Nah, just put rootenable in the config file, set a password, flash the device as usual with the new config, reload, and log in as root. Voilà, Linux command prompt. That at least is the procedure for Cisco's SSL loadbalancing systems (CSS and HSE).
I believe that is even documented in the official manuals, but since it has been some time I worked with a such a setup, I can't be entirely sure.
What false claims by Marxism have been laid bare? Care to mention specifics?
Or are you denying that things like class difference exist? Or that the political power structure is a reflection of the economic structure of a society?
Marx may have made a few wrong predictions, and his assumptions on the merits of central control are grotesquely open to abuse, but one cannot say in all seriousness that he was wholly wrong.
Don't be silly. History is quite clear for those that want to read it without ideological blinders: both sides in the Cold War preferred to let client states do the dirty work. The Kremlin may not have paid for things like the Lockerbie attack, but it damn well propped up the regimes that made these things possible, in the full knowledge what those folks were up to with their freshly-gotten military knowledge and materiel.
the documents the neocons used to claim those things were in fact so-called "Black Propaganda" released by the CIA
Oh no, not the almighty CIA again. I am not disclaiming that they didn't meddle in client states' affairs to the detriment of world stability, but the CIA is not the almighty bogeyman some folks make them up to be.
Let me guess: the next thing you are going to claim is that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Mossad?
Dude, go take Economics 101 before you spout off nonsense in public, it might save you the embarassment.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a problem with a free market system, because the Commons is an externality: the users of the Commons don't pay the cost of the maintenance equally to the profit they gain from exploiting it, therefore they have an incentive to exhaust the Commons.
Collective action, either by taxation (so that the externality is reflected in the costs) or by outright rationing access to the Commons is the only thing that can stop the Tragedy occuring. And collective action to regulate access to a Commons is one of the defining characteristics of Socialism. Depending on how this is implemented it may be either old-fashioned authoritarian Socialism, Libertarian Socalism, or a mixed model like European-style Social Democracy, but the free market is definitely no solution here.
,In the Netherlands space for bikes, safe crossings, etc. is a matter of civic planning, and the councils will re-arrange crossings or squares every few years as they figure out even better designs.
As a Dutchman, allow me to laugh out loud.
City planners here all assume 2 cars per household in the suburbs, or so it seems. Inner cities, often with 17th-century layouts, are all expected to be reachable by car. Bike lanes exist, but are given completely illogical rules when it comes to right of way; I've seen roundabouts were pedestrians and cars have right of way, but the bike lane between the pavement and the roundabout doesn't. Traffic lights often give a green two or three times to a crossing car lane before finally letting the bikes cross.
The only reason bikes don't get massacred en masse is cultural: Dutchmen tend to take the bike for almost all trips under 3km on average (that means that there are folks, like me and my gf, who routinely bike all distances under 10km); there is a default assumption that there will be bikes on the road.
The bad planning combined with the prevalence of bikes on the road has given rise to the mass perception, which is not wholly off, that bikes routinely ignore traffic lights and right of way. We have to, because the bloody planners treat us like 2nd class citizens. I don't run red lights on principle, but I do run 'em if the bloody idiots do not see fit to give me a green within 5 minutes while giving the cars three greens in the same period, which happens more than I like.
Try riding a motorbike to see just how unbizarre that logic is.
About the first thing you get drilled in your head during driving lessons here (.nl) is: assume no-one will see you and ride as if you are about to be overrun. Strangely enough, aside from the testosterone-overdosing idiots on fast sportbikes they can't handle that make up the majority of single-party accident fatalities, this actually appears to work.
On the other hand, between two thirds and three quarters of the multi-party accidents are due to cars overlooking the motorcycle, so even a heightened awareness of the risk you're running doesn't always save you.
On the gripping hand, the motorbike riders that survive are the ones that, like me, can see an accident prone situation coming up from a distance and adjust accordingly. Things like not staying beside cars in a merge lane, but speeding up or slowing down so that they merge behind or in front, instead of sideswiping you. I still need my horn more than I would like, but at least I usually see the fuckwittery coming in advance, and if I don't, I keep enough safety margin to get myself out of a hairy situation.
