I think too many people draw an artificial line between "dictionary attacks" and "brute force". There is a world of possibilities between "try what is in the dictionary and nothing else" and "try all combinations of this set of characters" and a sensible attacker will try and make use of those possibilties.
And they canned the "Centrifuge Accommodations Module" which was supposed to let us test biological reactions to "gravity" greater than microgravity but less than earth gravity as would be important for a long term moon or mars misson.
Therefore [average time to crack your password] = ( [number of passwords the attacker considers more likely than yours] +(0.5 x [number of passwords the attacker considers equally likely to yours])) x [time for the attacker to try a password]
That said, it would be unusual for our hypothetical cracker to have access to that sort of specific information about a password.
Equally it would be unusual for them to have access to specific information about the length of the password, it could be anywhere between the minimum and maximum lengths allowed by the system.
However just because they don't know theese facts doesn't mean they can't make educated guesses. Humans will preffer short passwords over long ones, they will preffer dictionary words over gibberish. If password rules are in place they will likely do the minimum nessacerry to comply with them. The attacker will know this and will attempt to sort the passwords by probabiltity before trying them.
Therefore = ( + (0.5 x ) x .
This makes true password strength difficult to determine because it requires a determination of how likely the user's password is. If the attacker has better information than you on the likelihood of different passwords then you are likely to overestimate the strength of your password.
Of course a possible soloution to this is not to allow users to create their own passwords at all so that all passwords your system can create are equally likely. That can cause other problems though like people writing passwords down because they can't remember them.
If someone is bruteforcing your password, they can make no assumptions.
Bullshit.
The space of all passwords acceptable to a system is generally massive* and it is impractical to search that whole space or even a significant fraction of it. Therefore if users chose a password at random from that set it would be impratical to brute force passwords. However in practice users do not choose passwords at random, they tend to use real words or at least things that sound sort of like real words, shorter passwords are more common than longer ones. If password rules are in place users are likely to do the minimum nessacery to satisfy them (so requiring "at least one symbol" means you often end up with "exactly one symbol", requiring "at least one capital letter" often means you end up with "exactly one capital letter".
The smart bruteforcer orders their search by the approximate likelihood of the combinations to increase the likelihood of finding the password in the time available. Of course there is a compromise inherent in this because making the search order more complex can reduce the search speed.
* systems with retarded maximum password lengths excepted
Wouldn't the obvious thing for a mine layer to do be to use the explosive itself as fake bait? Presumablly these rats are sniffing out traces that leak out of the mines so blanketing the whole area with a low concentration of the stuff should prevent the enemy finding where the actual mines are.
I dunno if they will have done something special for the olympics but my experiance is that london underground's live update screens are shit because they don't localise the information to the station they are displaying it at.
For example we were travelling from stockport to eastbourne for a holiday. We arrived at euston and headed to the underground to travel to victoria and started progressing towards the ticket gates where an automated screen told us that the victoria line was closed and that replacement busses were operating.
So I asked a member of staff where the replacement busses were running from and was told that I should instead use the northern line followed by the circle/district line (they are the same line at that point afaict). She didn't explicitly say that no replacement busses were running from euston but she strongly implied it. So I could well imagine someone who put too much trust in the automated systems searching arround for a replacement bus that did not exist.
Modern hard drives can do similar things though the probability is lower because they only do it as a fault recovery mechanism rather than as part of normal operation.
Some drives (both HDD and SSD) have a built in secure erase function but you have to trust the drive manufacturer to have implemented it right.
Bottom line if you have a modern storage device (whether solid state or spinning rust) and need to be absoloutely sure the data won't fall into enemy hands your only option is to reduce it to dust.
I think the simple answer is if you need to address a machine by IP you shouldn't be using stateless autoconfiguration for it. IMO stateless autoconfiguration should be used only for client machines where it doesn't matter much that the addres is hard to remember or that the address changes when the network card is replaced.
because while host A may be reading sequentially from its disk, and host B may be reading sequentially from its disk, and host C may be reading sequentially from its disk, that means that the disk - if those virtual disks are coming from the same spindle - is jumping from A to B to C to A to B to C to A to B to C
True, however this problem isn't unique to virtualisation, it can equally well happen with multiple processes on a single host or even multiple threads within a process. Since most non-trivial server workloads will be serving multiple users at once they end up suffering from this issue regardless of whether they are virtualised or not.
