere, worm.
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
This is irrelevant. This solution is (b) not for businesses, nor is it (c) for users who are seeking to appease businesses.
(x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
This is also irrelevant. The worst that happens is they (d) get a 553. There is no avoiding that. Therefore you are (e) also stupid.
(x) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
A brute-force rumplestiltskin attack? Ruffle. Let them guess one, five, ten.. it doesn't matter. I'll close them off and move to others, that are less-guessable. A moment or two of my time, I'm done, and I'm still spam-free.
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Your point?
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
This isn't client-filtering, 'tard. Therefore you are (f) an idiot.
(x) Blacklists suck (x) Whitelists suck
This is neither. Therefore, you are (g) a dumbass.
(x) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
Not with my interface. Load bookmark. Click. Copy. Paste. Done. In two years I've never had to renew an alias.. only shut them down. Works for me!
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a fascist for suggesting it.
And you are (h) a fucking retard. Your parents have my sympathy.
I track my email carefully, I use unique email aliases for all the websites I visit, I use special aliases for the mailing lists I'm on, I provide images to interpret for people trying to contact me, and I give out my "real" email address to close friends and family *only*.
I haven't been sent a spam that I couldn't immediately block--permanently--ever since I implemented this scheme. It was bliss turning off bogofilter for the last time. It was sheer delight when I no longer had to comb through spam- and hamlists for false positive or negatives.
I removed myself entirely from the spam/anti-spam wars. I have transcended the drudgery that those people put themselves through, and the best part? My now nonexistent spam filters never sort real emails into a spambin where they're neglected.
Most of the performance numbers I've seen out there unfortunately don't take into account parallel accesses to large files by highly concurrent processes--the exact same kind of access patterns that enterprise-scale storage requirements demand. Instead, they concentrate on single-thread access patterns. This seems to be unrealistic.
Given enterprise-class accesses (extremely large files (hundreds of GB,) hundreds or thousands of accesses to those files per second, and tens or hundreds of processes accessing them simultaneously) XFS appears to excel. In terms of delete performance, XFS appears to do well there also.
I personally know of dozens of *large* companies and financial institutions who trust nothing *but* XFS as their FS of choice.
Your I/O errors indicate other issues, and are more likely not related to the design of the FS.
Make mine XFS. I just wish XFS were extended out to the *BSDs.
"Organic light-emitting diodes (OLED) in our screens last for 5000 hours of continuous use. The screen saving mode is designed to extend the keyboards lifetime."
So after a year or so, the keyboard fails and I have to buy a new one? What a great market if you can convince all those Mac users to give you money every year the same way they do Steve Jobs..:)
Mod parent up. "The Gamers" is one of the funniest D&D spoofs outside of Knights of the Dinner Table (which of course has no equal.)
Memorable quotes:
"You're going to backstab him with a ballista?"
"I steal his pants!"
"You look trustworthy! Will you join us?"...and the ever-present sight gag: spot the missing character while he remains absent from the real-world group!
More than 10, and especially during the time when I was system admin of a 60,000+ customer ISP, I had more problems with 3Ware's hardware than with any other RAID card I've ever used.
The fact that some drivers sit in the Linux kernel is meaningless--all that shows is that someone had the wherewithal to actually spend the time to write one.
Binary drivers mean nothing. Support for *modern* hardware is the crucial factor in running these kinds of devices under *modern* open source operating systems, and 3Ware is falling down hard in terms of their support of the free OSes.
Why support them when an alternative exists that has a good reputation, supplies documentation and hardware to the free OSes, and doesn't seem to come with all the negative baggage that you yourself just described!
I don't need to prove anything. They are the ones making the claims. They supplied no proof. There is no proof he did any of the things in the novel! Farley himself never defended himself against any of the claims made by John Goddard in the May 1996 article of Saturday Night Magazine.
Why don't you look up "Hardly Know-It" on Google, since you're such a smart fellow, and read the Salon article about the guy? This is my last response to you. You clearly have no ability to research beyond simple Google searches; I'm not going to do any more of your drudgework for you.
Go to your local library, read up on the controversy, and stop buying the lying hype about Farley like some kind of patsy.
I'd say that because they're one of the very few RAID companies actually working with OpenBSD. What, you never heard of OpenBSD's complaint re: hardware RAID?
"Is there any vendor that chose to contribute with hardware or specifications?
Marco Peereboom: LSI has been very nice in providing hardware, certain pieces of documentation, and engineering help. In the end, to make all this happen, there was quite a bit of reverse engineering done as well."
