* You route your outgoing IP traffic through your upstream provider.
* You should also route your outgoing SNMP traffic through your upstream provider.
Free Speech? You have *got* to be kidding me;-)
You don't think sending your outgoing traffic upstream negates your ability to be an independant voice, do you? This isn't about running your own mail or being an independant voice, it's about routing traffic. *routing traffic*
This is basic networking-made-simple here.
By "full on mail hub" I mean relaying mail directly from your SMTP server to the To: domain's MX host. If you instead relay the mail to your upstream SMTP server, they can do that for you. You can still be the MX for your domain and recieve all of your mail directly.
Note that one of the reasons most of the spam comes from China is because it's/easier/ to send it from there. Any clue as to why? These systems are not perfect, but they do provide pressure.
You being on the DUL is a good thing. It means less spam from your entire netblock.
This is where you learn to relay your outgoing mail through your upstream provider. You should of course continue to be the MX for your domain for all other purposes.
I know other people have mentioned this, but seriously... No cable or DSL clients should be pretending to be a full-on mail hub. Just use the smtp resources of your upstream provider.
Debian has, for a long time now, had the ability to automaticaly upgrade entire distributions with a few simple commands.
Many members of the community seem to think that RedHat's refusal to impliment this type of ability is a sign of building a "crippled" distribution. I can see where this would help you sell revisions to the distribution.
I am wondering what your view are on purposly crippling the software to require purchased upgrades?
(note, the RedHat Network does not count. Please don't insinuate the abilities are the same. This is not a managed services question.)
I will mention the non-penguin logo to the lab director when he gets back in. That seems to be a spot some people have difficulties with.
I can see what you are saying about the use of "open source". I also agree with the part about RMS and the GNU/Linux bit.
Personally I think Linux, Python, Perl, Apache and such are all in the same boat. They depend so much on each others success that putting them under the same banner of Open Source can only help things.
Of course, these are my opinions and have/nothing/ to do with my employer;)
SMP scalability does not start at 2-processors and jump to 64. It's generally good to test multiple steps along the way.
OS scalability is also not a processor only issue. Clusters, disk IO, large memory support, high network bandwith, high connection rates/counts... This lab is just presenting the Open Source development community with the chance to take the next step towards enterprise scalability.
I don't believe it's an issue that Linux doesn't handle that many, I believe it's the Jabber project getting their code to do it and needing a testbed. However, it's possible Linux doesn't handle that many across >4 processors and scale as well as we would like. (must...play...)
If I remember correctly, Jabber had a call for development help out a little bit ago when they were having trouble getting up to 32k open sockets working with buffers...
Those limits are going to be blown out of the water with the types of systems we can provide now.
You just don't provide a 16-processor box with 6-gigabit fiber cards and 16gigs of RAM and multiple terrabytes of storage and not expect it to scale beyond 32k sockets.
-Nathan (will be happy when I can compile a kernel in 1.2 seconds) Dabney
Open Source Development Lab
That's a religious discussion you don't want to start. The Open Source movement is not older than Linux, the Free Software one is.
As far as the logo goes, there is a (good/reasonable) story behind it. However, since I have only heard it third-hand, I am not quite comfortable trying to quote it here.
The point of the lab isn't to fill every little niche out there, it's to provide a development environment for open cource projects looking to develop their enterprise capabilities.
Example: We are going to work with Jabber as one of the initial projects, last I checked that was not penguin, or Linux specific...
Correct, only sysadmin postitions for the time being.
We actualy plan to do as much as possible via remote/ssh but there is a definite need to have the people be local because of the amount of hardware adjustments we anticipate.
For the most part, OS install and refresh will be automated (give us time, we just opened;)
The build boxes (kernel compile on these boxes is fun) are ready for the developers. So the only thing we are waiting on as of today is for the projects that have been approved to say: "ok, we are ready, can we have our login access now?"
People should be allowed to, hence my statement that it should be legel;)
That doesn't remove my opinion that doing the drugs, like alchohol or illegal ones in a sence (both figurativly and practicaly) gives control (hence freedom) to something other than your regular-self.
So I still hold that yes, I believe that drugs should be legal, and people should be able to do them and eat at mc donalds and run BSD and all the other crap that people do to themselves to make life harder (note: I am not saying drugs make your life harder).
