The drawback to this would be that multitudes of people would not change their router config from they day they opened the box and someone else would soon gain access to that shell. And then they could start all kinds of mayhem... Like man in the middle attacks, ngrep for passwords, etc.
I suppose the issue is that Israel may have had Nukes since the 60's or 70's or there abouts. And they've had many wars in that time and in fact, in 73, Israel was almost wiped out by a massive surprise invasion from all their neighbours. And they *still* didn't use those nukes (if they have them).
This shows they know how to be responsible with them.
Iran, on the other hand, has made many comments to indicate they do not know how to be responsible with nukes and would almost certainly hand them directly to Hizbollah for immediate use.
I have to agree with this guy. As soon as IP addresses started being assigned incorrectly, the first thing I would be doing is checking the DHCP server. ipconfig/all on a windows box (so may 3 seconds of typing) would give this answer.
More to the point, though - why was another DHCP allowed on the network? Can your switches not block or refuse to route DHCP traffic from the wrong host?? Otherwise every single student who brings in their own wifi box is going to shut down the network.
Blocking the word "sex" in a URL is just dumb - an argument I frequently had at an old employment of mine, a very large IT organisation, consisting of 3 letters. They also blocked the word "sex" from URLs.
I worked in the Microsoft Exchange (mSEXchange) team.... anyone else see the problem here? I just loved it when I had a problem with an Exchange box, googled the error code, found a google result that told me how to fix it but couldn't open the URL because it has "sex" in it...
Ahh. More useful info thanks. I would have been using an nVidia (fake) RAID controller on RAID-1, too.
I think I will give it a go and see what happens but thanks for your useful info.
I just wish I hadn't started my initial comment with a silly joke that got me modded redundant so that more people might have seen my comment and provided useful feedback, like you did.:-P
In my experience, Chroots and jails are pretty crap at running different operating systems on the one box... last time I checked you couldn't run up a Windows 2008 server in a BSD jail.
I think perhaps that might be something that still goes in VMWare's favour?
Anyway I have a (semi) related VMWare performance question and I am going to try my luck asking it here. I have some consumer (i.e. desktop grade) hardware. ESXi is not supported on it (i.e. it can't recognise the SATA controller or the network card). So my choices for virtualisation (I want to run multiple OSs for development purposes) are VMWare Server 2.0 running on a Linux host or Microsoft Hyper-V 2008 (which qualifies as a true bare-metal hypervisor). I cannot find any reasonable comparisons of performance between these two options online. Does anyone know which is likely to get better performance, in terms of Disk I/O, network, CPU, memory, etc?
This is why my mail server is 192.168.1.25 and the web server is 192.168.1.80, etc. Dev web server is 192.168.1.81. At least you can guess by the IP what it's about, based on that scheme.
Although I, like all good Australian's, hate Telstra, you're comment is incorrect on two issues, that I cannot let slide.
1. Broadband in this country is not bad because of "no competition" - the monopoly Telco you speak of (Telstra). Broadband in Australia lags behind the World (actually, we do rank reasonably high) because the market allows it to. And the market allows it to because of two reasons. Firstly, we have 22 million people in a place the size of Europe or the continental USA. The distances are too vast and the population to sparse to have 1gbps links running all over the place. Comparisons to Japan, where a million people all live in a shoe box are not valid. Secondly - because not enough people care or want faster. The majority of home users are happy with 512/128k links.
2 - Leading on from my last point (about people not caring enough). You say the net filter doesn't matter as much as Teltra's monopoly. This is dead wrong. The net filter is the #1 biggest problem our country currently faces. It stands poised, if it goes ahead *in full* (included the ridiculous man in the middle attacks on HTTPS and packet inspection) to seriously destroy our economy (imagine what happens when no HTTPS traffic can pass in the entire country, when that govt server goes down). For once, Telstra is fighting the good fight here.
I know internet pricing in this country isn't the best on Earth but I am happy paying my $100 odd a month for 6 static IP addresses, 1.5MB uplink and 24mb downlink (which admittedly only gets about 10mbit), on a 120GB limit. Frankly, I can find very few places in the world that can deliver to me as fast as I can eat, other than torrents, of course and I have never once exceeded that 120GB limit.
