Go into the Energy Saver and set an early idle time out for your hard drive. It is better to let it spin down as a soon as possible. This saves the energy and the laptop is not hot any more.
The 500MHz iBooks very much slower. The problem is that they still used 66MHz system bus and memory. 600MHz iBooks use 100MHz system bus and memory and the 700 iBooks have double the L2 cache as the 600MHz iBooks.
There is no need to reconfigure or recompile the Linux kernel every week. I don't know about the slashdot crowd but I stick with vendor kernels (redhat) and they work pretty well and rarely need to be replaced. Modules work fine too. In fact, the Linux kernel was modular long time before FreeBSD kernel war. The Linux 2.4 iptables packet filter is stateful and I find the syntax to be much better than that of IPF. I have setup about Linux 50 systems at work and they're very stable, thank you very much.
If you truly need to restore to the same block numbers, then use dd.
But we note that dump is not a disk imaging tool. It's a backup program with support for things like incremental dumps, interactive restores, etc. It can't be replaced with dd. It should be obvious to anyone who is doing backups in a real world.
They haven't done anything to improve that OS in over a decade.
You are truly an idiot if you think so. As for Linux, no matter how much it has improved, it still has a long way to go to match Solaris what solaris has had for years. now.
Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?
on
FreeBSD 4.6
·
· Score: 2
Since we have to support hundreds of Linux desktops (redhat), we prefer to use Linux also on the servers, at very least on the ones that do things like NFS and NIS service for the Linux machines. If you -have- to use Linux on the desktops, it might be a good idea to keep Linux on the servers too because of the KISS principle. Your environment will be more simple, less training will be required for newbie staff, etc. We haven't run into major problems with this approach. YMCV of course.
Fragmentation of Linux distributions is the problm
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2
The real reason it is such a pain to work with rpm packages is that the distributions are so fragmented. You can't expect the packagers to build an rpm for five different versions of redhat, suse, and caldera and post that on his/her site. So, your milleage may vary. Possible solutions to this:
1. If possible, stick with a recent version of RedHat. Almost always you will find packages for it.
2. Use SRC rpm packages. Recently, I discovered that I can just rebuild the rpm package from source on my system with command "rpm --rebuild.*.SRC.rpm". So, if someone posted a binary package that works only on SuSE but you need to run it on RedHat, just get the source RPMs and rebuild them.
3. When trying to install something first look if your distribution already has a package for it. RedHat for example now comes on three CDs, that's quite a lot of packages there and all of them are guaranteed to work. You might also try to grab packages from the next version of your distribution but that might be tricky.
4. Finally, use the source Luke. I am tired about all this whinning and packager wars in the Linux community. Do you know that on other operating systems (e.g. Solaris 7 and older) users have to compile by hand even the basic things like bash and ssh? But that's only after you get a gcc binary that works. Fortunately, with Solaris 9 they now bundle tons of freeware software, but still, lots of stuff will just have to be compiled by hand.
Another problem with the rpm packages are dependencies. This problem is much harder to solve and it is not specific to rpm only. Unless the packager has setup some sort of dependency list for apt-get or autoupdate (rpm) users then, you still have to make sure that you download all the required packages by hand and install them. Debian has avoided this problem mostly by packaging all cool software in the distribution. However, the extremely slow release cycle makes much of that very useless. For example, the current stable version of debian comes with openssh 1.x which does not support SSH protocol version 2 and the openssl version in Debian is so old that the latest version of openssh will not compile with it. So, you have to get a more recent version of openssl, and then install openssh. I know that there might be deb packages somewhere out there, but I just prefer to build the thing from source.
My $0.02
Upgrading RPM based distribtuions.
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2
I have upgraded various versions of RedHat in the past and in general the upgrade worked very smoothly. I am typing this on a box that was running 7.0 originally. Later it was upgraded to 7.1, then to 7.2, then to 7.3. The upgrades worked very smoothly. I have also upgraded production servers from 5.1 to 6.0, from 6.0 to 6.2, from 5.2 to 6.2, from 6.2 to 7.2, later this week I will upgrade one of our servers from 6.0 to 7.3 and, frankly, I quiet expect this upgrade to work. Yes, you have to be very careful, keep the backups around and make sure your disks are partitioned so that the latest version of RedHat will fit on them.
NFS locking and portmap are running but both ports are firewalled off by default. NFSD is not running unless you enabled it. LPD is running but it is also firewalled off. Medium security (which is the default) is all that you need for this kind of fireall. Highest security level is wayyy.. too restrictive.
Well, then by this standard RedHat (7.1 and up) is fairly secure against external threats because a minimal number of services are running by default and all ports under 1024 are firewalled off.
Note that training cost should be added to the overall cost of the equipment purchase. Tell your managers to send the staff to a training course offered by the vendor if they do buy this new box with a different OS.
