Individually, the mean time betweeen failure for a brick isn't that bad, but when you get enough of them, it's a constant drain on the pocket and on person-hours.
Aren't the dead drives covered by the manfacturer's warranty?
I don't think this would help much in the case of DDoS attacks. If the distributed attackers are victims themselves, unintentionally running some malware, the malware needn't forge the source IP. The initiator doesn't care if the distributed attackers can be tracked down.
The primary point of tracing the source, in most cases, is to stop the attack, not find the initiator. If you can't find the source, then how are you going to stop the attack?
Please forbgive my linux newbiness but i though odd numbered kernals were only experimental or unstable? If this is the case is it still usable under mission critical apps such as web servers etc?
By your posting history, you appear to be a troll, but you are indeed correct. The 2.5 series is certainly not for anything that needs stability. For servers, use 2.4 or 2.2 (or perhaps FreeBSD:) Personally, I wouldn't trust 2.4 yet on a server. I've been using it for the past year on several machines, and on one of my desktops, it has weird problems. I haven't had a chance to try 2.4.17 yet, so hopefully it's fixed. Or maybe that machine is just unlucky...
Spam is an abuse of the email sysem. The collective opinion is that some characteristics of the emails are bad - otherwise there isn't much to distinguish it from legitimate mail. Because it is a social problem, laws are needed to combat it.
Essentially, with IM2000, mail is stored on the sender's machine, rather than on the recipient's, much like with HTTP. Spam is still possible, but it makes it much easier to identify the sender and to block it.
The first shuttle was the Columbia, there is no shuttle enterprise. Learn the facts. Look through the NASA launch schedule and tell me if you see an Enterprise. Maybe you meant the Aircraft carrier. Oh wait the first aricraft carrier was not Enterprise and was certainly well before Star Trek.
The first shuttle to be launched into space was the Columbia, but the first shuttle actually was the Enterprise. The shuttle was used for research prior to the first real launch, and was flown by being attached to the top of a 747.
Apache would be MUCH faster if the Apache developers would give up on the outdated and innefficient method of using a separate process per connection, and went with a non blocking I/O model like Boa, thttpd or Zeus. A non blocking I/O model is much better, from many standpoints. It places the I/O handling back in the kernel where it belongs, reduces memory usage and drastically increases speed.
I've talked to a lot of people about this issue, and spent a lot of time reading through the Apache developer mailing list. The main reasons that come up is that Apache is meant to be correct first, fast second, and that it is harder for people to extend Apache because it makes the code more complicated. The first reason is invalid, because it's quite possible to make a web server correct and fast at the same time. The three web servers I mentioned prove this. And there are several more non blocking web servers out there. The I/O is a very small part. Given a proper design, everything else can easily work with that model. Extending it is not made any more difficult, because one would very rarely, if ever, modify the base I/O model. You have normal HTTP and HTTPS, and that's it. Anyone who would be extending that critical portition of the web server should be able to understand the conceptually simple concept of non blocking I/O, especially as it is explained very well in a variety of sources.
Especially since the 89 also fits inside the/case/ of an 86
It would take some work to transplant it. I tried this a few years ago, and unfortunately, you can't just swap boards. The screw posts on the inside are in different places. You'd have to drill through the 89's board to get it to fit in the 86 case. And the screen doesn't sit exactly the same, so you'd need to do some modifications there too.
Well, I hate to say it but I have always really liked Microsoft hardware. My optical Intellimouse is incredible! And I have heard nothing but good things about the MS keyboard.
I have a Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pro (the one with two USB ports) and use it with Windows 2000. It locks up at least a couple times a week. Any devices plugged into it keep working, but the keyboard stops working. Unplugging it and plugging it back in fixes the problem, but it's still a bit annoying. That said, I think it's the best keyboard available and wouldn't use anything else.
In this context, if Microsoft wanted to stop selling Win 3.1, we should require that they make the code public domain (excluding any stuff owned by third parties that Microsoft was licensing). This should also be a requirement if the company goes bankrupt.
An shorter limit on software copyrights makes sense, but forcing the release of source code does not. For example, a large amount of Win 3.1 code might be used in Win 95. Forcing them to release the source could compromise a current product. And your licensing issue brings up a good point. Who is going to go through the code to determine who owns what? How many man hours would that take for a large product? What if know one remaining at the company knows? This is a big factor in the open sourcing of many programs. The Open Watcom project is a good example of this. The original DOOM used a licensed library for sound on DOS, so they couldn't release that, even though the rest of the source was released.
