You'd have to explain to me why you can't telnet into your masquerade box. If you can't telnet in, your machine is down; if your machine is down, you probably wouldn't have been able to ping the fridge anyway.
But one of the nice things about IPv6 is it has scopes. No longer are there just "the Internet" and private networks, but there is a hierarchy of networks. I should reread the specs so I can remember what I'm talking about, but I thought it was a pretty good idea.
Perhaps this is why they're taking so long testing it. Theoretically, routers, servers, clients, hosts, whatever, that are running on 100% Satanic IPv4 should never have to switch over to IPv6. There have been provisions put into IPv6 to allow IPv6 routers to route to IPv4 routers, and for IPv6 clients to connect to IPv4 servers.
Unfortunately, the reverse isn't quite true. i.e. if you're a server without an IPv4 address (you only have an IPv6 address), then IPv4 hosts will not be able to contact you AFAIK.
People should probably not count on never upgrading, though. I don't want to think about all the tech support calls coming in from people complaining about only being able to access a small chunk of Internet hosts, just because some unnamed operating system hasn't put IPv6 support in yet.
Right now we have one other option -- all graphical applications are run as superuser. To me, chmod +s XF86_* == bad, chmod +s random_svgalib_program == bad. If you think putting graphics drivers into the kernel is unstable, you have obviously never used SVGAlib. And besides, with all this FBcon hooplah going into the kernel, it would make sense to just use KGI, which accomplishes the same thing (repeating work == bad).
Hey if putting graphics in the kernel is bad, why stop there? Maybe we should take sound support out of the kernel, and text-mode support, network device support, and mouse and keyboard support. Having these drivers in the kernel should reduce stability, right?
Check out the Linux wishlist. AFAIK, this is kind of a compilation of stuff taken from various Linux newsgroups and mailing lists about features people would like. Note that some of the things listed have already been implemented, and most things listed won't be implemented in the near future (i.e. 2.3) if at all.
Why waste your time getting the tarball and then doing a 'make config'. The mirrors are fast, but they aren't that fast (and I'm sure your typing isn't either). Get the patch and 'make oldconfig'.
Re:Is USB supported? - maybe sorta?
on
Linux 2.2.8
·
· Score: 2
I haven't found a Changelog either, but I went through the diff and noted a lot of changes in the USB tree. You still can't pick it from the menu though (as far as I can tell).
Kevin Mitnick the crybaby? He hasn't said much more than "Hi" in recent memory. I hate 2600 too, but once again: KEVIN MITNICK IS NOT 2600. KEVIN MITNICK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 2600.
Crackers or Mitnick? Did Mitnick create sub-literate schematic diagrams? Does Mitnick contribute poorly written scripts to 2600? Does Mitnick have anything to do with 2600 at all? Turning "guilt by association" into "guilt by no association" is kind of stretching it if you ask me.
The memory issues are with the GUI and browser -- but would a windows box require any less? Who knows, but it does. I've wondered that myself, but been too lazy to look into it. While Netscape has never been noted as being small, it doesn't take up the 25MB RAM or whatever it is on Linux.
As for the GUI itself, it's hard to say for sure. When I ran NT 4.0, I would check the memory usage immediately after boot without any programs running, and it would be at 15MB or 20MB usage. With the normal services running and my trusty XF86_Mach64 under Linux, maybe 10MB. So I don't know, either way Netscape is not RAM's friend.
Have you ever thought that people don't want to set up every detail of their benchmarks to match the strengths of Linux? There have been so many benchmarks proving that Linux scales down well that it's a fact. Why is it some great crime to prove that Linux blows goats when scaled up?
Thanks, I never saw that before. Still there is more to consider.
When you start offloading stuff from the CPU to a processor on an add-on card, it's going to be a pretty single-purpose processor. This really limits the lifespan of it, though. What if there's some new networking protocol that obsoletes TCP? If the processor on the netcard isn't general purpose enough, then it'll go to waste. What if people start using voxels instead of polygons (hypothetical), are we going to find a bunch of Voodoo cards in the trash?
Of course general purpose processors on cards would be even worse. You'd be much better off with another CPU. But it would be nice to have some means of keeping abreast with changing protocols and APIs and the such.
If whoever did this is getting 900 kilobits/s, he's got SERIOUS problems:). Even 900 kilobytes/s is pretty slow for a 10Mbit (although maybe SMB is just a slow protocol?). Still, my ftpd will eat up to 5% of my CPU running at ~1100 kbytes/s, so I can see where this TCP on-a-card sort of thing might come in handy for higher bandwidth stuff.
