I checked, and I couldn't find specs for any other product.. but likely missed them. They support a good number of platforms.
System Requirements Traffic Server is built on standard hardware and system software, reducing the cost of ownership and enabling you to fully leverage advances in hardware and software technology as they are introduced.
For All Platforms:
Disks for Cache - 6 to 8 disks, formatted in raw disk partitions Network Interface - 100 MB Ethernet or FDDI For Sun Solaris: Hardware - Sun Ultra SPARC with 256 MB RAM Operating System - Solaris(tm) 2.6 and Solaris 7
For Compaq UNIX: Hardware- Digital Alpha/OSF server with 256 MB RAM Operating System - Digital UNIX 4.0D (Compaq Tru64 Unix)
For SGI IRIX: Hardware - SGI Origin Servers with 256 MB RAM perating System - IRIX 6.5
For FreeBSD: Hardware - Any Pentium(r)-based system or equivalent Operating System - FreeBSD 3.1 with Linux Threads Port Installed
For Windows NT: Hardware - Any Pentium(r)-based system or equivalent Operating System - Windows NT 4.0
yep.. exactly. I always wonder why laptops never went scsi.. cheap scsi. The ide-to-scsi convertion chips people seem intent on claiming all scsi is, and is thus slower.. except for the extremely pricey drives. Not much slower, and with the scsi bus, no extra weight or really lack of power.. laptops should be scsi!
My old P5-200 SCSI desktop usually outperformed friends P2s on anything not cpu driven, as windows is disk driven.... they used to claim firewire would bring a better standard than scsi at a cost for home and corperate users.. killing the pesky ide. Would hae been nice.. since all of the IDE plusses (ease of installation) has always been nicer on scsi (just stick on a unique ID.. plug in.. make sure your card is detected and usable..)
If you want what your getting, its good. Say Microsoft gave Windows away for free. You get windows.. do you want it? Are you happy that someone who bought a new computer got it, and they stuck with it because they didn't know what of something better? Corel is giving away WP so that users can use their suite, and a lot will merely because they don't have anything better. In that regard, ignorance and laziness reduces choice, where as if you were asked 'Windows, Linux, BSD, Be, or QNX' (like walking into a car dealer and being asked the color).. that's good. A car that comes in 'x' color without choice.. most wont bother (by ignorance but mostly laziness) to change colors. They'll glance, make a fuss if its tangrine and dark purple.. and live.
Say.. the Windows vs. OS/2 deal. Back in the 80s, msdos was pre-installed on all desktops (well.. or given on 5.25" floppy). For most people, myself included, I knew of Windows because it was the big deal from MS, and I knew of MS only because of DOS. I didn't hear about OS/2 for a long.. long time, and was happily despising windows and using geoworks. Had I known of OS/2, I likely would have switched, as all I did was play games and write essays.. Had I known of Linux, I might have tried it, though without the drive space (anyone remember when it was cool you finally got 10mb free?).. Pure ignorance, because no one told me better and I just used what came and what family had already suffered with, from work or whatever.
Thus.. that's why I think pre-installing is reduction of choice. If 2 or more OSes are given as options, straight out without any default, and a list provided of others.. or nothing at all.. that's choice.
I agree.. last time I bought a hard drive pre-loaded with anything.. it was a virus (no.. not windows. Thank ontrack.. 2nd time in 3 years.)
Pre-loading reduces choice anyways, because then your pressured into using some product. Plus.. not everyone uses x86... it would be more annoying than anything else.
heh, yep. I probably should have given a better example than gcc.. since there's not a replacement of a BSD version (at least to my knowledge). Still, the overall point is BSD is not tied to FSF and GPL programs, as RMS states on FSF.org.
ok, then why don't you take the sinical, suspicious approach that Linux sites are really telling its readers about FreeBSD so that in closed quarters, LUGs can create massive attacks on BSD.. sneaking GPL code into the kernel, analyzing the system to find backdoors and 'teach yahoo a lesson' for not going Linux... and its all in a chearful 'lets see what the other guy is doing' attitude, while really deep down its 'lets steal that! get the media!' 'those bastards.. they wrote better code.. lets go kidnap JKH and ransom him for the FreeBSD code base'.. heh, more conspiracy theories? I think the linux sites (slashdot included) are adding BSD articles because they realize that a lot of readers are BSD users, and wantto capitalize on it. They also realize a lot of Linux users aren't zealots and out of those, a good number are interested too.
