The exception to this advice is only when you lick the holy spirit first. These sightings are indeed rare. When they happen, many pilgrims will travel there. Afterwards, it is ok to lick Jesus also. This mecca is something you must do once in your life.
Yes yes, we all know the dangers of DHMO. However, you seem to be unaware that nuclear reactors convert DHMO to the versions composed of deuterium and tritium (called heavy DHMO). Once converted, heavy DHMO is totally safe. Probably if the DHMO would have been converted before that massive spill, many lives could have been spared.
Is it really plausible that a Linux Admin with 2 years experience decides to upgrade glibc? Come on. That's not like say: A trivial task. How did some newbie go and dig up glibc/untar it/compile it/install it? Really? And then have problems? I bet. It seems more likely that the admin got prodded in that direction. You'd have to be *trying* to waste as much time as possible if you go to build your own version of glibc.
No one would ever let a junior linux admin decide to "just upgrade" glibc. If you got a job as a Linux Admin and you downloaded, built & installed glibc on a server without getting permission; you'd almost certainly be fired. If you asked if you could; you'd be told no. Never. If you asked, you'd prove you were clueless. If you did it, you'd prove you were clueless. That the details of this study reveal that this is done is so unbelievably screwy that it's it's hard not to assume that the whole thing was fraudulent in the first place.
Building and upgrading your own version of glibc (tell me they didn't really grab a raw upstream version) is far more of an _engineering_ task and outside the realm of "what some random sys admin" does. There are several million lines of code in glibc. For most of the life of the free software movement, it's been in the top of the packages in size and complication. It's been more stable over the last couple of years than it ever was in the past. I suppose now days, a new user could grab a tarball, build it and your machine would at least still boot. Needless to say, distributions apply lots of patches. It's certainly not wise to decide you are smarter than your distribution's glibc maintainers and just go dropping all the patches they applied.
Is there even anything equivilent to this under Windows? I'm having a problem with W2K; but instead of just upgrading to XP, I'm going to rebuild major.dll from the XP sources to see if that fixes my problem on W2K. WTF?
Is the void between admin'ing a linux vs windows box so bad that they have to pad it with: "oh, ya, aaaahhh, ya, we rebuilt glibc at one point"? Luckly I'm not in charge in that shop; the first thing I'd do in my IT department is go through and fire everyone in charge still running Windows on their desk. You can be sure they aren't needed. take that!:)
Any study in TCO between Windows and Linux that involves system admins compiling core OS components is absolutely invalid. System Admin's install & configure things; if they build anything from scratch they need permission; at the very least from a more senior admin. These stupid TCO studies are getting old. Linux is easier. Q.E.D.
"Study Conducted by Windows Admins concludes Linux Sucks to Admin!" or "Longtime Windows fanboy try to keep job by concluding Linux sucks to Admin!".
I got irritated with the story. Some record. On my laptop I used this source and computed 1M digits of pi in less than 14 seconds. Certainly someone out there has faster hardware so I don't think my "world record" will last very long. Sillyness.
root@jcarr:/home/src/fft/sample2# time./pi_fftsg > out
Some windows users at some website make some claim about a world record and now it gets posted on slashdot? sheesh.
Anyway, I hardly think this is a record. Maybe under windows. I ran this on my 3ghz portable. (You can apt-get pi!)
root@jcarr:~# time pi 1000000 >/tmp/output real 0m24.177s user 0m17.816s sys 0m0.274s
I can't believe these overclocker guys use windows. Who would run Windows on a perfectly fast machine? It'd be nice to see bogomips from these machines. Anyway, wonder if these guys should put these machines behind microwave shields.
Lots of the problems with the installer have been fixed and many people have testified to being able to actually install and get linux up and running for the first time. You probably used one of early versions.
The non-sequential nature of how the installer wasn't ever straightened out. But hey, guess what I did today:) New installer 2.6.5 should have this feature. jcarr
I must respond to the previous poster as to the security issues of a stock install( of LinuxPPC anyway.) A default install is much more secure than the crack.linuxppc.org machine is. And more stable from the looks of it as the windows machine looks like it has been rebooted already:)
So here is an additional challange: Be the first to change/etc/motd on crack.linuxppc.org in a reproducable manner and we give you the machine crack.linuxppc.org.
Ok. Here is a stock LinuxPPC 1999 Installed machine: crack.linuxppc.org (aka micrsoft.is.lame.linuxppc.org) It's running apache only. If no one gets in for awhile, we will start adding services( sendmail is first) (You might have to wait for DNS to update in an hour - the IP is 169.207.154.108
Slashdot Mirror
That's just (or more) likely to be your connection or your ISP not Youtube.
2nd this. Screw Netflix. The CEO is on Microsoft's BOD. It's clear policy that they will never ever make a linux client.
Long live Youtube, Crackle, et al.
Hey, this is just the kind of idea Kim Jong-Un needs to match his dad!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jongun-privately-doubting-hes-crazy-enough-to,18374/
The exception to this advice is only when you lick the holy spirit first. These sightings are indeed rare. When they happen, many pilgrims will travel there. Afterwards, it is ok to lick Jesus also. This mecca is something you must do once in your life.
