I've been doing my own email for 15 years now, and it's really not that hard to maintain. Sure, if your flavor of GNU/Linux changed significantly every time there's a new version, it's a pain to keep up to date, but I've been using similar configuration files, updated a little now and then, with the same software installed across many servers for ages (sendmail, procmail, milted greylist, imap-uw, cyrus-sasl, Squirrelmail for OCCASIONAL webmail only, et cetera).
Some people like to tinker too much to maintain a constantly running server. For them, self hosting is NOT a good idea. Some people like to run GNU/Linux distros which are too difficult to maintain, and again, self hosting isn't an answer. A simple GNU/Linux distro or some flavor of BSD can be much easier to keep up to date and therefore more secure.
There are two primary reasons why I will NEVER move to an outside email provider. The most important one is that in this day and age your email can be subpoenaed without you ever even knowing and employees of any given service can't always be trusted to not do bad things. I want full, 100% control of my email. And in spite of what other people have written in comments about the fact that email isn't secure end-to-end, the archives are always in my possession. But add TLS and at least you've made it MUCH harder for people to see stuff traveling over the Internet.
The second reason is that almost EVERY service is non-deterministic (if I'm wrong, please tell me). I am tired of people wondering where email is only to find out that some cheesy content-based filter silently dropped their email or something else happened and the likelihood that Google or Yahoo will EVER look in their logs to tell you is practically nil. My filtering is based on servers being legitimate, not based on some arbitrarily determined rules. If something is rejected, there's always a known reason and it is ALWAYS logged.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this has been my experience to date.
I have a Commodore A2232 seven port serial card in my Amiga 4000 in my datacenter which provides serial consoles to a number of other machines. While other multiport serial cards have RISC processors or large buffers, this card is simply a 3.58 MHz 65CE02 which polls each port and puts incoming characters into its 16k of memory, which the Amiga can access directly. It's a beautiful example of simplicity at work.
If you get everything into a standard (free)Unix spool file, it'll be readable a hundred years from now. After all, what other kind of archive file could you have from twenty years ago which you could easily use today?
Since 802.11b can be faster than many Internet connections (at least in the United States), a dedicated network can be used to bridge two or more networks which can use each other in case of an outage. For instance, my work is physically close to my home. Both places are on cable modems, but since throttling happens at the modem, the speed between the two is limited by the uplink rate of each place. By setting up a wireless bridge, I can communicate between the two at about five times the speed (500k/sec as opposed to about 100k/sec) while leaving the Internet feeds usable for other applications.
Also, if the connection goes down on one network, a simple route command on one of the NAT / routing machines makes everything go through the other network's Internet connection.
In the case of high wireless network density (I can see about twenty wireless networks from my work), you can also use 802.11b hardware on channels that aren't commonly used in the US such as 12 and 13 (Europe) or 14 (Japan).
Perhaps it's not ideal, but slow is better than none.
"Google Introduces Command-Line Tool For Blue Computers" because blue is your favorite color. Sure, it'll run on blue computers, but it wasn't MADE FOR blue computers. Nor were these tools MADE FOR Linux. They'd have to be written as kernel modules to be made for Linux.
Anyhow, Linux isn't even an OS - it's a kernel. Just try to run Linux sometime without GNU and let me know how that works out for you.
Sure, so-called "tech journalists" think that every UNIX thing in the world is really a Linux thing, and sure, no "tech journalist" will ever properly call the OS GNU/Linux, but Slashdot? You people have to be a better example for everyone else.
The reasons some people might give for using GNU/Linux (Linux is just a kernel, after all) are probably similar to the reason that people might give for using MorphOS. Some people like the development environment (especially people who learned on AmigaOS), some people probably enjoy the efficiency of this OS on PowerPC hardware, and some people like to be different and not run the same software as everyone else.
There are no GUIs for GNU/Linux which are as efficient or as intuitive as AmigaOS, and MorphOS tries to continue that philosophy.
I have a question about the results of asking a question. I administer a few Ubuntu VMs and I want to simply turn off screen blanking (please note I didn't say anything about running X). How does one simply turn off screen blanking with regards to the standard text login window? Note that setenv and friends aren't the answer because I want screen blanking off always, not just when someone is logged in.
But this isn't about that question specifically. While I still want the question to be answered, what I feel is a more important point is this: the answer is horribly difficult to find. Extensive Googling hasn't provided one. Posting on the Ubuntu forums hasn't provided any help. man pages and digging around in configuration files hasn't demystified anything. This is just an example (but I think it's a good example) where someone decided, "hey, this might be a good idea", but never documented it anywhere nor discussed it publicly.
