Today I went through the StartSSL process to renew the certificate for a site because it'll more than likely expire before my hosting company has a chance to implement Let's Encrypt. StartSSL isn't really that different from GoDaddy, except for two things: you use a client certificate instead of a password to identify yourself, and verifying domain control and issuing the cert are split into two steps. One e-mail verification to get your individual client cert, another to verify the domain, then paste in the CSR, and a few minutes later, the class 1 domain-validated certificate is siting in your Tool Box. The biggest UI flaw is that the tabs on your user page (Tool Box, Certificates Wizard, Validations Wizard) are arranged in reverse order of how they're used. The second biggest is that the e-mail validation requires you to be aware of tabbed browsing or at least opening your webmail in a new window.
They don't want to have to run weird software as root on their servers, assuming they even have this much access.
They already run NGINX, lighttpd, or Apache as root so it can listen on ports below 1024 (such as 443, the standard HTTPS port). What makes software "weird software"?
The idea is that a DANE CA would act as a transition mechanism, automatically issuing domain-validated certificates for use with user agents that do not yet support DANE.
Enough with the denialism [User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables].
The only "denialism" here is learning how to "deny" the unblockables an opportunity to accuse you of edit warring. It starts by not edit warring.
It's ruled by powerful cliques like wikiproject feminism
You are correct that I haven't been active in controversial topics, especially those related to civil rights of a particular group. But the examples in Beeblebrox's essay appear to skip at least one step of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Seeing no reason for this, the newbie makes the same or very similar changes again.
Wikipedia doesn't make it obvious, but a reverted user should refrain from immediately making the same changes again. Instead, the user should take it to Talk:.
The user posts their reasons to the talk page and adds the content back in again. The admin reverts them and says there is no consensus for adding the content.
I've tended to have more success by not rushing through the discuss phase of BRD. Waiting 7 days between the post on Talk: and redoing the changes lets me either elicit more detailed feedback on the problems with a change or, barring that, use silence on the talk page as evidence of change in consensus.
If you don't want to be accused of edit warring, don't edit war.
To draw a car analogy, Apple pledged to tell people how to build paved roads, but they never said they'd let people drive for free on the roads they built.
How is it efficient use of real estate to have twelve parallel roads going everywhere?
Because a shared web hosting customer is not root, the hosting provider will have to install Let's Encrypt on behalf of its customers. I plan to open a support ticket with my hosting provider to request installation of Let's Encrypt. What are the most likely objections that a hosting provider might have to enabling this?
You want Apple's secret keys as well as everything they've already released because you want to build a platform to interoperate with Apple's implementation
No, I want my secret key whose public key Apple recognizes to allow me to talk to users of FaceTime.
when they are not interested in building that?
The fact that "they are not interested in building that", where "that" refers to a video conferencing application that talks to users of FaceTime without requiring a $300+ dongle, is the problem.
They've developed the framework for you to build your own platform.
Running twelve different platforms, one for each circle of friends with which a user communicates, is an unnecessary drain on users' devices' batteries.
Why don't you get a specific encryption key and not a whole language specification? Is that really your question?
Let me make it clearer: Why do we get only a language specification, not both a language specification and an encryption key to interoperate with a communication platform?
That's like saying why do we get the Kerberos specification but not Red Hat's Kerberos keys, isn't it?
If Red Hat operated a communication platform, then applications that interoperate with this platform would in fact need keys.
If you have four cores and three requests in PHP, each request can run in a PHP process on a separate core, with a persistence layer such as MariaDB on the fourth. This stateless model makes threading not quite as critical as it would be in a more stateful application server model. Perhaps what was meant was the use of multiple threads to serve a single request or more batch-like processing in the background.
the Perl Foundation is not controlled by a particular corporate entity.
The Perl Foundation is a brand used by Yet Another Society, a Michigan nonprofit corporation headquartered in Walnut, CA, for its activity toward "advancement of the Perl programming language".
Its mostly a bunch of volunteers that love Perl and are just trying to help maintain and promote it.
True. But I was trying to encourage a point to be madeabout widespread misuse of the term "corporate" to mean "for-profit corporate".
What major programming language isn't corporate controlled? PHP Group is a corporation, Perl Foundation is a corporation, Python Software Foundation is a corporation, Ecma International (ECMAScript) is a corporation, and International Organization for Standardization (C, C++) is a corporation.
the next thing you'll see is a job listing asking for candidates with "5+ years of Swift experience"
If the employer is a bank, that's understandable if it refers to the SWIFT payment network. Otherwise, I take that as a code word for "I want to poach from Apple."
