And before anyone goes "what they charge!!". Remeber this is a 6 cd set with nice documentation. If you've ever seen the sun solaris box you know it comes with like 3 or 4 manuals. And consider the costs of say a windows. It's really a nice deal when it comes down to it. 75 bucks (US) for as many systems as you want with less than 8 cpus.
For a sun box this isnt weak on the low end. That sparc will outperform most x86 servers. It's squarely aimed at the same crowd that would like to use cobalts as well as the people building cheap web farms. considering the thing can holde 1gb RAM and another drive it's the type of thing you setup to do simple intranet or clustering.
which is why Rik cloned it for 2.4. He then added some enhancements. The only place FreeBSD is still ahead VM wise is that it scans physical pages, while linux scans virtual pages. This is a slight performance drain for linux if you have a huge amount of shared memory.
Your not disputing the fact. There is nothing bad about this being the case. I was merely answering what someone said.
FreeBSD 4.0's SMP is _still_ a Big-Ass-Kernel-Lock. Only one process can be in kernel at a time. This is similar to what Linux 2.0.x had.
FreeBSD 5.0 is supposed to break up the lock some. Linux has about a four year head start on SMP, and FreeBSD hasn't shown any
indications that they're gaining on linux here. Quite the opposite in fact.
I didnt talk about its performance or even mention which is better, i simply stated that it is available and acceptable on FreeBSD. No reason to get defensive.
But I suspect you're not one to listen to facts or reason.>/i>
I listen to both facts and reason, Don't be so defensive about everything. The fact that A Linux developer cloned the FreeBSD VM system states that he beleived it was superior. Is that truth or not? Does that make Linux any less of a product? No, the fact that they saw something good and implemented means they want to make it better. As for SMP i stated a fact about it's presence, i never even got into the my SMP is better than your debate because to be honest if I want kick ass SMP i won't use an intel box anyway. For that I'd go sparc/solaris which handles SMP much better than any x86 box ever will. And don;t resort to a personal insult or attack when your feeling defensive.
this is not 100% true anymore, there are ways to export encryption. Plus ssh itself is not a us product. Also there is openssh which is 100% free. As for clients, you have many clients windows, mac and unix that can work. There is no reason to run ssh internal other than lazyness. For clients telnet is sometime required but you compensate for that,
Actually its more along the lines of what may have been altered as well as seen. Their is no real way for them to know if something was altered unless they do a full audit, im not even sure they could do such a thing in a reasonable amount of time due to the sheer size of the beasts they area talking about.
Also this code was stolen, it was never open so the bad guys may know something no one else can find out because no on else can see it.
In the long run i dont think either method is inherently more secure. Security by obscurity is know to fail, it has been proven many times. Now this is not the same as publishing a full exploit which imho is reckless and dangerous since it just leads to increased script kiddie attacks.
the encryption protects against packet sniffing. With telnet if you login and su to root anyone sniffing on the network just saw the root password. With SSH they see an encrypted stream.
The arguments presented here are basically implementation of the tool, in this case SSL/SSH. Nothing is 100% secure, but you balance what you have and use multiple levels. SSL/SSH, good security policies, properly securing an OS, use of detection and monitoring tools. It's all part of the big mix. His issues are know issues for years, nothing new or exciting.
This thread has mostly become a pissing match now.
Probably a good solution would be to use ipsec.
Actually they are already being tested by companies in some form. Being first out of the gate is meaningless since it won't be adopted. Better to wait until its out and ship something that ppl will use.
Actually this enters a very murky area. In this case german law could or could not apply because of the base of Bertlemann(or whoever yous epll it). BUT Napster is not a german company but does business with one. I don't know who german law would apply to services like this.
Truth is internaltional law in regards to the internet is still very unresolved. The French Yahoo case is an example as is some others in regards to the VAT tax.
Now as a private company napster could do this. They aren't bound by the constitution in the same manner as the US government. If someone could prove it was discriminatory based on personal beliefs then there could bea case possible i think.
Re:Why do we need months? Today is 2000.356
on
13 Month Calendar?
·
· Score: 1
the current calendar is solar based not lunar based. You may want to do some research before you spout nonsense.
