We should not wear suits and conform to them. Let them conform to us. The only reason you want to wear a suit is because you are attracted to power figures.
Don't ask other people to wear suits; suits are stupid. A tie is a sign that says "Herd instincts more powerful than desire to function --- don't worry, you can predict my actions." Some of us have more self-respect than that.
The paper suggests (top of p. 6) that for a system with 10^6 bugs each with MTBF of 10^9 the attacker will see a MTBF of 1000 hours but the defender will see an MTBF of one million for finding that bug that the attacker found.
This logic switches what is being measured. The goal of the defender is to increase the MTBF of the attacker for all bugs, not to find a single particular bug.
Investing 10^9 hours into defense will find half the bugs, thereby increasing the MTBF for the attacker to 2000 hours. So, in this case defense is 1,000,000 times as hard, and the conclusion is correct, but the logic leading to it seems incorrect.
I thought the section on the TCPA enabling monopoly leveraging was much more interesting than the open vs. closed source bug finding discussion. If TCPA is made to work, it will surely be severely abused by monopolists just like he describes. Tell your congressman that you want programming to exclude competitor products to be made against the antitrust laws, and that you want to know what he is doing to see that judges that support the antitrust laws are appointed.
I don't really think that the issues of Math that he discusses are what determines the relative security of open vs. closed source. When people know that the source code will be out there it prompts them to code differently, and not imagine that others will be unable to find their algorithmic errors. Perhaps if Microsoft lied to its developers during development and told them it would be released as open source, and then actually released it as closed source, they would be able to be more secure than they are now.
They have service technicians who are eager to tell you that their management has told them not to support any operating system other than the one that was sold with the laptop. Of course, their laptops cannot be bought with Linux, and getting linux to work on them is a nightmare. The cost of your time and your sysadmin's time to make everything just work might equal the cost of the laptop.
One of the technicians actually told me to reinstall windows as it was, and then call him back.
It just doesn't say how they decide who gets the money. Is it based on how much money you are getting from other sources? If so, if a band only releases its music for free on the Internet, do they get no money at all even if they are more widely played? The end users need to be given control over who gets their money (see www.namesys.com/open_products.html)
What we need is for some judge to rule that a company which has a document destruction policy for reasons of preventing discovery shall, as sanction, have the burden of proof reversed, in regards to some serious allegation made by some plaintiff suing a large company.
Donate the time to ask your company to buy a reiserfs service contract. (Lycos-Europe will tell you it is very happy it bought a service contract, and that our service is excellent.) Estimate 1% of the storage hardware cost that is used for reiserfs (you don't need to be more than roughly accurate, and only need to update the number once a year), and that will get you a priority service contract better than what you could get from a proprietary software vendor (with us the code authors are the ones who answer your emails.) You can use paypal at www.namesys.com/support.html, or send a check, or whatever your accounting department likes to do. Take the time to be as careful to buy service contracts on mission critical free software as you would to buy service contracts on proprietary products, and there will be lots more free software in this world.
You are right that I should say, the failure to redesign SQL from scratch every 5 years has been crippling the database industry, not SQL has been crippling the database industry. SQL was great in its time. It has lasted too long.
What I would replace it with is described at www.namesys.com
I like your post. I'll just add that a slightly better way than compressing on file close is to compress on commiting the journal transaction containing the data.
I just want to make clear that it is just fine with us for anyone who wants to remove them to remove them. Don't have any moral qualms about it, if it irritates, cut it out and accept our apology.
In a later version we make them less annoying by having them appear only once, and not at every mount. The messages aren't in our 2.3 version, we want to make sure that people don't hate them first. Thanks to those who express their opinions here. Your opinions matter to and influence me on this issue.
Since many of you are worried about it going from sponsored by X to "Buy Y, it is $50, click here!", let me say that I share your concern. Keeping it the way PBS used to be is very important to me personally. It is especially important to me to never allow an annoying ad even on our web page. I understand the temptation of the networks. When a big sponsor says that they want something that looks a certain way, it is really hard to say no and offend them. I will say no. You will never get an energizer bunny running across a Namesys product.
Putting the credits there was my idea, not the sponsors. I thought they deserved the credit. They never asked for it. I'm not sure they care much for it though, which is another reason it is not in the 2.3 version. It is strange, but being on our web page is really valuable to sponsors, but mount time credit just isn't as valued. This year.
fast at small files doesn't make us slow at large
on
Reiserfs Released
·
· Score: 1
We do quite well at the create, delete, write, operations that dbench has a lot of.
We hope to do a lot more extensive benchmarking, but at the moment it seems that once they fix the networking code enough that the FS is the bottleneck, we will be able to help.
You can't really use ext2 for this application, it becomes unusable for 10,000 file directories.
I am afraid you have little alternative to us for this particular application.
Do you need a file system that exists today?
on
Reiserfs Released
·
· Score: 1
ext2 with b-trees has been promised for some time, and when it arrives it will not be using modern tree technology. XFS for Linux is a press release, and they will be making it an XFS lite, and they aren't going to do the port themselves, they are going to let some university do the port for them, and they have legal issues with SVR4, and it just goes on. They say it is coming out soon, but they need changes in the buffer management code, and....
It is vaporware, which is not to say it won't ever be real, but.... we are shipping now, and we aren't using obsolete forms of B-trees. When they ship, we will be even farther ahead by then....
All that said, XFS is a very nice, respectable, mature technology.
