Amazon and Google are acting like spoiled children, and behaving in a poor, customer-unfriendly way. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If Amazon doesn't want to sell Google stuff in their store, you can go to Walmart, Best Buy, or literally a thousand other places to get it. If Google doesn't want to support Youtube on FireTV, you can use Roku, Google devices, or literally every single Smart TV on earth. You have a ton of options. This is an annoyance to customers, but that's it.
With Internet access, most people have one, maybe two viable broadband offerings. If your provider screws with you or abuses you, you have no recourse. They are often no alternatives. There is no market competition. Additionally, you may not even know that they're screwing with you (throttling).
Comparing Google and Amazon's behavior to Net Neutrality just muddies a discussion that already confuses enough people. Don't go grandstanding and getting indignant just to get clicks by trying to tie this into an important topic. It just pisses us off.
Also, neither Google nor Amazon have been big supporters of Net Neutrality in a long time. Both are big enough that they don't need Net Neutrality to protect them like the smaller players do.
There kind of is. Install Xubunt or Lubuntu, or install the respective desktop environments used by those projects. I'm running Xubuntu on an almost 8 year old NetBook with a 1.6GHz Atom CPU and, while I wouldn't call it fast, it's usable.
I agree that it's possible to write maintainable perl, but from my vantage point, perl is not really designed for this.
To me it's more of a hack n` slash language. Code while you think. All those shortcuts and lack of boilerplate code and ability to just say "take this data, compare it with this, and do whatever" in a few lines is to me perl's strength. The fact that the resultant code is hard to read is the weakness. If you are not going to do that, and write code in a more rigid, designed manner to avoid this, why use perl in the first place?
The argument that it's not the tools it's the developer stands, however I do think some tools are more oriented towards maintainability (java, c++) and others towards rapid development (perl). You get ugly code in every language, but perl almost directly encourages it. The CPAN tool is _the_ definition of perl. Works, but oh my god is this code or cyphertext!
I think I see the problem here. It's a perception problem. You've decided that you want Perl to be a "hack n slash" language, so you view it in that way, and only in that way. I think you're seriously shortchanging Perl and pigeonholing it to something that doesn't match reality.
"Why use Perl" if you're not going to write sloppy code? Because there's a huge number of things that Perl can do really well. For example, using Mojolicious, it can be a great tool for designing web applications. Using CPAN, it can do any number of things. Using Moose, it has Object Oriented capabilities that rival any other language available. It's fast, it's flexible, and it processes text better than anything else.
Also, I'd really like to see some evidence of your "perl almost directly encourages [ugly code]". No offense, but I think that's a bunch of crap. It perpetuates a stereotype that isn't based on fact, but prejudice. Take 10-20 minutes and do a little research on Perl. Not Perl as you think it is (based on outdated assumptions and incorrect information), but as it really is. Look at the Modern Perl movement, the push to get past the misinformation about ancient Perl, and the awesome new world of Perl.
It's a much different world than you seem to see. And, for the record, having written C++ and Java professionally in the past, I'd much rather maintain Perl code than either of those.
Yes you can write maintainable code in perl if you make a specific effort to do so, but to me that defeats the point. It's primarily a hack and slash language that lets you crank out code while you think. To me writing maintainable perl is like writing a quick one-off script in c++ or java. Yes you can do it, but why bother. Use the tool that is suited for the task.
Have you actually written Perl?
I mean, no offense, but that's just silly. Maintainable code requires a specific effort in Perl? But it doesn't in other languages? Can you provide anything to back that up? I can add use strict; use warnings to my perl and still have less boilerplate code than an equivalent Java (or C++, or even Python) program.
Writing maintainable code, in any language requires some effort. Period. Perl makes it no more difficult than any other language, and offers more assistance than most (see warnings/strict/perlcritic/etc).