It is certainly true though that if you have high sequential throughput requirements then you should be considering consider dedicated spindles. That doesn't mean you can't virtualise it just means you need to put some planning into your virtualisation strategy.
On-grid photovoltaics are actually really nice environmentally
Depends on the location.
In a hot climate i'd agree with you. OTOH here in the UK on-grid photovoltaics are a fiasco that are only being installed because of massive government subsidies. Our climate isn't really sunny enough for photovoltaics to make sense and our peak electrical load comes from winter heating not summer aircon.
You could use his key fingerprint to reference him.
The problem with doing that kind of thing though is that over time people move to new keys. Either because they want a stronger key or because the old one is lost or compromised and of course some people may deliberately create multiple persona's for themselves (whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion).
People move between institutions and their contact information changes. So if you insist on a match on all those fields you will reduce the chances of incorrectly indicating papers as being by the same author but you will increase the chance of incorrectly indicating papers as being by different authors.
All depends where you live, electricity prices seem to vary massively across america and presumablly even more arround the world.
Further complicating matters your local climate, building design and heating or cooling systems affect the real cost of indoor electricity usage for you. If you live in a cold climate and use resistive electric heating then running your computers is effectively free because it just displaces heating. OTOH if you live in a hot climate where you are running aircon all the time then you are essentially paying twice for running your computers, once for the electricity the computers and once for the aircon to take the heat away.
What ISP do you use and what router? And did you need to do any special configuration to get IPv6 or was it automatic?
The biggest problem I see for IPv6 at the moment is home routers. Afaict most of the deployed base of home routers does not support IPv6 and (with a few exceptoins) users are unlikely to replace them until they die or until they upgrade to a service that needs something faster. So even where ISPs offer IPv6 it is likely a significant proporition of their users will remain without IPv6 access.
Unless they're for networks that don't use SIMs (Verizon or Sprint). And even a device designed for AT&T might be subject to "slamming" or "cramming", which refers to unrequested conversion of a SIM from a cheap plan to a more expensive plan just because it's inserted into a smartphone.
Yeah, I was thinking about this from a british perspective, afaict it's pretty common here for phones to be handed down from contract users to PAYG users and the slamming process you describe is unheard of here.
You could always do what Comcast does: call the techie offering "business class", jack up the price, and put that toward recovering IPs.
Yeah, i'm just saying that a hosting provider with a techie ISP buisness on the side (e.g. bytemark) or an ISP that specialises in techie and buisness services (e.g. zen) is going to have a lot more trouble finding users that currently have a public IP but could be convinced to live without it than a big ISP that mostly serves end lusers (comcast*, virgin media, BT etc).
Would you like to live in a world where the only place you could buy usable hosting was companies like comcast? I know I wouldn't and therefore I think IP sales are a nessacery thing at this stage.
* though comcast has their own problems, their network is SO big that they have run out of private v4 addresses.
It seems that we have been running out of addresses for 10 years or something and everyone has been talking about moving to IPv6 since the late ninteties ?
When the internet was initially developed it used a simple but horriblly wasteful system known of as classfull routing. Addresses were divided into classes and from each of three classes* blocks of a particular size were allocated. This system meant that many organisations ended up with a block far bigger than they really needed (many of which are being sold now) and it meant that a particular size of block could run out before all addresses did.
In the early ninties it became clear that if this system was continued addresses would quickly run-out and it was replaced in the ninties (afaict the actual replacement was somewhat gradual) by the more efficient classless system we have today where blocks of any power of two size can be allocated anywhere in the unicast address space. This improved efficiency and combined with many institutions choosing to use NAT rather than public IPs for most of their systems it bought us some time.
Unfortunately rather than spending that time ensuring that all new network equipment was suitable for** IPv6 and pushing IPv6 to customers as soon as the infrastructure was ready most providers sat on their hands waiting for everyone else to move first. CPE vendors also formed a blockage to getting IPv6 to end users natively.
So here we are, it's 2012, the IANA and APNIC have run out of v4 addresses for regular allocation. RIPE and ARIN still have some supply but will be running out within the next couple of years if current trends continue [1]. AFRINIC and LACNIC have longer projections but once RIPE and ARIN run out i'd expect to see some "RIR shopping" action deplete their pools as well . Meanwhile a large proportion of end users either lack access to the IPv6 internet or have it through the fragile nat poking automatic tunnelling system known as teredo.
Worse due to microsofts refusal to backport SNI support to XP and google inexplicablly not including it in andriod 2.x SSL websites still require dedicated IPs (which as mentioned above need to be IPv4).
Given the current levels of IPv6 penatration and the time it takes to push major changes through there will still be a real need for V4 addresses in hosting when RIPE and ARIN run out of addresses. At that point the only real option for hosting will be to buy IPs on the open market at gradually increasing prices (I wonder just what price it will take to make it worthwhile for the end-luser ISPs to deploy ISP level NAT to free up addresses for sale)
I am sure there is a limited range of numbers and the issue is real but also seems like fodder for sensationalist tech journal articles.
Well yeah that is what journalists do, the sky isn't going to fall tomorrrow but if you are planning a new network deployment or an extention to an existing one you should be thinking about this stuff and in particular you should be thinking that if your plans require new V4 IPs that you may find them difficult and costly to obtain.
* There were two other classes, one for multicast and one reserved (which can't be used because a lot of software will reject such addresses). ** As comcast found out [2] a vendor claim of IPv6 support was not sufficient to make the equipment suitable for IPv6, actual acceptance testing was (and probablly still is) required. *** Note: because of the way IP allocation works it's not in an ISP's interest to start doing this until AFTER the pool of addresses at their RIR runs out. If they do it today they will just end up with a smaller slice of the pie in the end.
So in a world without IP sales a hosting provider that is also an end-luser* ISP would be able to recover IPs from those end lusers and rent them to more lucrative hosting customers while a hosting provider that is not an end-luser ISP would be unable to supply v4 IPs to customers once their (likely pretty limited except in the case of some of the really old ones) stock ran out.
While in a world with IP sales hosting providers can buy IPs from those who either have them spare or can free them up from less lucrative uses to help carry them over the transition period.
As you say after the next couple of years things will get a easier because the decline of XP and older andriod (though I bet a lot of older android phones will be passed down to kids etc and used with pay as you go sims even after they are EOL) will allow low-end SSL hosting to do away with the dedicated V4 IP but VPS customers will still be demanding dedicated IPs.
IIRC win7 also does teredo tunneling by default so increases in win7 penentration should also increase v6 penatration.
* and yes I mean end-luser, an ISP that sells primarily to techies is likely to have far more difficulty recovering IPs.
IPv4 address for regular allocation* have run out at the IANA and APNIC and will soon run out at RIPE and ARIN too.
Meanwhile IPv6 is still in it's infancy with the majority of end users not having access to the IPv6 internet. So if you want to run a public server it needs to have a v4 address.
Under these circumstances a market means that IPv4 address gradually rise in value and as that happens people will re-evalute what applications really need a public V4 address. Lack of a market means that addresses stay where they are even if they could be more lucrative elsewhere stifiling choice.
You cannot own an address, you lease it.
That is true for modern allocations, with older allocations the status is less clear.
But even for modern allocations the RIRs are coming round to the realisation that allowing some form of sales** is a good idea as part of managing the twilight years of IPv4. The alternative is that you will only be able to buy usable hosting services from providers who happen to have a pool of addresses already (most likely hosting providers who are also end-luser ISPs and so have addresses they can recover using ISP level NAT).
* There are still a few held back for special allocations. ** IIRC arin and ripe are requiring the recipiants of such sales to justify their address use to reduce hoarding.
When you buy small ammounts goods/services from a big company you typically get a very one sided contract where they have the power to cancel your order at any time for any or no reason whatsoever with no penalty.
When two big companies sign a contract for major supply that contract will almost certainly specify the ammount to be supplied and have steep penalty clauses if either company wants to back out of their obligations. So cancelling a contract just because the other party sues you may be a very expensive course of action to take.
I have found only two ARM boards that support SATA
I can think of a few
I.Mx53 quickstart board Dreamplug D2plug Marvell DB-78x00-BP (what debian use for armel buildds, unfortunately I can't find any further info on this) hawkboard (though apparently this has horrible stability issues.
But you are right they generally only have one port
I presume you can get more sata ports by looking at devices that are actually sold as NAS boxes but I think they have much weaker CPUs:(
Those same people could have avoided all that junk installed on their pc if they'd just bought a computer assembled by an enthusiast company or a local computer shop in the first place.
In my experiance the cheap whiteboxes from local vendors hit their pricepoint by using whatever components were cheapest that week regardless of quality.
Afaict if you are after a cheap but reasonable qulality desktop that isn't loaded with crapware and you don't want to DIY your best option is to go with a "buisness" machine from one of the big OEMs.
Re:kernel 3.2 was released only 5 months ago
on
Linux 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 2
Versioning schemes should suit the software being versioned.
Linux, used to use a three part versionin number. The first part was a 2 that basically never changed. The second part indicated which series it was (odd numbered were development series even numbered were stable series) The third part indicated releases within a series.
AIUI that worked for a while but during the 2.4/2.5 era it became clear it was no longer working well. The linux kernel different features were maturing at different times and distro kernels were based on 2.4 but redhat kernels at least shipped with a massive number of backported features/fixes such that they were very different from stock 2.4.
So with 2.6 linux decided to add features in when the individual feature was considered ready and no 2.7 series was started. Each 2.6 kernel was not too different from the last but 2.6.0 and 2.6.39 were more different than 2.4.0 and 2.6.0
At some point during the 2.6 a fourth part (only given when nonzero) was added to the version number for bugfix releases.
So linux ended up using a four part versioning scheme where the first two parts were basically fixed. Now they have moved to a three part scheme where the first part is basically fixed. That seems like a reasonable rationalising of the numbering scheme to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I think too many people draw an artificial line between "dictionary attacks" and "brute force". There is a world of possibilities between "try what is in the dictionary and nothing else" and "try all combinations of this set of characters" and a sensible attacker will try and make use of those possibilties.
And they canned the "Centrifuge Accommodations Module" which was supposed to let us test biological reactions to "gravity" greater than microgravity but less than earth gravity as would be important for a long term moon or mars misson.
Therefore = ( + (0.5 x ) x .
That should have said
Therefore [average time to crack your password] = ( [number of passwords the attacker considers more likely than yours] +(0.5 x [number of passwords the attacker considers equally likely to yours])) x [time for the attacker to try a password]
That said, it would be unusual for our hypothetical cracker to have access to that sort of specific information about a password.
Equally it would be unusual for them to have access to specific information about the length of the password, it could be anywhere between the minimum and maximum lengths allowed by the system.
However just because they don't know theese facts doesn't mean they can't make educated guesses. Humans will preffer short passwords over long ones, they will preffer dictionary words over gibberish. If password rules are in place they will likely do the minimum nessacerry to comply with them. The attacker will know this and will attempt to sort the passwords by probabiltity before trying them.
Therefore = ( + (0.5 x ) x .
This makes true password strength difficult to determine because it requires a determination of how likely the user's password is. If the attacker has better information than you on the likelihood of different passwords then you are likely to overestimate the strength of your password.
Of course a possible soloution to this is not to allow users to create their own passwords at all so that all passwords your system can create are equally likely. That can cause other problems though like people writing passwords down because they can't remember them.
If someone is bruteforcing your password, they can make no assumptions.
Bullshit.
The space of all passwords acceptable to a system is generally massive* and it is impractical to search that whole space or even a significant fraction of it. Therefore if users chose a password at random from that set it would be impratical to brute force passwords. However in practice users do not choose passwords at random, they tend to use real words or at least things that sound sort of like real words, shorter passwords are more common than longer ones. If password rules are in place users are likely to do the minimum nessacery to satisfy them (so requiring "at least one symbol" means you often end up with "exactly one symbol", requiring "at least one capital letter" often means you end up with "exactly one capital letter".
The smart bruteforcer orders their search by the approximate likelihood of the combinations to increase the likelihood of finding the password in the time available. Of course there is a compromise inherent in this because making the search order more complex can reduce the search speed.