This, I think, is a growing problem with GNU/Linux distributions. While each attempts to make things easier for the casual Windows convert, the overall cohesiveness of each distro diminishes.
Do you see this as a problem? Do you plan to make changes to the way decisions about Ubuntu are made and, just as importantly, documented? Do you plan to make Ubuntu more cohesive and better organized?
NetBSD can be compiled with no FPU calls so that FPU emulation isn't necessary, and therefore defective LC040s can be used. I posted a set a few weeks ago:
But to answer your question, yes, I have a full m68040 in my Quadra 605. The 250 gig hard drive is a laptop SATA drive in an Acard SATA-SCSI enclosure (ARS 2000SU). They're not cheap, but I suppose I was a bit sentimental, too. The only limitation that the ROMs and OS have is that the boot partition on a drive must be HFS, not HFS+, but you can run Mac OS 8.1 and use any size SCSI drive up to a full two terabytes. Or, as in my setup, you can use a small boot partition and the rest for NetBSD.
The memory is easy - 128 meg 72 pin SIMMs aren't very expensive. You can find them on eBay if you look for memory for Cobalt Raq2 systems. Since the Cobalt is a 1U machine, the SIMMs won't be very large and will fit just fine.
Cobalt Raq2 with 250 MHz MIPS processor, 256 megs of memory, and 500 gig hard drive - about 30 watts. Mac mini, 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 gigs, 500 gig hard drive - about 20 watts when doing stuff (it maxes out at about 35 watts when the CPUs are pegged). Quadra 605 (yes, I like classics), 40 MHz m68040, 132 megs of memory, 250 gig hard drive, about 22 watts.
If you want REALLY low power, pick up a Jornada 728 or the likes. It takes THREE watts (the meter shows four watts momentarily now and then), with a 206 MHz StrongARM, 64 megs of memory, and a 16 gig CF card. However, this doesn't help if you want to do lots of file hosting, but I figured it was worth a mention because it takes so little power. I run several Jornadas (including the 690, which uses SH3 processor) as DNS servers running BIND.
The one that might match your requirements best, though, is a Plextor PX-EH25L and the like. You can put in whatever size hard drive you like, and if you want, you can even get the new low power 5900 RPM drives which take half the power of a typical hard drive. It has 64 megs of memory, a 266 MHz SH4 processor, and two USB 2 ports which can be used with a CD or DVD drive, a second ethernet, more storage, or whatever you want to connect. With an inefficient 7200 RPM drive, it takes less than 20 watts (15 to 18), plus it is incredibly small and so far it's been completely stable.
Note that on all of these machines I run NetBSD because I prefer having one consistent OS across all of my architectures, but if you don't mind maintaining a different version of GNU/Linux for whichever you get, you'll be happy with any of the lower power devices.
While there will be those who see this as flamebait, it's high time someone puts into words what many of us are thinking - namely, that something's not quite right, and we should look to those with more experience to give us some clues...
(off topic - why is it that there's ALWAYS someone who answers a question like this with "do something that has nothing to do with your question, such as getting a $5 hosting provider"?)
I've used laptops in many places where a larger computer would not do. For instance, before you could buy wireless access points which would do real IP routing, I used to use recycled laptops to provide access via routed subnets. They can be placed in the ceiling, in closets, et cetera. One even spent a good bit of time in an awning in a storefront providing wireless access to Tompkins Square Park in NYC for a while. Of course, the "built-in UPS" is always good!
On another note, I'm running a site which hosts lots of video files and was slashdotted recently - usually two things which do not mix well. The server it runs on pushed 400 Mbps quite well, and it uses less than 30 watts measured at 120 volts - no, it's not a laptop, but it's made with many of the same parts - it's a Mac mini. If I were running a rack of these instead of your typical AMD or Pentium 4 systems, I'd be saving tons of money on power and cooling. Portables and low power devices make lots of sense, especially where it's abundantly clear that there is no need for machines which take 90 watts JUST for each CPU. (As one site recently pointed out, the Intel Core Duo is also quite performance competitive with high end AMD and Intel CPUs)
So the real question is why not? The only reason I can think of is if you were doing things which would involve thrashing the disk heavily. 2.5" hard drives are not particularly good for 24x7 thrashing. But if you were to get an external Firewire 3.5" drive, that wouldn't be an issue.
