How am I running Mandrake 8.2 PPC on my PowerMac 8600 then?
There are 2 full CDs for the Mandrake PPC version that has almost all the same packages as the x86 version. The only way I can tell I'm not on my x86 box is doing a uname or because there isn't as much noise coming from the box. Suse has 8 full cds in its PPC version and I hear Debian is between the other 2 mentitioned in number of packages. Performance is good too so I don't think you are talking about optimizations, right?
Maybe I should be more clear here. I said that there are plenty of PPC binarys out there but it would be better to tweak the source and have apps natively compiled on OS X than an emulation layer.
I was looking at the IPX over IP issue off and on.
I like to play Red Alert 2 with my brother and a couple other friends. While it uses IP on the internet it needs IPX to run LAN games (dumb). I was thinking about IPX over IP tunnels over cable network so we can all play together every so often when we get the bug.
I dismissed the idea pretty quick at first because it was really unnecessary and silly to mess with. I later came back and thought it would be a good way to learn more about the intricacies of networking. I learned way more about networking running an Unreal Tournament server than a lot of books will teach. It's great for learning how much you can do with your bandwidth, tune for lowest latency possible, learn how the various tradeoffs affect it all, how ram/cpu affect performance, etc.
I played around with a borrowed Mac and atalkd to support the Macs at work (a few in Media Arts only). They bought new one and when 100% OS X so Appletalk went away. I still played with appletalk to my linux box for experience anyway. They got a piece of hardware that they needed but it didn't support OS X. The storage they wanted to connect to supported Appletalk but was in another subnet. The netadmin refused to add Appletalk to his routing/bridging/etc. for one machine (the network here is complex enough already). I put up a basic Linux box to connect to the storage by NFS and reshared it with atalkd on the subnet with the OS9 machine on it. I looked like a hero and this was right before reviews/raises.
I don't underestimate learning a skill even if it is just for game or hacking for hacking sake. You never know when it could help you later. At least a game/whatever is an application you can test against and have some goals
The only possible binaries they could support would be from PPCLinux (and Yellow Dog)
And Mandrake, Debian, Suse, etc.
Please don't use "only" if you aren't going to be complete. The mentitioned distros do have a large number packages that would be available in binary form. It still would take less work to make them compile natively on OS X than to write a Linux compatibility layer. Most of the major ones already have been.
2) It mostly (exclusively?) uses corn as its source, and I'm not convinced that corn is the best crop to provide a fuel source. What about hemp or some other crop that might require less insecticide, fertilizer, etc etc.
{sarcasm}Hemp, great idea.{/sarcasm} I grew up in farming country and there was so much wild stuff growing in the ditches, pastures, etc. you would have thought someone was growing it. Your suggestion sounds either uninformed or a subtle troll. I think probably the latter.
Do you realize that it is the starch in the corn that produces the alchohol?
The only product that is better than corn is potatoes (insert Quayle joke here). The funny thing is that there is an Ethanol plant across the road here at work.
There were several dual chipset cards out there in the 3d workstation market. The term GPU came along with the Geforce 1. There was some reason to distinguish between chipset and GPU.
I have a dual chipset 3d Labs Oxygen RPM card sitting in a box at home. It has 64mb, dual outputs and won't do anything less than 24bit color. The drivers were NT 4.0 only but you could make them work with Win2k too.I haven't found any *nix support even from the commercial xserver vendors. Driver issues will kill you. This was a killer card running Maya 2.0 (later 2.5) on dual monitors on a dual cpu system with a gig of ram.
So it still sits in the closet gathering dust. Sad ending for a $1500 card (4 years ago) that still does decent OpenGL.
It sounds like you are using an app on the windows box to do your firewall connections. It would be fairly trivial for Microsoft to make some connections without the software being aware. This would be real easy to do with existing products out there or possibly even have the vendor ignore those specific connections.
I'm not necessarily saying that is happening but that it is possible. If an external firewall says there are connections and software says there isn't then I'm going to believe the external one. I'm going to capture some packets and just see what is on the wire to find out for myself. I might just have to tighten up my outbound rules when I put XP on my testing partition.
