I disagree. Both are extremely monopolistic, patent-trolling, and try to remove choice from everyone. The difference is that Microsoft can pretend that Apple doesn't exist to a greater degree than the reverse is true, simply due to market share. In other words, if Apple makes a product that only works on OS X, it better be OS X specific. Consider the difference between Microsoft not making office for OS X vs Apple not making iTunes for windows. The former would be a minor setback for OOXML monopoly, the latter would kill the iPod.
The free software community is [should be?] about choice. I hate Apple and Microsoft because of all they do to restrict customer's (and others) choices, but in the end people have the right to buy software that isn't free, despite what RMS may say.
In other words, os x isn't the enemy, windows isn't the enemy, both apple and microsoft are.
Wow, someone needs to learn to recognize sarcasm...any comment including the phrases "Zionist" and "penis-melting-robot-comb" is extremely unlikely to be serious:-)
He has a point though, Socialist-democrat-Zionist-penis-melting-robot-combs are a serious threat to American freedom to be controlled and censored. What ever happened to the God-given rights of this Christian nation like life, liberty, and free waterboarding?
The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.
That you can make from pictures foolishly posted online. Does anyone seriously doubt that Diebold machines are, at best, woefully badly made?
To put it another way (true conversation):
Nerd One: I don't get it, it's not hard to design a machine with buttons that counts ballots fairly in a secure manner. Nerd Two: It's not hard, there's just no market for it.
I don't know, ability to rip an entire dvd, embed subtitles and multiple audio tracks, and have my sound in ogg (giving slightly better compression/quality) is a nice perk. Not really worth the loss of compatibility with other programs though.
You're right, though I'd argue that on top of all the buffering etc going on already you can design such that this isn't the slow step. Also, any data access that needs to be that fast should be on a ramdisk anyway, security or no.
actually there's not much disk hit. The CPU loss does exist but isn't awful. I don't do anything that computationally intensive on my laptop.
I ran quite a few tests on my solution; I don't really care if some other software costs you 50% overhead and makes it impossible to use compression software [impressive kernel hack?], for me I lose about 20% write speed 30% read speed, and that's only for sustained read/write.
Day to day use? Didn't slow down a bit. Just as responsive. Battery life? Lost about 10 mins. CPU? Still idles at 0.00.
The cost to me was $20 for the encrypting hdd (that's the differential) and a bit slower for copying massive amounts of data. The upshot? When my laptop with all my financial documents, years of personal email, credit cards, and login credentials for root on some servers I'm responsible for was stolen last year, I lost no data and no one else gained any. The Debian ssl bug hurt me more than that loss (the laptop was actually insured).
The benefit to my using encryption is marginal. So's the cost. The hdd was a toy to play with. The software was a checkbox during installation.
So no, I wouldn't do this to a work computer unless there were a good reason (like being a laptop). But for my personal machine it makes a lot of sense.
At some point it's cheaper to pay for armed security guards and cameras and put them in a fortress. Encryption for laptops that ever leave the building is a no-brainer. Desktops in offices I can see argued either way.
Come come. Software encryption is trivially vulnerable to a coldboot attack.
In any case I'd want to see a link, you can't lump all "encrypting drives" together as if they use the same method (unless they do).
Of course, I wouldn't really be surprised if it were breakable, I'd simply like to see support. Me, I use hard and soft becaues I'm just tinfoil like that. Don't even have anything to hide either, just like my privacy.
It may incur overhead but it need not. Consider that you don't need "instant" encryption, you simply need a device inside the hard drive between the computer interface and the actual storage medium that is capable of encrypting and decrypting at or above the drive's maximum throughput speed. This need not be "instant", it merely need be fast enough block-by-block to pass the data along. Consider that hard disks store data in blocks, not streams.
The numbers on my machine are about 20% slower read and 30% slower write. I'm using 256 bit LUKS with serpent-xts-essiv:sha256.
Might I also suggest hardware encryption? Seagate (and others I believe) make drives that do AES128 (good enouhg for this sort of thing I believe) in hardware. Zero performance hit. No software required. Set a drive password and go.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't refer to him as my president. I know it's technically true but...yeah.
nous sommoes desoles que notre president soit un idiot. Nous n'avons pas vote pour lui.
I'm fairly sure that won't break DRM 6, but you can just grab requiem for that.
As a GPL fanboi, I agree completely.
My guess is that it's the license the people making the deciion had heard of.
True but there could be NDA issues
I...mentioned...free...waterboarding...as...one...of...the...fundamental...American...rights.
