Months ago, I faxed Sun a really long contract that gave me the right to download their source distribution.
And if you have read and signed that license agreement you should know that you are NOT allowed to use, NOT EVEN IN-HOUSE, any software derived from this free Solaris source distribution.
So, by using the patched version of login you are viollating the agreement that you have signed and faxed to Sun.
Why is Intel doing this now instead of releasing
a DDR SDRAM chipset all the way since the very release of the Pentium 4 -months- (years?) ago?
Did they originally make only the RAMBUS chipset available because they still favored RAMBUS over other memory types or did they simply rush P4 to the market before DDR SDRAM chipset was ready?
There were several articles a year ago, even before the original P4 release, where the Intel representatives confessed that they were not all that happy about RAMBUS rollout and that promoting and pushing RAMBUS memory down consumers' throats did them more harm than good. And then later they announced P4 which for a while could be used -only- with RAMBUS. Were they not honest about their feelings toward RAMBUS?
Oh please. This question is -dumb- but I wonder why this guy assumes that the rest of Linux users have the same needs that he has. Linux runs on Laptops very well. I have installed and used Linux on Dells, IBM and Sony. Hardware compatibility is pretty good. Most laptops on the marked are just suitable for running Linux as for running Windows.
As for short batery lifes this is not something that only Linux users are complaining about. There are also plenty slick and light laptops on the market (IBM X21, Sony Vaio SR7k, etc) that are not exactly desktop replacement models.
Also, they compared the preformance of a 1TB disk array to a single T3 tray. 1TB IDE disk array matched the T3 (due to a higher number of disk spindles), but note that a single T3 is less tha 1TB, even if you use 72GB disks. If you connect to or three T3s together (or any SCSI disk arrays of the same class) to add up to 1TB, the'd blow the 1TB IDE disk array out of water.
VA Started as a Linux hardware company.. failed.
Tried being a Linux support company (ala Linuxcare) and.. failed.
I am bit suspicious of companies that keep on changing their business strategy as if it was a pair of gloves at a first sign of economic trouble..
Quite frankly, the guy who wrote the article should take a basic "reading and composition" course at a local community college because the quality of that article is not better than your average useless slashdot posting. I wanted to vomit while reading it.
Russian army was very hi-tech savy, even back in the 80s. Night vision is probably not news to them as well as other tech gadgets. I was reading an interview with the guy who trained the Soviet era vets. He claims that modern weapons are nearly useless in that country.
Russia's road to Azerbaijan's oil? Oh please. Dig up your map of Caucasus and see that there are plenty roads around Chechnya to Azerbaijan's oil.
Consider North Osetia, Ingushetia and Daghestan.
Also, going to Azerbaijan through Chechnya means going through Georgia, another politically and economically unstable republuc, that's not a very easy road.
rofl, you certainly haven't used it enough to know how much better it is than aptget or whatever fragmented linux distro you use.
pkg_add package.tgz
pkg_add ftp://ftp.host.com/pub/dir/path/file.tgz
etc..
etc..
etc..
And how is that any better than apt-get or up2date? With apt-get or up2date you never have to specify the URL. just run "apt-get install apache-ssl, sit back and relax
pkg_* (more pkg_* commands/features) nothing compares yet.
Bullshit.
cd/usr/ports/dir/port/ ; make && make install.
Takes care of all dependencies for you, no fuss at all! Just sit back and let it take care of everything for you.
Bullshit. apt-get and up2date takes care of dependencies for you too. Moreover, you don't have to wait for the stupid thing to compile. Also, I have seen ports fail many times because they're either broken or because the source tar ball does not exist any more on the ftp server.
Do you really think that after committing an Alphacide Compaq was planning to keep Tru64 much longer? Even if Tru64 ever gets ported to IA64 is will be incredibly late and behind Linux, AIX and others to gain any mindshare or momentum. Now that HP is buying Compaq the new company will have even less reasons to keep Tru64 around. It competes head to head with HPUX and other HP product lines.
It is much harder to figure out the fate of HPUX, however. Unlike, Tru64, HPUX was not that much of a market looser. It is only slightly behind AIX and Solaris. I'd definitely like if HPUX stayed so that there would at least two commercial Unixen around (AIX makes me shiver so I don't count it and IRIX is on the way out)
With cheap PCs and free OSes - what differentiates Sun? Nothing. Even Java runs faster on x86 hardware than Solaris.
1. I/O bandwidth that PCs can't dream of.
2. no BIOS limitations.