Re:For those who don't drink coffee...
on
Coffepot Computer
·
· Score: 1
Put a teabag in your mouth and drink some coffee through it. That should get you. Alternately you could drink shots of esspresso if you need more caffeine.
Please don't drink this alone. You probably could only call 999999911111111111111 when you heart starts racing. You may need someone nearby to dial 911 for you. They probably should do the talking too.
The Apple OS X version of the coffee was actually built off of BSD sources and originally only available with Fink. It is now integrated and fully ported.
You need to type in coffee://www.pimprig.com because this is based on http but is a new spec. No wonder you didn't get the results you were looking for.
I'm just glad I can trust all these students here at the college.
I often ask myself why I want to work at a college when the students are so good at hosing systems. I'm glad I don't deal with them more often than I do.
Most of the students who are supposed to know about this kind of stuff don't (there are exceptions) and the ones who shouldn't know it do.
I need to figure out who is upstream a little better.
It's a lot more usefull than the rootwin-demanding cygwin-xfree
You don't need admin rights to use it. I don't see Exceed doing anything local like cygwin can. You can even do X on your windows box and share it out with XDMCP. Plus all the command line stuff.
We need an open source Windows X server.
What do you think this is?? This does let you connect remotely. It just needs rootless and it will be that much better.
I love tightvnc but it is slower than a good xserver. I use both quite a bit.
VNC doesn't support wheel mouse while xservers do.
VNC is nice if you need persistent sessions through reboots, changing machines, etc. but it uses resources on the server regardless if you are connected or not. This can be quite a load on your system if you have a lot sessions open. Xservers are only using using the resources when someone is connected. Makes more sense to use xserver if you have 500 users but only a couple hundred connected at a given time. 500 users would have 500 sessions regardless if they were using it or not. Sure you could ask them to kill the sessions but how many really would?
VNC is great when you want to have several different setups connected simultaneously to the same client or running in the background.
Both are good but they are not the same thing. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Use the right tool for the job.
There's also the k-12 version out there too. While I think that is a good idea, you have to look at the security concerns of have that enabled by default. It's probably a good idea to have these shutoff and turn them on if you need them. It does run a few services to get it up and running (NFS, TFTP, DHCP). LSTP will run a script and set it all up for you if you can deal with the potential risks those services open up. It has packages for several distros.
I love the irony of people using those services to serve up Linux off a Windows box. If it is running terminal services then it could serve up your Outlook to your linux clients using rdesktop too. I don't think I go that route but options can get people moving towards migration when other ways can't. PHB's can make you do things you otherwise wouldn't.
I've administered Exchange boxes in the past and didn't like the babysitting but do see the need for it in a lot of businesses. It really is the biggest "killer app" Microsoft has for servers. There are a lot of ways to do the basics but nothing else comes close to the functionality of it yet. I looked at Openmail but the EOL on it killed it for the higher ups.
Are you asking if you can run sshd on your Windows box with Cygwin on it?
If so then the answer is yes. Cygwin has mounts for all your mapped and local drives on your Windows box. The real question becomes can you get the port forwarded from your work's firewall to this Windows box. I suppose the other question is if your Windows box is stable enough to stay up over the weekend, holidays, etc. for you to come in on it. A lot are but a lot aren't.
I have compiled and used Xfree86 on Cygwin long before May. May is when binaries were included for xf86 in Cygwin.
This makes it little more in reach of some of the Windows crowd heading in a more Unixish direction. My Red Hat 5.2 box was mostly just tinking at the beginning but cross-platform apps sucked me right in. I started with Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. on NT 4.0 and it was a real easy decision to move it all over to a more stable OS from there. I think that making it easier is the biggest thing for Cygwin development right now.
I'd love to see rootless Cygwin soon. That will be the killer app and would make Hummingbird and Starnet worry. It would be hard to spend the couple hundred dollars for their products if Cygwin can do it for free. The ability to run remote apps seamlessly on the desktop for no extra money would make for a lot of migrations from "proprietary" apps very easy.
