They could use F5 networks BIG/IP and 3DNS solution to load balance between 2 machines serving content. One could be NT one Linux. Same IP address and domain names. However, if you go to the site you'll find that there are links to each box securent.hackpcweek.com and securelinux.hackpcweek.com
I predict NT gets hit more because it has less to type for the lazy script kiddies out there.:)
Here we use OpenBSD as part of our IDS solution. It has a couple of qualities that make it a great choice. First, it is very secure as a default installation. Second, BSD in general has some of the fastest network sniffing capabilities of any OS. Third, some OS's like Linux and Solaris don't know how many packets they've really dropped so you can't tell for certain how good they are doing. Fourth, it is FREE. The DOJ has contractors just as any agency (even NSA has contractors for some things I'm told). If you get people that understand what they need and what works best for the situation it isn't surprising to see it used by Gov't.
As for limitations, it comes with X and Netscape. Also, there are some new programs that are supposed to allow you to compile Linux binaries and run them. I haven't used this but it sounds cool. So, basically it isn't much more limited than Linux for software. Last I saw it doesn't support dual CPUs and I'm not sure about RAID so it gives up quite a lot to Linux there. Maybe once Linux becomes too mainstream and Linus too much of an icon, all the 'real' computer hacks will turn to OpenBSD for the next revolution? Just kidding.
Lastly, I know that people have been donating hardware (like gigabit ether) that will help keep it a viable, quality OS.
In the D.C. Metro area they donated machines to Western Maryland Rehabilitative Center where long term patients that are quadri/para-plegics, stroke victims, and others use them to occupy their time.
I got this info from ITRecruiter magazine in the doorway to Blockbuster. You can also go to the Lazarus Foundation page.
Ok, all you people that like to bash Tom's site should either put up or shut up. I've seen lots of posts so far claiming one thing or the other about him and his site. The ones I definately agree with are things like hard to read and slow. As for bashing his english skills, you people are flaming a guy from GERMANY about his english language skills.
As for how non-technical he is, why not actually POST a url of a better site? I haven't seen that here yet. I'm not saying his site is the greatest since I haven't reviewed lots of other technical sites. I do believe he does a good job at reviewing hardware for gaming systems and deserves credit for being honest enough to say when he doesn't know something.
Press release from TAG McLaren...... --------------------------------- Programmed to win
THE PROCESSOR CHIP that powers Apple Macintosh computers may help McLaren's Formula One racing cars to compete in next year's world championship. The Year 2000 controller, developed by McLaren's sister company Tag Electronic Systems, is the first car control system to use software running on a consumer PC chip rather than special pre-programmed chips.
Tag will be using the PowerPC chip, which IBM, Apple and Motorola developed to compete with Intel's Pentium chips. The designers say that Pentium chips generate too much heat to work in a sealed metal box with no ventilation. "We needed something rugged, and tough as old boots," says Peter van Manen, operations director at Tag's development centre in Woking, Surrey. "You can't risk car failure because of electronic failure. And it's hard to believe how horrible the working environment is in a Formula One car".
In the early 1990s, racing car designers experimented with on-board electronics that transmitted performance data from sensors round the car to a trackside computer. This computer sent back real-time signals that controlled the engine, gearbox, clutch and suspension. The driver only had to steer, accelerate and brake.
Then in 1993, motor sport's ruling body decreed that Formula One cars could only transmit data, not receive it. So today's cars need an inbuilt control system. But until now no one has been able to make an on-board computer that is small and light, has enough processing power to give complete control in real time, and is sufficiently robust to keep working throughout a race.
Racing teams have so far used controllers with dedicated chips connected by heavy cables to 70 heat, pressure and velocity sensors dotted round the car. The only way to tweak the controller has been to rewrite the program and change the chips.
Tag's new system relies on four PowerPCs working in parallel. The car vibrates too violently for for programs and data to be stored on disc drives, so flash-memory chips are used instead. Light, thin wires carry data round the car as an 8-megabit-per-second serial stream.
During a race, data from the car's sensors are processed in real time to optimise engine performance and vehicle stability. Tag's engineers at Woking regularly update the operating system, and e-mail new versions to tracks round the world as soon as they are ready. If this year's tests are successful, the controllers will be used for the season which begins with the Australian Grand Prix in March 2000.
Tag will sell the new system to rival teams that it already supplies with engine controllers, including Peugeot and Arrows. But only the McLaren team will get Tag's proprietory software.
