/usr/local is one of two places where I expect to find additional software,/opt is the other. One of the things I don't like about Linux is having to remember where things are installed. Per your example, looking for the Apache's config file in/etc just makes no sense to me.
I've found AIX to be interesting and extremely stable, but I'm just not a fan of how many things require smit/smitty. I'll also be honest about not touching HP-UX for years. Most of my friends have joked that HP-UX is the Volvo of Unix. It's not pretty or flashy, but it's tough and will get the job done.
For the "big iron" variants, I like Solaris but Tru64 is still my preferred variant. It's similar to the BSDs, but I've seen Alphas running Tru64 go through things that would've killed most other variants (think loads in the 100s).
I agree with the parent though, Linux's GPL base is a huge plus. I'm not sure that it's greater than the BSD license, but it's disingenuous to discount it.
Wait until it's time to do an XP -> Longhorn upgrade. It's not that Longhorn will be released in 12-18 months, it'll just take that long to get the upgrade going.
I understand what you're saying, but isn't this idea a big part of what many FOSS developers and users are encountering to their detriment? Where are the Linux ports of Photoshop, Dreamweaver, MS Office, most games, etc.? I'm not running Linux at the office because of a lack of ports by the IDS, VPN, and firewall vendors. It's their code, but I don't have to be happy that they're not porting to Linux. If many get upset at the proprietary vendors for doing this, why should it not be pointed out to the FOSS crowd that some are exhibiting the same behaviour? If FOSS authors & vendors aren't going to support the OS with the largest number of users, it seems disingenuous to complain to others for not supporting their OS of choice.
That's an interesting thought, but do you really think that losing support for some platform would "force some lazy PHB to" turn to Linux? Most PHB's that I've known/met/worked for would have (a) gotten ticked that their ancient, legacy platform was no longer supported and (b) started looking at switching to Windows.
I fully agree. I've convinced a number of people at the office (Windows server admins) to try Firefox and, as they've discovered that FOSS isn't an evil, some have started tinkering with Linux on spare desktops. I understand why people don't want to support every architecture, but it still seems like a good idea to support more than one or two.
Personally, I also find it extremely handy that my tools at home can be used in my Windows-only workplace. It's immeasurably helpful that I can run Firefox, OpenOffice, Ethereal, TCPDump/WinDump, etc. on my varied home boxes (Solaris, OS X, Linux, *BSD, etc.) and my work XP box.
No, I don't think you're seeing my point. I understand that there were no known vulnerabilities in 1.0.3 when it was released, much like there are no known vulnerabilities in 1.0.4. My point was that www.mozilla.org still had 1.0.3 available for download while it was known that it had vulnerabilties. I'm not sayint that Netscape didn't do something stupid, I'm just pointing out that the official Mozilla release of Firefox for approximately one week was downloadable while it had a known vulnerability. It had a work-around that they publicized, but it still had that issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that version 1.0.3 shouldn't have been available. I'm just trying to point out what (IMHO) is somewhat disingenuous finger-pointing at Netscape while Mozilla still had vulnerable software available.
Don't forget option C) Netscape management wanted their product out to meet a timeline that they'd set, regardless of any known issues, vulnerabilities, etc.
Let's not assume that the engineers make all the decisions on timelines, etc. That's never been the case in any organization where I've worked. Corporate actions don't have to follow normal-person logic, they follow management logic.
Interesting comment. Using that same logic, why was Firefox 1.0.3 available for download when it was "a product with [known] vulnerabilities?" If one is going to attack AOL for releasing Netscape 8.0, then one should also give the same treatment to the Mozilla Foundation for allowing people to download a product with known flaws.
Re:Leading technology for tomorrows computing
on
OpenBSD 3.7 Released
·
· Score: 1
No file name completion? That's incorrect. There is no file name completion by hitting as in bash. If you're using the Korn shell, type "set -o vi" and then use "esc-\" for command completion. It works perfectly, just like every other Korn shell I've used. This behaviour is like ksh on commercial Unix variants, which I consider to be a plus. I have trouble remembering to use in Linux, as it seems so non-standard to a die-hard ksh user.
