this can be done with an rc script, but in addition to a simple "start|stop|restart" choice, we also need "stop all services|stop service(A|B|C)start all services
I see what you're saying. Actually, Gentoo Linux does this to some extent. It tracks service dependencies through rc scripts, so that if you restart, say net.eth0, it will restart all of the services that depend on net.eth0 (such as samba, nfs, bind, ssh, etc.), rather than leaving some of those services in a confused state. (Of course, this has the annoying side effect of bumping you off your ssh connection when you do it from remote, but c'est la vie.)
When searching for that kind of data, data from blogs is perfectly acceptable.
But sometimes I search for non-tech related information (shocking, I know). In fact, I was searching for information about a rare debilitating disease that a doctor told my friend that she might have (can't remember the name anymore off the top of my head) a couple of months ago and I wanted to learn about it... I typed the name of the disease into google and the first link that came up was some asshat's blog about how his aunt had the disease and little useful info, followed by a gazillion bloggers that all were referring to the first blogger's site (apparently this blogger was quite popular).
I was all like "Damn, I wish I could just tell google NOT to look at blogs." as searched through tons of other pages before I found a site with *real* medical information about the disease.
As it turns out, my friend didn't have the disease. Although she had some of the symptoms, they turned out to be caused by normal fatigue or something and she was just advised to get lots of bed rest.
But anyway, that's just one case... there are many more times this has happened to me, but that one was particularly irritating to me.
I, for one, am sick of searching material only to find that the page is some asshat's blog. Nothing against blogs, but you never know where this material came from.
OTOH, what constitutes a 'blog'? Is Slashdot a blog? Is this a blog? The lines are constantly being blurred, and I'm not sure it'll be easy for google to make that distinction.
Yes. I'm typing this on last night's build of Mozilla Firebird running under Windows NT 4.0. Sure you can stop and start the workstation and/or server services. Ever done it? How stable is NT after that?
I can tell you that on *nix restarting the Samba daemon happens seamlessly.
Exactly. It isn't. I think the people who wrote this are looking at Windows machines, where restarting individual subcomponents is often impossible.
If my Samba runs in trouble and gets its poor little head confused, I can restart the Samba daemon. There's no equivalent on Windows -- if SMB-based filesharing goes down on an NT box, you're restarting the computer, there is no other choice.
No, but with continual convergence of technologies, it's quickly becoming one. Cell phones are becoming like PDAs, PDAs more like cell phones, computers are becoming largely useful as communication devices, and communication devices are becoming largely useful as computing devices.
By the end of this decade, computers and networks and communications devices will become so converged and so ubiquitous, you won't be able to tell them apart, and, more importantly, it won't even matter.
The standard Road Runner Residential Service is designed for single-computer configurations. However, you are able to connect multiple computers to a single cable modem with the use of a hub. Such local area network (LAN) configurations are your responsibility to install and support.
Right...that's the policy of a lot of broadband providers. You can do it, but we're not going to support it. Of course this means that they have the right to refuse to service you until you remove your network. So they let you do it, but they don't like it and they're not going to make it easy for you.
That's the policy of most providers. I'm sure there are some providers that ban NATs, otherwise they wouldn't be new methods to scan inside a NAT and count the number of boxes now would there? My example was just that -- an example. There are countless others, and I'll admit my example is probably a little contived, but it's good enough to illustrate my point (hopefully).
Or... what if someone or something else created God? There's a gazillion iterations limited only by your own imagination.:) The answer is of course that it depends on whether or not when you took the action you took, could you have FORESEEN those events. Your father, grandfather, etc. obviously had NO IDEA what would happen after you were born, so their culpability is pretty close nil. OTOH, if you believe that God is both omniscient and omnipresent (common concepts in the Big Three (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) religions, but not other major world religions) then of course EVERYTHING is God's fault and God's Divine plan.
Fortunately there are those of us who are sane enough to realize that, logically, God cannot be both omniscient and omnipresent as well as being all-loving (mostly Christianity, but present in some sects of Judaism and Islam) otherwise evil wouldn't exist, right?
So what you mean to say is that if I hook a wireless router up and someone drives by my house and uses my network - which is now legal in some states - they are within the law, but I am breaking it since they are using my router to connect a 3rd computer to my isp? (my isp allows 2 by default).
It depends on the laws of the state in particular, but possibly yes.:) The problem, as the author states, is that no one has defined properly what unauthorized access is. And a law that would allow the wardriver to connect might even be in contradiction to laws regarding unauthorized access.
The problem is that none of these recent laws have been tested properly in court at this level of distinction. The laws either need to be rewritten -- as the author states -- or they will be tested in court before a judge and jury with little technical background to be able to make such decisions.
Hey, now there's someone who actually *GETS* what I'm trying to say. You've just restated explicity my entire point that I was trying to make implicitly.