The study illustrates some of the weaknesses of the GNU/Linux methodology which were previously GNU/Linux strengths. For instance, much software in the Unix world is distributed as source code, yet problems constantly arise because people have moved from source distribution to binary distribution. As a BSD user who hardly ever uses x86 systems, I find it strange that the trend is heading in this direction, but it seems that this isn't the only way that GNU/Linux distros are becoming more similar to Windows. Binary patches seem to be commonplace, and so are "wizards" which are hardly stateful and therefore not particularly suited to a multiuser server, for instance.
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that a good lesson that GNU/Linux people could learn from a study like this is that moving towards the lowest common denominator is NOT a good thing?
I only see x86 CPUs. What about the PowerPCs, SPARCs, MIPS, Alphas, ARMs, and so on?
For instance, the m68060 was the first consumer level processor with branch prediction and branch folding, superscalar dispatch, and real-world throughput of more than one instruction per clock cycle. Except for floating point where it performed only modestly, the m68060 seriously outperformed the Pentium in spite of only having a 32 bit data bus as compared with the Pentium's 64 bit bus. Isn't this significant in illustrating the influences in processor architecture?
http://www.sixgirls.org/ is an m68060 Amiga running NetBSD 2.0. Still very useful after all this time. Where are all those Pentium 60 machines?
Testing with slower machines, sometimes purposely putting slow components into the mix (10-base-T between the machines, for instance), will give you an easier way to find the bottlenecks.
I have a colocated 400 MHz PowerPC 604ev which I use for testing which can push somewhere between 40 and 50 Mbps. It's much easier to get it to its ceiling than my other colo'd server, which is a 1.3 GHz G4 with tons of SCSI disks that can completely saturate the 100 Mbps upstream link. And when the 604ev is too fast, I also have an m68060 Amiga.
Using a slower machine also makes testing optimisations much easier to measure, too. Having tons of L2 / L3 cache means that synthetic benchmarks sometimes won't even come close to real world performace. Same with having tons of memory and / or an intelligent disk controller, either of which can make measuring disk hits unrepresentative of reality.
andromeda: {5} host download.microsoft.com download.microsoft.com is a nickname for download.microsoft.com.nsatc.net download.microso ft.com.nsatc.net is a nickname for download.microsoft.com.d4p.net download.microsoft .com.d4p.net is a nickname for download.microsoft.com.georedirector.akadns.net d ownload.microsoft.com.georedirector.akadns.net is a nickname for a767.ms.akamai.net a767.ms.akamai.net has address 193.108.95.200...
"Linux: Bash 3.0 Released", in the slashdot Linux section - does anyone notice anything wrong with this?
Linus did not write bash. bash is a GNU project. Come on, people - it's one thing to not worry about calling Linux OSes GNU/Linux, but it's another to attribute credit to a completely unrelated party!
I have been using the best IDE drives I can get (usually, Maxtor with 3 year warranty / 8 meg cache / 7200 rpm) in my servers with Acard SCSI-IDE adapters. The latest adapters, such as the 7726Q, even support command queueing, and all of them support all of the other SCSI goodies like disconnection / reconnection and speeds up to 160 MB/sec. No more adding multiple PCI IDE controllers, no more cabling nightmares! They're expensive ($90 USD an adapter, usually), but worth it for applications which require good performance (like servers).
Even my Amiga has one; the motherboard IDE is pretty slow and can only support drives up to 128 gigs, but a 160 gig drive on the 40 MB/sec UW SCSI bus is so much faster!
Amiga programmers (yes, I know Amiga's dead (long live Amiga!)) can get Ogg Vorbis playback in real time on a 50 MHz m68060. They can also get >10 fps out of the Quake 2 engine on an '060, too. Considering that the ARM is quite a bit faster, it can certainly be done if someone puts in the effort.
John Klos
Running Amigas for more than a decade.
Mac OS X IS a Unix-based operating system...
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It is the first stable release that is officially supported not only on Unix-based operating systems, but also on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh OS X.
That's like saying that it's supported not only on Windows, but on Windows 98. Mac OS X IS a Unix based operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been doing my own email for 15 years now, and it's really not that hard to maintain. Sure, if your flavor of GNU/Linux changed significantly every time there's a new version, it's a pain to keep up to date, but I've been using similar configuration files, updated a little now and then, with the same software installed across many servers for ages (sendmail, procmail, milted greylist, imap-uw, cyrus-sasl, Squirrelmail for OCCASIONAL webmail only, et cetera).
