Bigotry? I don't see any bigotry.:) It's the plain-jane, god's honest truth.:D
[ok, maybe I am a tad bit bigotted when it comes to American education... but can you really blame me? Have you seen the insanity they call English down there??}:D
Patting involves vertical movement of the hand, and a very short contact with the animal. Similar to slapping, but much gentler.
Petting involves vertical movement of the hand until contact with the animal, then lateral movement of the hand, maintaining contact. This movement generally starts at or near the head of the animal and ends near the end of the backbone. This is similar to stroking the fur of the animal.
As for spit vs. spat, I blame that on the lack of education in America.:) Up here in Canada, we use both depending on the context.
First, check your IMAP server. If you are using UW-IMAP, scrap it. Replace it with Courier-IMAP, Dovecott IMAP, or even Cyrus. I'd recommend either of the first two, though.
Before throwing more hardware at it, tune the software side of things. Check your filesystem settings, your IMAP settings, your Apache settings, your SM settings. These are things that will give you a larger payback in total system responsiveness/speed that just throwing a larger/faster harddrive in there.
The K5 was faster than the Pentium at integer and shift operations. For a nice little "benchmark" for this, compare the perfomance of the Distributed.net client on a K5 and a Pentium.
Besides, the K5 wasn't designed by AMD. It was the same chip as the NexGen Nx586, which AMD aquired when they purchased NexGen. All they did was rebrand it as the K5, add a few speed bumbs, and use the NexGen engineers to help design the K6.
NO OS is useful without a GUI??? Obviously you never used DOS. That was (is?) a very useful little OS, and there's no GUI for it. Many many people found that to be useful, even though it didn't have a GUI. And yes, it does come with a file manager (dosshell) and a webbrowser (Spider, I think it was called).
Just because Apple, MS, and so on have popularised the GUI does not mean you must use it to be productive.
Other than Apple and MS server products, how many have you used that require the use of a GUI?? There are plenty of server OS (most based on some form of Unix) out there that don't have GUIs, and yet many many people use them. How could that be??
Back to the main point, which you have totally missed: a kernel alone does not an OS make.
Hear, hear. Infrastructure type programs should be BSD licensed so that more businesses can use them in their products. Things like networking stacks, DNS resolvers, protocol implementations, and the like. Things that enable interoperation between systems.
If they are BSD licensed (or similar), than more companies, projects, people can use them, and more companies, projects, apps would be able to inter-commuicate. And nobody would have to worry about "giving up the crown jewels". They would be able to give back of their own free will, or keep it all to themselves. Either way, we all win, as everything works together.
Sounds like a better world than a world run by GPL'd products. To me, anyway. I'd rather see people giving back because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.
Individual apps can be GPL'd. Just the infrastructure behind it should be truly free (in ALL senses of the word).
Are you stupid?? There are BSD versions of all the standard Unix utilities. Have been ever since the release of 4.4BSD-Lite.
Over the years, several of the BSD utilities in Free/Net/OpenBSD were replaced with their GNU counterparts due to increased speed or functionality. Now, most of these are being replaced again with BSD equivalents. NetBSD and OpenBSD have replaced almost everything except GCC in their latest releases. And there are projects underway to do the same in FreeBSD.
What is wrong with someone else using your code, and giving you credit?? How is that evil??
The more people who use a given piece of software, the better support and inter-operability there is.
Which is better, IYO: 35 different from-scratch implementations of the same thing, or 35 different packages that all use the same software behind the scenes?? Which scenario do think will work better?
Would you rather see 35 different TCP/IP stacks, all that interpret the RFCs just a little bit differently, or 35 stacks all based off the same bit of code??
Would you rather see 35 different word processors, each with their own file format, or 35 different word processors that all use the same basic text engine and file format??
The GPL *forces* fragmentation by forcing businesses to redesign, redevelop, and reimplement everything.
Personally, I'd rather see fundamental bits of software passed around for everyone to use, whether it be for commercial purposes or not. If they can make money off it, then it just means I'm not trying hard enough to make money off it.
Packages may or may not be broken, I never use them.
However, KDE, GNOME, and Mozilla all compile just fine on 5.1-RELEASE. Been using 5.x on this here laptop since 5.0-RELEASE without any problems with apps. Same with Java. Have the native jdk 1.3.1 running here with Konqueror, Firebird, and Opera.
I'd recommend you use something a little simpler, like maybe Windows 3.1. You really don't seem to be able to handle anything more advanced than that.
Linux packet filtering is just plain crap when compared to the others out there: IPFW, IPFW2, IPFilter, PF.
Use one of the floppy-/CD-ROM-based BSD systems: ClosedBSD, MicroBSD, PicoBSD, emBSD.
Or, build your own using FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD.