Give up some more information. Is this just with Samba? Try FTPing and see if you get similar speeds. If you do, then I can't help you because I'm hopeless with Samba:)
As I'm sure everyone knows, Google works off links. It knows a page is good and relevant if lots of (good and relevant) pages link to it. So when people are mentioning said Microsoft product on their website or whatnot, they probably just link to www.microsoft.com instead of the specific page for the product. e.g.: Microsoft's SuperCool is a really good product. That's just the way Google works. All in all, though, www.microsoft.com isn't a terribly bad starting point to find Microsoft's products. I mean I'm sure you could think it up yourself, and you still have to do some searching from it, but it's better than the pr0n ads Altavista will give you.
I think it's safe to assume (like Win9x does) that you have a 16-colour VGA graphical display, or monochrome at the very least. If it just run XF86_Mono or XF86_VGA16, then there probably wouldn't be too much trouble.
And another thing - the amd architecture is diverging from intel. Is there an "official" name for a k6 linux - like i586-pc-linux-gnu but amdk6-pc-linux-gnu ??? Most likely not (yet). All AMD chips are fairly comparable to their Intel counterparts. The i586, i686, etc. CPU names still are 386-only instructions by default; there's really not much difference between them, so making another AMD branch would be pretty silly. I haven't paid too much attention to the K7, but it would seem that there would be enough differences in the architecture to warrant a new branch. I wonder if one would have to do some sort of Canadian Cross to compile a K7 (or IA64 for that matter) with an i386 gcc (assuming you're doing it from source).
As for your wanting -mamdk6 with the kernel, you could try forcing CFLAGS: make CFLAGS="-mamdk6 -O6 -fomit-frame-pointers -fi-0wn-you" bzImage
If that doesn't work, you could always change all the Makefiles; can you run sed recursively?:)
If I'm not mistaken, Bill Gates was talking about free software, not gratis software. There are very few free browsers. Only Lynx and Arena come to mind, neither of which are "rich" (and I'd like to keep it that way).
-m486 is pretty standard. I would be very surprised to see a performance gain of more than about 1% between -m686 or similar and -m486.
wide links=no has been explained on other threads. It certainly slowed down performance by an unreal amount. This is a paranoia security measure that apparently some admins would use. I don't know that it's fair to assume that they put this in solely to skew the results.
As for kerneld, inetd, NFS, etc.: all right it's unnecessary, but will use under 1MB of RAM and under 0.1% CPU most likely. I don't see this as an issue.
My best guesses for the apalling results are something like this: - the wide links=no thing. NT doesn't have to worry about symlinks. I think this is unnecessary in pretty darn well every case. This could either be intentional malicious intent for the pro-NT side, or inexperience/a mistake. Either way, it would be nice to show some number with this turned on. - pure speculation here, but they may have set up Apache to do real-time hostname lookups. This is an absolute no-no for any serious server. Again, possibly inexperience or a mistake. - the >512MB RAM Linux bug. I've heard horror stories, and I've read people with no problem at all. Also, I believe this was a problem with PIIs only, and they were using Xeons in this report. Who knows.
Anyway it appears to be a bad combination of very silly yet somewhat understandable (for newbies) software misconfigurations, and some bad choices in hardware. Which brings me to another point: quad Xeon for a server? My K6-166 could handle a few thousand hits a second I'm fairly certain. Adding more processors will only slow things down when you're dealing with file serving.
It's hard to say whether or not they did this intentionally. It's fairly obvious that they didn't know exactly what was going on with Linux. I'd say Microsoft has a list of hardware that they know works well, and when these people asked for sponsorship, some Microsoft people said "OK here's some hardware that we know works. BTW doing this and this and this might help out your performance". Not to say that Microsoft went out of its way to hurt Linux, but they probably know what works best on their own systems.
So they've intentionally crippled Samba (it boggles the mind to think of what they must have done to Apache) and lied about asking for help. I think it's safe to assume that this study is absolute rubbish.
This is no different from the PSX2 running the original PSX games (which it does). I'm not sure if Sony will still licence PSX games, or if it's just planning to let them die out. Also you have to remember that the PSX is Sony's best-selling piece of equipment of all time. Probably not everyone is going to just throw out their PSXs (hopefully, anyway). I think old PSXs and PSX capabilities in the PSX2 offer a far greater threat to the PSX2 than this emulator would.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have to explain to me why you can't telnet into your masquerade box. If you can't telnet in, your machine is down; if your machine is down, you probably wouldn't have been able to ping the fridge anyway.
