One night, I change her password. I log into her account, and download everything. She's twerking while I do this. I can either parlay this to email access or run the same attack against gmail. I use the access to her email to reset every other password she hhas - Facebook, etc. If I want to, I can use her icloud credentials to lock her out of her phone for a while. The next morning, she reads her email and finds out that I reset her password- but only if I haven't deleted that email,while I was setting her account to forward a copy of all future emails to me.

You listed some great examples, examples of the opposite of what you probably meant to show.
Take scheduling- there what, six different interchangeable, removeable kernel modules to do scheduling in different ways, including the option to not do it at all. The scheduler only does scheduling, and nothing else. The rest of the kernel doesn't know or care about the scheduling. You mentioned filesystems as well. Yep, you can choose from dozens of different filesystems. The rest of the kernel doesn't care which filesystem you're using, because those other modules do their job and nothing more. You can use any scheduler with any filesystem.

Enter zfs, a popular volume manager similar to LVM. It just manages volumes, so you choose whichever filesystem to lay on top. Er, no. If you want to use the ZFS volume manager, you probably need to use the ZFS filesystem. That's cool, it'll also provide an extra level of resiliency on top of that great hardware raid you have. Actually, not so much. It doesn't play nicely with most enterprise storage hardware. You need to use dumb hardware and use ZFS raid to avoid problems. Wait, what? ZFS, a filesystem, is telling you which hardware to use? That's not like the interchangeable kernel modules at all.

> Drop the 'my OS does it right' bullshit because your OS isn't what you're claiming it to be,

Where did I say one approach was right and the other wrong? In fact, I said each approach has it's advantages and disadvantages. What I said is that ZFS is not designed according to the Unix tradition of "do one small thing, and do it right". Apparently you agree that's the case:

  > don't disagree with the Unix tradition in the least, compartmentalized code with strong boundaries and good interoperablility where ever possible

That's why some who appreciate the Unix approach hate systemd. It would be more at home on Windows.

Re Sun, if you look at an old Sun Solaris box, you'll find some of the was written by a guy named Ray Morris. Coincidentally, this post was also written by Ray Morris.

Yeah, that's the thing about systemd- it's not Unixy. It might be great, but it's not designed according to Unix principles.

Miley CHANGES clothes? I thought she just took them off.

Do you have an example? The storage system I'm using provides every important feature I'm aware of in ZFS, and it keeps the layers separate. As ZFS has matured, it seems to be a way of getting all of those features out-of-the-box, without needing to think about how to put it together. LVM is one volume manager provides most of the same features, though. Then put your choice of filesystem on top of LVM. Can you think of any feature that actually requires the volume manager to be stirred together with the filesystem?

-> It may also eliminate the need for CAs and certificate altogether. You just store the public half of your certs in the DNS system

That's the problem. By the time a TLS certificate comes into play, the DNS must have already been compromised (directly or via mitm). The certificate is designed to alert you if the server you're talking to isn't who you think it is - based on DNS.

Several other posting here, fans of ZFS, are saying on this very page that ZFS really needs to be accessing bare disks. it will allow you to use another block device, they say, but data corruption is highly likely.

I just double checked and the same old attack still works on iCloud. If you forget your password, you can reset it in either of two ways. Either they can email you a new password, or you can answer the challenge questions. So let's get into Miley Cyrus's account.

https://www.google.com/?q=mile...
Her mother's maiden name is Finley

https://www.google.com/?q=mile...
Her first pet was named Cocoa.

There you go, now we can reset her iCloud password and Miley's naked pictures. [voice style="ben-stein"]Wow[/voice]

> ZFS is a layer below LVM.

Typically you'd layer raid, then LVM, then the filesystem. ZFS tries to be all three. It's raid, and it's a volume manager, and it's a filesystem. There are some benefits to integration, and some drawbacks. With the raid>lvm>filesystem approach, it's trivial to add dm-cache, bcache, iscsi, or any other piece of storage technology. With ZFS, anything you want to add has to be specifically supported within ZFS.

The Unix tradition is small, single purpose tools that do one thing well. Witness sort, grep, wc, etc. Want to count the log entries that mention Slashdot? You don't need a special tool for that, just grep slashdot | wc -l . Tools like mdadm and lvm are building blocks that can be combined to suit your need, the Unix way. ZFS is a big monolithic package that does everything, much like Microsoft Word or Outlook. ZFS is more in the Microsoft tradition.

> Is this something like a 1 year or 10 year contract?