But my personal experience with other participants in traffic is that the gross majority is just plain incapable of judging risks to themselves or others correctly. When filtering through a jam (legal here), I seldom get cut off on purpose, but I am constantly amazed at the people that apparently don't notice me until I am almost beside them, usually followed by them hastily moving aside, in a quick panicky fashion, creating more room than I actually need (on my little Guzzi V50 Monza I take up about 1.25m, the gap between lanes is well over 1.5m, usually closer to 3m) Conclusion: they are not watching their mirrors, their situational awareness sucks. And there is some evidence (Smeed's Law) that the more a car is apparently safe to the driver, the more their situational awareness suffers. Anecdotal evidence: the most egregious fuckwits in.nl drive BMW X-series SUVs.
This was reinforced strongly by General Abizaid when he came here on the heels of that incident and told some 70 Sheikhs and community leaders that he planned to unleash hell if they kept it up.
So if I read this right, an American general has threatened military repercussions against an entire civilian community because some members engage in acts of violence against his troops?
Let that sink in. Not since the occupation of Europe by the Nazis have such words been openly uttered by a Western general. And rightly so: holding civilian populations hostage against acts of resistance is a war crime, flat out; a precedent set by the U.S. in the denazification courts after WWII. Yet here we have an official U.S. document proving that the U.S. Military is willing to engage in exactly these war crimes they used to hang Germans for.
The American military used to be pretty good at [nation building]. Think post-WWII Japan and Germany.
There's two reasons for that:
The American military of WWII had an officer corps that was largely selected on merit, not political appointees. Where's the equivalent of a Marshall or an Eisenhower now? Brilliant staff officers specifically appointed and promoted due to their ability to organise? Instead the best the U.S. had was an ex-press officer (who, admittedly, appeared to be a pretty sharp guy), who got the sack as one of the scape goats for the Iraq debacle.
In the reconstruction effort of Germany (I can't speak for Japan, as I haven't studied the history on that), the U.S. Army made it a policy to appoint and commission relevant civilian experts to help, instead of relying on the expertise of the occupation troops alone.
BITS status as 'Manual' is meaningless, as it can be started by the auto-update service, which must be set to automatic for Windows Update to even function. Merely setting auto-update to 'Manual' and manually activating it does not work.
I have done a Windows 2000 install just this weekend, and I can tell you the following:
BITS must be enabled for Windows Update to function.
Worse, the auto update feature must not just be enabled, it must be set to 'Automatic' for Windows Update to function.
Now, unless like me you start services.msc every time you want to do updates and manually turn on BITS and set auto-update to Automatic, and disable them afterwards, you're hosed.
Thankfully, my Windows 2000 installation is not used to browse the web, but mostly as a standalone gaming system, and heavilly firewalled at that (with a real firewall), but this news still makes me happy for being paranoid.
One of your presidents used to have a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here".
What has happened to America, once a country that the rest of the world viewed as a shining example of people willing to stand up for their principles? Nowadays the image projected to the rest of the world is one of corruption, abject abuse of power, and endless buck-passing.
I have Debian Sid on a D800, and maybe I know what is wrong with your networking.
The ipw2200 driver conflicts with the Bluetooth stack. Try unloading the driver and reloading it with Bluetooth support ('modprobe -r ipw2200' as root, followed by 'modprobe ipw2200 bt_coexist=1'). If that works, you can fiddle with the order of the startup scripts to make sure it works on reboot, or just disable the Bluetooth stack altogether.
The key word in that Wikipedia article from which you cite is arbitrarily. The Moscow case was primarily lost before the EU Court of Human Rights because Scientology had religious status in Russia before, and the Russian government said: "We changed the standards, come up with documentation that you still are a religion".
If you read the court decision itself, you will find that the court is very upset with the arbitrary revocation of previously granted rights, and that it moreover states that its judgment is for this particular case only.
Sides that cry that the EU has validated Scientology as a religion by this judgment would do well to not trust the secondary sources and go read the judgment itself. I can't link it unfortunately, as the website of the page does not accept direct links to documents, but here is the link to the search page. Just search for 'Scientology' (second case in the results list).
OK, in that light your angry reaction is understandable.
Still, your contention that Linux can scale to Solaris levels is a bit questionable in my experience, but I haven't experienced it on Big Blue hardware yet, and I know IBM does a lot to make it run well there, so that alone might offset the usual x86 bias of the Linux developers.