I loved the idea it was supposed to be 'real' just because I knew this would be much more scary to me than the typical slasher movie. After the movie I checked out the MD map to see where the town is. Turns out I'd driven through there once without noticing. However, the map also made it clear that you couldn't walk more than 2.5 miles in any one direction without hitting a major road. It should have been set in a more rural area IMO.
Just goes to show that writing, premise, and performance have more to do with success than effects, budget, and known actors. Look at the first Star Wars, sure it was high tech at the time but it also had a new premise that had not been explored to that level previously. Same as BWP, a novel idea on how to give me the chills. Unfortunately we'll now have to live with the excesses of it being successful. Namely a sequel and clones that aren't as good as the original.:(
From this site: If I am a dual US/other citizen, is there any way I can lose my US citizenship?
Although current US law forbids the government from taking your citizenship from you against your will, it does permit you to give it up voluntarily. This has placed the US State Department in the complex position of determining whether someone who claims to be a US citizen has, in fact, given up that citizenship by his voluntary statements or actions.
In the early days of court-mandated acceptance of dual citizenship, State Department officials (hostile as most of them were to the whole idea of dual citizenship) tended to play hardball with people who claimed dual status, looking for almost any excuse to revoke US citizenship, and frequently ruling that a person had voluntarily forsaken his US ties despite steadfast protestations or even convincing evidence to the contrary.
On 16 April 1990, though, the State Department adopted a new set of guidelines for handling dual citizenship cases which are much more streamlined and liberal than before.
The State Department now says that it will assume that a US citizen intends to retain (not give up) his US citizenship if he:
is naturalized in a foreign country;
takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign country; or
accepts foreign government employment that is of a "non-policy-level" nature.
Apparently, a "routine oath of allegiance" to another country is no longer taken as firm evidence of intent to give up US citizenship, even if said oath includes a renunciation of US citizenship. This represents a dramatic reversal of previous US policy; it used to be that any such statement was taken rigidly at face value (as in the Supreme Court's 1980 Terrazas decision).
This presumption that someone intends to keep US citizenship does not apply to a person who:
takes a "policy-level" position in a foreign country;
is convicted of treason against the US; or
engages in "conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that [he] intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship."
The State Department says that cases of these kinds will be examined carefully to determine the person's intent. They also say that cases falling under the last criterion mentioned above (conduct wholly inconsistent with intent to keep US citizenship) are presumed to be "very rare."
Since this new country makes you have a policy role as part of the constitution you are subject to the loss of U.S. citizenship.
Yes, science and life in general would be utopian if we could be judged in a fair manner on our work. However, everywhere including our beloved/. has biases. I don't see how anything in this article will really lead to a change in the way scientific works are reviewed and given credibility. Texas A&M still employs a chemistry prof who tried to prove he could turn lead into gold. I'm sure there would be some online group willing to publish this "research". Likewise, there would be some people that read it and believe it works. However, most of the people will see it as junk and not bother with it. The same is true of modern journals. Every library gets Nature, Science, all the big name journals. These start to get prestige so the competition for articles increases. Someone has to filter the stuff because you can't print it all. That person or group is human and therefore subject to human nature. This means being biased, succeptable to influences, etc. I don't see where going online and publishing your own stuff will really make any change unless you can get a computer to review it. Even then, the person who writes the algorithm to decide the value of your work will put their own weighted bias on certain things.
I actually came across a site that claimed the UPC was the mark of 666 because the double lines that start, end, and are in the middle of the bars are all 6's. However, when I looked at the UPC for some stuff lying on my desk I found the bars for the number 6 were different from the ones that delineate the code.
Yeah, but I was under the impression that for Congress to change it there would be 2 checks against it. One: If they pass a law that uses the SSN illegally, someone will challenge that law in the Supreme Court. Two: to do a legal change they have to bring up specific legislation to repeal the original SSA before making a new one. This _in theory_ would be checked by the public at large and groups like the ACLU.
First of all, there are pleanty of migrant workers all over the U.S. that help farmers harvest, etc. The farmer pays cash and doesn't ask questions. Where the workers come from, live, etc. are undocumented. Also, baby sitters, people that mow lawns, carve wood, etc. can all work undocumented. Do you think the 12 year old down the street reports her taxable income to the feds like she/he is supposed to?
Second, I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is attributed to saying "Those who would gladly sacrifice freedom for security recieve and deserve neither." Do we need ID everywhere we go in this country to be considered good and legal citizens? This is what Hitler did in Nazi Germany not too long ago.