No, that's just it. That's the point of the article. What defines access? If we use your side of the argument and go to a different extreme, then I may be able legally crack Slashdot's security to adjust to my karma because although I've agreed (whether expressly or implicitly) not to crack Slashdot's security by signing up for an account, I'm not actually accessing Slashdot to do so. I'm accessing my NAT box, which is in tern accessing my ISPs routers, which is in turn accessing some other routers...(etc. etc.).. which is in turn accessing Slashdot. Therefore, by your legal opinion, although I cracked Slashdot, I NEVER ILLEGALLY ACCESSED IT BECAUSE THE LAST ROUTER IN THE CHAIN WAS THE COMPUTER THAT ACCTUALLY ACCESSED IT!
Heh. It is exactly this debate, according to the author, that is the reason why we need definitions for what defines 'unauthorized access'.
This is how the author would change the laws if it were up to him. A recommendation. Actual laws may very, but the article specifically says that some jurisdictions are actually defining 'illegal access' by the contract theory of authorization.
Not only that, but a lot of things could be illegal on the OTHER side of that fence.
For instance, your ISP forbids you to hook more than one machine to your connection. You setup a NAT box. That NAT box is of course accessing one or more computers on the ISPs network (DNS server, mail server, news server, etc.). But you now have MULTIPLE computers accessing those boxes THROUGH the NAT box.
You've just violated your contract between your ISP and yourself. And according to this paper, that means that you may have just committed not only a civil breach of contract, but also a CRIMINAL act for which you can be *incarcerated*.
Wow. The implications of this are *staggering* if you think about that way.
FWIW, you didn't exist prior to the existance of this story. Not that it matters, the editors are probably just sloppy and lazy. Screenshot showing proof is here.
Another AC made mention of 'half a million dollars a month' in advertising revenues. That's ~6 million a year. Does that mean that they get $94 million a year in subscription fees?
This is, in fact, from personal experience with XFS on Linux. I installed it because I've had *great* experience with XFS on Irix as a Unix sysadmin and have found it to be a reliable, stable, and very high performance filesystem.
However, on Linux, due to XFS' fairly agressive cacheing, I've found that in the event of a system crash or a power outage, anything that was recently written to the filesystem ends up being junk. I was using an ATI Radeon 7000 on an Athlon under Gentoo with kernel 2.4.18 (at the time), which turns out to cause crashes when switching from XFree86 to another virtual terminal using Ctrl+Alt+Fx or, occassionally, when restarting the X server, due to a problem with Gentoo's high level of optimization (the recommended make.conf compiler flags include '-O3 -march=i686' for an Athlon) and a subtle compatibility between Athlon and the AGP bus. Anyway, this setup was causing crashes -- which is why I moved to a GeForce-based card and the problem went away.
But I digress... after losing several important files during these crashes (these files were just *open* for writing -- I hadn't even written them or anything), I converted the filesystems to reiserfs, which has had excellent stability for me on 2.4.18 and later kernels.
BTW-- I never implied that all the 'geeks' have the latest multi-gigahertz machines. Muggle PC consumers are the ones that are driving the market now. They're the ones that the PC companies are targeting, for the most part.
Lately there has been a resurgence of targetting geeks on a limited basis (of note, CompUSA is now carrying liquid-cooled power supplies and transparent cases and displaying them prominently), but the market is muggle PC consumers.
No, not all geeks run the latest and greatest. One of my servers is still an old K6/2 450, although I have an Athlon 1800 XP on my desk (needed for compiling large applications).
Re:I'm always skeptical when someone tries to sell
on
What's Microsoft Up To?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In addition, note that the performance of Windows 2003 server varied a whole lot depending on the number of users, processors, etc. while the Linux boxes stayed relatively steady and relatively consistent.
That tells me that Linux is really the better performer and the only reason its running slower is some artificial performance limitation, like the absence of setting the 'noatime' directive in the mount options in/etc/fstab, as you allude to in your message.
Also, what file system was in use? I don't have Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1, but I'll bet it installs ext3 by default, rather than the higher performance reiserfs or xfs. Now, I wouldn't install xfs, it's too unstable, but reiserfs has good performance along with rock-solid reliability on 2.4.18 and later. ext3 is slllloooowwww.. mostly because it journals metadata *and* data, while reiserfs only journals metadata and uses B* trees.
Slashdot Mirror
this can be done with an rc script, but in addition to a simple "start|stop|restart" choice, we also need "stop all services|stop service(A|B|C)start all services
I see what you're saying. Actually, Gentoo Linux does this to some extent. It tracks service dependencies through rc scripts, so that if you restart, say net.eth0, it will restart all of the services that depend on net.eth0 (such as samba, nfs, bind, ssh, etc.), rather than leaving some of those services in a confused state. (Of course, this has the annoying side effect of bumping you off your ssh connection when you do it from remote, but c'est la vie.)
