Come up with a task you think the iPhone cannot perform and Android can
Incidentally I think I just did in another post of mine:
I can have an Android SSH client running with an SSH connection open, set up a port forward, leave the SSH client in the background, fire up the web browser to browse over said port forward.
I don't have an iphone, but according to this review:
None of the [iPhone SSH] clients supported host-based public key authentication, ssh-agent, or port forwarding.
I suppose my question is, what real-world advantages have you seen with this "multitasking"?
I can have an Android SSH client running with an SSH connection open, set up a port forward, leave the SSH client in the background, fire up the web browser to browse over said port forward.
That's not the point. If this anti-computing-freedom trend that apple is making popular continues eventually computers that are "for us" will become more expensive and harder to find.
It depends on the specific android phone you're talking about. Some of them (like some of those sold by carriers) have firmware that will only boot specific signed OS images. Others (like the dev phone or nexus one) will boot anything you want, such as an android image set up to give you root easily.
On the other hand, standard android apps can be run on any phone (AFAIK) without needing to be signed or obtained through the android marketplace or whatever. Each app runs as its own UID and only has access to specifically granted things, however, so that's not necessarily equivalent to running your own android OS image.
The real problem is grandma with her slow-running computer has no idea how to fix it. Maybe the isp can make her aware of the problem, but fix it? What do you suggest the isp does in those cases?
Tell the owner to pay someone who does have an idea how to fix it to do so? That's the owner's problem.
it doesn't mean the device should assume any machine it is plugged into is my trusted machine and it can unlock right away.
Why? If only the user knows the key, and a given host machine sends the correct key to the drive, then obviously the user has decided that machine is trustworthy by entering the key in to it.
Practically, NAT requires state awareness, and so it's a lot better than nothing.
Actually, both conceptually and in reality, you can have a router which NATs outbound connections yet still allows any kind of inbound connections. Just using NAT's state tracking doesn't mean anything gets dropped. I think you can set up a linux machine to prove that like this (assuming everything in its default state):
What the hell are you talking about? Some linksys garbage? There's a firewall there. It is specifically configured to forward everything to that system in that particular case.
The truth is, nobody actually ever uses NAT without a firewall. You'd have to go out of your way these days to do that and if you did you'd find that NAT alone does not in fact drop any packets. Access to your network is left up to your attacker's ability to get packets with certain destination addresses up to the outside of your router.
Not at all. I've used (or tried to use) several versions after it became "stable". The web interface was still complete garbage. I'm not sure what the point of the stupid web interface is anyway when you still need a native application (in the form of a browser plugin) to interact with the console.
That says it has 4 bt878s on it. So what's the difference between this board and 4 cheap/used bt878 cards, particularly if I only need 4 or fewer inputs?
So when you set that registry key to be 0 instead of 1, it will change back to a 1 in 15 minutes, even if you're an administrator. The benefit is that I can lock down the registry security through policy as well -- so I can prevent even admins from changing their settings.
Unless said admin uses his control of the machine to prevent the policy from working?
Using X that way is also a MUCH bigger security risk than VNC or RDP. The remote machine to which you're granting access to your X server can read all the keystrokes you type (wether they're to the remote app or not) and take screen shots of the whole display, etc...
What do you think, private companies are immune to laws or something? If they government wants to spy on you they only need to pass a law and require the corporation to do so. The NSA has been spying on people for years with AT&T's help. The fact that AT&T is a company didn't seem to help.
OS: You have a point with the OS. That's debatable. I was envisioning this as a Linux vs OS X comparison though noone really said so. I won't deny windows is more expensive, if you want to go that route.
Cables: For a small number of machines it's negligible, but we were talking about cramming a closet full of them or something. The cable bit matters more as you increase density.
LOM: Are you sure this mini server even has that? I can't find anything on Apple's web site about it.
Power: For small quantities of machines sitting idle, I don't doubt the minis may win. For "LOADS of those things" doing work, I would. And presumably, we're not making a huge cluster of machines just to sit idle most of the time.
Blade Storage: Yep, I forgot it, oops. 1 250GB HD (largest HP has in their site, unfortunately) = $329 each. 2 per plade in 8 blades: 329*2*8 = $5,264. Adding that to my original "16 minimac" blade chassis makes it cost about the same. Adding that to the "32 minimac" blade system makes it $19,291 vs $31,968.
The Core 2 Duo @ 2.53GHz is more than than twice as fast as the 1.8GHz Celeron, so really you only need 4 of the mini-servers to beat out 8 of the blades... Suddenly the price swings significantly to the mini's... ($4299+8*379 = 7331. 4x$999 = 3996, or roughly half the price) and you've still got 16GB of RAM, not 8GB (which is what the blades have)
Yeah, you have a point on the Celerons. I can't find anything exactly equivalent to the minimac hardware in these blades, but among the pre-configured options on that blade page is a quad-core Xeon for $609 with 2GB RAM. An extra 2GB RAM is +$129, so $738 for a quad core Xeon with 4GB RAM. Using your reasoning with the celeron, one of those xeon blades == 2 minimacs. If we load up an 8 slot chassis that's $4299+8*738 = $10,203 vs 16*999 = $15,984. Similar but with 8 cores & 8GB RAM per blade and 32 minimacs: $14,027 vs $31,968. As we approach "cramp LOADS of those things in a small space" the blades are looking way cheaper now as well as more space efficient.
individual cables: You need an ethernet wire and a power supply. That's one more wire per mini. If you're using external storage, you'll need a firewire cable or whatever, but that's the same as with the blades
One more? You don't need any cables going in to the blades. Power, network, console, etc are supplied by the backplane.
organization: The minis are running OSX server, so all the LOM, remote-desktop, remote console etc. server-admin tools work fine.
You can't install an OS, upgrade an OS, access firmware, toggle power or reset them that way. You can do all of that remotely with ILO and work with CD images over the network.
more-efficient energy: I meant in terms of scale. A few large power supplies will almost certainly be more efficient than many small ones.
hot-swap stuff: The power supplies do, but you're right only the more expensive blades have hot-swap drives. Then again, the denser blades are $18k cheaper...
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally I think I just did in another post of mine:
I don't have an iphone, but according to this review:
I can have an Android SSH client running with an SSH connection open, set up a port forward, leave the SSH client in the background, fire up the web browser to browse over said port forward.
That's not the point. If this anti-computing-freedom trend that apple is making popular continues eventually computers that are "for us" will become more expensive and harder to find.
Exactly. You can use it to do anything apple gives you permission you to do! Never before has there been a more capable computing device.
It depends on the specific android phone you're talking about. Some of them (like some of those sold by carriers) have firmware that will only boot specific signed OS images. Others (like the dev phone or nexus one) will boot anything you want, such as an android image set up to give you root easily.
On the other hand, standard android apps can be run on any phone (AFAIK) without needing to be signed or obtained through the android marketplace or whatever. Each app runs as its own UID and only has access to specifically granted things, however, so that's not necessarily equivalent to running your own android OS image.
Tell the owner to pay someone who does have an idea how to fix it to do so? That's the owner's problem.
... which is why it doesn't trust the machine it is plugged in to until the correct key is given.
Why? If only the user knows the key, and a given host machine sends the correct key to the drive, then obviously the user has decided that machine is trustworthy by entering the key in to it.
Actually, both conceptually and in reality, you can have a router which NATs outbound connections yet still allows any kind of inbound connections. Just using NAT's state tracking doesn't mean anything gets dropped. I think you can set up a linux machine to prove that like this (assuming everything in its default state):
Then you can't set up a firewall correctly with NAT, either. The actual packet filtering conceptually works exactly the same with or without NAT.
What the hell are you talking about? Some linksys garbage? There's a firewall there. It is specifically configured to forward everything to that system in that particular case.
The truth is, nobody actually ever uses NAT without a firewall. You'd have to go out of your way these days to do that and if you did you'd find that NAT alone does not in fact drop any packets. Access to your network is left up to your attacker's ability to get packets with certain destination addresses up to the outside of your router.
Close to the number people who were killed by people wanting to kill someone that had a gun available as one of their means of doing so?
Or one officer with an angle grinder or bolt cutters?
Not at all. I've used (or tried to use) several versions after it became "stable". The web interface was still complete garbage. I'm not sure what the point of the stupid web interface is anyway when you still need a native application (in the form of a browser plugin) to interact with the console.
Democracy and freedom of speech don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Just ask your nearest conservative religious idiot.
That says it has 4 bt878s on it. So what's the difference between this board and 4 cheap/used bt878 cards, particularly if I only need 4 or fewer inputs?
Because this is America.
Unless said admin uses his control of the machine to prevent the policy from working?
Using X that way is also a MUCH bigger security risk than VNC or RDP. The remote machine to which you're granting access to your X server can read all the keystrokes you type (wether they're to the remote app or not) and take screen shots of the whole display, etc...
What do you think, private companies are immune to laws or something? If they government wants to spy on you they only need to pass a law and require the corporation to do so. The NSA has been spying on people for years with AT&T's help. The fact that AT&T is a company didn't seem to help.
Or maybe human life is not, in fact, sacred and paramount. Maybe the additional deaths and risks to life are just worth it.
OS: You have a point with the OS. That's debatable. I was envisioning this as a Linux vs OS X comparison though noone really said so. I won't deny windows is more expensive, if you want to go that route.
Cables: For a small number of machines it's negligible, but we were talking about cramming a closet full of them or something. The cable bit matters more as you increase density.
LOM: Are you sure this mini server even has that? I can't find anything on Apple's web site about it.
Power: For small quantities of machines sitting idle, I don't doubt the minis may win. For "LOADS of those things" doing work, I would. And presumably, we're not making a huge cluster of machines just to sit idle most of the time.
Blade Storage: Yep, I forgot it, oops. 1 250GB HD (largest HP has in their site, unfortunately) = $329 each. 2 per plade in 8 blades: 329*2*8 = $5,264. Adding that to my original "16 minimac" blade chassis makes it cost about the same. Adding that to the "32 minimac" blade system makes it $19,291 vs $31,968.
Yeah, you have a point on the Celerons. I can't find anything exactly equivalent to the minimac hardware in these blades, but among the pre-configured options on that blade page is a quad-core Xeon for $609 with 2GB RAM. An extra 2GB RAM is +$129, so $738 for a quad core Xeon with 4GB RAM. Using your reasoning with the celeron, one of those xeon blades == 2 minimacs. If we load up an 8 slot chassis that's $4299+8*738 = $10,203 vs 16*999 = $15,984. Similar but with 8 cores & 8GB RAM per blade and 32 minimacs: $14,027 vs $31,968. As we approach "cramp LOADS of those things in a small space" the blades are looking way cheaper now as well as more space efficient.
One more? You don't need any cables going in to the blades. Power, network, console, etc are supplied by the backplane.
You can't install an OS, upgrade an OS, access firmware, toggle power or reset them that way. You can do all of that remotely with ILO and work with CD images over the network.
more-efficient energy: I meant in terms of scale. A few large power supplies will almost certainly be more efficient than many small ones.
hot-swap stuff: The power supplies do, but you're right only the more expensive blades have hot-swap drives. Then again, the denser blades are $18k cheaper...
There are better processors available, still well under $1000, and plenty of good OSes for $0.