I guess it's not even interesting to me if the drug is bad for you or not for the purpose of this (small off topic discussion) but rather whether or not the use of the drug in a way gives your freedom away for a short time and thuse is amusing to see people demand the freedom to do.
Note I said amusing, I didn't say I disagree with the need for that freedom.
I am a strong proponent of the concept that like the end of prohabition, legalizing drugs would end the drug war and make treatment for those who wanted it much more achievable and the situation would overall improve with less deaths due to OD or drug-induced paranoia.
Summary:
Freedom: Good
Drugs: Bad
Drug Laws: Really Bad
Hungry + Slashdot Posting: not making any damn sense.
Dunno what's up with the mouse.
-Nathan
p.s. Sorry, it's almost 10am and I am at my desk at Intel and I don't want to expend the energy to walk down the hallway to get a snickers. If this came accross as grumpy or demeaning I didn't mean it to.
Rich people paying taxes because they "have" to does not give them influence.
Rich people donating money to parties to influence political decision does (by it's nature) give them influence.
Special interest (good or bad) is a seriously bad thing. I favor a system that requires these groups to convince the people of their plight and get approval through a ballot measure rather than slipping a few prostitutes through the office window of some politician.
They get laid and we get screwed. It may SEEM fair in theory... BAD!!!
by the people for the people... needs a little "gettin' back to".
That's an impressive article, I would like to see it in a distributal form with stats and whatnot that I could take to all those places downtown with the "prayer for Bush" flyers and give them some mindshare competition.
Hmm, maybe I will just write one, I think this could have done alot better without the fluff.
-Nathan
-- is waiting for someone to suggest this whole thing could be done so much better on BSD.
-- always smiles when pot heads start ranting about "government propoganda".
I wonder if they realise exactly how little their "my freedom is important to me" comments seem when they are giving control over their mind to something else. (save the crap about the expanded soul please, it's still morning here)
Don't get me wrong, I am all for legalization of anything that has any benifit at all. You are just amusing, that's all.
Not only an open source one, but a stable, fast, reliable and a whole bunch of other features were needed.
Like a cool name (which is why I originaly used it over BSD, thank God for luck granted that day.)
I think you nailed it, there are alot of reasons Linux flurished it did, neither BSD or ESPECIALY hurd have all the required ones to even make a dent in Linux's force.
Of course one Linux Kernel cannot fit every need, one kernel binary that is.
However, using the magic of ifdef and SOURCE (you remember the source that kernels get compiled from right?) you can have one source tree with multiple targets with multiple abilities.
It gives a central focused driving point for a movement. Yes the source is and will be huge with 30% of it actualy being for a users system, but as UNIX learned the hard way,
Splitting the development into different paths is not the way.
On a side thought, look at how RT/Linux is getting it's ass kicked PR wise now that another vendor is going to make the mainstream Linux Kernel RT. Time to backpeddle boys.
It's not that Linux is aiming at small systems, it's that the kernel is currently frozen in the hopes that one day we can use a released 2.4.0 final.
IBM is spending an incredible amount of money on the Linux issue, it's just going to take time for their managers and development people to understand how life works when the other 9/10 of your development team is outside the company and under no contract whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
A good number of the developers on Inkscape used to work on Sodipodi but left for various reasons. Read the mail lists for the details.
The Inkscape project is (as I understand it) flying past Sodipodi in features partly because it has a more liberal feature inclusion process.
Bryce deserves a good bit of credit for that.
Look at it this way:
;-)
/easier/ to send it from there. Any clue as to why? These systems are not perfect, but they do provide pressure.
* You route your outgoing IP traffic through your upstream provider.
* You should also route your outgoing SNMP traffic through your upstream provider.
Free Speech? You have *got* to be kidding me
You don't think sending your outgoing traffic upstream negates your ability to be an independant voice, do you? This isn't about running your own mail or being an independant voice, it's about routing traffic. *routing traffic*
This is basic networking-made-simple here.
By "full on mail hub" I mean relaying mail directly from your SMTP server to the To: domain's MX host. If you instead relay the mail to your upstream SMTP server, they can do that for you. You can still be the MX for your domain and recieve all of your mail directly.
Note that one of the reasons most of the spam comes from China is because it's
You being on the DUL is a good thing. It means less spam from your entire netblock.
This is where you learn to relay your outgoing mail through your upstream provider. You should of course continue to be the MX for your domain for all other purposes.