Unfortunantly for FreeBSD, a bunch of hackers wrote an OS is a much more compelling story than a bunch of pros released their source code.
so a professional programmer isn't a hacker? I thought the best programmers and such would be, not the 14 year old down the block who plays half life all day and asks what those ugly slots in my computer (5.25") are... wonder if any know of dos (the OS!):-)
However, like the GNU/Linux controversy, most FreeBSD/Linux boxes are largely made up of GNU software to complete the set, or other open source projects. Until recently, there were no relavent commercial applications.
Nope. RMS has said he only wanted GNU/Linux, not GNU/xBSD. The reason is because a basic install of linux reqires GNU tools (because linux is only a kernel). BSD has many of its own tools, ie shells, editors, etc. For ease of use, GNU tools (ie, lscolor, gcc) are provided. Oh, and there have been many comcercial applications for both Linux and BSD for a while.. just more and more coming. The Inkomia (sp?) search engine that Yahoo uses I assume is on FreeBSD machines..
FreeBSD/Linux should compete at being thebest free OS to run the free tools and applications, and we'll see whether the hacker approach or the BSD approach wins.
wrong. FreeBSD is targetting server / workstations, Linux is tarketting everything you can think of, which means its very general and has no single goal, except maybe Linus's which was a cheap UNIX for his desktop. FreeBSD and Linux can live happily as long as they don't try to kill the other off.
Who knows, maybe we'll see a BSD-based Mac Client base dominate the pc market, linux-based Internet appliances take the rest of the former PC market, and Linux and the BSDs and Linux face off in the server market, each server their niche...
Well, obviousely we'll see MacOS X (bsd).. and NetBSD has a Mac port, as likely OpenBSD does. I don't think Linux should try to prove its better than everyone else, because if Linux is to be the best in the server market, then its going to neglect the imbedded, unless you imagine a tremendious amount of labor (and thus, likely forks to improve on the desired platform). FreeBSD has a lot of Internet/networking applications. BSD is pretty popular with small startups making networking programs/servers.. where as Linux's popularity is only recently there, and just to capitalize from the media attention.
How is this a flame. I merely said Linux was not for servers as the poster claimed. That does not mean it cannot raise to a server OS, it means that the origional goal was not for a server machine, and was an offshoot. Many also want linux to be a desktop OS, an imbedded OS, etc. That means Linux is many things, and not one. Calling that a flame of Linux is absurd.
The rest would be too if considered a flame. Linus has said he considered himself the best programmer in the world when he began Linux, and that's ego, whether he was or was not. That's good, or else he may not have taken the task. He wasn't happy with Minux, which is why he created Linux, and Xenix was popular (many people liked Xenix, because it was functional and had support).
The rest was 'what OSes have their goal for servers?' FreeBSD is a good x86 OS designed for servers, which means its better at some tasks while worse at others. Don't kid me by claiming AIX and Solaris are not server class OSes, because both are well respected and powerful unix OSes on their platforms.
Linux is superior to all of these in various ways, but each are superior to linux, and each other, in various ways. Pretending nothing else except Linux exists and is useful is pure ignorance. Take my karma away, fine (who cares?), but don't be so thick headed as to claim anything that does not flaim a different, non-Linux based OS is thereby a flaim towards Linux. Linux is modelled after UNIX, so there has to e some good things to UNIX, and as there are other UNIX OSes, there must be some good things about them too. Its mere logic.
Linux was never "for servers." Linux expanded to server, it was a desktop UNIX. Look at the history, Linus wanted a cheap, good UNIX on his desktop and wasn't happy with Minux, nor was going to pay for Xenix (SCO by that time?). He also had a big ego.:-)
If you want a server OS unix, you have FreeBSD whose goal was a server-class BSD unix on x86 (IMHO, its done a good job), or various nice UNICES, such as AIX or Solaris. But.. umm... don't think you'd often be watching dvds (heh.. and even already most are porn) on your Power4.
CRL provides the internet connection. They run SunOS boxes, and I assume FreeBSD PCs (many ISPs have that mix, especially ones that aren't startups.. CRL has been around since the early 80s). I never had a problem with CRL... my old ISP which I really aught to get around to stopping the account.
Bandwith actually. They were doing fine on the Pentium Pro, but they were filling the pipe. When they upgraded the pipe, they also upgraded the machine to make sure it could handle it (I remember it was origionally going to scale to 10,000 users). The first day they broke the record, which they had set, for the most bandwith in 24 hours. They're well over 1 terrabyte a day. It would have been nice ti have 10,000 users, but its already to slow at times with 5,000.