When searching for that kind of data, data from blogs is perfectly acceptable.
... there are many more times this has happened to me, but that one was particularly irritating to me.
But sometimes I search for non-tech related information (shocking, I know). In fact, I was searching for information about a rare debilitating disease that a doctor told my friend that she might have (can't remember the name anymore off the top of my head) a couple of months ago and I wanted to learn about it... I typed the name of the disease into google and the first link that came up was some asshat's blog about how his aunt had the disease and little useful info, followed by a gazillion bloggers that all were referring to the first blogger's site (apparently this blogger was quite popular).
I was all like "Damn, I wish I could just tell google NOT to look at blogs." as searched through tons of other pages before I found a site with *real* medical information about the disease.
As it turns out, my friend didn't have the disease. Although she had some of the symptoms, they turned out to be caused by normal fatigue or something and she was just advised to get lots of bed rest.
But anyway, that's just one case
Apparently, anthrax, disuised in a sea of junk mail and magazine subscriptions so that the victim script kiddie never opens it. ;)
I, for one, am sick of searching material only to find that the page is some asshat's blog. Nothing against blogs, but you never know where this material came from.
OTOH, what constitutes a 'blog'? Is Slashdot a blog? Is this a blog? The lines are constantly being blurred, and I'm not sure it'll be easy for google to make that distinction.
That, a Tandy Service Plan, and a cell phone, yes. Although I noted that they do NOT accept RSVP (RadioShack credit card). :(
:)
(Sorry, I used to work for the company when I was in school, couldn't be helped.
Yes. I'm typing this on last night's build of Mozilla Firebird running under Windows NT 4.0. Sure you can stop and start the workstation and/or server services. Ever done it? How stable is NT after that?
I can tell you that on *nix restarting the Samba daemon happens seamlessly.
Exactly. It isn't. I think the people who wrote this are looking at Windows machines, where restarting individual subcomponents is often impossible.
If my Samba runs in trouble and gets its poor little head confused, I can restart the Samba daemon. There's no equivalent on Windows -- if SMB-based filesharing goes down on an NT box, you're restarting the computer, there is no other choice.
No, but with continual convergence of technologies, it's quickly becoming one. Cell phones are becoming like PDAs, PDAs more like cell phones, computers are becoming largely useful as communication devices, and communication devices are becoming largely useful as computing devices.
By the end of this decade, computers and networks and communications devices will become so converged and so ubiquitous, you won't be able to tell them apart, and, more importantly, it won't even matter.
The standard Road Runner Residential Service is designed for single-computer configurations. However, you are able to connect multiple computers to a single cable modem with the use of a hub. Such local area network (LAN) configurations are your responsibility to install and support.
Right...that's the policy of a lot of broadband providers. You can do it, but we're not going to support it. Of course this means that they have the right to refuse to service you until you remove your network. So they let you do it, but they don't like it and they're not going to make it easy for you.
That's the policy of most providers. I'm sure there are some providers that ban NATs, otherwise they wouldn't be new methods to scan inside a NAT and count the number of boxes now would there? My example was just that -- an example. There are countless others, and I'll admit my example is probably a little contived, but it's good enough to illustrate my point (hopefully).
Or ... what if someone or something else created God? There's a gazillion iterations limited only by your own imagination. :) The answer is of course that it depends on whether or not when you took the action you took, could you have FORESEEN those events. Your father, grandfather, etc. obviously had NO IDEA what would happen after you were born, so their culpability is pretty close nil. OTOH, if you believe that God is both omniscient and omnipresent (common concepts in the Big Three (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) religions, but not other major world religions) then of course EVERYTHING is God's fault and God's Divine plan.
Fortunately there are those of us who are sane enough to realize that, logically, God cannot be both omniscient and omnipresent as well as being all-loving (mostly Christianity, but present in some sects of Judaism and Islam) otherwise evil wouldn't exist, right?
So what you mean to say is that if I hook a wireless router up and someone drives by my house and uses my network - which is now legal in some states - they are within the law, but I am breaking it since they are using my router to connect a 3rd computer to my isp? (my isp allows 2 by default).
:) The problem, as the author states, is that no one has defined properly what unauthorized access is. And a law that would allow the wardriver to connect might even be in contradiction to laws regarding unauthorized access.
It depends on the laws of the state in particular, but possibly yes.
The problem is that none of these recent laws have been tested properly in court at this level of distinction. The laws either need to be rewritten -- as the author states -- or they will be tested in court before a judge and jury with little technical background to be able to make such decisions.
Hey, now there's someone who actually *GETS* what I'm trying to say. You've just restated explicity my entire point that I was trying to make implicitly.
