Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment I wish they'd make it easier to install (Score 1) 136 136

I'm really glad they're making strides on the performance of their Linux driver, but I really wish they'd focus on making it easier to install. On Fedora the Radeon driver is darn near impossible (without some serious binary hacking) to get the thing installed. They "officially support" CentOS 7, but not Fedora? Is it really that hard to support a modern kernel and modern version of X?

I usually end up just running the open source driver because the Radeon driver is so complicated to get working on a modern Linux system.

Comment AMD APUs have the highest performance per dollar. (Score 4, Interesting) 138 138

The AMD APUs really are a great melding of price vs performance. Sure Intel has faster CPUs, but they're also more than twice as much! The highest end APU is $150, and the highest i7 is $340. The i7 will have higher CPU performance, but most games aren't CPU bound, they're GPU bound. The AMD APUs have decent GPUs. They won't replace your high end GPU if you're playing Battlefield at 1080p, but if you're a mid-level gamer they perform great. Plus you can always add a decent GPU for $150 and you're still less than that 4700 i7!

Comment I'm confused (Score 1) 145 145

This may be the most confusing article summary I've ever read. I read it 5 times before I gave up trying to understand it.

Headline: DDR4 May Replace Mobile Memory For Less
Summary: LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%), it will also likely cost 40% more than DDR4 memory."

Comment Re:New versioning scheme (Score 1) 644 644

It's only been six months since they announced the new release scheme. Things are already smoother than they were, and I think as time goes on the process will smooth out entirely. Of course there are going to be growing pains when you drastically change your release model like Mozilla did.

Comment Re:Just making sure Google is listening... (Score 2) 274 274

I think we're settling in to a browser renaissance here. With all the major browsers being mostly equivalent feature wise people will just choose what works best for them. I suspect we'll have a three way race for browser usage between Chrome, IE, and Firefox. I suspect the market share will level out, and there won't be a CLEAR winner like there was when IE6 dominated.

Even if Chrome gets market share Firefox will still have its place, and still be relevant.

Comment I've never used Bing... (Score 2) 274 274

I must admit I haven't really used Bing much until I read this article. Just as a test today I set my default search engine to Bing and it's surprisingly decent! It's a very decent alternative to Google now. Seeing as Microsoft loses money on search I don't mind using it either.

With Google being as big as it is, and having it's finger in EVERYTHING, makes me nervous. Having a viable alternative just serves to keep them honest.

Comment Just making sure Google is listening... (Score 5, Interesting) 274 274

My guess is this is a shot across the bow of Google. Letting Google know that it's pretty easy for them to switch the default search traffic to Bing is just good business. I'm sure Microsoft is going to be bidding pretty heavily to get Firefox's search user base.

In the end it's just going to keep Google honest and make sure they pay a fair price for the search traffic Firefox sends them. I think Google pays something like $60 or $70 million a year for all the Firefox user searches. That's chump change to someone like Google. I suspect after this, the next contract renewal might be a higher number.

Comment Google way or the highway (Score 2, Interesting) 574 574

The more I read about Chrome's design process the more I hear, "it's the Google way or no way at all". I don't have a problem with the tabs being on the top, but it seems like it would be very easy to have an option where you want the tab bar. Several of the comments had valid use cases for why you'd want tabs under, but Google isn't interested in adding it as an option?

Comment A script to check rDNS for popular domains (Score 1) 301 301

I wrote a script to check a bunch of popular domains (or any domain) and see if they have a reverse DNS entry.

http://www.perturb.org/code/rdns_check.pl

The summary is that every one (100%) of the domains I checked had reverse DNS.

