Your explanation seems very fishy. Somehow I'd very much doubt that a company would get rid of expensive computer equipment by destroying it and having it disposed of, rather than doing it A) more efficiently B) less expensively and C) with an actual _use_ by giving it to charity. Isn't it a _complete_ tax write-off either way? And isn't it cheaper to call a charitable organization which would gladly pick up highly expensive equipment for free than to pay for special pickup services for the trash? Big computers don't go in the normal, paper-and-foodstuffs-type dumpster.
You know, there's always the possibility of using Luigi Rizzo's excellent dummynet. Yes, it's for FreeBSD, which would mean changing the Linux firewall box to a FreeBSD firewall box.
dummynet is a flexible tool for bandwidth management and for testing networking protocols. It is implemented in FreeBSD but is easily portable to other protocol stacks. There is also a one-floppy version of FreeBSD which includes dummynet and a lot of other goodies, see below. dummynet works by intercepting packets in their way through the protocol stack, and passing them through one or more pipes which simulate the effects of bandwidth limitations, propagation delays, bounded-size queues, packet losses, etc.
Each pipe can be configured separately, and packets are forwarded to the appropriate pipe using the ipfw packet filter. Thus you can apply different limitations/delays to different traffic according to the ipfw rules (e.g. selecting on protocols, addresses and ports ranges, interfaces, etc.).
You could always read his book, which explains this kind of thing in quite a bit of detail.
--
Re:the following is a paid advertisement by urandu
on
Linux Port for N64?
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure that Ts'o's PRNG code doesn't repeat like that. I know you're a troll, but come on, you must be really stupid if you can't figure out how to use/dev/urandom. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't look like that!
replying to { To reiterate, a P100 and SVGA 1Meg video memory under Windows or OS/2 has better OpenGL performance than a K6-400 with 3Dnow, a GB Exxtreme and 8Megs of video memory on Linux. }
Oh come on. You expect me to believe that a non-3D-accelerated _anything_ is going to beat/even/ a non-3D-accelerated _anything_ from a P110 to K6-2 400? I know for a fact that's untrue. Anyway, what's a GB Exxtreme? I have a Graphics Blaster TNT, and it works fine under FreeBSD using the GLX port (ports/graphics/glx).
Well, you've obviously never heard of the Beastie Boys... that's pretty sad:(
Re:Childhood's End - true SciFi
on
Childhood's End
·
· Score: 1
I couldn't see this without feeling that I am obligated to agree. "Childhood's End" was one of the greatest books I've ever read, further emphasizing Sir Clarke, in my mind at least, as the master of science fiction. Reading this book, like some of my other favorites (mostly Sir Arthur C. Clarke and Michael Crichton's older science fiction), was an enlightening experience. It not only entertained me in the truest sense of the word, but it really made me think; I actually came to understand more of life as a whole after reading this book. You can't say that about most books. This is one of my most recommended reads to anyone out there, even if you don't really love science fiction. This book's truly a classic in its own time.
Huh? I run FreeBSD, and the mouse wheel on my Logitech First Mouse+ (compatible with M$ IntelliMouse protocol) works. In fact, it works with either moused(8) translating the protocol's Z-axis to buttons 4 and 5, or XFree86 doing that itself. GTK+ 1.2.X supports the mouse wheel on scrolling widgets, Mozilla supports it, and Netscape does with a few X resources. Even using gvim, the wheel works. I don't see a problem.
Re:BSD has lost, Linux won the unix war. READ ON
on
FreeBSD 3.4 released
·
· Score: 1
LinuxThreads itself has huge problems scaling. However, if you read -arch, FreeBSD will have a thread implementation (soonish) which spanks any free one out there, and will be comparable to the best commercial ones.
Re:BSD pkg, was Re:4.0 feature freeze "Real Soon N
on
FreeBSD 3.4 released
·
· Score: 1
I'm the maintainer of OpenSSH for FreeBSD. There are two easy solutions. The first solution is to "chflags schg" your SSH config files/key files. You should really do this anyway. Then, "make all deinstall reinstall clean" deletes what it can, and reinstalls everything except respecting the existing configuration files The second solution is to do a "make -DFORCE_PKG_REGISTER all install clean". That will replace the old (but seemingly current) version correctly. The actual problem is that OpenSSH doesn't make releases. Since there are no releases, it's rare that there's a time when the version is updated. But, would you rather have to wait months for new versions, or have me continue to update it often?
Re:Pascal / Porting between the BSDs
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 1
As the FreeBSD OpenSSH porter/maintainer, I'd like to note that I've gone through hell to get that port where it is today. It took a _long_ time, and I'm glad it was enough to make someone say 'Wow.' =)
That's complete and utter bullshit. There is absolutely nothing like this going on. Interestingly, I note you bring up Brett Glass. I won't delve further on that.
