This is silly, why don't they package this software on CD instead and let people decide how and where to install it? You know, I could make a copy of my PC hard drive (currently running RedHat Linux) too, image it, and clone it on identicall disks. Not very impressive..
Re:Don't care about PINE, love PICO
on
PINE Releases 4.50
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
No, just a retard who hasn't learned how to use a real text editor;p
Some time in 1995, hudreds of ants invaded my Texas Instruments notebook. My laptop never was able to fully recover from this since the ants have created an nest on the other site of the LCD. Although the ants were gone, the mono LCD screen looked pretty damaged.
As soon as FreeBSD and NetBSD implement good threading, there will be no need whatsoever to run Solaris.
Huh? What about vendor support? Application support? Is oracle(and several hundred or thousand solaris-only applications) certified to run on FreeBSD? Are Veritas storage products supported on FreeBSD? Is there a company that provides a 24/7 on-site hardware and software support for FreeBSD systems? Lots of people would actually take Solaris over FreeBSD for a number of other reasons as well simply they -like- the OS..
Maybe we're talking about different uses. Solaris will certainly remain -the- enterprise datacenter OS whether *BSD has or not a good threading support.. Of course, there are many areas where it is better to use Linux or FreeBSD. There is no one OS that fits all needs.
Uh no. Solaris has been designed as a portable OS. It still fully supports lots 32-bit only sparc hardware and it might even boot in 32-bit mode on certain 64-bit sparc systems. Saying that Solaris is optimized for 64-bit hardware is probably wrong. The x86 might not be well optimized but I didn't find that to be a big problem. The biggest problem with Solaris x86 is that driver support is terrible. I looked at the HCL and I mostly see four, three, and sometimes two year old components. If you want to run Solaris on x86 you better plan your hardware purchases extra -carefully-.
Note that the posted didn't say "open source the code for open source community". The poster said "open the source for open source community.." Solaris is really one of Sun's few crow jewels. I really doubt they'll open source it. They might release the Solaris code the way they did for Solaris 8 a year ago, though.
I really doubt anyone is running a website on a 100 CPU server. Using a single large unix server as web webserver is just not very practical or economical. It is very easy to distribute the load between multiple cheap, comodity x86 servers. They scale greatly for this kind of application. Databases and such is a different story..
I have read before somewhere on redhat.com that RedHat promisses to support all the minor revisions of the current major release and the last minor release of the previous major release of RedHat Linux. Up untit yesterday, it meant that RedHat 6.2 through 7.3 was supported. Will things now change after 8.0 release?
It will be a shame if RedHat 6.2 and 7.2 are desupported. Both are fine, stable dists. We have standardized on 7.2 (by the way, believing that 7.2 is the last minor release in 7.x series) only eight months ago and it would really suck having to upgrade all of our 7.2 machines..
"Palm Zire" will probably not be the full name of this model. Instead, Zire will be the name of a family of handhelds from Palm, like the Visor line from Handspring.
From that, I'll probably conclude that Zire will be a product family, just like the Palm 1xx series. I would expect them to announce more expensive models with more memory, more expansion slots, and even color display some time later.
Note that in addition to the Linux community, the commercial unix operating systems use journaling file systems too (including some variants that are based on UFS) as well as Microsoft's NTFS. If journaling was such an obviously wrong concept, it wouldn't be in such widespread use by now. Moreover, soft updates do not free you from having to run fsck after an unclean reboot. Using soft updates simply guarantees that it will be possible to return the file system to a consistent state but you still need to use run fsck to get there. Only recently FreeBSD added (or is still adding?) background fsck support which will actually free you from having to wait for fsck to complete during boot.
The forking model used in Apache 1.x works great on UNIX platforms and is, for practical purposes, all that is needed.
Not true. Do you like forking a 15MB process for every concurrent connection? With apache 1.3 the number of concurrent users you can serve suddenly becomes a fuction of machine's memory. Multithreaded model is certainly more scalable. I can imagine that this is going to help a lot for large sites. Small sites can continue using 1.3.x just fine for now however.
We run a simple web site hosting shop. Our main web server is running Apache 1.3.26, mod_ssl, and mod_perl. We host several thousand low-traffic sites. If not for the recent security problems in apache and mod_ssl, we still would probably be running 1.3.6 which worked just fine for our needs. We do realize that eventually we will have to upgrade but that's not our priority. It'll probably happen in about a year.
