Peereboom

People have been saying that OpenSSL has been of poor quality [1], that the documentation is bad [2], and the developers don't really listen [3] for years. Heartbleed was just the straw that broke the camel's back. OpenSSL really was one of those pieces of software that was Just Good Enough that people tolerated it, but at the same time, filled them with a desire to punch kittens whenever they had to code with it. [1] https://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/l-openssl/index.h… [3] http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2012-October/003409.…

Sounds like this: https://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html ;)

Yeah, thats what I thought too, until I read this little gem, suggesting that OpenSSL was written by monkeys: http://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html Its kinda hard to disagree with that conclusion.

OpenSSL was written by monkeys: http://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html

What's wrong with xmonad's handling of xinerama? I seem to recall both awsome[a] and scrotwm[s] have decent handling of mulitscreens setups for drivers that doesn't support xrandr, or used twinview -- maybe I mis-remember what used to be my problem -- but these days xmonad works nicely for me, whenever I need more than one screen. [a] http://awesome.naquadah.org/ [s] http://www.peereboom.us/scrotwm/html/scrotwm.html

Slightly related, link to Peereboom's rant on the OpenSSL library (a bit dated): http://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html

Try scrotwm[1] - it's an xmonad workalike, but it's written in C instead of Haskell (not so important to me), and it has a config file instead of ... Haskell (quite a bit more important to me). Also, terrible and hilarious name. [1] http://www.peereboom.us/scrotwm/html/scrotwm.html

the link to Marco's article is broken in the article, the correct one is http://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html

> Prior to the failure, we had been seeing some anomalous behaviour from the A server in this pair. The machine had been taken offline and memory tests performed, but no issue was found. Presumably the anomalous behavior was disk-related and yet they only test memory. Why not check SMART status? Or if the RAID driver doesn't support SMART passthrough; move the drives to the SATA controller and boot off of a flash drive. Also, there are tools to generate lots of i/o and test for failures, i.e.: http://www.peereboom.us/iogen/

Lightweight alternatives (to heavyweight Chrome and Firefox): xxxterm; http://www.peereboom.us/xxxterm/html/ uzbl; http://uzbl.org/ surf; http://surf.suckless.org/ vimprobable2; http://www.vimprobable.org/