No colored directories? Personally, I consider that to be a plus. I detest the various colours when I do an ls -la in most Linux variants. I want a simple directory listing, not a rainbow of names. I can't remember which colour is which. If I want to see if it's a directory, then I look for a "d" at the far left. If I think it's a link, then I look for "->" in the listing.
Update the system by recompilation? That's an interesting complaint. Users of Gentoo Linux would say that it's no big deal. Users of Tru64 Unix would say that it's no big deal. Solaris users would agree with Linux (non-Gentoo) users that it's a big deal. Personally, I don't see it as a problem if I end up with a stable system that will just sit and run. This seems more of a statement about that with which you are familiar and not necessarily an indictment of this particulat OS.
"Thirty years of CS development must be reflected in an OS. We have higher standards now." Hmm...such as, what? One of the arguments is a misunderstanding of the shell environment. One is purely a cosmetic argument. The last can be argued to be irrelevant since this applies to more than one OS under thirty years old.
Call me a die-hard, but I like how OpenBSD is more like "classic Unix." I don't mean to sound condescending, but I see how it seems archaic and or/dated for those who came into Linux/Unix relatively recently (meaning within the past few years). For those of us weened on commercial Unix, it's like having an old friend on our desktops.
I agree, those blasted pronunciations annoy me. Don't you hate people who call it "raydahr" instead of R.A.D.A.R. or "layzer" instead of L.A.S.E.R.? Don't even get me started on the "scuzzy" crowd.;)
I completely agree. I was at a place the also replaced Remedy with Request Tracker. It was much simpler to use, didn't require client software (other than a web browser), and was able to process inbound emails from specially-designed web forms to open new tickets. I'm pushing to use it here at my current job.
My home network isn't very elaborate, it's just a collection of stuff that I've found/inherited/bought.
iBook: Panther Athlon XP: Linux/XP dual-boot P3-450: OpenBSD P2-33: OpenBSD Ultra 5: Solaris 7 Ultra 10: Solaris 10 Dual P-133: Solaris 8 PWS-433: Tru64 (4) P2-266: Soon to have OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Darwin (2) PowerPC: Soon to have AIX
There are also assorted switches, hubs, a wireless access point, etc. My next project is to pick up a PIX 501 and replace my current firewall.
Yes and no. Everything has its place in the datacenter, even Windows. The core, if-this-goes-down-we're-screwed, servers should not run Windows. Something like that should be on a proven, solid OS like Tandem, VMS, z/OS, or Unix (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Tru64, etc.). In my opinion, neither Windows nor Linux is suitable for this task. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting my absolutely business critical apps on either of those operating systems. For the server that run user-facing apps, I think Windows isn't a bad thing. Some of those apps solely run on Windows, so Linux, etc. aren't really an option (whether those type of OS-specific apps _should_ be run at all is a different question). For most everything else, I think Linux/Unix/*BSD is the way to go. I don't believe that Windows should be the sole OS in the enterprise, but it still does have its place.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's a problem for KDE, but does Apple not have the right to do what they want with their patches? They wrote the code and they're releasing it to be viewed and used, so shouldn't that be lauded rather than complaining that they're not releasing things the way that the other guys want?
If Apple complained that the KDE guys were releasing code in a manner than didn't work for Apple, then people in the OSS community would say that the Big Bad Corporation (tm) is trying to control OSS and tell the developers what to do. Does Apple not get the same consideration? I thought the point of open sourcing code was to allow people to do what they want with it. Apple is, so either take what they're giving (for free) or shut up and write your own patches. It seems simple enough to me.
Yes and no. To me, functionality includes the ability to run it on multiple platforms. Being able to access the same files on Windows, Linux, and Solaris is a great boon. It's one thing I miss from the old FrameMaker days and it's something I really like now with OO.
