If youre dealing with a huge amount of data from multiple sources, I would hazard that SQL is more efficient than a straight up text-based flat-file database. If it werent, there wouldnt be jobs for DBAs.
It's been decades and MS still fails to provide a convenient way of installing user profiles to a different partition.
Its not exposed through the GUI, but it takes 1 registry setting to move the location of a user profile. I believe the key name is "profiles", and its in HKLM, but I dont recall the path. To say they dont allow it is just not accurate when they have an article on how to do so-- go ahead and google it.
I've also found myself in situations where I need another Windows install in order to run the 3rd party tools that are required to figure out why the install went tits up
If you mean during the windows install, Ctrl-f10 brings up a console. You can also pull over missing files to a broken windows install.
Regardless, thats not a failure of non-text-designs, but a result of the philosophy of windows. Its not meant to have a zillion CLI tools on the desktop editions.
Honestly, are people also outraged that we moved from the simple FAT filesystem to the journaled and more complex NTFS?
You know the one where 9 out of 10 PC problems are related to it when it gets corrupted or bad values get thrown in etc
Baloney. Just because you bought into the BS spouted by people shilling for registry cleaners, doesnt make it accurate. And a bad setting always has the potential to cause problems, whether its called named.conf or boot.ini or grub.conf or the SYSTEM hive.
Um, no, im assuming your bin folder hasnt been corrupted, right? Is there any reason to assume that 'cat', 'tail', and 'grep' would function and 'readJournalLog' would not? Are the cat binaries more robust or something?
Or are you just making assumptions about what would be required to read the new journal?
Theres a huge difference between trying to swap out a Desktop Environment in 2 commands (which replaces about a zillion packages) and pulling in a secondary logging resource. Absolutely you can pull in Gnome 2, but its going to break all the GUI defaults-- which im sure is exactly the sort of thing RHEL users care about, right?
The big problem with Windows is that it's tied to horrible design decisions made twenty years ago because if they change anything they'll break the proprietary, closed-source WhizzyWriter word processor from 1993 and customers will start whining.
Someone wasnt paying attention when they transitioned to 32-bit, and from thence to 64 bit. Someone also wasnt paying attention when they basically rewrote most everything in NT, and then completed the process in Vista where they DID break everything (which you said they wouldnt do), and provided compatibility in the form of virtualization.
Someone also wasnt paying attention to the fact that MS is big enough that they CAN mandate "update your shit, windows 7 comes out in 1 year and will break legacy cruft", because I saw vendors do it in medical offices, petroleum distributor's modem-based monitoring apps (updated to ethernet and Win7 compatible), and various other areas.
Your beliefs about what they can and cannot do are just wrong; 5 years ago users would say "they cant fix the administrator-by-default thing, because it would break everything. Guess what, thats why everyone hated vista, because they fixed it.
Your example about the DLLs is possibly one of the very few legacy hold-overs that they will stick to, and I had thought they were fixing that. Windows DOESNT sell just through backwards compatibility, people buy Windows because 1) Exchange has historically slaughtered the competition. That (so I hear) is starting to change, but Im not holding my breath; Exchange supports BES and ActiveSync, and through them basically every major phone out there. Besides ActiveSync, what does your android support? IMAP? What about your Palm Pre? POP? Yea, thats real competitive. 2) Office remains the most popular productivity suite out there. Office runs on Windows, with a crappy half-way port to Mac (I understand it is less crappy than it used to be). 3) Most commercial software runs on windows, and I dont mean legacy crap designed for Windows 95.
With Linux the vast majority of software is open source and will be fixed to work with any new changes, and old closed-source software 'it's broken, tough'.
That is a GROSS oversimplification. In many instances, the response is "fuck you, we're the devs and its Working as Intended" or "fix it yourself" or "I no longer maintain this software, feel free to fork it tho". Arguing the merits of FOSS vs commercial / proprietary is nowhere near as simple as you make it; look at chrome vs Chromium and see where all the progress comes from, or compare to Firefox and tell me which is more nimble and innovative, and who gets patches installed quicker.
I dont think dmesg is going to start printing binary garbage all of a sudden just because the backend storage format is now binary.
And if the system is totally hosed, you can always load the disks into a functional system or boot a LiveCD distro and view the logs from there. Having verifiable integrity on all of the log entries can hardly be considered a bad thing in that scenario.
