Really? Because I have a ZFS pool made of Seagate Archive (8TB) drives that's over 4 years old now. A failed disk replacement took about 2 days, and I estimate that had the pool been full the ETA would have been about 3 days, 3.5 tops. (ZFS only rebuilds active data, not the whole disk. Empty pools "rebuild" nearly instantly).

Now I have tuned ZFS for the disks. ZFS writes to the pool in bulk once every 5 seconds by default and I raised that to 15 so the disks have more time in the background to work in relative peace, but that doesn't apply to a rebuild which would save its progress every 15 seconds but work during the rest of the time.

So... why are WD's SMR disks going to absolute hell when this other pool of mine does so well? Better SMR management firmware?

It's not just that it doesn't save data to the client's disk permanently. It doesn't load anything from the disk either. When you start incognito mode it's like a brand new PC with a brand new browser with no cookies, no saved data, and nothing to identify a user. Closing incognito mode and re-opening resets all that and you're starting from scratch again.

If you want to be logged into a web site under 2 different accounts at once but want to use Chrome for both instances, you can do this just by opening an incognito tab and loading the web site in question. It will prompt you to login or register like a new user.

Back when XUL extensions were a thing I installed one called "Open In Browser". On the popup for how to Save/open a file type it would add a new option. "Save to disk", "Open in [system app]" and now "Open in browser as [TYPE]" where you had to select if it was an image, or what. If you clicked a file and the web site says you should save it to disk this would give you the option to override and open it in the browser anyway. Not just PDFs but also images for when an image was huge and you requested the high quality originals, etc.

Just give me this back instead Firefox. XUL extensions were WAY better, but failing that use this as a model for how forced downloads should be handled.

Breaking the standard and putting them all together is needed for ZFS' self-healing capability. Right now there is no way for mdadm to know which disk is damaged when a consistency check runs and finds inconsistent parity. In a mirror, which of the two is correct? It can't tell.

ZFS has checksums everywhere. When it hits this corruption, it knows the one with the right checksum is the correct copy. If it's doing a plain old read of data and the checksum is incorrect, it will re-issue the request to other mirrors, etc until it finds the right copy; if it can't find a good copy, it's reported with the full filename of the corrupted file. Right now even if ext4 had full checksums there isn't a way for it to turn back to mdadm and say "that's corrupted, try again".

Besides, btrfs is doing the exact same thing implementing both RAID and volume management into itself.

Predictability in NIC names already existed. In the past distros would write rules to fix names of NICs once initially assigned. The first one detected would be eth0, but then a udev rule is saved so that this exact NIC (by MAC address) will forever be eth0, and any future cards become eth1, etc even if eth0 is later removed. And you have the option of manually editing the file, though I rarely did.

The new system is SUPPOSED to detect if a NIC is onboard, or in a PCI slot, and give it a name suitable to that. But even that is hit and miss. Sometimes dual-port NICs don't appear as 2 NICs but like SR-IOV subordinates of each other, which is wrong. Sometimes the motherboard onboard NICs are not properly recognized as such (I presume this is a BIOS error) and get labelled as being in add-on slots. Hell I've applied a BIOS update and seen PCI slots get relabelled; this didn't affect a NIC specifically but I saw the relabelling happen.

And finally, different motherboards will have different identifiers for their slots. Is the physical port I want to use on my addon card enp5s0, or enp94s0f1 ? It depends on the motherboard and I constantly need to check what it is for this machine.

So I've traded one consistent naming scheme which depends on the order of cards being detected over the machine's life, with one which depends on the BIOS naming scheme and how the NIC vendor labels their ports. I choose option 1.

Any just to make one thing clear, every single one of these things has happened to me personally and is not "I heard that this happens". Yes, I hate systemd, and it's not just joining the bandwagon - it's personal slights that have caused it.

Broadly speaking, people - especially the kind on slashdot - don't like it when applications connect to the internet and do things you didn't ask it to do or are not considered necessary for standard operation.

(Un?)fortunately this is how the DMCA works. If Youtube takes down videos on demand, the law is on their side and they can't be held liable for the copyright infringement that might be contained within.

Unfortunately, Youtube is at the scale where the sheer number of incoming videos and number of claims is too high to be human-screened, so they have to err on the side of taking stuff down to stay on the side of the law they want to be.

I don't like it, but it's definitely the right call for Youtube to make.

So... how do you get that "Under penalty of perjury" bit enforced? That might actually slow down the abuse if there were jail time.

... or to send a code to you when you login from a strange computer.

This would be the correct interpretation of "two factor authentication", though ideally you should receive a code for all login attempts regardless of computer.

BUT if they have your android based phone and access to your gmail...

They'd need to also have it unlocked, but this isn't the attack being discussed. A SIM swap attack doesn't get you anything on the phone still held by the correct owner. The attacker now owns your phone number, but that's all they get from the attack directly. From the "spend minimal money" standpoint I rather like Google Authenticator (or substitute any variant if you prefer) since it's an offline code generator. The server side of the Google Authenticator process is open source provided by google, including a sample PAM module for Linux user authentication. I wish this sort of thing was more common rather than SMS.

I never was hot on giving people my phone number

That's also a bonus.

This is clearly not 2-Factor authentication if your phone alone is sufficient to login (regardless of any hoops the attacker has to jump through). Either the attackers are also getting your password which is already a security fail, or your phone alone is enough to perform account recovery which is a security fail from the web site/service.

Obviously there's some blame on the phone company, but I think the web sites in question share the greater majority of the blame.

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), a big part of the certification for the 737 Max was that it's "close enough" to other 737s that pilots of older 737 variants can switch to it fairly easily, vs going to something completely different like an A350 or such. Thus Southwest may not be strictly on the 737 Max, but 737s in general.

I should hope they're not on strictly 737 Max, because their entire fleet would be grounded right now and thus making almost no income.

(And as should be obvious, this "close enough" characteristic is implemented in software and turned out to have major flaws, as best we understand the issue plaguing the model.)

I disagree.

The hate is real (and has been discussed to death already), but the list of alternatives is depressingly small. Linux Distros are a necessary component of the Linux ecosystem with updates and fixes. If the options are between a distro with an init system you don't like, or some obscure/niche distro which doesn't have extended support options, the decision has been made for you. And unfortunately systemd has reached that level of penetration.

And THAT is why additional distros coming along without systemd is newsworthy... (Well, by slashdot standards I guess).

I'll give them a chance. Worst case scenario I doubt they'll ruin it THAT quickly, and maybe it'll be good for Github in the long term. Let's see what happens before we start the crusades.

If it comes to it, everyone contributing has a complete history of the code so at least you're ready to migrate that portion on demand. Loss of existing issues and pull requests sucks though.

Honestly, in today's world of 1080p monitors, why does 'ss' default to trying fill my screen horizontally and padding the fields out accordingly?

And when I say "by default", I mean "external hacks are required to stop it". Use "ss | cat" to make it better.

Otherwise I find the rest of iproute2 to be good. It's a necessity in today's Linux IP stack with network namespaces, policy routing, and other advanced routing decisions like preferring a specific IP address for outbound traffic.

I agree intermittently with other people. Though the new tool needs to be installed by default, the old tool shouldn't be thrown away just because there's something newer. "New" doesn't mean "better". (Lately that's been increasingly true)

"What matters" varies from person to person. These things have impressive endurance for their sizes and consistent low latency. There are uses for that.

I don't need them, but I'm sure someone else does. Let them buy it and go grab a 950 for yourself.

Can confirm, I got the same thing. And I haven't used a startcom cert in several years now.