If certain groups (Debian, FSF, etc.) don't like OOo and/or Java, that's fine. But, why don't they use their considerable talents to write a replacement? If they don't like the licensing, there's nothing preventing them from "rolling their own" office suite that'll replace OOo, MS Office, or whatever.
I'd say it's quite possible. I've seen guys use the Vibroplex (no honestly, it's a keyer) and get some kick a** WPM going. Get two old hams (especially Navy vets) chatting on-air and it sounds like machine gun fire.
Try:%s/Linux/Windows/g and see how that reads. It sounds like those who use Linux are starting to get into the same mindset as those who use Windows. To paraphrase your statements: Security is boring. Stability and fixing bugs are boring. Writing drivers is no fun. Features are good.
Aren't mindsets like this part of what got MS into the patch, reboot, patch, reboot, etc. cycle it's in now?
I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is one of the reasons I _really_ don't like Fedora Core. I don't have specific examples off the top of my head, but I've never really liked it. I have stopped using it since FC3 and will likelly never go back. It has nice bells and whistles, but the bugginess and instability that I and my friends (all of whom are professional Unix admins) have experienced have turned almost all of us to OS X and Ubuntu/Debian. Yes it's a "test" OS, but it just doesn't have the rock-hard stability that I expect from Linux.
I had W2k blue-screen because of an imcompatibility with my CD burner's software. XP has blue-screened on me once and that was due to a DIMM not being fully seated. Other than that, it just sits and hums along.
Charge for ICMP? Nah, those are free. But, it's $300 per SYN packet and $300 per ACK packet. I'll send a combination SYN/ACK for the discounted price of $500 and a RST packet for only $200. One good SYN flood and I can finally invest in those lucrative petroleum deals in Nigeria.
Slashdot Mirror
/usr/local is one of two places where I expect to find additional software, /opt is the other. One of the things I don't like about Linux is having to remember where things are installed. Per your example, looking for the Apache's config file in /etc just makes no sense to me.
I've found AIX to be interesting and extremely stable, but I'm just not a fan of how many things require smit/smitty. I'll also be honest about not touching HP-UX for years. Most of my friends have joked that HP-UX is the Volvo of Unix. It's not pretty or flashy, but it's tough and will get the job done.
For the "big iron" variants, I like Solaris but Tru64 is still my preferred variant. It's similar to the BSDs, but I've seen Alphas running Tru64 go through things that would've killed most other variants (think loads in the 100s).
I agree with the parent though, Linux's GPL base is a huge plus. I'm not sure that it's greater than the BSD license, but it's disingenuous to discount it.
Wait until it's time to do an XP -> Longhorn upgrade. It's not that Longhorn will be released in 12-18 months, it'll just take that long to get the upgrade going.
That would only work if was using an older model of Powerbook. It might also require that he looks more like Jeff Goldblum.
I understand what you're saying, but isn't this idea a big part of what many FOSS developers and users are encountering to their detriment? Where are the Linux ports of Photoshop, Dreamweaver, MS Office, most games, etc.? I'm not running Linux at the office because of a lack of ports by the IDS, VPN, and firewall vendors. It's their code, but I don't have to be happy that they're not porting to Linux. If many get upset at the proprietary vendors for doing this, why should it not be pointed out to the FOSS crowd that some are exhibiting the same behaviour? If FOSS authors & vendors aren't going to support the OS with the largest number of users, it seems disingenuous to complain to others for not supporting their OS of choice.
That's an interesting thought, but do you really think that losing support for some platform would "force some lazy PHB to" turn to Linux? Most PHB's that I've known/met/worked for would have (a) gotten ticked that their ancient, legacy platform was no longer supported and (b) started looking at switching to Windows.
I fully agree. I've convinced a number of people at the office (Windows server admins) to try Firefox and, as they've discovered that FOSS isn't an evil, some have started tinkering with Linux on spare desktops. I understand why people don't want to support every architecture, but it still seems like a good idea to support more than one or two.
