I would argue that using such a program to encrypt your data before each backup is more annoying than burning a disc and putting it somewhere safe. And why don't we all have a good backup regimen? Because they're annoying.
I pay $10 per month for web hosting that I use for backup. I actually use about 5GB of data, and my incremental transfers (using rsync) need about 5MB bandwidth per transfer, with 1-3 transfers per day, depending on my mood. None of this data is extremely secretive. Probably enough for a very skilled social engineer to steal my identity, but it wouldn't be easy, and I believe in taking acceptable risks. I am much more worried about my old laptop dying.
S3 might be cheaper, and it might fit my needs better. But is it easier? Nah. (Would I actually end up doing regular backups? No.) I pay more so I can be lazy. Also, I don't need reliability. I just need to beat the odds of my laptop dying and my webserver dying on the same day.
To the people commenting on how they would like a system to tell them when they are drunk because they don't always know whether they are over the limit, I have but one thing to say. If you honestly don't know whether you're over the limit... you're over the limit.
God, I hate it when people make stupid generalizations like that. If you're not sure if you're X, you're X. There are two types of people that don't know if they are X:
People that are full of shit and don't want to admit an unpleasant truth.
People that are reasonably scrupulous but, for one reason or another, don't have the objective judgement or experience to tell. I've never had a drink before driving before and I don't know how it will affect me.
So stop thinking that there is only one type of person that claims to be unsure of themselves.
Sorry.
What about user selectable scheduler profiles? Would it be possible? Linus rejected that because it meant more schedulers to support, and also because he was annoyed that C.K. wrote it mainly to prove that his scheduler was better. It was called "plugsched"--google for it if you want.
I believe that you can swap the scheduler out. I might require you to rebuild the kernel but there is nothing stopping a distro, you or anyone else from using a different scheduler.
I think you're thinking of the IO scheduler, which you can select at compile time. The CPU scheduler is not a choice--you must apply a patch and change the kernel's source for that. And while distros do extensively customize compilation options, the patches that they apply are generally small (besides Gentoo, which is very proud of the patchset it applies to its kernels). For almost any distro, it would be too much work to support multiple kernels (where one is based on unmaintained code).
It's really that bad? I guess I haven't watched DVDs in a while. I always preferred rips, anyway. I think your solution is pretty good--buy it, then rip a copy. Especially because your kids can't be expected to have the technical savvy to watch it on the right software-based player.
And yes, I do think that people should watch movies with "the notorious evil DMCA-violating de-CSS software". I think everybody in the US should do it. This particular provision of the DMCA is immoral, and should be broken by as many people as possible. On a side note, good job to the movie industry--you have made it illegal to watch movies on Linux.
Then why the heck do i have to suffer fbi warning, and unskippable commercials on a bought dvd movie? pirates don't have to suffer that. that's why it's called bullshit Come on, really. Suffer through the FBI warning? The movie industry has a perfectly good reason to want you to know that copying movies is illegal, and you can bear the five seconds it takes to sit through that notice.
Besides, you know it's your DVD player that ultimately enforces whether or not you can skip through commercials and the FBI notice. If you're that upset about it, why don't you use electronics that don't tell you what you can or can't do? (There are plenty of software DVD players that will not enforce this meaningless restriction.)
if someone asks what kind of card to get for their Linux laptop, you just tell them to get something by Ralink. This is off topic, but I feel the need to mention it anyway (could potentially save someone some grief): you still need to check compatibility lists, or buy it and be prepared to return it. I have a ralink card that is supposedly supported by linux, but I could not make it work even with about 3 kernel recompilations and following instructions. I could probably make it work by simply installing a much older kernel/distro, but I'm not willing to do that.
Lets just hope that doctors who use this algorithm still throughly examine every patient before beginning treatment, because, while probably useful, I doubt its as effective as a full examination by a professional. Actually, if I remember correctly, an algorithm is better than doctors at diagnosing heart attacks... something about doctors being too human, and being unable to ignore statistically unimportant factors such as age (that is, being younger makes you less likely to experience a heart attack in just the same way that being younger makes you less likely to experience the symptoms of a heart attack--a given set of symptoms is equally to indicate a heart attack, regardless of age). My source? Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. I'm probably misremembering a some of the details, but the point is there.
You may be right about its effectiveness in some cases, but its correctness, once it's perfected, will most likely be statistically better than the judgement of doctors.