* systems with retarded maximum password lengths excepted
Wouldn't the obvious thing for a mine layer to do be to use the explosive itself as fake bait? Presumablly these rats are sniffing out traces that leak out of the mines so blanketing the whole area with a low concentration of the stuff should prevent the enemy finding where the actual mines are.
I dunno if they will have done something special for the olympics but my experiance is that london underground's live update screens are shit because they don't localise the information to the station they are displaying it at.
For example we were travelling from stockport to eastbourne for a holiday. We arrived at euston and headed to the underground to travel to victoria and started progressing towards the ticket gates where an automated screen told us that the victoria line was closed and that replacement busses were operating.
So I asked a member of staff where the replacement busses were running from and was told that I should instead use the northern line followed by the circle/district line (they are the same line at that point afaict). She didn't explicitly say that no replacement busses were running from euston but she strongly implied it. So I could well imagine someone who put too much trust in the automated systems searching arround for a replacement bus that did not exist.
Modern hard drives can do similar things though the probability is lower because they only do it as a fault recovery mechanism rather than as part of normal operation.
Some drives (both HDD and SSD) have a built in secure erase function but you have to trust the drive manufacturer to have implemented it right.
Bottom line if you have a modern storage device (whether solid state or spinning rust) and need to be absoloutely sure the data won't fall into enemy hands your only option is to reduce it to dust.
I think the simple answer is if you need to address a machine by IP you shouldn't be using stateless autoconfiguration for it. IMO stateless autoconfiguration should be used only for client machines where it doesn't matter much that the addres is hard to remember or that the address changes when the network card is replaced.
because while host A may be reading sequentially from its disk, and host B may be reading sequentially from its disk, and host C may be reading sequentially from its disk, that means that the disk - if those virtual disks are coming from the same spindle - is jumping from A to B to C to A to B to C to A to B to C
True, however this problem isn't unique to virtualisation, it can equally well happen with multiple processes on a single host or even multiple threads within a process. Since most non-trivial server workloads will be serving multiple users at once they end up suffering from this issue regardless of whether they are virtualised or not.
It is certainly true though that if you have high sequential throughput requirements then you should be considering consider dedicated spindles. That doesn't mean you can't virtualise it just means you need to put some planning into your virtualisation strategy.
On-grid photovoltaics are actually really nice environmentally
Depends on the location.
In a hot climate i'd agree with you. OTOH here in the UK on-grid photovoltaics are a fiasco that are only being installed because of massive government subsidies. Our climate isn't really sunny enough for photovoltaics to make sense and our peak electrical load comes from winter heating not summer aircon.
heh,
My name "Peter M Green" is on a paper that also has "Peter R Green" and "Peter N Green" in the authors list.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5488046&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5488046
You could use his key fingerprint to reference him.
The problem with doing that kind of thing though is that over time people move to new keys. Either because they want a stronger key or because the old one is lost or compromised and of course some people may deliberately create multiple persona's for themselves (whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion).
People move between institutions and their contact information changes. So if you insist on a match on all those fields you will reduce the chances of incorrectly indicating papers as being by the same author but you will increase the chance of incorrectly indicating papers as being by different authors.
All depends where you live, electricity prices seem to vary massively across america and presumablly even more arround the world.
Further complicating matters your local climate, building design and heating or cooling systems affect the real cost of indoor electricity usage for you. If you live in a cold climate and use resistive electric heating then running your computers is effectively free because it just displaces heating. OTOH if you live in a hot climate where you are running aircon all the time then you are essentially paying twice for running your computers, once for the electricity the computers and once for the aircon to take the heat away.
What ISP do you use and what router? And did you need to do any special configuration to get IPv6 or was it automatic?
The biggest problem I see for IPv6 at the moment is home routers. Afaict most of the deployed base of home routers does not support IPv6 and (with a few exceptoins) users are unlikely to replace them until they die or until they upgrade to a service that needs something faster. So even where ISPs offer IPv6 it is likely a significant proporition of their users will remain without IPv6 access.
You mean like Go Daddy or Dreamhost?
And many many others.