digg.com has 7 MX records
    ** (Good) aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.65.27 / gx-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt1.aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.113.27 / vw-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt2.aspmx.l.google.com = 209.85.143.27 / dy-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) aspmx2.googlemail.com = 74.125.43.27 / bw-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) aspmx3.googlemail.com = 74.125.127.27 / pz-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) mail.digg.com = 74.125.127.121 / pz-in-f121.1e100.net
    ** (Good) diggstage01.digg.com = 64.191.203.34 / diggstage01.digg.com
nytimes.com has 4 MX records
    ** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7A1.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.14 / s7a1.psmtp.com
    ** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7A2.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.13 / s7a2.psmtp.com
    ** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7B1.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.11 / s7b1.psmtp.com
    ** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7B2.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.10 / s7b2.psmtp.com
gmail.com has 5 MX records
    ** (Good) gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 74.125.65.26 / gx-in-f26.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 74.125.113.26 / vw-in-f26.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt2.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 209.85.143.26 / dy-in-f26.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 209.85.229.26 / ww-in-f26.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 74.125.79.26 / ey-in-f26.1e100.net
hotmail.com has 4 MX records
    ** (Good) mx3.hotmail.com = 65.54.188.110 / bay0-mc3-f.bay0.hotmail.com
    ** (Good) mx4.hotmail.com = 65.55.92.168 / mx4.hotmail.com
    ** (Good) mx1.hotmail.com = 65.54.188.72 / bay0-mc1-f.bay0.hotmail.com
    ** (Good) mx2.hotmail.com = 65.55.37.72 / col0-mc1-f.col0.hotmail.com
yahoo.com has 3 MX records
    ** (Good) mta6.am0.yahoodns.net = 98.137.54.238 / mta-v2.mail.vip.sp2.yahoo.com
    ** (Good) mta7.am0.yahoodns.net = 74.6.136.244 / mta-v3.mail.vip.sk1.yahoo.com
    ** (Good) mta5.am0.yahoodns.net = 98.139.175.224 / mta-v1.mail.vip.bf1.yahoo.com
fastmail.fm has 2 MX records
    ** (Good) in1.smtp.messagingengine.com = 66.111.4.71 / mx2.messagingengine.com
    ** (Good) in2.smtp.messagingengine.com = 82.145.212.142 / tmx2.messagingengine.com
comcast.net has 2 MX records
    ** (Good) mx1.comcast.net = 76.96.62.116 / imta.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net
    ** (Good) mx2.comcast.net = 76.96.30.116 / imta.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
apple.com has 7 MX records
    ** (Good) mail-in13.apple.com = 17.254.13.11 / mail-in.apple.com
    ** (Good) mail-in14.apple.com = 17.254.13.13 / mail-in.apple.com
    ** (Good) mail-in11.apple.com = 17.254.13.7 / mail-in.apple.com
    ** (Good) mail-in12.apple.com = 17.254.13.10 / mail-in.apple.com
    ** (Good) mail-in2.apple.com = 17.254.13.5 / mail-in2.apple.com
    ** (Good) mail-in6.apple.com = 17.254.13.9 / mail-in6.apple.com
    ** (Good) mail-in3.apple.com = 17.254.13.8 / mail-in3.apple.com
google.com has 5 MX records
    ** (Good) aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.65.27 / gx-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt1.aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.113.27 / vw-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt2.aspmx.l.google.com = 209.85.143.27 / dy-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt3.aspmx.l.google.com = 209.85.229.26 / ww-in-f26.1e100.net
    ** (Good) alt4.aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.79.26 / ey-in-f26.1e100.net
aol.com has 4 MX records
    ** (Good) mailin-02.mx.aol.com = 64.12.139.193 / mtain-mk.r1000.mx.aol.com
    ** (Good) mailin-03.mx.aol.com = 64.12.90.33 / mtain-mg.r1000.mx.aol.com
    ** (Good) mailin-04.mx.aol.com = 64.12.90.34 / mtain-mh.r1000.mx.aol.com
    ** (Good) mailin-01.mx.aol.com = 205.188.59.194 / mtain-db.r1000.mx.aol.com
wikipedia.org has 2 MX records
    ** (Good) mchenry.wikimedia.org = 208.80.152.186 / mchenry.wikimedia.org
    ** (Good) lists.wikimedia.org = 91.198.174.5 / lists.wikimedia.org
ebay.com has 3 MX records
    ** (Good) lore.ebay.com = 216.113.175.103 / lore.ebay.com
    ** (Good) data.ebay.com = 66.135.195.180 / data.ebay.com
    ** (Good) gort.ebay.com = 216.113.167.215 / gort.ebay.com
amazon.com has 5 MX records
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-33001.amazon.com = 207.171.189.228 / smtp-fw-33001.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com = 72.21.196.25 / smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-4101.amazon.com = 72.21.198.25 / smtp-fw-4101.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com = 207.171.184.25 / smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-31001.amazon.com = 207.171.178.25 / smtp-fw-31001.amazon.com
slickdeals.net has 7 MX records
    ** (Good) ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM = 74.125.65.27 / gx-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM = 209.85.143.27 / dy-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM = 74.125.113.27 / vw-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM = 74.125.43.27 / bw-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM = 74.125.127.27 / pz-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM = 209.85.229.27 / ww-in-f27.1e100.net
    ** (Good) ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM = 74.125.157.27 / gy-in-f27.1e100.net
redhat.com has 2 MX records
    ** (Good) mx1.redhat.com = 209.132.183.28 / mx1.redhat.com
