Posts by Tomato42 1174 publicly visible posts • joined 31 May 2011
btrfs has two advantages over ZFS: you can shrink volumes too, not only extend them. The second thing: the on-disk-format is much easier to extend.
Ability to set redundancy level on a per-directory and per-file basis will be a killer feature for me though...
But, yes, unfortunately, OpenSolaris ZFS is much more feature-complete than btrfs on Linux. btrfs is much more feature-complete than ZFS on Linux though.
online dedup on btrfs is not impossible. Doing offline dedup on btrfs is just much much easier.
Once Linus said, that Linux won't have any Real Time OS capabilities as this would require complete redesign of the OS. Fast forward few years, and this "complete redesign" has been achieved incrementally, and Linux is gaining more and more features typical for RTOS.
I'd say, if you have two systems already, do a double backup from main system (if it is at all possible).
Then there's no common point between dedup servers (apart from software).
But yes, duplicating (if not triplicating) the de-duped data is a very good idea, unless you have a very "lively" data set, you'll still have a net gain in storage.
It's a description of time zones FFS! Historical, governmental supplied, dry data.
It's similar to a math textbook publisher suing you for using the algorithm for multiplication of two numbers or a chemical textbook and using the atomic numbers provided there for mol calculations.
They didn't invent it, they didn't observe it, they just cataloged it and sold the catalog. The guy bought the catalog and (possibly, probably) used it to set few historical values only.
The guy was showing the world "this is a good source material, if you want more info, look there". Now they're suing him for this.
It's FAIL so gigantic that only lawyers can come up with.
Like I said, "we don't know". And that answers why we would bash MS if something similar happened to them. It was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.
Yes, kernel.org has been hacked, it shouldn't have happened but the only damage it caused was a unaccessible site and mirrors. Hardly a disaster.
Cryptographic hashes used by git are distributed and generated on client.
Cryptographic signatures used for signing packages are created on distributors PCs, not on kernel.org servers.
We don't know how the signature system is done on Windows so we have to assume the worst: automatic signing with signatures kept on distribution servers. Compromise of such servers would be catastrophic. Kernel.org's, not so much.
Loosing rebates on Windows licensing on computers they sell would be much more expensive than puny Android litigation costs.
If that's not monopolistic behavior (using dominance in one platform to leverage your solutions in another) then I don't know what possibly can be.
MS should be fined again, this time for significant part of their revenue, at least half year's worth.
That's the greatest irony.
They are fighting problem that is at best rare in the wild (I never dealt with a boot-time malware and I've cleaned tens of viruses from computers of other people) while are doing hardly anything to fight the real problem: insecurity and instability of their own OS.
First they come and made preinstalled OSs. I did not oppose for I did not use the MICROS~1 OS.
Then they come for signed bootloaders. I did not oppose for I was given ability to disable enforcement (with sirens and flashing screen).
Later they came for hardware replacements...
It's conditioning, testing how much we can take, little by little.
Question: How often do you boot your own media on other computers? How often you give other people your own boot media?
As long as I can import CA keys (or key signing keys) to any hardware I'm sitting in front of, the system is OK.
It won't help for Windows malware but will make quite a nice duo with my encrypted, SELinux enabled installation.
I know of SMBs that have 12TB of storage... If you count the disks in workstations. Most still don't clock even this much (let alone use it, just for database hardware).
It's like I'm reading about Foundation and Empire. In the books, the latter doesn't even believe you can build nuclear reactors smaller than 100TW while the former builds ones for personal use, the size of a thumb.
Yes, software patents are just applications of lambda calculus -- that's maths for you if you did social "sciences" -- which is unpatentable by law.
If I worked at patent office I would need only two stamps: "lambda calculus" and "bloody obvious". I just wonder which one would need be replaced more often...
As been said, the attack is used to guess the used HTTPS session cookie. You can't force a mail client or VPN client to repeatedly make new connections to a server with plaintext chosen by you before the interesting piece of information is exchanged (the password).
Mail is insecure. If you want secure mail, use OpenPGP or S/MIME, TLS is there to protect passwords, not the messages.
What's more, this attack is still highly theoretical for any non HTTP use of TLS.
You can initiate SSL transaction that will be compatible with both SSL and TLS at the same time, later on you act depending how the server answers (whatever it's a SSL or TLS response).
The problem is that from TLS side it doesn't allow the server to choose TLS1.1 or TLS 1.2. Announcing TLS1.1 compatibility on client side breaks servers that can't deal with proper TLS requests. Even Opera did this for a long time because of that, only Opera 11 has enabled TLS1.1 and TLS1.2 by default, earlier versions required setting it manually and indeed made communication with broken servers impossible.
What's worse, most "TLS vouln patched" web servers refuse connection if you try to connect using the (currently hypothetical) TLS2.0, so no, people implementing libraries haven't learned.
On one hand, the more I read about current security problems the more I think that there should be some kind of a "computer programming/administration license". On the other hand I look at the morons that get licenses as architects and see there's just no hope for it to actually weed out the idiots. Holding the retards responsible for the damages they cause, along with their managers, and banning for any computer use more complicated than posting on Facebook would go a long way... probably.
Still, as long as most of people are only a bit better than trained monkeys and three fourths of society is completely retarded as far as computers go, we're screwed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
