No doubt the RedHat 7.x series is of higher quality than the 6.x series.
6.2 is the most stable of the 6.x series.
7.0 is the least stable of the 7.x series.
The prerelease of 7.0 beta was "experimental", maybe. 7.0 is not experimental.
If you want stability, the last of the FreeBSD 3.x series is probably what you want. If you want the cutting edge, RedHat Linux 7.0 or maybe FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT is preferable. For most middle of the road, FreeBSD 4.1.1 or RedHat 7.0 with patches should do nicely.
What does RedHat think? Obviously that 7.0 is better, that 7.0 has the best available technology at the time.
What's a newbie more likely to compile, the new 2.4 kernel or the old 2.2.16 or whatever?
I would somewhat expect problems compiling binaries on 7.0 to be used on 6.x, but not have problems compiling binaries on 7.2 to be used on 7.0.
Despite comments elsewhere in this thread, compiling things does not make someone not a newbie. Newbie means someone who still has a lot to learn. Lusers is probably the term for people who will never learn ( and also tends to be those who pay the bills;)
Considering the success I had some time back, or more accurately didn't have, trying to compile and play with 2.3.x kernels, I think Red Hat was right to get the best available basis for the 7.x series of Red Hat. They did release 7.0, not 6.3.
>>just how much damage do you think that the original story that slashdot posted did?
Not much, I'm thinking. I personally prefer/. jumping the gun to eWeek's tepid "Providing an easy upgrade to the soon-to-be-available Linux 2.4 kernel; a wide array of improvements, including USB support for keyboards and mice; and new encryption capabilities, Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux 7 is an evolutionary upgrade of the operating system but is hardly a showstopper."
I'm just guessing here, but this seems something like the pain and suffering switching from the old to the new C libraries. The.0 release gives some warning that something fundamental is different. Expect some growing pains. Red Hat is just there a bit earlier than most everybody else.
Doesn't bother me a bit. Neither Slashdot nor RedHat have anything to apologize for.
With a.0 release, even with preliminary pre-release beta testing, most problems will not surface until the release is committed. 7.0 is the start of the 7-series, not the same kind of thing as 6.3 would have been. With 2.4 kernels due soon, it is most important to be able to compile them, without suffering from outdated support structure. (I never did find all the pieces to successfully try 2.3 kernels).
Slashdot tends to a flame first, look second approach. This means that if there is a problem it will tend to be uncovered. It does not mean that 7.0 is a bad release. It does mean that if you use 7.0, you probably want to check for errata.
Right. I get the feeling that the real Unix/Linux/BSD users just ignore Windows.
First off, Unix is a multi-user OS designed for several people doing different things over the same time duration. Its roots go back to PDP7 (?) when mini-computers were mini, so a lot of things tend to be rather cryptic. With current systems, there is a lot going on.
Useful commands to help find your way around.
df -- how much disk space is used/free
lynx / -- cheap shot at file-system browser (probably better ways)
locate name -- list all files with name in them
ls/bin | less -- list system binaries
also check out/sbin/usr/bin/usr/sbin
Documentation available with man and/or info commands. Also check out such as/usr/doc and/usr/share. Happy Hunting!
Admin security should have nothing to do with it. The floppy would be FAT formatted and NTFS security would not be relevant.
Just how would you use multi-level security on a FAT-formatted floppy in W2K? Seems like there are lots of very intelligent people in the world who don't know how to use the multi-level security in W2K. They will pay in the end only if they are dumb enough to use W2K.
>>Customers such as Barnes and Noble, The Boeing Company, Chicago Stock Exchange, Dell Computer, Nasdaq and many others run mission-critical applications on Windows NT 4.0.
Seems like in most of those cases, any real work in those organizations is on real computer systems, not NT. The NT systems are there, but not used for anything important or critical.
Kinda interesting to compare Microsoft vs Linux to Coke vs Pepsi. Seems like Coke ads never mention Pepsi and Pepsi ads tend to show both. With Linux being the "underdog", even bad publicity is much better than no publicity.