    ** (Good) mx2.redhat.com = 66.187.233.33 / mx2-old.redhat.com
ubuntu.com has 1 MX records
    ** (Good) mx.canonical.com = 91.189.94.145 / fiordland.canonical.com
ibm.com has 11 MX records
    ** (Good) e34.co.us.ibm.com = 32.97.110.152 / e34.co.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e35.co.us.ibm.com = 32.97.110.153 / e35.co.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e1.ny.us.ibm.com = 32.97.182.141 / e1.ny.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e2.ny.us.ibm.com = 32.97.182.142 / e2.ny.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e3.ny.us.ibm.com = 32.97.182.143 / e3.ny.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e4.ny.us.ibm.com = 32.97.182.144 / e4.ny.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e5.ny.us.ibm.com = 32.97.182.145 / e5.ny.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e6.ny.us.ibm.com = 32.97.182.146 / e6.ny.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e31.co.us.ibm.com = 32.97.110.149 / e31.co.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e32.co.us.ibm.com = 32.97.110.150 / e32.co.us.ibm.com
    ** (Good) e33.co.us.ibm.com = 32.97.110.151 / e33.co.us.ibm.com
calix.com has 4 MX records
    ** (Good) calix.com.s8a1.psmtp.com = 64.18.7.10 / s8a1.psmtp.com
    ** (Good) calix.com.s8a2.psmtp.com = 64.18.7.11 / s8a2.psmtp.com
    ** (Good) calix.com.s8b1.psmtp.com = 64.18.7.13 / s8b1.psmtp.com
    ** (Good) calix.com.s8b2.psmtp.com = 64.18.7.14 / s8b2.psmtp.com
intel.com has 6 MX records
    ** (Good) mga02.intel.com = 134.134.136.20 / mga02.intel.com
    ** (Good) mga03.intel.com = 143.182.124.21 / mga03.intel.com
    ** (Good) mga09.intel.com = 134.134.136.24 / mga09.intel.com
    ** (Good) mga11.intel.com = 192.55.52.93 / mga11.intel.com
    ** (Good) mga14.intel.com = 143.182.124.37 / mga14.intel.com
    ** (Good) mga01.intel.com = 192.55.52.88 / mga01.intel.com
amd.com has 1 MX records
    ** (Good) mail.global.frontbridge.com = 216.32.180.22 / mail.global.frontbridge.com
msn.com has 4 MX records
    ** (Good) mx2.hotmail.com = 65.54.188.110 / bay0-mc3-f.bay0.hotmail.com
    ** (Good) mx3.hotmail.com = 65.54.188.72 / bay0-mc1-f.bay0.hotmail.com
    ** (Good) mx4.hotmail.com = 65.55.92.136 / mx1.hotmail.com
    ** (Good) mx1.hotmail.com = 65.55.92.168 / mx3.hotmail.com
wired.com has 4 MX records
    ** (Good) samgdem01.advancemags.com = 208.92.44.79 / samgdem01.advancemags.com
    ** (Good) samgdem02.advancemags.com = 208.92.44.90 / samgdem02.advancemags.com
    ** (Good) samgnym01.advancemags.com = 69.2.121.12 / samgnym01.advancemags.com
    ** (Good) samgnym02.advancemags.com = 69.2.121.14 / samgnym02.advancemags.com
cnn.com has 6 MX records
    ** (Good) hkgmail1.turner.com = 168.161.96.115 / hkgmail1.turner.com
    ** (Good) lonmail1.turner.com = 157.166.216.142 / lonmail1.turner.com
    ** (Good) nycmail1.turner.com = 157.166.157.8 / nycmail1.turner.com
    ** (Good) nycmail2.turner.com = 157.166.157.10 / nycmail2.turner.com
    ** (Good) atlmail3.turner.com = 157.166.174.56 / atlmail3.turner.com
    ** (Good) atlmail5.turner.com = 157.166.165.14 / atlmail5.turner.com
msnbc.com has 1 MX records
    ** (Good) mail.messaging.microsoft.com = 65.55.88.22 / mail.global.frontbridge.com
slashdot.org has 1 MX records
    ** (Good) mx.sourceforge.net = 216.34.181.68 / mx.sourceforge.net
facebook.com has 1 MX records
    ** (Good) smtpin.mx.facebook.com = 66.220.155.16 / smtpin.mx.facebook.com
paypal.com has 3 MX records
    ** (Good) data.ebay.com = 66.135.195.180 / data.ebay.com
    ** (Good) gort.ebay.com = 216.113.167.215 / gort.ebay.com
    ** (Good) lore.ebay.com = 216.113.175.103 / lore.ebay.com
amazon.com has 5 MX records
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-31001.amazon.com = 207.171.178.25 / smtp-fw-31001.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-33001.amazon.com = 207.171.189.228 / smtp-fw-33001.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com = 72.21.196.25 / smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-4101.amazon.com = 72.21.198.25 / smtp-fw-4101.amazon.com
    ** (Good) smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com = 207.171.184.25 / smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com

Comment As an ISP we require rDNS it works well. (Score 2) 301 301

I work for an ISP and we require rDNS records for all incoming mail. You will filter out a TON of spam email with that simple rule. It's much easier on the CPU load to filter on a simple reverse DNS check than to run spam assassin on that message. There are the occasional (not as many as you'd think) misconfigured servers that don't have rDNS. In those rare cases we contact the other end and let them know they're incorrectly setup, and usually add a temporary allow until they get the issue fixed.

I highly recommend requiring rDNS for incoming mail. 99.9% of legit mail servers will have those records, and only about 30% of spam servers will. We process over a million email messages a day with this method, it works.

Comment Re:Cheap fast and good enough beats state of the a (Score 1) 327 327

Sure I spend of lot of time twiddling my thumbs waiting for my files to transfer too, but the bottleneck isn't my 1Gb/s network. It's my slow sata drive! I would venture a guess that if you were able to fully utilize that 10Gb/s connection thunderbolt gives you, you'll be entirely limited by what's on either end. Only high end SAS arrays will be able to write/read that fast.

In other words the only way to utilize all that bandwidth would be to aggregate 100s of connections, ala an ethernet switch. Which is an entirely DIFFERENT market than what they're targeting for thunderbolt.

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_

Working...