I wish I knew where to look up a source for what I have to say. I'm pretty sure the Social Security Act that started all of this specifically states that your SSN is not to be used as a national identification number. Does anyone have more info?
Show us your papers! What, no papers? To the showers!
I really wish some of these articles would focus on the concept of using the best OS for a particular function. When we decided to get some network sniffers running for Intrusion Detection we went with OpenBSD for their security and top notch packet filter that tells an accurate assesment of the number of packets dropped. Linux will tell you it never drops any packets because it doesn't really know. Solaris is the same way.
However, when we needed a logging box running RAID and SMP, the documentation for *BSD (free versions) was not clear. Linux OTOH had both RAID and SMP support that was clean and ready to go.
To me, any ISP or serious admin will not restrict themselves to one OS as the solution to all their problems. Add free to functional as being the two biggest factors for a server OS to be implemented and your choices are Linux and *BSD. Do your research on what you need and then go with what fits.
In May, Newsweek published reports stating that government hackers had been authorized to "diddle" with Serb president Slobodan Milosevic's international bank accounts. Whether or not you regard that kind of news as mere FUD, it hardly inspires confidence in your own account's security or sanctity. And what happens if you become an enemy of the state? (Can you imagine how much fun Dick Nixon could have had with a roomful of hackers and his Enemies List?)
I thought this was shown to be made up by the internet community. It certainly doesn't help us maintain our privacy with the amount of FUD/urban legend that gets tossed around as truth.
Hey, we could plan the work stoppage for Dec 31/Jan 01 and really have some people upset with us! Are there any convention centers still available. We can all go have a huge party and let it all go to hell in a handbasket.
All the high profile sites have to run UNIX because IIS can't keep up. Add the fact that high profile means lots of people working there means lots of opportunity for human involvement to create security leaks. Like others have said here, there is no completely secure box. Especially if you run remote admin stuff and set up simple trust relationships. I don't see those practices as being beneficial enough to outweigh turning the services off.
Also, an NT box can be made to be very secure. Of course, then you have to turn off functionality there as well. However, holes in NT like you'll find here can't help but make it easier than UNIX to crack.
I mean really! How many IIS boxes have been cracked in the last 2 years? Now the network people are supposed to be happy to allow everyone in their respective company to run a weakly secure web server? Ha! And people thought Melissa, et. al. were bad.
On another note, this will really increase the numbers of support jobs out there. This past weekend there were 4 NT/IIS servers cracked (run by various departments within USDA and not the main site). Yesterday, they bring in their "experts" to fix them up and have _8_ people surrounding _2_ servers. I'm not sure what 6 of them were supposedly doing. Meanwhile, me and the only other UNIX guy here are happily playing with our 10 UNIX boxes. They claim NT doesn't take lots of people to maintain it. Sure.
I propose a new benchmark based on the/. effect. I'm sure someone else has already said this but I just thought of it and can't recall having seen anyone else post the idea.
We get M$ and RedHat and anyone else to set up servers with the same content on a known, solid T3 connection for each box. Then we post the URLs to slashdot and see which box can handle the load. According to ZD's numbers the machines should blow. There are enough people on/. to generate over 5,000 hits/second aren't there?
Honestly, when I got my 2.2 CD 3 weeks ago at the OpenLinux Tour I thought this was already out to the general public. Yes, the GUI made things easy to install. I have it running on a P-166 with 32M RAM and it is perfectly happy. I liked the GUI better than RedHat. However, at certain points it asks about what services you want to run as default. IP services were lumped into one catagory and you couldn't turn off telnet but leave FTP running, etc. This would be a good replacement for Windoze machines on desktops for the average M$ users. However, do you really want everyone in your org running httpd, ftpd, telnetd, etc. with no clue? I don't.
OTOH, when you are done choosing all the stuff you can play Tetris while you wait for the files to load. I think the install time is more directly related to copying off CD (and the slowness of CD) than bloatware or excessive files.
Remember Caldera's market place. They want to be Linux for businesses. How many business majors learn anything more complex than M$Office? Let other releases be better, no reason Caldera can't be best for business.
Slashdot Mirror
They could use F5 networks BIG/IP and 3DNS solution to load balance between 2 machines serving content. One could be NT one Linux. Same IP address and domain names. However, if you go to the site you'll find that there are links to each box
:)
securent.hackpcweek.com
and
securelinux.hackpcweek.com
I predict NT gets hit more because it has less to type for the lazy script kiddies out there.