Is anyone else hugely disappointed that the shift is just from one corporate OS to another? By shifting from Windows to OS X the shift is just more of the same, in the long run.
A pity it's not a shift to Linux and more people adopting open source. I mean Apple don't exactly have a shining record for copyright / customer treatment, etc. So if they become the next big power player, the customer doesn't exactly win, here.
Why can't we organise some kind of class action here?
What right enables the government to enforce a secret block on us, we know virtually nothing about, refuse to even discuss it and knowingly degrade performance by around 80%?
My company requires high speed and reliable internet for its livelihood. If this degrades that, my business will die.
Now if this ass-monkey knows full well that his proposal is going to degrade the internet substantially, and enforces it on me and then refuses to even talk about it... surely I and 100's of thousands more like me can arrange a class action suit?
I used to work for the largest Sun reseller in Western Australia and they loaned us early versions of this very equipment, configured by their own engineers. It was shyte. Utter shyte.
ZFS performed *way* below expectations and redundancy was atrocious. Removing disks to see what happened brought about totally random results of data loss.
In the end, I felt it was a better choice to go with a white box PC with Windows software RAID on the cheapest disks money could find. I was very unimpressed.
I'll want to see some serious demonstrations that this is not just marketing madness before I ever believe a word out of Sun again.
The reality is, this wasn't an advertised policy. This is back-door politics. This government was voted in and then brought this crap out of the closet.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you're living in your parents basement you should have more disposable cash! Which means less risk, hence a lower rate. :-P
The drawback to this would be that multitudes of people would not change their router config from they day they opened the box and someone else would soon gain access to that shell. And then they could start all kinds of mayhem... Like man in the middle attacks, ngrep for passwords, etc.
Oh man I wish I had mod points... That was pure gold.
I suppose the issue is that Israel may have had Nukes since the 60's or 70's or there abouts. And they've had many wars in that time and in fact, in 73, Israel was almost wiped out by a massive surprise invasion from all their neighbours. And they *still* didn't use those nukes (if they have them).
This shows they know how to be responsible with them.
Iran, on the other hand, has made many comments to indicate they do not know how to be responsible with nukes and would almost certainly hand them directly to Hizbollah for immediate use.
I have to agree with this guy. As soon as IP addresses started being assigned incorrectly, the first thing I would be doing is checking the DHCP server. ipconfig /all on a windows box (so may 3 seconds of typing) would give this answer.
More to the point, though - why was another DHCP allowed on the network? Can your switches not block or refuse to route DHCP traffic from the wrong host?? Otherwise every single student who brings in their own wifi box is going to shut down the network.
Blocking the word "sex" in a URL is just dumb - an argument I frequently had at an old employment of mine, a very large IT organisation, consisting of 3 letters. They also blocked the word "sex" from URLs.
I worked in the Microsoft Exchange (mSEXchange) team.... anyone else see the problem here? I just loved it when I had a problem with an Exchange box, googled the error code, found a google result that told me how to fix it but couldn't open the URL because it has "sex" in it...
Well... that depends on the time of month for Ms Gillard, doesn't it?
I'm sorry.
So sorry.
But Shephard is a woman!
I suspect the flip side argument would be that the companies generate massive amounts of employment and those employees do pay tax?
Not saying I like the situation but it's not quite as bad as the article makes it out to be.
go west
over and over again. I laughed
It is *not* a sin to give an organ, this is a mistake in the parent summary. Jewish law does *not* forbid giving an organ.
and were suddenly silenced... by a gag order.
Ahh. More useful info thanks. I would have been using an nVidia (fake) RAID controller on RAID-1, too.
:-P
I think I will give it a go and see what happens but thanks for your useful info.
I just wish I hadn't started my initial comment with a silly joke that got me modded redundant so that more people might have seen my comment and provided useful feedback, like you did.
Thanks very much for your reply. :-) I will give a go to Hyper-V and see how it works out, as I plan to run 5 concurrent VMs.
Disks should be fine - they're just desktop grade 7,200 SATAs but I don't expect the VMs to do much more than idle for 90% of the day.
In my experience, Chroots and jails are pretty crap at running different operating systems on the one box... last time I checked you couldn't run up a Windows 2008 server in a BSD jail.
I think perhaps that might be something that still goes in VMWare's favour?