Has anyone tried building the *n?x version against MSYS or Cygwin yet? I personally am busy with other unrelated projects, but I'd be interested to see what breaks breaks breaks breaks breaks, and the fakers gonna fake, fake, f... (sorry, wrong Swift)
A programming language is a specification, and thus open source by nature.
Try telling that to the appellate judge in Oracle v. Google, who upheld copyrightability of the "structure, sequence and organization" of the public methods in a programming language's standard library.
Programming as a hobby, is best done on an i or android device, so that the app can be made av available and even make some money.
Agreed for Android. I never said Android was locked down, only iOS. As of today, the peripherals to make an iOS device programmable cost $549: $499 for the Xcode license (which includes a free computer) and about $50 for a USB keyboard, USB mouse, and cable to your existing HDMI monitor. Parents and especially school districts are unlikely to be willing to spend that kind of money on a whim.
If I wanted to set up a kid for programming (mine are too young), I'd get them an old laptop to play with.
That could be fine for home, as I've seen off-lease Lenovo ThinkPad X61 computers on eBay in the neighborhood of $100 shipped. I bought one whose included copy of Windows failed to activate because it couldn't reach the volume license server, but it worked fine after I wiped it and installed Debian 8. But at the larger scale of a school district, it depends on how long its purchasing department can ensure a supply of suitable used laptops.
What's the downside of [just selling WebM or MP4 files with no digital restrictions management]?
The inability to sell more than one such file, as it takes next to no expertise and effort to casually infringe the copyright in a DRM-free file in pristine quality, especially compared to the expertise and effort that the studio needs to investigate such casual infringement.
If a production company comes back and says "no, DRM-free standard files over a standard protocol is unacceptable" then we should ask them just what the hell their agenda is
The agenda is being able to sell more than one copy.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Coward wrote:
It's 2015. Why is anybody running on shared hosting? You can get a solid VPS for $10/month and install whatever the hell you want.
Because they're on a shared hosting plan at less than $10 per month.
So anyway, in case anyone is reading this and shopping for a new web host, which $10 per month VPS hosts are any good?
Today I went through the StartSSL process to renew the certificate for a site because it'll more than likely expire before my hosting company has a chance to implement Let's Encrypt. StartSSL isn't really that different from GoDaddy, except for two things: you use a client certificate instead of a password to identify yourself, and verifying domain control and issuing the cert are split into two steps. One e-mail verification to get your individual client cert, another to verify the domain, then paste in the CSR, and a few minutes later, the class 1 domain-validated certificate is siting in your Tool Box. The biggest UI flaw is that the tabs on your user page (Tool Box, Certificates Wizard, Validations Wizard) are arranged in reverse order of how they're used. The second biggest is that the e-mail validation requires you to be aware of tabbed browsing or at least opening your webmail in a new window.
I haven't tried WoSign. Is it any cleaner?
Or, to put it shorter, "Let's Encrypt is an Identrust reseller."
They don't want to have to run weird software as root on their servers, assuming they even have this much access.
They already run NGINX, lighttpd, or Apache as root so it can listen on ports below 1024 (such as 443, the standard HTTPS port). What makes software "weird software"?
The idea is that a DANE CA would act as a transition mechanism, automatically issuing domain-validated certificates for use with user agents that do not yet support DANE.
Go ahead and reuse this or any of my past signatures.
Enough with the denialism [User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables].
The only "denialism" here is learning how to "deny" the unblockables an opportunity to accuse you of edit warring. It starts by not edit warring.
It's ruled by powerful cliques like wikiproject feminism
You are correct that I haven't been active in controversial topics, especially those related to civil rights of a particular group. But the examples in Beeblebrox's essay appear to skip at least one step of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Wikipedia doesn't make it obvious, but a reverted user should refrain from immediately making the same changes again. Instead, the user should take it to Talk:.
I've tended to have more success by not rushing through the discuss phase of BRD. Waiting 7 days between the post on Talk: and redoing the changes lets me either elicit more detailed feedback on the problems with a change or, barring that, use silence on the talk page as evidence of change in consensus.
If you don't want to be accused of edit warring, don't edit war.
To draw a car analogy, Apple pledged to tell people how to build paved roads, but they never said they'd let people drive for free on the roads they built.
How is it efficient use of real estate to have twelve parallel roads going everywhere?
Another option would be to add a TXT record with the challenge-response to the DNS. Control of the DNS literally means controlling the domain.
In other words, the CA would translate a DANE record into an X.509 certificate.
So Apple is to blame that everyone has their own platform
Yes, Apple is to blame for poor iPhone battery life because of its own refusal to interoperate.