Because the beauty of RPM and the linux CLI is that you are 2 commands away from having the sucky technology replaced with the syslog you love. Its really hard to have an entrenched, hard-to-get-rid-of software based on Linux that can be managed by a package manager.
No, Windows suck as much as people think (if not more)
People's perception of its suckiness tends to center around security, despite the fact that every single Pwn2Own has featured a Unix OS (OSX) getting owned simultaneous or before the windows machine. And despite the appearance of features like granular filesystem security, kernel patch protection, ASLR, DEP, etc often before they appeared in Linux OSes.
I would be curious to hear in what ways you think Windows is fundamentally inferior to Linux. Each have design advantages, and are good at certain things, but almost every claim ive seen about how "this OS or that OS (speaking of the modern, still-in-development ones) is inferior" tend to be based on ignorance, not reality.
Baloney, which part are you implying is inferior? The intel manufactured processor, the seagate manufactured hard drive, the kingston RAM, or the FoxConn motherboard?
As for 1 year, in all my time helping family and friends with computers, the least ive seen a laptop last is 3 years. So 3 years down the road the PC guy gets a brand new laptop with brand new processor and battery technology, while the Mac is still chugging on outdated hardware, and both have spent the same-- how is that a good deal for the HP dude?
Just to be clear, my home-built PC cost about $700 5.5 years ago and is still chugging along. An equivalent Mac (running the then-new Core2 series) would have probably cost around $1400. You telling me that mac would have another 5 years in it and that my desktop is set to die in a year or so? Care to make any bets on that?
It is a minor source of amusement to me to periodically price out a MacBook, and then find an equivalent model on NewEgg, to find out just how many spare, identical laptops I could purchase for the same cost of the Macbook.
Last time I checked, I believe it was 3-- that is, every year for 3 years, I could toss out my smudged, scratched PC laptop and start up on a new one, and it would still make more financial sense than getting the Mac.
Just in case you dont believe me, http://imgur.com/kvUkV Whats that, the comparison isnt fair? The PC has better specs than the mac, and is half the price? Yea, well, thats what you get when you get a Mac, noone said the comparison was fair.
It tells you that people want a Mac, it says nothing about the technical merits of the system; youre simply assuming that their reasons for choosing Mac OSX are technical in nature, or that they have heard of Linux, or understand the difference between a GUI and an OS.
Looks like they're pulling the same shit Ubuntu pulled with upstart (init replacement). "Let's replace something simple and elegant with something complex, incomplete, and very difficult to fix when it goes wrong".
One could make that argument about solid-state electronics, the move away from punch-cards, the move from paper-based filing, the move to journaled filesystems, etc.
Sometimes progress means letting go of the past, and sometimes it takes a while to fully bake; thats why RedHat doing the QA, testing, and development for the rest of us is a good thing. If it sucks, it will die, and noone really has to acknowledge that it ever existed.
Seems like it would be simple to send a checksum of the logs to another host every minute. Your attacker would have to get in and modify every log-file in the chain, as well as cope with continuing log writes, within a pretty narrow window.
Presumably youre not using SELinux, AppArmor, Journal, Upstart, or Wayland on your router; the beauty of Linux is that RedHat's choices need not affect your router's flash filesystem in the least.
Forgive me, Im a Linux newbie of sorts who has tinkered with Debian and RedHat based distros for a few years.... but isnt it standard practice to escape or quote files with spaces? Even on Windows? And even on Mac OSX?
I mean, "command--argument--space--argument" is kind of a universal truth in computing; writing batch scripts as a newb more than a decade ago I learned this. Always quote files with spaces, or else escape them, or else test to see how it will break.
Slashdot Mirror
If youre dealing with a huge amount of data from multiple sources, I would hazard that SQL is more efficient than a straight up text-based flat-file database. If it werent, there wouldnt be jobs for DBAs.
It's been decades and MS still fails to provide a convenient way of installing user profiles to a different partition.
Its not exposed through the GUI, but it takes 1 registry setting to move the location of a user profile. I believe the key name is "profiles", and its in HKLM, but I dont recall the path. To say they dont allow it is just not accurate when they have an article on how to do so-- go ahead and google it.
I've also found myself in situations where I need another Windows install in order to run the 3rd party tools that are required to figure out why the install went tits up
If you mean during the windows install, Ctrl-f10 brings up a console. You can also pull over missing files to a broken windows install.