Oh, if you add OS X, please add a Solaris build as well (preferably built on Solaris 2.5.1 or 2.6 box, it should be upwards compatible with newer releases)
Oh please.. "insecure", "frequently" patched, etc.
First tell me, which OS vendor doesn't frequently release various patches? The more popular the OS is the more patches you will see for various reasons.
Whoever submitted this article is a troll and probably knows very little about running real life applications. Tell me, why should Linux require frequent patches? Security problems? We're talking about a database server cluster which probably does not require to run any network services other than SSH and the oracle itself and it is probably sitting behind a chain of corporate firewalls anyways. Why would you need the frequent patching to maintain this system secure? Troll.
On the other hand.. *BSD, patch it or not does not have this kind of support simultaneously from three such big players to make it very useful in the data center environment.
Mozilla is slower than NS 4.7 on ALL operating systems.. it's just since the original Ultra5's are -very- slow machines, it is more annoying to you. I use a 333MHz Ultra5 and I prefer to stick with the netscape 4.79.
Of course it is just an attempt to force people to buy new equipment.
Which part of your body do you use when thinking. I doubt it's your brains. So, how many people do think will be forced to replace a $15,000 server in order to avoid paying a $240 Solaris 9 license fee?
A quote:
In the Unix market, No. 1 Sun gained 3.3 percent, rising from 50.7 percent last year to 54 percent this year. No. 3 IBM, meanwhile, lost 4.1 percent, sinking from 21.3 percent to 17.2 percent.
I am grateful because the value still greatly exceeds the cost. Solaris never was free until version 8 (except for students and developers who could get Solaris 7 for $30, Sun claims it was just a media cost). The pricing for Solaris 8 used to be similar to the pricing for Solaris 9. Big iron users had to pay more than people who used "workgroup" class servers and such. The only difference is that Sun has slightly lowered the bar for the free licenses. I think it does make sense because those who could afford say an eight CPU E3500 or E450 or even E280R could certainly be made to pay something for the OS upgrades.
When I can run an x86 box without having to upgrade Linux on it every 18 months, and with NFS3 implementation that doesn't suck, and with a RAID/Volume manager that doesn't suck, -then- I'll might consider buying it. Until, then, I prefer putting Sun servers in the machine room.
Slashdot Mirror
Go into the Energy Saver and set an early idle
time out for your hard drive. It is better to let it spin down as a soon as possible. This saves the energy and the laptop is not hot any more.
enough said.
The 500MHz iBooks very much slower. The problem is that they still used 66MHz system bus and memory. 600MHz iBooks use 100MHz system bus and memory and the 700 iBooks have double the L2 cache as the 600MHz iBooks.
No.In addition, rsync doesn't work with tapes.
Please don't troll.
There is no need to reconfigure or recompile the Linux kernel every week. I don't know about the slashdot crowd but I stick with vendor kernels (redhat) and they work pretty well and rarely need to be replaced. Modules work fine too. In fact, the Linux kernel was modular long time before FreeBSD kernel war. The Linux 2.4 iptables packet filter is stateful and I find the syntax to be much better than that of IPF. I have setup about Linux 50 systems at work and they're very stable, thank you very much.
If you truly need to restore to the same block numbers, then use dd.
But we note that dump is not a disk imaging tool. It's a backup program with support for things like incremental dumps, interactive restores, etc. It can't be replaced with dd. It should be obvious to anyone who is doing backups in a real world.
or use up2date or autoupdate
Does anyone know why package LPRng has been removed?
7.3 has been out for a while. There no reason not to install it instead of 7.2. It works fine for us. We run it on about twenty PCs.
But RedHat Linux 7.3 has been released less than three months ago. What's going on?
They haven't done anything to improve that OS in over a decade.
You are truly an idiot if you think so. As for Linux, no matter how much it has improved, it still has a long way to go to match Solaris what solaris has had for years. now.
Since we have to support hundreds of Linux desktops (redhat), we prefer to use Linux also on the servers, at very least on the ones that do things like NFS and NIS service for the Linux machines. If you -have- to use Linux on the desktops, it might be a good idea to keep Linux on the servers too because of the KISS principle. Your environment will be more simple, less training will be required for newbie staff, etc. We haven't run into major problems with this approach. YMCV of course.
The real reason it is such a pain to work with rpm
.*.SRC.rpm". So, if someone posted a binary package that works only on SuSE but you need to run it on RedHat, just get the source RPMs and rebuild them.
packages is that the distributions are so fragmented. You can't expect the packagers to build an rpm for five different versions of redhat, suse, and caldera and post that on his/her site. So, your milleage may vary. Possible solutions to this:
1. If possible, stick with a recent version of RedHat. Almost always you will find packages for it.
2. Use SRC rpm packages. Recently, I discovered that I can just rebuild the rpm package from source on my system with command "rpm --rebuild
3. When trying to install something first look if your distribution already has a package for it. RedHat for example now comes on three CDs, that's quite a lot of packages there and all of them are guaranteed to work. You might also try to grab packages from the next version of your distribution but that might be tricky.
