Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ichilton's commentslogin

I really like the Unifi - i've run it for a while and not had a single problem.

I do have a big gripe though - it has a hard wired limit of 4x SSIDs for each access point.

I run a number of VLANs, each with their own SSID - and it means I can only have the Unifi provide my main ones and have to run an old Netgear router on different wifi channels to provide the rest :(

I've never quite understood why my cheap routers running OpenWRT can seemingly have unlimited (or at least a lot of) SSIDs, where an expensive Unifi will only provide 4.


It sounds more like a new product, new direction than Vagrant 2.0....


My take: I think the notion is, it will make sense to use Otto directly from the git-go the way it was for Vagrant in the past.

They still work at different levels, with Otto more likely trying to satisfy needs for things like "Ruby" and "Redis" while Vagrant is still more explicit.


The hn code doesn't seem to work?


Nifty - useful for quick testing tasks.

The concerns though are the sustainability - if instances are paid for and not free tier + bandwidth, it could not be around for long, particularly if it gets abused.

Also, privacy/security - there is no guarantee that instances are destroyed/erased after use and won't get assigned to someone else or logged into. Probably don't want to put private code/IPR on there just in case.

For quick commands (eg, testing a firewall setup from the outside or checking something from an external ip) then it's very cool indeed.


What's he using to benchmark that? - anyone know?

What's the best benchmark tool for drives and/or network shares?


That's the Windows 8 Explorer copying files.


Is there anywhere to register to receive more information on your book when you get nearer?


Does anyone know technically how LXC compares to OpenVZ?


I would think he meant what you said.... symlinks in the repo doesn't sound a good idea.


I always ran Ubuntu for Desktops and Debian (stable) on servers, but lately i've used Ubuntu for some servers simply because the packages are more up-to-date...


Did you run your debian with backports? That solved most problems for me, and restricted the changes to the packages themselves, without pulling in to many new dependencies.

Ubuntu LTS can have outdated packages, too, and no backports there, last time I've looked.


If you don't run ssh on port 22, it's been proved that it receives a lot less outside login attempts and stops the logs filling up with login failures apart from anything else.


Logs filling up with login failures is hardly a decent reason.


Two reasons: 1. Logs filling up with login failures from drive-bys masks legitimate/focused hack attempts. 2. If there's a security vulnerability found for sshd, non-standard port choice reduces the risk of drive-by scanners.

Non-standard ports don't stop dedicated attacks, but they do reduce noise that can obfuscate a dedicated attack and can reduce your exposure to uncommitted attackers.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: