I've seen a great deal of problems start to arise from some of the coding efforts by the Linux community. Namely the fact that WM's like Gnome open random high numbered ports when running, etc. I have seen the OpenBSD and FreeBSD communities react to issues of software security, but I have yet to see anyone really take a more secure step towards software on Linux. What do you forsee as a solution for Linux software, and/or do you think it's security issues will begin to approach the problems Windows has?
(1) SCSI - EIDE - _BAD_IDEA_. I'm not quite sure if you're familiar with SCSI and IDE's physical performance attrobutes, but if you are experiencing any bottleneck issues whatsoever with SCSI, IDE, even EIDE is possibly the worst thing to do in this situation.
(2) You ought to make the point that you're looking for Sun-box stuff, which is *way* more confined than PC RAID. We are running Exchange (no flames) and we use mirrored RAID 5 on two seperae controllers- we can have any two drives fail simultaneously with no repercussions. My point is that the PC RAID market seems to have far more choices for you.
3. RAID on IDE works fine, even great for a desktop user who pushes the perfomance envelope- but (E)IDE cannot and will likely never compare to UW-SCSI or U2W-SCSI.
Well, it seems you might after all be in a bit of a mess to start spell-correcting posts form other people, but I think that acronyms are quite important. I read that at first and thought it was the original, and called my parents because of it (mom= CS major at UC Berkeley in 69-or something like CS). We were disappointed after reading it an finding out it as PERL. Anyways, I din't mean to start a war over it, but that's kind of unavoidable here in/. land sometimes.
Dude, Robin- you *have* to start proofing your posts; you have cool stuff sometimes, just please look them over- that is of course unless there really is a new programming language spelled "Pearl"
I didn't see them say Linux was the end-all be-all for everyone; they stated several times that they were aware that this is a primarily Linux crowd. Go look at FTP installs of OpenBSD and then get back to us.
I think Roblimo has a point- Sendmail? NT? But I have to question the approach to this article here on Slashdot- if it isn't newsworthy for CNN, what makes it newsworthy for/.? Besides, the last thing non-AC's such as myself want to read is more 'NT sux, Linux is better'- it's a tired mantra. Real news would be 'Exchange counterpart for Unix offered' and don't give me sendmail bs- Exchange is extremely stable when implimented correctly, and can easily house thousands of users- such as I do for a major computer printer manufacturer. sendmail isn't an option for messaging as it does not offer calendaring, resource management (scheduling) task management, or anything close- another reason sendmail for NT is lame- it lacks the features of Exchange. 'Free' is a dead issue, as licensing costs are one of the smallest factors in messaging for >3000 users.
Fire your Exchange Admin... wait! Is he the janitor, the LAN admin, and the mailroom clerk too? Try not to be so quick until you have seen some big sites use it.
I think this is a cop-out. Exchange has proven itself to be quite stable, and is one hell of a solution for many, many people. Exchange will handle 25k users, the only limitation is the restore time to restore IMAP data stored on the server. If you use POP3, that problem goes away as the files are retrieved from the server and saved on the user's local machine.
What you should consider is using sendmail for smtp services, with and Exchange frontend. This lets you do all the cool stuff, but keeps it running nice and fast. Email me at service_account@yahoo.com if you want more info.
all i can say is- "read it." irc has always worked using the irc module, not to mention quake, etc. just about any game company under the sun will tell you the tcp/udp port settings if you ask... and icq... well, icq is hell-sent anyways... use ftp, http, nfs, ssh or *anything* else for file transfers....
The tcp/ip stack is *based* on an earlier version, but it is *not* and has never been as good as the *bsd implimentations. Linux is ok, but BSD is rock solid. I'm not really sure about all the Amiga users freaking out anyways- from what I have seen most Amiga users are people who also love linux/BSD, or they're a notch below mac users...
Sorry folks, the mpg on the DVD's is encrypted, and since it uses a proprietary and secret format, an NDA is required to have a look... so no mpg's from the DVD's, but I thought someone posted to/. someone working on a hardware-based decoder for linux, bypassing the whole open-source thing.
They're using QoS (Quality of Service) methods on their network- if your modem is performing unusually slow and you have been running services off it, simply reset the cable modem, which resets any QoS stuff they have set on your modem until they come back to it.
They all share the bandwidth- and voltage too- depending on the design of the usb internals, you may *have* to get a hub anyways- a good example are those usb quickcams- they suck so much juice they can make your mouse/kb not work on macs...
they share something like 2.1 or 1.2 megabits/sec...