As long as you don't specifically call it "official" FreeBSD, there's no problem. There are systems based on FreeBSD out there.
FreeBSDCon is a brand new thing, and it would seem to be the only "BSD-specific" national convention. However, OpenBSDers, NetBSDer, Linuxers, or what have you are all welcome. If you look at the speakers, you'll note that while there are FreeBSD-specific topics, most of them are pretty agnostic across the BSDs. Even if you don't run FreeBSD in particular, you'll find a lot to be interested in. Hey, the FreeBSD-specific ones should be especially interesting then, eh?:)
I really wish I could go this year, but I didn't plan for it, so it's a near impossibility. FreeBSDCon promises to be a lot like USENIX, and I would expect a diverse turnout. I'd love to have the opportunity to actually meet the people I work with all the time.
I run FreeBSD because I simply want the power and stability of a great OS. I don't run Windows because it's slow, unstable, a huge mess of incoherency and scattered inconsistencies. What I want in an OS is to actually have control over it. Open Source is about control and software superiority. With many people working on a project, it quickly can become best of breed. I have control over the entire OS when I use an Open Source system. If I find a bug, I can fix it.
With Windows I have a bloated monstrosity which, while trying to be everything to everyone, is purely unuseable to me. Things are far too simplistically designed and making things "click-simple" isn't worth any of that. You're trapped in something you can't truly control, can't fix, and can't expand upon. You lose every bit of flexibility that should be possible on a computer when you run Windows.
But, of course, you do have applications which you need on an OS, since after all, what good is an OS unless you have something to run on it? Many apps in Unix are simply much more well-done than those in Windows.
You say you want a lightweight Programmer's OS. Unix is not that. Unix is a system that can be almost everything to everyone witout sacrificing anything. Yes, the "base distribution" over the years has grown, but so has hard drive space and memory availability, not to mention pure speed of the computers. Don't forget that in Linux a distribution is not the OS. The kernel is the OS and the distribution just happens to run on top of it. There are many distributions to choose from , and they're not all going to be bloated past belief or inflexible to configure. You make that choice when choosing between Open Source OSes and distributions.
Also, the bloat is not the same as Windows's bloat. I can speak for FreeBSD, since that's what I run, here. There is a relatively small base system which includes the kernel, utilities, base applications, base data, base libraries and includes. This is the core of the OS. In the base you also have things for developing. development, such as the compiler, assembler, linker, debugger, and various binutils. This gives you flexibility: you have what you need, and nothing too esoteric. I have what I need to rebuild and modify the system to my liking except the source install itself.
After installation, you can install any non-OS components you like from ports or packages. There is just about every type of program an end-user would need, and you install what you want. Sure, because of this systems become different as different configurations are made and programs installed. But the OS is still the same underneath it.
In a closed operating system, you're stuck with what they give you without being able to uninstall much of it. The result is that you have no control over hundreds of megabytes of cruft you'll never use. Windows is appropriate for the desktop because of applications you say? Well, there are good applications for any platform. You're not going to find server applications, for instance, that are better on a closed system than for an open one. Why? When you're serious about your application, you care about the OS and what you can make it do, not the cruft surrounding it. Serious development is better done on an open platform.
Besides, who said Windows is a better desktop in the first place, EVEN just for applications? I am writing this using Mozilla, which still has a bit of a way to go before being truly finished, but is very useable and much faster than Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer. I run LyX and get professional typesetting, not just dinky "word processing," when I use it and LaTeX. I run OLVWM and have a much nicer GUI than possible on Windows, coupled with the much more flexible XFree86 3.9.16 than Windows's GUI could be. Of course, I'm not tied down, and can change my system's GUI components at will. I have my GNOME Panel and apps, giving me the familiar toolbar (much more flexible though), a CPU meter, a mixer, themeable clock, command-line tool, application menus, and any of various small applications and dockable applets. I have my TiK for my instant messaging needs, exim and pine for mail needs, the GIMP and KIllustrator for graphics, mp3/mod/avi/mov/mpg players, audio applications including the ver-present sox, and my full development system with DDD for graphical debugging.
In other words, I have a full desktop system, and my choice from many other apps should I ever want those. How can you say that Windows or BeOS are the only systems which should be on desktops when it's obvious a better OS than Windows can have everything else you'd ever need, too?
It's not that we (speaking in the FreeBSD project sense, since that's all I can speak for) are less willing to accept patches from outsiders. Heck, it's wonderful for people to report bugs _and_ include a solution! It's just that much less work.
The issue, which has nothing to do with originating at Berkeley, is that coding is largely a matter of correctness. Things are held to a high standard. They can't just "work," but they also have to be coded well and deemed "proper."
I suppose it seems to a lot of people that FreeBSD's developers are "stuck up," but that's not the case. You have to consider that unlike Linus, many of the developers have decades of experience. Despite the fact that I'm very young and inexperienced, I managed to become part of it all. I feel privileged to work with those that I can learn so much from, even if I may disagree with them sometimes.