Once you start using a BSD-based firewall system, you'll never want to use Linux again. Plus, you won't have to worry about your packet filter changing completely in the next release.:)
Which chip would that be?? The only AMD CPU with a K moniker that I can recall as being slow was the original K6. Everything since then has been on par or better than the Intel equivalent.
Thus, I was not totally unprepared for the move to FreeBSD. I was advised Release 5.0 would be "rough around the edge" and it was true. Not in terms of glitches in the the software that installs on the machine, but in other ways. In that respect, FreeBSD is certainly no worse than any other OS I've used. What I was not told was that this is the bleeding-edge alpha grade release in BSD's terms.
Looks to me like he was "totally unprepared" as he didn't do even the minimum bit of research prior to installation.
First mistake: not checking the website *before* installing. Even the quickest of visits would have shown that 5.x is a "New Technology Release" and not a stable release. How can you justify not doing even the simplest of research prior to installing a new OS??
The install scripts are probably the roughest part of my experience. One really _must_ read a thorough guide before attempting it. If you forget something, you may not get the chance to go back and correct it during the initial installation. If you try to go back and run the process again, you may get a surprise. When I went back to run sysinstall, it wiped a lot of config and log files. I had to add my user account back, and create the passwords for that and the root account. The locate database was wiped. I also found nothing but empty files in/var/log.
Again, not reading through the included help files, and not reading through the online Handbook and installation guide have come back to haunt you. These help files are there for a reason: use them.
There were other problems with the release, primarily broken packages. The Linux "emulator" is broken, and I never got any of my Linux apps to so much as install, never mind use them: Applix 5.0, any version of OpenOffice, WordPerfect 8.0, etc. The fix, as I understand it, is to recompile from patched sources. Considering it not all that important, I decided the Linux-compat sources were simply too large for my feeble dialup connection. Regarding this as a mere warm-up exercise, I decided to wait until I secured a better release of FreeBSD.
Did you miss the dialog box with the question "Do you want to enable Linux compatibility?" during the install? It sounds like you did, and are trying to shift the blame onto the OS and off of yourself. Answering that question would have enabled the Linux compat system for you.
Even though my XF86Config file from SuSE worked rather well as a drop in, as did my entire TrueType fonts directory, it required some rather precise tweaking to get my MS Wheelmouse properly working.
Again, reading the Handbook and the FAQ would have solved this for you in minutes. It's a quick 1 line change to/etc/rc.conf and another 1 line change to/etc/X11/XF86Config.
Printing wasn't too bad. While CUPS was installed, it required Linux-compat to set up, and mine didn't work.
CUPS does not require Linux compat. There's a native version of CUPS that works just beautifully. Why did you install the Linux version of CUPS??
After almost a week of futzing about between actual work sessions, I just now discovered that I was supposed to make up a convenient hostname for the machine that specifically avoided using my ISP's domain name for dialup. There is no default machine name, such as one finds with most Linux distros -- "localhost.localdomain" or "local.linux" and so forth. The stand-alone dialup workstation is scarcely included in the planning of these things. What little I found assumed far too much knowledge. It almost feels like "Newbies not welcome" at times. If you ask advice, you'll get polite versions of "RTFM" mostly.
The default/etc/hosts installed with FreeBSD *does* come with an entry for localhost and localhost.localdomain. However, during the install, you should have been asked for a hostname and a domain name. And anyone who wants to connect to a TCP/IP n
Internet connection, not network connection. They'd still be connected to all the internal servers so they could receive e-mail. Just their access to the outside world via the Internet gateway would be blocked.
Sounds a lot like the rc system in use by NetBSD and FreeBSD 5.x (although I haven't read the article completely yet). Except for the compatibility with SysV.
Slashdot Mirror
Bigotry? I don't see any bigotry. :) It's the plain-jane, god's honest truth. :D
... but can you really blame me? Have you seen the insanity they call English down there??} :D
[ok, maybe I am a tad bit bigotted when it comes to American education
Don't forget that baud and bits-per-second are very different beasts. The max baud rate of a 56K modem is still around 2400.
That's already in there: /bin/sh /etc/netstart
This reads the network settings from rc.conf and reconfigures the interfaces and routes based on that info.
Sure, it's picking nits, but still ...
Windows went:
1.x --> 2.x --> 3.x --> 95 --> 98 --> ME --> XP Home --> Longhorn
Windows NT (completely separate beast) went:
NT 3.x --> NT 4.x --> 2000 --> XP Pro --> Longhorn
The only major shift were from 3.x to 95 (GUI and mostly 32-bit), and from ME to XP (GUI and fully 32-bit).
Petting and patting are different actions.
:) Up here in Canada, we use both depending on the context.