Head the above poster's advice, since I don't have a clue.:-)
The problems with the motherboards were quite true. The main one being, none existed. A few came out, and they're ok. I'd recomend reading Tom's Hardware Guide, because this is one of the few things I'd actually trust him on. Get the board you like better and that's recomended by other users.
But then, if you want a pre-built, don't worry and just make sure to have a nice warrenty. When little things go wrong, they're just nicer to have.
Its not just the advertising. The average user who buys a new computer, prebuilt, will likely get an Intel chip in it. Small shops will sell them K6s or Celerons, where anyone advising generally says the celerons are better, or a powerful machine. Thus, its between Intel and AMD. People know Intel's name, or the Pentium name, or just follow with whatever the shop, Dell, etc. base line is. They look at price, expect performance, and to do what they want/need. Even if the new Intel tweak are a flop, enough people will buy it in their new machines Intel won't feel any pains.
The big issue is for AMD. They have to keep a product superior to Intel, which they are, but Intel is nudging up there. They need to keep it significantly higher and at a reasonably price to get enough buyers. And remember, this is an old architecture Intel is using, which performs close to AMD's new one. Sure, AMD's can be clocked far higher, but Intel has to release a new architecture at some point. Usually when an architecure is released, the next is well in developement. Maybe Intel lagged because they put to many people on IA-64.. but either case Intel should have an outstanding architecture if they've been hard at work on it. Last I heard its schedualed for 2001 (pitiful)... but gives AMD further pressure.
1. The tour guide was a CS/CE (computer engineering.. not civil), and said he spent 8 hours max / day (generally 5) on classes and work.. and then complained that he had 1 class on friday.. never worked weekends. Four years for both.
2. The people I was staying with all had either 1 major and 2-3 minors, or 2 majors and 1-2 minors. One was leaving in 3 years. Now, some people are smart, but the guy I talked to (2 guys, 2 girls) said it was common. With the people in charge making such a big fuss about how great RPI is tied to the industry.. I was skeptical.
3. Didn't like their facilities / campus. Personal preference.
In any case, that was all my opinion.. and it isn't much because when I got a tour of the CS stuff.. a junior tagged along and kept asking dumb questions about SAT scores and talking about his conceptual physics class when we were showed some class playing with little robots. hehe.. just didn't have a great showing I presume. Like IIT, cept housing was dumb so I'm on a upper-classman floor (nice dorms!).. so know no freshman (damn!). Still.. UNIX/Windows, always see SGIs.. and physics teacher answered a few problems with gnuPlot. Just has that diversity and UNIX love to it.
Re:Some thoughts on FreeBSD...
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
Playing along, wondering it you actually were going anywhere.. if you were, I'd be interested.. but amusing otherwise. And of course, got enough karma to play around with.:^)
Remember that;s not a complaint by Greg Lehey, that's logic. FreeBSD, Inc. has numerously stated that its position to companies that wish to port to FreeBSD is toport to Linux first, for economics, and then port to FreeBSD. The Linux emulator is sufficent and porful enough to run their programs, and all it takes left is the will to port to FreeBSD after Linux. With Linux having a bigger infrostructure, more users, more UGs, more books, etc, its logical if you are on your own. That's one thing I greatly admire, telling users to use another platform because its better for them, and they can go to BSD when they're ready.
oh, and if it was a complaint.. I doubt he would have flown in for FreeBSD Con. Coming to the U.S. from Australia (around a 19 hour time change from Bay area), cannot be fun. Hope he had a laptop (especially with BSD) to keep him company on the flight.:-)
Re:Oh that's an easy one
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 2
Yahoo, Microsoft, Wistle.. OpenBSD got $10k from very happy corperations that base products on it. Why not go to FreeBSD's page and take a look at the list they made. Its not nearly complete, but shows its got some big names. Yahoo has been very happy. Microsoft too, cept they refuse to update virus scanners so they can blame BSD...
Your right, but wrong. I looked at RPI.. my biggst disgust was that EVERYTHING is moving towards NT. I tried asking what UNIX boxes they had on the tour (they tried to keep them away from our eyes) and the CS guy had no clue... stayed with a few people in their rented house, and talked to one about UNIX. They think its dead, he thinks its dead, Microsoft's NT is king. heh... I just didn't feel good about the prospect of going their for CS when they're moving as strongly to NT (because businesses are/were), etc. Wasn't for me, but I wont spout various attacks because if he's going there, he likely found it comfortable.
