Slashdot Mirror


The Ultimate Linux Box 2001

savaget points to this Linux Journal article which covers building a superior personal computer for general usage. See if you agree with the choices that Rick Moen, Daryll Strauss and Eric Raymond made in building their dream box.

38 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Cheap Linux box by reynaert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My budget doesn't allow ultimate boxen... I'd be more interesting in seeing information on ultra-cheap (but still decent and reliable) systems. An older guide exists, but it hasn't been updated in a long time.

    1. Re:Cheap Linux box by ekrout · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd say a recommendation that includes a 20 year old keyboard can't be too pricy! ;-)

      --

      If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    2. Re:Cheap Linux box by dsb3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not linux specific, but I always find the ars technica buyers guides useful to help keep up to date on high/middle/low end hardware. Perhaps the budget box doesn't go ultra-cheap, but it goes cheap without sacrificing too much quality.

      God Box

      Hot Rod

      Budget box

      --

      Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
    3. Re:Cheap Linux box by Gorobei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I ordered 2 PC101 keyboards from that firm while reading the article. That keyboard was a thing of beauty.

      My approach to the ultimate Linux machine is quite simple: I buy a new machine every two years, but keep my 21" monitor across upgrades (and my keyboard now!) Backups are handled by buying a new disk every 9 months (capacity has doubled, I just mirror everything and then throw out the smallest disk on my machine: 160G now) If I ever hear swapping, I upgrade immediately (512M now.)

      This obviously isn't the most economical solution, but it is the most efficient if I assign a $/hour number to my time.

  2. SCSI: why? by psyclone · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A major decision of theirs was to use SCSI for hard disks. They claimed that bus bandwidth was large factor in overall system speed -- so they scrapped ATA for higher throughput and fewer IRQ conflics.

    I realize the SCSI disks, especially the close to "SCSI 3" mentioned in the article, would decrease disk latency, but is it really that much different than 7200 or even 10000 rpm ATA100/ATA133 drives? An unless you have onboard SCSI, you have to go through the already busy PCI bus. As far as I'm concerned, it's not worth the price difference.

    1. Re:SCSI: why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3
      I realize the SCSI disks, especially the close to "SCSI 3" mentioned in the article, would decrease disk latency, but is it really that much different than 7200 or even 10000 rpm ATA100/ATA133 drives?

      It's not just that; Even with the new ATA100 and ATA133 systems, IDE still slows down your system, especially when it chokes, even under linux. It's also just a lot more likely to choke. At least, that's been my experience, and it's not like I've been using crappy hardware.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:SCSI: why? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly how do you cluster IDE drives??? With SCSI I can share the the same bus with 2 different computers, and can present the same disk to two different systems at the same time.

      IDE is *only* good in a single drive / single controller situation; but at that time (from most drive manufacturers websites) you are only able to push maybe 35MB/sec. So your so called controller latency is NOT an issue. Agreed IDE will perform the same on a single drive system, but as soon as you add another drive onto that channel you've possibly halfed the performance of those two drives, you could add another controller, but really starts getting rediculus (I've got one systems with over 300 drives connected to it, I'd like to see an IDE system keep up with that)

      There also are quite a bit of things in the SCSI protocol that you are looking over. Command Tag Queueing is a very big one, I can send multiple commands down the SCSI chain and the drive can re-order them so that the drive can streamline where it's going to be getting data off of the drive (setting this gives a significant performance boost on our arrays). Along with the fact that IDE is completely and totaly CPU driven, try really pushing your CPU and you are either going to have to give up CPU cycles to your app or give up performance to your drive.

      Could you please provide a link to Google's use of IDE drives for all their storage, I can't seem to find a page saying that their Linux are all running on IDE only.

      http://www.acc.umu.se/~sagge/scsi_ide/#compariso n1 1
      http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/vectors/ata sc si.pdf
      http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markedi to rial.html?prodkey=io_comparison
      http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/01q1/010129 /

    3. Re:SCSI: why? by Thagg · · Score: 3, Informative
      You can cluster IDE drives trivially, cheaply, and powerfully (but only for a limited time!) using 3ware's Escalade controller cards. This article on a cheap terabyte file server describes the card.