If you live in an apartment or rent a house, you can't (usually) make modifications to the property at will, such as running CAT-5 through the walls. Also, you have to stay reasonably within code. If your landlord pops by, even if for some other reason than to inspect you, and sees that you've got wires strung all over the place, say through the vents or along the cieling or moulding, especially for what might sound like dubious purposes, you may be asked not so nicely to tear your wiring out. If your landlord is a jerk, he may try to say it violates your lease and get you kicked out.
I agree. I'm in that exact situation now. You'd think that being my third apartment, I would have had the forsight to find out beforehand about those types of issues. Though, I think if your landlord is that bad, you've got worse problems. At my first apartment, my roommate and I just said screw it and ran cat5. It was one of the few apartments where you could actually get to the attic from the inside. We did a good job, and I doubt anyone will ever notice. It is professional looking, and should meet code, so I don't see why landlords won't let you improve the value of their property for them. You can't do it yourself, but it is fine to pay outrageous fees to have someone else do it.
These things are cool, but the price seems pretty high now. It'd be cheaper to go all 802.11b, and more practical. Especially with a laptop, because you can use the equipment anywhere, not just your apartment.
It would be nice if sendfile() were portable, but I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's main use is for web serving. For that, you're probably on a FreeBSD box, and it works quite nicely for that. It's not difficult to put in some conditional code so that it uses sendfile if available, and conventional methods if not. Zeus does this, for example. You shouldn't need to optimize the TCP/IP stack behavior at the application layer. That completely defeats the purpose of the BSD socket model. There's basically two types of applications: interactive and data transfer. With an interactive application, you disable Nagle, because latency is more important than bandwidth and throughput. With data transfer, you just write as much data to the socket as possible, and let the kernel do it's job. sendfile() is very nice for this, because you avoid the overhead of reading the data into memory first. This won't usually be a lot, but it adds up when you are pushing a lot of data. It is just a guess, but on systems without sendfile(), you should be able to get pretty close to it's performance by mmap()'ing the file instead of reading it. If you are serious about networking programming, then I highly recommend reading W. Richard Stevens' UNIX Network Programming.
I think if we want to speed up file transfer we need an API to tell OS that we're going to send lots of data so make it big packets or the opposite. Currently we just open socket connection to destination and start write()ing. OS has no way to guess whether or not we're going to write 100 or 10e8 bytes. We need a way to tell OS that the data we're sending isn't worth a dime before it's all done so make it big packets to minimize bandwidth wasted to TCP control traffic.
Actually, that already exists. TCP/IP does this using the Nagle algorithm. The OS waits a certain amount of time, probably 250ms, before sending, to see how much data there is to be sent. If there isn't a large enough packet by the end of the waiting period, it just goes ahead and sends the data anyway. If you fill up the buffer, it sends the data immediately. Interactive applications like telnet disable Nagle, as you obviously wouldn't want to wait before sending a keystroke. If you're sending a file, you can essentially write the entire file to the socket at once. In fact, several OS's like Linux and FreeBSD have the sendfile() call, which avoids application overhead by having the kernel directly transfer data between file descriptors.
Then how come some fligh by night spammers [81832.com] are able to accept credit cards? In this example, firstly, they spam, secondly, they sell non FDA approved medicine, and thirdly, they claim on their order form that it is SSL protected but in reality it is not. But still, they somehow got hold of a merchant account...
How do you know that they actually have merchant account? It looks like a very good scam to collect credit card numbers. The company that I work for has accounts with VeriSign for credit card processing, and I seriously doubt that site would have passed what we had to go through. You are required to have a working website that they can look at, among other things. Getting a merchant account from a bank and a credit card processing account takes some doing. They do checks, and if you've had a merchant account closed before for too many charge backs, it's very likely you won't ever be able to get another one.
Oh yeah.. and then there are HTML tags that 'phone home,'
Is that true? I always thought this was some sort of urban legend. I find it somewhat hard to believe.
Sure, it's quite easy to do. Most images that load in HTML email are coming from a remote server. All you have to do is make the image come from a CGI, and tack the person's email address onto the image URL. The downside to this is that you have to send a custom email for each recipient, but half the time you do that anyway. It's a great way to see if the email is actually opened.
Exactly. You don't need a webring to tell you about other pages related to the page you are on. Most sites that have information will link to related sites. I'd rather visit the links on a good site than look through a dozen pages in a webring, hoping that the few that actually exist are what I want.
