Doing FTP, or any other TCP-based transfers, WILL NOT show the true bandwidth of a given connection. T1s usually use WFQ (weighted fair queueing) as the packet queueing method, which will not let a single TCP session saturate the bandwidth. If you have to rely on this method, the way to do it is start several FTP connections, and watch the bandwidth utilization either through viewing "show interface" on your router, or through graphing via MRTG.
Furthermore, the 'local guy' should be more than happy to show you his DS3 MRTG graphs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a DS3. 99% of the networks in the world have less than a T1s worth of bandwidth. The amount of bandwidth a company has is irrelevant, really. As long as the amount of available bandwidth is greater than the bandwidth you need, and you experience no increased latency or packet loss, they have sufficient connectiviy.
You can always ask to see the local guys MRTG graphs...
Andy
And this book provides what extra value?
on
SSH, The Secure Shell
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I guess I don't see why somebody would buy this book. I own several O'Reilly books, but I can't figure out why somebody would buy this. For the average and below-average admin, ssh is fine with the default install. For the above-average admin, they don't need the info spoon-fed, and there doesn't appear to be any "quick reference" value.
1) Costa Rican end user wants to send mail to grandma: Get a hotmail account.
2) Costa Rican business who wants to be able to send and recieve mail freely: host your website in the states for dirt cheap, and setup your mail server to relay all mail through your webhosts mail server.
The Government may have a monopoly on the Internet in Costa Rica, but that doesn't mean you have to use their mail servers. So what if you can't send it from your own network on your own IPs; count it as one of the many reasons you wish you lived in America.
Dude, you're clueless. Nobody is complaining because they put up April 1st posts. We're complaining because almost every friggen story is april fools. In the past, it was always a couple or few...this year, it's ALL BUT a couple or few.
Especially considering the slashdot community can't pretend to pay for ad free viewing today, and then cancel payment claiming their payment "was an april fools joke". Slashdot is a fucking whore.
Not having any idea how you look, I'm curious: As one of the few high-profile she-nerds, do you find geeks coming on to you often? If so, what approaches seem to be the most common?
I don't understand what I get for $100. A hack (Lindows) written on top of another hack (Linux)to try to (poorly) emulate the status quo? I don't think so.
If you want Office Apps on a Unix system, get OS X. Not only is the GUI better, but the underlying OS is better. But I'll probably never even bother with that; I'll just keep using Windows 2k, and keep using SecureCRT to ssh into one of the fifty FreeBSD/Solaris boxes I run.
It's very simple, actually. The only people who will lose if there are encryption backdoors are the people who are willing to use those crippled encryption schemes. We won't catch terrorists. Why? There will always be some form of strong encryption available that doesn't have a backdoor.
What is the US going to do, start prosecuting people in Switzerland who publish a new encryption program that doesn't have a backdoor? Get real.
It sounds a lot more likely that the government is using the tragedy of last week to try to build public favor for encryption backdoors. Tasteless...
I think it's pretty clear that if the "laws of physics are really real", then "science is the only way for humans to make sense of the Universe around them."
If you have a hard time accepting rules with exceptions when we describe blackholes, how is it that you can believe laws of physics are really real yet also believe that there is a god?
If the rules of physics do not allow for a blackhole, they do not allow for a god.
Obviously you are unfamiliar with Godel's theorem, which states (in essence) that no system can be both complete and consistent. In other words, you are either in an incomplete system, containing objects not produceable by the basic rules of the system, or you are in a system accepting paradox, where the rules of the system produce conflicting objects. Therefore, we can do one of two things: Not be able to describe the phenonenom, or describe it noting that the physics used to describe it are completely insane.
"The very laws that the Lord decreed"? Dude, these "laws" are all interpretations based on limited human perception.
Who said the Universe was well formed? Who said you could even describe the universe in those terms? For that matter, if we used Godel's notion of "well-formed", we'd have no problems with the apparent paradoxes introduced.
Why do you have problems with paradox? Are you really that limited?
I had the old guy as my professor for CS50, which is the first computer class you take at Harvard. It was nice to see him bitch about people being trained in Visual C++; I assume he was complaining about Princeton, because at Harvard it was strictly C on Unix. (C++ was taught in CS51, but still in a Unix environment.)
He is an incredibly endearing fellow. In the first class, to demonstrate the concept of an algorithm, he had the class (of 400+) shout out instructions on how to make him trim his beard. He spread out several instruments of cutting (including a small chain saw...the guy has a nice sense of humor) on the desk in front of him, and would ignore any directions that comprised more than one action. So, if somebody would say "Pick up the scissors!" he would reply, robot like, "What are scissors?"