Not allowing laptops to be carried aboard would be a very drastic measure. I protest. I certainly don't want to check in my laptop with the rest of my luggage because: 1) Laptops are expensive and can be stolen 2) Laptops are fragile. I have seen how airport workers handle the luggage. I shiver with the thought of them throwing my laptop bag around like a football ball.
I think, a good compromise would be to allow people to carry laptops aboard but disallow using them at all times. Of course, the airlines could make a case for banning the laptops aboard by saying that they could be used by the terrorists to "knock out" whatever UWB systems that are vulnerable to this..
> for i in host1 host2 host3 ; do > ssh $i "apt-get update ; apt-get install [package...]" > done
Been there, done that. You are badly mistaken if you think a simple script like this is enough to keep a large site up to date. Imagine that you have nearly 300 hosts. Imagine that although you're trying to keep the host database up-to-date there it will always not fully correspond to reality. Finally for this command to complete all of those have to be up. What if a machine crashed? What if a user shut it down? What if I machine down for whatever reason? And how long will you have to wait until this command completes? Pushing updates and such does not scale well beyond a couple of dozen boxes. No matter what toos you use for system administration, it is much better to use the pull model (where clients request updates and other configuration changes) on their own from the server instead of trying to run some command on all of them.
Northon ghost only solves the problem of -installing- the identically configured machines, not for maintaining them. I also would recommend to do scripted installs rather than using ghost. Ghost is a windowsism. We have much better scripting tools on Linux (including many tools specifically for system administration), we can do better than Ghost.
For the last eight months, we have been using autoupdate at our site to keep about 50 RedHat Linux boxes up-to-date. It seems to work pretty well. Though, this red carpet stuff looks pretty interesting too.
Slashdot Mirror
This is silly, why don't they package this software on CD instead and let people decide how and where to install it? You know, I could make a copy of my PC hard drive (currently running RedHat Linux) too, image it, and clone it on identicall disks. Not very impressive..
No, just a retard who hasn't learned how to use a ;p
real text editor
Don't forget Novell sued BSDI for using UNIX name.
FreeBSD can't be legally called unix. Point.
Some time in 1995, hudreds of ants invaded my Texas Instruments notebook. My laptop never was able to fully recover from this since the ants have created an nest on the other site of the LCD. Although the ants were gone, the mono LCD screen looked pretty damaged.
What does that have to do with Amiga?
As soon as FreeBSD and NetBSD implement good threading, there will be no need whatsoever to run Solaris.
Huh? What about vendor support? Application support? Is oracle(and several hundred or thousand solaris-only applications) certified to run on FreeBSD? Are Veritas storage products supported on FreeBSD? Is there a company that provides a 24/7 on-site hardware and software support for FreeBSD systems? Lots of people would actually take Solaris over FreeBSD for a number of other reasons as well simply they -like- the OS..
Maybe we're talking about different uses. Solaris will certainly remain -the- enterprise datacenter OS whether *BSD has or not a good threading support.. Of course, there are many areas where it is better to use Linux or FreeBSD. There is no one OS that fits all needs.
Uh no. Solaris has been designed as a portable OS. It still fully supports lots 32-bit only sparc hardware and it might even boot in 32-bit mode on certain 64-bit sparc systems. Saying that Solaris is optimized for 64-bit hardware is probably wrong. The x86 might not be well optimized but I didn't find that to be a big problem. The biggest problem with Solaris x86 is that driver support is terrible. I looked at the HCL and I mostly see four, three, and sometimes two year old components. If you want to run Solaris on x86 you better plan your hardware purchases extra -carefully-.
Note that the posted didn't say "open source the code for open source community". The poster said "open the source for open source community.." Solaris is really one of Sun's few crow jewels. I really doubt they'll open source it. They might release the Solaris code the way they did for Solaris 8 a year ago, though.
I really doubt anyone is running a website on a 100 CPU server. Using a single large unix server as web webserver is just not very practical or economical. It is very easy to distribute the load between multiple cheap, comodity x86 servers. They scale greatly for this kind of application. Databases and such is a different story..
Huh?