The best summary yet:
"Rightwing Nutjob Extremist Christian TV Station"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_(TV_channel)
Fortunately for C#, Microsoft has never tried to lock people into an OS.
Yes yes, we all know the dangers of DHMO. However, you seem to be unaware that nuclear reactors convert DHMO to the versions composed of deuterium and tritium (called heavy DHMO). Once converted, heavy DHMO is totally safe. Probably if the DHMO would have been converted before that massive spill, many lives could have been spared.
Is it really plausible that a Linux Admin with 2 years experience decides to upgrade glibc? Come on. That's not like say: A trivial task. How did some newbie go and dig up glibc/untar it/compile it/install it? Really? And then have problems? I bet. It seems more likely that the admin got prodded in that direction. You'd have to be *trying* to waste as much time as possible if you go to build your own version of glibc.
:)
No one would ever let a junior linux admin decide to "just upgrade" glibc. If you got a job as a Linux Admin and you downloaded, built & installed glibc on a server without getting permission; you'd almost certainly be fired. If you asked if you could; you'd be told no. Never. If you asked, you'd prove you were clueless. If you did it, you'd prove you were clueless. That the details of this study reveal that this is done is so unbelievably screwy that it's it's hard not to assume that the whole thing was fraudulent in the first place.
Building and upgrading your own version of glibc (tell me they didn't really grab a raw upstream version) is far more of an _engineering_ task and outside the realm of "what some random sys admin" does. There are several million lines of code in glibc. For most of the life of the free software movement, it's been in the top of the packages in size and complication. It's been more stable over the last couple of years than it ever was in the past. I suppose now days, a new user could grab a tarball, build it and your machine would at least still boot. Needless to say, distributions apply lots of patches. It's certainly not wise to decide you are smarter than your distribution's glibc maintainers and just go dropping all the patches they applied.
Is there even anything equivilent to this under Windows? I'm having a problem with W2K; but instead of just upgrading to XP, I'm going to rebuild major.dll from the XP sources to see if that fixes my problem on W2K. WTF?
Is the void between admin'ing a linux vs windows box so bad that they have to pad it with: "oh, ya, aaaahhh, ya, we rebuilt glibc at one point"? Luckly I'm not in charge in that shop; the first thing I'd do in my IT department is go through and fire everyone in charge still running Windows on their desk. You can be sure they aren't needed. take that!
Any study in TCO between Windows and Linux that involves system admins compiling core OS components is absolutely invalid. System Admin's install & configure things; if they build anything from scratch they need permission; at the very least from a more senior admin. These stupid TCO studies are getting old. Linux is easier. Q.E.D.
"Study Conducted by Windows Admins concludes Linux Sucks to Admin!" or "Longtime Windows fanboy try to keep job by concluding Linux sucks to Admin!".
I got irritated with the story. Some record. On my laptop I used this source and computed 1M digits of pi in less than 14 seconds. Certainly someone out there has faster hardware so I don't think my "world record" will last very long. Sillyness.
./pi_fftsg > out
root@jcarr:/home/src/fft/sample2# time
real 0m13.677s
user 0m9.993s
sys 0m0.332s
Some windows users at some website make some claim about a world record and now it gets posted on slashdot? sheesh.
/tmp/output
Anyway, I hardly think this is a record. Maybe under windows. I ran this on my 3ghz portable. (You can apt-get pi!)
root@jcarr:~# time pi 1000000 >
real 0m24.177s
user 0m17.816s
sys 0m0.274s
I can't believe these overclocker guys use windows. Who would run Windows on a perfectly fast machine? It'd be nice to see bogomips from these machines. Anyway, wonder if these guys should put these machines behind microwave shields.
Lots of the problems with the installer have been fixed and many people have testified to being able to actually install and get linux up and running for the first time. You probably used one of early versions.
:) New installer 2.6.5 should have this feature.
The non-sequential nature of how the installer wasn't ever straightened out. But hey, guess what I did today
jcarr
Wow! No this wasn't Microsoft's Idea thank you very much. No comment on not being a "forward thinking company" :)
birds don't like me
jcarr
I must respond to the previous poster as to the security issues of a stock install( of LinuxPPC anyway.) A default install is much more secure than the crack.linuxppc.org machine is. And more stable from the looks of it as the windows machine looks like it has been rebooted already :)
/etc/motd on crack.linuxppc.org in a reproducable manner and we give you the machine crack.linuxppc.org.
So here is an additional challange:
Be the first to change
Goodluck!
Ok. Here is a stock LinuxPPC 1999 Installed machine: crack.linuxppc.org (aka micrsoft.is.lame.linuxppc.org)
It's running apache only. If no one gets in for awhile, we will start adding services( sendmail is first)
(You might have to wait for DNS to update in an hour - the IP is 169.207.154.108
No suprise. Microsoft owns the zone. Not that I would recommend boycotting microsoft funded events or anything.