As for deployment and upgrades, I meant that a given Solaris config can be easily deployed across multiple machines, even different in hardware configuration, or that the hardware can be upgraded on a given machine without reconfiguring the kernel. On high-performance targets this is still not a given on Linux, because it often requires a custom build to go with high-performance hardware.
And as for fanboism, I may have been to harsh, but you did invite the comment by comparing Linux supercomputers, which are one-shot high-performance builds with Solaris multiprocessing machines, which are meant as a generic solution. That's apples and oranges. I was already a bit irritated by some idiots on this thread, so I hope you understand my snappiness.
I like Linux, it is my bread and butter, but Solaris is about more than raw performance. Scalability means that you can add hardware, and still keep running the same kernel. Beyond a certain level on Linux, you end up in custom kernel land, and good luck upgrading your system. Note that supercomputers, clustered or single system image, are basically a one-shot build, not a system that can be deployed in a multitude of situations.
Over that, a multiprocessor Sparc system may not be as fast as a Linux supercomputer, but it will handle high loads a lot more gracefully.
Goddamit, there is a lot of uninformed fanboism going on in this discussion, on both sides.
On top of that the tools for disk management (Disk Suite and Veritas) are more mature in Solaris
Allow me to laugh out loud. Disk Suite (I assume you mean SDS) requires dumping the disk config into a text file when doing a recovery of a RAID 1 set, and then using that temporary file to manually add the new submirrors so that SDS can sync them. I don't see the superiority over the Linux LVM/DMRAID tools, there it is just a manner of detaching the faulty disk, reattaching the new blank disk, and the disk is remirrored automatically. Sure, SDS can theoretically do that, but explain to me why a Sun tech told me once to not rely on it and just manually rebuild the mirror set? And frankly, metadetach, metattach and the rest of that ilk are not any more intuitive than the mdadm toolset, in fact they are even more arcane IMO (quick, what is the switch to reattach a submirror with the same parameters as the parent device?)
Otherwise, Solaris is just a damn stable system that can take insane loads before becoming unresponsive, and on Sun hardware it can handle massive amounts of hardware resources that Linux systems still can't. Most of that is because Linux development is rather concentrated on the x86 architecture, and that architecture just isn't able to handle as much hardware as the Sparc architecture can. x64 is an improvement over that, but still not close to Sparc.
Zones are similar to FreeBSD Jails, and Open/NetBSD sysjails. They do not require an additional kernel to be running
Read the links you were given. OpenVZ does not require an additional kernel either, it is a single-kernel virtualization layer.
I love Solaris, especially on Sparc hardware, as it can still function under loads that Intel-based architectures wouldn't even dream of, but other than that you Solaris-junkies really should keep up with the state of the art in the Linux world, because your elitism starts to sound rather hollow if you don't.
This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress.
Excuse me?! This is the Cato Institute we're talking about. You know, the think tank for hire, that will act as an 'indepedent source' to criticise any regulation you want as long as you pay enough.
This is bloody well a commercial outfit drumming up publicity to get more customers, and the teenage libertarians on Slashdot are falling for it in droves.
The only reason I'm often angry on this site is because idiots like you abound. And idiots don't deserve respect.
Obscure meanings indeed. I write bog-standard, if a little formal, British English. If using a vocabulary beyond American High School standard is considered flaunting diction in your eyes, then you sir, are a moron.
You snipped a relevant bit of the quote, making it sound like a reasonable arguement, instead of a petty attack on the Linux community, dragging things into this debate that have no or marginal bearing on kernel design. It was that very thougthless attack that killed all but the remotest chance at reasonable discussion before it had got any time to start.
And as for your snarky comments on my diction, as it so happens, I also write rather formally in my native language. This is my style, and if you are implying that I am doing it out of some arrogant condescension, then I suggest it is you that has a problem.
Indeed, but the situation is seldom as simple as that. That's why you have options, to cater to the needs of different situations and the preferences of different people. E.g. in my opinion, sloppy focus is the blindingly obvious and correct way, but many others feel different (perhaps they are used to OS:s where click-to-focus is the only option). So having an option makes sense.