I swear some of you people... it's just as easy to run a script as it is to link to antionline. Sice when did they become anything of a source for hacks/cracks? Is it because they can post their router logs on their web page? Big freekin deal. Ask anyone including the kiddees and they'll tell you sources for hack/cracks are 2600 and Defcon, Resentment, l0pht, etc. Why is it that all the diverse groups of hackers out there seem to hate antionline? hmmmm.... maybe becuase the dorks at AnitOnline (coincidence, eh?) take credit for other people's work. Try something approaching a real security site like:
Now *this* is funny... an AC proposing a 'logged in user conspiracy'. heheh. Now I have heard it all. Really... how hard *is* it to log in? Besides, what's wrong with doing away or restricting AC's? Many are just average users, but there are kiddees out there looking to troll and upset people. Just say no to Ac's.
No kidding! What a mess... I've had my threshold set on 1:6 for so long I almost forgot about AC's. I think that Rob has the right idea by just letting us use our own threshold- it solves the problem... but it might be nice to have the default threshold for new users at 1:6 tho... I would hate to think new users see all that junk when they first use/.
AMD's architecture doesn't support SMP, pally. Why do you think so many people still use intel for servers? AMD is a low-cost solution, not a feature-rich one.
Xerox is using uinix for print servers for it's copiers? I haven't seen *all* of their product line, but almost everything they use for high-end stuff runs Fiery-XJ (not unix) and OS/2. Besides, these boxes have been way expensive for Xerox to produce, and I cans ee why they would reduce the cost there... but they are (MS and Xerox) a match made in heaven. Fiery doesn't work that hot anyways... just go to IKON and buy the same model copier and get the sgi print server:)
I bet these bad boys would be a great device for monitoring audio in a given room... all you need to do is put them on a flat surface that can resonate easily... hook it up like a microphone and 'voila'.... just slap it on the back of a dresser mirror or something.... oh wit- i meant to post this on hackernews.com....:)
Ummm what do you listen to mp3's on? your two jensen 3 1/2" speakers with your 500 watt booster? Here in audiophile land we like to be able to hear the mids- 128's sound *ok* for some, while 160's all the way up to 256's sound *way* better. 128 sounds just fine streaming, and I'll concede that anything above has a hard time without loads of bandwidth... but if you are talking sound quality, 128 is marginal at best. Long live 160!
QT 4.0 will already play mp3's, but more support is always better. Now if QT would only play *streaming* mp3's then that would be so cool. There currently is no streaming mp3 player for the mac.:(
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a great deal of problems start to arise from some of the coding efforts by the Linux community. Namely the fact that WM's like Gnome open random high numbered ports when running, etc. I have seen the OpenBSD and FreeBSD communities react to issues of software security, but I have yet to see anyone really take a more secure step towards software on Linux. What do you forsee as a solution for Linux software, and/or do you think it's security issues will begin to approach the problems Windows has?
Null_Packet
Hybrid
(hybrid@ghettohackers.net)
(1) SCSI - EIDE - _BAD_IDEA_. I'm not quite sure if you're familiar with SCSI and IDE's physical performance attrobutes, but if you are experiencing any bottleneck issues whatsoever with SCSI, IDE, even EIDE is possibly the worst thing to do in this situation.
(2) You ought to make the point that you're looking for Sun-box stuff, which is *way* more confined than PC RAID. We are running Exchange (no flames) and we use mirrored RAID 5 on two seperae controllers- we can have any two drives fail simultaneously with no repercussions. My point is that the PC RAID market seems to have far more choices for you.
3. RAID on IDE works fine, even great for a desktop user who pushes the perfomance envelope- but (E)IDE cannot and will likely never compare to UW-SCSI or U2W-SCSI.
NP
Well, it seems you might after all be in a bit of a mess to start spell-correcting posts form other people, but I think that acronyms are quite important. I read that at first and thought it was the original, and called my parents because of it (mom= CS major at UC Berkeley in 69-or something like CS). We were disappointed after reading it an finding out it as PERL. Anyways, I din't mean to start a war over it, but that's kind of unavoidable here in /. land sometimes.
NP
service_accountnospam,please@yahoo.com
Dude, Robin- you *have* to start proofing your posts; you have cool stuff sometimes, just please look them over- that is of course unless there really is a new programming language spelled "Pearl"
NP
I didn't see them say Linux was the end-all be-all for everyone; they stated several times that they were aware that this is a primarily Linux crowd. Go look at FTP installs of OpenBSD and then get back to us.
I think Roblimo has a point- Sendmail? NT? But I have to question the approach to this article here on Slashdot- if it isn't newsworthy for CNN, what makes it newsworthy for /.? Besides, the last thing non-AC's such as myself want to read is more 'NT sux, Linux is better'- it's a tired mantra.
Real news would be 'Exchange counterpart for Unix offered' and don't give me sendmail bs- Exchange is extremely stable when implimented correctly, and can easily house thousands of users- such as I do for a major computer printer manufacturer. sendmail isn't an option for messaging as it does not offer calendaring, resource management (scheduling) task management, or anything close- another reason sendmail for NT is lame- it lacks the features of Exchange. 'Free' is a dead issue, as licensing costs are one of the smallest factors in messaging for >3000 users.