      Basically, the Escalade cards make a bunch of cheap IDE drives look like a big SCSI drive. What could be better? You get the intelligence of SCSI, the protection of a RAID, at the price of IDE. With just a few IDE drives, you get scalding performance that more the beats the most expensive SCSI drives.


      Sadly, 3ware has decided to get out of the controller card business. I've bought a couple of cards that I'm going to keep until I need to build some more file servers; they say that they are going to keep selling the cards until December, but only until then.


      thad

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    4. Re:SCSI: why? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having used SCSI at home for the last year, I really appreciate the "SCSI difference". Not only have I seen better benchmarks (kernel compile times, etc), but it *feels* snappier in general. Here are some interseting things I've seen:

      1) For random access to a cdrom, SCSI kicks IDE's but (on my system). When ripping a CD, espcially with overlapping sector reads, my 24x scsi cdrw kicks my 52x IDE cdrom's butt.

      2) I get better performance from my IDE cdrom when using linux's SCSI emulation. That was quite a surprise.

      3) SCSI drives typically have 5 year warranties, whereas IDE drives typically have 3 year warranties.

      4) My IBM Ultrastar (SCSI hard drive) is much quieter and cooler than my IDE Maxtors and IDE IBM Deskstar. However, new IDE drives may have caught up.

      5) You have to be really careful with IDE drives in order to get good performance. For instance, I've seen an IDE drive unable to sustain more than 2MB/sec when attached to the middle of an IDE cable, but sustain 6MB/sec when attached at the end (these speeds are for writes, not reads). With SCSI, once it works (which can be a pain if you skimp on cabling and termination), it goes *fast* and is *robust*.
      6) Processor overhead: transfering data between my SCSI devices requires far less cpu help than transfering data between my IDE devices (I believe I have all the right DMA stuff configured for my IDE devices -- it helps, but doesn't make things as nice as with SCSI). The implication is that writing CDs on a SCSI system is more robust than on an IDE system. I've never had a buffer underflow, even when writing CDs while the system had a sustained load over 2.0.
      And once you use SCSI, you can be a SCSI snob! You almost have to in order to justify the price for a home machine (unless you work at home like I do). SCSI really is the right way to do things. However, SCSI is doing its best to kill itself off. In that way, SCSI verus IDE is a lot like OS/2 versus Windows.
      -Paul Komarek

  3. Great box - for a Millionaire like Raymond by Bud+Dwyer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They solicited the vendors on our list for donations of parts, and their courage was rewarded when IBM generously volunteered $15,000 for the project budget.


    Okay, Raymond isn't a millionaire any more, either. But he does have corporate backing, which is a hell of a lot more than I've got. When I feel like dropping 15 large on a personal computer, I think I'll go for an OS a bit more upscale than Linux. Solaris, maybe.


    Anyway, "dream" is the key word in the title of the article. No real Linux users (mostly college students, AFAIK) can afford a PC like ESR has designed. And I'm not sure what they'll accomplish by "dreaming" about the "ultimate" Linux box when the whole point of Linux is to be able use whatever old, junk hardware you can scrounge.

    1. Re:Great box - for a Millionaire like Raymond by Gnight · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, if you read the whole article you will notice that he is actually building two computers with this budget, each of them costing around $7000.

      Incase you are wondering why he is building two, it clearly states that one is for him, and the other is for Linus Torvalds!
      Gary Sandine and John Pearson, the principals at Los Alamos Computers, undertook the assembly of my Ultimate Linux Box. In fact, they volunteered to build two, one for me and one for Linus Torvalds. They solicited the vendors on our list for donations of parts, and their courage was rewarded when IBM generously volunteered $15,000 for the project budget.

