Actually Solaris is quite similar, Linux is not. Seeing how Solaris is fully POSIX compliant and directly derived from SVR4 I'm not even sure where your coming up with this. Last I head, Linux was not POSIX compliant.
I have a feeling your idea of other "unix-like" systems encompasses little more than Linux. If you took Linux and Solaris and then compared them against AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, *BSD, and other POSIX-compliant or mostly POSIX compliant unix-like OS's I can assure you that Solaris fits in just fine. You can tell just how unlike Linux is as early as the boot sequence. To my knowledge, no Linux distro uses SVR4 style startup scripts.
I went a little crazy, never mind my comment above. I would still go with a cell booster myself as its simply a better solution in the long run, but the whole cost effectiveness argument was clearly deluded as he wouldn't be using his phone's data plan and therefore one wouldn't be required.
He clearly stated that he has a signal outside, this is what boosters are made for and it's a heck of a lot better solution. Using the internet is only viable if you have a data connection and your phone supports it. A cell phone booster is a lot cheaper in the long run, it's paid for in 12 months or less, and that's assuming we are talking about only one person, when compared to your average $30 data plan.
Not to mention anything the freighters can get, the pirates can get too, talk about escalation of hostilities. The death toll would rise. Sure everybody could start taking a much more hard-nosed approached, and governments could stop paying the ransoms and that may help after a while, but not before a good many people die. I'm not sure there is an easy solution.
I'm not sure how they would do it honestly, I don't think the hardware support is there. HDCP is only supposed to effect digital mediums like HDMI or DVI. So unless the cable/satellite companies themselves update their hardware to support this ability it doesn't seem like it exists. Judging from the crap hardware I'm given, these companies aren't all that update friendly. I also don't see that happening because the cable companies, or at least the cable companies around here, seem to push component video over HDMI cables -- at least those are the cables they have been willing to give me for free, and being a cheap son of a b*tch they are of course the ones I will use. So hurrah for incompetence in this case I suppose:P.
This is extremely common in the U.S. even as far back as the 90's with dial-up plans. People just seem to forget about it even though the practice never really went away.
Actually AT&T will be charging extra for tethering also. I don't know the exact prices, but it's likely to be comparable. I'm aware that you can get tethering for free using unofficial methods, but that's the same case with any other smartphone that's popular enough to get people to hack on it. I also believe that the IPhone already has a 5gb cap now, they just don't talk about it much. The plans are much more similar then people seem to think.
Wow, I get even more annoyed when I see you asking for handouts to pay your students loans. Talk about hypocrisy. What don't you go out and do something about it rather then ask for handouts?
Since most small ISPs are basically reselling either ma bell or the cable companies wire, it's a pretty dubious claim as to whether or not by doing this you could actually affect an improvement anyway. I used to work at a small ISP that offered DSL it was a constant battle to make money despite the increasing overheard from Bellsouth, our DS3, and server maintenance costs. At one point they actually cut us off from offering the cheaper 256kbps service (this was back when 1.5mbps was the top offering) while they still sold it themselves. This meant that all the people looking for the bottom dollar went elsewhere. Honestly, the only reason the company stayed afloat as long as it did was because of its long-time 56k modem users. Unless you are in a very unique situation the idea of creating your own ISP startup is gone. The only third-parties who are able to make it are those, such as Mindspring/Earthlink, who developed enough clout to get Cable and DSL offerings at decent prices. That's something that a new ISP with a small user base will be unable to do. The fact that you even suggest this as a solution would indicate that you have no idea as to the breadth of the problem in the first place.
Right, but that's how this conversation started. He didn't understand why someone would consider a local server to be more available (in a meaningful way) then a cluster solution. I'm defending my position.. it wouldn't make sense to defend his..
I find it hard to believe in 5 years you've only been unable to access Gmail once. But, see, you keep talking about Gmail's downtime which I've tried to explain is relatively arbitrary to me. It's just as likely that our internet provider suffers from downtime and that is where cloud solutions, for me at least, suffer -- there's at least two more points of failure.