Red herring. We're not talking about options here. Parent gave a very well-defined behaviour that was idiotic: given a situation with no choice, a program should not ask the user anything, but just proceed.
Saying that people might complain about inconsistency is speculation. What is wrong with simply looking at the objective facts, and saying that the yum developers made a mistake? It happens, they're human.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, just put rootenable in the config file, set a password, flash the device as usual with the new config, reload, and log in as root. Voilà, Linux command prompt. That at least is the procedure for Cisco's SSL loadbalancing systems (CSS and HSE).
I believe that is even documented in the official manuals, but since it has been some time I worked with a such a setup, I can't be entirely sure.
MartWhat false claims by Marxism have been laid bare? Care to mention specifics?
Or are you denying that things like class difference exist? Or that the political power structure is a reflection of the economic structure of a society?
Marx may have made a few wrong predictions, and his assumptions on the merits of central control are grotesquely open to abuse, but one cannot say in all seriousness that he was wholly wrong.
MartDon't be silly. History is quite clear for those that want to read it without ideological blinders: both sides in the Cold War preferred to let client states do the dirty work. The Kremlin may not have paid for things like the Lockerbie attack, but it damn well propped up the regimes that made these things possible, in the full knowledge what those folks were up to with their freshly-gotten military knowledge and materiel.
Oh no, not the almighty CIA again. I am not disclaiming that they didn't meddle in client states' affairs to the detriment of world stability, but the CIA is not the almighty bogeyman some folks make them up to be.
Let me guess: the next thing you are going to claim is that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Mossad?
MartDude, go take Economics 101 before you spout off nonsense in public, it might save you the embarassment.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a problem with a free market system, because the Commons is an externality: the users of the Commons don't pay the cost of the maintenance equally to the profit they gain from exploiting it, therefore they have an incentive to exhaust the Commons.
Collective action, either by taxation (so that the externality is reflected in the costs) or by outright rationing access to the Commons is the only thing that can stop the Tragedy occuring. And collective action to regulate access to a Commons is one of the defining characteristics of Socialism. Depending on how this is implemented it may be either old-fashioned authoritarian Socialism, Libertarian Socalism, or a mixed model like European-style Social Democracy, but the free market is definitely no solution here.
MartYou stupid idiot. You are merely reiterating the parent's point.
MartAs a Dutchman, allow me to laugh out loud.
City planners here all assume 2 cars per household in the suburbs, or so it seems. Inner cities, often with 17th-century layouts, are all expected to be reachable by car. Bike lanes exist, but are given completely illogical rules when it comes to right of way; I've seen roundabouts were pedestrians and cars have right of way, but the bike lane between the pavement and the roundabout doesn't. Traffic lights often give a green two or three times to a crossing car lane before finally letting the bikes cross.
The only reason bikes don't get massacred en masse is cultural: Dutchmen tend to take the bike for almost all trips under 3km on average (that means that there are folks, like me and my gf, who routinely bike all distances under 10km); there is a default assumption that there will be bikes on the road.
The bad planning combined with the prevalence of bikes on the road has given rise to the mass perception, which is not wholly off, that bikes routinely ignore traffic lights and right of way. We have to, because the bloody planners treat us like 2nd class citizens. I don't run red lights on principle, but I do run 'em if the bloody idiots do not see fit to give me a green within 5 minutes while giving the cars three greens in the same period, which happens more than I like.
MartTry riding a motorbike to see just how unbizarre that logic is.
About the first thing you get drilled in your head during driving lessons here (.nl) is: assume no-one will see you and ride as if you are about to be overrun. Strangely enough, aside from the testosterone-overdosing idiots on fast sportbikes they can't handle that make up the majority of single-party accident fatalities, this actually appears to work.
On the other hand, between two thirds and three quarters of the multi-party accidents are due to cars overlooking the motorcycle, so even a heightened awareness of the risk you're running doesn't always save you.
On the gripping hand, the motorbike riders that survive are the ones that, like me, can see an accident prone situation coming up from a distance and adjust accordingly. Things like not staying beside cars in a merge lane, but speeding up or slowing down so that they merge behind or in front, instead of sideswiping you. I still need my horn more than I would like, but at least I usually see the fuckwittery coming in advance, and if I don't, I keep enough safety margin to get myself out of a hairy situation.