Still, your comment is terribly depressing to me, that I can't sound more irrational than many Americans even when I try:-)
I disagree. Both are extremely monopolistic, patent-trolling, and try to remove choice from everyone. The difference is that Microsoft can pretend that Apple doesn't exist to a greater degree than the reverse is true, simply due to market share. In other words, if Apple makes a product that only works on OS X, it better be OS X specific. Consider the difference between Microsoft not making office for OS X vs Apple not making iTunes for windows. The former would be a minor setback for OOXML monopoly, the latter would kill the iPod.
The free software community is [should be?] about choice. I hate Apple and Microsoft because of all they do to restrict customer's (and others) choices, but in the end people have the right to buy software that isn't free, despite what RMS may say.
In other words, os x isn't the enemy, windows isn't the enemy, both apple and microsoft are.
Wow, someone needs to learn to recognize sarcasm...any comment including the phrases "Zionist" and "penis-melting-robot-comb" is extremely unlikely to be serious:-)
He has a point though, Socialist-democrat-Zionist-penis-melting-robot-combs are a serious threat to American freedom to be controlled and censored. What ever happened to the God-given rights of this Christian nation like life, liberty, and free waterboarding?
Liberals need to get a clue, or we're all dead.
This would be funnier if they weren't actually trying to force such reprioritization through Congress. But I guess that's why you wrote it.
Guess I'll just move to...oh wait. shit.
I believe in American democracy. One dollar, one vote.
Oh so THAT's why only blue districts need anti-virus applied just before election day
The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.
That you can make from pictures foolishly posted online. Does anyone seriously doubt that Diebold machines are, at best, woefully badly made?
To put it another way (true conversation):
Nerd One: I don't get it, it's not hard to design a machine with buttons that counts ballots fairly in a secure manner.
Nerd Two: It's not hard, there's just no market for it.
I don't know, ability to rip an entire dvd, embed subtitles and multiple audio tracks, and have my sound in ogg (giving slightly better compression/quality) is a nice perk. Not really worth the loss of compatibility with other programs though.
Hitler?
//Sprint can suck my balls
Pics or it didn't happen!
You're right, though I'd argue that on top of all the buffering etc going on already you can design such that this isn't the slow step. Also, any data access that needs to be that fast should be on a ramdisk anyway, security or no.
actually there's not much disk hit. The CPU loss does exist but isn't awful. I don't do anything that computationally intensive on my laptop.
I ran quite a few tests on my solution; I don't really care if some other software costs you 50% overhead and makes it impossible to use compression software [impressive kernel hack?], for me I lose about 20% write speed 30% read speed, and that's only for sustained read/write.
Day to day use? Didn't slow down a bit. Just as responsive. Battery life? Lost about 10 mins. CPU? Still idles at 0.00.
The cost to me was $20 for the encrypting hdd (that's the differential) and a bit slower for copying massive amounts of data. The upshot? When my laptop with all my financial documents, years of personal email, credit cards, and login credentials for root on some servers I'm responsible for was stolen last year, I lost no data and no one else gained any. The Debian ssl bug hurt me more than that loss (the laptop was actually insured).
The benefit to my using encryption is marginal. So's the cost. The hdd was a toy to play with. The software was a checkbox during installation.
So no, I wouldn't do this to a work computer unless there were a good reason (like being a laptop). But for my personal machine it makes a lot of sense.
Well it's true that encrypted data can't be compressed. That's why you encrypt the compressed data.
At some point it's cheaper to pay for armed security guards and cameras and put them in a fortress. Encryption for laptops that ever leave the building is a no-brainer. Desktops in offices I can see argued either way.
Let's build a Beowulf on LUKS!
"those drives"? as if they're all the same?
Come come. Software encryption is trivially vulnerable to a coldboot attack.
In any case I'd want to see a link, you can't lump all "encrypting drives" together as if they use the same method (unless they do).
Of course, I wouldn't really be surprised if it were breakable, I'd simply like to see support. Me, I use hard and soft becaues I'm just tinfoil like that. Don't even have anything to hide either, just like my privacy.
It may incur overhead but it need not. Consider that you don't need "instant" encryption, you simply need a device inside the hard drive between the computer interface and the actual storage medium that is capable of encrypting and decrypting at or above the drive's maximum throughput speed. This need not be "instant", it merely need be fast enough block-by-block to pass the data along. Consider that hard disks store data in blocks, not streams.
Someone will write the passphrase down anyway. Isolate the data.
The numbers on my machine are about 20% slower read and 30% slower write. I'm using 256 bit LUKS with serpent-xts-essiv:sha256.
Might I also suggest hardware encryption? Seagate (and others I believe) make drives that do AES128 (good enouhg for this sort of thing I believe) in hardware. Zero performance hit. No software required. Set a drive password and go.
Doesn't sound like hte kind of place I particularly want to be in. Guess that's the advantage of invitation only nets, there can be more than one:-)