As for it defeating the purpose. . . well, I'd ask for evidence, but I'm really not convinced you understand Perl to an extent that you could provide a decent answer. Maybe I'll ask the two co-workers who are maintaining a 6 year old, 60k line perl application at work, see what they think. See if they think Perl is "suited for the task". Last time I talked to them, they seemed to be thoroughly enjoying it, though.
Re:If you like this sort of cookbook
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. Cookwise is a *great* book. And for those looking for a little more "geek cred" for her, Shirly Corriher has guested on half a dozen episodes of Good Eats, particularly earlier ones. Fans of Good Eats will appreciate her book, as will anyone who wants a better understanding about cooking.
We also need to protect US citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution when they are not - nor intending to commit - acts of terrorism (or crimes, for that matter).
Wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong.
If you are a United States Citizen, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely imperative that your Constitution granted rights be protected until that happens. Until you have been found guilty in a court of law, it is not known legally whether you did or were going to commit an offense. You don't take away (or piss on, like the FISA bill does) people's rights before the judicial process is complete. This is a fundamental tenet of our country, of our Constitution, and of our legal system.
Or, at least, it was. Until those currently in power decided to start pissing on it.
We've already seen regular abuse of the 'terrorism' label (and laws created around it). If you hold up a bank, you're no longer a bank robber, you're a terrorist. If you threaten to beat someone up, you're a terrorist making terroristic threats. If you forget that you have a pair of fingernail clippers in your pocket as you go through airport security, you're a terrorist.
And even if you've done none of those, if you are accused of it, you will very likely be treated as a terrorist and numerous law enforcement agencies will call you a terrorist to strip away your rights and make it easier for them to bully you and find you guilty (whether or not you are).
The most fatal job in the US is the military, by a good measure. Food delivery comes in at a surprisingly high number 7 though. Actually, although it's typically forgotten (or not included), US President should be #1. The current job related mortality rate is around 10%.
Deleting a large (hundreds of GB) file in JFS or XFS is nearly instantaneous. The same action on an ext3 filesystem can take up to a minute, even on a fast machine.
I still use ext3 for/boot and sometimes for / (purely because there are still more and better recovery tools for ext3 than any other Linux filesystem (due in part to it's simplicity, which is also the source of it's limitations)), but/var,/home, and all data storage drives are JFS or XFS.
No reason to run TLS enabled LDAP on a separate port, and with most LDAP servers (including OpenLDAP) you can restrict the security level required for certain operations (such as bind and update).
There is actually absolutely nothing wrong with your suggestion. In fact, it's being used already, although admittedly it's mostly at a slightly higher level (High School).
It's not a payment method, it's a subscription for flat-rate shipping. I find it quite creative, and very useful for those who buy a lot more books than I do. That said, it's not an invention, and shouldn't be protected by patent law.
It's actually not new either, and even if it were an invention, shouldn't be protected by patent law. International Male has been doing this for years with their "Advantage Club". By paying an anual membership fee, you get free shipping on all of your orders.
This one is even worse than the one-click stuff Amazon did earlier.
You can build a proof of concept for under $500. There is an application out there called vblade[1], which is a virtual EtherDrive blade. Basically, it allows you to export a local block device as an ATA over Ethernet device. Turning your junker PC in the corner with a couple of extra disks in it into a ATAoE testbed.
It's GPLed code, works with the new native kernel AoE support, and was even written by one of the Coraid guys.
[1] One of the aoetools, available on sourceforge here.
I've been playing with this on a spare machine in the test rack in our data center, and I have to admit, it is pretty slick. There's potential here for use in a number of areas.
Yeah. It's almost as if they were trying to model the command line interface off of an existing and well known interface to make it easier for people to use. . .
Vyatta's work is based on XORP. They've taken it, polished it, enhanced it, and provided even (monetarily) supported it. They also contribute their work back to the XORP project.
They complement each other well. XORP is more of a research project, while Vyatta's OFR (Open Flexible Router) is a CD installation of XORP and other software that can be installed and run almost as an appliance.
By that logic, we should simply ban all driving except by constantly certified professionals.
That's a great idea!
How about this, we'll call these people "Licensed Drivers". In order to become one of these "Licensed Drivers", we'll make people take a competency test, and then we'll require them to recertify their ability and proficiency every few years. We can encourage them to take some sort of Drivers Education training, and we should probably make the certification test include both a written and driving test, to make sure that people not only understand their driving privilege, but also are capable of driving safely.
Please don't base your opinions on Libertarians on this idiot. Most of us are smart enough to know that laws against drunk driving are a Very Good Thing(tm).
No offense, but you've shown your ignorance here. First of all, the original poster is discussing corporate backups, while you're talking about backups for your own personal stuff. What works for your one or two computers at home is not likely to work for a company with hundreds of workstations and dozens of servers.
Many of your statements just flat out don't make sense when you consider larger scale or corporate computing environments.
For example: System and app backups are totally useless. Sys configs and apps can be replaced easily by a fresh install, and much quicker than doing a restore, and you don't have to waste time doing repetitive, useless, time-wasting backups every week/month/etc.
You've never installed Exchange, have you? Or Oracle? Or Cisco CallManager? ActiveDirectory? Sonexis? RSA ACE Authentication Manager? Nagios? Any large scale "enterprise" application?
These are not trivial things to install. This "fresh install" is not going to be quicker than a restore, it's going to potentially take dozens of times longer. Utilizing a real backup scheme, I can restore our Exchange cluster from backup in about an hour or two. If I were to try to install them from original media and reconfigure them from scratch, it would take me at least 20 hours, and that's assuming I had mail store backups.
I also found the following comment humorous:
I buy only high quality hard drives, I monitor their performance and integrity continuously, and as a result, I've never had a single hard drive failure in any system I've owned, and that goes back almost 20 years. I have never lost any data.
Wait! Didn't you just tell us a story where you said:
The moment I left the office for lunch, the Corvus hard drive died. It was totally not my fault, it was a random hardware failure, at least it was a good thing it happened AFTER the backup was finished.
So you carefully monitor your hardwar and trust that it won't fail, but at the same time, you've experienced a random hardware failure that was totally not your fault? Heck, I run all servers with mirrored hard drives, and I still don't trust them without backups.
The fact that you've been lucky enough that you haven't personally lost data at home is great. But it's because of luck more than anything. A hard drive can fail without any sort of warning, regardless of its quality. Additionally, your scheme doesn't take into account one of the most common reasons that data needs to be restored, and that's user error. All of this is also without considering any "catastrophic" or even remotely close events. What happens if a power strike fries the whole computer, motherboard, drives, and all? Or even a power supply in a computer that dies, and takes out the motherboard and drives (I've personally seen this happen). You never responded to how you would handle something like a fire that destroys your computers. How do you recover from that?
Good luck with your data, I hope you don't experience bad luck and lose important information. And no offense, but I hope you are never involved witih the IT department at my company.;-)
I've got LDAP enabled sudo working beautifully on our RHES3 boxes, but for some reason it doesn't actually work on the RHES4 boxes. Very annoying, and slowing deployment of RHES4 for us.
(No, I haven't filed a bug report for it, or spent more than an hour or two poking around ith this problem. It's on my to-do list, but I haven't gotten to it yet.;-)
That's why in real productions shops, all machines log to a central loghost. Then you have additional security and accountability that isn't compromised with a single machine.
You are correct, ESP is a separate IP protocol (Protocol 50), and from that standpoint, has nothing to do with UDP. However, there is also RFC 3948, which specifies tunneling ESP over UDP.
Now, I've been using OpenVPN for a long time, but I will readily grant that I've never dug into the nitty gritty details of it's protocol, so I don't know for sure if this is what OpenVPN is doing. When I saw the comment on the OpenVPN page, I assumed they were using ESP over UDP for the transport protocol, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon and Google are acting like spoiled children, and behaving in a poor, customer-unfriendly way. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If Amazon doesn't want to sell Google stuff in their store, you can go to Walmart, Best Buy, or literally a thousand other places to get it. If Google doesn't want to support Youtube on FireTV, you can use Roku, Google devices, or literally every single Smart TV on earth. You have a ton of options. This is an annoyance to customers, but that's it.