I never liked firefox's save password ability. It stores the password in plane text (at least it used to) for anyone with physical access to see if they know where to look (and it's not hard to figure out where to look).
I don't know whether they are in plaintext, but it matters very little. I found someone's firefox profile directory on my school's network, and looked for passwords because I was bored. I couldn't see anything, so I just copied the profile to my computer, and fired up firefox using that profile. It happily showed me all the passwords at my request. I think the same procedure would work for opera, or any browser that stores passwords. Obfuscated passwords probably only protect you from your younger siblings. (The older ones found your porn collection years ago.)
Now, there is one way I can think of that would make the obfuscation better. The browser could encrypt the passwords using the URL that they go to as the encryption key. (Obviously, the browser could not store this information with the password.) When a user browsed to www.example.com, the browser couldn't ask, "Do we have a saved password for www.example.com?" but it would instead say, "Here are all my passwords... when decrypted with the key, 'example.com', do they yield plaintext that looks like it could be a password?"
This approach is not really secure (because crackers would just take password lists and try decryption keys like "paypal.com" and "ebay.com" to get common/important passwords), but it has the advantage that it is impossible to start with no knowledge and end up with a list of site,username,password sets.
That may be because it's our operating system. If I want to cut down on the information that google has about me (and I do, incidentally), I can restrict sketchier searches to other browsers / not use gmail's web interface / close by browser and delete cookies with non-zero frequency. Or I could stop using it. On the other hand, my operating system is a very personal thing, and it has no place going behind my back to do things that I don't sanction.
I have known about that one for years. When I first read about it, I was too much of a newbie to actually understand it, but I knew not to run it. Later, I got an overly trusting friend to try it on OSX. The OS stopped bash from forking more than a certain number of times, and nothing happened. I couldn't resist, so I tried it on my gentoo box and completely locked it up. I'm about to try it on my current vanilla ubuntu installation...
there's nothing stopping (for example) Sony from using revenue generated by their "profitable" and "commercially viable" properties to fund the lockdown of their "out-of-print" properties. Yeah, but what's their motive for doing that? If renewal were practically free, sure, but if it's costing them money, why would they? Corporations don't do annoying stuff like this just because they like to.
define "small". if it's not enough, the big companies will just pay and pay and pay... (and jack prices up, and up, and up). I think that's what the GP was defending, actually--the right to sell something for as long as it's commercially viable. He was arguing that, for example, books that are out of print and not being sold, should fall out of copyright (because they are not generating enough revenue to justify a renewal of the copyright).
I have had lots of trouble with ralink (drivers that wouldn't compile, or when they did compile, didn't work). The two chipsets that have worked the best for me were Atheros and Atmel (though Atheros may need some installation of software (madwifi), and both will need firmware, but both just worked on Ubuntu). The card I just bought with the Atheros chipset is a D-link, but like the parent said, they don't always use the same chipsets. People I've talked to seem to think that linksys often works.
In the future, I'll always buy wireless cards at a mortar and brick store, where I can return them if they don't work. It's not worth my time to fuck with drivers that are unsupported.
First of all, it's GNU/Linux kernel not Linux kernel
Actually, I think in this instance, even the GNU folks would call it just plain Linux. See, Linux is the kernel. GNU is the core software. GNU/Linux is what they want people to call the whole integrated operating system.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Zfs has not yet hung--it's firefox that hangs. I'm not sure why, but I know that it never happened before I switched my home directory to zfs. Firefox did not hang, nor did my other applications become temporarily unresponsive. I have enough RAM that everything was snappy (when I used a traditional filesystem).
My experience (home directory on zfs for a couple week) is that the benchmarks can't be representative of real use--sometimes my applications temporarily freeze (or completely hang, on occasion). The throughput may be decent, but real use is hundreds of concurrent accesses. My impression is that the scheduling isn't fair enough (perhaps this may have to do with the fact that it's a userspace program). In other words, half as good as xfs isn't enough. Yet. I've heard that performance has yet to be optimized.
