i only have one computer connected to that server via gigabit, and i'm 90% sure that there is a problem with the gigabit chipset on that client computer. It's an older chipset that does't properly support jumbo frames. The harddisks/zfs aren't the bottleneck.

hmmm, well the most obvious feature that ZFS has that Ext4 does not is check summing.

That feature is one reason why ZFS is better (it will tell you if your disk is going bad, and if you have a raid setup, it will go get the good data for you). However, this is also one reason why ZFS is slower... it spends time making sure your data is safe and that it always gives you the correct bits from your disk.

That single feature is why I run FreeBSD (looking forward to kFreeBSD/debian!) on my file server in a mirrored raid configuration. Yes, it is "slower", but I still pull data off that server at over 50MB/sec on my home gigabit lan! The specs on that server aren't great either... 2GB ram, and an old 1.6GHZ single core sempron.

The S in SD means "Secure" which is an acronym for DRM ... and how that DRM exactly works is not public... Microsoft is probably using the DRM feature of the cards... where as most other companies to this point have not been that brave...

I agree and that's why I use it for internet facing machines I don't want have to worry about!
Just look at the 4.7 release. There were 7 patches for the kernel & userland 2 of which were categorized as security. The best someone attacking the system could do is cause a daemon to crash or possibly cause a panic. During the same 6 month time frame linux quite a few more security issues crop up including one that could be used to get root on a box. ouch.

but be sure to write down google's ssl fingerprint... and check it every now and then yourself. You never know when your place of work decides to start intercepting https! Mine did recently until I pointed out issues with HIPAA compliance in conjunction with our limited personal use policy! They (work) installed their own certificate on everyone's computers (but they didn't do Firefox which is why i noticed)... and then they modified the proxy servers to start taking a peek before re-encrypting and sending it along :(

Also, read this: http://samizdat.mines.edu/howto/HowToBeAProgrammer.html

Use notepad or nano and write down everything. This way you won't have to ask more than once for something.

you, sir, have just preached to the choir ;)

but... Linux doesn't have bugs!!

even inbound it's true, but in a different way. My ISP blocks port 80, but not 443 :) So I run my webserver on 443 with a self signed cert which is quite hard to spoof ;) Luckily they don't block 22... though maybe they should given how much work my DenyHosts is doing for me......

At work, I use a tunnel to bypass the special filtering they do, 443 (cgi-proxy) and 22 (ssh) are my friends...

In the end they haven't prevented anything, just made me go through a couple of extra hops - both at work and at home.

And it took you how long to figure this out? Anyone with real security in mind would create their own certificates and sign them. What's always been missing is a convenient way to verify the identify of the person you're communicating with. CAs only help in certain situations. SSL has always been more about encrypted content than identification no matter what people try to tell you.

ad hominem arguments do not help the debate