This and the other "contests" are just attempts by the FBI to catch one of the ULG or other groups in the act.
So why does the netcraft lookup on www.dtic.mil show Netscape Enterprise 3.x on Solaris?
Actually, scroll up to section 12.2 not 12.4 like I linked.
I found info on the RAID support. Check their FAQ page like I should have. :)
Here we use OpenBSD as part of our IDS solution. It has a couple of qualities that make it a great choice. First, it is very secure as a default installation. Second, BSD in general has some of the fastest network sniffing capabilities of any OS. Third, some OS's like Linux and Solaris don't know how many packets they've really dropped so you can't tell for certain how good they are doing. Fourth, it is FREE. The DOJ has contractors just as any agency (even NSA has contractors for some things I'm told). If you get people that understand what they need and what works best for the situation it isn't surprising to see it used by Gov't.
As for limitations, it comes with X and Netscape. Also, there are some new programs that are supposed to allow you to compile Linux binaries and run them. I haven't used this but it sounds cool. So, basically it isn't much more limited than Linux for software. Last I saw it doesn't support dual CPUs and I'm not sure about RAID so it gives up quite a lot to Linux there. Maybe once Linux becomes too mainstream and Linus too much of an icon, all the 'real' computer hacks will turn to OpenBSD for the next revolution? Just kidding.
Lastly, I know that people have been donating hardware (like gigabit ether) that will help keep it a viable, quality OS.
In the D.C. Metro area they donated machines to Western Maryland Rehabilitative Center where long term patients that are quadri/para-plegics, stroke victims, and others use them to occupy their time.
I got this info from ITRecruiter magazine in the doorway to Blockbuster. You can also go to the Lazarus Foundation page.
Ok, all you people that like to bash Tom's site should either put up or shut up. I've seen lots of posts so far claiming one thing or the other about him and his site. The ones I definately agree with are things like hard to read and slow. As for bashing his english skills, you people are flaming a guy from GERMANY about his english language skills.
As for how non-technical he is, why not actually POST a url of a better site? I haven't seen that here yet. I'm not saying his site is the greatest since I haven't reviewed lots of other technical sites. I do believe he does a good job at reviewing hardware for gaming systems and deserves credit for being honest enough to say when he doesn't know something.
Press release from TAG McLaren......
---------------------------------
Programmed to win
THE PROCESSOR CHIP that powers Apple Macintosh computers may help McLaren's
Formula One racing cars to compete in next year's world championship. The
Year 2000 controller, developed by McLaren's sister company Tag Electronic
Systems, is the first car control system to use software running on a
consumer PC chip rather than special pre-programmed chips.
Tag will be using the PowerPC chip, which IBM, Apple and Motorola developed
to compete with Intel's Pentium chips. The designers say that Pentium chips
generate too much heat to work in a sealed metal box with no ventilation.
"We needed something rugged, and tough as old boots," says Peter van Manen,
operations director at Tag's development centre in Woking, Surrey. "You
can't risk car failure because of electronic failure. And it's hard to
believe how horrible the working environment is in a Formula One car".
In the early 1990s, racing car designers experimented with on-board
electronics that transmitted performance data from sensors round the car to
a trackside computer. This computer sent back real-time signals that
controlled the engine, gearbox, clutch and suspension. The driver only had
to steer, accelerate and brake.
Then in 1993, motor sport's ruling body decreed that Formula One cars could
only transmit data, not receive it. So today's cars need an inbuilt control
system. But until now no one has been able to make an on-board computer that
is small and light, has enough processing power to give complete control in
real time, and is sufficiently robust to keep working throughout a race.
Racing teams have so far used controllers with dedicated chips connected by
heavy cables to 70 heat, pressure and velocity sensors dotted round the car.
The only way to tweak the controller has been to rewrite the program and
change the chips.
Tag's new system relies on four PowerPCs working in parallel. The car
vibrates too violently for for programs and data to be stored on disc
drives, so flash-memory chips are used instead. Light, thin wires carry data
round the car as an 8-megabit-per-second serial stream.
During a race, data from the car's sensors are processed in real time to
optimise engine performance and vehicle stability. Tag's engineers at Woking
regularly update the operating system, and e-mail new versions to tracks
round the world as soon as they are ready. If this year's tests are
successful, the controllers will be used for the season which begins with
the Australian Grand Prix in March 2000.