Well the BSD init stuff is very simpl. Here's a quick overview:
therre are a number of rc.X files taht are config files. rc.conf is the main one and anything you would start from there has a number of options for flags, dirs and other things. man rc.conf shows all its features. Its mostly base system stuff that sits in rc.conf. apache is not base either btw. Mostly things like sendmail, bind, ntpdate things like that are in rc.conf. Also firewall, inetd and alot of system controls can be set here.
Then you have/usr/local/etc/rc.d. Thats where you can place your own startup scripts. And they have start/stop arguments just like any Sys V script. The advantage here is you don't need a K and a S script and its all in one place. They must be.sh files and execute in alphabetical order. It's all very simple when you swithc over your thought process. That's all it really is is thinking like X instead of Y. I prefer the BSD style since it is easier to replicate it across systems and alot quicker for setup in general.
Most of the BSD developers are not on BSDi's payroll, some of the more prominent and core team may be. FreeBSD is owned by the FreeBSD Project, period. The BSDL which is what FreeBSD isunder means it is free, period. FreeBSD is not going away or going to be taken over by the big evil corporate boogeyman.
It is FUD to say that FreeBSD is being taken over by the Microsoft like comapny called BSDi. They are pushing FreeBSD yes thats because they sell support for it. Thats how they make money. And you can still download the iso or ftp install for free or buy the damn cd's.
Well realistaclly, 9x and NT are not the same thing. They have different targets, NT (nor w2k) is not a consumer desktop os, its a business desktop os or even a server. They dont care about games because they don't worry about ppl playing them. Now they are releasing comaptability updates with w2k that addresses alot of game playing because ppl want that. If you want an example of campat comapre win me to the 9x's. win me breaks alot of stuff.
Compatability is important, unless you want to make as much money as possible. FreeBSD for example makes pains to keep compatability available if you need it. Why should MS? From a business standpoint the force an upgrade and then they and the other software vendors make money.
this is a good point. The aim of MS is one-size-fits-all. In a server environment this idea hurts more than helps. Having a server OS that can become any type of server you need is good to a point. But removing the ability to tailor it easily to your needs or to do so without a costly invenstment in basic tools is shooting yourself in the foot.
A GUI is nice, but on a server is it necessary? I don't believe so. One needs the ability to easily and quickly alter, tune, and repair problems. And realistically, being able to ssh into a server edit a file by hand and hup it is much quicker than sorting through a gui with drop-downs, etc. The idea of X on any server unless it's an X server is foolish to me.
OSes like NT or W2k in a server environment have mostly dumbed it down. Their creating monkeys that can point and click and take a test to get a piece of paper. When i was coming up you learned by working with a senior admin, not by taking a cert test. Well i'm off topic now.
Interesting? More like uninformed. Alot of companies that use any BSD give back. Look at Whistle, Yahoo and Applee with darwin will be releasing some code back.
As for bsd forking from solaris. BSD unix predates solaris.
Re:Novell popular til they cracked down on licensi
on
Is Novell Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you made an ass of me like this, I'd probably quit dealing with you in the future. Looks like that's what happened with Novell.
The only one who makes themselves look like an ass in this situation is themselves. Businesses have no place pirating software even though it is rampant in many shops. I don't have any pity for anyone who gets caught pirating.
They have a right to enforce their license. I disagree with the notion of licensing software but as long as it exists you should play by the rules as much as you can. You can;t afford not to if you are a business
The seperation is not like the linux distro chaos. Theese are three distinct OSes which all go back to the same core. From there they have differing priorities. Depending on what you need each of the BSD's can meet your needs. And there's alot of code sharing going on between the BSD's, hell openBSD's ppc port is heavily based on the netbsd one.
well apache is not the fastest web server, the apache group doesnt pretend to be. But i know for a fact it can handle over 1 Million hits per day. I've managed many sites, from some getting 100 visitors a day to ones getting 5 million a day. Apache has never failed me, it's actually been more ofa limitation of the OS ive had to deal with tuning-wise. As for OS , ive used Solaris (x86 and sparc) and various BSD's. What you need to look at is not only the web server but the OS for any performance eqaution as well as netowrk and hardware. This type of thing is too hard to boild down, but those claims i know are false.