3. 64-bit platform
4. Scalability to hundresds of processors.
5. Mainframe class features (partitioning, reconfiguration,. etc)
6. Really good vendor support.
I can see no
reason why someone would want to use expensive hardware from Sun instead of cheap commodity PCs.
Someone who needs entreprise class OS, scalability and reliability would likely choose Solaris/sparc
as opposed to Linux/PeeCee.
Solaris is an entreprise quality OS with excellent support and Linux is not there yet.
I will take Solaris over Linux any day.
Yes, Sun hardware costs bite. But the Sun's platform also is much cleaner and plain more fun to use than the PCs. I don't need to deal with the Limitations of a 20-year old BIOS and I can manage a Sun server via serial console. Scalability reliability and vendor support are excellent.
Re:What are the weakest parts of Linux?
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Linux does not have:
1. good scalability on large NUMA and SMP systems
2. A proven, full-featured LVM that works
Also, regarding the journaling file systems. How many vendors are selling Linux with them now? IBM, Sun, Veritas, had it for years. So, if you're looking for a proven, scalable, enterprise platform, with good vendor support, applications, etc consider IBM RS/6000 or Sun.
AIX, Solaris, etc are -proven- platforms with a full featured LVM and journaling file systems that work today when which have worked for -years-. Linux LVM has a long way to go to match what AIX or Veritas LVM or even Sun's Disksuite can do. Can I also ask, for how many years have been Linux vendors shipping Linux systems that have journaling file systems? 0, while they did exit and work on other unixen. And there is also a scalability issues. AIX runs and very well on much larger boxen than Linux does or will in any nearby future. As for the Linux PPC support, it is almost worthless as there are almost no commercial applications for it.Why would anyone in their right mind buy an overpriced IBM PPC box to run Linux on? Either AIX on PPC or Linux on x86 would be a much better choice than Linux on PPC (or Linux on about anything but x86)
The distribution choice doesn't matter. However, you should get ready to read a lot. The documentation that is provided by the distribution vendor often only touches things that are specific to this distribution. However, redhat manuals, whi;e good mostly talk about how their system is setup. I recommended to get a good Linux starter BOOK, the distribution choice doesn't matter. Running Linux is good starter book that covers pretty much everything a productive Linux user needs to know. Also, www.linuxdoc.org (fprmerly known as SUNSite) has a wealth of free (and often good!) documentation.
As for distribution, I have used only Debian and RedHat. Both are fine systems but have their differences. Debian tends to be a rock solid, has several thousand packages in it, easy to update, etc. However, the release cycle is very slow. For example the current Debian stable, mostly has more than a year old software in it.
On the other hand, RedHat has a faster release schedule. It has less packages than Debian but they are much more up to date than in Debian.
The RedHat releases that end on 7.0 tend to be buggier than.1 releases, and.2 releases tend to be bugger than the.2 releases.
For the reasons above, I tend to stay away from RedHat versions that end on.0 and prefer to use them only on the desktop systems. On the critical servers I prefer to use Debian because of stability and because I don't really care about "coolness" features like gnome, etc for server use.
Java right now is still a moving target with a new verison coming out every half a year or so, and I don't think that bundling a JVM with an
OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing
audience.
I think this is a wrong analogy. A more correct analogy would be a MS as a carmaker that sells a car that 99% drive or know how to drive and they suddenly announce that with the next release they will switch to electric engines, screwing badly the gas vendor industry this way
.
But in my opinion if you want a distro to run a specific kind of server (like a name server, or even a data driven web server), and you
want to build your own software and not depend on someone else's packages, Slackware is still hard to eat.
Uh? Nothing stops you from compiling apache, bind, or even perl on Debian or RedHat, so this particular argument is irrelevant.
Alpha does not compete with AMD. AMD is a low-end chip that mostly runs on desktop and only recetly there is a support for a dual-way SMP. Alpha processors historically had a super fast FP and well as integer performance. Coupled with large caches, they were used in unix servers and workstations for more than a decade.
I think Sun and IBM are actually the ones that kicked serious ass recently, capturing most of the US unix server market, and Compaq figured it can't compete with Alpha against them. They had a good chip but compaq f*cked it up.
Sorry. If you are looking for a robust, stable, platform to work with RIGHT NOW and you are choosing between Win2k and MacOS X, the answer is only one: Win2k.
Our IT department is very excited about MacOS and we have been doing lots of testing with OS X, but IMO, it is not yet ready to match Win2k in terms of stability, performance, and application availability. OS X crawls on a G3 with 128MB of RAM when performing simple tasks, why is that? Almost none of the applications that we use aren't out for OS X and we aren't excited at all about running them in the classic environment. System panics/ crashes are frequent.