Yeah I don't deny that. If Asus can supposedly get 11 hours out of an atom then they should be able to get some amazing things out of an ARM. The problem comes in outside of the processor. If the ARM doesn't have similarly amazing power specs for its MB and peripherals then its impact will be largely mitigated. What if the end difference ends up being something like 42 watts vs 48? It's hard to judge without a real world example.
In the two years that I've had our current core FreeBSD server I can honestly say that its never had more than a few minutes of downtime that wasn't associated with our power or internet provider. That downtime was always caused by situations in which a cloud solution wouldn't be accessible anyway. Our secondary FreeBSD server that handles mostly backups, dhcp, and dns, has an uptime that now exceeds six months.
In my mind when you use google apps you have to worry about the stability of google, your provider, and your own setup. I only have to worry about my own setup. It's a clear win for me. Sorry.
Face it, for certain organizations it's a great solution: these are ones that either don't have dedicated and competent IT staff or would have to invest a whole lot in hardware due to company size. For those of us who have competent IT staff and don't require a server farm, not running our own servers locally just means our few servers are spending that much more time being idle.
Yeah, your right. I should just leave 30 kids alone in a room or allow my coworkers to disturb me in the middle of class because they are having computer problems. I could make thousands of paper copies rather then send one email. If this is acceptable for you, I'd suggest you are the one with bigger problems.
Just because a solution works for you doesn't mean there is something wrong with our organization should it not be adequate for us. The fact is, whether I'm running email locally or not, there is absolutely *no* cost difference. We are running the same hardware either way and *I* do everything in-house.
I realize this might not be true of large organizations, but it is for us. Running our email locally makes our services more available, more of the time, with more control, and (after initial setup) less work. Furthermore, in many cases we actually save money by doing it this way. There are very few non-proprietary filtering solutions, but by running our own local servers I can use squid and squidGuard. The spam/virus filtering solutions on gmail leave much to be desired and by running a local server I can use spamassassin and clamav. I have to live with a very small budget, yet I am able to thrive with it. We are definitely not the ones with the "bigger problem."
You most definitely can still send/receive email, just not to the world at large. If that's not a big deal for you then the switch is pretty painless. For those with a lot of interoffice communication it is a big consideration.
I don't think I listed stability as a reason not to use a cloud solution, I did say I was assuming it was stable enough.
Suggesting something like Gears is laughable. Your saying if your pipe goes down you can still email another user, receive new emails, post calendar events, and access all other groupware solutions Google Apps offers? Of course not, maybe you can access messages that you already received with Gears, but you can not receive new messages from your coworkers or send them. It has nothing to do with Google's, or any other clouds stability, it has to do with the general stability for everything from Google through the last mile to the user. If the Internet goes down, Google may still be up, but it doesn't matter -- it is still inaccessible.
Honestly if it were me, the biggest problem I would have with this is availability. Even assuming the Google govcloud servers will be satisfactorily stable, which seems a big assumption, if Internet access were to go out your cut off. With a local solution you can still access all your shares, calendars, email, and etc, but that's not the case with this sort of solution. Just my two pennies.
Though it seems hard to find clear power specs for arm processors, ARM11 looks to be 0.6mw/mhz. If your going to compare an ARM11 processor to a dual-core 1.6ghz atom (which is what you seem to be doing) its going to be more like ~2 watts vs 8 watts. ARM is still a clear winner, but with laptop developers coming out with 7+ hour batteries for much more power hungry processors one has to wonder whether the difference is enough to really effect the market.
BTW, you can get an atom+mb for much less than that -- unless you insist on getting the nvidia board, which is admittedly a good idea considering power consumption.
"Many of them are restricted such that you can only download a small portion of the list at a time, and with IP restrictions to make it more difficult to get the whole list."
Whether I block all entry nodes or just the portions my IP address is given seems irrelevant. I'm aware that I don't get all entry nodes at once, that's why in the past I kept reconnecting until I didn't receive any new nodes. If I never get the entire list, because the servers are intelligent enough not to disclose any more entries, it doesn't really matter, my users are using the same IP address. A cron job is run to constantly keep me up to date. New proxies pop up every day, theoretically this sort of thing is pointless I'll admit, but in practice it most definitely is not.