Tag will sell the new system to rival teams that it already supplies with
engine controllers, including Peugeot and Arrows. But only the McLaren team
will get Tag's proprietory software.
I loved the idea it was supposed to be 'real' just because I knew this would be much more scary to me than the typical slasher movie. After the movie I checked out the MD map to see where the town is. Turns out I'd driven through there once without noticing. However, the map also made it clear that you couldn't walk more than 2.5 miles in any one direction without hitting a major road. It should have been set in a more rural area IMO.
Just goes to show that writing, premise, and performance have more to do with success than effects, budget, and known actors. Look at the first Star Wars, sure it was high tech at the time but it also had a new premise that had not been explored to that level previously. Same as BWP, a novel idea on how to give me the chills. Unfortunately we'll now have to live with the excesses of it being successful. Namely a sequel and clones that aren't as good as the original. :(
From this site:
If I am a dual US/other citizen, is there any way I can lose my US citizenship?
Although current US law forbids the government from taking your citizenship from you against your will, it does permit you to give it up voluntarily. This has placed the US State Department in the complex position of determining whether someone who claims to be a US citizen has, in fact, given up that citizenship by his voluntary statements or actions.
In the early days of court-mandated acceptance of dual citizenship, State Department officials (hostile as most of them were to the whole idea of dual citizenship) tended to play hardball with people who claimed dual status, looking for almost any excuse to revoke US citizenship, and frequently ruling that a person had voluntarily forsaken his US ties despite steadfast protestations or even convincing evidence to the contrary.
On 16 April 1990, though, the State Department adopted a new set of guidelines for handling dual citizenship cases which are much more streamlined and liberal than before.
The State Department now says that it will assume that a US citizen intends to retain (not give up) his US citizenship if he:
is naturalized in a foreign country;
takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign country; or
accepts foreign government employment that is of a "non-policy-level" nature.
Apparently, a "routine oath of allegiance" to another country is no longer taken as firm evidence of intent to give up US citizenship, even if said oath includes a renunciation of US citizenship. This represents a dramatic reversal of previous US policy; it used to be that any such statement was taken rigidly at face value (as in the Supreme Court's 1980 Terrazas decision).
This presumption that someone intends to keep US citizenship does not apply to a person who:
takes a "policy-level" position in a foreign country;
is convicted of treason against the US; or
engages in "conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that [he] intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship."
The State Department says that cases of these kinds will be examined carefully to determine the person's intent. They also say that cases falling under the last criterion mentioned above (conduct wholly inconsistent with intent to keep US citizenship) are presumed to be "very rare."
Since this new country makes you have a policy role as part of the constitution you are subject to the loss of U.S. citizenship.
It doesn't work with IE either. How lame!
Yes, science and life in general would be utopian if we could be judged in a fair manner on our work. However, everywhere including our beloved /. has biases. I don't see how anything in this article will really lead to a change in the way scientific works are reviewed and given credibility. Texas A&M still employs a chemistry prof who tried to prove he could turn lead into gold. I'm sure there would be some online group willing to publish this "research". Likewise, there would be some people that read it and believe it works. However, most of the people will see it as junk and not bother with it. The same is true of modern journals. Every library gets Nature, Science, all the big name journals. These start to get prestige so the competition for articles increases. Someone has to filter the stuff because you can't print it all. That person or group is human and therefore subject to human nature. This means being biased, succeptable to influences, etc. I don't see where going online and publishing your own stuff will really make any change unless you can get a computer to review it. Even then, the person who writes the algorithm to decide the value of your work will put their own weighted bias on certain things.
I actually came across a site that claimed the UPC was the mark of 666 because the double lines that start, end, and are in the middle of the bars are all 6's. However, when I looked at the UPC for some stuff lying on my desk I found the bars for the number 6 were different from the ones that delineate the code.
Yeah, but I was under the impression that for Congress to change it there would be 2 checks against it. One: If they pass a law that uses the SSN illegally, someone will challenge that law in the Supreme Court. Two: to do a legal change they have to bring up specific legislation to repeal the original SSA before making a new one. This _in theory_ would be checked by the public at large and groups like the ACLU.
First of all, there are pleanty of migrant workers all over the U.S. that help farmers harvest, etc. The farmer pays cash and doesn't ask questions. Where the workers come from, live, etc. are undocumented. Also, baby sitters, people that mow lawns, carve wood, etc. can all work undocumented. Do you think the 12 year old down the street reports her taxable income to the feds like she/he is supposed to?