Some people like to tinker too much to maintain a constantly running server. For them, self hosting is NOT a good idea. Some people like to run GNU/Linux distros which are too difficult to maintain, and again, self hosting isn't an answer. A simple GNU/Linux distro or some flavor of BSD can be much easier to keep up to date and therefore more secure.
There are two primary reasons why I will NEVER move to an outside email provider. The most important one is that in this day and age your email can be subpoenaed without you ever even knowing and employees of any given service can't always be trusted to not do bad things. I want full, 100% control of my email. And in spite of what other people have written in comments about the fact that email isn't secure end-to-end, the archives are always in my possession. But add TLS and at least you've made it MUCH harder for people to see stuff traveling over the Internet.
The second reason is that almost EVERY service is non-deterministic (if I'm wrong, please tell me). I am tired of people wondering where email is only to find out that some cheesy content-based filter silently dropped their email or something else happened and the likelihood that Google or Yahoo will EVER look in their logs to tell you is practically nil. My filtering is based on servers being legitimate, not based on some arbitrarily determined rules. If something is rejected, there's always a known reason and it is ALWAYS logged.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this has been my experience to date.
I have a Commodore A2232 seven port serial card in my Amiga 4000 in my datacenter which provides serial consoles to a number of other machines. While other multiport serial cards have RISC processors or large buffers, this card is simply a 3.58 MHz 65CE02 which polls each port and puts incoming characters into its 16k of memory, which the Amiga can access directly. It's a beautiful example of simplicity at work.
If you get everything into a standard (free)Unix spool file, it'll be readable a hundred years from now. After all, what other kind of archive file could you have from twenty years ago which you could easily use today?
Since 802.11b can be faster than many Internet connections (at least in the United States), a dedicated network can be used to bridge two or more networks which can use each other in case of an outage. For instance, my work is physically close to my home. Both places are on cable modems, but since throttling happens at the modem, the speed between the two is limited by the uplink rate of each place. By setting up a wireless bridge, I can communicate between the two at about five times the speed (500k/sec as opposed to about 100k/sec) while leaving the Internet feeds usable for other applications.
Also, if the connection goes down on one network, a simple route command on one of the NAT / routing machines makes everything go through the other network's Internet connection.
In the case of high wireless network density (I can see about twenty wireless networks from my work), you can also use 802.11b hardware on channels that aren't commonly used in the US such as 12 and 13 (Europe) or 14 (Japan).
Perhaps it's not ideal, but slow is better than none.
"Google Introduces Command-Line Tool For Linux"
is about as relevant as saying
"Google Introduces Command-Line Tool For Blue Computers" because blue is your favorite color. Sure, it'll run on blue computers, but it wasn't MADE FOR blue computers. Nor were these tools MADE FOR Linux. They'd have to be written as kernel modules to be made for Linux.
Anyhow, Linux isn't even an OS - it's a kernel. Just try to run Linux sometime without GNU and let me know how that works out for you.
Sure, so-called "tech journalists" think that every UNIX thing in the world is really a Linux thing, and sure, no "tech journalist" will ever properly call the OS GNU/Linux, but Slashdot? You people have to be a better example for everyone else.
It was a rhetorical question.
Why not just use Windows?
The reasons some people might give for using GNU/Linux (Linux is just a kernel, after all) are probably similar to the reason that people might give for using MorphOS. Some people like the development environment (especially people who learned on AmigaOS), some people probably enjoy the efficiency of this OS on PowerPC hardware, and some people like to be different and not run the same software as everyone else.
There are no GUIs for GNU/Linux which are as efficient or as intuitive as AmigaOS, and MorphOS tries to continue that philosophy.
If Microsoft OSes are responsible for 99% of all infections, then if they pay for 99% of the tax, that'd work.
Hello,
I have a question about the results of asking a question. I administer a few Ubuntu VMs and I want to simply turn off screen blanking (please note I didn't say anything about running X). How does one simply turn off screen blanking with regards to the standard text login window? Note that setenv and friends aren't the answer because I want screen blanking off always, not just when someone is logged in.
But this isn't about that question specifically. While I still want the question to be answered, what I feel is a more important point is this: the answer is horribly difficult to find. Extensive Googling hasn't provided one. Posting on the Ubuntu forums hasn't provided any help. man pages and digging around in configuration files hasn't demystified anything. This is just an example (but I think it's a good example) where someone decided, "hey, this might be a good idea", but never documented it anywhere nor discussed it publicly.
This, I think, is a growing problem with GNU/Linux distributions. While each attempts to make things easier for the casual Windows convert, the overall cohesiveness of each distro diminishes.
