If you think that the poster doesn't know how to plan the test; go make your own test.
"Don't ask questions, and don't embarass someone who wants to be in charge."
He specifically said the test methodology will be improved on suggestions on the mailing list.
Yes, and he also specifically said that he's done tests. I expressed concerns, and asked questions, and he insulted me. You're saying I have no right to respond?
How about contributing there instead of making an uppity jackass of yourself here.
Because it's easier to ask questions here rather than waste my time jumping through hoops to help someone who really has no clue what he's doing, and won't listen to people who do.
You don't like what I wrote? Show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise shut your pie hole.
I'll believe a computer is intelligent only when it acts of its own volition, not when it merely tricks a person into thinking it has acted of its own volition.
I'd agree, but change the emphasized bit to "someone programs it to trick a person"
So you're developing the methodology for something you've already done?
a troll, or just an ignoramus.
Mu. If you ask people for help, then insult them when they respond with legitimate concerns, you're going to have a tough time getting recruits. My statement was based entirely on the text you wrote, which was liberally peppered with statements that show you do not have a strong grasp of DNS concepts. Specifically:
You appeared to include details of your methodology, but included irrelevant details, and (as evidenced by your reply) omitted important ones. You have not yet even mentioned dig - whether you know what it is, or how to use it to troubleshoot DNS problems.
Testing wasn't carried out until a MONTH after I changed the TTL to be sure it had propagated correctly.
An example of important omitted information. Other things you omitted: Did you check the TTL (on the recursive server) before and after you made the change? Did you ensure that the recursive server was obtaining the new TTL, by checking the SOA? Did you determine if the recursive server was caching the SOA (technically you're not supposed to, but many DNS servers send a TTL with SOA replies, and it's possible that the implementation on your recursive server was caching the SOA.) Did you check the returned TTL via sequential, timed queries to see if it was changing properly?
there are other methods, this is by far the simplest for the non technical
It's also the one that provides the least amount of data, and is the least reliable. A windows batch file (created by you) with a clicky-clicky icon is only marginally more difficult, and would provide better, more reliable data.
If it was set to 2 weeks and was just queried before the change occured, there is no reason for the server to recheck just because it was changed to 24 hours.
Exactly. Dig returns the TTL remaining - he could have determined exactly where the problem was by simply issuing sequential queries with dig and seeing what the TTL values were:
$ for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do echo "Try" ${i}; dig +noall +answer www.google.ca @nsc1.ar.ed.shawcable.net; sleep 5; done Try 1 www.google.ca. 19439 IN CNAME www.google.com. www.google.com. 273 IN CNAME www.l.google.com. www.l.google.com. 202 IN A 64.233.167.104 www.l.google.com. 202 IN A 64.233.167.99 www.l.google.com. 202 IN A 64.233.167.147 Try 2 www.google.ca. 19433 IN CNAME www.google.com. www.google.com. 267 IN CNAME www.l.google.com. www.l.google.com. 196 IN A 64.233.167.99 www.l.google.com. 196 IN A 64.233.167.147 www.l.google.com. 196 IN A 64.233.167.104 Try 3 www.google.ca. 19427 IN CNAME www.google.com. www.google.com. 261 IN CNAME www.l.google.com. www.l.google.com. 190 IN A 64.233.167.99 www.l.google.com. 190 IN A 64.233.167.147 www.l.google.com. 190 IN A 64.233.167.104 Try 4 www.google.ca. 19421 IN CNAME www.google.com. www.google.com. 255 IN CNAME www.l.google.com. www.l.google.com. 184 IN A 64.233.167.147 www.l.google.com. 184 IN A 64.233.167.104 www.l.google.com. 184 IN A 64.233.167.99 Try 5 www.google.ca. 19416 IN CNAME www.google.com. www.google.com. 250 IN CNAME www.l.google.com. www.l.google.com. 179 IN A 64.233.167.104 www.l.google.com. 179 IN A 64.233.167.99 www.l.google.com. 179 IN A 64.233.167.147
See if it's decrementing the TTL properly; do a dig for the SOA to see if it's pulling the new SOA; once the TTL reaches zero, do the test again and see if it's honoring the new TTL.
don't assume that every computer in the world is a server, and/or that everyone must be running a l33t multi-user system with 500 different accounts define
Nice straw man. You shouldn't assume that most computers are only used by one person.
Most people live in a household with *MORE THAN ONE PERSON*, and when these people have a computer, it will *MORE OFTEN THAN NOT* be shared with the other members of the household.
You don't need 500+ people on a system for it to be multi-user. You only need *TWO*. That's it - just two people.