Personally, I also find it extremely handy that my tools at home can be used in my Windows-only workplace. It's immeasurably helpful that I can run Firefox, OpenOffice, Ethereal, TCPDump/WinDump, etc. on my varied home boxes (Solaris, OS X, Linux, *BSD, etc.) and my work XP box.
No, I don't think you're seeing my point. I understand that there were no known vulnerabilities in 1.0.3 when it was released, much like there are no known vulnerabilities in 1.0.4. My point was that www.mozilla.org still had 1.0.3 available for download while it was known that it had vulnerabilties. I'm not sayint that Netscape didn't do something stupid, I'm just pointing out that the official Mozilla release of Firefox for approximately one week was downloadable while it had a known vulnerability. It had a work-around that they publicized, but it still had that issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that version 1.0.3 shouldn't have been available. I'm just trying to point out what (IMHO) is somewhat disingenuous finger-pointing at Netscape while Mozilla still had vulnerable software available.
Don't forget option C) Netscape management wanted their product out to meet a timeline that they'd set, regardless of any known issues, vulnerabilities, etc.
Let's not assume that the engineers make all the decisions on timelines, etc. That's never been the case in any organization where I've worked. Corporate actions don't have to follow normal-person logic, they follow management logic.
Interesting comment. Using that same logic, why was Firefox 1.0.3 available for download when it was "a product with [known] vulnerabilities?" If one is going to attack AOL for releasing Netscape 8.0, then one should also give the same treatment to the Mozilla Foundation for allowing people to download a product with known flaws.
No file name completion? That's incorrect. There is no file name completion by hitting as in bash. If you're using the Korn shell, type "set -o vi" and then use "esc-\" for command completion. It works perfectly, just like every other Korn shell I've used. This behaviour is like ksh on commercial Unix variants, which I consider to be a plus. I have trouble remembering to use in Linux, as it seems so non-standard to a die-hard ksh user.
No colored directories? Personally, I consider that to be a plus. I detest the various colours when I do an ls -la in most Linux variants. I want a simple directory listing, not a rainbow of names. I can't remember which colour is which. If I want to see if it's a directory, then I look for a "d" at the far left. If I think it's a link, then I look for "->" in the listing.
Update the system by recompilation? That's an interesting complaint. Users of Gentoo Linux would say that it's no big deal. Users of Tru64 Unix would say that it's no big deal. Solaris users would agree with Linux (non-Gentoo) users that it's a big deal. Personally, I don't see it as a problem if I end up with a stable system that will just sit and run. This seems more of a statement about that with which you are familiar and not necessarily an indictment of this particulat OS.
"Thirty years of CS development must be reflected in an OS. We have higher standards now." Hmm...such as, what? One of the arguments is a misunderstanding of the shell environment. One is purely a cosmetic argument. The last can be argued to be irrelevant since this applies to more than one OS under thirty years old.
Call me a die-hard, but I like how OpenBSD is more like "classic Unix." I don't mean to sound condescending, but I see how it seems archaic and or/dated for those who came into Linux/Unix relatively recently (meaning within the past few years). For those of us weened on commercial Unix, it's like having an old friend on our desktops.
I agree, those blasted pronunciations annoy me. Don't you hate people who call it "raydahr" instead of R.A.D.A.R. or "layzer" instead of L.A.S.E.R.? Don't even get me started on the "scuzzy" crowd. ;)
I completely agree. I was at a place the also replaced Remedy with Request Tracker. It was much simpler to use, didn't require client software (other than a web browser), and was able to process inbound emails from specially-designed web forms to open new tickets. I'm pushing to use it here at my current job.
My home network isn't very elaborate, it's just a collection of stuff that I've found/inherited/bought.
iBook: Panther
Athlon XP: Linux/XP dual-boot
P3-450: OpenBSD
P2-33: OpenBSD
Ultra 5: Solaris 7
Ultra 10: Solaris 10
Dual P-133: Solaris 8
PWS-433: Tru64
(4) P2-266: Soon to have OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Darwin
(2) PowerPC: Soon to have AIX
There are also assorted switches, hubs, a wireless access point, etc. My next project is to pick up a PIX 501 and replace my current firewall.