But then, you've probably never used the gimp, have you?
YEs I have, i find it's interface clunky and overall not as mature as Photoshop.
The rest of your post has nothing at all to do with mine
I was responding directly to what you said. Every OS has it's place. And face it windows does get the job done, not necessairly the best but at a level that many find at leastacceptable(i personally don't think windows is a very good piece of software). I was responding directly to you, if you cannot back it up please don't act like you never said it.
There is a reason why photoshop is #1 in it's area, because it is the best. Gimp has a long way to go before it can math photoshop overcall.
Your FUD no longer holds up here. In a year, the linux desktop will rule over windows with an iron fist. You can take that one to da bank.
This is actually quite funny...windows is around for a long time because it does the desktop well enough for 90% of the users out there. Why do so many Linux zealots insit that Linux must run on everything without anything else? That is the MS trap trying to make your OS do everything under the sun. The saying Jack of All Trades, Master of None comes to mind here.
Tools : gCVS, Mahogany, many many gnome apps, a few windowmaker dock apps like wmnet, wmitime, wmmon, wmmount to name
How portable is that mandrake compiled
app to say redhat? That is what I am saying, Linux advocates often say Linux is not fragemented or chaotic when it is both. There is no denying that. You also made my point : if you use FreeBSD you only use one thing. If you use Linux, you need to know what Distro, which kernel, etc... That in and of itself point to linux being fragmented.
I cannot comment fully on OpenBSD or NetBSD so I won't i do know that alot of code has been shared among all three BSD's.
Actually the patent referenced by that link is for a Cisco patent, not IBM. The IBM patenets seems todeal with classified information sent via email or something similar. That said, the RFC itself dates to 1994, the patent's inital date is Nov 1995. Looks like prior art to me if they push this one.
Slashdot Mirror
And before anyone goes "what they charge!!". Remeber this is a 6 cd set with nice documentation. If you've ever seen the sun solaris box you know it comes with like 3 or 4 manuals. And consider the costs of say a windows. It's really a nice deal when it comes down to it. 75 bucks (US) for as many systems as you want with less than 8 cpus.
This thing uses a serial console. They realize odds are this wil;l be a headless box plus installs would be from a jumpstart server.
There is an openbsd port in the works actually. The serial console means it doesnt need a video port.
For a sun box this isnt weak on the low end. That sparc will outperform most x86 servers. It's squarely aimed at the same crowd that would like to use cobalts as well as the people building cheap web farms. considering the thing can holde 1gb RAM and another drive it's the type of thing you setup to do simple intranet or clustering.
which is why Rik cloned it for 2.4. He then added some enhancements. The only place FreeBSD is still ahead VM wise is that it scans physical pages, while linux scans virtual pages. This is a slight performance drain for linux if you have a huge amount of shared memory.
Your not disputing the fact. There is nothing bad about this being the case. I was merely answering what someone said. FreeBSD 4.0's SMP is _still_ a Big-Ass-Kernel-Lock. Only one process can be in kernel at a time. This is similar to what Linux 2.0.x had. FreeBSD 5.0 is supposed to break up the lock some. Linux has about a four year head start on SMP, and FreeBSD hasn't shown any indications that they're gaining on linux here. Quite the opposite in fact.
I didnt talk about its performance or even mention which is better, i simply stated that it is available and acceptable on FreeBSD. No reason to get defensive.
But I suspect you're not one to listen to facts or reason.>/i> I listen to both facts and reason, Don't be so defensive about everything. The fact that A Linux developer cloned the FreeBSD VM system states that he beleived it was superior. Is that truth or not? Does that make Linux any less of a product? No, the fact that they saw something good and implemented means they want to make it better. As for SMP i stated a fact about it's presence, i never even got into the my SMP is better than your debate because to be honest if I want kick ass SMP i won't use an intel box anyway. For that I'd go sparc/solaris which handles SMP much better than any x86 box ever will. And don;t resort to a personal insult or attack when your feeling defensive.
this is not 100% true anymore, there are ways to export encryption. Plus ssh itself is not a us product. Also there is openssh which is 100% free. As for clients, you have many clients windows, mac and unix that can work. There is no reason to run ssh internal other than lazyness. For clients telnet is sometime required but you compensate for that,
now this is funny.
considering many linux developers consider FreeBSD's vm system to be superior.