But my personal experience with other participants in traffic is that the gross majority is just plain incapable of judging risks to themselves or others correctly. When filtering through a jam (legal here), I seldom get cut off on purpose, but I am constantly amazed at the people that apparently don't notice me until I am almost beside them, usually followed by them hastily moving aside, in a quick panicky fashion, creating more room than I actually need (on my little Guzzi V50 Monza I take up about 1.25m, the gap between lanes is well over 1.5m, usually closer to 3m) Conclusion: they are not watching their mirrors, their situational awareness sucks. And there is some evidence (Smeed's Law) that the more a car is apparently safe to the driver, the more their situational awareness suffers. Anecdotal evidence: the most egregious fuckwits in .nl drive BMW X-series SUVs.
MartSo if I read this right, an American general has threatened military repercussions against an entire civilian community because some members engage in acts of violence against his troops?
Let that sink in. Not since the occupation of Europe by the Nazis have such words been openly uttered by a Western general. And rightly so: holding civilian populations hostage against acts of resistance is a war crime, flat out; a precedent set by the U.S. in the denazification courts after WWII. Yet here we have an official U.S. document proving that the U.S. Military is willing to engage in exactly these war crimes they used to hang Germans for.
MartThere's two reasons for that:
- The American military of WWII had an officer corps that was largely selected on merit, not political appointees. Where's the equivalent of a Marshall or an Eisenhower now? Brilliant staff officers specifically appointed and promoted due to their ability to organise? Instead the best the U.S. had was an ex-press officer (who, admittedly, appeared to be a pretty sharp guy), who got the sack as one of the scape goats for the Iraq debacle.
- In the reconstruction effort of Germany (I can't speak for Japan, as I haven't studied the history on that), the U.S. Army made it a policy to appoint and commission relevant civilian experts to help, instead of relying on the expertise of the occupation troops alone.
MartSo she's basically spamming, because that's what asking people to mailbomb a third party is.
I say "GO FLICKR!".
MartBITS status as 'Manual' is meaningless, as it can be started by the auto-update service, which must be set to automatic for Windows Update to even function. Merely setting auto-update to 'Manual' and manually activating it does not work.
MartI have done a Windows 2000 install just this weekend, and I can tell you the following:
Now, unless like me you start services.msc every time you want to do updates and manually turn on BITS and set auto-update to Automatic, and disable them afterwards, you're hosed.
Thankfully, my Windows 2000 installation is not used to browse the web, but mostly as a standalone gaming system, and heavilly firewalled at that (with a real firewall), but this news still makes me happy for being paranoid.
MartOne of your presidents used to have a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here".
What has happened to America, once a country that the rest of the world viewed as a shining example of people willing to stand up for their principles? Nowadays the image projected to the rest of the world is one of corruption, abject abuse of power, and endless buck-passing.
This is not an improvement.
MartI have Debian Sid on a D800, and maybe I know what is wrong with your networking.
The ipw2200 driver conflicts with the Bluetooth stack. Try unloading the driver and reloading it with Bluetooth support ('modprobe -r ipw2200' as root, followed by 'modprobe ipw2200 bt_coexist=1'). If that works, you can fiddle with the order of the startup scripts to make sure it works on reboot, or just disable the Bluetooth stack altogether.
MartThe key word in that Wikipedia article from which you cite is arbitrarily. The Moscow case was primarily lost before the EU Court of Human Rights because Scientology had religious status in Russia before, and the Russian government said: "We changed the standards, come up with documentation that you still are a religion".
If you read the court decision itself, you will find that the court is very upset with the arbitrary revocation of previously granted rights, and that it moreover states that its judgment is for this particular case only.
Sides that cry that the EU has validated Scientology as a religion by this judgment would do well to not trust the secondary sources and go read the judgment itself. I can't link it unfortunately, as the website of the page does not accept direct links to documents, but here is the link to the search page. Just search for 'Scientology' (second case in the results list).
MartOK, in that light your angry reaction is understandable.
Still, your contention that Linux can scale to Solaris levels is a bit questionable in my experience, but I haven't experienced it on Big Blue hardware yet, and I know IBM does a lot to make it run well there, so that alone might offset the usual x86 bias of the Linux developers.