I have done the following upgrades and all of them went mostly smoothly:
5.1 -> 6.0
6.0 -> 7.3
6.0 -> 6.2
7.1 -> 7.2
7.2 -> 7.3
and probably other cases that I don't remember right now. What's your definition of an update that's not smooth?
I have read before somewhere on redhat.com that RedHat promisses to support all the minor revisions of the current major release and the last minor release of the previous major release of RedHat Linux. Up untit yesterday, it meant that RedHat 6.2 through 7.3 was supported. Will things now change after 8.0 release?
..
It will be a shame if RedHat 6.2 and 7.2 are desupported. Both are fine, stable dists. We have standardized on 7.2 (by the way, believing that 7.2 is the last minor release in 7.x series) only eight months ago and it would really suck having to upgrade all of our 7.2 machines
Indeed. If I had two hard drives and a RAID controller, I'd rather mirror them than stripe..
From that, I'll probably conclude that Zire will be a product family, just like the Palm 1xx series. I would expect them to announce more expensive models with more memory, more expansion slots, and even color display some time later.
Note that in addition to the Linux community, the commercial unix operating systems use journaling file systems too (including some variants that are based on UFS) as well as Microsoft's NTFS. If journaling was such an obviously wrong concept, it wouldn't be in such widespread use by now. Moreover, soft updates do not free you from having to run fsck after an unclean reboot. Using soft updates simply guarantees that it will be possible to return the file system to a consistent state but you still need to use run fsck to get there. Only recently FreeBSD added (or is still adding?) background fsck support which will actually free you from having to wait for fsck to complete during boot.
It won't really help. Something like that has already been considered
The forking model used in Apache 1.x works great on UNIX platforms and is, for practical purposes, all that is needed.
Not true. Do you like forking a 15MB process for every concurrent connection? With apache 1.3 the number of concurrent users you can serve suddenly becomes a fuction of machine's memory. Multithreaded model is certainly more scalable. I can imagine that this is going to help a lot for large sites. Small sites can continue using 1.3.x just fine for now however.
We run a simple web site hosting shop. Our main web server is running Apache 1.3.26, mod_ssl, and mod_perl. We host several thousand low-traffic sites. If not for the recent security problems in apache and mod_ssl, we still would probably be running 1.3.6 which worked just fine for our needs. We do realize that eventually we will have to upgrade but that's not our priority. It'll probably happen in about a year.
Not allowing laptops to be carried aboard would be a very drastic measure. I protest. I certainly don't want to check in my laptop with the rest of my luggage because:
1) Laptops are expensive and can be stolen
2) Laptops are fragile. I have seen how airport workers handle the luggage. I shiver with the thought of them throwing my laptop bag around like a football ball.
I think, a good compromise would be to allow people to carry laptops aboard but disallow using them at all times. Of course, the airlines could make a case for banning the laptops aboard by saying that they could be used by the terrorists to "knock out" whatever UWB systems that are vulnerable to this..
> for i in host1 host2 host3 ; do
> ssh $i "apt-get update ; apt-get install [package...]"
> done
Been there, done that.
You are badly mistaken if you think a simple script like this is enough to keep a large site up to date. Imagine that you have nearly 300 hosts. Imagine that although you're trying to keep the host database up-to-date there it will always not fully correspond to reality. Finally for this command to complete all of those have to be up. What if a machine crashed? What if a user shut it down? What if I machine down for whatever reason? And how long will you have to wait until this command completes? Pushing updates and such does not scale well beyond a couple of dozen boxes. No matter what toos you use for system administration, it is much better to use the pull model (where clients request updates and other configuration changes) on their own from the server instead of trying to run some command on all of them.
Northon ghost only solves the problem of -installing- the identically configured machines, not for maintaining them. I also would recommend to do scripted installs rather than using ghost. Ghost is a windowsism. We have much better scripting tools on Linux (including many tools specifically for system administration), we can do better than Ghost.
Sounds like a clueless poster.
For the last eight months, we have been using autoupdate at our site to keep about 50 RedHat Linux boxes up-to-date. It seems to work pretty well. Though, this red carpet stuff looks pretty interesting too.
But 12/4/32 is a two year old model. I wish they made a 40X version with SCSI interface ..
Intel to Debut Faster Pentium 4 Next Week
Does anyone still develop SCSI CDRW drives? I need to connect a couple to a unix workstion and using IDE/USB/Firewire is not an option.