Got a 7000. Be careful about the video! Mines an ATI-Media-P (they upgraded it behind my back.. would be good if xfree worked). Ok, so xfree does work, just is a pain. Check out the linux laptop pages for info on the i7000 to make sure xfree is setup correctly. I've kept putting off spending another hour or two tryingto get the config to work (kept doing something wrong)... hoping to get a desktop soon enough....
386BSD was the origional free BSD UNIX. Xenix (MS, later SCO) was in the 80s and quite popular as a usuable UNIX, and BSDI came around at some point and offered another x86 UNIX.
OpenBSD is a 3, I believe, year old splinter from NetBSD. There should be many similarities, and many changes from NetBSD.
BSD is more focused at the task that its goal is, and what its developers are working towards. Linux is developed at what every one or two developers are interested in, and throw their code up and hope Linus takes it. Its not a targetted, planned growth, but definately covers all corners.
Re:Some thoughts on FreeBSD...
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 2
As deep and from the soul this sounds, I can't sem to find anything than 'FreeBSD needs to grow up.' Sure, I agree that for a long time FreeBSD was considerd the underdog, and now that people are treating it more like an operating system rather than an annoyance to 'linux world domination,' there's some lag in changing attitude. This isn't by the leaders, but by some followers. Linux advocates had to grow up some, and maybe a few BSD ones do too... who knows.. maybe this is bs too..
But, where is your examples? How is FreeBSD being evil to other BSDs? How is it robbing the poor and giving to the rich, or anything else one could hold ethical and important where FreeBSD breaks community trust. I'm willing to listen, just not accept statements blindly. I like the FreeBSD people I've met, though never met other BSD people since I'm all x86, and used the BSD a system administrator told me to try. I've got an HP Apollo, but no luck yet with the NetBSD port (used to chat a bit with the guy), and just got another HP... might get it working...
So, where's FreeBSD hurt us? I can forgive some evils, because FreeBSD has helped user choice a great deal in knocking the linux zealots over and over again with the fact that there are other, and at times substatually superior, open source operating systems out there. That doesn't make everything ok.. but then what am I to despise FreeBSD for? I don't see them breaking my, or the communities, trust.
must have been a bit to tired when writing that one above... Past little grammer things... didn't mean to enfasize BSD in the list (that was the point, its not the only OS to split). heh...
BTW, since BSD and SysV were the two styles of UNIX, would you not say that if BSD split, so did System V? The code for both is still available from the archives (who holds SysV now? Last I remember was Novell letting the UNIX trademark go, though not sure what happened with SysV code.. All UNIX OSs are BSD or SysV, and UNIX-like being BSD or just.. -like. Would seem pointless to make a big deal about BSD splitting if System V did too, and they were the two design styles of UNIX, not full fledged OSs, just the building blocks.
Slashdot Mirror
heh, try going to linuxone.net, where the company's page is.
I checked, and I couldn't find specs for any other product.. but likely missed them. They support a good number of platforms.
System Requirements
Traffic Server is built on standard hardware and system software, reducing the cost of ownership and enabling you to fully leverage advances in hardware and software technology as they are introduced.
For All Platforms:
Disks for Cache - 6 to 8 disks, formatted in raw disk partitions Network Interface - 100 MB Ethernet or FDDI
For Sun Solaris:
Hardware - Sun Ultra SPARC with 256 MB RAM
Operating System - Solaris(tm) 2.6 and Solaris 7
For Compaq UNIX:
Hardware- Digital Alpha/OSF server with 256 MB RAM
Operating System - Digital UNIX 4.0D (Compaq Tru64 Unix)
For SGI IRIX:
Hardware - SGI Origin Servers with 256 MB RAM
perating System - IRIX 6.5
For FreeBSD:
Hardware - Any Pentium(r)-based system or equivalent
Operating System - FreeBSD 3.1 with Linux Threads Port Installed
For Windows NT:
Hardware - Any Pentium(r)-based system or equivalent
Operating System - Windows NT 4.0
yep.. exactly. I always wonder why laptops never went scsi.. cheap scsi. The ide-to-scsi convertion chips people seem intent on claiming all scsi is, and is thus slower.. except for the extremely pricey drives. Not much slower, and with the scsi bus, no extra weight or really lack of power.. laptops should be scsi!