The first words of the summary are:
      Prior to the season, Microsoft and the NFL struck a 5-year, $400 million deal

> I am sure all of them could pass it if they studied for it. That is why all certifications are uselessuselessb

With enough study, you can pass the exams to be a medical doctor. That is why exams to certify that medical doctors know what they are doing are useless. Unless of course you want someone who knows about the subject at hand. I kind of want a doctor, and a security professional, who have studied their fields. Sorry you couldn't pass.

> With enough studying, almost anyone can pass it without understanding the material, just regurgitating facts.

I suppose it MIGHT be possible to do that, but that would be the hard way. Understanding the material is a lot easier than memorizing every possible question and answer.

I'm no Oakey, but I can give you a very quick summary of geothermal, which I believe is fairly objective:

--------------
Geothermal is stable and relatively clean. It releases some greenhouse gasses. It's often inexpensive, but available only in a very limited area, certain parts of the "ring of fire" that circles the Pacific Ocean. Half of the ring is at the bottom of the ocean, so geothermal is available in spots along the west coast of the Americas and northern Asia. Geothermal wells are often very, very deep, and therefore risky - you could spend several million dollars, then hit a section that can't be drilled through, so you're out a few million dollars with nothing to show for it.

Overall, geothermal is, in my opinion, very attractive for the people in those few places where it's available.
----------------

Here's a bit more detail, with references:
The United States produces over 1 billion kilowatt hours of geothermal energy each year, more than any other country (EIA 2012). As calculated by Bertani & Thain (2002), greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal energy are 75% lower than natural gas and 87% lower than coal. From the earliest research into modern geothermal, it has been known that energy can be retrieved only from specific areas with appropriate tectonic activity (Elder 1965). John W. Elder found that areas where geothermal energy can be found within one kilometer of the surface are stable sources of energy at a reasonable cost and identified those areas as being primarily along the Pacific Rim and in Iceland. The areas identified as viable represent less than 1% of the earth. In all other areas, geothermal energy is not viable, primarily because forcing fluid against the high pressure at great depths would require more energy than could be retrieved.
The 2,566 megawatts of installed capacity in California and other parts of the country are certainly of benefit in those areas. The energy cannot be efficiently transported throughout the rest of the country, meaning the potential of geothermal is limited to those specific areas. Geothermal projects involve a considerable degree of risk because the energy source is buried under thousands of feet of rock, where engineers can see neither the potential energy reservoir nor the thousands of feet of rock that must be drilled to reach it. Therefore, it cannot be known ahead of time how long a geothermal well will produce, or if the intervening material is likely to cause the project to fail. Southton (2005) documented many failure modes which can stop a project after millions of dollars have already been invested. Lap leaks, compression failure, and casing cracks can ruin a geothermal well before any energy is produced (Southton 2005). Pruess (1990) considered various models for predicting when a well might stop producing, but those are only predictions. A geothermal well may stop producing at any time.
    The U.S. Geological Survey presented a procedure currently in use to extend the life of existing wells and allow geothermal wells to be drilled in new locations (Pierce 2010). The Pierce presentation of this method, known as hydraulic fracturing, also referenced the possibility that hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, might increase the risk of earthquakes. The potential danger of hydraulic fracturing was identified in 1994 by Bruhn, Parry, and Thompson, and the issue has received attention in the press lately. Guidelines for safe use of hydraulic fracturing may be developed by engineers and geologists, however issues of public opinion and politics exist in this area. Some proponents of renewable energy argue against the use of inexpensive natural gas by pointing out the potential risk of using hydraulic fracturing for natural gas production. It is therefore difficult for the same groups to argue for geothermal energy, which is also produced by hydraulic fracturing. Although the geothermal fields in California are the largest source of geothermal in the world, they provide less than 0.001% of energy needs, according to EIA data (2012). If it were possible to increase hydrothermal production by 1000%, this would fulfill 0.1% of U.S. energy needs.

> Sorry, writing complex queries in some imperative subset of JavaScript is totally the wrong way of doing things. Intentionally not learning SQL takes more effort than learning how to use it!

With 80 million records and heavy load, the number one priority is not "make it easy for any teenager to write queries ".
I system that requires the programmer to think things through, and therefore write an efficient query, is better in some cases.
Just as manually chosen mutexes are sometimes better than automatic full-column lovks actoss 80 million rows.
Easy isn't always best, my friend.

Ad Oakey pointed out, geothermal is produced by fracking. You were wise in your response, I think. Most people here on Slashdot know everything about everything, and have all the answers. You're smarter than that.