But one of the nice things about IPv6 is it has scopes. No longer are there just "the Internet" and private networks, but there is a hierarchy of networks. I should reread the specs so I can remember what I'm talking about, but I thought it was a pretty good idea.
Perhaps this is why they're taking so long testing it. Theoretically, routers, servers, clients, hosts, whatever, that are running on 100% Satanic IPv4 should never have to switch over to IPv6. There have been provisions put into IPv6 to allow IPv6 routers to route to IPv4 routers, and for IPv6 clients to connect to IPv4 servers.
Unfortunately, the reverse isn't quite true. i.e. if you're a server without an IPv4 address (you only have an IPv6 address), then IPv4 hosts will not be able to contact you AFAIK.
People should probably not count on never upgrading, though. I don't want to think about all the tech support calls coming in from people complaining about only being able to access a small chunk of Internet hosts, just because some unnamed operating system hasn't put IPv6 support in yet.
Right now we have one other option -- all graphical applications are run as superuser. To me, chmod +s XF86_* == bad, chmod +s random_svgalib_program == bad. If you think putting graphics drivers into the kernel is unstable, you have obviously never used SVGAlib. And besides, with all this FBcon hooplah going into the kernel, it would make sense to just use KGI, which accomplishes the same thing (repeating work == bad).
Hey if putting graphics in the kernel is bad, why stop there? Maybe we should take sound support out of the kernel, and text-mode support, network device support, and mouse and keyboard support. Having these drivers in the kernel should reduce stability, right?
Check out the Linux wishlist. AFAIK, this is kind of a compilation of stuff taken from various Linux newsgroups and mailing lists about features people would like. Note that some of the things listed have already been implemented, and most things listed won't be implemented in the near future (i.e. 2.3) if at all.
Why waste your time getting the tarball and then doing a 'make config'. The mirrors are fast, but they aren't that fast (and I'm sure your typing isn't either). Get the patch and 'make oldconfig'.
I haven't found a Changelog either, but I went through the diff and noted a lot of changes in the USB tree. You still can't pick it from the menu though (as far as I can tell).
Kevin Mitnick the crybaby? He hasn't said much more than "Hi" in recent memory. I hate 2600 too, but once again: KEVIN MITNICK IS NOT 2600. KEVIN MITNICK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 2600.
Crackers or Mitnick? Did Mitnick create sub-literate schematic diagrams? Does Mitnick contribute poorly written scripts to 2600? Does Mitnick have anything to do with 2600 at all? Turning "guilt by association" into "guilt by no association" is kind of stretching it if you ask me.
My name is SuperTRON (aka GOZON).
The memory issues are with the GUI and browser -- but would a windows box require any less?
Who knows, but it does. I've wondered that myself, but been too lazy to look into it. While Netscape has never been noted as being small, it doesn't take up the 25MB RAM or whatever it is on Linux.
As for the GUI itself, it's hard to say for sure. When I ran NT 4.0, I would check the memory usage immediately after boot without any programs running, and it would be at 15MB or 20MB usage. With the normal services running and my trusty XF86_Mach64 under Linux, maybe 10MB. So I don't know, either way Netscape is not RAM's friend.
Have you ever thought that people don't want to set up every detail of their benchmarks to match the strengths of Linux? There have been so many benchmarks proving that Linux scales down well that it's a fact. Why is it some great crime to prove that Linux blows goats when scaled up?
Thanks, I never saw that before. Still there is more to consider.
When you start offloading stuff from the CPU to a processor on an add-on card, it's going to be a pretty single-purpose processor. This really limits the lifespan of it, though. What if there's some new networking protocol that obsoletes TCP? If the processor on the netcard isn't general purpose enough, then it'll go to waste. What if people start using voxels instead of polygons (hypothetical), are we going to find a bunch of Voodoo cards in the trash?
Of course general purpose processors on cards would be even worse. You'd be much better off with another CPU. But it would be nice to have some means of keeping abreast with changing protocols and APIs and the such.
If whoever did this is getting 900 kilobits/s, he's got SERIOUS problems :). Even 900 kilobytes/s is pretty slow for a 10Mbit (although maybe SMB is just a slow protocol?). Still, my ftpd will eat up to 5% of my CPU running at ~1100 kbytes/s, so I can see where this TCP on-a-card sort of thing might come in handy for higher bandwidth stuff.
Give up some more information. Is this just with Samba? Try FTPing and see if you get similar speeds. If you do, then I can't help you because I'm hopeless with Samba :)
As I'm sure everyone knows, Google works off links. It knows a page is good and relevant if lots of (good and relevant) pages link to it. So when people are mentioning said Microsoft product on their website or whatnot, they probably just link to www.microsoft.com instead of the specific page for the product. e.g.:
Microsoft's SuperCool is a really good product.
That's just the way Google works. All in all, though, www.microsoft.com isn't a terribly bad starting point to find Microsoft's products. I mean I'm sure you could think it up yourself, and you still have to do some searching from it, but it's better than the pr0n ads Altavista will give you.
The ESR (or "RMS" as you spell it) paper is available here.
Sorry to be anal, but alpha channels control the level of opacity, not the level of transparency :P
I think it's safe to assume (like Win9x does) that you have a 16-colour VGA graphical display, or monochrome at the very least. If it just run XF86_Mono or XF86_VGA16, then there probably wouldn't be too much trouble.
That's not entirely true. z00m over to here and read the part where he talks about merging Emacs and XEmacs.
And having C++ automatically typedefing all the structs would lead to an endless amount of errors I think.
And another thing - the amd architecture is diverging from intel. Is there an "official"
:)
name for a k6 linux - like i586-pc-linux-gnu but amdk6-pc-linux-gnu ???
Most likely not (yet). All AMD chips are fairly comparable to their Intel counterparts. The i586, i686, etc. CPU names still are 386-only instructions by default; there's really not much difference between them, so making another AMD branch would be pretty silly. I haven't paid too much attention to the K7, but it would seem that there would be enough differences in the architecture to warrant a new branch. I wonder if one would have to do some sort of Canadian Cross to compile a K7 (or IA64 for that matter) with an i386 gcc (assuming you're doing it from source).
As for your wanting -mamdk6 with the kernel, you could try forcing CFLAGS:
make CFLAGS="-mamdk6 -O6 -fomit-frame-pointers -fi-0wn-you" bzImage
If that doesn't work, you could always change all the Makefiles; can you run sed recursively?
If I'm not mistaken, Bill Gates was talking about free software, not gratis software. There are very few free browsers. Only Lynx and Arena come to mind, neither of which are "rich" (and I'd like to keep it that way).
-m486 is pretty standard. I would be very surprised to see a performance gain of more than about 1% between -m686 or similar and -m486.
wide links=no has been explained on other threads. It certainly slowed down performance by an unreal amount. This is a paranoia security measure that apparently some admins would use. I don't know that it's fair to assume that they put this in solely to skew the results.
As for kerneld, inetd, NFS, etc.: all right it's unnecessary, but will use under 1MB of RAM and under 0.1% CPU most likely. I don't see this as an issue.
My best guesses for the apalling results are something like this:
- the wide links=no thing. NT doesn't have to worry about symlinks. I think this is unnecessary in pretty darn well every case. This could either be intentional malicious intent for the pro-NT side, or inexperience/a mistake. Either way, it would be nice to show some number with this turned on.
- pure speculation here, but they may have set up Apache to do real-time hostname lookups. This is an absolute no-no for any serious server. Again, possibly inexperience or a mistake.
- the >512MB RAM Linux bug. I've heard horror stories, and I've read people with no problem at all. Also, I believe this was a problem with PIIs only, and they were using Xeons in this report. Who knows.
Anyway it appears to be a bad combination of very silly yet somewhat understandable (for newbies) software misconfigurations, and some bad choices in hardware. Which brings me to another point: quad Xeon for a server? My K6-166 could handle a few thousand hits a second I'm fairly certain. Adding more processors will only slow things down when you're dealing with file serving.
It's hard to say whether or not they did this intentionally. It's fairly obvious that they didn't know exactly what was going on with Linux. I'd say Microsoft has a list of hardware that they know works well, and when these people asked for sponsorship, some Microsoft people said "OK here's some hardware that we know works. BTW doing this and this and this might help out your performance". Not to say that Microsoft went out of its way to hurt Linux, but they probably know what works best on their own systems.
Here's to hoping your post gets moderated up.
So they've intentionally crippled Samba (it boggles the mind to think of what they must have done to Apache) and lied about asking for help. I think it's safe to assume that this study is absolute rubbish.
This is no different from the PSX2 running the original PSX games (which it does). I'm not sure if Sony will still licence PSX games, or if it's just planning to let them die out. Also you have to remember that the PSX is Sony's best-selling piece of equipment of all time. Probably not everyone is going to just throw out their PSXs (hopefully, anyway). I think old PSXs and PSX capabilities in the PSX2 offer a far greater threat to the PSX2 than this emulator would.