Solving the same problems over and over, getting excited about some new technology only to find that it is overly complicated and full of false promises. Not really feeling like anyone gives a crap what we do.
You make a good point. I have worked hard, physical jobs in the past, so I do appreciate the value of having a stable professional career.
That being said, I also appreciate the value of coming home after a long day of work feeling like I accomplished something, even if it was just bucking bales.
I don't understand all the uproar. All you geeks think you should be able to buy something, jab a screwdriver into it and then expect the manufacturer to support it.
If you buy a car from GM, install an after-market modification (some kind of performance chip, etc.), it is quite possible that they may issue a recall that would either a) be denied b/c of your after-market modification, b) cause your modification to stop working or c) cause your car to stop working. Do you think it's GM's responsibility to test each an every modification that someone might make to a car before releasing a recall? Do you think it's Apple's responsibility to test each and every possible software hack out there before releasing an update?
They are selling their phone as a closed-box device, like a toaster or a DVD player. If you want to screw with it, fine, but don't expect any help from Apple getting it to work again. Quit complaining.
You do realize these would be two totally different groups of people. Kernel devs focus on the kernel and GUI devs focus on QT/Gnome/X/etc. There's no reason they can't work in parallel and devoting efforts to one in no way precludes devoting any effort to the other. It's no like The Linux Company, Inc. has decided to move all their GUI developers to scheduler improvements.
1) There are some (not many, but some) applications that run on Linux that don't run on AIX (i.e. won't compile on AIX) 2) There are a lot of Linux gearheads out there that a company might not want to retrain for AIX
The whole point is to be able to run (almost) any operating system you own on (almost) any platform IBM sells. If Windows and Intel weren't in bed, Windows would be running on the pSeries. In fact, it is in the lab, it's just not for sale:)
I can't speak as to whether or not it's cheaper on a per server basis, but they do some pretty cool power management things on the POWER5 processors and it is supposed to get even better on POWER6. The big thing is that they turn off the portions of the processor that are not being used at any given time.
IBM has been doing this for several years, now, starting with their Power4 and now Power5 chips. Granted, it's not exactly the same market (x86 vs PPC), but they will run Linux and *BSD, and Windows pretty soon as the rumor goes.
It's not just the mainframes. The iSeries (AS/400) can do this, including sub-processor partitioning, as well as their pSeries (RS/6000, i.e. UNIX) line. With the release of Power5 this year, the pSeries line will get virtual I/O and sub-processor partitioning.
Maybe you meant one of these when you said mainframe.
talking about some crappy Intel CPU because the AS/400 (iSeries) has done this for quite some time and the RS/6000 (pSeries) will be able to do this before the end of this year with the announcement of Power5.
The big difference between RH8 and RH9 is native posix threads library support (NPTL). This breaks some of the binaries from commercial vendors like Oracle and IBM. Usually you can work around this by setting an environment variable:
I know for a fact that on the pSeries (Unix) and zSeries (Mainframe), the system includes a separate service processor that does just exactly that. So even if there is some sort of catastrophic failure of the main system, the service processor sees it, phones IBM, and their service guy shows up in an hour with the exact part that needs to be replaced. I think I would call this prior art.
You mean to tell me that Windows is better at serving files over it's own proprietary network protocol than Linux. Gee, I would've thought that a reverse engineered implementation of the SMB protocol would've been much faster!
Newsflash!!! "Linux is a better file server than Windows (when using a non-Windows network file-serving protocol, i.e. NFS)"
In all seriousness, though, I haven't had a chance to test Windows 2003, but all the tests I've done on 98, NT and 2000 show that Samba is much faster at serving up files than Windows. I wonder if they've changed the SMB protocol (yet again).
Slashdot Mirror
You are my idol.
Best one I've heard yet.
Solving the same problems over and over, getting excited about some new technology only to find that it is overly complicated and full of false promises. Not really feeling like anyone gives a crap what we do.
You make a good point. I have worked hard, physical jobs in the past, so I do appreciate the value of having a stable professional career.
That being said, I also appreciate the value of coming home after a long day of work feeling like I accomplished something, even if it was just bucking bales.
Then don't buy an iPhone.