I had the same thoughts about the rumour sites. The less facts they get the more they will "have" to fill in the blanks and the problem gets bigger.
I think the rumour sites are a good thing for Apple whether they see it that way or not. They generate a lot of excitement, anticipation, etc. to see what is really coming from Apple. They definitely build a buzz for Apple.
Sure you need to squash the blatant ones, or do you? The more they try to squash some of these, the louder they will become. Just letting them spout a bit and fade might be more effective.
I used to have several because I wondered the same questions. All my links are either dead or updated to 5.0 figures. Ignore the rest of my post if you consider it "too anecdotal".
I've seen some inhouse testing with identical hardware with both Linux 2.4 and FreeBSD 4.x tuned for performance. They would go back and forth in some real-world testing with the edge in raw performance going to Linux more often. Usually the differences weren't that much but sometimes there was a clear winner.
I would suggest that you get some hardware to test with and use both on this hardware in the situation(s) that you are going to put it in. It is real easy to get a system that each can support the hardware. If one or the other doesn't support the hardware you want or very well then go with the OS that supports the hardware well.
For me, the real choice is outside of the scope of raw performance since they are fairly close (close enough for me at least). A couple factors I look at.
1. A moderate to heavy loaded FreeBSD box still responds well while a Linux box under the same load will become extremely sluggish or unresponsive.
2. Updating the system is more solid in FreeBSD than Linux. Apt-get and other mechanisms work well but usually have more issues for me at least. Following -stable is very easy in FreeBSD.
3. Experience. Which system is the admin more comfortable with? If they have experience BSD or other traditional Unix then FreeBSD is the way to go. If they are more comfortable with Linux then it really needs to factor in to the choice.
4. Number of processors. If the number goes over 2 then you need to go Linux or look into FreeBSD 5.0 if you can wait or run the development versions. Probably Linux will suit you better on your quad+ box for now at least. It will take some time to wring the most out of FreeBSD 5.x
These are all opinions and suggestions. Use both in your setup and see which works for you. Alternately you could tell them both to take a hike and get an Irix box. That would open a whole new set of things to look at.
It isn't really a 2CPU limitation per-sey. The problem is performance has diminishing returns as you go past 2 cpus. Giant kernel lock means that one cpu has access to the memory space at a time and this is why performance can't scale well with this design.
The good news is that it works remarkably well on 1 or 2 cpu systems. It beat the performance of Linux 2.2 kernels and still gives 2.4 kernels a run for their money in most situations. When you start running mores cpus then performance will only go up a little bit so it really isn't worth it at that point.
FreeBSD 5.0 will not have this limitation and will scale nicely. I'm just not sure how far it will go at first but you can be sure that it will improve from there now that a decent setup for SMP is in place now (with 5.0).
But now im using Suse. Its a lot more professional
Apparently you aren't though.
Car dealships are crap. I started with a block of steel and a lathe. I learned more about cars this way. I'm not really sure how it would handle a crash and do these locks even work? Mine is still better because I did it the hard way. Why does it burn so much oil and gas?
If you can't learn from a developed and proven system then it just means that you aren't self-disiplined enough to learn it. Just because you use a system that forces you to learn doesn't make it necessarily better. It just means you were forced down the road of hard knocks.
The reseaon the military uses boot camp is so everyone learns it and they have a consistent product. Imagine if they let you train and condition yourself. The results would be inconsistent and all over the board. Some would be in better shape and prepared but the majority would be sub-par on their own. While the hard way will get you there, it isn't the only way.
I don't think you deserve more credit/respect/etc. just because you "paid your dues" than someone else that is at the same place without the hard knocks. It was your choice and your road that got you there. Someone else can get to the same place going a different route. Doesn't mean they will though.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I have some pictures here for you. Maybe you track off those.
Here you go
AnnaKounikova.jpg.vbs
How am I running Mandrake 8.2 PPC on my PowerMac 8600 then?