What stick in my mind is that Mindcraft had to go to a 4-cpu, 4-nic, static-page serving benchmark to show NT as superior. Personally, I would be much more interested in something showing survivability under duress, misconfigurations, bad cgi scripts, memory leaks.
>>You can't forget about static content altogether.
True, but it is a relatively minor problem on the server side. The slow part is on the browser's side. One stunt would be to serve dynamic content via apache and static content via thhtp, but I doubt that it would make much difference even with an overly dynamic apache setup.
What I want to see are stats on Linux on the new high-end IBM mainframes. Forget 4-cpu, 4-nic, static page silliness. What can you get from Apache/Linux talking to mainframe DB2 over system bus?
I have used Windows for Workgroups as an IP router/Print server. Two network cards and a bit of setup. Fortunately we've now got fiber, and everything is now on the same LAN.
The kernel is a program written to intimately control the hardware, file systems, and users of something like a dozen different hardware architectures, from Intel 80386 to high-end IBM mainframes. You can get the source. You can read the source. If you are able, you might even understand (some of) the source.
Anecdotal evidence for the "technical superiority" of FreeBSD. Looks like you run into a few things where the years of stressing and banging on BSD matter. In this kind of area, benchmarks are worse than useless, since they never measure the pile-on, pile-on effects. I suspect that you have some effects where everybody gangs up on the server at its weakest moment, like what hapens when you put ten tons into a half-ton pickup. Between BSD and Linux, expect Linux to have a better "best-case" ratio and for BSD to have a better "worst-case" ratio. The best tests will always be real-life loads. Good Luck.
Grader's grade: D-.
"that I could have" is excessively wordy in an online context.
"the" for "they" is a minor typo that does not interfere with the legibility of the post.
"modifier out in la-la land" diagrams like Dell supports. Looks like effective use of the language.
Slashdot Mirror
GWBushic?
No doubt the RedHat 7.x series is of higher quality than the 6.x series.
6.2 is the most stable of the 6.x series.
7.0 is the least stable of the 7.x series.
The prerelease of 7.0 beta was "experimental", maybe. 7.0 is not experimental.
If you want stability, the last of the FreeBSD 3.x series is probably what you want. If you want the cutting edge, RedHat Linux 7.0 or maybe FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT is preferable. For most middle of the road, FreeBSD 4.1.1 or RedHat 7.0 with patches should do nicely.
What does RedHat think? Obviously that 7.0 is better, that 7.0 has the best available technology at the time.
What's a newbie more likely to compile, the new 2.4 kernel or the old 2.2.16 or whatever? ;)
I would somewhat expect problems compiling binaries on 7.0 to be used on 6.x, but not have problems compiling binaries on 7.2 to be used on 7.0.
Despite comments elsewhere in this thread, compiling things does not make someone not a newbie. Newbie means someone who still has a lot to learn. Lusers is probably the term for people who will never learn ( and also tends to be those who pay the bills
Considering the success I had some time back, or more accurately didn't have, trying to compile and play with 2.3.x kernels, I think Red Hat was right to get the best available basis for the 7.x series of Red Hat. They did release 7.0, not 6.3.
Nah. First download the errata. Then install and apply the fixes.
>>just how much damage do you think that the original story that slashdot posted did? /. jumping the gun to eWeek's tepid "Providing an easy upgrade to the soon-to-be-available Linux 2.4 kernel; a wide array of improvements, including USB support for keyboards and mice; and new encryption capabilities, Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux 7 is an evolutionary upgrade of the operating system but is hardly a showstopper."
Not much, I'm thinking. I personally prefer
But, ... people keep buying them. So is does belong on /.
I'm just guessing here, but this seems something like the pain and suffering switching from the old to the new C libraries. The .0 release gives some warning that something fundamental is different. Expect some growing pains. Red Hat is just there a bit earlier than most everybody else.
Doesn't bother me a bit. Neither Slashdot nor RedHat have anything to apologize for. .0 release, even with preliminary pre-release beta testing, most problems will not surface until the release is committed. 7.0 is the start of the 7-series, not the same kind of thing as 6.3 would have been. With 2.4 kernels due soon, it is most important to be able to compile them, without suffering from outdated support structure. (I never did find all the pieces to successfully try 2.3 kernels).