Regardless, thats not a failure of non-text-designs, but a result of the philosophy of windows. Its not meant to have a zillion CLI tools on the desktop editions.
Honestly, are people also outraged that we moved from the simple FAT filesystem to the journaled and more complex NTFS?
You know the one where 9 out of 10 PC problems are related to it when it gets corrupted or bad values get thrown in etc
Baloney. Just because you bought into the BS spouted by people shilling for registry cleaners, doesnt make it accurate. And a bad setting always has the potential to cause problems, whether its called named.conf or boot.ini or grub.conf or the SYSTEM hive.
We saw how much Windows sucked, but we were a minority in 2001 with IE 6 and WindowsME.
It DID suck, I dont think anyone is arguing that.
Today, that is changing
Well thats true.
Um, no, im assuming your bin folder hasnt been corrupted, right? Is there any reason to assume that 'cat', 'tail', and 'grep' would function and 'readJournalLog' would not? Are the cat binaries more robust or something?
Or are you just making assumptions about what would be required to read the new journal?
Theres a huge difference between trying to swap out a Desktop Environment in 2 commands (which replaces about a zillion packages) and pulling in a secondary logging resource. Absolutely you can pull in Gnome 2, but its going to break all the GUI defaults-- which im sure is exactly the sort of thing RHEL users care about, right?
The big problem with Windows is that it's tied to horrible design decisions made twenty years ago because if they change anything they'll break the proprietary, closed-source WhizzyWriter word processor from 1993 and customers will start whining.
Someone wasnt paying attention when they transitioned to 32-bit, and from thence to 64 bit. Someone also wasnt paying attention when they basically rewrote most everything in NT, and then completed the process in Vista where they DID break everything (which you said they wouldnt do), and provided compatibility in the form of virtualization.
Someone also wasnt paying attention to the fact that MS is big enough that they CAN mandate "update your shit, windows 7 comes out in 1 year and will break legacy cruft", because I saw vendors do it in medical offices, petroleum distributor's modem-based monitoring apps (updated to ethernet and Win7 compatible), and various other areas.
Your beliefs about what they can and cannot do are just wrong; 5 years ago users would say "they cant fix the administrator-by-default thing, because it would break everything. Guess what, thats why everyone hated vista, because they fixed it.
Your example about the DLLs is possibly one of the very few legacy hold-overs that they will stick to, and I had thought they were fixing that. Windows DOESNT sell just through backwards compatibility, people buy Windows because
1) Exchange has historically slaughtered the competition. That (so I hear) is starting to change, but Im not holding my breath; Exchange supports BES and ActiveSync, and through them basically every major phone out there. Besides ActiveSync, what does your android support? IMAP? What about your Palm Pre? POP? Yea, thats real competitive.
2) Office remains the most popular productivity suite out there. Office runs on Windows, with a crappy half-way port to Mac (I understand it is less crappy than it used to be).
3) Most commercial software runs on windows, and I dont mean legacy crap designed for Windows 95.
With Linux the vast majority of software is open source and will be fixed to work with any new changes, and old closed-source software 'it's broken, tough'.
That is a GROSS oversimplification. In many instances, the response is "fuck you, we're the devs and its Working as Intended" or "fix it yourself" or "I no longer maintain this software, feel free to fork it tho". Arguing the merits of FOSS vs commercial / proprietary is nowhere near as simple as you make it; look at chrome vs Chromium and see where all the progress comes from, or compare to Firefox and tell me which is more nimble and innovative, and who gets patches installed quicker.
not to mention ignorant.
Its always the clever ones who think their 1337 skilz will render them immune to exploits for their out-of-date java plugin.
I think we begin to see the problem, if people didnt realize you could do this.
I dont think dmesg is going to start printing binary garbage all of a sudden just because the backend storage format is now binary.
And if the system is totally hosed, you can always load the disks into a functional system or boot a LiveCD distro and view the logs from there. Having verifiable integrity on all of the log entries can hardly be considered a bad thing in that scenario.
Because the beauty of RPM and the linux CLI is that you are 2 commands away from having the sucky technology replaced with the syslog you love. Its really hard to have an entrenched, hard-to-get-rid-of software based on Linux that can be managed by a package manager.
