Any suggestions on what netbook to buy?
Scroll past the ranting for the functional requirements.
I've had a TF101 for a couple of years, and I'm fucking sick of it.
Because it's a tegra2 (ARM), I can't upgrade the kernel without doing
a ridiculous dance using an x86-only binary reflashing tool from
nvidia. And I'm sick of not being able to use an external screen or
bluetooth or have accelerated 2D graphics. Even the onboard speakers
don't work and the headphones get interference from the backlight
unless the brightness is 100% or 0%.
And my storage is only an eMMC and an SD card, and I removed the ext
journal from the SD card and now whenever I try to read or write to
some directories the shitty Asus-supplied Android-flavoured kernel I'm
running (with an equally ancient Ubuntu userland) just koopses and
reboots. (And dd'ing the fs onto a fresh SD card didn't help.)
None of those are show-stoppers, but the whole reason I bought an
ARM was because BATTERY LIFE! and I want to believe that current-gen
x86-64 netbooks can compete with ARM there. If that's so, there's no
need to put up with ARM vendors' idea devices are MAGICAL UNIQUE
SNOWFLAKES protected from any expectation of interoperability.
I had a look at the Asus T100 which looks to be their current
x86-flavoured equivalent of the TF101, but it ships with a 32-bit EFI,
which mjg59 says is VERY VERY STUPID and phoronix says makes life
gratuitously hard when using stock x86-64 bootloader/kernel/userland.
So my requirements (RFC 2119) go something like this:
MUST run Debian jessie without too much hassle.
Hardware that Debian can't drive that doesn't count.
MUST be around 10" (12" is too big, 7" is too small).
MUST be around 1kg.
MUST have onboard keyboard & screen.
MUST accept an SSD as primary storage.
(Either 2.5" SATA or mSATA/PCIe are fine.)
(It need not ship with an SSD; I'll buy a good one.)
MUST have 802.11.
MUST have at least one USB host port.
MUST have onboard speakers and/or a 3.5mm speaker jack.
SHOULD have at least 12h battery life.
On the basis that vendor lies, Windowsisms and wear will
reduce this to an 8h battery life after two years, which is
about the minimum I want.
I'd like this to be a "MUST", but I doubt x86-64 can manage
it within the volume/weight constraints.
Plan B is "FFS, just buy a second power brick".
SHOULD have video out. I'd prefer DisplayPort over HDMI, but I'll
take anything that Debian can speak. The intention is for
day-to-day use to be with an external keyboard & screen.
SHOULD ship with at least 2GB RAM.
SHOULD accept at least 4GB RAM.
SHOULD have hardware virtualization.
SHOULD have a micro SD slot.
SHOULD have bluetooth (for keyboard).
SHOULD be available off-the-shelf in Melbourne.
I like kicking the tyres before I buy stuff.
SHOULD be around A$500 to A$750.
SHOULD have passive cooling.
 I could even fix some of them -- like not being able to access
/boot from the running system -- if I was prepared to piss about
building a new rootfs and reflashing it. But I'd rather not do
that while it's my only computer.
on the off-chance someone is interested in fast boot-drives;
(yes I know; if one doesn't boot down, one doesn't need to boot up !
: - / ;
just wondering if anyone has had experience with:
PCI-e SSD boot drives vs SATA III(SSD and rotating).
There is a comparison of a few of the former here at
thanks Rohan McLeod
!< Firstly the correct way to quote text is to prepend each line with "> ".
Oh for the love of fuck let it go.
You are not spending cycles on education here, this is the type of (ultimately bullying) behaviour that has ruined our culture.
How noble the heart that must kick a flea.
My last words as president of Linux Users of Victoria were - "Be Excellent to Each Other."
This is why. Do better, try harder.
Further correspondence will not be entered into.
There is a lot of talk comparing Australia's practices around the arrival
of boat people and such to the Nazi holocaust, saying it is insane, that
Asian countries are shocked by our callousness and inhumanity, and so
forth. (I am paraphrasing here.)
I tried earlier in a gentle way to suggest that such comparisons are not a
good idea. Let me try again.
Such comparisons are
a) Over the top.
If someone can really make a case that our immigration policy is reasonably
comparable to the deliberate slaughter of millions of people from racial,
political, and sexual minorities, I have not seen it. These sort of
stretched comparisons just discredit those making them. As a part-Jewish
friend put it to me, even a comparison to the repatriation of refugees by
England to Stalin's Russia after WWII would be stretched, let alone a
comparison to Hitler's extremination campaigns.
b) Counter productive.
Making such over-dramatized comparisons just makes it easy for people to
dismiss your arguments. Why should people take seriously those who make
such inaccurate comparisons?
You run the risk of seriously offending and demeaning those who were
impacted by the events of WWII, by implicitly diminishing the scale and
horror of their tragedy.
Further, if you make such comparisons without proposing an alternative
policy, and showing what its realistic implications would be, you also lack
credibility. What is the alternate policy? That anyone who shows up and
claims to be a refugee can stay? Surveys suggest that 40% of the third
world's population would move to a western country if they could. What
would be the implications of this? Among other things it would make our
current welfare state impossible to sustain. Forget Medicare. Forget aged
pensions. Forget unemployment benefits.
Saying we should be more humane to claimed refugees is not a policy
proposal. The Greens' 'policy' falls well short and does not analyse the
consequences. They are silent on the question of what happens to those not
found to be refugees.