I already pay that for a cell phone, but I wouldn't pay it again just to have access for my PDA. If you could combine the service, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 or $15 a month to be able to have wireless access on my Visor.
It's not vaporware. One of my good friends is working for his school, FIT, which is doing research for Microsoft. He is doing a lot of work involving testing with IE and.NET. The most interesting thing he told me is that the virtual machine is incredibly good. He was testing it with a prime number generator he had previously written. It ran faster under the.NET VM than it did as native code generated by the same version of the same compiler (VC++), and Borland's compiler (BCC32). He's probably the best coder I know, so I wouldn't attribute it to the VM being lucky with a poorly coded program. It was also on a P3, so it didn't have anything to do with the VM possibly being optimized for the P4 while VC++ wasn't (my first thought).
This isn't gospel, but I think.NET looks pretty exciting, from a Windows developer's standpoint. Microsoft has a lot of very smart people working for them. While they have a lot of crap software, they also have a lot of good software. Bashing Microsoft with no reason isn't helpful.
There was a small applet that allowed you to dynamically load.sys files (normally done through config.sys) at anytime.
I remember having a similar utility that I downloaded from a BBS. Still, you have to wonder why it wasn't included with the OS. DOS wasn't usable without the Norton Utilities.
But qmail has always been secure. Postfix has not. Who knows if it has any holes? When it was first released, it had a major design flaw that DJB immediately recognized. And it was covered up by the Postfix author, as that page points out.
I have been looking at the Courier mail suite lately. It has a lot of nice features, is easy to setup and is well integrated with each other. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything relating to it's security or performance, but that could be a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Individually, the mean time betweeen failure for a brick isn't that bad, but when you get enough of them, it's a constant drain on the pocket and on person-hours.
Aren't the dead drives covered by the manfacturer's warranty?
I don't think this would help much in the case of DDoS attacks. If the distributed attackers are victims themselves, unintentionally running some malware, the malware needn't forge the source IP. The initiator doesn't care if the distributed attackers can be tracked down.
The primary point of tracing the source, in most cases, is to stop the attack, not find the initiator. If you can't find the source, then how are you going to stop the attack?Secondly, I'm leery of doing egress filtering as there are legitimate reasons to send a different source IP (one-way tunnels being a prime example).
Can you explain this further, or provide some references? I can't see how this would work, and I didn't find anything about it using Google.Please forbgive my linux newbiness but i though odd numbered kernals were only experimental or unstable? If this is the case is it still usable under mission critical apps such as web servers etc?
By your posting history, you appear to be a troll, but you are indeed correct. The 2.5 series is certainly not for anything that needs stability. For servers, use 2.4 or 2.2 (or perhaps FreeBSD :) Personally, I wouldn't trust 2.4 yet on a server. I've been using it for the past year on several machines, and on one of my desktops, it has weird problems. I haven't had a chance to try 2.4.17 yet, so hopefully it's fixed. Or maybe that machine is just unlucky...
Is there a technical solution?
Spam is an abuse of the email sysem. The collective opinion is that some characteristics of the emails are bad - otherwise there isn't much to distinguish it from legitimate mail. Because it is a social problem, laws are needed to combat it.
D. J. Bernstein has an excellent solution to spam and many of the other problems of email: Internet Mail 2000
Essentially, with IM2000, mail is stored on the sender's machine, rather than on the recipient's, much like with HTTP. Spam is still possible, but it makes it much easier to identify the sender and to block it.
The first shuttle was the Columbia, there is no shuttle enterprise. Learn the facts. Look through the NASA launch schedule and tell me if you see an Enterprise. Maybe you meant the Aircraft carrier. Oh wait the first aricraft carrier was not Enterprise and was certainly well before Star Trek.
The first shuttle to be launched into space was the Columbia, but the first shuttle actually was the Enterprise. The shuttle was used for research prior to the first real launch, and was flown by being attached to the top of a 747.
Apache would be MUCH faster if the Apache developers would give up on the outdated and innefficient method of using a separate process per connection, and went with a non blocking I/O model like Boa, thttpd or Zeus. A non blocking I/O model is much better, from many standpoints. It places the I/O handling back in the kernel where it belongs, reduces memory usage and drastically increases speed.