Even if users were able to get ahold of a node that wasn't published, typically the behavior of most users is to overuse that node and possibly even share it. It's discovered soon enough and the cycle goes on.
You are saying that these nodes aren't publicly accessible and must be entered manually to use? That's the only way I could see it being helpful.
In this line of work you find there is never a 100% solution on either side. Typically if you make something a big enough pain in the butt to use, end users will start looking elsewhere. The method above effectively blocks TOR for the vast majority of users. Sure, there will always be more servers, the job is never completely done, but the same goes for any other proxy-type solution.
Actually TOR is pretty easy to block. There are a pretty finite amount of servers that are available as an entry node. TOR caches all of these servers in flat text file and it is much more then just the one you are using. All you have to do is write a simple script to pull out those IP addresses and insert then into your blacklist. You have to disconnect and reconnect a couple of times to get all of them (it took my maybe three times), but the process is relatively quick and can be pretty easily automated. The kids don't even bother trying to use TOR here anymore.
Unless he has more then one public ip in his home/parent/whatever network that will not help him -- how do you plan on distinguising between different computers on the same network? NAT is the only way unless your going to use something like a VPN which would eliminate the problem in the first place.
Assuming you do have multiple public IPs they would eventaully propagate out and it wouldn't matter -- unless your trying to avoid that sort of thing. If your trying to keep your multiple public IPs relatively private and if you only have a few IP addresses to worry about on a couple computers.. a hosts file can handle that just fine.
Assuming you have control of a decent firewall on both ends you can just reroute all your outbound traffic on port 53 to something of your choosing (lets say 16053) and then reroute the inbound traffic from 16053 to 53.
I think your talking about the difference between an A record or a CNAME record? Authoritative really has nothing to do with besides that it pushes changes upstream.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Solaris is quite similar, Linux is not. Seeing how Solaris is fully POSIX compliant and directly derived from SVR4 I'm not even sure where your coming up with this. Last I head, Linux was not POSIX compliant.
I have a feeling your idea of other "unix-like" systems encompasses little more than Linux. If you took Linux and Solaris and then compared them against AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, *BSD, and other POSIX-compliant or mostly POSIX compliant unix-like OS's I can assure you that Solaris fits in just fine. You can tell just how unlike Linux is as early as the boot sequence. To my knowledge, no Linux distro uses SVR4 style startup scripts.
I went a little crazy, never mind my comment above. I would still go with a cell booster myself as its simply a better solution in the long run, but the whole cost effectiveness argument was clearly deluded as he wouldn't be using his phone's data plan and therefore one wouldn't be required.
He clearly stated that he has a signal outside, this is what boosters are made for and it's a heck of a lot better solution. Using the internet is only viable if you have a data connection and your phone supports it. A cell phone booster is a lot cheaper in the long run, it's paid for in 12 months or less, and that's assuming we are talking about only one person, when compared to your average $30 data plan.
Not to mention anything the freighters can get, the pirates can get too, talk about escalation of hostilities. The death toll would rise. Sure everybody could start taking a much more hard-nosed approached, and governments could stop paying the ransoms and that may help after a while, but not before a good many people die. I'm not sure there is an easy solution.
I'm not sure how they would do it honestly, I don't think the hardware support is there. HDCP is only supposed to effect digital mediums like HDMI or DVI. So unless the cable/satellite companies themselves update their hardware to support this ability it doesn't seem like it exists. Judging from the crap hardware I'm given, these companies aren't all that update friendly. I also don't see that happening because the cable companies, or at least the cable companies around here, seem to push component video over HDMI cables -- at least those are the cables they have been willing to give me for free, and being a cheap son of a b*tch they are of course the ones I will use. So hurrah for incompetence in this case I suppose :P.