Some libertarians do say that they support the right of unrestricted
immigration. They acknowledge the consequences. I do respect this to some
extent. But when I see these statements without any actual concrete policy
proposal, and without acknowledging the consequences of such a policy, one
might begin to suspect that what we are seeing is not much more than moral
I was told today by our tech people that many ISPs alter files that are
attached to email, as an explanation why I was having trouble opening some
.doc files in MSWord.
Any comment? please
0447 667 468
Quoting "Lev Lafayette" <lev(a)levlafayette.com>
> In 2008 the Abortion Law Reform Act decrimalised abortion up to 24
> Rogue Frankston MP, Geoff Shaw, has flagged his intention to introduce a
> private members bill that will remove that assurance of medical service.
Well, that's where the tail wags the dog.
But, actually, Naphtine and Co love it - because it destructs from
their real issues.
I hope it does not get too much attention. Then it will die quietly.
I actually hope that the whole government dies a sudden death (not
literally). They are hell-bent destroying the environment I live and
work in, without being elected to do so, for the benefit of their
mates from high end of town (a project called East West Link). A multi
billion dollar rort.
An example were "non core promises" were made: "We support Metro Rail"
was on their election agenda.
My quote of the week comes from Abbott:
''The lesson that I have well and truly learnt from that is that we do
have to precisely honour our commitments - and that's the spirit of
the commitments, not just the letter of the commitments"
After Bianca's talk on Saturday, some LUVers may wish to attend this
gathering, organised by yours truly....
Protecting Reproductive Choices from Religious Doctrine
A Meeting of the Victorian Secular Lobby, Inc.
Abortion in Victoria used to be a criminal offense except under limited
cases. In 2008 the Abortion Law Reform Act decrimalised abortion up to 24
weeks, with allowance after that if necessary. This legislation had
widespread community and bipartisan support and passed the Legislative
Assembly 49-32 after a conscience vote, and the Legislative Council 23-17.
Part of that legislation requires publically licensed medical
practitioners, as part of their profession, to refer patients to to other
medical practitioners if they have a conscientious objection to abortion.
It also compels medical staff to perform an abortion to save the life of a
Rogue Frankston MP, Geoff Shaw, has flagged his intention to introduce a
private members bill that will remove that assurance of medical service.
Shaw is a member of the Liberal Party, but holds the balance of power as
an independent, following allegations that he had used parliamentary
resources for his private business interests. In a surprise move the
Victoria's Office of Public Prosecutions dropped criminal charges for
these activities, which ensures that current state government retains
An evangelical Christian, Shaw has made no secret of his opposition to
women being able to make their own reproductive choices and is prepared to
coerce his private religious belief to secular law. In addition,
Victoria's Liberal Party state conference this month voted to remove
section 8 of the Act in order to 'restore freedom of conscience of
The Victorian government runs the risk of having major policies determined
by a religious fundamentalist in their quest to retain power; and the
guaranteed reproductive rights of women are the cost of that power.
This meeting of the Victorian Secular Lobby will discuss strategies to
ensure that the reproductive rights of women are not overturned in this
parliament and that the public responsibilities of medical professionals
Saturday, December 21st, 18:00 (6pm): 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne
(Unitarian Church conference room)
Guest Speaker: Colleen Hartland, Greens MLC for Western Metropolitan Region
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech
mobile: 0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
Quoting "Tim Josling" <tim.josling(a)gmail.com>
> It long puzzled me why people would take positions that involve a)
> Not actually articulating a policy
I wrote a few mails back about refugees organising their own camps and
using refugees for regional development in Australia, boosting local
economies where needed.
It is supported by the formerly mentioned Melissa Parke, Member of
Parliament for the seat of Fremantle.
You will hear similar ideas from the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt.
That they are Labor and Green party members does not matter - it
matters what they stand for. Liberal had people with conscience in
their ranks before. Haven't heard much of it lately though.
Making people plainly disappear in other third world countries without
taking responsibility, without being accountable for them and without
giving them a future is not a policy.
It is plainly inhumane.
Quoting "Slav Pidgorny (GEUS)" <slav.pidgorny(a)anz.com>
> (From Peter)
>> I am struggling to get IPSec access from a Windows 7 client.
> There are few possibilities: 1) the certificate is missing from the
> computer store;
That was it. I had to import the key and certificate as a PKCS12
package and import as described here:
Well, I have a new error ("no suitable proposal found") .. will see.
Yesterday I was right at the edge of a cliff. Today I made a big step
More steps to follow..
I am struggling to get IPSec access from a Windows 7 client.
On the server, I have
- a self-generated CA cerificate cacert.pem and a private key cakey.pem
- a signed certificate warrior1-cert.pem and a private key warrior1-key.pem
I managed to import the cacert.pem as a new trusted root CA in Windows
7 using mmc and this:
I just don't know where to put the warrior1-cert.pem.
When I connect a VPN configured with
it tells me:
"Error 766: A certificate could not be found. Connections that use the L2TP
protocol over IPSec require the installation of a machine certificate,
also known as a computer certificate."
I fiddled around a bit with the mmc, putting the warrior1-cert.pem
into the "Private" collection of the machine, or let it choose the
store "automatically" but I haven't had success.
What are the missing parts?
If I have done it, I have to do the same on XP..:-(
If someone has it working please let me know how.