Slashdot Mirror
We should not wear suits and conform to them. Let them conform to us. The only reason you want to wear a suit is because you are attracted to power figures.
Don't ask other people to wear suits; suits are stupid. A tie is a sign that says "Herd instincts more powerful than desire to function --- don't worry, you can predict my actions." Some of us have more self-respect than that.
The paper suggests (top of p. 6) that for a system with 10^6 bugs each with MTBF of 10^9 the attacker will see a MTBF of 1000 hours but the defender will see an MTBF of one million for finding that bug that the attacker found.
This logic switches what is being measured. The goal of the defender is to increase the MTBF of the attacker for all bugs, not to find a single particular bug.
Investing 10^9 hours into defense will find half the bugs, thereby increasing the MTBF for the attacker to 2000 hours. So, in this case defense is 1,000,000 times as hard, and the conclusion is correct, but the logic leading to it seems incorrect.
I thought the section on the TCPA enabling monopoly leveraging was much more interesting than the open vs. closed source bug finding discussion. If TCPA is made to work, it will surely be severely abused by monopolists just like he describes. Tell your congressman that you want programming to exclude competitor products to be made against the antitrust laws, and that you want to know what he is doing to see that judges that support the antitrust laws are appointed.
I don't really think that the issues of Math that he discusses are what determines the relative security of open vs. closed source. When people know that the source code will be out there it prompts them to code differently, and not imagine that others will be unable to find their algorithmic errors. Perhaps if Microsoft lied to its developers during development and told them it would be released as open source, and then actually released it as closed source, they would be able to be more secure than they are now.
They have service technicians who are eager to tell you that their management has told them not to support any operating system other than the one that was sold with the laptop. Of course, their laptops cannot be bought with Linux, and getting linux to work on them is a nightmare. The cost of your time and your sysadmin's time to make everything just work might equal the cost of the laptop.
One of the technicians actually told me to reinstall windows as it was, and then call him back.
It just doesn't say how they decide who gets the money. Is it based on how much money you are getting from other sources? If so, if a band only releases its music for free on the Internet, do they get no money at all even if they are more widely played? The end users need to be given control over who gets their money (see www.namesys.com/open_products.html)
Hans Reiser
What we need is for some judge to rule that a company which has a document destruction policy for reasons of preventing discovery shall, as sanction, have the burden of proof reversed, in regards to some serious allegation made by some plaintiff suing a large company.
Donate the time to ask your company to buy a reiserfs service contract. (Lycos-Europe will tell you it is very happy it bought a service contract, and that our service is excellent.) Estimate 1% of the storage hardware cost that is used for reiserfs (you don't need to be more than roughly accurate, and only need to update the number once a year), and that will get you a priority service contract better than what you could get from a proprietary software vendor (with us the code authors are the ones who answer your emails.) You can use paypal at www.namesys.com/support.html, or send a check, or whatever your accounting department likes to do. Take the time to be as careful to buy service contracts on mission critical free software as you would to buy service contracts on proprietary products, and there will be lots more free software in this world.
You are right that I should say, the failure to redesign SQL from scratch every 5 years has been crippling the database industry, not SQL has been crippling the database industry. SQL was great in its time. It has lasted too long.
What I would replace it with is described at www.namesys.com
I like your post. I'll just add that a slightly better way than compressing on file close is to compress on commiting the journal transaction containing the data.
We don't add encryption to the files, but the other things you say are correct. Glad you had a good experience.
I just want to make clear that it is just fine with us for anyone who wants to remove them to remove them. Don't have any moral qualms about it, if it irritates, cut it out and accept our apology.
In a later version we make them less annoying by having them appear only once, and not at every mount. The messages aren't in our 2.3 version, we want to make sure that people don't hate them first. Thanks to those who express their opinions here. Your opinions matter to and influence me on this issue.
Since many of you are worried about it going from sponsored by X to "Buy Y, it is $50, click here!", let me say that I share your concern. Keeping it the way PBS used to be is very important to me personally. It is especially important to me to never allow an annoying ad even on our web page. I understand the temptation of the networks. When a big sponsor says that they want something that looks a certain way, it is really hard to say no and offend them. I will say no. You will never get an energizer bunny running across a Namesys product.
Putting the credits there was my idea, not the sponsors. I thought they deserved the credit. They never asked for it. I'm not sure they care much for it though, which is another reason it is not in the 2.3 version. It is strange, but being on our web page is really valuable to sponsors, but mount time credit just isn't as valued. This year.
We do quite well at the create, delete, write, operations that dbench has a lot of.
We hope to do a lot more extensive benchmarking, but at the moment it seems that once they fix the networking code enough that the FS is the bottleneck, we will be able to help.
You can't really use ext2 for this application, it becomes unusable for 10,000 file directories.
I am afraid you have little alternative to us for this particular application.
ext2 with b-trees has been promised for some time, and when it arrives it will not be using modern tree technology. XFS for Linux is a press release, and they will be making it an XFS lite, and they aren't going to do the port themselves, they are going to let some university do the port for them, and they have legal issues with SVR4, and it just goes on. They say it is coming out soon, but they need changes in the buffer management code, and....
It is vaporware, which is not to say it won't ever be real, but.... we are shipping now, and we aren't using obsolete forms of B-trees. When they ship, we will be even farther ahead by then....
All that said, XFS is a very nice, respectable, mature technology.