Those are NOT his experiences with wolves. The story is fiction. The movie is fiction. He did NOT live on mice for an entire summer. He did *NOT* have a rapport with a wolf in the far North.
Belief in the man as a factual historian is stupid to say the least.
This is yet another example of why sources on the Internet, now percolated through hundreds or thousands of sites one to the other like some kind of parasitic frenzy, are worthless as a research source.
Every single 3Ware that I've ever encountered has unfortunately been.. how shall I put it.. less than stellar when it comes to rebuilding a damaged array. From the odd drive trays of some models, to the lackluster rebuilding logic that silently corrupts on-disk data too commonly to be trusted, I just really don't like that hardware.
Stay away from it. Support LSI, they're more friendly to the free software community!
LSI Logic is one of the few companies that actually supports and helps out the free software community, and therefore their cards are supported more places than binary drivers would allow. Also, they do hardware-assisted RAID so the CPU can do its own thing.
Support these guys!
8 x SATA2 250GB HDs. Might as well make sure they have NCQ.
Some say NCQ has a benefit. Some say it doesn't. Might as well get it, it doesn't cost any more than the SATA2 drives that don't have it.
Cheap server motherboard w/ PCI-X (NOT PCI-Express.)
The MegaRAID above uses PCI-X. All 8-port RAID cards that I'm aware of need PCI-X. There are a few that support PCIe, but they're not proven and they're not (yet) quite supported everywhere the way the 300-8X is.
2GB RAM
Might as well load up on OS-accessible cache.
One of the *BSDs, since they're easier to use.
Arrange them in a RAID10 configuration and use ~64KB stripe size, or less.
The only reason you might consider larger stripe sizes would be for large media files (like for a MythTV box for example.) Otherwise, it's not worth the overhead. It should be RAID10 because RAID5 is slow and wasteful, and RAID10 with a 2x4 configuration (2 sets comprising 4 striped drives each) is capable of losing more drives simultaneously than other configurations are.
Put it all together and you have 1TB of redundant storage made from open source components which you can pretty much tug along with you wherever you go. Plus, the MegaRAID cards are blindingly fast. I mean come on! 8 drives!
Now then, if you have more money, grab one of the MegaRAID SCSI U320 solutions and get SERIOUS speed for your money. You'll end up with a smaller, overall, drive array, but the speed will be ridiculous.. Just buy two of them and slap them in there, and put them on a ccd/vinum/lvm partition. Droolicious.
... seems to be lost on this guy. Only 5% of Canada is arable (that is, farmable.) There is *plenty* of room for large wind farms and other, similarly massive projects, without having to worry about depleting available farmlands. Besides, many cities are *already* sitting on top of a large percentage of viable farmland up here.
If you take the sysadmin position at the University, you'll regret it. Every year,, a new crop of know-it-alls with a little skill at assembly are going to waltz in and think they own your machines because they paid megabux for their tuition. You'll be in a constant struggle to keep them in line when it comes to your computers, and they'll think it's just a big game.
Every year, your security will grow tighter and tighter, until your control and knowledge of your systems will surpass anything you could've imagined you'd know. But it'll all be driven by an adversarial student population who considers you to be a lower life form. Many of them will be smarter than you, and there'll come times when the only edge you have will be your encyclopedic experience.
You'll never be remembered by the students as anything but an interfering fascist, and your labyrinthine policies will frustrate the staff and administration.
If you thought you had to deal with a thankless population before, if you ever felt the need to pull out because nobody understood why you do the things you do, it'll be a thousand times worse, and magnified because people in a University environment think they're more open-minded than they really are.
Don't waste your time--go with the Fortune 10. You'll do better in the long run and be able to retire sooner.
You forgot to mention something: the reason why more than 0.5 hours at a time in front of the computer is bad. In fact, I would say that nothing useful *can* be done in front of the computer in 0.5 hours or less, and all you're doing is preventing your child from truly engaging himself in anything but frivolity.
The more you repeat it, the more the child will get used to the schedule, and the less likely it is that your child is going to use the computer as a tool for anything but email and instant messaging. Children thrive on repeating, regular schedules, but you shouldn't discourage your child from engaging his ability to concentrate for long periods of time on a single task. That's the only way complex crafts can be done or learned!
What should be done, instead, is to *spend that time WITH* your child and guide him through programming, design, critical thinking, exegesis, tricks and traps, applications.. Learn a programming language together.