I've talked to a lot of people about this issue, and spent a lot of time reading through the Apache developer mailing list. The main reasons that come up is that Apache is meant to be correct first, fast second, and that it is harder for people to extend Apache because it makes the code more complicated. The first reason is invalid, because it's quite possible to make a web server correct and fast at the same time. The three web servers I mentioned prove this. And there are several more non blocking web servers out there. The I/O is a very small part. Given a proper design, everything else can easily work with that model. Extending it is not made any more difficult, because one would very rarely, if ever, modify the base I/O model. You have normal HTTP and HTTPS, and that's it. Anyone who would be extending that critical portition of the web server should be able to understand the conceptually simple concept of non blocking I/O, especially as it is explained very well in a variety of sources.
Especially since the 89 also fits inside the /case/ of an 86
It would take some work to transplant it. I tried this a few years ago, and unfortunately, you can't just swap boards. The screw posts on the inside are in different places. You'd have to drill through the 89's board to get it to fit in the 86 case. And the screen doesn't sit exactly the same, so you'd need to do some modifications there too.What is DJB's packaging system?
http://cr.yp.to/unix.html
Well, I hate to say it but I have always really liked Microsoft hardware. My optical Intellimouse is incredible! And I have heard nothing but good things about the MS keyboard.
I have a Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pro (the one with two USB ports) and use it with Windows 2000. It locks up at least a couple times a week. Any devices plugged into it keep working, but the keyboard stops working. Unplugging it and plugging it back in fixes the problem, but it's still a bit annoying. That said, I think it's the best keyboard available and wouldn't use anything else.
Naaahh, dood. You just gotta get a cell phone antenna booster and stick one of em on your wireless card. "As seen on TV"!!!
From what I could tell, those boosters do absolutely nothing.
In this context, if Microsoft wanted to stop selling Win 3.1, we should require that they make the code public domain (excluding any stuff owned by third parties that Microsoft was licensing). This should also be a requirement if the company goes bankrupt.
An shorter limit on software copyrights makes sense, but forcing the release of source code does not. For example, a large amount of Win 3.1 code might be used in Win 95. Forcing them to release the source could compromise a current product. And your licensing issue brings up a good point. Who is going to go through the code to determine who owns what? How many man hours would that take for a large product? What if know one remaining at the company knows? This is a big factor in the open sourcing of many programs. The Open Watcom project is a good example of this. The original DOOM used a licensed library for sound on DOS, so they couldn't release that, even though the rest of the source was released.
I would really like to have a fanless computer for my desktop
Mac Cubes don't have fans. Your local CompUSA should have a demo unit that you can check out. Apple engineers make some cool hardware.
If you live in an apartment or rent a house, you can't (usually) make modifications to the property at will, such as running CAT-5 through the walls. Also, you have to stay reasonably within code. If your landlord pops by, even if for some other reason than to inspect you, and sees that you've got wires strung all over the place, say through the vents or along the cieling or moulding, especially for what might sound like dubious purposes, you may be asked not so nicely to tear your wiring out. If your landlord is a jerk, he may try to say it violates your lease and get you kicked out.
I agree. I'm in that exact situation now. You'd think that being my third apartment, I would have had the forsight to find out beforehand about those types of issues. Though, I think if your landlord is that bad, you've got worse problems. At my first apartment, my roommate and I just said screw it and ran cat5. It was one of the few apartments where you could actually get to the attic from the inside. We did a good job, and I doubt anyone will ever notice. It is professional looking, and should meet code, so I don't see why landlords won't let you improve the value of their property for them. You can't do it yourself, but it is fine to pay outrageous fees to have someone else do it.
These things are cool, but the price seems pretty high now. It'd be cheaper to go all 802.11b, and more practical. Especially with a laptop, because you can use the equipment anywhere, not just your apartment.
It would be nice if sendfile() were portable, but I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's main use is for web serving. For that, you're probably on a FreeBSD box, and it works quite nicely for that. It's not difficult to put in some conditional code so that it uses sendfile if available, and conventional methods if not. Zeus does this, for example. You shouldn't need to optimize the TCP/IP stack behavior at the application layer. That completely defeats the purpose of the BSD socket model. There's basically two types of applications: interactive and data transfer. With an interactive application, you disable Nagle, because latency is more important than bandwidth and throughput. With data transfer, you just write as much data to the socket as possible, and let the kernel do it's job. sendfile() is very nice for this, because you avoid the overhead of reading the data into memory first. This won't usually be a lot, but it adds up when you are pushing a lot of data. It is just a guess, but on systems without sendfile(), you should be able to get pretty close to it's performance by mmap()'ing the file instead of reading it. If you are serious about networking programming, then I highly recommend reading W. Richard Stevens' UNIX Network Programming.