      Lucky dog. :-)
    2. Re:Great box - for a Millionaire like Raymond by spudnic · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what did this Linus Torvalds do to deserve this? ;)

      --
      load "linux",8,1
  4. Ars Technica by nebby · · Score: 4, Informative

    has a budget box building guide. You should check out their general buyer's guide as well.

    --
    --
  5. SCSI Optical drives? by rchatterjee · · Score: 3, Informative

    I totally understand the case for SCSI hard disks since they are faster and more reliable but SCSI optical drives? In the article they mention the plextor 12x SCSI burner but wouldn't the new plextor 24x be way faster even if it is ATAPI? and its pretty easy to find 16x DVD-ROM drives out there as well. From a pure purformance perspective wouldn't i be better off with optical drives on IDE (one drive per channel of course) and SCSI hard disks?

  6. why no RAID? by jonnosan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I missing something?

    I know RAID is overkill for most workstations, but so is a DDS drive and seperate home and system drives. If you want fault tolerance, (the stated reason for two drives) having one system drive and one home drive with no RAID means you spend your money only to become twice as vulnerable to downtime due to drive failures.

    If you want to avoid downtime, especially if money is no object, get a RAID controller and have a single filesystem mirrored over two physical disks. Not only will it be more reliable, it will be faster too.

    1. Re:why no RAID? by sharkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For that matter, if you're splurging, why get a DDS drive? Go for a DLT-IV or AIT-2 drive instead. Sure, the cost is going to be 2-3 times that of a DDS4 drive, but capacity and performance make it worth it. (Our AIT-1 drive at the $ORK_PLACE is ver, very nice.) A person that buys 3 GB of RAM (and a motherboard that can address it) for a desktop PC and multiple Ultra-160 SCSI drives shouldn't stick at an extra thousand for a much better backup drive.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:why no RAID? by s390 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're thinking of inexpensive ATA RAID, while they explicitly wanted a SCSI solution for speed. But SCSI RAID is _expensive_ - it's professional workstation class hardware, not within the budget for a personal machine (no matter that they say "cost is no object" - clearly there are limits here).

      You either do RAID 0 Mirroring or RAID 1 Striping (with 2 ATA drives) or RAID 0+1 Mirroring and Striping (this takes 4 drives). Full striping plus Parity-Checking is RAID 5 but (someone correct me if I'm wrong) this isn't available for inexpensive ATA disk arrays. It would be nice if it were, but it would be slower than using a couple of SCSI disks and taking regular backup images of them. (What's best for backup is for yet another discussion.)

      RAID 5 can be had for SCSI disks, at impressive prices, at which point you're better off with Gb Ethernet or Fibre Channel NAS or SAN storage. To do RAID 5 right, you need (some multiple of) at least 9 disks (8 for data, 1 for parity, with data and parity stripes randomly assigned across the array). The RAID 5 stuff gets rather complicated and expensive (have you priced SAN storage lately? I have, and it runs to 5 or 6 figures to just get started).

      I like their approach for a high-end Linux machine for personal use. I'm using something similar as I write this (Tekram SCSI adapter with two 10K RPM Quantum 9GB non-mirrored disks). They're right to focus on I/O speed as more important than CPU power. Net bandwidth is the real limiter.

      In this, they're just following what was learned long ago on mainframes: tune the I/O subsystem first because that's where you find large delays, then make sure you have enough memory (since Virtual Storage impacts Real/Expanded Storage, which impacts Auxiliary Storage - back to I/O), then tune CPU allocation and capacity last. It's well known that when you finally run out of CPU power (having tuned in this order) it's time for short-term triage (favoring "loved ones" at the expense of discretionary workloads) followed by an inevitable configuration upgrade. This is how it's done, folks.

  7. updating an old project by xah · · Score: 3, Informative

    This reminds of ESR's old PC Clone Buyer's Guide. A lot has changed since '93, or whenever he last updated that. He's still stressing I/O performance, which says something about how little has really changed.

