Archive for February, 2009

One server, two bind/named process, one domain (with two nameservers)

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

Yes you need two bind instances

When you register a domain name you provide two nameservers.

Those nameservers the registrarar will know their ip addresses.

in my example the domain is cenite.com and the nameservers are ns1.cenite.com and ns2.cenite.com

Both nameservers are running on signle debian machine. I have started two bind processes on the machine. one is binded to the ns1.cenite.com external interface and ns2.cenite.com is to the other (backup) internet interface.

Here is a tool to check your domain name

Here is example zone file

cenite.com.db

cenite.com.ns2.db

here are the configuration files.

named2.conf

named.conf

The good think is when the first internet connection is down, the second will still serve your clients.

Bonus links

Go and switch to tinydns – people say it is much easier to configure  http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/run-server-bind.html

dns zone generator

trial.thepiratebay.org

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

The trial against The Pirate Bay that [starts today] in Stockholm, Sweden are one of the most important issues of our time. Our adversaries basically wants to close down internets and remodel it into something similar of a sodamachine serving entertainment. During the trial, the prosecutor together with a coterie of representatives for a disabled business model will put up a tacky theater by telling stories designed to convince the court that The Pirate Bay infact is a menace to society. What differs this trial from most earlier trials is that everything in and surrounding it will whirl round and round in diverse channels of communication; to be discussed, reinterpreted, copied and critizised. Every crack in their appeal will be penetrated by the gaze of thousands upon thousands of eyes on the internets, in all the channels covering the trial. Old cliches from the antipiracy lobby wont stick. You won’t be able to say stuff like, ”you can’t compete with free” or ”filesharing is theft” without a thousand voices making fun of you. We will create numerous scenes where quite different plays will take place. In local channels like spectrial.bloggy.se where the immediate physical surroundings of the court are being discussed. ”Which cafés nearby will give us connection?” ”How can we get electricity to the bus?” But also in international channels like Twitter, where right now the torrent of information is being translated into fifteen different languages. Translations and coverage being made by ordinary users of internets. Volunteers sign up to make trial-tourist guides to the surroundings, drive the bus or hook up audio. People fly in from far away countries to cover the trial and tell the world their video story of the Sweden they see. Here all participants are potential actors in the Spectrial. Our channels form a meltingpot of reporting and engagement. Our communication around the spectacle aims in no way towards an objective report on an external chain of events. Rather, the trial is a hub around which a whole new network of actors is instigated. Neither is the spectacle a question of old media against digital, social medias. Our social medias include a paper fanzine and a 32 year old bus, connecting us and others physically. It’s not about the protocols nor the technology. It’s about using these to create new congregations, where anyone is invited and anyone can find their role, build new scenes and make their own performances. The future is built by us. Us who participate in conversations. The future is built by us who explore how information and performativity is coming together. To refuse a debate and still expect to be able to charge consumers is since long a closed door. To also try and outlaw certain types of conversations is downright disgraceful. The coverage of the trial is not unique in these qualities. More and more areas see the creation of conversations on and the exploration of new stances on culture and cultural economy. A gigantic collective exploration has set sails. Every route differs from the other. But they have one thing in common: The industry interests that the state is representing are never present in these conversations. This is why they wont be part in building the future. maintain hardline kopimi The Bureau for Piracy and The Pirate Bay via the internets this article was translated by proud peers of The Pirate Bay trial.thepiratebay.org

Last thinks that I have read

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009

http://railsguts.com/

http://www.espace.com.eg/neverblock

http://m.onkey.org/2008/11/17/ruby-on-rack-1

http://m.onkey.org/

http://www.gnome-db.org/Download

http://loriholden.com/

http://www.bestechvideos.com/

Flex

http://conference.startup-bg.org/2008/?page_id=696

Merging search criteria with merge_conditions

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009
  def search(params = {})
    cond = []
    cond << ["name LIKE ?", params[:name] + '%'] unless params[:name].blank?
    cond << ["email = ?",   params[:email]]       unless params[:email].blank?
    conditions = cond.map { |c| User.merge_conditions(c) }.join(' AND ')
    User.find(:all, :conditions => conditions)
  end

ruby classes and instances override

Monday, February 16th, 2009

module InstanceMethods
def an_instance_method
“You called an_instance_method on #{self.class}”
end

end

module ClassMethods
def a_class_method
“You called a_class_method_from_module on #{self}”
end

def b_class_method
puts “b_class_metbod”
end

end

class MyClass
include InstanceMethods
extend ClassMethods

def MyClass.a_class_method
puts “Mine class Method”
end

def an_instance_method
puts “Mine instance”
end
end

my_class = MyClass.new
puts my_class.an_instance_method
puts MyClass.a_class_method
puts MyClass.b_class_method