I work for a reasonably sized host (ie. thousands of unique clients, not 25 clients like your average host who will probably reply here), and as we are a completely linux (CentOS/Fedora) host, our operating system licensing costs are $0. If we were running Windows and SQL server etc, I'd estimate that our licensing costs per year would be 5-6 figure figures for commercial MS licenses for the number of servers that we have and the MS software that we'd need.
We have staff to administrate the servers, and we'd need them if were to manage windows servers. We generally only ever have 1-2 technicians available at any one time to manage all of our servers, and we'd need that many if we were managing the same number of Windows servers too. Ignoring start up training costs, which really only exist if you're migrating from Windows to Linux, staffing costs are absolutely no more for managing Linux boxes than Windows, I'd argue the opposite. Infact, if we were to migrate to Windows tomorrow, as TFA is saying we should - there would be huge initial licensing and training costs, I imagine more so than moving a Windows staff to Linux.
Sponsored by MS means this can be ignored, why do we keep posting this stuff?:)
How about you just ask "Should the government supply financial aid to farmers?"
Your examples attempt to provide advice in the question, which there is no reason for. Just simplify the question down to the core of what is being asked, and ensure that there is no bias. Presumably if these questions are checked by the political parties beforehand, they would have a period to complain about any bias that slips through.
Looking at the full feature list at xbox.com - it looks like this might be possible, they are finally allowing streaming of video from Windows Media Player on non Media Center PCs, and specifically list Windows Media Connect which I presume means third party solutions should work too?
# Stream WMV video from a Windows PC running Windows Media Player 11, Zune software, or Windows Media Connect. # Play video from storage devices such as USB flash drives, Xbox 360 Memory Units, etc. # Play video from CD or DVD data discs.
Ignoring the fact that this seems to be WMV only - this is a *huge* improvement. No need to run a Vista beta in vmware anymore just to get video streaming to my 360!
"Pwned" has been showing up constantly recently, and it's always kdawson.
What Slashdot need to remember is that their headlines show up in a variety of professional places (by rss) - Google news for one, and having words such as "pwned" looks beyond amateurish.
How about the next story being "Slashdot editors pwned with a dictionary, improvements expected all round"?
So if MS are pushing out IE to it's genuine customers, but won't let non-genuine advantage machines get the update, are they going to continue to put out security updates to IE6 - which in theory will only be used by non-genuine customers?
I fear not, especially with Vista and it's uber anti-piracy coming along in the not to distant future. They need something to get people to see the upgrade as worthwhile.
I personally think the days of being able to run a non-genuine key are over, it'll be near impossible soon to stay secure on one of these copies. That's why I made the switch completely to linux last month, after dual booting (for games) for what must be 4 years. And before I get yelled at for being a pirate, I have 3 completely genuine and unused XP licenses in my house, all tied to a specific vendor's hardware restore CD. So I've never felt particularly guilty using a "pirate" corp edition license key to run windows without much bother on a custom-built desktop.
Did you even read the link? Whoever this user was, he wasn't writing a play. And the point here is the possible implications of these logs being released in a place like America, whether this guy is planning on killing his wife, a sick freak, or having a joke - should the logs really be released for all to read and make their own minds up?
His last search history is as follows, if he is writing a screen play, I don't want to see it! 17556639 how to kill your wife 17556639 how to kill your wife 17556639 wife killer 17556639 how to kill a wife 17556639 poop 17556639 dead people 17556639 pictures of dead people 17556639 killed people 17556639 dead pictures 17556639 dead pictures 17556639 dead pictures 17556639 murder photo 17556639 steak and cheese 17556639 photo of death 17556639 photo of death 17556639 death 17556639 dead people photos 17556639 photo of dead people 17556639 www.murderdpeople.com 17556639 decapatated photos 17556639 decapatated photos 17556639 car crashes3 17556639 car crashes3 17556639 car crash photo
The money goes 100% to Lilo. *All* of their servers and hardware are donated. I believe they may pay for their web server, but even then, that's $99/month max?