Well, if they made it clear to viewers how their ratings are calculated, they should not be responsible for harm done. In that case they would just be stating facts (e.g., rating = this lawyer wins X% of his cases - this lawyer charges %Y percent over the industry average for their type of cases...) But if they don't tell people where the ratings come from, then I wonder: how is writing a shitty algorithm that says defamatory stuff about people any better than just saying defamatory stuff about people. People are responsible for the computer programs that they knowingly use.
zpool add my_existing_fs mirror/dev/new-device-1/dev/new-device-2
adds mirrored storage to an existing FS, while zpool add my_existing_fs raidz/dev/new-device-1/dev/new-device-2/dev/new-device-3
adds raided storage. Or if you don't care about redundancy: zpool add my_existing_fs/dev/new-device-1
I am using ZFS-FUSE right now. On my gentoo system, many partitions are zfs, including/home,/var/tmp,/usr/share,/usr/portage, and/opt
Because I have suffered some random corruptions in the past, even with ext3 ("This mp3 didn't used to have a skip there!"), I wanted the checksumming so that I can tell when I need to restore something from a backup.
As a filesystem, it works completely, including creation of new filesystems, compression, checksums, etc. However, I've noticed a decrease in my system's general performance since installing zfs (probably due to it holding my home directory). Memory usage and mysterious CPU usage (I don't think it's checksumming) are the current disadvantages, but the author says it's still completely unoptimized.
Should you try zfs-fuse? Definitely. But right now don't expect a performance gain.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that using such a program to encrypt your data before each backup is more annoying than burning a disc and putting it somewhere safe. And why don't we all have a good backup regimen? Because they're annoying.
I pay $10 per month for web hosting that I use for backup. I actually use about 5GB of data, and my incremental transfers (using rsync) need about 5MB bandwidth per transfer, with 1-3 transfers per day, depending on my mood. None of this data is extremely secretive. Probably enough for a very skilled social engineer to steal my identity, but it wouldn't be easy, and I believe in taking acceptable risks. I am much more worried about my old laptop dying.
S3 might be cheaper, and it might fit my needs better. But is it easier? Nah. (Would I actually end up doing regular backups? No.) I pay more so I can be lazy. Also, I don't need reliability. I just need to beat the odds of my laptop dying and my webserver dying on the same day.
Is it just me, or did anybody else read the parent as "low-pressure spaceship envy"?
Oh my god, it all makes so much sense now. The scientologists were right.
God, I hate it when people make stupid generalizations like that. If you're not sure if you're X, you're X. There are two types of people that don't know if they are X:
So stop thinking that there is only one type of person that claims to be unsure of themselves.
Sorry.
Linus rejected that because it meant more schedulers to support, and also because he was annoyed that C.K. wrote it mainly to prove that his scheduler was better. It was called "plugsched"--google for it if you want.
I think you're thinking of the IO scheduler, which you can select at compile time. The CPU scheduler is not a choice--you must apply a patch and change the kernel's source for that. And while distros do extensively customize compilation options, the patches that they apply are generally small (besides Gentoo, which is very proud of the patchset it applies to its kernels). For almost any distro, it would be too much work to support multiple kernels (where one is based on unmaintained code).
It's really that bad? I guess I haven't watched DVDs in a while. I always preferred rips, anyway. I think your solution is pretty good--buy it, then rip a copy. Especially because your kids can't be expected to have the technical savvy to watch it on the right software-based player.
And yes, I do think that people should watch movies with "the notorious evil DMCA-violating de-CSS software". I think everybody in the US should do it. This particular provision of the DMCA is immoral, and should be broken by as many people as possible. On a side note, good job to the movie industry--you have made it illegal to watch movies on Linux.
Besides, you know it's your DVD player that ultimately enforces whether or not you can skip through commercials and the FBI notice. If you're that upset about it, why don't you use electronics that don't tell you what you can or can't do? (There are plenty of software DVD players that will not enforce this meaningless restriction.)
You may be right about its effectiveness in some cases, but its correctness, once it's perfected, will most likely be statistically better than the judgement of doctors.
I don't know, but having smart friends certainly makes you smart. That, or no friends.
I don't know whether they are in plaintext, but it matters very little. I found someone's firefox profile directory on my school's network, and looked for passwords because I was bored. I couldn't see anything, so I just copied the profile to my computer, and fired up firefox using that profile. It happily showed me all the passwords at my request. I think the same procedure would work for opera, or any browser that stores passwords. Obfuscated passwords probably only protect you from your younger siblings. (The older ones found your porn collection years ago.)
Now, there is one way I can think of that would make the obfuscation better. The browser could encrypt the passwords using the URL that they go to as the encryption key. (Obviously, the browser could not store this information with the password.) When a user browsed to www.example.com, the browser couldn't ask, "Do we have a saved password for www.example.com?" but it would instead say, "Here are all my passwords... when decrypted with the key, 'example.com', do they yield plaintext that looks like it could be a password?"