I could go on about hardware costs as well. G4 powermacs pale in comparison to equivalent PCs in price and performances(yes, Alvitec is good, but we have no use for it).
OS X is a good beginning, buy IMO, as of right now it is no match for Win2k. May be a year from now, we could have a better fight between the two OSes when more applications are ported to OS X and when it hopefully gets more stable and faster.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you have read and signed that license agreement you should know that you are NOT
allowed to use, NOT EVEN IN-HOUSE, any software derived from this free Solaris source distribution.
So, by using the patched version of login you are viollating the agreement that you have signed and faxed to Sun.
Why is Intel doing this now instead of releasing a DDR SDRAM chipset all the way since the very release of the Pentium 4 -months- (years?) ago?
Did they originally make only the RAMBUS chipset available because they still favored RAMBUS over other memory types or did they simply rush P4 to the market before DDR SDRAM chipset was ready?
There were several articles a year ago, even before the original P4 release, where the Intel representatives confessed that they were not all that happy about RAMBUS rollout and that promoting and pushing RAMBUS memory down consumers' throats did them more harm than good. And then later they announced P4 which for a while could be used -only- with RAMBUS. Were they not honest about their feelings toward RAMBUS?
Oh please. This question is -dumb- but I wonder why this guy assumes that the rest of Linux users have the same needs that he has. Linux runs on Laptops very well. I have installed and used Linux on Dells, IBM and Sony. Hardware compatibility is pretty good. Most laptops on the marked are just suitable for running Linux as for running Windows.
As for short batery lifes this is not something that only Linux users are complaining about. There are also plenty slick and light laptops on the market (IBM X21, Sony Vaio SR7k, etc) that are not exactly desktop replacement models.
But are those disks hot swap? No?
Also, they compared the preformance of a 1TB disk array to a single T3 tray. 1TB IDE disk array matched the T3 (due to a higher number of disk spindles), but note that a single T3 is less tha 1TB, even if you use 72GB disks. If you connect to or three T3s together (or any SCSI disk arrays of the same class) to add up to 1TB, the'd blow the 1TB IDE disk array out of water.
VA Started as a Linux hardware company.. failed.
Tried being a Linux support company (ala Linuxcare) and.. failed.
I am bit suspicious of companies that keep on changing their business strategy as if it was a pair of gloves at a first sign of economic trouble..
He's just trying to get the government to buy some Sun Fire 15K servers.
Quite frankly, the guy who wrote the article should take a basic "reading and composition" course at a local community college because the quality of that article is not better than your average useless slashdot posting. I wanted to vomit while reading it.
Russian army was very hi-tech savy, even back in the 80s. Night vision is probably not news to them as well as other tech gadgets. I was reading an interview with the guy who trained the Soviet era vets. He claims that modern weapons are nearly useless in that country.
Russia's road to Azerbaijan's oil? Oh please. Dig up your map of Caucasus and see that there are plenty roads around Chechnya to Azerbaijan's oil.
Consider North Osetia, Ingushetia and Daghestan.
Also, going to Azerbaijan through Chechnya means going through Georgia, another politically and economically unstable republuc, that's not a very easy road.
LimeWire seems to the best Linux client around. Correct me if I am wrong. Way to go guys!
And how is that any better than apt-get or up2date? With apt-get or up2date you never have to specify the URL. just run "apt-get install apache-ssl, sit back and relax
pkg_* (more pkg_* commands/features) nothing compares yet. Bullshit. cdBullshit. apt-get and up2date takes care of dependencies for you too. Moreover, you don't have to wait for the stupid thing to compile. Also, I have seen ports fail many times because they're either broken or because the source tar ball does not exist any more on the ftp server.
Oh please. Ports seem to be so primitive.
On Debian you just type
"apt-get install progname"
and the binary package is downloaded and installed. On RedHat you can just type:
"up2date -i progrname" and it will be downloaded and installed. Why would I want to both with ports which seem not to work half the time even on *BSD?