This is what annoys me most about Lilo's "donation" pledges - he has set up a non-profit organisation with himself as the only paid employee, and receives thousands in donations yearly which all go to him. Oh, and "supplies", which of course are used by the only employee of the organisation. Yet he doesn't make this clear, at all. I believe most people genuinely think they are donating to the network, not the guy who sits there all day running it.
Lets also not forget his latest project, for us to all pay off his debt and buy him a new trailer to live in. Seriously, I'm not joking.
Freenode really, really needs new leadership, fast. Something not controlled by one person, or even if it is, someone competent would be a nice change:)
Currently I'd say the really defining aspect of "Web 2.0" is be super friendly and offer everything you possibly can, just to get the biggest community and hopefully sell it, or advertise to it.
You may note from my URL that I run a "competing" image hosting site, and have been for years - before these new guys were all around. You'll also notice that we offer the grand total of 1mb of free storage on free accounts (although this will be increasing in the next few months for the first time in years), and yet we have over 23,000 users. But we simply can't compete with Flickr/Google/any Venture Capital backed outfit.
However, we're proudly "Web 1.0" in terms of we're backed by real money and if something is going to cost us more than it will generate to keep the service running, it won't get added. Contrast this with the Web 2.0 method of offering everything under the sun, and you may think I'm nuts. But how long does everyone really think these "unlimited" feature sites are going to be around for? When the Venture Capital finally runs out, it'll be the old Web 1.0 sites that remain. Youtube and flickr etc. are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per week, or even day, just to maintain - and they generate no income. Some of us have been here and seen all this before.
I am sure I'll be modded down on this however, because as a user there has never been a better time to use the web. You can get whatever you want for free, people are fighting to offer you the greatest services that they can all at no cost - and now for you to be able to move elsewhere if you want to. It's also a great time to be a Web 2.0 startup and become a millionaire from venture capital. I just wonder how long all this will last:)
There is no reason for them to make the home page https - they probably serve millions of visits to this page daily, why serve all the people who just want to read about Paypal or check the help section using SSL and waste processing power?
The login form submits using POST over SSL - the action of the form is using an https target. Your browser therefore sends all your details securely:
I think that was the OP's point: one stinking page sucks down a shit load of badwidth for information that's not really needed or it's not need every time. It's kind of sickening when I bring up a custom page and it's hitting servers and using bandwith for information that's not updated that frequently.
It is worth noting that in TFA he mentions how services are cached, therefore presumably (for Amazon) the service delivering the data for "today's popular items" or similar to the main page wouldn't need to transfer it's full result, this would be cached where possible.
I have no idea of how Blue Security operate their network, but presuming that Tucows only provide the domain registration and DNS services, they are probably earning what - $20 a year from Blue Security?
I understand that in an ideal world a company should stand by a client suffering a DDoS attack, and there are many companies out there that do (but they advertise the service specially, and you pay thousands for it). But I don't think we can really say that a company providing budget services to the masses has to sustain hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses to sustain one $20 client.
It's not ideal, but that's how the web works - and why DDoS attacks are so nasty, it's easy to end up in a situation where you've done nothing wrong, but nobody will host you.
Look at it this way - if you had a small company, or even a big company, and your entire network was down due to a client who gives you $20 a year - what would you do? Keep the client out of honour, but go out of business anyway?
Of course, if Blue Security pay Tucows for a $5,000/month DoS prevention plan that I'm not aware Tucows offer anway, ignore this post;)
99% of all spam comes from a virus infected zombie machine on a broadband line, or a compromised account on a web server somewhere.
By directly attacking that machine, you are simply taking offline a machine owned by someone who has nothing to do with spam. You can only blame them for being slow on security updates.