I don't understand all the uproar. All you geeks think you should be able to buy something, jab a screwdriver into it and then expect the manufacturer to support it.
If you buy a car from GM, install an after-market modification (some kind of performance chip, etc.), it is quite possible that they may issue a recall that would either a) be denied b/c of your after-market modification, b) cause your modification to stop working or c) cause your car to stop working. Do you think it's GM's responsibility to test each an every modification that someone might make to a car before releasing a recall? Do you think it's Apple's responsibility to test each and every possible software hack out there before releasing an update?
They are selling their phone as a closed-box device, like a toaster or a DVD player. If you want to screw with it, fine, but don't expect any help from Apple getting it to work again. Quit complaining.
You do realize these would be two totally different groups of people. Kernel devs focus on the kernel and GUI devs focus on QT/Gnome/X/etc. There's no reason they can't work in parallel and devoting efforts to one in no way precludes devoting any effort to the other. It's no like The Linux Company, Inc. has decided to move all their GUI developers to scheduler improvements.
Are you kidding?
. individual&videoID=881873426
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids
I think there are a couple of reasons:
:)
1) There are some (not many, but some) applications that run on Linux that don't run on AIX (i.e. won't compile on AIX)
2) There are a lot of Linux gearheads out there that a company might not want to retrain for AIX
The whole point is to be able to run (almost) any operating system you own on (almost) any platform IBM sells. If Windows and Intel weren't in bed, Windows would be running on the pSeries. In fact, it is in the lab, it's just not for sale
I can't speak as to whether or not it's cheaper on a per server basis, but they do some pretty cool power management things on the POWER5 processors and it is supposed to get even better on POWER6. The big thing is that they turn off the portions of the processor that are not being used at any given time.
Check the IBM pSeries website on October 4th. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised :)
IBM has been doing this for several years, now, starting with their Power4 and now Power5 chips. Granted, it's not exactly the same market (x86 vs PPC), but they will run Linux and *BSD, and Windows pretty soon as the rumor goes.
Comeon. They're married. Really, what are the odds of this hunt taking place on Mr. Potatohead's birthday?
Hilarious. Good to see some non-nerd humour around here.
/usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf
It changed in the 5.x series
Uh, 2.6.4 hasn't been out for months.
From www.kernel.org:
"The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.4 2004-03-11 03:16 UTC"
It's not just the mainframes. The iSeries (AS/400) can do this, including sub-processor partitioning, as well as their pSeries (RS/6000, i.e. UNIX) line. With the release of Power5 this year, the pSeries line will get virtual I/O and sub-processor partitioning.
Maybe you meant one of these when you said mainframe.
talking about some crappy Intel CPU because the AS/400 (iSeries) has done this for quite some time and the RS/6000 (pSeries) will be able to do this before the end of this year with the announcement of Power5.
Yay!
The big difference between RH8 and RH9 is native posix threads library support (NPTL). This breaks some of the binaries from commercial vendors like Oracle and IBM. Usually you can work around this by setting an environment variable:
export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5
Good Luck!
Great signature! I don't imagine most of the geeks on Slashdot get it, but it's great nonetheless.
Kornheiser rules!
I know for a fact that on the pSeries (Unix) and zSeries (Mainframe), the system includes a separate service processor that does just exactly that. So even if there is some sort of catastrophic failure of the main system, the service processor sees it, phones IBM, and their service guy shows up in an hour with the exact part that needs to be replaced. I think I would call this prior art.
Just did a "find / -print | wc -l" on my Linux server. 133308 files.
Dupe! Dupe! Dupe! Dupe! Dupe! Dupe!
Here.
Just in, the perfect Slashdot article (notice the comma)
measuring (not messuring)
Article (not Artical)
You mean to tell me that Windows is better at serving files over it's own proprietary network protocol than Linux. Gee, I would've thought that a reverse engineered implementation of the SMB protocol would've been much faster!
Newsflash!!! "Linux is a better file server than Windows (when using a non-Windows network file-serving protocol, i.e. NFS)"
In all seriousness, though, I haven't had a chance to test Windows 2003, but all the tests I've done on 98, NT and 2000 show that Samba is much faster at serving up files than Windows. I wonder if they've changed the SMB protocol (yet again).