    The old guide is at
    http://www.double-barrel.be/linux_web/clone_hw_g ui de/contents.html

    --
    I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
  8. Re:Cheap linux box. by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eww! i845 SDRAM chipset (20-25% performence hit compared to the i850 RDRAM chipset that's clock-to-clock way slower than the Athlon to begin with), slow and small hard drive (why bother with anything less than 7200RPM?), video card that's two generations out of date. You could build an Athlon XP box with DDR SDRAM and KT266A chipset that would destroy the Dell econo-box for less money. FedEx delivers mine Monday.

  9. noise vs. performance is dead-on by pangloss · · Score: 3, Informative
    I was getting a little annoyed over the rumblings of a scsi-ide war, sketchy reasoning behind the fault tolerance of two disks but no raid, and lack of specifics on displays, but i thought the following was really well said:
    the thermal load vs. cooling-noise tradeoff is the effective limiting factor in the performance of personal machines
    and it actually explained the decision not to use raid.
    I'm not sure I agree with the eventual decision to go with PC Power & Cooling--they are occasionally ridiculously overpriced and some of their "quiet" is really just achieved by underpowering the fans--some of the Antec PSs will perform just as well. Also, anyone know if PCPC's power supplies are like their cases (i.e. just CalPC cases relabeled and marked up)?

    Also, I've heard arguments that a large case is not necessarily a boon for good case cooling w/ low noise: large cases require more fans to move the air effectively within--it's not the fact that there's lots of space in a case that makes for cooling, it's moving the air over and away from the components. Seems like having a mid-tower (given the low-moderate drive bay requirements) with a low-rpm 120mm intake and outake fans might have been better.

  10. Got it all wrong re: flat panels... by corky6921 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Today's flatscreens also have a really coarse dot pitch with sharp square pixels. As far as I'm concerned, that puts them out of the running for the ULB. I do a lot of writing and, not infrequently, my own typesetting; I want to be able to preview two pages of Postscript at actual size and have the fonts look good."

    I'm sorry, but has this guy ever seen a high-end flat panel? I personally own an SGI 1600SW, and not only do you not see the pixels, but you can also preview two Postscript pages side-by-side with its 1600x1024 widescreen aspect ratio. Of course, SGI stopped selling it (*sigh*). But there are other excellent flat panels out there, like the Samsung line that lets you run a TV signal in and do picture-in-picture. I've seen the Samsung ones up close, and they have wonderful image quality. Apple also makes some excellent flat panels (does anyone know whether there is an adapter to run them on PCs yet?)

    All I'm saying, is while there are still plenty of reasons to run CRT's, in a "cost-is-no-object" type of article, you should at least consider the high-end flat panels.

    P.S. I've seen the dual 1600SW setup, and it is STILL, to this day, the only monitor setup that ever made me speechless with its absolute beauty.

    1. Re:Got it all wrong re: flat panels... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Informative
      for dualhead 1600sw displays:

      my xf86config file

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  11. the whole point of Linux? Erm... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > the whole point of Linux is to be able use whatever old, junk hardware you can scrounge.

    Maybe that's YOUR whole point in using Linux, but it sure as hell ain't mine! If that's the way you feel, you'd be better off getting some nice DOS 3.11 disks somewhere.

  12. Re:SCSI too expensive by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd rather build a nice, fast 3Ware Escalade RAID array with 4 or so fast, big, and cheap IDE drives... and still save the CPU cycles.

  13. Mostly right, but a few nitpicks: by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) Don't put case fans on the motherboard power connectors unless you have to. Keeping mb voltage levels stable is hard enough without two extra 80mm fans adding stress. CPU fans should be connected to the mb so the fan RPM can be monitored (dead CPU fan == bad news).

    2) We've had IBM Ultrastar SCSI drives break down within weaks on our server at work (emphasis on drives, plural). Granted, this is under a severely punishing workload, but Seagates have been more reliable. Under saner workloads the IBM drives are probably fine.