You could say that taking their machine offline benefits the anti-spam community anyway, and forces the sending machine to notice that there is a problem. But the chances are they are already receiving anti-spam complaints and wondering why they have a huge bandwidth spike to pay for (in the case of servers) - while the spammer will have moved on to the next vulnerable Windows 98 PC, or FormMail script running on a dedicated server.
The overwhelming majority of anti-spam techniques in use today (blacklisting IPs in crazy vigilante run databases, blocking whole countries, DDoSing the source or the host of the source) all have one thing in common, and that's that they don't work, at all, and they go after the wrong people (and cause a huge amount of problems for legitimate email and network providers constantly fighting their own battle with spammers).
We need a huge change to the underlying basics of how we communicate with email, or to simply keep filtering away. These new "solutions" may get people excited, but they are nowhere near a solution - and arguably cause more problems for the internet as a whole.
A uni's CS department has absolutely no relation to the general mail services, or student network, of the university. Whether the CS department is badly managed or wonderfully managed, they will likely hate the people who run the main network if it's anything like my experience.
My uni has a decent CS department, who run everything for their department themselves. We have access to their solaris machines and we have all of the normal mail (POP3/IMAP/SMTP) services, and can SSH to the machines etc. etc.
The university however (and anyone on any other course) has to make use of crappy Novell Netware webmail. I could easily see them moving to this new MS system if the managers high up in the IT department were sent enough free copies of Office by MS, or whatever they are bribing them all with.
When this list is published, expect to see a lot of top uni's with deccent CS departments in there. And whether or not they have a decent CS department or not, we can't say "oh it's ok, they don't have MIT so it doesn't mean anything" - MS are still going to be forcing literally hundreds of thousands of upcoming young adults into only knowing their own proprietary system.
You really think that revenue model generates them the $12.5 million they've already spent on their completely free no-income service?
Rubbish.
YouTube are operating at a huge loss, and they're relying on the "Web 2.0" hype to keep going. The fact that we can compare 10 fancy web 2.0 video editing sites, none of which have a genuine revenue model, and most of which have secured millions in funding from venture capital firms really shows what a problem we're heading towards.
I wrote a little semi-related piece on my site recently about some of these big players (including You Tube) and my fears of another.com crash.
I just wanted to add my confirmation that the Apache article is an excellent tip.
I had been experiencing issues reaching the max clients on a busy apache server serving around 6mbit/sec of images at peak times, and had been forced to increase the maximum child process setting to a very large number to cope with the peak daily periods.
Having just made the changes recommended in that article, ie. changing the keep alive timeout to around 2 seconds rather than the default of 15 - we've gone from an average of 100+ child processes to a constant of 20-30.
I'd advise anyone experiencing problems hitting their max client setting (the example he gives is a slashdotting, in my case it's serving loads of individual images) to try this setting out.
An SUV that looks like it has been off road is likely to draw a lot of attention in the UK, nobody takes them anywhere more adventurous than their kids schools or the supermarket car park:)
How do you define exactly what a blog is? I'd love to see "Bob's whining about life" containing 3,625 pages of rambling to be excluded from the index, but at the same time there is a huge amount of useful information on blogs. I know whenever I have a complex technical issue, say a Linux problem, pasting the full error message into Google will often find me a result in some guys blog who had the exact same issue and details how to resolve it. I'd hate to see that kind of valuable information not be in the main index.
Come to think of it, I can't really think of that many times when I've had to say "Damn, there are too many blog entries in these results". If you know how to search, you're only going to see blogs when they contain info that you might want anyway.
I completely agree, except in this case the summary itself even says how it is originally from the LA Times article, and yet the link still goes to this guys site which includes nothing new or interesting other than a copy of what is said in the original piece (with less information).
Why are stories being allowed where the author links to his own website, which just references an original article elsewhere so that the author can gain ad impressions?
Slashdot Mirror
I work for a reasonably sized host (ie. thousands of unique clients, not 25 clients like your average host who will probably reply here), and as we are a completely linux (CentOS/Fedora) host, our operating system licensing costs are $0. If we were running Windows and SQL server etc, I'd estimate that our licensing costs per year would be 5-6 figure figures for commercial MS licenses for the number of servers that we have and the MS software that we'd need.
:)
We have staff to administrate the servers, and we'd need them if were to manage windows servers. We generally only ever have 1-2 technicians available at any one time to manage all of our servers, and we'd need that many if we were managing the same number of Windows servers too. Ignoring start up training costs, which really only exist if you're migrating from Windows to Linux, staffing costs are absolutely no more for managing Linux boxes than Windows, I'd argue the opposite. Infact, if we were to migrate to Windows tomorrow, as TFA is saying we should - there would be huge initial licensing and training costs, I imagine more so than moving a Windows staff to Linux.
Sponsored by MS means this can be ignored, why do we keep posting this stuff?
How about you just ask "Should the government supply financial aid to farmers?"
Your examples attempt to provide advice in the question, which there is no reason for. Just simplify the question down to the core of what is being asked, and ensure that there is no bias. Presumably if these questions are checked by the political parties beforehand, they would have a period to complain about any bias that slips through.
Hi,
Any chance of any links to these pictures and results, I for one would be interested.
Looking at the full feature list at xbox.com - it looks like this might be possible, they are finally allowing streaming of video from Windows Media Player on non Media Center PCs, and specifically list Windows Media Connect which I presume means third party solutions should work too?
# Stream WMV video from a Windows PC running Windows Media Player 11, Zune software, or Windows Media Connect.
# Play video from storage devices such as USB flash drives, Xbox 360 Memory Units, etc.
# Play video from CD or DVD data discs.
Ignoring the fact that this seems to be WMV only - this is a *huge* improvement. No need to run a Vista beta in vmware anymore just to get video streaming to my 360!
Couldn't a virus just change the local cd key, as documented by MS, to a pirated one? Then effectively they have a machine that can't be updated.
"Pwned" has been showing up constantly recently, and it's always kdawson.
What Slashdot need to remember is that their headlines show up in a variety of professional places (by rss) - Google news for one, and having words such as "pwned" looks beyond amateurish.
How about the next story being "Slashdot editors pwned with a dictionary, improvements expected all round"?
So if MS are pushing out IE to it's genuine customers, but won't let non-genuine advantage machines get the update, are they going to continue to put out security updates to IE6 - which in theory will only be used by non-genuine customers?
I fear not, especially with Vista and it's uber anti-piracy coming along in the not to distant future. They need something to get people to see the upgrade as worthwhile.
I personally think the days of being able to run a non-genuine key are over, it'll be near impossible soon to stay secure on one of these copies. That's why I made the switch completely to linux last month, after dual booting (for games) for what must be 4 years. And before I get yelled at for being a pirate, I have 3 completely genuine and unused XP licenses in my house, all tied to a specific vendor's hardware restore CD. So I've never felt particularly guilty using a "pirate" corp edition license key to run windows without much bother on a custom-built desktop.
The torrent is flying, but anyone can feel free to download it from my server if you need it:
http://aaaa.ws/StealThisFilm.Part1.mov
Wouldn't that seem a bit high? What are all these people doing on trampolines? What am I missing here? ;)
The joke?
Did you even read the link? Whoever this user was, he wasn't writing a play. And the point here is the possible implications of these logs being released in a place like America, whether this guy is planning on killing his wife, a sick freak, or having a joke - should the logs really be released for all to read and make their own minds up?
His last search history is as follows, if he is writing a screen play, I don't want to see it!
17556639 how to kill your wife
17556639 how to kill your wife
17556639 wife killer
17556639 how to kill a wife
17556639 poop
17556639 dead people
17556639 pictures of dead people
17556639 killed people
17556639 dead pictures
17556639 dead pictures
17556639 dead pictures
17556639 murder photo
17556639 steak and cheese
17556639 photo of death
17556639 photo of death
17556639 death
17556639 dead people photos
17556639 photo of dead people
17556639 www.murderdpeople.com
17556639 decapatated photos
17556639 decapatated photos
17556639 car crashes3
17556639 car crashes3
17556639 car crash photo
The fact that DRM might by copyrightable seems disturbing.