This is extremely common in the U.S. even as far back as the 90's with dial-up plans. People just seem to forget about it even though the practice never really went away.
Actually AT&T will be charging extra for tethering also. I don't know the exact prices, but it's likely to be comparable. I'm aware that you can get tethering for free using unofficial methods, but that's the same case with any other smartphone that's popular enough to get people to hack on it. I also believe that the IPhone already has a 5gb cap now, they just don't talk about it much. The plans are much more similar then people seem to think.
Wow, I get even more annoyed when I see you asking for handouts to pay your students loans. Talk about hypocrisy. What don't you go out and do something about it rather then ask for handouts?
Since most small ISPs are basically reselling either ma bell or the cable companies wire, it's a pretty dubious claim as to whether or not by doing this you could actually affect an improvement anyway. I used to work at a small ISP that offered DSL it was a constant battle to make money despite the increasing overheard from Bellsouth, our DS3, and server maintenance costs. At one point they actually cut us off from offering the cheaper 256kbps service (this was back when 1.5mbps was the top offering) while they still sold it themselves. This meant that all the people looking for the bottom dollar went elsewhere. Honestly, the only reason the company stayed afloat as long as it did was because of its long-time 56k modem users. Unless you are in a very unique situation the idea of creating your own ISP startup is gone. The only third-parties who are able to make it are those, such as Mindspring/Earthlink, who developed enough clout to get Cable and DSL offerings at decent prices. That's something that a new ISP with a small user base will be unable to do. The fact that you even suggest this as a solution would indicate that you have no idea as to the breadth of the problem in the first place.
Right, but that's how this conversation started. He didn't understand why someone would consider a local server to be more available (in a meaningful way) then a cluster solution. I'm defending my position.. it wouldn't make sense to defend his..
I find it hard to believe in 5 years you've only been unable to access Gmail once. But, see, you keep talking about Gmail's downtime which I've tried to explain is relatively arbitrary to me. It's just as likely that our internet provider suffers from downtime and that is where cloud solutions, for me at least, suffer -- there's at least two more points of failure.
Yeah I don't deny that. If Asus can supposedly get 11 hours out of an atom then they should be able to get some amazing things out of an ARM. The problem comes in outside of the processor. If the ARM doesn't have similarly amazing power specs for its MB and peripherals then its impact will be largely mitigated. What if the end difference ends up being something like 42 watts vs 48? It's hard to judge without a real world example.
In the two years that I've had our current core FreeBSD server I can honestly say that its never had more than a few minutes of downtime that wasn't associated with our power or internet provider. That downtime was always caused by situations in which a cloud solution wouldn't be accessible anyway. Our secondary FreeBSD server that handles mostly backups, dhcp, and dns, has an uptime that now exceeds six months.
In my mind when you use google apps you have to worry about the stability of google, your provider, and your own setup. I only have to worry about my own setup. It's a clear win for me. Sorry.
Face it, for certain organizations it's a great solution: these are ones that either don't have dedicated and competent IT staff or would have to invest a whole lot in hardware due to company size. For those of us who have competent IT staff and don't require a server farm, not running our own servers locally just means our few servers are spending that much more time being idle.
Yeah, your right. I should just leave 30 kids alone in a room or allow my coworkers to disturb me in the middle of class because they are having computer problems. I could make thousands of paper copies rather then send one email. If this is acceptable for you, I'd suggest you are the one with bigger problems.
Just because a solution works for you doesn't mean there is something wrong with our organization should it not be adequate for us. The fact is, whether I'm running email locally or not, there is absolutely *no* cost difference. We are running the same hardware either way and *I* do everything in-house.
I realize this might not be true of large organizations, but it is for us. Running our email locally makes our services more available, more of the time, with more control, and (after initial setup) less work. Furthermore, in many cases we actually save money by doing it this way. There are very few non-proprietary filtering solutions, but by running our own local servers I can use squid and squidGuard. The spam/virus filtering solutions on gmail leave much to be desired and by running a local server I can use spamassassin and clamav. I have to live with a very small budget, yet I am able to thrive with it. We are definitely not the ones with the "bigger problem."