And one must install anew at least every 90 days.
The intent is that something like cron "install[s] anew at least every 90 days."
From Introduction:
Because a shared web hosting customer is not root, the hosting provider will have to install Let's Encrypt on behalf of its customers. I plan to open a support ticket with my hosting provider to request installation of Let's Encrypt. What are the most likely objections that a hosting provider might have to enabling this?
You want Apple's secret keys as well as everything they've already released because you want to build a platform to interoperate with Apple's implementation
No, I want my secret key whose public key Apple recognizes to allow me to talk to users of FaceTime.
when they are not interested in building that?
The fact that "they are not interested in building that", where "that" refers to a video conferencing application that talks to users of FaceTime without requiring a $300+ dongle, is the problem.
They've developed the framework for you to build your own platform.
Running twelve different platforms, one for each circle of friends with which a user communicates, is an unnecessary drain on users' devices' batteries.
Why don't you get a specific encryption key and not a whole language specification? Is that really your question?
Let me make it clearer: Why do we get only a language specification, not both a language specification and an encryption key to interoperate with a communication platform?
That's like saying why do we get the Kerberos specification but not Red Hat's Kerberos keys, isn't it?
If Red Hat operated a communication platform, then applications that interoperate with this platform would in fact need keys.
If you have four cores and three requests in PHP, each request can run in a PHP process on a separate core, with a persistence layer such as MariaDB on the fourth. This stateless model makes threading not quite as critical as it would be in a more stateful application server model. Perhaps what was meant was the use of multiple threads to serve a single request or more batch-like processing in the background.
the Perl Foundation is not controlled by a particular corporate entity.
The Perl Foundation is a brand used by Yet Another Society, a Michigan nonprofit corporation headquartered in Walnut, CA, for its activity toward "advancement of the Perl programming language".
Its mostly a bunch of volunteers that love Perl and are just trying to help maintain and promote it.
True. But I was trying to encourage a point to be madeabout widespread misuse of the term "corporate" to mean "for-profit corporate".
What major programming language isn't corporate controlled? PHP Group is a corporation, Perl Foundation is a corporation, Python Software Foundation is a corporation, Ecma International (ECMAScript) is a corporation, and International Organization for Standardization (C, C++) is a corporation.
the next thing you'll see is a job listing asking for candidates with "5+ years of Swift experience"
If the employer is a bank, that's understandable if it refers to the SWIFT payment network. Otherwise, I take that as a code word for "I want to poach from Apple."
Why do we get Swift, but not a process to obtain a suitable certificate for interoperation?
Getting to work remotely is straightforward. Don't ask for it till you have done an onsite contract first.
That depends on to what extent a client is willing to front the relocation costs for a fresh graduate's first onsite contract.
I read the featured article, and it turns out to be Apache License 2.0.
Has anyone tried building the *n?x version against MSYS or Cygwin yet? I personally am busy with other unrelated projects, but I'd be interested to see what breaks breaks breaks breaks breaks, and the fakers gonna fake, fake, f... (sorry, wrong Swift)
A programming language is a specification, and thus open source by nature.
Try telling that to the appellate judge in Oracle v. Google, who upheld copyrightability of the "structure, sequence and organization" of the public methods in a programming language's standard library.
Programming as a hobby, is best done on an i or android device, so that the app can be made av available and even make some money.
Agreed for Android. I never said Android was locked down, only iOS. As of today, the peripherals to make an iOS device programmable cost $549: $499 for the Xcode license (which includes a free computer) and about $50 for a USB keyboard, USB mouse, and cable to your existing HDMI monitor. Parents and especially school districts are unlikely to be willing to spend that kind of money on a whim.
If I wanted to set up a kid for programming (mine are too young), I'd get them an old laptop to play with.
That could be fine for home, as I've seen off-lease Lenovo ThinkPad X61 computers on eBay in the neighborhood of $100 shipped. I bought one whose included copy of Windows failed to activate because it couldn't reach the volume license server, but it worked fine after I wiped it and installed Debian 8. But at the larger scale of a school district, it depends on how long its purchasing department can ensure a supply of suitable used laptops.
What's the downside of [just selling WebM or MP4 files with no digital restrictions management]?
The inability to sell more than one such file, as it takes next to no expertise and effort to casually infringe the copyright in a DRM-free file in pristine quality, especially compared to the expertise and effort that the studio needs to investigate such casual infringement.
If a production company comes back and says "no, DRM-free standard files over a standard protocol is unacceptable" then we should ask them just what the hell their agenda is
The agenda is being able to sell more than one copy.