My old P5-200 SCSI desktop usually outperformed friends P2s on anything not cpu driven, as windows is disk driven.... they used to claim firewire would bring a better standard than scsi at a cost for home and corperate users.. killing the pesky ide. Would hae been nice.. since all of the IDE plusses (ease of installation) has always been nicer on scsi (just stick on a unique ID.. plug in.. make sure your card is detected and usable..)
If you want what your getting, its good. Say Microsoft gave Windows away for free. You get windows.. do you want it? Are you happy that someone who bought a new computer got it, and they stuck with it because they didn't know what of something better? Corel is giving away WP so that users can use their suite, and a lot will merely because they don't have anything better. In that regard, ignorance and laziness reduces choice, where as if you were asked 'Windows, Linux, BSD, Be, or QNX' (like walking into a car dealer and being asked the color).. that's good. A car that comes in 'x' color without choice.. most wont bother (by ignorance but mostly laziness) to change colors. They'll glance, make a fuss if its tangrine and dark purple.. and live.
Say.. the Windows vs. OS/2 deal. Back in the 80s, msdos was pre-installed on all desktops (well.. or given on 5.25" floppy). For most people, myself included, I knew of Windows because it was the big deal from MS, and I knew of MS only because of DOS. I didn't hear about OS/2 for a long.. long time, and was happily despising windows and using geoworks. Had I known of OS/2, I likely would have switched, as all I did was play games and write essays.. Had I known of Linux, I might have tried it, though without the drive space (anyone remember when it was cool you finally got 10mb free?).. Pure ignorance, because no one told me better and I just used what came and what family had already suffered with, from work or whatever.
Thus.. that's why I think pre-installing is reduction of choice. If 2 or more OSes are given as options, straight out without any default, and a list provided of others.. or nothing at all.. that's choice.
I agree.. last time I bought a hard drive pre-loaded with anything.. it was a virus (no.. not windows. Thank ontrack.. 2nd time in 3 years.)
Pre-loading reduces choice anyways, because then your pressured into using some product. Plus.. not everyone uses x86... it would be more annoying than anything else.
heh, yep. I probably should have given a better example than gcc.. since there's not a replacement of a BSD version (at least to my knowledge). Still, the overall point is BSD is not tied to FSF and GPL programs, as RMS states on FSF.org.
ok, then why don't you take the sinical, suspicious approach that Linux sites are really telling its readers about FreeBSD so that in closed quarters, LUGs can create massive attacks on BSD.. sneaking GPL code into the kernel, analyzing the system to find backdoors and 'teach yahoo a lesson' for not going Linux... and its all in a chearful 'lets see what the other guy is doing' attitude, while really deep down its 'lets steal that! get the media!' 'those bastards.. they wrote better code.. lets go kidnap JKH and ransom him for the FreeBSD code base'.. heh, more conspiracy theories? I think the linux sites (slashdot included) are adding BSD articles because they realize that a lot of readers are BSD users, and wantto capitalize on it. They also realize a lot of Linux users aren't zealots and out of those, a good number are interested too.
Unfortunantly for FreeBSD, a bunch of hackers wrote an OS is a much more compelling story than a bunch of pros released their source code.
:-)
so a professional programmer isn't a hacker? I thought the best programmers and such would be, not the 14 year old down the block who plays half life all day and asks what those ugly slots in my computer (5.25") are... wonder if any know of dos (the OS!)
However, like the GNU/Linux controversy, most FreeBSD/Linux boxes are largely made up of GNU software to complete the set, or other open source projects. Until recently, there were no relavent commercial applications.
Nope. RMS has said he only wanted GNU/Linux, not GNU/xBSD. The reason is because a basic install of linux reqires GNU tools (because linux is only a kernel). BSD has many of its own tools, ie shells, editors, etc. For ease of use, GNU tools (ie, lscolor, gcc) are provided. Oh, and there have been many comcercial applications for both Linux and BSD for a while.. just more and more coming. The Inkomia (sp?) search engine that Yahoo uses I assume is on FreeBSD machines..
FreeBSD/Linux should compete at being thebest free OS to run the free tools and applications, and we'll see whether the hacker approach or the BSD approach wins.
wrong. FreeBSD is targetting server / workstations, Linux is tarketting everything you can think of, which means its very general and has no single goal, except maybe Linus's which was a cheap UNIX for his desktop. FreeBSD and Linux can live happily as long as they don't try to kill the other off.