4. Finally, use the source Luke. I am tired about
all this whinning and packager wars in the Linux community. Do you know that on other operating systems (e.g. Solaris 7 and older) users have to compile by hand even the basic things like bash and ssh? But that's only after you get a gcc binary that works. Fortunately, with Solaris 9 they now bundle tons of freeware software, but still, lots of stuff will just have to be compiled by hand.
Another problem with the rpm packages are dependencies. This problem is much harder to solve and it is not specific to rpm only. Unless the packager has setup some sort of dependency list for apt-get or autoupdate (rpm) users then, you still have to make sure that you download all the required packages by hand and install them. Debian has avoided this problem mostly by packaging all cool software in the distribution. However, the extremely slow release cycle makes much of that very useless. For example, the current stable version of debian comes with openssh 1.x which does not support SSH protocol version 2 and the openssl version in Debian is so old that the latest version of openssh will not compile with it. So, you have to get a more recent version of openssl, and then install openssh. I know that there might be deb packages somewhere out there, but I just prefer to build the thing from source.
My $0.02
I have upgraded various versions of RedHat in the past and in general the upgrade worked very smoothly. I am typing this on a box that was running 7.0 originally. Later it was upgraded to 7.1, then to 7.2, then to 7.3. The upgrades worked very smoothly. I have also upgraded production servers from 5.1 to 6.0, from 6.0 to 6.2, from 5.2 to 6.2, from 6.2 to 7.2, later this week I will upgrade one of our servers from 6.0 to 7.3 and, frankly, I quiet expect this upgrade to work. Yes, you have to be very careful, keep the backups around and make sure your disks are partitioned so that the latest version of RedHat will fit on them.
My $0.02
NFS locking and portmap are running but both ports are firewalled off by default. NFSD is not running unless you enabled it. LPD is running but it is also firewalled off. Medium security (which is the default) is all that you need for this kind of fireall. Highest security level is wayyy .. too restrictive.
Well, then by this standard RedHat (7.1 and up) is fairly secure against external threats because a minimal number of services are running by default and all ports under 1024 are firewalled off.
Note that training cost should be added to the overall cost of the equipment purchase. Tell your managers to send the staff to a training course offered by the vendor if they do buy this new box with a different OS.
Oh, if you add OS X, please add a Solaris build as well (preferably built on Solaris 2.5.1 or 2.6 box, it should be upwards compatible with newer releases)
Whoever submitted this article is a troll and probably knows very little about running real life applications. Tell me, why should Linux require frequent patches? Security problems? We're talking about a database server cluster which probably does not require to run any network services other than SSH and the oracle itself and it is probably sitting behind a chain of corporate firewalls anyways. Why would you need the frequent patching to maintain this system secure? Troll.
On the other hand.. *BSD, patch it or not does not have this kind of support simultaneously from three such big players to make it very useful in the data center environment.
Mozilla is slower than NS 4.7 on ALL operating systems .. it's just since the original Ultra5's are
-very- slow machines, it is more annoying to you.
I use a 333MHz Ultra5 and I prefer to stick with the netscape 4.79.
Which part of your body do you use when thinking. I doubt it's your brains. So, how many people do think will be forced to replace a $15,000 server in order to avoid paying a $240 Solaris 9 license fee?
Huh? RedHat runs on Solaris? Does it run on Windows too?
Reference: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-912700.html
A quote: In the Unix market, No. 1 Sun gained 3.3 percent, rising from 50.7 percent last year to 54 percent this year. No. 3 IBM, meanwhile, lost 4.1 percent, sinking from 21.3 percent to 17.2 percent.
I am grateful because the value still greatly exceeds the cost. Solaris never was free until version 8 (except for students and developers who could get Solaris 7 for $30, Sun claims it was just a media cost). The pricing for Solaris 8 used to be similar to the pricing for Solaris 9. Big iron users had to pay more than people who used "workgroup" class servers and such. The only difference is that Sun has slightly lowered the bar for the free licenses. I think it does make sense because those who could afford say an eight CPU E3500 or E450 or even E280R could certainly be made to pay something for the OS upgrades.
When I can run an x86 box without having to upgrade
Linux on it every 18 months, and with NFS3 implementation that doesn't suck, and with a RAID/Volume manager that doesn't suck, -then- I'll might consider buying it. Until, then, I prefer putting Sun servers in the machine room.