It's called bloat. It happened to Red Hat. It happened to SuSE and it happened to Opera. You have to have limited objectives to avoid bloat. This is the key for browsers like Lynx etc.
Lynx is not lean. Lynx is extremely under-featured. If Firefox is bloated, then Lynx is starving for some food.
Lynx simply does not cut it on the modern (post 1994) web. And no, being text-only is not the reason. It does not support frames, no CSS, no javascript. Like it or not, a full featured browser needs that.
It's the kernel. What does red hat do to make that same kernel so much more stable than kernel.org?
Red Hat properly tests the kernel and patches problems they find. Also, they add features which may be too intrusive for a stable kernel. Not because of code stability (as in: crashiness), but as in interface stability. But it's mostly the far better QA. Sane people don't run vanilla kernels on their production servers.
If an application is screwing things over, logical step is to drop it.
Now that's a innovative way to make your distribution stable! But what if said application is critical to the buisiness, like Oracle?
I'm thinking you are a red hat fan boy?
Red Hat has no fanboys. Fanboys are exclusively found on Gentoo, Debian and some on Slackware. All nice distributions, but all lacking good QA.
No, not at all. Parliament consists of 150 members, of which maybe 15 participated in the debate on the motion of yesterday. On the broader political scale software patents are only a small point. Nothing worth sending the government home for.
The specific reason for this motion was to prevent a clash between the European Counsil (pro patents) and the European Parliament (against patents). When patents are A-listed and accepted, this clash will surely happen. They will be rejected by the EP, so we won't end up with patents either way.
Disclaimer: this matter is very complex and I am sure I don't fully understand it. The above is what I think is true.
RTFA. Slashdot could modify slashcode to automatically add the attribute to all links posted in comments. Comment spammers can't do anything about it, so they'll move away to other sites.
No normal links (i.e. not in visitor contributed content) should have the attribute. So slashdot will still be full of normal links; only the links in the comments will have the attribute.
The comment spam is mostly used to get a better searchengine ranking. A blog which uses this attibute on link tags is far less interesting to comment spammers, so chances are the moderaters have to delete less spam.
Apparently both the LINX and the AMS-IX claim to be the largest. Let's just say that the AMS-IX is one of the largest. It's not about measuring dick size;-)
As for stats, I could not find stats for the LINX; the AMS-IX peaks at 49.7 gbit/sec and they have 210 members using 322 switch ports.
They've been connected to the ams-ix for some time
on
Google's Dark Fibre Plans?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I have seen traces from the Netherlands to www.google.com go over the amsterdam internet exchange for some time now. According to their member page they have been connected since march 2004.
Traceroute:
5 bb2-ge6-0.amsix-telecity.home.nl (213.51.158.153) 28.478 ms 27.683 ms 26.895 ms 6 r2-ge1-2-0.amsix-telecity.home.nl (213.51.158.158) 26.563 ms 35.185 ms 33.987 ms 7 core1.ams.net.google.com (195.69.144.247) 32.044 ms 32.543 ms 30.484 ms 8 64.233.175.246 32.806 ms 32.560 ms 30.529 ms 9 216.239.46.173 30.058 ms 29.058 ms 26.684 ms 10 216.239.49.254 37.532 ms 36.958 ms 39.685 ms 11 216.239.48.50 41.163 ms 41.902 ms 43.109 ms 12 216.239.49.62 35.543 ms 34.004 ms 33.173 ms 13 * * *
The AMS-IX is the largest Internet Exchange / NAP in Europe.
You should never depend on a single point of failure. If kernel security is your single point of failure, then you're at risk.
However, you also shouldn't depend solely on "other shields in place" for security. Those shields might fail too.
A simple example is apache. It almost never is run as root, as a security measure. However, when an attacker succeeds in gaining webuser privileges, you'll have to depend on kernel security.
In short: try to make software as bugfree as possible and use multiple barriers that will have to fail before an attacker can 0wn your machine.
I don't have any problems with a patent on an invention which took years to complete and will take little effort to copy, be it software or not. This is the stuff when people are taking about 'patents are helping innovation'.
Just too bad 99% of the software patents are worthless and only slowing innovation.
In my (obviously stupid) definition, a PC is a computer with in hardware is designed for use by a single person.