All in all, I think many people get the wrong ideas about FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. I hope to be able to dispel any uncertainties, because the project can come off as being somewhat closed toward outsiders, when it's more "wary" about anyone.
Now realize that most lamers wouldn't take the time to set up a registered account to get their kicks. That would require an e-mail address to use, some time....
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
You know, there's always the possibility of using Luigi Rizzo's excellent dummynet. Yes, it's for FreeBSD, which would mean changing the Linux firewall box to a FreeBSD firewall box.
Here's some information from the dummynet home page. I hope this helps!
dummynet is a flexible tool for bandwidth management and for testing networking protocols. It is implemented in FreeBSD but is easily portable to other protocol stacks. There is also a one-floppy version of FreeBSD which includes dummynet and a lot of other goodies, see below. dummynet works by intercepting packets in their way through the protocol stack, and passing them through one or more pipes which simulate the effects of bandwidth limitations, propagation delays, bounded-size queues, packet losses, etc.
Each pipe can be configured separately, and packets are forwarded to the appropriate pipe using the ipfw packet filter. Thus you can apply different limitations/delays to different traffic according to the ipfw rules (e.g. selecting on protocols, addresses and ports ranges, interfaces, etc.).
--
--
--
--
--
To reiterate, a P100 and SVGA 1Meg video memory under Windows or OS/2 has better OpenGL performance than a K6-400 with
3Dnow, a GB Exxtreme and 8Megs of video memory on Linux.
}
Oh come on. You expect me to believe that a non-3D-accelerated _anything_ is going to beat
Anyway, what's a GB Exxtreme? I have a Graphics Blaster TNT, and it works fine under FreeBSD using the GLX port (ports/graphics/glx).
--
--
Wasn't it Don Incognito?
Well, you've obviously never heard of the Beastie Boys... that's pretty sad :(
I couldn't see this without feeling that I am obligated to agree. "Childhood's End" was one of the greatest books I've ever read, further emphasizing Sir Clarke, in my mind at least, as the master of science fiction.
Reading this book, like some of my other favorites (mostly Sir Arthur C. Clarke and Michael Crichton's older science fiction), was an enlightening experience. It not only entertained me in the truest sense of the word, but it really made me think; I actually came to understand more of life as a whole after reading this book. You can't say that about most books.
This is one of my most recommended reads to anyone out there, even if you don't really love science fiction. This book's truly a classic in its own time.
Huh? I run FreeBSD, and the mouse wheel on my Logitech First Mouse+ (compatible with M$ IntelliMouse protocol) works. In fact, it works with either moused(8) translating the protocol's Z-axis to buttons 4 and 5, or XFree86 doing that itself. GTK+ 1.2.X supports the mouse wheel on scrolling widgets, Mozilla supports it, and Netscape does with a few X resources. Even using gvim, the wheel works. I don't see a problem.
LinuxThreads itself has huge problems scaling. However, if you read -arch, FreeBSD will have a thread implementation (soonish) which spanks any free one out there, and will be comparable to the best commercial ones.
I'm the maintainer of OpenSSH for FreeBSD. There are two easy solutions.
The first solution is to "chflags schg" your SSH config files/key files. You should really do this anyway. Then, "make all deinstall reinstall clean" deletes what it can, and reinstalls everything except respecting the existing configuration files
The second solution is to do a "make -DFORCE_PKG_REGISTER all install clean". That will replace the old (but seemingly current) version correctly.
The actual problem is that OpenSSH doesn't make releases. Since there are no releases, it's rare that there's a time when the version is updated. But, would you rather have to wait months for new versions, or have me continue to update it often?
As the FreeBSD OpenSSH porter/maintainer, I'd like to note that I've gone through hell to get that port where it is today. It took a _long_ time, and I'm glad it was enough to make someone say 'Wow.' =)
Actually, xmess is part of xmame now! Just thought you'd want to know :)
That's complete and utter bullshit. There is absolutely nothing like this going on. Interestingly, I note you bring up Brett Glass. I won't delve further on that.
As long as you don't specifically call it "official" FreeBSD, there's no problem. There are systems based on FreeBSD out there.
Actually, we are talking about topics. CT just munged his SlashDot terminology :)
FreeBSDCon is a brand new thing, and it would seem to be the only "BSD-specific" national convention. However, OpenBSDers, NetBSDer, Linuxers, or what have you are all welcome. If you look at the speakers, you'll note that while there are FreeBSD-specific topics, most of them are pretty agnostic across the BSDs. Even if you don't run FreeBSD in particular, you'll find a lot to be interested in. Hey, the FreeBSD-specific ones should be especially interesting then, eh? :)
I really wish I could go this year, but I didn't plan for it, so it's a near impossibility. FreeBSDCon promises to be a lot like USENIX, and I would expect a diverse turnout. I'd love to have the opportunity to actually meet the people I work with all the time.
