Re: [bitfolk] Opinions on disabling time-based fsck

Top Page

Reply to this message
Author: Mathew Newton
Date:  
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Opinions on disabling time-based fsck

--9aCKuHbn5v2q3RVc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Dom,

On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:39:40PM +0200, bitfolk-users@??? wrote:
> On 02/10/11 12:36, Andy Smith wrote:
>> entropy.lon.bitfolk.com [212.13.194.102] has been renumbered to
>> 85.119.80.215. If you're making use of our free entropy service[1]
>
> Maybe I'm easily impressed, but I'm impressed.


:-) impressed by the paranoia / nerdiness?

People came to me with a problem. I found the Entropy Key; they are
about =A330 each. Instead of saying, "yeah just ln -sf /dev/urandom
/dev/random" like everyone else, I decided to have a play.

If you ask a cryptographer I suspect they will still say urandom is
good enough, but, well, the option is there now.

> I suppose I should have a poke around the bitfolk wiki to see
> what other gadgets and gee-gaws are available.


The usual problem with wikis: it's hard to organise it. :(

I must confess that the page was only created by me today based on
an announcement made over a year ago, before the wiki existed:

    http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/message/20100607.133631.59c94486.en.html


The need to renumber it forced its creation as otherwise very few
people would know what I was on about.

Cheers,
Andy

--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

"I'd be happy to buy all variations of sex to ensure I got what I wanted."
-- Gary Coates (talking about cabling)

--9aCKuHbn5v2q3RVc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREDAAYFAk6IrHYACgkQIJm2TL8VSQv7ygCdFn21nzr7anljLLX4C9Bi7G+Y
RooAoNxdo/rxOLtMCPktD/m8raAsuPb+
=BvXx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9aCKuHbn5v2q3RVc--


From bitfolk-users@??? Sun Oct 02 18:40:18 2011
Received: from dogfood4.lampservers.net ([212.13.195.97])
    by bitfolk.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
    (envelope-from <bitfolk-users@???>) id 1RAQxV-0007ME-PR
    for users@???; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 18:40:17 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by dogfood4.lampservers.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5F32CA29
    for <users@???>; Sun,  2 Oct 2011 18:40:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from dogfood4.lampservers.net ([127.0.0.1])
    by localhost (dogfood4.lampservers.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
    port 10024) with ESMTP id S4M7DbcjOtPU for <users@???>;
    Sun,  2 Oct 2011 18:40:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (134.Red-83-33-183.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net
    [83.33.183.134]) (Authenticated sender: dom@???)
    by dogfood4.lampservers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C9EF2C958
    for <users@???>; Sun,  2 Oct 2011 18:40:08 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4E88B005.208@???>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:40:05 +0200
From: Dom Latter <bitfolk-users@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
    rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@???
References: <20111002103608.GR4221@???> <4E8893CC.6010105@???>
    <20111002182454.GU4221@???>
In-Reply-To: <20111002182454.GU4221@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; cha