With Internet access, most people have one, maybe two viable broadband offerings. If your provider screws with you or abuses you, you have no recourse. They are often no alternatives. There is no market competition. Additionally, you may not even know that they're screwing with you (throttling).
Comparing Google and Amazon's behavior to Net Neutrality just muddies a discussion that already confuses enough people. Don't go grandstanding and getting indignant just to get clicks by trying to tie this into an important topic. It just pisses us off.
Also, neither Google nor Amazon have been big supporters of Net Neutrality in a long time. Both are big enough that they don't need Net Neutrality to protect them like the smaller players do.
There kind of is. Install Xubunt or Lubuntu, or install the respective desktop environments used by those projects. I'm running Xubuntu on an almost 8 year old NetBook with a 1.6GHz Atom CPU and, while I wouldn't call it fast, it's usable.
Ok, first of all, this is one of the dumbest "news" stories I've seen here in a while. It's really lame.
Secondly, he had to write python for this stupidity? From any bash shell:
while (true); do cat /path/to/song.mp3 >> /dev/null; echo "Another copy made." ; done
I think I actually lost intelligence by reading and spending 30 seconds thinking about how dumb this whole thing is.
I agree that it's possible to write maintainable perl, but from my vantage point, perl is not really designed for this.
To me it's more of a hack n` slash language. Code while you think. All those shortcuts and lack of boilerplate code and ability to just say "take this data, compare it with this, and do whatever" in a few lines is to me perl's strength. The fact that the resultant code is hard to read is the weakness. If you are not going to do that, and write code in a more rigid, designed manner to avoid this, why use perl in the first place?
The argument that it's not the tools it's the developer stands, however I do think some tools are more oriented towards maintainability (java, c++) and others towards rapid development (perl). You get ugly code in every language, but perl almost directly encourages it. The CPAN tool is _the_ definition of perl. Works, but oh my god is this code or cyphertext!
I think I see the problem here. It's a perception problem. You've decided that you want Perl to be a "hack n slash" language, so you view it in that way, and only in that way. I think you're seriously shortchanging Perl and pigeonholing it to something that doesn't match reality.
"Why use Perl" if you're not going to write sloppy code? Because there's a huge number of things that Perl can do really well. For example, using Mojolicious, it can be a great tool for designing web applications. Using CPAN, it can do any number of things. Using Moose, it has Object Oriented capabilities that rival any other language available. It's fast, it's flexible, and it processes text better than anything else.
Also, I'd really like to see some evidence of your "perl almost directly encourages [ugly code]". No offense, but I think that's a bunch of crap. It perpetuates a stereotype that isn't based on fact, but prejudice. Take 10-20 minutes and do a little research on Perl. Not Perl as you think it is (based on outdated assumptions and incorrect information), but as it really is. Look at the Modern Perl movement, the push to get past the misinformation about ancient Perl, and the awesome new world of Perl.
It's a much different world than you seem to see. And, for the record, having written C++ and Java professionally in the past, I'd much rather maintain Perl code than either of those.
Yes you can write maintainable code in perl if you make a specific effort to do so, but to me that defeats the point. It's primarily a hack and slash language that lets you crank out code while you think. To me writing maintainable perl is like writing a quick one-off script in c++ or java. Yes you can do it, but why bother. Use the tool that is suited for the task.
Have you actually written Perl?
I mean, no offense, but that's just silly. Maintainable code requires a specific effort in Perl? But it doesn't in other languages? Can you provide anything to back that up? I can add use strict; use warnings to my perl and still have less boilerplate code than an equivalent Java (or C++, or even Python) program.
Writing maintainable code, in any language requires some effort. Period. Perl makes it no more difficult than any other language, and offers more assistance than most (see warnings/strict/perlcritic/etc).