So, you'd have to say things like "Extend your right hand 4 inches", etc. In the end, he even cut of a small amount of his beard, to the immense cheers of the class.
He's one of the more intriguing characters in CS history, the "k" in "awk", always tagging along on some of the more interesting projects in (C, Unix), but never really striking out on his own.
The cool thing is, he is very self deprecating and would be the first person to admit his shortcomings.
Awesome professor, as his enthusiasm for even the simple aspects is always evident. He loves the stuff, and thus you want to love it as well.
A cool note, he is the person who invented the concept of creating a program to print "Hello world".
Thank god you guys are finally doing something about the extreme slowness of the site...the beta site is considerably faster.
So, it's obviously superior. I want to know more about the setup, though. FreeBSD on dual 1 GHz processors, gig of ram, etc. Are the servers geographically distributed? Or in one place? What's the connectivity? How are you doing the load balancing, an L4 switch or something cheap and cheesy like RR DNS?
Post the technical details! This is slashdot, afterall.
Essentially, this is the essence of the whole thing: (This is paraphrased, but very close to exact, and was said by the guy with glasses during the Q&A session) "Imagine a car that goes 100mph and gets 10mpg, and another car that goes 90mph and gets 30mpg. If you only need to go 100 miles, the first car will do it for you. But if you want to go 200 miles and beyond, the second one is the obvious choice." So, in other words, the only benefit at this time is that the Crusoe will run longer (but not faster) than an equivalent PC laptop. Uhm...BFD (Big F'in Deal). And they can forget about those webpads ever catching on... What they need to focus on to get me excited is cross-platform support. In other words, I get a laptop running the crusoe processor, and thier version of mobile linux, with a custom GUI, that runs Windows and Mac apps without having to enter into any emulators (the emulation should be done at the OS level instead of using Wine, etc.) Then, and only then, will they have something worth buying. As it stands, I'm not a potential customer, not matter how much Linus is involved. Andy
Either way, internet access does and will continue to raise interesting implications in regards to how a university is rated. Maybe the demand and competitiveness for Ivy league schools will be superseded by a demand for Wired schools?
No way...the Ivy league schools are among the better connected schools in the country. I go to Harvard, and they've got a great network. So does Cornell. I'm sure the others do as well.
You're flat out retarded. Children don't feel a rush of "wow, adults trust me" when they sit down at a computer in a library and access porn. They instead get erections and make sure nobody is watching while they look at as much porn possible in the shortest amount of time.
You cannot rely on trust for anything. Ask any security expert if you don't believe me.
The more we trust children the more they abuse that trust. It's simple.
Let me first state that I'm a libertarian (not a librarian). I believe that the government should not interfere with the rights of anybody, so long as that individual's "rights" don't impugn upon another individual's rights. Basically, I'm for absolute freedom (as long as you don't screw up other people).
Should the government be allowed to block porn at the library? Of course. Why? THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY LIBRARIES IN THE FIRST PLACE!
A library is not a right, it is a privilege. The fact that you're getting FREE internet access is an extended privilege! You aren't allowed to read Playboy at school; you aren't allowed to look at sublimedirectory.com at the library. It's that simple.
If you want to exercise your right to freedom, buy internet access. Do with it as you would like. If you're in the mood to protest a library's policies, you may as well protest the fact that the libraries ask for the books back!
Another way to point out the absurdity of this: Does the library carry the Karma Sutra? Hustler? It could be argued, just as logically as the argument being made above, that if the library does not carry every single book ever published they are violating your rights.
What a joke...fight for something worth fighting for. Porn is a great and glorious thing; you don't need to be able to view it from the library.
Why, you ask? We live in a era where the technological skill of the underground is far more agile than the blundering government. I'd have this thing on my car for less than a week before websites would begin to pop up all over the net with ways to defeat the device yet not draw attention to yourself.
Then, because the cops will rely on this transmitter system, they will stop sitting in the middle of the highway waiting for me to drive past. Tickets would be automatically mailed, so, as a result, "the other white meat" would stop issuing with them entirely.
This device would be like a gun; outlaw guns, and only criminals will have guns. Well, outlaw speeding (as opposed to regulating it, like it is now), and only the people who really want to speed will speed.
So, the way I see it, the more the government relies on technology to control the masses, the more I can get away with by being in touch with the counter-culture and underground technology.
I'd rather see a link to pictures of scat-eating donkeys being molested with shucked corn cobs by a gang of gangrenous midget immigrants.