Unless they're for networks that don't use SIMs (Verizon or Sprint). And even a device designed for AT&T might be subject to "slamming" or "cramming", which refers to unrequested conversion of a SIM from a cheap plan to a more expensive plan just because it's inserted into a smartphone.
Yeah, I was thinking about this from a british perspective, afaict it's pretty common here for phones to be handed down from contract users to PAYG users and the slamming process you describe is unheard of here.
You could always do what Comcast does: call the techie offering "business class", jack up the price, and put that toward recovering IPs.
Yeah, i'm just saying that a hosting provider with a techie ISP buisness on the side (e.g. bytemark) or an ISP that specialises in techie and buisness services (e.g. zen) is going to have a lot more trouble finding users that currently have a public IP but could be convinced to live without it than a big ISP that mostly serves end lusers (comcast*, virgin media, BT etc).
Would you like to live in a world where the only place you could buy usable hosting was companies like comcast? I know I wouldn't and therefore I think IP sales are a nessacery thing at this stage.
* though comcast has their own problems, their network is SO big that they have run out of private v4 addresses.
It seems that we have been running out of addresses for 10 years or something and everyone has been talking about moving to IPv6 since the late ninteties ?
When the internet was initially developed it used a simple but horriblly wasteful system known of as classfull routing. Addresses were divided into classes and from each of three classes* blocks of a particular size were allocated. This system meant that many organisations ended up with a block far bigger than they really needed (many of which are being sold now) and it meant that a particular size of block could run out before all addresses did.
In the early ninties it became clear that if this system was continued addresses would quickly run-out and it was replaced in the ninties (afaict the actual replacement was somewhat gradual) by the more efficient classless system we have today where blocks of any power of two size can be allocated anywhere in the unicast address space. This improved efficiency and combined with many institutions choosing to use NAT rather than public IPs for most of their systems it bought us some time.
Unfortunately rather than spending that time ensuring that all new network equipment was suitable for** IPv6 and pushing IPv6 to customers as soon as the infrastructure was ready most providers sat on their hands waiting for everyone else to move first. CPE vendors also formed a blockage to getting IPv6 to end users natively.
So here we are, it's 2012, the IANA and APNIC have run out of v4 addresses for regular allocation. RIPE and ARIN still have some supply but will be running out within the next couple of years if current trends continue [1]. AFRINIC and LACNIC have longer projections but once RIPE and ARIN run out i'd expect to see some "RIR shopping" action deplete their pools as well . Meanwhile a large proportion of end users either lack access to the IPv6 internet or have it through the fragile nat poking automatic tunnelling system known as teredo.
Worse due to microsofts refusal to backport SNI support to XP and google inexplicablly not including it in andriod 2.x SSL websites still require dedicated IPs (which as mentioned above need to be IPv4).
Given the current levels of IPv6 penatration and the time it takes to push major changes through there will still be a real need for V4 addresses in hosting when RIPE and ARIN run out of addresses. At that point the only real option for hosting will be to buy IPs on the open market at gradually increasing prices (I wonder just what price it will take to make it worthwhile for the end-luser ISPs to deploy ISP level NAT to free up addresses for sale)
I am sure there is a limited range of numbers and the issue is real but also seems like fodder for sensationalist tech journal articles.
Well yeah that is what journalists do, the sky isn't going to fall tomorrrow but if you are planning a new network deployment or an extention to an existing one you should be thinking about this stuff and in particular you should be thinking that if your plans require new V4 IPs that you may find them difficult and costly to obtain.
* There were two other classes, one for multicast and one reserved (which can't be used because a lot of software will reject such addresses).
** As comcast found out [2] a vendor claim of IPv6 support was not sufficient to make the equipment suitable for IPv6, actual acceptance testing was (and probablly still is) required.
*** Note: because of the way IP allocation works it's not in an ISP's interest to start doing this until AFTER the pool of addresses at their RIR runs out. If they do it today they will just end up with a smaller slice of the pie in the end.
[1] http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
[2] http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog37/presentations/alain-durand.pdf
Exactly
So in a world without IP sales a hosting provider that is also an end-luser* ISP would be able to recover IPs from those end lusers and rent them to more lucrative hosting customers while a hosting provider that is not an end-luser ISP would be unable to supply v4 IPs to customers once their (likely pretty limited except in the case of some of the really old ones) stock ran out.