Ask someone "hey, you won't mind if your brother accidentally deletes all your files, right?" And you'll get a "of course I mind."
The argument that data is more important than the system isn't relevant to most computers - it only matters if you can guarantee that *NOBODY* else will be using your computer.
Now, in *YOUR* case, that may be true, but don't assume that because it's true in your case, that it's true in everybody's case.
An interesting choice of words - one that aptly demonstrates the difference between closed and open source. The appropriate answer is that you should consider opening your eyes, so that you can see more.
You are assuming that you need the source code if you want to find bugs to exploit, which is a false assumption. No source is necessary.
Do you disagree that the person causing the network traffic that was being listened to, would be viiolating the license (you may not use Bitkeeper to reverse engineer Bitkeeper) if he allowed this?
Yes. Because the person causing the network traffic is not reverse engineering.
Are you suggesting that when you agree to an EULA that you're responsible for what other people, who have no connection to you at all do?
In that case, Larry McVoy should be arrested for piracy, as he obviously is responsible for all those pirated copies of Windows (and so are you, BTW.)
You know, when I tried KDE 3.2, that's the *first* thing I noticed - dialog boxes (and even new app windows, if a bunch are launched concurrently) don't steal focus.
The banner tells the person looking of potential holes to search for, quickly reducing the number of things they need to try and also reducing the profile of the attack.
Bullshit.
Changing the banner is trivial. Any black hat tool will ignore the banner and try every exploit *anyway*, just in case the admin thinks he's clever and changes it.
My preference: Set it to identify itself as something it's not. Then watch the logs for know attacks targeted at what it identifies itself as.
There's a term for that: "Security through obscurity."
The correct response is "keep it as it is, and keep it up to date." Changing it won't stop anyone from breaking in, and might lull you into a false sense of security.
In 1999, a team of scientists led by Lene Hau were able to slow the speed of a light beam to about 17 metres per second, and, in 2001, they were able to momentarily stop a beam.'
Pshaw! That's pathetic!
I've had a device for years that can stop a beam of light. It's called a curtain.:o)
You seem to know a bit about the inner workings of what's going on.
The Volari cards look good. I'm pleased that the hard-working lab-rats there have finally managed to convince management to Open their 3D drivers too
Hmm.. how do you reconcile that with this post, which says that they're not opening their 3D drivers - who's right? (The website doesn't really have any info on that.)
I'm thinking about buying a new video card in the near future - I'd love to support XGI if their drivers are fully open source.
Great service, good prices. They go the extra mile, and have real, live people answering questions.
Funniest story was after I'd transfered a domain to them; I got an email from one of their techs asking about my DNS servers (which are named Lister, Kryten, and Rimmer) - he was apparently a big Red Dwarf Fan.
If one party extends GPL'ed software and gives/sells it to another party, the first party must provide source to the second party, but neither party has to give a third party anything. Correct?
Yes and no (depending on the situation.)
If the first party gives the source when they give the binary, then nobody has to do anything else.
However, if the first party simply provides an offer of the source to the second party, then the first party must provide the source to anyone who asks (ie. any third party.)
The second party has no obligations at all (unless they start distributing it), because they don't need to agree to the GPL in order to use the software.
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
I do not need a license to use any piece of software.
the difference of having the extra time (3 hours as opposed to ~2 hours)
The time thing is probably the easiest to dismiss.
Many successful films are longer than two hours. For example, LOTR:TFOTR was 2 hours 49 minutes, LOTR:TTT was 3 hours 21 minutes - and both of these were the short versions. Titanic was 3 hours 14 minutes. These are all not only generally commercial sucesses, but critically acclaimed as well. I'd say that the myth that Americans won't sit through something that's longer than 120 minutes has been effectively debunked.
episodic nature
The episodic nature has pretty much nothing to do with it. My first experience with it was when I bought it on VHS - I watched it all the way through without stopping. With the exception of 1-2 minutes at the beginning of each episode where the narrator discussed the previous one, it's very clean, and flows very smoothly. Re-writing those 6 minutes to make it completely seamless would be trivial.
how many people read a whole book in one sitting?
Probably less than the same number of people who can read a whole book in one sitting. Most people can't.
Which is why the LOTR adaptation worked so well, because they were able to do it somewhat episodically (3 films), and not forced to tell the whole story in one sitting (even in 3 episodes, some stuff STILL had to go).
The thing is that the entire HHTG series has been done (and very well) so that it can be seen in one sitting, and it's shorter than one episode of LOTR.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh shut up already.
I will if you will.
If you think that the poster doesn't know how to plan the test; go make your own test.