    3) SB Live! series cards are bad news on Athlon systems (as ESR found out), especially if you have other heavy DMA I/O tasks on the PCI bus. They've fixed this with the Audigy, but it doesn't have Linux support yet (AFAIK?). The Turtle Beach Santa Cruz is supported; that's what I replaced my Live! X-Gamer with. Now my AccessDTV HDTV PCI card doesn't cause BSODs (Win2000 SP2). Recommended.

    4) Modem? Got cable modem. Don't need no steenkin' POTS modem :-)

    5) Microsoft Intellimouse Optical. Scratch off the name if you must, but they're GREAT!

    6) Word is that the Tyan Thunder motherboard likes Corsair memory best. Dunno why, the board's just picky.

    7) An ultimate system should have Sony's 24" widescreen FD Trinitron. Wish I had $2K to spare to buy one. 1080i HDTV would look great on it.

    8) Get a tube of Arctic Silver II thermal compound for the CPU heatsinks. Yes, it matters.

    For a cheaper config: substitute a Tyan Tiger MP motherboard, PCP&C 400W Silencer (no need for an oddball power connector), IDE drives, and an Ethernet card (Intel or Linksys, I have one of each in my Linux server). Note that faster Athlon MPs are supposed to be announced next week (Tuesday?).

    For a way cheaper config: as above, but with a VIA KT266A uniprocessor motherboard (I have a Shuttle mb inbound; newegg.com was out of the Epox 8KHA+ boards that were my first choice) and Athlon XP CPU.

    I'm a PCP&C fan too. Antec's no slouch either, but my Silencer 400W keeps the 5V and 3.3V rails hooked up to my 1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird within 1% of perfect, which is pretty impressive. Dead-on commentary on the P4. It pained me to spec a P4 for a new engineer because Dell refuses to sell Athlons and stopped selling P3 desktops.

    1. Re:Mostly right, but a few nitpicks: by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm a PCP&C fan too. Antec's no slouch either, but my Silencer 400W keeps the 5V and 3.3V rails hooked up to my 1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird within 1% of perfect, which is pretty impressive.

      No complaints on the quality, but the Silencer 400 is not as quiet as I'd hoped. Also, the airflow is suboptimal: one fan, with a grate on the front, rather than the bottom. I'm thinking Enermax or Antec, next time, with two temperature-controlled fans.

  14. for sound, only spdif will do by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Informative
    and real spdif, not that compressed soundblaster consumer crap.

    for about $25 (really), you can get a cmedia 8738 chipset that outputs REAL literal 44.1k spdif, suitable for piping into an outboard DAC (digital to analog converter).

    go to ebay and pick up a used audio alchemy DAC ($100 or so) and the 8738 card and you'll be 99% of what a pro audio card setup should be.

    and never, never choose 'soundblaster' for audio quality.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  15. Re:There are ways to do IDE right by Graymalkin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most IDE controllers are rather dumb where SCSI controllers are a bit smarter (at the controller level) and thus provide you with a bit better performance in real world applications. Raw throughput doesn't mean shit in some cases like hardcore DB applications because performance deals mainly with block seek time. The card he pointed out is a very smart IDE controller and allows normally dumb IDE RAID set ups to be as good as SCSi ones performance wise.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  16. Google drives are IDE by _|()|\| · · Score: 4, Informative
    Could you please provide a link to Google's use of IDE drives for all their storage, I can't seem to find a page saying that their Linux are all running on IDE only.

    Do a Google search on google cluster ide. The third result is an Intel customer profile on Google:

    In Google's environment, disk I/O performance is an overriding factor, yet the cost of high-end SCSI disk subsystems is prohibitive. So the company standardized around inexpensive IDE technology, outfitting each server with a pair of internal disks storing either 22GB or 40GB apiece. "We did a lot of benchmarking early on, and we found that for the best price/performance we would set up two IDE hard disks, each on a separate controller," says Reese.

    I like two IDE drives (one per channel), plus SCSI for the CD-RW and/or DVD.