I know other people have mentioned this, but seriously... No cable or DSL clients should be pretending to be a full-on mail hub. Just use the smtp resources of your upstream provider.
"The alternatives are ..."
;-)
Nah, the alternative is to roll your own kernel.
The firmware licensing issue has been debated and resolved by the kernel people already.
Orkut Buyukkokten has done this before.
Bob,
Debian has, for a long time now, had the ability to automaticaly upgrade entire distributions with a few simple commands.
Many members of the community seem to think that RedHat's refusal to impliment this type of ability is a sign of building a "crippled" distribution. I can see where this would help you sell revisions to the distribution.
I am wondering what your view are on purposly crippling the software to require purchased upgrades?
(note, the RedHat Network does not count. Please don't insinuate the abilities are the same. This is not a managed services question.)
Sorry about the late reply.
;)
There will eventualy be a need for developers.
We are currently discussing ways to allow outside developers to assist with the projects that are in dire need of performance analysis.
As far as actual job positions go, I suggest checking the job board every so often
-Nathan (also posting from Beaverton;)
Open Source Development Lab
I will mention the non-penguin logo to the lab director when he gets back in. That seems to be a spot some people have difficulties with.
/nothing/ to do with my employer ;)
I can see what you are saying about the use of "open source". I also agree with the part about RMS and the GNU/Linux bit.
Personally I think Linux, Python, Perl, Apache and such are all in the same boat. They depend so much on each others success that putting them under the same banner of Open Source can only help things.
Of course, these are my opinions and have
-Nathan
Open Source Development Lab
To start with, yes.
;)
SMP scalability does not start at 2-processors and jump to 64. It's generally good to test multiple steps along the way.
OS scalability is also not a processor only issue. Clusters, disk IO, large memory support, high network bandwith, high connection rates/counts... This lab is just presenting the Open Source development community with the chance to take the next step towards enterprise scalability.
Give us time, we just opened
-Nathan
Open Source Development Lab
I don't believe it's an issue that Linux doesn't handle that many, I believe it's the Jabber project getting their code to do it and needing a testbed. However, it's possible Linux doesn't handle that many across >4 processors and scale as well as we would like. (must...play...)
If I remember correctly, Jabber had a call for development help out a little bit ago when they were having trouble getting up to 32k open sockets working with buffers...
Those limits are going to be blown out of the water with the types of systems we can provide now.
You just don't provide a 16-processor box with 6-gigabit fiber cards and 16gigs of RAM and multiple terrabytes of storage and not expect it to scale beyond 32k sockets.
-Nathan (will be happy when I can compile a kernel in 1.2 seconds) Dabney
Open Source Development Lab
That's a religious discussion you don't want to start. The Open Source movement is not older than Linux, the Free Software one is.
As far as the logo goes, there is a (good/reasonable) story behind it. However, since I have only heard it third-hand, I am not quite comfortable trying to quote it here.
The point of the lab isn't to fill every little niche out there, it's to provide a development environment for open cource projects looking to develop their enterprise capabilities.
Example: We are going to work with Jabber as one of the initial projects, last I checked that was not penguin, or Linux specific...
-Nathan
Open Source Development Lab
Correct, only sysadmin postitions for the time being.
We actualy plan to do as much as possible via remote/ssh but there is a definite need to have the people be local because of the amount of hardware adjustments we anticipate.
For the most part, OS install and refresh will be automated (give us time, we just opened;)
The build boxes (kernel compile on these boxes is fun) are ready for the developers. So the only thing we are waiting on as of today is for the projects that have been approved to say: "ok, we are ready, can we have our login access now?"
-Nathan
Open Source Development Lab
If the processor had 20megs or so of cache to hodl all the past 15 minutes worth of cpu commands then yeah, that would probably help.
However if the benchmark did everything 10 times before moving on to testing the next command then yeah, that benchmark may show an improvement.
So would it be unfair and irrisponsible for a user to buy one of these and complain that the traditional Windows2000 ran like crap on it?
Hmm?
People should be allowed to, hence my statement that it should be legel ;)
That doesn't remove my opinion that doing the drugs, like alchohol or illegal ones in a sence (both figurativly and practicaly) gives control (hence freedom) to something other than your regular-self.
So I still hold that yes, I believe that drugs should be legal, and people should be able to do them and eat at mc donalds and run BSD and all the other crap that people do to themselves to make life harder (note: I am not saying drugs make your life harder).