They modded me up because it's a poorly-planned and poorly-executed policy, and I was pointing out that engendering resentful feelings in a child is not a good idea when the aim is to encourage learning and expertise with one of the most important tools on the planet.
Besides that, I hardly think comparing time spent on the Internet with drinking alcohol (a.k.a. addictive poison) is anything but trolly. Therefore, you are stupid, and I'm not going to respond to you anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I use email all the time, and I post my email address prominently in places where people try to find my real name. Every 553 points people at a website that contains explicit instructions on how to email me. Every random person who wants to contact me, has plenty of information to do so.
I give email addresses out to hundreds of websites, and I post with valid email addresses on tens of websites, forums, and mailing lists.
How is an alias list of over 600 aliases "not using email"?
Fucking retard.
"Cumbersome"? As opposed to combing through thousands of spams weekly just to double-check that bogofilter didn't accidentally file an email in the wrong place?
Less than three seconds of effort every five months is cumbersome in ongoing maintenance?
Less than five seconds to set up a new alias is cumbersome when I'm already wasting a pile of time typing in one of those endless sign-up forms to access a website that might or might not be useful to me in the long run?
"Core functionality"? Just what kind of random people do you think are going to be able to guess my email to begin with? Anyone who tries to write to one of the old cast-offs gets an informative 553 message directing them at my website. Anyone who wants to email me can do so; people who learn of me through Slashdot or any of the other sites I frequent--well I'm not really interested in receiving private emails from people interested in emailing a persona they see in a forum. If they want to engage me--as you have done--they can respond to my posts here and elsewhere. Seems you were able to get your point across to me pretty easily.. don't you think?
Or are you not just a random third-party?
You're making the same mistake that the people in the comments of the story did. You're assuming my "private" alias is immutable.
Since there are only a handful of people, changing my email to something new is practically non-impact. They're welcome to give the alias out. Also, my relatives and friends happen to have more than two braincells to rub together, so I can say that knowing full well they're all savvy enough not to actually do it. I'm sorry if yours aren't. The beauty of the system is that, through simple management of aliases and *who knows about those aliases* it is no longer an issue to track where the alias leaked from, nor is it an issue to deal with problems.
If whoever did give it out doesn't fess up, I'll just divide the private group in two and give one side one alias, and the other the other. Eventually, I'll find out who leaked it and stop giving them aliases. With only a handful of people who know my private alias, the process will take at most two iterations, and chances are 50% that one side of the division will only need a single alias update email, so overall damage in terms of a potential communication barrier is minimal to nil.
Besides that, the entire handful has my telephone number, so in reality, the email address is no more than a simple convenience for them.
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
Who gives a shit? If you'd (a) read the article, you would've known who my target audience is. If you are not among those people, you aren't capable of implementing it. So go look elsewhere, worm.
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
This is irrelevant. This solution is (b) not for businesses, nor is it (c) for users who are seeking to appease businesses.
(x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
This is also irrelevant. The worst that happens is they (d) get a 553. There is no avoiding that. Therefore you are (e) also stupid.
(x) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
A brute-force rumplestiltskin attack? Ruffle. Let them guess one, five, ten.. it doesn't matter. I'll close them off and move to others, that are less-guessable. A moment or two of my time, I'm done, and I'm still spam-free.
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Your point?
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
This isn't client-filtering, 'tard. Therefore you are (f) an idiot.
(x) Blacklists suck
(x) Whitelists suck
This is neither. Therefore, you are (g) a dumbass.
(x) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
Not with my interface. Load bookmark. Click. Copy. Paste. Done. In two years I've never had to renew an alias.. only shut them down. Works for me!
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a fascist for suggesting it.
And you are (h) a fucking retard. Your parents have my sympathy.
How did I do it?
6
Simple:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/16/13579/350
I track my email carefully, I use unique email aliases for all the websites I visit, I use special aliases for the mailing lists I'm on, I provide images to interpret for people trying to contact me, and I give out my "real" email address to close friends and family *only*.
I haven't been sent a spam that I couldn't immediately block--permanently--ever since I implemented this scheme. It was bliss turning off bogofilter for the last time. It was sheer delight when I no longer had to comb through spam- and hamlists for false positive or negatives.
I removed myself entirely from the spam/anti-spam wars. I have transcended the drudgery that those people put themselves through, and the best part? My now nonexistent spam filters never sort real emails into a spambin where they're neglected.
Most of the performance numbers I've seen out there unfortunately don't take into account parallel accesses to large files by highly concurrent processes--the exact same kind of access patterns that enterprise-scale storage requirements demand. Instead, they concentrate on single-thread access patterns. This seems to be unrealistic.