Second, I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is attributed to saying "Those who would gladly sacrifice freedom for security recieve and deserve neither." Do we need ID everywhere we go in this country to be considered good and legal citizens? This is what Hitler did in Nazi Germany not too long ago.
I wish I knew where to look up a source for what I have to say. I'm pretty sure the Social Security Act that started all of this specifically states that your SSN is not to be used as a national identification number. Does anyone have more info?
Show us your papers! What, no papers? To the showers!
I really wish some of these articles would focus on the concept of using the best OS for a particular function. When we decided to get some network sniffers running for Intrusion Detection we went with OpenBSD for their security and top notch packet filter that tells an accurate assesment of the number of packets dropped. Linux will tell you it never drops any packets because it doesn't really know. Solaris is the same way.
However, when we needed a logging box running RAID and SMP, the documentation for *BSD (free versions) was not clear. Linux OTOH had both RAID and SMP support that was clean and ready to go.
To me, any ISP or serious admin will not restrict themselves to one OS as the solution to all their problems. Add free to functional as being the two biggest factors for a server OS to be implemented and your choices are Linux and *BSD. Do your research on what you need and then go with what fits.
In May, Newsweek published reports stating that government hackers had been authorized to "diddle" with Serb president Slobodan Milosevic's international bank accounts. Whether or not you regard that kind of news as mere FUD, it hardly inspires confidence in your own account's security or sanctity. And what happens if you become an enemy of the state? (Can you imagine how much fun Dick Nixon could have had with a roomful of hackers and his Enemies List?)
I thought this was shown to be made up by the internet community. It certainly doesn't help us maintain our privacy with the amount of FUD/urban legend that gets tossed around as truth.
Hey, we could plan the work stoppage for Dec 31/Jan 01 and really have some people upset with us! Are there any convention centers still available. We can all go have a huge party and let it all go to hell in a handbasket.
All the high profile sites have to run UNIX because IIS can't keep up. Add the fact that high profile means lots of people working there means lots of opportunity for human involvement to create security leaks. Like others have said here, there is no completely secure box. Especially if you run remote admin stuff and set up simple trust relationships. I don't see those practices as being beneficial enough to outweigh turning the services off.
Also, an NT box can be made to be very secure. Of course, then you have to turn off functionality there as well. However, holes in NT like you'll find here can't help but make it easier than UNIX to crack.
I mean really! How many IIS boxes have been cracked in the last 2 years? Now the network people are supposed to be happy to allow everyone in their respective company to run a weakly secure web server? Ha! And people thought Melissa, et. al. were bad.
On another note, this will really increase the numbers of support jobs out there. This past weekend there were 4 NT/IIS servers cracked (run by various departments within USDA and not the main site). Yesterday, they bring in their "experts" to fix them up and have _8_ people surrounding _2_ servers. I'm not sure what 6 of them were supposedly doing. Meanwhile, me and the only other UNIX guy here are happily playing with our 10 UNIX boxes. They claim NT doesn't take lots of people to maintain it. Sure.
I propose a new benchmark based on the /. effect. I'm sure someone else has already said this but I just thought of it and can't recall having seen anyone else post the idea.
/. to generate over 5,000 hits/second aren't there?
;)
We get M$ and RedHat and anyone else to set up servers with the same content on a known, solid T3 connection for each box. Then we post the URLs to slashdot and see which box can handle the load. According to ZD's numbers the machines should blow. There are enough people on
BTW, anyone have a T3 we can borrow?
Honestly, when I got my 2.2 CD 3 weeks ago at the OpenLinux Tour I thought this was already out to the general public. Yes, the GUI made things easy to install. I have it running on a P-166 with 32M RAM and it is perfectly happy. I liked the GUI better than RedHat. However, at certain points it asks about what services you want to run as default. IP services were lumped into one catagory and you couldn't turn off telnet but leave FTP running, etc. This would be a good replacement for Windoze machines on desktops for the average M$ users. However, do you really want everyone in your org running httpd, ftpd, telnetd, etc. with no clue? I don't.
OTOH, when you are done choosing all the stuff you can play Tetris while you wait for the files to load. I think the install time is more directly related to copying off CD (and the slowness of CD) than bloatware or excessive files.
Remember Caldera's market place. They want to be Linux for businesses. How many business majors learn anything more complex than M$Office? Let other releases be better, no reason Caldera can't be best for business.