While in a world with IP sales hosting providers can buy IPs from those who either have them spare or can free them up from less lucrative uses to help carry them over the transition period.
As you say after the next couple of years things will get a easier because the decline of XP and older andriod (though I bet a lot of older android phones will be passed down to kids etc and used with pay as you go sims even after they are EOL) will allow low-end SSL hosting to do away with the dedicated V4 IP but VPS customers will still be demanding dedicated IPs.
IIRC win7 also does teredo tunneling by default so increases in win7 penentration should also increase v6 penatration.
* and yes I mean end-luser, an ISP that sells primarily to techies is likely to have far more difficulty recovering IPs.
What utter and serious bullshit.
What else do you propose?
IPv4 address for regular allocation* have run out at the IANA and APNIC and will soon run out at RIPE and ARIN too.
Meanwhile IPv6 is still in it's infancy with the majority of end users not having access to the IPv6 internet. So if you want to run a public server it needs to have a v4 address.
Under these circumstances a market means that IPv4 address gradually rise in value and as that happens people will re-evalute what applications really need a public V4 address. Lack of a market means that addresses stay where they are even if they could be more lucrative elsewhere stifiling choice.
You cannot own an address, you lease it.
That is true for modern allocations, with older allocations the status is less clear.
But even for modern allocations the RIRs are coming round to the realisation that allowing some form of sales** is a good idea as part of managing the twilight years of IPv4. The alternative is that you will only be able to buy usable hosting services from providers who happen to have a pool of addresses already (most likely hosting providers who are also end-luser ISPs and so have addresses they can recover using ISP level NAT).
* There are still a few held back for special allocations.
** IIRC arin and ripe are requiring the recipiants of such sales to justify their address use to reduce hoarding.
It's all about the contracts.
When you buy small ammounts goods/services from a big company you typically get a very one sided contract where they have the power to cancel your order at any time for any or no reason whatsoever with no penalty.
When two big companies sign a contract for major supply that contract will almost certainly specify the ammount to be supplied and have steep penalty clauses if either company wants to back out of their obligations. So cancelling a contract just because the other party sues you may be a very expensive course of action to take.
I have found only two ARM boards that support SATA
I can think of a few
I.Mx53 quickstart board
Dreamplug
D2plug
Marvell DB-78x00-BP (what debian use for armel buildds, unfortunately I can't find any further info on this)
hawkboard (though apparently this has horrible stability issues.
But you are right they generally only have one port
I presume you can get more sata ports by looking at devices that are actually sold as NAS boxes but I think they have much weaker CPUs :(
I remember on /. for a while it was common to try and trick people into seeing goatse and tubgirl. Dunno if they count as porn sites.
Those same people could have avoided all that junk installed on their pc if they'd just bought a computer assembled by an enthusiast company or a local computer shop in the first place.
In my experiance the cheap whiteboxes from local vendors hit their pricepoint by using whatever components were cheapest that week regardless of quality.
Afaict if you are after a cheap but reasonable qulality desktop that isn't loaded with crapware and you don't want to DIY your best option is to go with a "buisness" machine from one of the big OEMs.
Versioning schemes should suit the software being versioned.
Linux, used to use a three part versionin number. The first part was a 2 that basically never changed. The second part indicated which series it was (odd numbered were development series even numbered were stable series) The third part indicated releases within a series.
AIUI that worked for a while but during the 2.4/2.5 era it became clear it was no longer working well. The linux kernel different features were maturing at different times and distro kernels were based on 2.4 but redhat kernels at least shipped with a massive number of backported features/fixes such that they were very different from stock 2.4.
So with 2.6 linux decided to add features in when the individual feature was considered ready and no 2.7 series was started. Each 2.6 kernel was not too different from the last but 2.6.0 and 2.6.39 were more different than 2.4.0 and 2.6.0
At some point during the 2.6 a fourth part (only given when nonzero) was added to the version number for bugfix releases.
So linux ended up using a four part versioning scheme where the first two parts were basically fixed. Now they have moved to a three part scheme where the first part is basically fixed. That seems like a reasonable rationalising of the numbering scheme to me.