Given enterprise-class accesses (extremely large files (hundreds of GB,) hundreds or thousands of accesses to those files per second, and tens or hundreds of processes accessing them simultaneously) XFS appears to excel. In terms of delete performance, XFS appears to do well there also.
I personally know of dozens of *large* companies and financial institutions who trust nothing *but* XFS as their FS of choice.
Your I/O errors indicate other issues, and are more likely not related to the design of the FS.
Make mine XFS. I just wish XFS were extended out to the *BSDs.
... and then one day the RIAA outnumbers you and does the same thing. Yea, I want to live in a society like that. Not.
It is *not* inevitable. Get your head out of your ass and stop trolling your readership.
What am I saying? This is Slashdot.. telling it to change its ways I suppose is like ordering a donkey not to bray.
Forget I said anything.
From the article:
:)
"Organic light-emitting diodes (OLED) in our screens last for 5000 hours of continuous use. The screen saving mode is designed to extend the keyboards lifetime."
So after a year or so, the keyboard fails and I have to buy a new one? What a great market if you can convince all those Mac users to give you money every year the same way they do Steve Jobs..
No thanks.. I'll stick with my Fujitsu 4726.
Cripes.. how many times do we have to hear about the Revolution being an evolution of a game controller?!
Cut it out already! We get it, okay?!
Translation: the clueless need not apply.
You think $5 is going to buy you tech support to go with that get-out-of-jail-free card?
Cripes.. some people's sense of entitlement just blows me away sometimes..
Mod parent up. "The Gamers" is one of the funniest D&D spoofs outside of Knights of the Dinner Table (which of course has no equal.)
...and the ever-present sight gag: spot the missing character while he remains absent from the real-world group!
Memorable quotes:
"You're going to backstab him with a ballista?"
"I steal his pants!"
"You look trustworthy! Will you join us?"
Deprecating, dammit! The word is deprecating!
More than 10, and especially during the time when I was system admin of a 60,000+ customer ISP, I had more problems with 3Ware's hardware than with any other RAID card I've ever used.
The fact that some drivers sit in the Linux kernel is meaningless--all that shows is that someone had the wherewithal to actually spend the time to write one.
Binary drivers mean nothing. Support for *modern* hardware is the crucial factor in running these kinds of devices under *modern* open source operating systems, and 3Ware is falling down hard in terms of their support of the free OSes.
Why support them when an alternative exists that has a good reputation, supplies documentation and hardware to the free OSes, and doesn't seem to come with all the negative baggage that you yourself just described!
I don't need to prove anything. They are the ones making the claims. They supplied no proof. There is no proof he did any of the things in the novel! Farley himself never defended himself against any of the claims made by John Goddard in the May 1996 article of Saturday Night Magazine.
Why don't you look up "Hardly Know-It" on Google, since you're such a smart fellow, and read the Salon article about the guy? This is my last response to you. You clearly have no ability to research beyond simple Google searches; I'm not going to do any more of your drudgework for you.
Go to your local library, read up on the controversy, and stop buying the lying hype about Farley like some kind of patsy.
I'd say that because they're one of the very few RAID companies actually working with OpenBSD. What, you never heard of OpenBSD's complaint re: hardware RAID?
OpenBSD Doesn't Like 3Ware
Notice the quote: "3Ware has lied to us and our users so many times they make politicians look saintly."
Or, a more detailed account is here:
ONLamp Interview w/ OpenBSD Devs
"Is there any vendor that chose to contribute with hardware or specifications?
Marco Peereboom: LSI has been very nice in providing hardware, certain pieces of documentation, and engineering help. In the end, to make all this happen, there was quite a bit of reverse engineering done as well."
Those are NOT his experiences with wolves. The story is fiction. The movie is fiction. He did NOT live on mice for an entire summer. He did *NOT* have a rapport with a wolf in the far North.
Belief in the man as a factual historian is stupid to say the least.
This is yet another example of why sources on the Internet, now percolated through hundreds or thousands of sites one to the other like some kind of parasitic frenzy, are worthless as a research source.
So gimme a break already!
$120 for a 250GB SATA? How about $123CAD for 250GB of SATA2 w/ NCQ? NCX Rules That's like... what.. $106USD! Cheep.
Every single 3Ware that I've ever encountered has unfortunately been .. how shall I put it .. less than stellar when it comes to rebuilding a damaged array. From the odd drive trays of some models, to the lackluster rebuilding logic that silently corrupts on-disk data too commonly to be trusted, I just really don't like that hardware.