Yes and no. Everything has its place in the datacenter, even Windows. The core, if-this-goes-down-we're-screwed, servers should not run Windows. Something like that should be on a proven, solid OS like Tandem, VMS, z/OS, or Unix (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Tru64, etc.). In my opinion, neither Windows nor Linux is suitable for this task. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting my absolutely business critical apps on either of those operating systems. For the server that run user-facing apps, I think Windows isn't a bad thing. Some of those apps solely run on Windows, so Linux, etc. aren't really an option (whether those type of OS-specific apps _should_ be run at all is a different question). For most everything else, I think Linux/Unix/*BSD is the way to go. I don't believe that Windows should be the sole OS in the enterprise, but it still does have its place.
That's a problem for KDE, but does Apple not have the right to do what they want with their patches? They wrote the code and they're releasing it to be viewed and used, so shouldn't that be lauded rather than complaining that they're not releasing things the way that the other guys want?
If Apple complained that the KDE guys were releasing code in a manner than didn't work for Apple, then people in the OSS community would say that the Big Bad Corporation (tm) is trying to control OSS and tell the developers what to do. Does Apple not get the same consideration? I thought the point of open sourcing code was to allow people to do what they want with it. Apple is, so either take what they're giving (for free) or shut up and write your own patches. It seems simple enough to me.
"Reliance of (sic) Sun proprietary sofware is a pain in the ass for everybody who's not on a Microsoft/Linux/MacOS system"
It doesn't hurt those on Solaris.
Yes and no. To me, functionality includes the ability to run it on multiple platforms. Being able to access the same files on Windows, Linux, and Solaris is a great boon. It's one thing I miss from the old FrameMaker days and it's something I really like now with OO.
If certain groups (Debian, FSF, etc.) don't like OOo and/or Java, that's fine. But, why don't they use their considerable talents to write a replacement? If they don't like the licensing, there's nothing preventing them from "rolling their own" office suite that'll replace OOo, MS Office, or whatever.
I'd say it's quite possible. I've seen guys use the Vibroplex (no honestly, it's a keyer) and get some kick a** WPM going. Get two old hams (especially Navy vets) chatting on-air and it sounds like machine gun fire.
Try :%s/Linux/Windows/g and see how that reads. It sounds like those who use Linux are starting to get into the same mindset as those who use Windows. To paraphrase your statements:
Security is boring.
Stability and fixing bugs are boring.
Writing drivers is no fun.
Features are good.
Aren't mindsets like this part of what got MS into the patch, reboot, patch, reboot, etc. cycle it's in now?
I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is one of the reasons I _really_ don't like Fedora Core. I don't have specific examples off the top of my head, but I've never really liked it. I have stopped using it since FC3 and will likelly never go back. It has nice bells and whistles, but the bugginess and instability that I and my friends (all of whom are professional Unix admins) have experienced have turned almost all of us to OS X and Ubuntu/Debian. Yes it's a "test" OS, but it just doesn't have the rock-hard stability that I expect from Linux.
I had W2k blue-screen because of an imcompatibility with my CD burner's software. XP has blue-screened on me once and that was due to a DIMM not being fully seated. Other than that, it just sits and hums along.
I must admit that W2k for Alpha was the best and most stable version of Windows I've ever had. It had essentially zero application support though.
"How long will it be until competitors such as IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer and Linux Technology get their code ported to 64-bits?"
The scary thing is that there are likely people who believe this.
I am curious though, I wonder if the 64-bit Windows version can easily switch to 32-bit, a la Solaris?
Charge for ICMP? Nah, those are free. But, it's $300 per SYN packet and $300 per ACK packet. I'll send a combination SYN/ACK for the discounted price of $500 and a RST packet for only $200. One good SYN flood and I can finally invest in those lucrative petroleum deals in Nigeria.