A mini is a machine designed in hardware for use by multiple persons. Note that with dual video cards and ps2 keyboard/mouse and usb keyboard/mouse, you can turn a Linux PC into a mini;-)
Legally, 'PC' is probably trademarked or something by IBM, meaning an Intel 8086 compatible machine, including, bios, memory layout, ISA bus (yes, every PC has an ISA bus, even though I doesn't nescesarily have ISA slots), etc.
I'd fire you for doing that. Seriously. All the top distributions (including Debian) do extensive QA on the software they ship, especially the kernels. When compiling your own software, you dismiss this QA and take your own responsibility for the software quality, knowing that the quality is usally less. And don't even get me started on security fixes. Do you want to keep track of all custom compiled software on all your servers and make high qualily security fixes under high pressure?
Of course I can compile a kernel. I've been doing it for many years. I can do Linux From Scratch without the LFS book, no problem. But when it comes to servers, I want decent quality control on the software I run. Therefore I want to keep the software as close to the distribution I use as possible.
So yes, I am a real admin, and I do administer real servers. And as a professional I demand good quality and up-to-date (not bleeding edge!) software, software which Debian unfortunately cannot provide.
Oh, come on! When will the submitter realize that stableis what most of us want to run on our servers and mission-critical hardware.
Yes, but you don't want to install the current debian stable on new servers. It's just too old. Stable lacks the hardware support for modern servers (does Stable ship with a kernel which supports dual xeon machines with 2 GB ram? AMD Opteron? Modern chipsets? SCSI controllers?).
Debian Stable is good for old servers. Debian has no good offering for new servers. Nobody cares that debian can be installed in 48 MB of ram. 48 MB does not make a server. It makes an antique.
Debian should realise that if they want to make a serious server distribution, that people will want to run it on a server. A real one.
The filesystem layout. It works, but it ain't pretty. I highly doubt we would end up with things like/usr and/etc when we redesigned the layout from scratch.
In fact I'd rather entirely drop the fileystem in the classic sense and replace it with an object-relational database.
X11. Though X.org is working on it.
Lack of configuration standards. Text files with a million different formats are not elegant. We need something with a uniform interface, both to the user and to applications. Elektra Project (formerly know as the Linux Registry Project but that name is Wrong) working on it.
No universal way to inform the user of important events in the system. Kernel events layer and dbus are going to solve this.
/etc/passwd and friends need to go out. ldap all the way. We also need user/admin friendly ldap tools (in fact I have run my desktop system without/etc/passwd for several months, it's not that hard).
Slashdot Mirror
Besides that, the i486 is a very weird architecture. i386 optimized binaries run faster on a i586+ than i486 optimized binaries.
Never, ever optimize for i486, unless you own one. But then don't run KDE on it. You won't be happy.
No it isn't. The bios initializes the hardware and provides a 16-bit interface to the OS (which Linux obviously can't use because Linux is 32-bit).
After bootstrapping the OS, the BIOS does very little.
Lynx is not lean. Lynx is extremely under-featured. If Firefox is bloated, then Lynx is starving for some food.
Lynx simply does not cut it on the modern (post 1994) web. And no, being text-only is not the reason. It does not support frames, no CSS, no javascript. Like it or not, a full featured browser needs that.
read.
To the user it probably has no advantages at all. You won't even notice it's Linux.
To the manufacturer it's just the usual freedom/free beer thing.
It's just you.
Actually it's 2^11 = 2048 times faster. Every extra bit doubles the time needed to crack.
I have access to a SLES machine, and it does have a LDAP Yast module. However I can't try it since the machine is owned by a customer ;-)
It's the kernel. What does red hat do to make that same kernel so much more stable than kernel.org?
Red Hat properly tests the kernel and patches problems they find. Also, they add features which may be too intrusive for a stable kernel. Not because of code stability (as in: crashiness), but as in interface stability. But it's mostly the far better QA. Sane people don't run vanilla kernels on their production servers.
If an application is screwing things over, logical step is to drop it.
Now that's a innovative way to make your distribution stable! But what if said application is critical to the buisiness, like Oracle?
I'm thinking you are a red hat fan boy?
Red Hat has no fanboys. Fanboys are exclusively found on Gentoo, Debian and some on Slackware. All nice distributions, but all lacking good QA.