"Don't ask questions, and don't embarass someone who wants to be in charge."
He specifically said the test methodology will be improved on suggestions on the mailing list.
Yes, and he also specifically said that he's done tests. I expressed concerns, and asked questions, and he insulted me. You're saying I have no right to respond?
How about contributing there instead of making an uppity jackass of yourself here.
Because it's easier to ask questions here rather than waste my time jumping through hoops to help someone who really has no clue what he's doing, and won't listen to people who do.
You don't like what I wrote? Show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise shut your pie hole.
I'll believe a computer is intelligent only when it acts of its own volition, not when it merely tricks a person into thinking it has acted of its own volition.
I'd agree, but change the emphasized bit to "someone programs it to trick a person"
they have not been able to get the government to just tax us because we are all just "criminals" stealing thier "IP".
I hope you're sitting down, because you're in for quite a shock. (Note that this was passed into law in 1994.)
So, umm... what was it you were saying about the "Socialist government that would even consider this"?
No. The money is collected by the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which is an independant, non-profit group (ie. they are not the government.)
It's 'supposed' to be distributed to the artists, but I'm not sure whether or not that's actually ever happened.
The CPCC claims that it has been distributed to the artists (copyright holders, actually.) From that page:
It's a "tariff", which means the government gets ahold of the money first and eventually gets around to doleing it out for its proper use.
No. None of the money goes to the government - it goes to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, an independant, non-profit organization.
The government is getting its cream out from this
Proof, please.
Yes, along with select cookies (preferences, etc.)
So you're developing the methodology for something you've already done?
a troll, or just an ignoramus.
Mu. If you ask people for help, then insult them when they respond with legitimate concerns, you're going to have a tough time getting recruits. My statement was based entirely on the text you wrote, which was liberally peppered with statements that show you do not have a strong grasp of DNS concepts. Specifically:
You appeared to include details of your methodology, but included irrelevant details, and (as evidenced by your reply) omitted important ones. You have not yet even mentioned dig - whether you know what it is, or how to use it to troubleshoot DNS problems.
Testing wasn't carried out until a MONTH after I changed the TTL to be sure it had propagated correctly.
An example of important omitted information. Other things you omitted: Did you check the TTL (on the recursive server) before and after you made the change? Did you ensure that the recursive server was obtaining the new TTL, by checking the SOA? Did you determine if the recursive server was caching the SOA (technically you're not supposed to, but many DNS servers send a TTL with SOA replies, and it's possible that the implementation on your recursive server was caching the SOA.) Did you check the returned TTL via sequential, timed queries to see if it was changing properly?
there are other methods, this is by far the simplest for the non technical
It's also the one that provides the least amount of data, and is the least reliable. A windows batch file (created by you) with a clicky-clicky icon is only marginally more difficult, and would provide better, more reliable data.
Exactly. Dig returns the TTL remaining - he could have determined exactly where the problem was by simply issuing sequential queries with dig and seeing what the TTL values were:See if it's decrementing the TTL properly; do a dig for the SOA to see if it's pulling the new SOA; once the TTL reaches zero, do the test again and see if it's honoring the new TTL.
I'd like to know your methodology, as your article presents a rather fundamental lack of knowlege of DNS.
First: What was the TTL before you changed it to 24 hours?
Second: did you query specific DNS servers before and after the change, and measure the TTL they returned each time?
Third: Why on earth do you think that you needed to reboot client machines?
Caching is silly.
Yeah, because if *ONE* of the DNS servers can't be reached, it's OK to make your users wait for the first query to timeout, right?
don't assume that every computer in the world is a server, and/or that everyone must be running a l33t multi-user system with 500 different accounts define
Nice straw man. You shouldn't assume that most computers are only used by one person.
Most people live in a household with *MORE THAN ONE PERSON*, and when these people have a computer, it will *MORE OFTEN THAN NOT* be shared with the other members of the household.
You don't need 500+ people on a system for it to be multi-user. You only need *TWO*. That's it - just two people.
Ask someone "hey, you won't mind if your brother accidentally deletes all your files, right?" And you'll get a "of course I mind."
The argument that data is more important than the system isn't relevant to most computers - it only matters if you can guarantee that *NOBODY* else will be using your computer.
Now, in *YOUR* case, that may be true, but don't assume that because it's true in your case, that it's true in everybody's case.
As far as I can see
An interesting choice of words - one that aptly demonstrates the difference between closed and open source. The appropriate answer is that you should consider opening your eyes, so that you can see more.