N_P
Fire your Exchange Admin... wait! Is he the janitor, the LAN admin, and the mailroom clerk too? Try not to be so quick until you have seen some big sites use it.
I think this is a cop-out. Exchange has proven itself to be quite stable, and is one hell of a solution for many, many people. Exchange will handle 25k users, the only limitation is the restore time to restore IMAP data stored on the server. If you use POP3, that problem goes away as the files are retrieved from the server and saved on the user's local machine.
What you should consider is using sendmail for smtp services, with and Exchange frontend. This lets you do all the cool stuff, but keeps it running nice and fast. Email me at service_account@yahoo.com if you want more info.
Jay
all i can say is- "read it." irc has always worked using the irc module, not to mention quake, etc. just about any game company under the sun will tell you the tcp/udp port settings if you ask... and icq... well, icq is hell-sent anyways... use ftp, http, nfs, ssh or *anything* else for file transfers....
The tcp/ip stack is *based* on an earlier version, but it is *not* and has never been as good as the *bsd implimentations. Linux is ok, but BSD is rock solid. I'm not really sure about all the Amiga users freaking out anyways- from what I have seen most Amiga users are people who also love linux/BSD, or they're a notch below mac users...
what do we know anyways? we're just using an inferior product according to the amiga users referenced in the article.
Sorry folks, the mpg on the DVD's is encrypted, and since it uses a proprietary and secret format, an NDA is required to have a look... so no mpg's from the DVD's, but I thought someone posted to /. someone working on a hardware-based decoder for linux, bypassing the whole open-source thing.
Redhat Linux. Get to know *nix first, then go after BSD. BSD is great, but you will learn far more faster on a linux box.
bah- you're a notes user... what do you know about ease of use?
They're using QoS (Quality of Service) methods on their network- if your modem is performing unusually slow and you have been running services off it, simply reset the cable modem, which resets any QoS stuff they have set on your modem until they come back to it.
:)
hee hee
They all share the bandwidth- and voltage too- depending on the design of the usb internals, you may *have* to get a hub anyways- a good example are those usb quickcams- they suck so much juice they can make your mouse/kb not work on macs...
they share something like 2.1 or 1.2 megabits/sec...
I am a person fairly knowledgeable in TCP/IP, but have found few good howto's, doc's, or books on snmp. Can anyone help? Thanks.
jay2@home.com
I swear some of you people... it's just as easy to run a script as it is to link to antionline. Sice when did they become anything of a source for hacks/cracks? Is it because they can post their router logs on their web page? Big freekin deal. Ask anyone including the kiddees and they'll tell you sources for hack/cracks are 2600 and Defcon, Resentment, l0pht, etc. Why is it that all the diverse groups of hackers out there seem to hate antionline? hmmmm.... maybe becuase the dorks at AnitOnline (coincidence, eh?) take credit for other people's work. Try something approaching a real security site like:
http://l0pht.com
http://www.2600.com
http://www.resentment.org
http://www.303.org
Now *this* is funny... an AC proposing a 'logged in user conspiracy'. heheh. Now I have heard it all. Really... how hard *is* it to log in? Besides, what's wrong with doing away or restricting AC's? Many are just average users, but there are kiddees out there looking to troll and upset people. Just say no to Ac's.
No kidding! What a mess... I've had my threshold set on 1:6 for so long I almost forgot about AC's. I think that Rob has the right idea by just letting us use our own threshold- it solves the problem... but it might be nice to have the default threshold for new users at 1:6 tho... I would hate to think new users see all that junk when they first use /.
np
AMD's architecture doesn't support SMP, pally. Why do you think so many people still use intel for servers? AMD is a low-cost solution, not a feature-rich one.
Xerox is using uinix for print servers for it's copiers? I haven't seen *all* of their product line, but almost everything they use for high-end stuff runs Fiery-XJ (not unix) and OS/2. Besides, these boxes have been way expensive for Xerox to produce, and I cans ee why they would reduce the cost there... but they are (MS and Xerox) a match made in heaven. Fiery doesn't work that hot anyways... just go to IKON and buy the same model copier and get the sgi print server :)
I bet these bad boys would be a great device for monitoring audio in a given room... all you need to do is put them on a flat surface that can resonate easily... hook it up like a microphone and 'voila'.... just slap it on the back of a dresser mirror or something.... oh wit- i meant to post this on hackernews.com.... :)
Ummm what do you listen to mp3's on? your two jensen 3 1/2" speakers with your 500 watt booster? Here in audiophile land we like to be able to hear the mids- 128's sound *ok* for some, while 160's all the way up to 256's sound *way* better. 128 sounds just fine streaming, and I'll concede that anything above has a hard time without loads of bandwidth... but if you are talking sound quality, 128 is marginal at best. Long live 160!
QT 4.0 will already play mp3's, but more support is always better. Now if QT would only play *streaming* mp3's then that would be so cool. There currently is no streaming mp3 player for the mac. :(
"There is no spoon."