Shit smp support eh? Ive been using SMP with FreeBSD since the 3.x days.
Stop spreading bs and FUD please.
Actually its more along the lines of what may have been altered as well as seen. Their is no real way for them to know if something was altered unless they do a full audit, im not even sure they could do such a thing in a reasonable amount of time due to the sheer size of the beasts they area talking about.
Also this code was stolen, it was never open so the bad guys may know something no one else can find out because no on else can see it.
In the long run i dont think either method is inherently more secure. Security by obscurity is know to fail, it has been proven many times. Now this is not the same as publishing a full exploit which imho is reckless and dangerous since it just leads to increased script kiddie attacks.
the encryption protects against packet sniffing. With telnet if you login and su to root anyone sniffing on the network just saw the root password. With SSH they see an encrypted stream.
The arguments presented here are basically implementation of the tool, in this case SSL/SSH. Nothing is 100% secure, but you balance what you have and use multiple levels. SSL/SSH, good security policies, properly securing an OS, use of detection and monitoring tools. It's all part of the big mix. His issues are know issues for years, nothing new or exciting.
This thread has mostly become a pissing match now. Probably a good solution would be to use ipsec.
Actually they are already being tested by companies in some form. Being first out of the gate is meaningless since it won't be adopted. Better to wait until its out and ship something that ppl will use.
Actually this enters a very murky area. In this case german law could or could not apply because of the base of Bertlemann(or whoever yous epll it). BUT Napster is not a german company but does business with one. I don't know who german law would apply to services like this.
Truth is internaltional law in regards to the internet is still very unresolved. The French Yahoo case is an example as is some others in regards to the VAT tax.
Now as a private company napster could do this. They aren't bound by the constitution in the same manner as the US government. If someone could prove it was discriminatory based on personal beliefs then there could bea case possible i think.
the current calendar is solar based not lunar based. You may want to do some research before you spout nonsense.
Well the BSD init stuff is very simpl. Here's a quick overview:
/usr/local/etc/rc.d. Thats where you can place your own startup scripts. And they have start/stop arguments just like any Sys V script. The advantage here is you don't need a K and a S script and its all in one place. They must be .sh files and execute in alphabetical order. It's all very simple when you swithc over your thought process. That's all it really is is thinking like X instead of Y. I prefer the BSD style since it is easier to replicate it across systems and alot quicker for setup in general.
therre are a number of rc.X files taht are config files. rc.conf is the main one and anything you would start from there has a number of options for flags, dirs and other things. man rc.conf shows all its features. Its mostly base system stuff that sits in rc.conf. apache is not base either btw. Mostly things like sendmail, bind, ntpdate things like that are in rc.conf. Also firewall, inetd and alot of system controls can be set here.
Then you have
Most of the BSD developers are not on BSDi's payroll, some of the more prominent and core team may be. FreeBSD is owned by the FreeBSD Project, period. The BSDL which is what FreeBSD isunder means it is free, period. FreeBSD is not going away or going to be taken over by the big evil corporate boogeyman.
It is FUD to say that FreeBSD is being taken over by the Microsoft like comapny called BSDi. They are pushing FreeBSD yes thats because they sell support for it. Thats how they make money. And you can still download the iso or ftp install for free or buy the damn cd's.
At my place of work, my department (me and my lackey) work in a large room that os basically a war-room. It makes life alot easier.
I think its the whole social animal thing, ppl are social (even geeks). Also a cubical is confining, if you feel caged or confined stress rises, etc.
Well realistaclly, 9x and NT are not the same thing. They have different targets, NT (nor w2k) is not a consumer desktop os, its a business desktop os or even a server. They dont care about games because they don't worry about ppl playing them. Now they are releasing comaptability updates with w2k that addresses alot of game playing because ppl want that. If you want an example of campat comapre win me to the 9x's. win me breaks alot of stuff.