Don't get me wrong, I run a network of Solaris and FreeBSD boxes, and I think Windows has as many problems as the next guy (as long as the next guy has crabs and a healthy dose of Ebola), but that was just piss poor. Humor at its worst. I thought the author was alluding to something done by somebody else...but no, just some lame-ass nerd with a soap box to tell his lame-ass jokes. And since there are so many Linux "I'd rather take it up the ass than admit linux isn't the best" advocates out there, it's destined to get hits.
I'm disappointed that the article was posted.
Hemos, we know you need to learn how to write, but now you make us think you need to learn how to read.
An ISP my company recently acqired has a shell server. One day, we get a frantic note from a user who is saying that their account had been hacked, that there were some additional lines in their.history that they didn't type.
So, an hour later, I had cleaned out the trojaned ls, ps, inetd, login, etc, and I found some interesting stuff that they left behind.
It's called 'trinoo'. It's a remotely-accessable DOS attack tool...it runs on certain ports (31335 for instance) and co-ordinates the attacks with other servers. For instance, if you establish a network of these, you would telnet to one, tell it to start the attack on whichever IP you choose, and it would get all the other trinoo daemons it's aware of to also attack that IP.
We got some calls from some DOD and other.mil and.gov agencies about this, so I would assume it's fairly well spread.
As a part-owner/network administrator for a regional ISP, I can say that this is never going to happen. ISPs already pay the Bells exorbitant amounts of money for access lines (in the form of PRIs or CT1s...prices range from $400 to $1000+ for 23 digital phone lines).
You can even make the point that ISPs help subsidize the increased amount of traffic, as we have to pay the Bells around $400/mo per T1 (for local loop charges).
Will they take away reciprocal compensation? (if ISPs are CLECs, they are technically supposed to get paid X cents per minute that a customer is connected...this is how the free ISPs of the UK are funded) Yes. Will they do a complete 180 and start charging a tax for internet consumption? No. The only reason it is being 're-examined' is to keep the Bells happy.
The government isn't about to screw with the economic juggernaut that is the Internet. The Internet is almost singlehandedly responsible for our current state of economic bliss. We aren't going to tax it. Ten years from now, when it is common to everyone, you will probably see a sales tax on ecommerce, but that's the extent of any Internet taxes you'll ever see.
Slashdot Mirror
Doing FTP, or any other TCP-based transfers, WILL NOT show the true bandwidth of a given connection. T1s usually use WFQ (weighted fair queueing) as the packet queueing method, which will not let a single TCP session saturate the bandwidth. If you have to rely on this method, the way to do it is start several FTP connections, and watch the bandwidth utilization either through viewing "show interface" on your router, or through graphing via MRTG.
Furthermore, the 'local guy' should be more than happy to show you his DS3 MRTG graphs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a DS3. 99% of the networks in the world have less than a T1s worth of bandwidth. The amount of bandwidth a company has is irrelevant, really. As long as the amount of available bandwidth is greater than the bandwidth you need, and you experience no increased latency or packet loss, they have sufficient connectiviy.
You can always ask to see the local guys MRTG graphs...
Andy
I guess I don't see why somebody would buy this book. I own several O'Reilly books, but I can't figure out why somebody would buy this. For the average and below-average admin, ssh is fine with the default install. For the above-average admin, they don't need the info spoon-fed, and there doesn't appear to be any "quick reference" value.
Simple technical solutions:
1) Costa Rican end user wants to send mail to grandma: Get a hotmail account.
2) Costa Rican business who wants to be able to send and recieve mail freely: host your website in the states for dirt cheap, and setup your mail server to relay all mail through your webhosts mail server.
The Government may have a monopoly on the Internet in Costa Rica, but that doesn't mean you have to use their mail servers. So what if you can't send it from your own network on your own IPs; count it as one of the many reasons you wish you lived in America.
Dude, you're clueless. Nobody is complaining because they put up April 1st posts. We're complaining because almost every friggen story is april fools. In the past, it was always a couple or few...this year, it's ALL BUT a couple or few.
Especially considering the slashdot community can't pretend to pay for ad free viewing today, and then cancel payment claiming their payment "was an april fools joke". Slashdot is a fucking whore.
I officially demand that slashdot rename itself CrapDot every April 1st from now on, provided this constant flow of asanine bullshit pursists.
"CrapDot - News for Fools. Stuff that nobody wants to read."
Andy
Not having any idea how you look, I'm curious: As one of the few high-profile she-nerds, do you find geeks coming on to you often? If so, what approaches seem to be the most common?
I don't understand what I get for $100. A hack (Lindows) written on top of another hack (Linux)to try to (poorly) emulate the status quo? I don't think so.