Anyway I have a (semi) related VMWare performance question and I am going to try my luck asking it here. I have some consumer (i.e. desktop grade) hardware. ESXi is not supported on it (i.e. it can't recognise the SATA controller or the network card). So my choices for virtualisation (I want to run multiple OSs for development purposes) are VMWare Server 2.0 running on a Linux host or Microsoft Hyper-V 2008 (which qualifies as a true bare-metal hypervisor). I cannot find any reasonable comparisons of performance between these two options online. Does anyone know which is likely to get better performance, in terms of Disk I/O, network, CPU, memory, etc?
Prepare to be disappointed...
This is why my mail server is 192.168.1.25 and the web server is 192.168.1.80, etc. Dev web server is 192.168.1.81. At least you can guess by the IP what it's about, based on that scheme.
Oh and their names?
Moiraine
Berelain
etc...
Of course, you're assuming they won't decide proving a shell isn't anti-competitive as well.
Presumably, they will eventually decide that Microsoft is only allowed to ship the kernel.
Uncompiled.
I don't like the ad - because it shows Linux as immature and still a child.
They should instead be pushing the stability and history and the vast majority of web & email servers that run it, in comparison to Windows.
Enough "we're here too" crap. Time to start telling the masses - "oh you know that Internet thing you love? That's running on Linux."
So you missed the whole bit about the Christian / Java group burning people at the stake? That would constitute a form of murder, surely?
Although I, like all good Australian's, hate Telstra, you're comment is incorrect on two issues, that I cannot let slide.
1. Broadband in this country is not bad because of "no competition" - the monopoly Telco you speak of (Telstra). Broadband in Australia lags behind the World (actually, we do rank reasonably high) because the market allows it to. And the market allows it to because of two reasons. Firstly, we have 22 million people in a place the size of Europe or the continental USA. The distances are too vast and the population to sparse to have 1gbps links running all over the place. Comparisons to Japan, where a million people all live in a shoe box are not valid. Secondly - because not enough people care or want faster. The majority of home users are happy with 512/128k links.
2 - Leading on from my last point (about people not caring enough). You say the net filter doesn't matter as much as Teltra's monopoly. This is dead wrong. The net filter is the #1 biggest problem our country currently faces. It stands poised, if it goes ahead *in full* (included the ridiculous man in the middle attacks on HTTPS and packet inspection) to seriously destroy our economy (imagine what happens when no HTTPS traffic can pass in the entire country, when that govt server goes down). For once, Telstra is fighting the good fight here.
I know internet pricing in this country isn't the best on Earth but I am happy paying my $100 odd a month for 6 static IP addresses, 1.5MB uplink and 24mb downlink (which admittedly only gets about 10mbit), on a 120GB limit. Frankly, I can find very few places in the world that can deliver to me as fast as I can eat, other than torrents, of course and I have never once exceeded that 120GB limit.
Is anyone else hugely disappointed that the shift is just from one corporate OS to another? By shifting from Windows to OS X the shift is just more of the same, in the long run.
A pity it's not a shift to Linux and more people adopting open source. I mean Apple don't exactly have a shining record for copyright / customer treatment, etc. So if they become the next big power player, the customer doesn't exactly win, here.
Why can't we organise some kind of class action here?
What right enables the government to enforce a secret block on us, we know virtually nothing about, refuse to even discuss it and knowingly degrade performance by around 80%?
My company requires high speed and reliable internet for its livelihood. If this degrades that, my business will die.
Now if this ass-monkey knows full well that his proposal is going to degrade the internet substantially, and enforces it on me and then refuses to even talk about it... surely I and 100's of thousands more like me can arrange a class action suit?
I used to work for the largest Sun reseller in Western Australia and they loaned us early versions of this very equipment, configured by their own engineers. It was shyte. Utter shyte.
ZFS performed *way* below expectations and redundancy was atrocious. Removing disks to see what happened brought about totally random results of data loss.
In the end, I felt it was a better choice to go with a white box PC with Windows software RAID on the cheapest disks money could find. I was very unimpressed.
I'll want to see some serious demonstrations that this is not just marketing madness before I ever believe a word out of Sun again.
The reality is, this wasn't an advertised policy. This is back-door politics. This government was voted in and then brought this crap out of the closet.