There are 2 full CDs for the Mandrake PPC version that has almost all the same packages as the x86 version. The only way I can tell I'm not on my x86 box is doing a uname or because there isn't as much noise coming from the box. Suse has 8 full cds in its PPC version and I hear Debian is between the other 2 mentitioned in number of packages. Performance is good too so I don't think you are talking about optimizations, right?
Maybe I should be more clear here. I said that there are plenty of PPC binarys out there but it would be better to tweak the source and have apps natively compiled on OS X than an emulation layer.
I was looking at the IPX over IP issue off and on.
I like to play Red Alert 2 with my brother and a couple other friends. While it uses IP on the internet it needs IPX to run LAN games (dumb). I was thinking about IPX over IP tunnels over cable network so we can all play together every so often when we get the bug.
I dismissed the idea pretty quick at first because it was really unnecessary and silly to mess with. I later came back and thought it would be a good way to learn more about the intricacies of networking. I learned way more about networking running an Unreal Tournament server than a lot of books will teach. It's great for learning how much you can do with your bandwidth, tune for lowest latency possible, learn how the various tradeoffs affect it all, how ram/cpu affect performance, etc.
I played around with a borrowed Mac and atalkd to support the Macs at work (a few in Media Arts only). They bought new one and when 100% OS X so Appletalk went away. I still played with appletalk to my linux box for experience anyway. They got a piece of hardware that they needed but it didn't support OS X. The storage they wanted to connect to supported Appletalk but was in another subnet. The netadmin refused to add Appletalk to his routing/bridging/etc. for one machine (the network here is complex enough already). I put up a basic Linux box to connect to the storage by NFS and reshared it with atalkd on the subnet with the OS9 machine on it. I looked like a hero and this was right before reviews/raises.
I don't underestimate learning a skill even if it is just for game or hacking for hacking sake. You never know when it could help you later. At least a game/whatever is an application you can test against and have some goals
The only possible binaries they could support would be from PPCLinux (and Yellow Dog)
And Mandrake, Debian, Suse, etc.
Please don't use "only" if you aren't going to be complete. The mentitioned distros do have a large number packages that would be available in binary form. It still would take less work to make them compile natively on OS X than to write a Linux compatibility layer. Most of the major ones already have been.
Not really serious about that.
Host files, firewall, etc. as long as it doesn't make it out to the place it was intending.
2) It mostly (exclusively?) uses corn as its source, and I'm not convinced that corn is the best crop to provide a fuel source. What about hemp or some other crop that might require less insecticide, fertilizer, etc etc.
{sarcasm}Hemp, great idea.{/sarcasm} I grew up in farming country and there was so much wild stuff growing in the ditches, pastures, etc. you would have thought someone was growing it. Your suggestion sounds either uninformed or a subtle troll. I think probably the latter.
Do you realize that it is the starch in the corn that produces the alchohol?
The only product that is better than corn is potatoes (insert Quayle joke here). The funny thing is that there is an Ethanol plant across the road here at work.
There were several dual chipset cards out there in the 3d workstation market. The term GPU came along with the Geforce 1. There was some reason to distinguish between chipset and GPU.
I have a dual chipset 3d Labs Oxygen RPM card sitting in a box at home. It has 64mb, dual outputs and won't do anything less than 24bit color. The drivers were NT 4.0 only but you could make them work with Win2k too.I haven't found any *nix support even from the commercial xserver vendors. Driver issues will kill you. This was a killer card running Maya 2.0 (later 2.5) on dual monitors on a dual cpu system with a gig of ram.
So it still sits in the closet gathering dust. Sad ending for a $1500 card (4 years ago) that still does decent OpenGL.
Be careful. That sounds like reverse engineering. You don't want to step into DCMA territory. For everyone outside of its grasp, hack away.
I'm not trying to be paranoid too bad here but...
It sounds like you are using an app on the windows box to do your firewall connections. It would be fairly trivial for Microsoft to make some connections without the software being aware. This would be real easy to do with existing products out there or possibly even have the vendor ignore those specific connections.