  17. DVD-ROM - ethically imperative? by BlowCat · · Score: 4, Funny
    Daryll chimes in with: "Buy a DVD-ROM rather than an ordinary CD-ROM. Typically the transfer rates are just as good if not better because the base DVD rotational speed is higher to begin with."

    While meditating on Daryll's remarks I realized that a DVD is a must-have for another reason: any true dream system for a Linux hacker must include the ability to violate the anti-fair-use clauses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by running DeCSS on a daily basis, even if (like me) the hacker is basically uninterested in DVDs per se. It's ethically imperative.

    I liked this part. Buying hardware to fulfill a moral obligation to participate in civil disobedience.
  18. A waste of money by rnd() · · Score: 3, Informative

    I recently built a machine for less than $700 consisting of the following:

    MoBo: ABIT KT7A-RAID
    PROC: 1200MHz Athlon
    MEMORY: 1GB (high density, cheapo stuff)
    STORAGE: 2 IBM 60GXP 20GB IDE drives in RAID 1 (mirrored) configuration.
    GRAPHICS: ATI XPERT 2000 (32 MB)
    CASE: Antec Premium line case w/ 300W PS.
    ETC: Sony floppy drive and Creative CDROM drive.
    NETWORK: 3Com 3C905 10/100 card.

    I know this machine isn't as fast as the ULB, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper, and I would rather have 5 of the above machine ($700 * 5 = $3500, only $100 cheaper than the ULB w/o the "extras") than one ULB. I might even decide to make a Beowulf cluster out of them.

    As I've heard other Slashdotters mention many times before, it's not the performance of your hardware, but the performance of your hardware per dollar that matters.

    P.S. I would like to know what Tom (from Tom's Hardware Guide) would consider the Ultimate Linux box.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

  19. Re:network card? by SEE · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sure.

    PIN number = Personal Identification Number number
    ATM machine = Automatic Teller Machine machine.

  20. Haven't these guys heard of pricewatch? by matusa · · Score: 3, Informative

    The price of this computer is simply
    frightening. It is simply ridiculous to pay
    that much for a desktop.

    Besides, most things in the worl (computers fall
    under the umbrella) are priced on a logarithmic scale, meaning after a point drastically increased price gives mediocre return, and vice versa going behind a certain earlier point. I always like to build a machine that has it's cost efficiency at a maximum, sitting at a very healthy point in the curve. Buying a Geforce3 card, for instance is ludicrous. Geforce2 MX 400 (Abit siluro for instance) with 64 megs ram is 69 bucks. excuse me? That is cheap as dirt.

    IT's always very satisfying, also, to get a
    slightly cheaper machine like this and it performs
    within 10% of a machine 5x as expensive.

    -mateusz-

    I'm going to go practice my violin more now

  21. forget the 21" monitor by legLess · · Score: 3, Informative
    Forget the 21" monitor, it's either underkill or overkill, depending on how you look at it. IMHO you've got two best choices:
    • The Sony GDM-FW900, a 24" (22.5" viewable) screen that'll do 1920 x 1200 @ 85Hz, and 2304 x 1440 max. You won't believe how beautiful it is 'til you see it. Sony says retail is $1,999, but I've seen it for much less. The Viewsonic P225f is also very nice, 22", much cheaper.
    • My favorite solution, 2 19" screens on a Matrox DualHead card. Right now I'm using 2 Viewsonic P95fs. Perfectly flat, max 1920 x 1440. Overall I think I like Iiyamas better, but these are nice.

    Having 2 screens, if you've never worked that way, is wonderful. One screen for preview, one for tools has saved much wear and tear on my fingers switching consoles, windows, and desktops. Plus two good 19" screens are about the same price as a 22": $1,000. Lots of money, yes, but the screen is one part that you can't incrementally upgrade. Plus you can always buy one now and save up for the next :)
    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
  22. Plus Raymund doesnt even know what hes talkn about by DABANSHEE · · Score: 5, Informative

    It amazes me the amount of 'software' guys who think they're experts but have no idea when it comes to hardware.