With a
Slashdot tends to a flame first, look second approach. This means that if there is a problem it will tend to be uncovered. It does not mean that 7.0 is a bad release. It does mean that if you use 7.0, you probably want to check for errata.
The lightest radioactive element is tritium, hydrogen with 2 neutrons. Very weak beta emitter.
Thanks for the info.
Too many times I've gotten the queasy sensation that Microsoft just does not know how to do graphics.
Right. I get the feeling that the real Unix/Linux/BSD users just ignore Windows. /bin | less -- list system binaries
/sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin
/usr/doc and /usr/share. Happy Hunting!
First off, Unix is a multi-user OS designed for several people doing different things over the same time duration. Its roots go back to PDP7 (?) when mini-computers were mini, so a lot of things tend to be rather cryptic. With current systems, there is a lot going on.
Useful commands to help find your way around.
df -- how much disk space is used/free
lynx / -- cheap shot at file-system browser (probably better ways)
locate name -- list all files with name in them
ls
also check out
Documentation available with man and/or info commands. Also check out such as
Like, HOW????
Moving a mouse at an inoportune time?
Admin security should have nothing to do with it. The floppy would be FAT formatted and NTFS security would not be relevant.
Just how would you use multi-level security on a FAT-formatted floppy in W2K? Seems like there are lots of very intelligent people in the world who don't know how to use the multi-level security in W2K. They will pay in the end only if they are dumb enough to use W2K.
>>Customers such as Barnes and Noble, The Boeing Company, Chicago Stock Exchange, Dell Computer, Nasdaq and many others run mission-critical applications on Windows NT 4.0.
Seems like in most of those cases, any real work in those organizations is on real computer systems, not NT. The NT systems are there, but not used for anything important or critical.
Kinda interesting to compare Microsoft vs Linux to Coke vs Pepsi. Seems like Coke ads never mention Pepsi and Pepsi ads tend to show both. With Linux being the "underdog", even bad publicity is much better than no publicity.
What stick in my mind is that Mindcraft had to go to a 4-cpu, 4-nic, static-page serving benchmark to show NT as superior. Personally, I would be much more interested in something showing survivability under duress, misconfigurations, bad cgi scripts, memory leaks.
For a long time. Minefield Clearing and Solitaire Expert.
Ouch. Just be sure everything is backed up off-line before the successor to the Love Bug, whatever that is, strikes.
>>You can't forget about static content altogether.
True, but it is a relatively minor problem on the server side. The slow part is on the browser's side. One stunt would be to serve dynamic content via apache and static content via thhtp, but I doubt that it would make much difference even with an overly dynamic apache setup.
What I want to see are stats on Linux on the new high-end IBM mainframes. Forget 4-cpu, 4-nic, static page silliness. What can you get from Apache/Linux talking to mainframe DB2 over system bus?
I have used Windows for Workgroups as an IP router/Print server. Two network cards and a bit of setup. Fortunately we've now got fiber, and everything is now on the same LAN.
The kernel is a program written to intimately control the hardware, file systems, and users of something like a dozen different hardware architectures, from Intel 80386 to high-end IBM mainframes. You can get the source. You can read the source. If you are able, you might even understand (some of) the source.
Much more likely that Linux users, after looking at the Windows source, will switch to FreeBSD.
Anecdotal evidence for the "technical superiority" of FreeBSD. Looks like you run into a few things where the years of stressing and banging on BSD matter. In this kind of area, benchmarks are worse than useless, since they never measure the pile-on, pile-on effects. I suspect that you have some effects where everybody gangs up on the server at its weakest moment, like what hapens when you put ten tons into a half-ton pickup. Between BSD and Linux, expect Linux to have a better "best-case" ratio and for BSD to have a better "worst-case" ratio. The best tests will always be real-life loads. Good Luck.
Grader's grade: D-.
"that I could have" is excessively wordy in an online context.
"the" for "they" is a minor typo that does not interfere with the legibility of the post.
"modifier out in la-la land" diagrams like Dell supports. Looks like effective use of the language.