I'm not necessarily saying that is happening but that it is possible. If an external firewall says there are connections and software says there isn't then I'm going to believe the external one. I'm going to capture some packets and just see what is on the wire to find out for myself. I might just have to tighten up my outbound rules when I put XP on my testing partition.
Here is a better link for you.
Put a teabag in your mouth and drink some coffee through it. That should get you. Alternately you could drink shots of esspresso if you need more caffeine.
Please don't drink this alone. You probably could only call 999999911111111111111 when you heart starts racing. You may need someone nearby to dial 911 for you. They probably should do the talking too.
The Apple OS X version of the coffee was actually built off of BSD sources and originally only available with Fink. It is now integrated and fully ported.
Didn't you read the RFC?
You need to type in coffee://www.pimprig.com because this is based on http but is a new spec. No wonder you didn't get the results you were looking for.
I'm just glad I can trust all these students here at the college.
I often ask myself why I want to work at a college when the students are so good at hosing systems. I'm glad I don't deal with them more often than I do.
Most of the students who are supposed to know about this kind of stuff don't (there are exceptions) and the ones who shouldn't know it do.
I need to figure out who is upstream a little better.
It's a lot more usefull than the rootwin-demanding cygwin-xfree
You don't need admin rights to use it. I don't see Exceed doing anything local like cygwin can. You can even do X on your windows box and share it out with XDMCP. Plus all the command line stuff.
We need an open source Windows X server.
What do you think this is?? This does let you connect remotely. It just needs rootless and it will be that much better.
I love tightvnc but it is slower than a good xserver. I use both quite a bit.
VNC doesn't support wheel mouse while xservers do.
VNC is nice if you need persistent sessions through reboots, changing machines, etc. but it uses resources on the server regardless if you are connected or not. This can be quite a load on your system if you have a lot sessions open. Xservers are only using using the resources when someone is connected. Makes more sense to use xserver if you have 500 users but only a couple hundred connected at a given time. 500 users would have 500 sessions regardless if they were using it or not. Sure you could ask them to kill the sessions but how many really would?
VNC is great when you want to have several different setups connected simultaneously to the same client or running in the background.
Both are good but they are not the same thing. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Use the right tool for the job.
You mean something like Linux Terminal Server Project ?
There's also the k-12 version out there too. While I think that is a good idea, you have to look at the security concerns of have that enabled by default. It's probably a good idea to have these shutoff and turn them on if you need them. It does run a few services to get it up and running (NFS, TFTP, DHCP). LSTP will run a script and set it all up for you if you can deal with the potential risks those services open up. It has packages for several distros.
I love the irony of people using those services to serve up Linux off a Windows box. If it is running terminal services then it could serve up your Outlook to your linux clients using rdesktop too. I don't think I go that route but options can get people moving towards migration when other ways can't. PHB's can make you do things you otherwise wouldn't.
I've administered Exchange boxes in the past and didn't like the babysitting but do see the need for it in a lot of businesses. It really is the biggest "killer app" Microsoft has for servers. There are a lot of ways to do the basics but nothing else comes close to the functionality of it yet. I looked at Openmail but the EOL on it killed it for the higher ups.
Are you asking if you can run sshd on your Windows box with Cygwin on it?
If so then the answer is yes. Cygwin has mounts for all your mapped and local drives on your Windows box. The real question becomes can you get the port forwarded from your work's firewall to this Windows box. I suppose the other question is if your Windows box is stable enough to stay up over the weekend, holidays, etc. for you to come in on it. A lot are but a lot aren't.
I have compiled and used Xfree86 on Cygwin long before May. May is when binaries were included for xf86 in Cygwin.
This makes it little more in reach of some of the Windows crowd heading in a more Unixish direction. My Red Hat 5.2 box was mostly just tinking at the beginning but cross-platform apps sucked me right in. I started with Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. on NT 4.0 and it was a real easy decision to move it all over to a more stable OS from there. I think that making it easier is the biggest thing for Cygwin development right now.
I'd love to see rootless Cygwin soon. That will be the killer app and would make Hummingbird and Starnet worry. It would be hard to spend the couple hundred dollars for their products if Cygwin can do it for free. The ability to run remote apps seamlessly on the desktop for no extra money would make for a lot of migrations from "proprietary" apps very easy.