Stay away from it. Support LSI, they're more friendly to the free software community!
MegaRAID SATA 300-8X
LSI Logic is one of the few companies that actually supports and helps out the free software community, and therefore their cards are supported more places than binary drivers would allow. Also, they do hardware-assisted RAID so the CPU can do its own thing.
Support these guys!
8 x SATA2 250GB HDs. Might as well make sure they have NCQ.
Some say NCQ has a benefit. Some say it doesn't. Might as well get it, it doesn't cost any more than the SATA2 drives that don't have it.
Cheap server motherboard w/ PCI-X (NOT PCI-Express.)
The MegaRAID above uses PCI-X. All 8-port RAID cards that I'm aware of need PCI-X. There are a few that support PCIe, but they're not proven and they're not (yet) quite supported everywhere the way the 300-8X is.
2GB RAM
Might as well load up on OS-accessible cache.
One of the *BSDs, since they're easier to use.
Arrange them in a RAID10 configuration and use ~64KB stripe size, or less.
The only reason you might consider larger stripe sizes would be for large media files (like for a MythTV box for example.) Otherwise, it's not worth the overhead. It should be RAID10 because RAID5 is slow and wasteful, and RAID10 with a 2x4 configuration (2 sets comprising 4 striped drives each) is capable of losing more drives simultaneously than other configurations are.
Put it all together and you have 1TB of redundant storage made from open source components which you can pretty much tug along with you wherever you go. Plus, the MegaRAID cards are blindingly fast. I mean come on! 8 drives!
Now then, if you have more money, grab one of the MegaRAID SCSI U320 solutions and get SERIOUS speed for your money. You'll end up with a smaller, overall, drive array, but the speed will be ridiculous.. Just buy two of them and slap them in there, and put them on a ccd/vinum/lvm partition. Droolicious.
... seems to be lost on this guy. Only 5% of Canada is arable (that is, farmable.) There is *plenty* of room for large wind farms and other, similarly massive projects, without having to worry about depleting available farmlands. Besides, many cities are *already* sitting on top of a large percentage of viable farmland up here.
Make thy peace!
*snicker*
If you take the sysadmin position at the University, you'll regret it. Every year,, a new crop of know-it-alls with a little skill at assembly are going to waltz in and think they own your machines because they paid megabux for their tuition. You'll be in a constant struggle to keep them in line when it comes to your computers, and they'll think it's just a big game.
Every year, your security will grow tighter and tighter, until your control and knowledge of your systems will surpass anything you could've imagined you'd know. But it'll all be driven by an adversarial student population who considers you to be a lower life form. Many of them will be smarter than you, and there'll come times when the only edge you have will be your encyclopedic experience.
You'll never be remembered by the students as anything but an interfering fascist, and your labyrinthine policies will frustrate the staff and administration.
If you thought you had to deal with a thankless population before, if you ever felt the need to pull out because nobody understood why you do the things you do, it'll be a thousand times worse, and magnified because people in a University environment think they're more open-minded than they really are.
Don't waste your time--go with the Fortune 10. You'll do better in the long run and be able to retire sooner.
Exercise your eyes, and give them rests by looking at faraway stuff.
If you insist on focussing on small, local objects for long periods of time, then you only have yourself to blame for it. You're not invincible.
You forgot to mention something: the reason why more than 0.5 hours at a time in front of the computer is bad. In fact, I would say that nothing useful *can* be done in front of the computer in 0.5 hours or less, and all you're doing is preventing your child from truly engaging himself in anything but frivolity.
The more you repeat it, the more the child will get used to the schedule, and the less likely it is that your child is going to use the computer as a tool for anything but email and instant messaging. Children thrive on repeating, regular schedules, but you shouldn't discourage your child from engaging his ability to concentrate for long periods of time on a single task. That's the only way complex crafts can be done or learned!
What should be done, instead, is to *spend that time WITH* your child and guide him through programming, design, critical thinking, exegesis, tricks and traps, applications.. Learn a programming language together.
They modded me up because it's a poorly-planned and poorly-executed policy, and I was pointing out that engendering resentful feelings in a child is not a good idea when the aim is to encourage learning and expertise with one of the most important tools on the planet.
Besides that, I hardly think comparing time spent on the Internet with drinking alcohol (a.k.a. addictive poison) is anything but trolly. Therefore, you are stupid, and I'm not going to respond to you anymore.