If you want Office Apps on a Unix system, get OS X. Not only is the GUI better, but the underlying OS is better. But I'll probably never even bother with that; I'll just keep using Windows 2k, and keep using SecureCRT to ssh into one of the fifty FreeBSD/Solaris boxes I run.
This MIGHT have value IF it was free.
It's very simple, actually. The only people who will lose if there are encryption backdoors are the people who are willing to use those crippled encryption schemes. We won't catch terrorists. Why? There will always be some form of strong encryption available that doesn't have a backdoor.
What is the US going to do, start prosecuting people in Switzerland who publish a new encryption program that doesn't have a backdoor? Get real.
It sounds a lot more likely that the government is using the tragedy of last week to try to build public favor for encryption backdoors. Tasteless...
"The laws of physics are really real"?
Thus, something is real if humans define it?
I think it's pretty clear that if the "laws of physics are really real", then "science is the only way for humans to make sense of the Universe around them."
If you have a hard time accepting rules with exceptions when we describe blackholes, how is it that you can believe laws of physics are really real yet also believe that there is a god?
If the rules of physics do not allow for a blackhole, they do not allow for a god.
Either way you're trolling.
Obviously you are unfamiliar with Godel's theorem, which states (in essence) that no system can be both complete and consistent. In other words, you are either in an incomplete system, containing objects not produceable by the basic rules of the system, or you are in a system accepting paradox, where the rules of the system produce conflicting objects. Therefore, we can do one of two things: Not be able to describe the phenonenom, or describe it noting that the physics used to describe it are completely insane.
"The very laws that the Lord decreed"? Dude, these "laws" are all interpretations based on limited human perception.
Who said the Universe was well formed? Who said you could even describe the universe in those terms? For that matter, if we used Godel's notion of "well-formed", we'd have no problems with the apparent paradoxes introduced.
Why do you have problems with paradox? Are you really that limited?
I had the old guy as my professor for CS50, which is the first computer class you take at Harvard. It was nice to see him bitch about people being trained in Visual C++; I assume he was complaining about Princeton, because at Harvard it was strictly C on Unix. (C++ was taught in CS51, but still in a Unix environment.)
He is an incredibly endearing fellow. In the first class, to demonstrate the concept of an algorithm, he had the class (of 400+) shout out instructions on how to make him trim his beard. He spread out several instruments of cutting (including a small chain saw...the guy has a nice sense of humor) on the desk in front of him, and would ignore any directions that comprised more than one action. So, if somebody would say "Pick up the scissors!" he would reply, robot like, "What are scissors?"
So, you'd have to say things like "Extend your right hand 4 inches", etc. In the end, he even cut of a small amount of his beard, to the immense cheers of the class.
He's one of the more intriguing characters in CS history, the "k" in "awk", always tagging along on some of the more interesting projects in (C, Unix), but never really striking out on his own.
The cool thing is, he is very self deprecating and would be the first person to admit his shortcomings.
Awesome professor, as his enthusiasm for even the simple aspects is always evident. He loves the stuff, and thus you want to love it as well.
A cool note, he is the person who invented the concept of creating a program to print "Hello world".
Thank god you guys are finally doing something about the extreme slowness of the site...the beta site is considerably faster.
So, it's obviously superior. I want to know more about the setup, though. FreeBSD on dual 1 GHz processors, gig of ram, etc. Are the servers geographically distributed? Or in one place? What's the connectivity? How are you doing the load balancing, an L4 switch or something cheap and cheesy like RR DNS?
Post the technical details! This is slashdot, afterall.
Essentially, this is the essence of the whole thing: (This is paraphrased, but very close to exact, and was said by the guy with glasses during the Q&A session) "Imagine a car that goes 100mph and gets 10mpg, and another car that goes 90mph and gets 30mpg. If you only need to go 100 miles, the first car will do it for you. But if you want to go 200 miles and beyond, the second one is the obvious choice." So, in other words, the only benefit at this time is that the Crusoe will run longer (but not faster) than an equivalent PC laptop. Uhm...BFD (Big F'in Deal). And they can forget about those webpads ever catching on... What they need to focus on to get me excited is cross-platform support. In other words, I get a laptop running the crusoe processor, and thier version of mobile linux, with a custom GUI, that runs Windows and Mac apps without having to enter into any emulators (the emulation should be done at the OS level instead of using Wine, etc.) Then, and only then, will they have something worth buying. As it stands, I'm not a potential customer, not matter how much Linus is involved. Andy
No way...the Ivy league schools are among the better connected schools in the country. I go to Harvard, and they've got a great network. So does Cornell. I'm sure the others do as well.
Ivy envy is so annoying...
