http://name.space (or http://name.space.xs2.net/ ) already offers over 500 new generic TLDs.
You have to change your root.zone or name server. It is possible to access the "new TLDs" also via.xs2.net (i.e. sth.chaos -> sth.chaos.xs2.net), if you have no direct access to the new TLDs.
Re:Linux is not the fastest. No excuses.
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
I just read a Web-Benchmark in c't (http://www.heise.de).
They used a SMP-Patch. And then Linux was in every test at least as fast as NT, if there is only one network-card in the computer. If they used two network cards NT was about 100% faster than Linux. NT was very, very slow when using Perl-scripts.
They showed also a test on Mac OS X. The results shows very good performance of the Mac OS X although the Mac hardware was no comparable with the hardware used for NT and Linux system (i.e. 128MB RAM in Mac and 2GB in NT/Linux-Server). But it seems, that Mac OS X has a bug which causes a "system panic" when using special CGI-Scripts.
Slashdot Mirror
http://name.space (or http://name.space.xs2.net/ ) already offers over 500 new generic TLDs. .xs2.net (i.e. sth.chaos -> sth.chaos.xs2.net), if you have no direct access to the new TLDs.
You have to change your root.zone or name server. It is possible to access the "new TLDs" also via
I just read a Web-Benchmark in c't (http://www.heise.de).
They used a SMP-Patch. And then Linux was in every test at least as fast as NT, if there is only one network-card in the computer. If they used two network cards NT was about 100% faster than Linux. NT was very, very slow when using Perl-scripts.
They showed also a test on Mac OS X. The results shows very good performance of the Mac OS X although the Mac hardware was no comparable with the hardware used for NT and Linux system (i.e. 128MB RAM in Mac and 2GB in NT/Linux-Server). But it seems, that Mac OS X has a bug which causes a "system panic" when using special CGI-Scripts.