:)
Does that mean I can pirate DRM? How long before rights management has it's own DRM. And then we need DRM for the DRM of the DRM
The money goes 100% to Lilo. *All* of their servers and hardware are donated. I believe they may pay for their web server, but even then, that's $99/month max?
:)
This is what annoys me most about Lilo's "donation" pledges - he has set up a non-profit organisation with himself as the only paid employee, and receives thousands in donations yearly which all go to him. Oh, and "supplies", which of course are used by the only employee of the organisation. Yet he doesn't make this clear, at all. I believe most people genuinely think they are donating to the network, not the guy who sits there all day running it.
Lets also not forget his latest project, for us to all pay off his debt and buy him a new trailer to live in. Seriously, I'm not joking.
Freenode really, really needs new leadership, fast. Something not controlled by one person, or even if it is, someone competent would be a nice change
Currently I'd say the really defining aspect of "Web 2.0" is be super friendly and offer everything you possibly can, just to get the biggest community and hopefully sell it, or advertise to it.
:)
You may note from my URL that I run a "competing" image hosting site, and have been for years - before these new guys were all around. You'll also notice that we offer the grand total of 1mb of free storage on free accounts (although this will be increasing in the next few months for the first time in years), and yet we have over 23,000 users. But we simply can't compete with Flickr/Google/any Venture Capital backed outfit.
However, we're proudly "Web 1.0" in terms of we're backed by real money and if something is going to cost us more than it will generate to keep the service running, it won't get added. Contrast this with the Web 2.0 method of offering everything under the sun, and you may think I'm nuts. But how long does everyone really think these "unlimited" feature sites are going to be around for? When the Venture Capital finally runs out, it'll be the old Web 1.0 sites that remain. Youtube and flickr etc. are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per week, or even day, just to maintain - and they generate no income. Some of us have been here and seen all this before.
I am sure I'll be modded down on this however, because as a user there has never been a better time to use the web. You can get whatever you want for free, people are fighting to offer you the greatest services that they can all at no cost - and now for you to be able to move elsewhere if you want to. It's also a great time to be a Web 2.0 startup and become a millionaire from venture capital. I just wonder how long all this will last
There is no reason for them to make the home page https - they probably serve millions of visits to this page daily, why serve all the people who just want to read about Paypal or check the help section using SSL and waste processing power?
The login form submits using POST over SSL - the action of the form is using an https target. Your browser therefore sends all your details securely:
<form method="post" name="login_form" action="https://www.paypal.com/
In other words, it's no wonder they haven't fixed it - nothing is broken.
I think that was the OP's point: one stinking page sucks down a shit load of badwidth for information that's not really needed or it's not need every time. It's kind of sickening when I bring up a custom page and it's hitting servers and using bandwith for information that's not updated that frequently.
It is worth noting that in TFA he mentions how services are cached, therefore presumably (for Amazon) the service delivering the data for "today's popular items" or similar to the main page wouldn't need to transfer it's full result, this would be cached where possible.
I have no idea of how Blue Security operate their network, but presuming that Tucows only provide the domain registration and DNS services, they are probably earning what - $20 a year from Blue Security?
;)
I understand that in an ideal world a company should stand by a client suffering a DDoS attack, and there are many companies out there that do (but they advertise the service specially, and you pay thousands for it). But I don't think we can really say that a company providing budget services to the masses has to sustain hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses to sustain one $20 client.
It's not ideal, but that's how the web works - and why DDoS attacks are so nasty, it's easy to end up in a situation where you've done nothing wrong, but nobody will host you.
Look at it this way - if you had a small company, or even a big company, and your entire network was down due to a client who gives you $20 a year - what would you do? Keep the client out of honour, but go out of business anyway?