I guess it's not even interesting to me if the drug is bad for you or not for the purpose of this (small off topic discussion) but rather whether or not the use of the drug in a way gives your freedom away for a short time and thuse is amusing to see people demand the freedom to do.
Note I said amusing, I didn't say I disagree with the need for that freedom.
I am a strong proponent of the concept that like the end of prohabition, legalizing drugs would end the drug war and make treatment for those who wanted it much more achievable and the situation would overall improve with less deaths due to OD or drug-induced paranoia.
Summary:
Freedom: Good
Drugs: Bad
Drug Laws: Really Bad
Hungry + Slashdot Posting: not making any damn sense.
Dunno what's up with the mouse.
-Nathan
p.s. Sorry, it's almost 10am and I am at my desk at Intel and I don't want to expend the energy to walk down the hallway to get a snickers. If this came accross as grumpy or demeaning I didn't mean it to.
I am a captive to apathy. Damnit.
Rich people paying taxes because they "have" to does not give them influence.
Rich people donating money to parties to influence political decision does (by it's nature) give them influence.
Special interest (good or bad) is a seriously bad thing. I favor a system that requires these groups to convince the people of their plight and get approval through a ballot measure rather than slipping a few prostitutes through the office window of some politician.
They get laid and we get screwed. It may SEEM fair in theory... BAD!!!
by the people for the people... needs a little "gettin' back to".
-Nathan
*smile*
That was not my point. I don't agree those substances should be illeagle.
I just see a larger picture for a different structure of things that would make the question mute.
I guess I just find it amusing when people insist on the freedom to give their freedom away.
It's almost like people thrive off of the situations they create by being self-destructive.
-Nathan
(gothic drama queens are evil. never EVER let them get attached to your leg. especialy while drunk.)
That's an impressive article, I would like to see it in a distributal form with stats and whatnot that I could take to all those places downtown with the "prayer for Bush" flyers and give them some mindshare competition.
Hmm, maybe I will just write one, I think this could have done alot better without the fluff.
-Nathan
-- is waiting for someone to suggest this whole thing could be done so much better on BSD.
Would this be kind of like how Microsoft and Cisco are paying so much higher taxes than everbody else?
Oh wait! that's right the percentages you have are BEFORE THE TAX BREAKS that damn near aleviate all their taxes.
Did it seriously never click in your head that most of the tax breaks you ever hear about benifit the top 10% the most?
It's not the potential for what they could pay that counts, it's what they actualy pay.
-- always smiles when pot heads start ranting about "government propoganda".
I wonder if they realise exactly how little their "my freedom is important to me" comments seem when they are giving control over their mind to something else. (save the crap about the expanded soul please, it's still morning here)
Don't get me wrong, I am all for legalization of anything that has any benifit at all. You are just amusing, that's all.
And there is a problem with this?
Hmmmm?
Slashdot Posting Rule #312:
Never EVER post something interesting without twisting in a bit about how horrible slashdot is.
1. Find a mirror dude(et?).
2. Look in
3. See original problem replicated.
Mirrors are cool.
Not only an open source one, but a stable, fast, reliable and a whole bunch of other features were needed.
Like a cool name (which is why I originaly used it over BSD, thank God for luck granted that day.)
I think you nailed it, there are alot of reasons Linux flurished it did, neither BSD or ESPECIALY hurd have all the required ones to even make a dent in Linux's force.
-Nathan
Of course one Linux Kernel cannot fit every need, one kernel binary that is.
However, using the magic of ifdef and SOURCE (you remember the source that kernels get compiled from right?) you can have one source tree with multiple targets with multiple abilities.
It gives a central focused driving point for a movement. Yes the source is and will be huge with 30% of it actualy being for a users system, but as UNIX learned the hard way,
Splitting the development into different paths is not the way.
On a side thought, look at how RT/Linux is getting it's ass kicked PR wise now that another vendor is going to make the mainstream Linux Kernel RT. Time to backpeddle boys.
-Nathan
It's not that Linux is aiming at small systems, it's that the kernel is currently frozen in the hopes that one day we can use a released 2.4.0 final.
IBM is spending an incredible amount of money on the Linux issue, it's just going to take time for their managers and development people to understand how life works when the other 9/10 of your development team is outside the company and under no contract whatsoever.
-Nathan