:)
Thank you.
No, that's just it. That's the point of the article. What defines access? If we use your side of the argument and go to a different extreme, then I may be able legally crack Slashdot's security to adjust to my karma because although I've agreed (whether expressly or implicitly) not to crack Slashdot's security by signing up for an account, I'm not actually accessing Slashdot to do so. I'm accessing my NAT box, which is in tern accessing my ISPs routers, which is in turn accessing some other routers ...(etc. etc.).. which is in turn accessing Slashdot. Therefore, by your legal opinion, although I cracked Slashdot, I NEVER ILLEGALLY ACCESSED IT BECAUSE THE LAST ROUTER IN THE CHAIN WAS THE COMPUTER THAT ACCTUALLY ACCESSED IT!
Heh. It is exactly this debate, according to the author, that is the reason why we need definitions for what defines 'unauthorized access'.
This is how the author would change the laws if it were up to him. A recommendation. Actual laws may very, but the article specifically says that some jurisdictions are actually defining 'illegal access' by the contract theory of authorization.
Not only that, but a lot of things could be illegal on the OTHER side of that fence.
For instance, your ISP forbids you to hook more than one machine to your connection. You setup a NAT box. That NAT box is of course accessing one or more computers on the ISPs network (DNS server, mail server, news server, etc.). But you now have MULTIPLE computers accessing those boxes THROUGH the NAT box.
You've just violated your contract between your ISP and yourself. And according to this paper, that means that you may have just committed not only a civil breach of contract, but also a CRIMINAL act for which you can be *incarcerated*.
Wow. The implications of this are *staggering* if you think about that way.
Nah. Nothin' personal. Just proving a point.
No. I totally prefer writing buggy, insecure garbage code, especially for Internet and P2P apps and such.
FWIW, you didn't exist prior to the existance of this story. Not that it matters, the editors are probably just sloppy and lazy. Screenshot showing proof is here.
Another AC made mention of 'half a million dollars a month' in advertising revenues. That's ~6 million a year. Does that mean that they get $94 million a year in subscription fees?
Exactly my point.
This is, in fact, from personal experience with XFS on Linux. I installed it because I've had *great* experience with XFS on Irix as a Unix sysadmin and have found it to be a reliable, stable, and very high performance filesystem.
However, on Linux, due to XFS' fairly agressive cacheing, I've found that in the event of a system crash or a power outage, anything that was recently written to the filesystem ends up being junk. I was using an ATI Radeon 7000 on an Athlon under Gentoo with kernel 2.4.18 (at the time), which turns out to cause crashes when switching from XFree86 to another virtual terminal using Ctrl+Alt+Fx or, occassionally, when restarting the X server, due to a problem with Gentoo's high level of optimization (the recommended make.conf compiler flags include '-O3 -march=i686' for an Athlon) and a subtle compatibility between Athlon and the AGP bus. Anyway, this setup was causing crashes -- which is why I moved to a GeForce-based card and the problem went away.
But I digress... after losing several important files during these crashes (these files were just *open* for writing -- I hadn't even written them or anything), I converted the filesystems to reiserfs, which has had excellent stability for me on 2.4.18 and later kernels.
Now, that can change when there is a profound revelation [Dr. Laura Schlessinger], or when there is a ton of incentive [G.W. Bush]
... ;)
Huh? Dr. Laura and G.W. Bush are ex-31337 h4x0rz???
Somehow, I doubt that very much
BTW-- I never implied that all the 'geeks' have the latest multi-gigahertz machines. Muggle PC consumers are the ones that are driving the market now. They're the ones that the PC companies are targeting, for the most part.
Lately there has been a resurgence of targetting geeks on a limited basis (of note, CompUSA is now carrying liquid-cooled power supplies and transparent cases and displaying them prominently), but the market is muggle PC consumers.
No, not all geeks run the latest and greatest. One of my servers is still an old K6/2 450, although I have an Athlon 1800 XP on my desk (needed for compiling large applications).
Now that's funny! :)
In addition, note that the performance of Windows 2003 server varied a whole lot depending on the number of users, processors, etc. while the Linux boxes stayed relatively steady and relatively consistent.
/etc/fstab, as you allude to in your message.
That tells me that Linux is really the better performer and the only reason its running slower is some artificial performance limitation, like the absence of setting the 'noatime' directive in the mount options in
Also, what file system was in use? I don't have Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1, but I'll bet it installs ext3 by default, rather than the higher performance reiserfs or xfs. Now, I wouldn't install xfs, it's too unstable, but reiserfs has good performance along with rock-solid reliability on 2.4.18 and later. ext3 is slllloooowwww.. mostly because it journals metadata *and* data, while reiserfs only journals metadata and uses B* trees.