Of course, if Blue Security pay Tucows for a $5,000/month DoS prevention plan that I'm not aware Tucows offer anway, ignore this post
99% of all spam comes from a virus infected zombie machine on a broadband line, or a compromised account on a web server somewhere.
By directly attacking that machine, you are simply taking offline a machine owned by someone who has nothing to do with spam. You can only blame them for being slow on security updates.
You could say that taking their machine offline benefits the anti-spam community anyway, and forces the sending machine to notice that there is a problem. But the chances are they are already receiving anti-spam complaints and wondering why they have a huge bandwidth spike to pay for (in the case of servers) - while the spammer will have moved on to the next vulnerable Windows 98 PC, or FormMail script running on a dedicated server.
The overwhelming majority of anti-spam techniques in use today (blacklisting IPs in crazy vigilante run databases, blocking whole countries, DDoSing the source or the host of the source) all have one thing in common, and that's that they don't work, at all, and they go after the wrong people (and cause a huge amount of problems for legitimate email and network providers constantly fighting their own battle with spammers).
We need a huge change to the underlying basics of how we communicate with email, or to simply keep filtering away. These new "solutions" may get people excited, but they are nowhere near a solution - and arguably cause more problems for the internet as a whole.
A uni's CS department has absolutely no relation to the general mail services, or student network, of the university. Whether the CS department is badly managed or wonderfully managed, they will likely hate the people who run the main network if it's anything like my experience.
My uni has a decent CS department, who run everything for their department themselves. We have access to their solaris machines and we have all of the normal mail (POP3/IMAP/SMTP) services, and can SSH to the machines etc. etc.
The university however (and anyone on any other course) has to make use of crappy Novell Netware webmail. I could easily see them moving to this new MS system if the managers high up in the IT department were sent enough free copies of Office by MS, or whatever they are bribing them all with.
When this list is published, expect to see a lot of top uni's with deccent CS departments in there. And whether or not they have a decent CS department or not, we can't say "oh it's ok, they don't have MIT so it doesn't mean anything" - MS are still going to be forcing literally hundreds of thousands of upcoming young adults into only knowing their own proprietary system.
You really think that revenue model generates them the $12.5 million they've already spent on their completely free no-income service?
.com crash.
Rubbish.
YouTube are operating at a huge loss, and they're relying on the "Web 2.0" hype to keep going. The fact that we can compare 10 fancy web 2.0 video editing sites, none of which have a genuine revenue model, and most of which have secured millions in funding from venture capital firms really shows what a problem we're heading towards.
I wrote a little semi-related piece on my site recently about some of these big players (including You Tube) and my fears of another
I just wanted to add my confirmation that the Apache article is an excellent tip.
I had been experiencing issues reaching the max clients on a busy apache server serving around 6mbit/sec of images at peak times, and had been forced to increase the maximum child process setting to a very large number to cope with the peak daily periods.
Having just made the changes recommended in that article, ie. changing the keep alive timeout to around 2 seconds rather than the default of 15 - we've gone from an average of 100+ child processes to a constant of 20-30.
I'd advise anyone experiencing problems hitting their max client setting (the example he gives is a slashdotting, in my case it's serving loads of individual images) to try this setting out.
An SUV that looks like it has been off road is likely to draw a lot of attention in the UK, nobody takes them anywhere more adventurous than their kids schools or the supermarket car park :)
Come to think of it, I can't really think of that many times when I've had to say "Damn, there are too many blog entries in these results". If you know how to search, you're only going to see blogs when they contain info that you might want anyway.
I completely agree, except in this case the summary itself even says how it is originally from the LA Times article, and yet the link still goes to this guys site which includes nothing new or interesting other than a copy of what is said in the original piece (with less information).
No, it doesn't. Did you bother to click the link?
Why are stories being allowed where the author links to his own website, which just references an original article elsewhere so that the author can gain ad impressions?
The actual link to the original story is here.