You most definitely can still send/receive email, just not to the world at large. If that's not a big deal for you then the switch is pretty painless. For those with a lot of interoffice communication it is a big consideration.
I don't think I listed stability as a reason not to use a cloud solution, I did say I was assuming it was stable enough.
Suggesting something like Gears is laughable. Your saying if your pipe goes down you can still email another user, receive new emails, post calendar events, and access all other groupware solutions Google Apps offers? Of course not, maybe you can access messages that you already received with Gears, but you can not receive new messages from your coworkers or send them. It has nothing to do with Google's, or any other clouds stability, it has to do with the general stability for everything from Google through the last mile to the user. If the Internet goes down, Google may still be up, but it doesn't matter -- it is still inaccessible.
Honestly if it were me, the biggest problem I would have with this is availability. Even assuming the Google govcloud servers will be satisfactorily stable, which seems a big assumption, if Internet access were to go out your cut off. With a local solution you can still access all your shares, calendars, email, and etc, but that's not the case with this sort of solution. Just my two pennies.
Though it seems hard to find clear power specs for arm processors, ARM11 looks to be 0.6mw/mhz. If your going to compare an ARM11 processor to a dual-core 1.6ghz atom (which is what you seem to be doing) its going to be more like ~2 watts vs 8 watts. ARM is still a clear winner, but with laptop developers coming out with 7+ hour batteries for much more power hungry processors one has to wonder whether the difference is enough to really effect the market.
BTW, you can get an atom+mb for much less than that -- unless you insist on getting the nvidia board, which is admittedly a good idea considering power consumption.
"Many of them are restricted such that you can only download a small portion of the list at a time, and with IP restrictions to make it more difficult to get the whole list."
Whether I block all entry nodes or just the portions my IP address is given seems irrelevant. I'm aware that I don't get all entry nodes at once, that's why in the past I kept reconnecting until I didn't receive any new nodes. If I never get the entire list, because the servers are intelligent enough not to disclose any more entries, it doesn't really matter, my users are using the same IP address. A cron job is run to constantly keep me up to date. New proxies pop up every day, theoretically this sort of thing is pointless I'll admit, but in practice it most definitely is not.
Even if users were able to get ahold of a node that wasn't published, typically the behavior of most users is to overuse that node and possibly even share it. It's discovered soon enough and the cycle goes on.
You are saying that these nodes aren't publicly accessible and must be entered manually to use? That's the only way I could see it being helpful.
In this line of work you find there is never a 100% solution on either side. Typically if you make something a big enough pain in the butt to use, end users will start looking elsewhere. The method above effectively blocks TOR for the vast majority of users. Sure, there will always be more servers, the job is never completely done, but the same goes for any other proxy-type solution.
Actually TOR is pretty easy to block. There are a pretty finite amount of servers that are available as an entry node. TOR caches all of these servers in flat text file and it is much more then just the one you are using. All you have to do is write a simple script to pull out those IP addresses and insert then into your blacklist. You have to disconnect and reconnect a couple of times to get all of them (it took my maybe three times), but the process is relatively quick and can be pretty easily automated. The kids don't even bother trying to use TOR here anymore.
Unless he has more then one public ip in his home/parent/whatever network that will not help him -- how do you plan on distinguising between different computers on the same network? NAT is the only way unless your going to use something like a VPN which would eliminate the problem in the first place.
Assuming you do have multiple public IPs they would eventaully propagate out and it wouldn't matter -- unless your trying to avoid that sort of thing. If your trying to keep your multiple public IPs relatively private and if you only have a few IP addresses to worry about on a couple computers.. a hosts file can handle that just fine.
the inbound being on the colo server of course.
Assuming you have control of a decent firewall on both ends you can just reroute all your outbound traffic on port 53 to something of your choosing (lets say 16053) and then reroute the inbound traffic from 16053 to 53.
I think your talking about the difference between an A record or a CNAME record? Authoritative really has nothing to do with besides that it pushes changes upstream.