Patting involves vertical movement of the hand, and a very short contact with the animal. Similar to slapping, but much gentler.
Petting involves vertical movement of the hand until contact with the animal, then lateral movement of the hand, maintaining contact. This movement generally starts at or near the head of the animal and ends near the end of the backbone. This is similar to stroking the fur of the animal.
As for spit vs. spat, I blame that on the lack of education in America.
No network and no floppy drive. On NT 4 Workstation, without Service Packs.
First, check your IMAP server. If you are using UW-IMAP, scrap it. Replace it with Courier-IMAP, Dovecott IMAP, or even Cyrus. I'd recommend either of the first two, though.
Before throwing more hardware at it, tune the software side of things. Check your filesystem settings, your IMAP settings, your Apache settings, your SM settings. These are things that will give you a larger payback in total system responsiveness/speed that just throwing a larger/faster harddrive in there.
Oh, yeah. The FPU in the K5 was absolutely abysmal, which is what caused it to become known as a "poor performer" in the CPU world.
It wasn't until the K7 that AMD figured out how to create a very nice FPU.
The K5 was faster than the Pentium at integer and shift operations. For a nice little "benchmark" for this, compare the perfomance of the Distributed.net client on a K5 and a Pentium.
Besides, the K5 wasn't designed by AMD. It was the same chip as the NexGen Nx586, which AMD aquired when they purchased NexGen. All they did was rebrand it as the K5, add a few speed bumbs, and use the NexGen engineers to help design the K6.
NO OS is useful without a GUI??? Obviously you never used DOS. That was (is?) a very useful little OS, and there's no GUI for it. Many many people found that to be useful, even though it didn't have a GUI. And yes, it does come with a file manager (dosshell) and a webbrowser (Spider, I think it was called).
Just because Apple, MS, and so on have popularised the GUI does not mean you must use it to be productive.
Other than Apple and MS server products, how many have you used that require the use of a GUI?? There are plenty of server OS (most based on some form of Unix) out there that don't have GUIs, and yet many many people use them. How could that be??
Back to the main point, which you have totally missed: a kernel alone does not an OS make.
Hear, hear. Infrastructure type programs should be BSD licensed so that more businesses can use them in their products. Things like networking stacks, DNS resolvers, protocol implementations, and the like. Things that enable interoperation between systems.
If they are BSD licensed (or similar), than more companies, projects, people can use them, and more companies, projects, apps would be able to inter-commuicate. And nobody would have to worry about "giving up the crown jewels". They would be able to give back of their own free will, or keep it all to themselves. Either way, we all win, as everything works together.
Sounds like a better world than a world run by GPL'd products. To me, anyway. I'd rather see people giving back because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.
Individual apps can be GPL'd. Just the infrastructure behind it should be truly free (in ALL senses of the word).
There is no such beast as 5.1-STABLE.
They choose the direction the kernel takes. They have no say on where the resulting OS ends up or how it is used.
The Core Team decides the direction the entire OS is taking.
For the last time, people, MS did *NOT* use the BSD TCP/IP stack. They used the Streams implementation of TCP/IP from Spyder.
They used a few different TCP/IP utilities like ftp from BSD, but that's about it.
Are you stupid?? There are BSD versions of all the standard Unix utilities. Have been ever since the release of 4.4BSD-Lite.
Over the years, several of the BSD utilities in Free/Net/OpenBSD were replaced with their GNU counterparts due to increased speed or functionality. Now, most of these are being replaced again with BSD equivalents. NetBSD and OpenBSD have replaced almost everything except GCC in their latest releases. And there are projects underway to do the same in FreeBSD.
Get a clue.
You can build A Unix-like OS without XFree86, Mozilla, GNOME, etc.
You can't build a Unix-like OS without a shell, a C library, a compiler, etc.
A Unix-like OS can be useful with a GUI, a web browser, a file manager, etc.
A Unix-like OS isn't all that useful without cp, mv, sed, awk, touch, rm, etc.
See the difference??
What is wrong with someone else using your code, and giving you credit?? How is that evil??
The more people who use a given piece of software, the better support and inter-operability there is.
Which is better, IYO: 35 different from-scratch implementations of the same thing, or 35 different packages that all use the same software behind the scenes?? Which scenario do think will work better?
Would you rather see 35 different TCP/IP stacks, all that interpret the RFCs just a little bit differently, or 35 stacks all based off the same bit of code??
Would you rather see 35 different word processors, each with their own file format, or 35 different word processors that all use the same basic text engine and file format??
The GPL *forces* fragmentation by forcing businesses to redesign, redevelop, and reimplement everything.
Personally, I'd rather see fundamental bits of software passed around for everyone to use, whether it be for commercial purposes or not. If they can make money off it, then it just means I'm not trying hard enough to make money off it.