Actually, there is a separate section for Linux. See the penguin icon at the top? Well, there usually is one up there, at least :)
I run FreeBSD because I simply want the power and stability of a great OS. I don't run Windows because it's slow, unstable, a huge mess of incoherency and scattered inconsistencies. What I want in an OS is to actually have control over it. Open Source is about control and software superiority. With many people working on a project, it quickly can become best of breed. I have control over the entire OS when I use an Open Source system. If I find a bug, I can fix it.
With Windows I have a bloated monstrosity which, while trying to be everything to everyone, is purely unuseable to me. Things are far too simplistically designed and making things "click-simple" isn't worth any of that. You're trapped in something you can't truly control, can't fix, and can't expand upon. You lose every bit of flexibility that should be possible on a computer when you run Windows.
But, of course, you do have applications which you need on an OS, since after all, what good is an OS unless you have something to run on it? Many apps in Unix are simply much more well-done than those in Windows.
You say you want a lightweight Programmer's OS. Unix is not that. Unix is a system that can be almost everything to everyone witout sacrificing anything. Yes, the "base distribution" over the years has grown, but so has hard drive space and memory availability, not to mention pure speed of the computers. Don't forget that in Linux a distribution is not the OS. The kernel is the OS and the distribution just happens to run on top of it. There are many distributions to choose from , and they're not all going to be bloated past belief or inflexible to configure. You make that choice when choosing between Open Source OSes and distributions.
Also, the bloat is not the same as Windows's bloat. I can speak for FreeBSD, since that's what I run, here. There is a relatively small base system which includes the kernel, utilities, base applications, base data, base libraries and includes. This is the core of the OS. In the base you also have things for developing. development, such as the compiler, assembler, linker, debugger, and various binutils. This gives you flexibility: you have what you need, and nothing too esoteric. I have what I need to rebuild and modify the system to my liking except the source install itself.
After installation, you can install any non-OS components you like from ports or packages. There is just about every type of program an end-user would need, and you install what you want. Sure, because of this systems become different as different configurations are made and programs installed. But the OS is still the same underneath it.
In a closed operating system, you're stuck with what they give you without being able to uninstall much of it. The result is that you have no control over hundreds of megabytes of cruft you'll never use. Windows is appropriate for the desktop because of applications you say? Well, there are good applications for any platform. You're not going to find server applications, for instance, that are better on a closed system than for an open one. Why? When you're serious about your application, you care about the OS and what you can make it do, not the cruft surrounding it. Serious development is better done on an open platform.
Besides, who said Windows is a better desktop in the first place, EVEN just for applications? I am writing this using Mozilla, which still has a bit of a way to go before being truly finished, but is very useable and much faster than Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer. I run LyX and get professional typesetting, not just dinky "word processing," when I use it and LaTeX. I run OLVWM and have a much nicer GUI than possible on Windows, coupled with the much more flexible XFree86 3.9.16 than Windows's GUI could be. Of course, I'm not tied down, and can change my system's GUI components at will. I have my GNOME Panel and apps, giving me the familiar toolbar (much more flexible though), a CPU meter, a mixer, themeable clock, command-line tool, application menus, and any of various small applications and dockable applets. I have my TiK for my instant messaging needs, exim and pine for mail needs, the GIMP and KIllustrator for graphics, mp3/mod/avi/mov/mpg players, audio applications including the ver-present sox, and my full development system with DDD for graphical debugging.
In other words, I have a full desktop system, and my choice from many other apps should I ever want those. How can you say that Windows or BeOS are the only systems which should be on desktops when it's obvious a better OS than Windows can have everything else you'd ever need, too?
It's not that we (speaking in the FreeBSD project sense, since that's all I can speak for) are less willing to accept patches from outsiders. Heck, it's wonderful for people to report bugs _and_ include a solution! It's just that much less work.
The issue, which has nothing to do with originating at Berkeley, is that coding is largely a matter of correctness. Things are held to a high standard. They can't just "work," but they also have to be coded well and deemed "proper."
I suppose it seems to a lot of people that FreeBSD's developers are "stuck up," but that's not the case. You have to consider that unlike Linus, many of the developers have decades of experience. Despite the fact that I'm very young and inexperienced, I managed to become part of it all. I feel privileged to work with those that I can learn so much from, even if I may disagree with them sometimes.
All in all, I think many people get the wrong ideas about FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. I hope to be able to dispel any uncertainties, because the project can come off as being somewhat closed toward outsiders, when it's more "wary" about anyone.
What can you possibly have against Surge, the nectar of the gods?
That was cute.
Now realize that most lamers wouldn't take the time to set up a registered account to get their kicks. That would require an e-mail address to use, some time....