No, but people who have the Solaris source do. Of course, they would have to sign the NDA, but it is probably worth it to those running Solaris.
I think if we want to speed up file transfer we need an API to tell OS that we're going to send lots of data so make it big packets or the opposite. Currently we just open socket connection to destination and start write()ing. OS has no way to guess whether or not we're going to write 100 or 10e8 bytes. We need a way to tell OS that the data we're sending isn't worth a dime before it's all done so make it big packets to minimize bandwidth wasted to TCP control traffic.
Actually, that already exists. TCP/IP does this using the Nagle algorithm. The OS waits a certain amount of time, probably 250ms, before sending, to see how much data there is to be sent. If there isn't a large enough packet by the end of the waiting period, it just goes ahead and sends the data anyway. If you fill up the buffer, it sends the data immediately. Interactive applications like telnet disable Nagle, as you obviously wouldn't want to wait before sending a keystroke. If you're sending a file, you can essentially write the entire file to the socket at once. In fact, several OS's like Linux and FreeBSD have the sendfile() call, which avoids application overhead by having the kernel directly transfer data between file descriptors.
This is very interesting... Do you know how to report such scams to the credit card Co's (any useful mail addresses, phone numbers, ...)?
It looks like the Federal Trade Commission would be a good place.
Then how come some fligh by night spammers [81832.com] are able to accept credit cards? In this example, firstly, they spam, secondly, they sell non FDA approved medicine, and thirdly, they claim on their order form that it is SSL protected but in reality it is not. But still, they somehow got hold of a merchant account...
How do you know that they actually have merchant account? It looks like a very good scam to collect credit card numbers. The company that I work for has accounts with VeriSign for credit card processing, and I seriously doubt that site would have passed what we had to go through. You are required to have a working website that they can look at, among other things. Getting a merchant account from a bank and a credit card processing account takes some doing. They do checks, and if you've had a merchant account closed before for too many charge backs, it's very likely you won't ever be able to get another one.
Oh yeah.. and then there are HTML tags that 'phone home,'
Is that true? I always thought this was some sort of urban legend. I find it somewhat hard to believe.
Sure, it's quite easy to do. Most images that load in HTML email are coming from a remote server. All you have to do is make the image come from a CGI, and tack the person's email address onto the image URL. The downside to this is that you have to send a custom email for each recipient, but half the time you do that anyway. It's a great way to see if the email is actually opened.
Exactly. You don't need a webring to tell you about other pages related to the page you are on. Most sites that have information will link to related sites. I'd rather visit the links on a good site than look through a dozen pages in a webring, hoping that the few that actually exist are what I want.
I already pay that for a cell phone, but I wouldn't pay it again just to have access for my PDA. If you could combine the service, I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 or $15 a month to be able to have wireless access on my Visor.
Get back to this when .NET isn't vaporware.
It's not vaporware. One of my good friends is working for his school, FIT, which is doing research for Microsoft. He is doing a lot of work involving testing with IE and .NET. The most interesting thing he told me is that the virtual machine is incredibly good. He was testing it with a prime number generator he had previously written. It ran faster under the .NET VM than it did as native code generated by the same version of the same compiler (VC++), and Borland's compiler (BCC32). He's probably the best coder I know, so I wouldn't attribute it to the VM being lucky with a poorly coded program. It was also on a P3, so it didn't have anything to do with the VM possibly being optimized for the P4 while VC++ wasn't (my first thought).
This isn't gospel, but I think .NET looks pretty exciting, from a Windows developer's standpoint. Microsoft has a lot of very smart people working for them. While they have a lot of crap software, they also have a lot of good software. Bashing Microsoft with no reason isn't helpful.
There was a small applet that allowed you to dynamically load .sys files (normally done through config.sys) at anytime.
I remember having a similar utility that I downloaded from a BBS. Still, you have to wonder why it wasn't included with the OS. DOS wasn't usable without the Norton Utilities.But qmail has always been secure. Postfix has not. Who knows if it has any holes? When it was first released, it had a major design flaw that DJB immediately recognized. And it was covered up by the Postfix author, as that page points out.
I have been looking at the Courier mail suite lately. It has a lot of nice features, is easy to setup and is well integrated with each other. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything relating to it's security or performance, but that could be a good thing.