Wow, could there be a bigger troll out there??
Packages may or may not be broken, I never use them.
However, KDE, GNOME, and Mozilla all compile just fine on 5.1-RELEASE. Been using 5.x on this here laptop since 5.0-RELEASE without any problems with apps. Same with Java. Have the native jdk 1.3.1 running here with Konqueror, Firebird, and Opera.
I'd recommend you use something a little simpler, like maybe Windows 3.1. You really don't seem to be able to handle anything more advanced than that.
Linux packet filtering is just plain crap when compared to the others out there: IPFW, IPFW2, IPFilter, PF.
:)
Use one of the floppy-/CD-ROM-based BSD systems: ClosedBSD, MicroBSD, PicoBSD, emBSD.
Or, build your own using FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD.
Once you start using a BSD-based firewall system, you'll never want to use Linux again. Plus, you won't have to worry about your packet filter changing completely in the next release.
Which chip would that be?? The only AMD CPU with a K moniker that I can recall as being slow was the original K6. Everything since then has been on par or better than the Intel equivalent.
While the POWER4/POWER4+ are not the same as the PPC970, the PPC970 IS the same as the G5. G5 is nothing more than Apple's name for the PCC970 CPU.
Thus, I was not totally unprepared for the move to FreeBSD. I was advised Release 5.0 would be "rough around the edge" and it was true. Not in terms of glitches in the the software that installs on the machine, but in other ways. In that respect, FreeBSD is certainly no worse than any other OS I've used. What I was not told was that this is the bleeding-edge alpha grade release in BSD's terms.
/var/log.
/etc/rc.conf and another 1 line change to /etc/X11/XF86Config.
/etc/hosts installed with FreeBSD *does* come with an entry for localhost and localhost.localdomain. However, during the install, you should have been asked for a hostname and a domain name. And anyone who wants to connect to a TCP/IP n
Looks to me like he was "totally unprepared" as he didn't do even the minimum bit of research prior to installation.
First mistake: not checking the website *before* installing. Even the quickest of visits would have shown that 5.x is a "New Technology Release" and not a stable release. How can you justify not doing even the simplest of research prior to installing a new OS??
The install scripts are probably the roughest part of my experience. One really _must_ read a thorough guide before attempting it. If you forget something, you may not get the chance to go back and correct it during the initial installation. If you try to go back and run the process again, you may get a surprise. When I went back to run sysinstall, it wiped a lot of config and log files. I had to add my user account back, and create the passwords for that and the root account. The locate database was wiped. I also found nothing but empty files in
Again, not reading through the included help files, and not reading through the online Handbook and installation guide have come back to haunt you. These help files are there for a reason: use them.
There were other problems with the release, primarily broken packages. The Linux "emulator" is broken, and I never got any of my Linux apps to so much as install, never mind use them: Applix 5.0, any version of OpenOffice, WordPerfect 8.0, etc. The fix, as I understand it, is to recompile from patched sources. Considering it not all that important, I decided the Linux-compat sources were simply too large for my feeble dialup connection. Regarding this as a mere warm-up exercise, I decided to wait until I secured a better release of FreeBSD.
Did you miss the dialog box with the question "Do you want to enable Linux compatibility?" during the install? It sounds like you did, and are trying to shift the blame onto the OS and off of yourself. Answering that question would have enabled the Linux compat system for you.
Even though my XF86Config file from SuSE worked rather well as a drop in, as did my entire TrueType fonts directory, it required some rather precise tweaking to get my MS Wheelmouse properly working.
Again, reading the Handbook and the FAQ would have solved this for you in minutes. It's a quick 1 line change to
Printing wasn't too bad. While CUPS was installed, it required Linux-compat to set up, and mine didn't work.
CUPS does not require Linux compat. There's a native version of CUPS that works just beautifully. Why did you install the Linux version of CUPS??
After almost a week of futzing about between actual work sessions, I just now discovered that I was supposed to make up a convenient hostname for the machine that specifically avoided using my ISP's domain name for dialup. There is no default machine name, such as one finds with most Linux distros -- "localhost.localdomain" or "local.linux" and so forth. The stand-alone dialup workstation is scarcely included in the planning of these things. What little I found assumed far too much knowledge. It almost feels like "Newbies not welcome" at times. If you ask advice, you'll get polite versions of "RTFM" mostly.
The default
Internet connection, not network connection. They'd still be connected to all the internal servers so they could receive e-mail. Just their access to the outside world via the Internet gateway would be blocked.
Well, duh! Obviously whoever made your stove. I mean, it obviously didn't get hot enough. :)
Sounds a lot like the rc system in use by NetBSD and FreeBSD 5.x (although I haven't read the article completely yet). Except for the compatibility with SysV.