Andy
You're flat out retarded. Children don't feel a rush of "wow, adults trust me" when they sit down at a computer in a library and access porn. They instead get erections and make sure nobody is watching while they look at as much porn possible in the shortest amount of time.
You cannot rely on trust for anything. Ask any security expert if you don't believe me.
The more we trust children the more they abuse that trust. It's simple.
Andy
Let me first state that I'm a libertarian (not a librarian). I believe that the government should not interfere with the rights of anybody, so long as that individual's "rights" don't impugn upon another individual's rights. Basically, I'm for absolute freedom (as long as you don't screw up other people).
Should the government be allowed to block porn at the library? Of course. Why? THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY LIBRARIES IN THE FIRST PLACE!
A library is not a right, it is a privilege. The fact that you're getting FREE internet access is an extended privilege! You aren't allowed to read Playboy at school; you aren't allowed to look at sublimedirectory.com at the library. It's that simple.
If you want to exercise your right to freedom, buy internet access. Do with it as you would like. If you're in the mood to protest a library's policies, you may as well protest the fact that the libraries ask for the books back!
Another way to point out the absurdity of this: Does the library carry the Karma Sutra? Hustler? It could be argued, just as logically as the argument being made above, that if the library does not carry every single book ever published they are violating your rights.
What a joke...fight for something worth fighting for. Porn is a great and glorious thing; you don't need to be able to view it from the library.
Andy
I would hope and pray for such a device.
Why, you ask? We live in a era where the technological skill of the underground is far more agile than the blundering government. I'd have this thing on my car for less than a week before websites would begin to pop up all over the net with ways to defeat the device yet not draw attention to yourself.
Then, because the cops will rely on this transmitter system, they will stop sitting in the middle of the highway waiting for me to drive past. Tickets would be automatically mailed, so, as a result, "the other white meat" would stop issuing with them entirely.
This device would be like a gun; outlaw guns, and only criminals will have guns. Well, outlaw speeding (as opposed to regulating it, like it is now), and only the people who really want to speed will speed.
So, the way I see it, the more the government relies on technology to control the masses, the more I can get away with by being in touch with the counter-culture and underground technology.
------
I'd rather see a link to pictures of scat-eating donkeys being molested with shucked corn cobs by a gang of gangrenous midget immigrants.
Don't get me wrong, I run a network of Solaris and FreeBSD boxes, and I think Windows has as many problems as the next guy (as long as the next guy has crabs and a healthy dose of Ebola), but that was just piss poor. Humor at its worst. I thought the author was alluding to something done by somebody else...but no, just some lame-ass nerd with a soap box to tell his lame-ass jokes. And since there are so many Linux "I'd rather take it up the ass than admit linux isn't the best" advocates out there, it's destined to get hits.
I'm disappointed that the article was posted.
Hemos, we know you need to learn how to write, but now you make us think you need to learn how to read.
An ISP my company recently acqired has a shell server. One day, we get a frantic note from a user who is saying that their account had been hacked, that there were some additional lines in their .history that they didn't type.
.mil and .gov agencies about this, so I would assume it's fairly well spread.
So, an hour later, I had cleaned out the trojaned ls, ps, inetd, login, etc, and I found some interesting stuff that they left behind.
It's called 'trinoo'. It's a remotely-accessable DOS attack tool...it runs on certain ports (31335 for instance) and co-ordinates the attacks with other servers. For instance, if you establish a network of these, you would telnet to one, tell it to start the attack on whichever IP you choose, and it would get all the other trinoo daemons it's aware of to also attack that IP.
We got some calls from some DOD and other
It's not long before this gets out of hand...
As a part-owner/network administrator for a regional ISP, I can say that this is never going to happen. ISPs already pay the Bells exorbitant amounts of money for access lines (in the form of PRIs or CT1s...prices range from $400 to $1000+ for 23 digital phone lines).
You can even make the point that ISPs help subsidize the increased amount of traffic, as we have to pay the Bells around $400/mo per T1 (for local loop charges).
Will they take away reciprocal compensation? (if ISPs are CLECs, they are technically supposed to get paid X cents per minute that a customer is connected...this is how the free ISPs of the UK are funded) Yes. Will they do a complete 180 and start charging a tax for internet consumption? No. The only reason it is being 're-examined' is to keep the Bells happy.
The government isn't about to screw with the economic juggernaut that is the Internet. The Internet is almost singlehandedly responsible for our current state of economic bliss. We aren't going to tax it. Ten years from now, when it is common to everyone, you will probably see a sales tax on ecommerce, but that's the extent of any Internet taxes you'll ever see.