As for it defeating the purpose. . . well, I'd ask for evidence, but I'm really not convinced you understand Perl to an extent that you could provide a decent answer. Maybe I'll ask the two co-workers who are maintaining a 6 year old, 60k line perl application at work, see what they think. See if they think Perl is "suited for the task". Last time I talked to them, they seemed to be thoroughly enjoying it, though.
Agreed. Cookwise is a *great* book. And for those looking for a little more "geek cred" for her, Shirly Corriher has guested on half a dozen episodes of Good Eats, particularly earlier ones. Fans of Good Eats will appreciate her book, as will anyone who wants a better understanding about cooking.
Wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong.
If you are a United States Citizen, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely imperative that your Constitution granted rights be protected until that happens. Until you have been found guilty in a court of law, it is not known legally whether you did or were going to commit an offense. You don't take away (or piss on, like the FISA bill does) people's rights before the judicial process is complete. This is a fundamental tenet of our country, of our Constitution, and of our legal system.
Or, at least, it was. Until those currently in power decided to start pissing on it.
We've already seen regular abuse of the 'terrorism' label (and laws created around it). If you hold up a bank, you're no longer a bank robber, you're a terrorist. If you threaten to beat someone up, you're a terrorist making terroristic threats. If you forget that you have a pair of fingernail clippers in your pocket as you go through airport security, you're a terrorist.
And even if you've done none of those, if you are accused of it, you will very likely be treated as a terrorist and numerous law enforcement agencies will call you a terrorist to strip away your rights and make it easier for them to bully you and find you guilty (whether or not you are).
Things have changed significantly.
/boot and sometimes for / (purely because there are still more and better recovery tools for ext3 than any other Linux filesystem (due in part to it's simplicity, which is also the source of it's limitations)), but /var, /home, and all data storage drives are JFS or XFS.
Deleting a large (hundreds of GB) file in JFS or XFS is nearly instantaneous. The same action on an ext3 filesystem can take up to a minute, even on a fast machine.
I still use ext3 for
Well said.
StartTLS.
No reason to run TLS enabled LDAP on a separate port, and with most LDAP servers (including OpenLDAP) you can restrict the security level required for certain operations (such as bind and update).
There is actually absolutely nothing wrong with your suggestion. In fact, it's being used already, although admittedly it's mostly at a slightly higher level (High School).
I strongly suggest checking out:
The Teach Scheme Project
How to Design Programs
The first is a project designed around teaching programming through scheme, and the second is the text book for the project (full text online, free).
This one is even worse than the one-click stuff Amazon did earlier.
You can build a proof of concept for under $500. There is an application out there called vblade[1], which is a virtual EtherDrive blade. Basically, it allows you to export a local block device as an ATA over Ethernet device. Turning your junker PC in the corner with a couple of extra disks in it into a ATAoE testbed.
It's GPLed code, works with the new native kernel AoE support, and was even written by one of the Coraid guys.
[1] One of the aoetools, available on sourceforge here.
I've been playing with this on a spare machine in the test rack in our data center, and I have to admit, it is pretty slick. There's potential here for use in a number of areas.
Yeah. It's almost as if they were trying to model the command line interface off of an existing and well known interface to make it easier for people to use. . .
Vyatta's work is based on XORP. They've taken it, polished it, enhanced it, and provided even (monetarily) supported it. They also contribute their work back to the XORP project.
They complement each other well. XORP is more of a research project, while Vyatta's OFR (Open Flexible Router) is a CD installation of XORP and other software that can be installed and run almost as an appliance.
Take a look at the AOpen PC Mini's.
They're basically "whitebox" PC versions of a Mac Mini.
By that logic, we should simply ban all driving except by constantly certified professionals.
That's a great idea!
How about this, we'll call these people "Licensed Drivers". In order to become one of these "Licensed Drivers", we'll make people take a competency test, and then we'll require them to recertify their ability and proficiency every few years. We can encourage them to take some sort of Drivers Education training, and we should probably make the certification test include both a written and driving test, to make sure that people not only understand their driving privilege, but also are capable of driving safely.