No, not at all. Parliament consists of 150 members, of which maybe 15 participated in the debate on the motion of yesterday. On the broader political scale software patents are only a small point. Nothing worth sending the government home for.
The specific reason for this motion was to prevent a clash between the European Counsil (pro patents) and the European Parliament (against patents). When patents are A-listed and accepted, this clash will surely happen. They will be rejected by the EP, so we won't end up with patents either way.
Disclaimer: this matter is very complex and I am sure I don't fully understand it. The above is what I think is true.
Actuall it was banner and judging from the large exlamation mark on the screenshot, I think it was Hello World! :-)
But seriously, does a policy like this do anything but encourace people to write down their passwords?
Yes. Plain and simple: Yes.
People simply can't/won't remember difficult passwords.
I'm a bit more pessimistic. I think spamfilters help to keep the amount of received spam fairly constant, while the spam sent increases.
RTFA. Slashdot could modify slashcode to automatically add the attribute to all links posted in comments. Comment spammers can't do anything about it, so they'll move away to other sites.
No normal links (i.e. not in visitor contributed content) should have the attribute. So slashdot will still be full of normal links; only the links in the comments will have the attribute.
The comment spam is mostly used to get a better searchengine ranking. A blog which uses this attibute on link tags is far less interesting to comment spammers, so chances are the moderaters have to delete less spam.
rpm -qa | while read package ; do rpm -V $package ; done
Apparently both the LINX and the AMS-IX claim to be the largest. Let's just say that the AMS-IX is one of the largest. It's not about measuring dick size ;-)
As for stats, I could not find stats for the LINX; the AMS-IX peaks at 49.7 gbit/sec and they have 210 members using 322 switch ports.
The AMS-IX is the largest Internet Exchange / NAP in Europe.
You should never depend on a single point of failure. If kernel security is your single point of failure, then you're at risk.
However, you also shouldn't depend solely on "other shields in place" for security. Those shields might fail too.
A simple example is apache. It almost never is run as root, as a security measure. However, when an attacker succeeds in gaining webuser privileges, you'll have to depend on kernel security.
In short: try to make software as bugfree as possible and use multiple barriers that will have to fail before an attacker can 0wn your machine.
I don't have any problems with a patent on an invention which took years to complete and will take little effort to copy, be it software or not. This is the stuff when people are taking about 'patents are helping innovation'.
Just too bad 99% of the software patents are worthless and only slowing innovation.
The strange language is Dutch, spoken in the Netherlands, the nothern part of Belgium (this particular post was from .be), the Antilles and Suriname.
In my (obviously stupid) definition, a PC is a computer with in hardware is designed for use by a single person.
A mini is a machine designed in hardware for use by multiple persons. Note that with dual video cards and ps2 keyboard/mouse and usb keyboard/mouse, you can turn a Linux PC into a mini ;-)
Legally, 'PC' is probably trademarked or something by IBM, meaning an Intel 8086 compatible machine, including, bios, memory layout, ISA bus (yes, every PC has an ISA bus, even though I doesn't nescesarily have ISA slots), etc.
I'd fire you for doing that. Seriously. All the top distributions (including Debian) do extensive QA on the software they ship, especially the kernels. When compiling your own software, you dismiss this QA and take your own responsibility for the software quality, knowing that the quality is usally less. And don't even get me started on security fixes. Do you want to keep track of all custom compiled software on all your servers and make high qualily security fixes under high pressure?
Of course I can compile a kernel. I've been doing it for many years. I can do Linux From Scratch without the LFS book, no problem. But when it comes to servers, I want decent quality control on the software I run. Therefore I want to keep the software as close to the distribution I use as possible.
So yes, I am a real admin, and I do administer real servers. And as a professional I demand good quality and up-to-date (not bleeding edge!) software, software which Debian unfortunately cannot provide.
Yes, but you don't want to install the current debian stable on new servers. It's just too old. Stable lacks the hardware support for modern servers (does Stable ship with a kernel which supports dual xeon machines with 2 GB ram? AMD Opteron? Modern chipsets? SCSI controllers?).
Debian Stable is good for old servers. Debian has no good offering for new servers. Nobody cares that debian can be installed in 48 MB of ram. 48 MB does not make a server. It makes an antique.
Debian should realise that if they want to make a serious server distribution, that people will want to run it on a server. A real one.