As for deployment and upgrades, I meant that a given Solaris config can be easily deployed across multiple machines, even different in hardware configuration, or that the hardware can be upgraded on a given machine without reconfiguring the kernel. On high-performance targets this is still not a given on Linux, because it often requires a custom build to go with high-performance hardware.
And as for fanboism, I may have been to harsh, but you did invite the comment by comparing Linux supercomputers, which are one-shot high-performance builds with Solaris multiprocessing machines, which are meant as a generic solution. That's apples and oranges. I was already a bit irritated by some idiots on this thread, so I hope you understand my snappiness.
MartStop whining, parent wasn't trolling at all
I like Linux, it is my bread and butter, but Solaris is about more than raw performance. Scalability means that you can add hardware, and still keep running the same kernel. Beyond a certain level on Linux, you end up in custom kernel land, and good luck upgrading your system. Note that supercomputers, clustered or single system image, are basically a one-shot build, not a system that can be deployed in a multitude of situations.
Over that, a multiprocessor Sparc system may not be as fast as a Linux supercomputer, but it will handle high loads a lot more gracefully.
Goddamit, there is a lot of uninformed fanboism going on in this discussion, on both sides.
MartAllow me to laugh out loud. Disk Suite (I assume you mean SDS) requires dumping the disk config into a text file when doing a recovery of a RAID 1 set, and then using that temporary file to manually add the new submirrors so that SDS can sync them. I don't see the superiority over the Linux LVM/DMRAID tools, there it is just a manner of detaching the faulty disk, reattaching the new blank disk, and the disk is remirrored automatically. Sure, SDS can theoretically do that, but explain to me why a Sun tech told me once to not rely on it and just manually rebuild the mirror set? And frankly, metadetach, metattach and the rest of that ilk are not any more intuitive than the mdadm toolset, in fact they are even more arcane IMO (quick, what is the switch to reattach a submirror with the same parameters as the parent device?)
Otherwise, Solaris is just a damn stable system that can take insane loads before becoming unresponsive, and on Sun hardware it can handle massive amounts of hardware resources that Linux systems still can't. Most of that is because Linux development is rather concentrated on the x86 architecture, and that architecture just isn't able to handle as much hardware as the Sparc architecture can. x64 is an improvement over that, but still not close to Sparc.
MartRead the links you were given. OpenVZ does not require an additional kernel either, it is a single-kernel virtualization layer.
I love Solaris, especially on Sparc hardware, as it can still function under loads that Intel-based architectures wouldn't even dream of, but other than that you Solaris-junkies really should keep up with the state of the art in the Linux world, because your elitism starts to sound rather hollow if you don't.
MartBut on the other hand, compare the petrol mileage of any common car in Europe with the kind of guzzlers the Americans tend to drive.
MartHere's a hint: don't want to be called stupid, don't act stupid in public.
MartExcuse me?! This is the Cato Institute we're talking about. You know, the think tank for hire, that will act as an 'indepedent source' to criticise any regulation you want as long as you pay enough.
This is bloody well a commercial outfit drumming up publicity to get more customers, and the teenage libertarians on Slashdot are falling for it in droves.
Sheesh.
MartOh get off.
The only reason I'm often angry on this site is because idiots like you abound. And idiots don't deserve respect.
Obscure meanings indeed. I write bog-standard, if a little formal, British English. If using a vocabulary beyond American High School standard is considered flaunting diction in your eyes, then you sir, are a moron.
MartYou snipped a relevant bit of the quote, making it sound like a reasonable arguement, instead of a petty attack on the Linux community, dragging things into this debate that have no or marginal bearing on kernel design. It was that very thougthless attack that killed all but the remotest chance at reasonable discussion before it had got any time to start.
And as for your snarky comments on my diction, as it so happens, I also write rather formally in my native language. This is my style, and if you are implying that I am doing it out of some arrogant condescension, then I suggest it is you that has a problem.
MartRed herring. We're not talking about options here. Parent gave a very well-defined behaviour that was idiotic: given a situation with no choice, a program should not ask the user anything, but just proceed.
Saying that people might complain about inconsistency is speculation. What is wrong with simply looking at the objective facts, and saying that the yum developers made a mistake? It happens, they're human.
Mart