Do you see this as a problem? Do you plan to make changes to the way decisions about Ubuntu are made and, just as importantly, documented? Do you plan to make Ubuntu more cohesive and better organized?
Thanks,
John Klos
This was already posted:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/10/28/1758226/The-Software-Router-As-MiFi-Killer
Plus, this is obviously a sales ploy to get people interested in the "Connectify" product.
This is probably a plant from someone connected with Connectify.
Just about every machine has some way to do NAT. The first time I ever did NAT was via an Amiga under AmigaDOS 3.1.
Why is this discussion worthy?
NetBSD can be compiled with no FPU calls so that FPU emulation isn't necessary, and therefore defective LC040s can be used. I posted a set a few weeks ago:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-mac68k/2009/10/13/msg000244.html
But to answer your question, yes, I have a full m68040 in my Quadra 605. The 250 gig hard drive is a laptop SATA drive in an Acard SATA-SCSI enclosure (ARS 2000SU). They're not cheap, but I suppose I was a bit sentimental, too. The only limitation that the ROMs and OS have is that the boot partition on a drive must be HFS, not HFS+, but you can run Mac OS 8.1 and use any size SCSI drive up to a full two terabytes. Or, as in my setup, you can use a small boot partition and the rest for NetBSD.
The memory is easy - 128 meg 72 pin SIMMs aren't very expensive. You can find them on eBay if you look for memory for Cobalt Raq2 systems. Since the Cobalt is a 1U machine, the SIMMs won't be very large and will fit just fine.
Here are some of the machines I run:
Cobalt Raq2 with 250 MHz MIPS processor, 256 megs of memory, and 500 gig hard drive - about 30 watts.
Mac mini, 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 gigs, 500 gig hard drive - about 20 watts when doing stuff (it maxes out at about 35 watts when the CPUs are pegged).
Quadra 605 (yes, I like classics), 40 MHz m68040, 132 megs of memory, 250 gig hard drive, about 22 watts.
If you want REALLY low power, pick up a Jornada 728 or the likes. It takes THREE watts (the meter shows four watts momentarily now and then), with a 206 MHz StrongARM, 64 megs of memory, and a 16 gig CF card. However, this doesn't help if you want to do lots of file hosting, but I figured it was worth a mention because it takes so little power. I run several Jornadas (including the 690, which uses SH3 processor) as DNS servers running BIND.
The one that might match your requirements best, though, is a Plextor PX-EH25L and the like. You can put in whatever size hard drive you like, and if you want, you can even get the new low power 5900 RPM drives which take half the power of a typical hard drive. It has 64 megs of memory, a 266 MHz SH4 processor, and two USB 2 ports which can be used with a CD or DVD drive, a second ethernet, more storage, or whatever you want to connect. With an inefficient 7200 RPM drive, it takes less than 20 watts (15 to 18), plus it is incredibly small and so far it's been completely stable.
Note that on all of these machines I run NetBSD because I prefer having one consistent OS across all of my architectures, but if you don't mind maintaining a different version of GNU/Linux for whichever you get, you'll be happy with any of the lower power devices.
While there will be those who see this as flamebait, it's high time someone puts into words what many of us are thinking - namely, that something's not quite right, and we should look to those with more experience to give us some clues...
My mini is a dual core Intel with gigabit ethernet. A testament to the power of low-power / portable hardware, for sure.
(off topic - why is it that there's ALWAYS someone who answers a question like this with "do something that has nothing to do with your question, such as getting a $5 hosting provider"?)
I've used laptops in many places where a larger computer would not do. For instance, before you could buy wireless access points which would do real IP routing, I used to use recycled laptops to provide access via routed subnets. They can be placed in the ceiling, in closets, et cetera. One even spent a good bit of time in an awning in a storefront providing wireless access to Tompkins Square Park in NYC for a while. Of course, the "built-in UPS" is always good!
On another note, I'm running a site which hosts lots of video files and was slashdotted recently - usually two things which do not mix well. The server it runs on pushed 400 Mbps quite well, and it uses less than 30 watts measured at 120 volts - no, it's not a laptop, but it's made with many of the same parts - it's a Mac mini. If I were running a rack of these instead of your typical AMD or Pentium 4 systems, I'd be saving tons of money on power and cooling. Portables and low power devices make lots of sense, especially where it's abundantly clear that there is no need for machines which take 90 watts JUST for each CPU. (As one site recently pointed out, the Intel Core Duo is also quite performance competitive with high end AMD and Intel CPUs)
So the real question is why not? The only reason I can think of is if you were doing things which would involve thrashing the disk heavily. 2.5" hard drives are not particularly good for 24x7 thrashing. But if you were to get an external Firewire 3.5" drive, that wouldn't be an issue.