No, Windows suck as much as people think (if not more)
People's perception of its suckiness tends to center around security, despite the fact that every single Pwn2Own has featured a Unix OS (OSX) getting owned simultaneous or before the windows machine. And despite the appearance of features like granular filesystem security, kernel patch protection, ASLR, DEP, etc often before they appeared in Linux OSes.
I would be curious to hear in what ways you think Windows is fundamentally inferior to Linux. Each have design advantages, and are good at certain things, but almost every claim ive seen about how "this OS or that OS (speaking of the modern, still-in-development ones) is inferior" tend to be based on ignorance, not reality.
how is that a good deal for the HP dude?
Should be "how is that NOT a good deal"
Baloney, which part are you implying is inferior? The intel manufactured processor, the seagate manufactured hard drive, the kingston RAM, or the FoxConn motherboard?
As for 1 year, in all my time helping family and friends with computers, the least ive seen a laptop last is 3 years. So 3 years down the road the PC guy gets a brand new laptop with brand new processor and battery technology, while the Mac is still chugging on outdated hardware, and both have spent the same-- how is that a good deal for the HP dude?
Just to be clear, my home-built PC cost about $700 5.5 years ago and is still chugging along. An equivalent Mac (running the then-new Core2 series) would have probably cost around $1400. You telling me that mac would have another 5 years in it and that my desktop is set to die in a year or so? Care to make any bets on that?
It is a minor source of amusement to me to periodically price out a MacBook, and then find an equivalent model on NewEgg, to find out just how many spare, identical laptops I could purchase for the same cost of the Macbook.
Last time I checked, I believe it was 3-- that is, every year for 3 years, I could toss out my smudged, scratched PC laptop and start up on a new one, and it would still make more financial sense than getting the Mac.
Just in case you dont believe me,
http://imgur.com/kvUkV
Whats that, the comparison isnt fair? The PC has better specs than the mac, and is half the price? Yea, well, thats what you get when you get a Mac, noone said the comparison was fair.
It tells you that people want a Mac, it says nothing about the technical merits of the system; youre simply assuming that their reasons for choosing Mac OSX are technical in nature, or that they have heard of Linux, or understand the difference between a GUI and an OS.
Overall, I agree with the decision to move to the 3.0 version numbering, though a bit more warning may have helped.
"A bit more warning" is why we're still on IPv4 (though im grossly over-simplifying).
Mod parent troll, Slashdot doesnt have articles, only comment threads. At least _IVE_ never seen any articles.
Looks like they're pulling the same shit Ubuntu pulled with upstart (init replacement). "Let's replace something simple and elegant with something complex, incomplete, and very difficult to fix when it goes wrong".
One could make that argument about solid-state electronics, the move away from punch-cards, the move from paper-based filing, the move to journaled filesystems, etc.
Sometimes progress means letting go of the past, and sometimes it takes a while to fully bake; thats why RedHat doing the QA, testing, and development for the rest of us is a good thing. If it sucks, it will die, and noone really has to acknowledge that it ever existed.
Not quite true. If PHB insists on RHEL, you're stuck coping with whatever poor choices they make.
Package management: use it. I would be very surprised if RedHat prevented you from installing whatever logging facility you wanted on your server.
As has been pointed out, there is no reason you couldnt use a new tool to get the output you want out of the database.
You cannot, for example, convince me that noone is able to script MySQL databases, despite their binary nature.
Isnt this kind of like complaining that replacing IE5.5 with Chrome leaves a gaping usability hole, since none of your ActiveX programs work anymore?
I mean, sometimes progress means moving on.
Seems like it would be simple to send a checksum of the logs to another host every minute. Your attacker would have to get in and modify every log-file in the chain, as well as cope with continuing log writes, within a pretty narrow window.
Presumably youre not using SELinux, AppArmor, Journal, Upstart, or Wayland on your router; the beauty of Linux is that RedHat's choices need not affect your router's flash filesystem in the least.
Forgive me, Im a Linux newbie of sorts who has tinkered with Debian and RedHat based distros for a few years.... but isnt it standard practice to escape or quote files with spaces? Even on Windows? And even on Mac OSX?
I mean, "command--argument--space--argument" is kind of a universal truth in computing; writing batch scripts as a newb more than a decade ago I learned this. Always quote files with spaces, or else escape them, or else test to see how it will break.