    Check these examples out:-

    - "Do get a pure PCI-bus machine (not a hybrid PCI/ISA design, you sacrifice about 10% of peak performance with those)."

    This is pure humbug - you do not get 10% greater performance by buying a motherboard that has ni ISA slots (like those Asus KT boards). Because the fact is that even if they have no ISA slots, they still have a ISA bus built in the southbridge to support legacy stuff like the printer/parrallel port, the serial port/s & the PS2 mouse & keyboard ports. Now as far as the USB ports are concerned, I'm not sure whether they use the ISA bus or the PCI bus.

    - "For the power supply, the three of us easily agreed on a vendor: PC Power & Cooling"

    Bloody typical. Yet the reality is that the PC Power & Cooling mob are just 'badge engineers' - they re-sell other manufacturers products with their own own brand markings & inflated prices.

    For example their full tower case is just a California PC full tower case with a custom bezel on the front.

    Now as far as their power supplies are concerned. I remember when they used to sell a 'Silencer' model 275 watt power supply. In fact all it was was a generic 300 watt power supply, de-rated down to 275 watts so it was understressed, so it would cope with retro-actively fitted low speed 'silencer' fan.

    As far as powersupplies are concerned I recommend the Enermax 350 watt EG365P-VE(FC) or 450 watt EG465P-VE(FC) power supplies. They have a push/pull dual fan design (a 80mm exhaust fan at the back & a 92mm intake fan at the bottom), which means the fans can run at a much slower (therefore quieter) speed, without losing any cooling performance. The Powersupply comes with a standard motherboard 3 pin senser connector cable, so you can blug it into a spare motherboard fan header, which means ifyou can see what revs one of the power supply fans are running at in you PC monitor applet in you system tray (& it can warn you with an alarm if it fails). Also the powersupply comes with a thermastat on a connector which can be somehow attached to the heatsink or against the CPU core if its a exposed flip-chip type core (as long as it has no heatspreader like the AMD K6 series has), this controls the fan underneath the powersupply & it only runs when necessary. Consequently these power supplies are so bloody quiet you sometimes think its not running.

    - They also recommend the Thunder K7 (S2462) Motherboard, which is a huge waste of money as you can buy a very similar motherboard made by the same manufaturer at a much cheaper price (the Tiger MP (S2460) Motherboard). Also the 'Tiger' has a standard ATX connector, rather than the propietry connector that the 'Thunder' has. Which means you can use normal ATX powersupplies, rather than the inflated priced propietry powersupply that the 'Thunder' uses.

    - Also, even though this is s'pose to be a 'Ultimate Linux Box', they fail to mention that both IDE floppy drives(if you are using the IDE bus) & SCSI floppy drives (if you are using a SCSI BUS) are avaliable. Even better one can get the LS120 variety which are compatible with both 120MB 'SupperFloppies' & standard 1.4MB standard floppies.

    - They spend 4 paragraphs talking about 'Noise Control and Heat Dissipation' without really saying anything. When all they really needed to say that it's best using bigger fans at slower speeds - such as 12 volt 120mm fans running at 7 volts (positive hooked up to the 12 volt line while the negative is hooked up to the 5 volt line). The quietist fans (all other things being equal) by brand are the Papst Simtec bearing fans, the Sanyo Denki fans & the L1A1 versions of the Panaflo fans.

    - They recommend a pretty well generic (though above average) Antec case, but this is s'pose to be a ultimate Linux box.

    Therfore I recommend the Addtronics 'Server Cases' (their full tower cases) - the 7890 & the 7896. They are great cases with their great cooling options, filtered intakes, butterfly doors & slide out 'mainboard & I/O backplane tray'. Supermicro sell their own badge engineered version of this full tower case.