You are assuming that you need the source code if you want to find bugs to exploit, which is a false assumption. No source is necessary.
immoral (e.g. porn)
Immoral by who's standards? Certainly not mine.
The GPL is a license to use copyrighted software.
Actually, it's not.
The GPL is a license to copy and distribute copyrighted software.
Other than that, your post is correct.
the rules are heavily biased in favor of Caldera/SCO; they only have to show a tiny bit of evidence to defeat the motion
Or, in this case, no evidence at all.
Do you disagree that the person causing the network traffic that was being listened to, would be viiolating the license (you may not use Bitkeeper to reverse engineer Bitkeeper) if he allowed this?
Yes. Because the person causing the network traffic is not reverse engineering.
Are you suggesting that when you agree to an EULA that you're responsible for what other people, who have no connection to you at all do?
In that case, Larry McVoy should be arrested for piracy, as he obviously is responsible for all those pirated copies of Windows (and so are you, BTW.)
You know, when I tried KDE 3.2, that's the *first* thing I noticed - dialog boxes (and even new app windows, if a bunch are launched concurrently) don't steal focus.
I'm surprised that Windows still allows this.
The banner tells the person looking of potential holes to search for, quickly reducing the number of things they need to try and also reducing the profile of the attack.
Bullshit.
Changing the banner is trivial. Any black hat tool will ignore the banner and try every exploit *anyway*, just in case the admin thinks he's clever and changes it.
My preference: Set it to identify itself as something it's not. Then watch the logs for know attacks targeted at what it identifies itself as.
There's a term for that: "Security through obscurity."
The correct response is "keep it as it is, and keep it up to date." Changing it won't stop anyone from breaking in, and might lull you into a false sense of security.
In 1999, a team of scientists led by Lene Hau were able to slow the speed of a light beam to about 17 metres per second, and, in 2001, they were able to momentarily stop a beam.'
:o)
Pshaw! That's pathetic!
I've had a device for years that can stop a beam of light. It's called a curtain.
You seem to know a bit about the inner workings of what's going on.
The Volari cards look good. I'm pleased that the hard-working lab-rats there have finally managed to convince management to Open their 3D drivers too
Hmm.. how do you reconcile that with
this post, which says that they're not opening their 3D drivers - who's right? (The website doesn't really have any info on that.)
I'm thinking about buying a new video card in the near future - I'd love to support XGI if their drivers are fully open source.
fake news stories, without identifying them in some way
You mean like saying "we just made that up" right after the fake part, just like this one did?
www.reg.ca
Great service, good prices. They go the extra mile, and have real, live people answering questions.
Funniest story was after I'd transfered a domain to them; I got an email from one of their techs asking about my DNS servers (which are named Lister, Kryten, and Rimmer) - he was apparently a big Red Dwarf Fan.
If one party extends GPL'ed software and gives/sells it to another party, the first party must provide source to the second party, but neither party has to give a third party anything. Correct?
Yes and no (depending on the situation.)
If the first party gives the source when they give the binary, then nobody has to do anything else.
However, if the first party simply provides an offer of the source to the second party, then the first party must provide the source to anyone who asks (ie. any third party.)
The second party has no obligations at all (unless they start distributing it), because they don't need to agree to the GPL in order to use the software.
Bullshit.
Under (US) copyright law, the thing that allows me to use their software is US Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117, Paragraph a(1).
I do not need a license to use any piece of software.
the difference of having the extra time (3 hours as opposed to ~2 hours)
The time thing is probably the easiest to dismiss.
Many successful films are longer than two hours. For example, LOTR:TFOTR was 2 hours 49 minutes, LOTR:TTT was 3 hours 21 minutes - and both of these were the short versions. Titanic was 3 hours 14 minutes. These are all not only generally commercial sucesses, but critically acclaimed as well. I'd say that the myth that Americans won't sit through something that's longer than 120 minutes has been effectively debunked.
episodic nature
The episodic nature has pretty much nothing to do with it. My first experience with it was when I bought it on VHS - I watched it all the way through without stopping. With the exception of 1-2 minutes at the beginning of each episode where the narrator discussed the previous one, it's very clean, and flows very smoothly. Re-writing those 6 minutes to make it completely seamless would be trivial.
how many people read a whole book in one sitting?
Probably less than the same number of people who can read a whole book in one sitting. Most people can't.
Which is why the LOTR adaptation worked so well, because they were able to do it somewhat episodically (3 films), and not forced to tell the whole story in one sitting (even in 3 episodes, some stuff STILL had to go).
The thing is that the entire HHTG series has been done (and very well) so that it can be seen in one sitting, and it's shorter than one episode of LOTR.