I had the same thoughts about the rumour sites. The less facts they get the more they will "have" to fill in the blanks and the problem gets bigger.
I think the rumour sites are a good thing for Apple whether they see it that way or not. They generate a lot of excitement, anticipation, etc. to see what is really coming from Apple. They definitely build a buzz for Apple.
Sure you need to squash the blatant ones, or do you? The more they try to squash some of these, the louder they will become. Just letting them spout a bit and fade might be more effective.
I used to have several because I wondered the same questions. All my links are either dead or updated to 5.0 figures. Ignore the rest of my post if you consider it "too anecdotal".
I've seen some inhouse testing with identical hardware with both Linux 2.4 and FreeBSD 4.x tuned for performance. They would go back and forth in some real-world testing with the edge in raw performance going to Linux more often. Usually the differences weren't that much but sometimes there was a clear winner.
I would suggest that you get some hardware to test with and use both on this hardware in the situation(s) that you are going to put it in. It is real easy to get a system that each can support the hardware. If one or the other doesn't support the hardware you want or very well then go with the OS that supports the hardware well.
For me, the real choice is outside of the scope of raw performance since they are fairly close (close enough for me at least). A couple factors I look at.
1. A moderate to heavy loaded FreeBSD box still responds well while a Linux box under the same load will become extremely sluggish or unresponsive.
2. Updating the system is more solid in FreeBSD than Linux. Apt-get and other mechanisms work well but usually have more issues for me at least. Following -stable is very easy in FreeBSD.
3. Experience. Which system is the admin more comfortable with? If they have experience BSD or other traditional Unix then FreeBSD is the way to go. If they are more comfortable with Linux then it really needs to factor in to the choice.
4. Number of processors. If the number goes over 2 then you need to go Linux or look into FreeBSD 5.0 if you can wait or run the development versions. Probably Linux will suit you better on your quad+ box for now at least. It will take some time to wring the most out of FreeBSD 5.x
These are all opinions and suggestions. Use both in your setup and see which works for you. Alternately you could tell them both to take a hike and get an Irix box. That would open a whole new set of things to look at.
Where does this all leave Samsung in this whole mess?
Will they continue the Alpha line or will this be where it ends?
Compaq still owns Alpha. Intel just licensed several Alpha technologies
It isn't really a 2CPU limitation per-sey. The problem is performance has diminishing returns as you go past 2 cpus. Giant kernel lock means that one cpu has access to the memory space at a time and this is why performance can't scale well with this design.
The good news is that it works remarkably well on 1 or 2 cpu systems. It beat the performance of Linux 2.2 kernels and still gives 2.4 kernels a run for their money in most situations. When you start running mores cpus then performance will only go up a little bit so it really isn't worth it at that point.
FreeBSD 5.0 will not have this limitation and will scale nicely. I'm just not sure how far it will go at first but you can be sure that it will improve from there now that a decent setup for SMP is in place now (with 5.0).
But now im using Suse. Its a lot more professional
:)
Apparently you aren't though.
Car dealships are crap. I started with a block of steel and a lathe. I learned more about cars this way. I'm not really sure how it would handle a crash and do these locks even work? Mine is still better because I did it the hard way. Why does it burn so much oil and gas?
If you can't learn from a developed and proven system then it just means that you aren't self-disiplined enough to learn it. Just because you use a system that forces you to learn doesn't make it necessarily better. It just means you were forced down the road of hard knocks.
The reseaon the military uses boot camp is so everyone learns it and they have a consistent product. Imagine if they let you train and condition yourself. The results would be inconsistent and all over the board. Some would be in better shape and prepared but the majority would be sub-par on their own. While the hard way will get you there, it isn't the only way.
I don't think you deserve more credit/respect/etc. just because you "paid your dues" than someone else that is at the same place without the hard knocks. It was your choice and your road that got you there. Someone else can get to the same place going a different route. Doesn't mean they will though.