This approach is not really secure (because crackers would just take password lists and try decryption keys like "paypal.com" and "ebay.com" to get common/important passwords), but it has the advantage that it is impossible to start with no knowledge and end up with a list of site,username,password sets.
That may be because it's our operating system. If I want to cut down on the information that google has about me (and I do, incidentally), I can restrict sketchier searches to other browsers / not use gmail's web interface / close by browser and delete cookies with non-zero frequency. Or I could stop using it. On the other hand, my operating system is a very personal thing, and it has no place going behind my back to do things that I don't sanction.
Wait, microsoft has a kernel now?
I have known about that one for years. When I first read about it, I was too much of a newbie to actually understand it, but I knew not to run it. Later, I got an overly trusting friend to try it on OSX. The OS stopped bash from forking more than a certain number of times, and nothing happened. I couldn't resist, so I tried it on my gentoo box and completely locked it up. I'm about to try it on my current vanilla ubuntu installation...
I have had lots of trouble with ralink (drivers that wouldn't compile, or when they did compile, didn't work). The two chipsets that have worked the best for me were Atheros and Atmel (though Atheros may need some installation of software (madwifi), and both will need firmware, but both just worked on Ubuntu). The card I just bought with the Atheros chipset is a D-link, but like the parent said, they don't always use the same chipsets. People I've talked to seem to think that linksys often works.
In the future, I'll always buy wireless cards at a mortar and brick store, where I can return them if they don't work. It's not worth my time to fuck with drivers that are unsupported.
Actually, I think in this instance, even the GNU folks would call it just plain Linux. See, Linux is the kernel. GNU is the core software. GNU/Linux is what they want people to call the whole integrated operating system.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Zfs has not yet hung--it's firefox that hangs. I'm not sure why, but I know that it never happened before I switched my home directory to zfs. Firefox did not hang, nor did my other applications become temporarily unresponsive. I have enough RAM that everything was snappy (when I used a traditional filesystem).
My experience (home directory on zfs for a couple week) is that the benchmarks can't be representative of real use--sometimes my applications temporarily freeze (or completely hang, on occasion). The throughput may be decent, but real use is hundreds of concurrent accesses. My impression is that the scheduling isn't fair enough (perhaps this may have to do with the fact that it's a userspace program). In other words, half as good as xfs isn't enough. Yet. I've heard that performance has yet to be optimized.
Well, if they made it clear to viewers how their ratings are calculated, they should not be responsible for harm done. In that case they would just be stating facts (e.g., rating = this lawyer wins X% of his cases - this lawyer charges %Y percent over the industry average for their type of cases...) But if they don't tell people where the ratings come from, then I wonder: how is writing a shitty algorithm that says defamatory stuff about people any better than just saying defamatory stuff about people. People are responsible for the computer programs that they knowingly use.
Just tried it (with files, rather than real devices):
paradox tmp # dd if=/dev/zero count=65 bs=1M of=/tmp/11 # for 6 files...65+0 records in
65+0 records out
68157440 bytes (68 MB) copied, 0.459183 s, 148 MB/s
paradox tmp # zpool create test raidz
paradox tmp # zpool add test raidz
paradox tmp # zpool status test
pool: test
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
test ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
zpool add my_existing_fs mirror /dev/new-device-1 /dev/new-device-2 /dev/new-device-1 /dev/new-device-2 /dev/new-device-3 /dev/new-device-1
adds mirrored storage to an existing FS, while
zpool add my_existing_fs raidz
adds raided storage. Or if you don't care about redundancy:
zpool add my_existing_fs
I am using ZFS-FUSE right now. On my gentoo system, many partitions are zfs, including /home, /var/tmp, /usr/share, /usr/portage, and /opt
Because I have suffered some random corruptions in the past, even with ext3 ("This mp3 didn't used to have a skip there!"), I wanted the checksumming so that I can tell when I need to restore something from a backup.
As a filesystem, it works completely, including creation of new filesystems, compression, checksums, etc. However, I've noticed a decrease in my system's general performance since installing zfs (probably due to it holding my home directory). Memory usage and mysterious CPU usage (I don't think it's checksumming) are the current disadvantages, but the author says it's still completely unoptimized.
Should you try zfs-fuse? Definitely. But right now don't expect a performance gain.