Compatability is important, unless you want to make as much money as possible. FreeBSD for example makes pains to keep compatability available if you need it. Why should MS? From a business standpoint the force an upgrade and then they and the other software vendors make money.
this is a good point. The aim of MS is one-size-fits-all. In a server environment this idea hurts more than helps. Having a server OS that can become any type of server you need is good to a point. But removing the ability to tailor it easily to your needs or to do so without a costly invenstment in basic tools is shooting yourself in the foot.
A GUI is nice, but on a server is it necessary? I don't believe so. One needs the ability to easily and quickly alter, tune, and repair problems. And realistically, being able to ssh into a server edit a file by hand and hup it is much quicker than sorting through a gui with drop-downs, etc. The idea of X on any server unless it's an X server is foolish to me.
OSes like NT or W2k in a server environment have mostly dumbed it down. Their creating monkeys that can point and click and take a test to get a piece of paper. When i was coming up you learned by working with a senior admin, not by taking a cert test. Well i'm off topic now.
Interesting? More like uninformed. Alot of companies that use any BSD give back. Look at Whistle, Yahoo and Applee with darwin will be releasing some code back.
As for bsd forking from solaris. BSD unix predates solaris.
Well, if you made an ass of me like this, I'd probably quit dealing with you in the future. Looks like that's what happened with Novell.
The only one who makes themselves look like an ass in this situation is themselves. Businesses have no place pirating software even though it is rampant in many shops. I don't have any pity for anyone who gets caught pirating.
They have a right to enforce their license. I disagree with the notion of licensing software but as long as it exists you should play by the rules as much as you can. You can;t afford not to if you are a business
The seperation is not like the linux distro chaos. Theese are three distinct OSes which all go back to the same core. From there they have differing priorities. Depending on what you need each of the BSD's can meet your needs. And there's alot of code sharing going on between the BSD's, hell openBSD's ppc port is heavily based on the netbsd one.
This sounds very similar to the FreeBSD jail() capability which is a very nice feature. Sounds good that linux may be getting a similar capability.
well apache is not the fastest web server, the apache group doesnt pretend to be. But i know for a fact it can handle over 1 Million hits per day. I've managed many sites, from some getting 100 visitors a day to ones getting 5 million a day. Apache has never failed me, it's actually been more ofa limitation of the OS ive had to deal with tuning-wise. As for OS , ive used Solaris (x86 and sparc) and various BSD's. What you need to look at is not only the web server but the OS for any performance eqaution as well as netowrk and hardware. This type of thing is too hard to boild down, but those claims i know are false.
But then, you've probably never used the gimp, have you?
YEs I have, i find it's interface clunky and overall not as mature as Photoshop.
The rest of your post has nothing at all to do with mine I was responding directly to what you said. Every OS has it's place. And face it windows does get the job done, not necessairly the best but at a level that many find at leastacceptable(i personally don't think windows is a very good piece of software). I was responding directly to you, if you cannot back it up please don't act like you never said it.
photoshop: www.gimp.org
There is a reason why photoshop is #1 in it's area, because it is the best. Gimp has a long way to go before it can math photoshop overcall.
Your FUD no longer holds up here. In a year, the linux desktop will rule over windows with an iron fist. You can take that one to da bank.
This is actually quite funny...windows is around for a long time because it does the desktop well enough for 90% of the users out there. Why do so many Linux zealots insit that Linux must run on everything without anything else? That is the MS trap trying to make your OS do everything under the sun. The saying Jack of All Trades, Master of None comes to mind here.
Ok here goes:
Tools : gCVS, Mahogany, many many gnome apps, a few windowmaker dock apps like wmnet, wmitime, wmmon, wmmount to name
How portable is that mandrake compiled app to say redhat? That is what I am saying, Linux advocates often say Linux is not fragemented or chaotic when it is both. There is no denying that. You also made my point : if you use FreeBSD you only use one thing. If you use Linux, you need to know what Distro, which kernel, etc... That in and of itself point to linux being fragmented.
I cannot comment fully on OpenBSD or NetBSD so I won't i do know that alot of code has been shared among all three BSD's.
Actually the patent referenced by that link is for a Cisco patent, not IBM. The IBM patenets seems todeal with classified information sent via email or something similar. That said, the RFC itself dates to 1994, the patent's inital date is Nov 1995. Looks like prior art to me if they push this one.