John Klos
ZiaSpace Productions
The study illustrates some of the weaknesses of the GNU/Linux methodology which were previously GNU/Linux strengths. For instance, much software in the Unix world is distributed as source code, yet problems constantly arise because people have moved from source distribution to binary distribution. As a BSD user who hardly ever uses x86 systems, I find it strange that the trend is heading in this direction, but it seems that this isn't the only way that GNU/Linux distros are becoming more similar to Windows. Binary patches seem to be commonplace, and so are "wizards" which are hardly stateful and therefore not particularly suited to a multiuser server, for instance.
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that a good lesson that GNU/Linux people could learn from a study like this is that moving towards the lowest common denominator is NOT a good thing?
Yeah, you know how a slow CPU can be sped up to insane speeds by putting in a fast video card!
Sarcasm aside, why would they put in a >2000 year card in a 2000 year computer? That's not representative.
"Comparative CPU Benchmarks From 1995 to 2004"
I only see x86 CPUs. What about the PowerPCs, SPARCs, MIPS, Alphas, ARMs, and so on?
For instance, the m68060 was the first consumer level processor with branch prediction and branch folding, superscalar dispatch, and real-world throughput of more than one instruction per clock cycle. Except for floating point where it performed only modestly, the m68060 seriously outperformed the Pentium in spite of only having a 32 bit data bus as compared with the Pentium's 64 bit bus. Isn't this significant in illustrating the influences in processor architecture?
http://www.sixgirls.org/ is an m68060 Amiga running NetBSD 2.0. Still very useful after all this time. Where are all those Pentium 60 machines?
Testing with slower machines, sometimes purposely putting slow components into the mix (10-base-T between the machines, for instance), will give you an easier way to find the bottlenecks.
I have a colocated 400 MHz PowerPC 604ev which I use for testing which can push somewhere between 40 and 50 Mbps. It's much easier to get it to its ceiling than my other colo'd server, which is a 1.3 GHz G4 with tons of SCSI disks that can completely saturate the 100 Mbps upstream link. And when the 604ev is too fast, I also have an m68060 Amiga.
Using a slower machine also makes testing optimisations much easier to measure, too. Having tons of L2 / L3 cache means that synthetic benchmarks sometimes won't even come close to real world performace. Same with having tons of memory and / or an intelligent disk controller, either of which can make measuring disk hits unrepresentative of reality.
Slower machines have their uses.
Ironic, isn't is?
o ft.com.nsatc.net is a nickname for download.microsoft.com.d4p.nett .com.d4p.net is a nickname for download.microsoft.com.georedirector.akadns.net
d ownload.microsoft.com.georedirector.akadns.net is a nickname for a767.ms.akamai.net ...
s .a kamai.net
andromeda: {5} host download.microsoft.com
download.microsoft.com is a nickname for download.microsoft.com.nsatc.net
download.micros
download.microsof
a767.ms.akamai.net has address 193.108.95.200
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=a767.m
Linux AkamaiGHost 1-Aug-2004 213.199.155.62 Microsoft London Internet Data Center
Poetic justice...
"Linux: Bash 3.0 Released", in the slashdot Linux section - does anyone notice anything wrong with this?
Linus did not write bash. bash is a GNU project. Come on, people - it's one thing to not worry about calling Linux OSes GNU/Linux, but it's another to attribute credit to a completely unrelated party!
I have been using the best IDE drives I can get (usually, Maxtor with 3 year warranty / 8 meg cache / 7200 rpm) in my servers with Acard SCSI-IDE adapters. The latest adapters, such as the 7726Q, even support command queueing, and all of them support all of the other SCSI goodies like disconnection / reconnection and speeds up to 160 MB/sec. No more adding multiple PCI IDE controllers, no more cabling nightmares! They're expensive ($90 USD an adapter, usually), but worth it for applications which require good performance (like servers).
. html
http://www.acard.com/eng/product/scside/aec-7726q
Even my Amiga has one; the motherboard IDE is pretty slow and can only support drives up to 128 gigs, but a 160 gig drive on the 40 MB/sec UW SCSI bus is so much faster!
John Klos
Running Amigas for more than a decade.
It is the first stable release that is officially supported not only on Unix-based operating systems, but also on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh OS X.
That's like saying that it's supported not only on Windows, but on Windows 98. Mac OS X IS a Unix based operating system.