Why in the world didn't we think of this sooner?
Please don't base your opinions on Libertarians on this idiot. Most of us are smart enough to know that laws against drunk driving are a Very Good Thing(tm).
No offense, but you've shown your ignorance here. First of all, the original poster is discussing corporate backups, while you're talking about backups for your own personal stuff. What works for your one or two computers at home is not likely to work for a company with hundreds of workstations and dozens of servers.
;-)
Many of your statements just flat out don't make sense when you consider larger scale or corporate computing environments.
For example: System and app backups are totally useless. Sys configs and apps can be replaced easily by a fresh install, and much quicker than doing a restore, and you don't have to waste time doing repetitive, useless, time-wasting backups every week/month/etc.
You've never installed Exchange, have you? Or Oracle? Or Cisco CallManager? ActiveDirectory? Sonexis? RSA ACE Authentication Manager? Nagios? Any large scale "enterprise" application?
These are not trivial things to install. This "fresh install" is not going to be quicker than a restore, it's going to potentially take dozens of times longer. Utilizing a real backup scheme, I can restore our Exchange cluster from backup in about an hour or two. If I were to try to install them from original media and reconfigure them from scratch, it would take me at least 20 hours, and that's assuming I had mail store backups.
I also found the following comment humorous:
I buy only high quality hard drives, I monitor their performance and integrity continuously, and as a result, I've never had a single hard drive failure in any system I've owned, and that goes back almost 20 years. I have never lost any data.
Wait! Didn't you just tell us a story where you said:
The moment I left the office for lunch, the Corvus hard drive died. It was totally not my fault, it was a random hardware failure, at least it was a good thing it happened AFTER the backup was finished.
So you carefully monitor your hardwar and trust that it won't fail, but at the same time, you've experienced a random hardware failure that was totally not your fault? Heck, I run all servers with mirrored hard drives, and I still don't trust them without backups.
The fact that you've been lucky enough that you haven't personally lost data at home is great. But it's because of luck more than anything. A hard drive can fail without any sort of warning, regardless of its quality. Additionally, your scheme doesn't take into account one of the most common reasons that data needs to be restored, and that's user error. All of this is also without considering any "catastrophic" or even remotely close events. What happens if a power strike fries the whole computer, motherboard, drives, and all? Or even a power supply in a computer that dies, and takes out the motherboard and drives (I've personally seen this happen). You never responded to how you would handle something like a fire that destroys your computers. How do you recover from that?
Good luck with your data, I hope you don't experience bad luck and lose important information. And no offense, but I hope you are never involved witih the IT department at my company.
Redundant?
This is the very first comment on this story, and it's moderated redundant? What kind of a moron moderates like that?
I mean, I could understand if it were moderated as offtopic, or something, but redundant?
Dumbass.
Wow. No comments (except for the one idiot who's already been modded to -1), and the site is already slashdotted?
I'm not sure whether I should be annoyed, or amused.
Have you ever managed to get it working on RHES4?
;-)
I've got LDAP enabled sudo working beautifully on our RHES3 boxes, but for some reason it doesn't actually work on the RHES4 boxes. Very annoying, and slowing deployment of RHES4 for us.
(No, I haven't filed a bug report for it, or spent more than an hour or two poking around ith this problem. It's on my to-do list, but I haven't gotten to it yet.
That's why in real productions shops, all machines log to a central loghost. Then you have additional security and accountability that isn't compromised with a single machine.
You are correct, ESP is a separate IP protocol (Protocol 50), and from that standpoint, has nothing to do with UDP. However, there is also RFC 3948, which specifies tunneling ESP over UDP.
Now, I've been using OpenVPN for a long time, but I will readily grant that I've never dug into the nitty gritty details of it's protocol, so I don't know for sure if this is what OpenVPN is doing. When I saw the comment on the OpenVPN page, I assumed they were using ESP over UDP for the transport protocol, though.