It is much harder to figure out the fate of HPUX, however. Unlike, Tru64, HPUX was not that much of a market looser. It is only slightly behind AIX and Solaris. I'd definitely like if HPUX stayed so that there would at least two commercial Unixen around (AIX makes me shiver so I don't count it and IRIX is on the way out)
With cheap PCs and free OSes - what differentiates Sun? Nothing. Even Java runs faster on x86 hardware than Solaris. 1. I/O bandwidth that PCs can't dream of. 2. no BIOS limitations. 3. 64-bit platform 4. Scalability to hundresds of processors. 5. Mainframe class features (partitioning, reconfiguration,. etc) 6. Really good vendor support. I can see no reason why someone would want to use expensive hardware from Sun instead of cheap commodity PCs. Someone who needs entreprise class OS, scalability and reliability would likely choose Solaris/sparc as opposed to Linux/PeeCee.
Solaris is an entreprise quality OS with excellent support and Linux is not there yet.
I will take Solaris over Linux any day.
Yes, Sun hardware costs bite. But the Sun's platform also is much cleaner and plain more fun to use than the PCs. I don't need to deal with the Limitations of a 20-year old BIOS and I can manage a Sun server via serial console. Scalability reliability and vendor support are excellent.
Linux does not have:
1. good scalability on large NUMA and SMP systems
2. A proven, full-featured LVM that works
Also, regarding the journaling file systems. How many vendors are selling Linux with them now? IBM, Sun, Veritas, had it for years. So, if you're looking for a proven, scalable, enterprise platform, with good vendor support, applications, etc consider IBM RS/6000 or Sun.
And the answer is no.
AIX, Solaris, etc are -proven- platforms with a full featured LVM and journaling file systems that work today when which have worked for -years-. Linux LVM has a long way to go to match what AIX or Veritas LVM or even Sun's Disksuite can do. Can I also ask, for how many years have been Linux vendors shipping Linux systems that have journaling file systems? 0, while they did exit and work on other unixen. And there is also a scalability issues. AIX runs and very well on much larger boxen than Linux does or will in any nearby future. As for the Linux PPC support, it is almost worthless as there are almost no commercial applications for it.Why would anyone in their right mind buy an overpriced IBM PPC box to run Linux on? Either AIX on PPC or Linux on x86 would be a much better choice than Linux on PPC (or Linux on about anything but x86)
Why don't people use gnutella instead?
As for distribution, I have used only Debian and RedHat. Both are fine systems but have their differences. Debian tends to be a rock solid, has several thousand packages in it, easy to update, etc. However, the release cycle is very slow. For example the current Debian stable, mostly has more than a year old software in it.
On the other hand, RedHat has a faster release schedule. It has less packages than Debian but they are much more up to date than in Debian. The RedHat releases that end on 7.0 tend to be buggier than .1 releases, and .2 releases tend to be bugger than the .2 releases.
For the reasons above, I tend to stay away from RedHat versions that end on .0 and prefer to use them only on the desktop systems. On the critical servers I prefer to use Debian because of stability and because I don't really care about "coolness" features like gnome, etc for server use.
I think this is a wrong analogy. A more correct analogy would be a MS as a carmaker that sells a car that 99% drive or know how to drive and they suddenly announce that with the next release they will switch to electric engines, screwing badly the gas vendor industry this way .
You are wrong. I work at a university campus with hundreds of unix hosts and large multiuser machines. Identd is still very useful for us.
Uh? Nothing stops you from compiling apache, bind, or even perl on Debian or RedHat, so this particular argument is irrelevant.
Alpha does not compete with AMD. AMD is a low-end chip that mostly runs on desktop and only recetly there is a support for a dual-way SMP. Alpha processors historically had a super fast FP and well as integer performance. Coupled with large caches, they were used in unix servers and workstations for more than a decade.
I think Sun and IBM are actually the ones that kicked serious ass recently, capturing most of the US unix server market, and Compaq figured it can't compete with Alpha against them. They had a good chip but compaq f*cked it up.
This must be a joke right? ;p
Sorry. If you are looking for a robust, stable, platform to work with RIGHT NOW and you are choosing between Win2k and MacOS X, the answer is only one: Win2k.
Our IT department is very excited about MacOS and we have been doing lots of testing with OS X, but IMO, it is not yet ready to match Win2k in terms of stability, performance, and application availability. OS X crawls on a G3 with 128MB of RAM when performing simple tasks, why is that? Almost none of the applications that we use aren't out for OS X and we aren't excited at all about running them in the classic environment. System panics/ crashes are frequent.
I could go on about hardware costs as well. G4 powermacs pale in comparison to equivalent PCs in price and performances(yes, Alvitec is good, but we have no use for it).
OS X is a good beginning, buy IMO, as of right now it is no match for Win2k. May be a year from now, we could have a better fight between the two OSes when more applications are ported to OS X and when it hopefully gets more stable and faster.