asharp's comments

From what i've read, the problem is that an attacker can add commits with forced Author information into a central repository to frame somebody else.

Wouldn't the signing of all commits as they are committed solve this problem? (ie. rather then trusting Author information from the commit, trust the signed-by information to give author information?)

From my understanding, I think they meant that mosh would deal with the more congested conditions better then ssh, thus providing a better experience. Just a hunch though.

That being said, mosh is rather cool ^_^

Be careful with that on rackspace. If I recall correctly, they use a credit scheduler with burst capacity. You need to be sure that you're not just getting a bunch of burst capacity and factoring that in with your cost calcs.

Is that their dNAS product or something else?

As I remember rackspace is a cloud in the same sense that Linode is a cloud, but not in the same sense that Amazon is a cloud, ie. they've taken an existing vps product (Slicehost) and resold it under the 'cloud' brand rather then developing something new from the ground up as a cloud.

Here's to hoping that its cloudfiles implementation no longer uses a file replicated sqlite db for indexing. (iirc it did earlier on. Scared me stupid when I found out).

I'd say that the major reason is cost.

Inside Australia you have the major peering fabrics which are on the order of a dollarish a mbit (cap). Compare that to $50-200/mbit for international transit and you'll see the problem. Quickly compare the cost of a gigE link.

About the only "international" player that doesn't (really) have this problem is NZ. Transit to NZ is ca $5/mbit last time i looked at it.

For the non network admins amongst us: http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/2012-February/01222...

Keep in mind that EC2 is simply one very specific case, and you can sum up a good portion of its problems with "It's designed to be cheap to build".

You are correct in that you need performance parity for two items to be comparable.

You are incorrect in saying that you take an order of magnitude performance hit when Virtualization, especially for CPU bound tasks [1].

In terms of disk you are slightly more correct, you can lose substantial performance, however it's still not an order of magnitude.

[1] http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2011/11/29/baremetal-vs-xen-vs... (A series of benchmarks showing a disparity of ~1% off bare metal on CPU bound tasks.)

Remember that there's a big difference between an aftermarket mod and setting up a factory to build purpose built electric cars. You have lots of additional regulatory/cap costs/etc. to bear.

Also keep in mind that they are making entirely (or mostly) new types of vehicles, ie. the tricycle. And design doesn't come cheap.

You can fairly easily spot most common protocols by seeing what they 1) Say to you without you prodding them or 2) Respond when you hit them with random data.

My guess is that they're using it as a cheap way to tell the difference between most of the common protocols. (ie. ssh vs. openvpn vs. https, etc.)

Or that they initially thought it was unisex but when they actually tried it on the female model the IK came out looking wrong in some obscure case. Or it had unexpected tearing issues. Or they had a fixed release date and couldn't get the female version finished in time, or .....

Still a stupid decision. They probably should have just scrubbed both. I'd wait until we get word back from the publisher before trying to work out what actually happened and if it was, in any way, dishonerable.

There is no such thing as unlimited.

However, if you were to take p(x) as the pdf of people needing exactly X storage and take the standard assumption that the integral over it's domain (0->infinity) = 1, then you can work out the expected amount of storage required per customer (integral of xp(x) over it's domain). Now as long as the cost required to host that expected amount of storage is less then the amount they are being paid, well then, they still make money.

But what usually happens is that they take various 'measures' to cut off the right tail of the pdf to make it more profitable. That's dishonest.

There are hard realtime patches to linux and have been since 2.4

I'd imagine that there would be some previously tested (say in aerospace) linux derivative that they'd be building off.

To be perfectly honest though, I don't know why they arn't using one of the few really good commercial hard real time unix kernels that you use for, say, UAV's and such.

The BWT is also rather interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrows%E2%80%93Wheeler_transf... . An efficient implementation is fairly simple, but not at all intuitive.

Also remember find's -print0 and xargs -0 so that you can deal with all filenames.

Or if the default was that things were private, and that only specific things become public.

But then you have the same problem of "If nobody sets things to be public, there's nothing to read, so no incentive to be a user".

I wonder why nobody really calls it corruption.

Interesting, but why don't you use a udev rule?

Something like KERNEL=="sdg", RUN+="/usr/bin/madagascar" and then you have madagascar check the environment variable ACTION for a 'remove', and when you see that run shutdown? (or just write straight into sysreq for instant poweroff)