This will certainly save a lot of money for enterprises. I expect it will be the RARE company that will actually need 5Gbps per workstation. Most can probably get by on 100Mbps.
Anyone that upgrades to VOIP will need a 1Gbps network, preferably with CAT6; CAT5e is okay but CAT6 really enables it.
I don't see why. If the cable is the same the jacks use all the cables. At least when I put the head on the cables I connected them all.
It's a matter of the frequency tolerance and ability for the cable to carry the requisite signals. CAT5 doesn't have the tolerance for 1GBps transmission while CAT5e does, but CAT6 and CAT7 do even better as the signal tolerances are significantly improved and able to push higher frequencies.
Most likely, when they say that you don't need to tear out the cables, they're referring to CAT6 cable installations. It you have CAT5 you'll definitely need to upgrade the cable; you will *likely* need to upgrade if you only have CAT5e. Nearly everyone has CAT5e at minimum and many have been upgrading already to CAT6; so if they can pull the 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps on CAT6 then most everyone will be quite happy that the investment they just did (in the last 5 years) to handle 1Gbps will be easily upgradeable to the new standard with just router and NIC changes - much like the 100Mbps to 1Gbps switch was with CAT5e installations.
You're the sort of fat fuck who thinks an "all you cat eat" buffet means you can just stuff everything in your mouth.
Pretty much EVERY service is priced on the basis that not everyone will use it in the most costly way.
Just because you're incapable of understanding a complex society that's based on implicit understanding and values rather than strictly written rules, it doesn't mean most human beings can't manage fine in it.
Don't use your disability as a reason to fuck things up for others.
"Unlimited" should have the very simple meaning of 24/7/3600 usage of the bandwidth you are purchasing as a customer of a given ISP. It should be impossible then to hit the datacap since your modem should not be able to exceed such usage.
"Limited" can be any fraction of that, e.g a 50 Mbps service with 600GB data cap would be "Limited" not "Unlimited" since even a 1 Mbps connection could exceed 1 TB of data per month.
IOW, Truth In Advertising.
Personally, if I'm sold a 30Mbps/5Mbps cable/dsl connection, I expect to be able to saturate that channel 24/7 if I want to. ISPs should provision accordingly.
Yes, the data cap equation should be pretty simple:
(# of Bits Per Second)*(#of seconds per billing period)
Which when (# bps) is set to what the customer is purchasing should be *impossible* for the customer to exceed.
Further, the modems should report appropriate usage for the same billing period in a way that customers can verify (e.g measuring data going to the modem using a tool like OpenWRT's bandwidth measurements).
Ok, I misspoke.
What I meant is: If a judge decides that a company is up to illegal activities and tells the company to stop then anyone working with that company in spite of this is aiding those illegal activities.
Not quite. The company can get shut down, but only those involved in the actual illegal activity will be prosecuted.
Otherwise you'll have the janitor serving time for something they was completely unrelated to them.
As such, ALS would have to prove the CloudFlare was involved as a conspirator in the illegal activity. Otherwise, CloudFlare has done nothing wrong other than sell there own services.
So no, unless you can show that CloudFlare (or any company) for that matter was involved in the Copyright Infringement (or other illegal activity) then they are absolved of the supposed crime. For example, a bank holds a criminals money; is the bank then a legal conspirator (and therefore guilty) of murder for an Assassin? Or illegal drug possession or drug trafficking for a drug dealer? No. It's no different for CloudFlare and other companies; yes, they may help make websites and services more secure; but they're not participating in the crime itself in any form - no different from the bank.
Dists didn't choose systemd because they had a gun pointed to their heads. They chose it because it is demonstrably better than either sysvinit or upstart.
Funny...I've had no issues on any system running SysV Init Script or Upstart. I've even built my own distros - from scratch - and managed them.
However, I have run into numerous issues with systemd-based distros because of systemd.
Sorry, but many distros are doing it because of not taking the option not to. Debian switched because a couple package maintainers made it a dependency and the Debian maintainers refused to make them make it optional - thus we now have Devuan which maintains that choice. Thus nearly all Debian derived distros don't have a choice but to use it either. (Devuan had a lot of trouble untwining systemd to keep it optional primarily due to the Debian decision not to keep it optional.)
So while there may not have been a gun to their head, it's been an oligarchy that has decided 'systemd is best for everyone' kind of decision when the vast majority don't want it.
There are major distros that are systemd free, and not only because systemd was removed from them, but because they never had it (Slackware)... or at least only have it as a non-required option (Gentoo).
Well according to Distro Watch Slackware rates 16 and Gentoo rates 36 on the list of page hits so they must be major distibutions.
Consider this:
Slackware is the last of the original Linux distros still active, with updates, etc. It's the origin for numerous distros - including many other major distros. Its authors are some of the top and moist respected in the LInux community.
Gentoo is the first real major source-based distro, and the origin distro for numerous other distros, the most famous being ArchLinux.
Know your distro history before trying to downplay the role a distro has.
Most of the posts are just from people who really have no idea what systemd is for or even the old the init system.
Most posts I see are from people that know *exactly* what systemd is for, have used numerous init systems, and find a lot of issues that are extremely annoying if not system debilitating. I've run into several myself - including most recently an issue with the most basic of what systemd was suppose to do - monitoring daemons.