    Other good full tower cases are the all alloy ones made by Lian Li. Such as the Lian Li PC-70 aluminium full tower computer case & the Lian Li PC-76 server case

    If a mid tower case is more your style, both Lian Li & Coolermaster maker great alloy ones. They are great for LAN parties. In this regard I recommend the Lian Li PC-60 computer case & the Coolermaster ATC-201SX. Both cases are unbeatable as mid-tower cases - they have everything. I Personally thing a midtower case must have 4 5.25inch drive bays; so you can have both a CD burner & DVD drive, plus 2 HDDs in removable HDD pullout caddies.

    For a ultimate box it should have the all alloy (better heat dissapation) twin fan caddies that agains are made by Lian Li. The 3 best models appear to be the RH-620 , the RH-600 , & the RH-29

    For the motherboard, I'd recommend one with the SIS 735 'chipset'. Preferably it would have a AGP Pro slot, 6 PCI slots, one shared with a ISA slot at the bottom. It would have BOTH 2 DDR slots & 2 normal SDRAM slots. It would have a integrated RJ45 network connector above the 2 rear USB ports, plus integrated 'hardware' 5.1 sound (IWill have brought out a couple of boards of late with integrated 'hardware' 5.1 sound, they have the 3 standard female jack ports under the midi 'D' plug at the back, plus the extra connects hook up via a ribbon cable & a slot backplane cover). The board would also have integrated SCSI & Firewire like some of the MSI Pro or Turbo or whatever boards have. Plus an extra IDE controller (Promise, Highpoint, etc) so there's the potential for 8 drives (HDD, CD, DVD, LS120, ORB, etc) rather than the standard 4. The extra IDE controller will also have RAID 0,1 & 1+0 options (most have this built in, though its sometimes disabled). All the integrated stuff must have the capability to be disabled, either via jumpers or in the BIOS.

    Twin AthonXP/MP CPUs would be the go (the XPs work fine in SMP setups, they just are not certified/supported for such configurations - that's the main difference between the XP & MP, the MPs are certified/supported for SMP use.

    That's enough raving for now.

  23. Useless article, sorry by Phaid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sigh. More sickeningly pompous prose from ESR in a completely useless article. Building a $7000 personal computer is a pointless exercise which almost nobody who reads Linux Journal could afford to do. All of his "insightful research" and "surprising discoveries" is stuff you could easily find out on Usenet or the various hardware enthusiast sites -- the last time I built a machine (well equipped Tbird 1.4 for under $1000, tyvfm), I researched all the bits and pieces before buying them and avoided all of the headaches he's complaining about. And he can't even build the stupid thing himself:

    You could build the ULB yourself from scratch. But unless you're either a very experienced hardware hacker or seriously interested enough in having a learning experience to accept possibly trashing some expensive parts, maybe you shouldn't. I wouldn't.

    Way to encourage the hacker ethic! Yeah! Let's all run out and pay someone to do stuff for us, because everyone knows work is hard. With hardware prices as low as they are, it's a perfect time for people to "hack" their own hardware and build a powerful machine on a budget even a college student can afford. That would make an interesting article, but this one is simply, to use a phrase ESR seems to enjoy, an exercise in mental masturbation.

  24. This reminds me... by Evro · · Score: 3, Funny

    This reminds me of the section they use to have on Mac OS Rumors* (yes, I used to read them :-/) called "Dream Machines". Basically it was the kind of thing a 12-year-old would do. This was like 3 or 4 years ago, and they had things like "Quad 900 MHz G5 with 1024 MB ram" and "25 inch monitor". I guess the main difference between that and this is that this is a "dream machine" that could conceivably exist, whereas MOSR's stuff was complete fantasy. And they had it linked right off the home page. Amazing!

    * mosr.net is a Mac OS Rumors parody.

    --
    rooooar
  25. At least he's self-aware by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the bottom of the article:

    "Eric S. Raymond is a wandering anthropologist and troublemaking philosopher who happened to be in the right place at the right time and has been wondering whether he should regret it ever since."

    Those of us who remember when he stole the Jargon File from the community and sold it as his own think, "Why yes. Yes he should."

    --Blair