Seems pointless wasting memory and load time on a service that just duplicates systemd functionality that is already loaded for use by other things. Also increases the available attack surface.
I get that the Unix way is to have lots of little utilities and services doing specific things, but it actually turned out to not be the best model. It's better to build a higher level, more generic system that can implement as much of this functionality in a clean, consistent way that can be carefully security hardened and tested.
It's quite obvious that you know extremely little about security issues.
When it comes to security you want things that are extremely limited in functionality - that enables security to be proven and well tested. So the Unix methodology of "do one thing and do it extremely well" is a very tried and true security method.
By contrast, one reason that malware runs so rampant on Windows is because Microsoft can't lock stuff down because of how tied together everything is. Infect IE? There goes nearly every help system in every Windows app too. Got a Windows Handle to a text box? Now you can inject code into a random app as they won't likely check the text box constraints when using the data from it. Prior to Vista there were even circular Kernel and Userspace dependencies.
So no, putting everything into one big project time and time again shows bad things happen - from poor code management because of how intertwined stuff gets and people getting lazy about linking code together to security issues since you can break one thing and crack your way into something else a whole lot easier.
systemd is the opposite of providing security in any kind of easy to lock down model.
From Lennart's reddit comment:
"first of all, this doesn't replace util-linux' mount tool. Not at all. It just tells systemd to mount something, going through systemd's dependency logic. For the actual mount operation PID 1 will fork off util-linux' mount tool like it always did."
Big fucking deal.
Well, IMHO, it just means one more thing to go wrong.
I recently had to diagnose why my agent - started via a
Expect this to be similar where you'll have systemd mount something during boot, and then for some reason it gets unmounted in a way systemd didn't expect and now you can't remount it because systemd thinks its still mounted but won't tell you that.
systemd is just a piece of crap that needs to be removed.
If it's open sourced it can have the same amount of spyware the Linux kernel has if not less.
Hard to have less since LK has none.
What I particularly dislike is how it automatically filters output, and you have to use arguments or other applets to give you fuller output. It just strikes me as being the exact opposite of how any particular command or script should work.
No, it is not the opposite. It's giving the information that is the most usable and easily read by a human. Even *nix utilities do this. Hell, type "ls" and you don't get the file sizes and dates; you have to add -l to get those details.
And objects, big fucking deal. I've been using Bourne variants for a quarter of a century and never thought "Boy, I wish I had classes".
That just shows that you are stuck in the mindset of manipulating text outputs of commands to find the information you need. It certainly shows a lack of imagination that there could be anything better. What it doesn't show is that there is anything wrong with the concept of PowerShell simply because you don't get it.
When you start writing scripts that make web requests that you can read the value you want without having to do clunky regular expressions, then directly updating specific cells in a spreadsheet (including with formatting) then you realise just how much easier this is with an object-based system. Or how about writing your own software as a
No, it shows that you need to use the right tool for the job.
For example, if I'm writing a web request in a Bash script then either I'm calling out to wget/curl to handle it, or I'm writing a Python script (or another language) that will do the work elegantly and isolate it to just that script. I don't do web requests directly in Bash - I use the right tool. All of these combine together through the return value of the program and stderr/stdout/stdin to pass data back and forth using basic text - which is typically all you need. If more structured information is needed then it's really easy to dump it into a structured temp file and provide the path for that.
Again, debugging is very easy - just at "echo" where needed, capture outputs to text files, and keep temp files from destroying themselves to analyze their contents. It's all pretty basic stuff and no advanced computer science degree is required or even knowledge of some special IDE (f.e VisualStudios) required to analyze or debug the stuff.
And yes, I'm aware that you can use debuggers with PS, but then I have to load a debugger - which means yet another tool has to be installed and run - more memory required to figure out what is going wrong.
And yes, I get the desire for OO-based scripts - but then, if I wanted that I would go to Python, Scala, or one of many other OO-based languages.
Really, the only useful thing I found in PS was the ease with which one can access the Windows Registry since they treat it like another file path ("cd \\hklm\..."); this is not necessary on a non-Windows system since the Windows Registry doesn't exist.
This is a serious question from a Unix user who is curious about PowerShell... I like the idea of piping objects around. Does it play with anything outside the
No. PowerShell is exclusively written in C# AFAIK; at best you might be able to get another
Ugh, PS is horrendous - especially trying to learn the f***ed up way it works.
But on Windoze hosts you have nothing else command line wise to manage AD and Exchange (mostly what I punish my self with).
It's object oriented. If you don't have a even a basic understanding of how objects work, of course it's going to be confusing. Once you break past that wall however, you find a well documented and sane terminal. Sadly many think "different" = "bad".
I tried out PowerShell (PS) when it first came out, the general idea being attractive. However, even in Windows I install the GNUWin32 Utils and 90% of the aliases in PS conflict with standard Unix Commands (f.e ls, cp) and mean something entirely different. So I between that and the complete inability to have a nice debugging environment like Bash does - where it's easy to figure out what you're looking at just by looking at the output and not having something completely foreign to work with when piped - I quickly abandoned PS as useless.
Yes, I know some people file it useful - good for them. But I'd rather have Bash where the output is entirely predictable and when something breaks it's extremely easy to figure out why.
So what do you use? Edge?
They probably use Netscape Navigator 4.7.
"The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." -- Franco Spisani