Who knows, maybe we'll see a BSD-based Mac Client base dominate the pc market, linux-based Internet appliances take the rest of the former PC market, and Linux and the BSDs and Linux face off in the server market, each server their niche...
Well, obviousely we'll see MacOS X (bsd).. and NetBSD has a Mac port, as likely OpenBSD does. I don't think Linux should try to prove its better than everyone else, because if Linux is to be the best in the server market, then its going to neglect the imbedded, unless you imagine a tremendious amount of labor (and thus, likely forks to improve on the desired platform). FreeBSD has a lot of Internet/networking applications. BSD is pretty popular with small startups making networking programs/servers.. where as Linux's popularity is only recently there, and just to capitalize from the media attention.
hehe... back to a 1.. where it should have been (not worth karma gaining or losing karma). Thanks to whoever fixed that. :-)
How is this a flame. I merely said Linux was not for servers as the poster claimed. That does not mean it cannot raise to a server OS, it means that the origional goal was not for a server machine, and was an offshoot. Many also want linux to be a desktop OS, an imbedded OS, etc. That means Linux is many things, and not one. Calling that a flame of Linux is absurd.
The rest would be too if considered a flame. Linus has said he considered himself the best programmer in the world when he began Linux, and that's ego, whether he was or was not. That's good, or else he may not have taken the task. He wasn't happy with Minux, which is why he created Linux, and Xenix was popular (many people liked Xenix, because it was functional and had support).
The rest was 'what OSes have their goal for servers?' FreeBSD is a good x86 OS designed for servers, which means its better at some tasks while worse at others. Don't kid me by claiming AIX and Solaris are not server class OSes, because both are well respected and powerful unix OSes on their platforms.
Linux is superior to all of these in various ways, but each are superior to linux, and each other, in various ways. Pretending nothing else except Linux exists and is useful is pure ignorance. Take my karma away, fine (who cares?), but don't be so thick headed as to claim anything that does not flaim a different, non-Linux based OS is thereby a flaim towards Linux. Linux is modelled after UNIX, so there has to e some good things to UNIX, and as there are other UNIX OSes, there must be some good things about them too. Its mere logic.
Linux was never "for servers." Linux expanded to server, it was a desktop UNIX. Look at the history, Linus wanted a cheap, good UNIX on his desktop and wasn't happy with Minux, nor was going to pay for Xenix (SCO by that time?). He also had a big ego. :-)
If you want a server OS unix, you have FreeBSD whose goal was a server-class BSD unix on x86 (IMHO, its done a good job), or various nice UNICES, such as AIX or Solaris. But.. umm... don't think you'd often be watching dvds (heh.. and even already most are porn) on your Power4.
CRL provides the internet connection. They run SunOS boxes, and I assume FreeBSD PCs (many ISPs have that mix, especially ones that aren't startups.. CRL has been around since the early 80s). I never had a problem with CRL... my old ISP which I really aught to get around to stopping the account.
Bandwith actually. They were doing fine on the Pentium Pro, but they were filling the pipe. When they upgraded the pipe, they also upgraded the machine to make sure it could handle it (I remember it was origionally going to scale to 10,000 users). The first day they broke the record, which they had set, for the most bandwith in 24 hours. They're well over 1 terrabyte a day. It would have been nice ti have 10,000 users, but its already to slow at times with 5,000.
Head the above poster's advice, since I don't have a clue. :-)
The problems with the motherboards were quite true. The main one being, none existed. A few came out, and they're ok. I'd recomend reading Tom's Hardware Guide, because this is one of the few things I'd actually trust him on. Get the board you like better and that's recomended by other users.
But then, if you want a pre-built, don't worry and just make sure to have a nice warrenty. When little things go wrong, they're just nicer to have.
Its not just the advertising. The average user who buys a new computer, prebuilt, will likely get an Intel chip in it. Small shops will sell them K6s or Celerons, where anyone advising generally says the celerons are better, or a powerful machine. Thus, its between Intel and AMD. People know Intel's name, or the Pentium name, or just follow with whatever the shop, Dell, etc. base line is. They look at price, expect performance, and to do what they want/need. Even if the new Intel tweak are a flop, enough people will buy it in their new machines Intel won't feel any pains.
The big issue is for AMD. They have to keep a product superior to Intel, which they are, but Intel is nudging up there. They need to keep it significantly higher and at a reasonably price to get enough buyers. And remember, this is an old architecture Intel is using, which performs close to AMD's new one. Sure, AMD's can be clocked far higher, but Intel has to release a new architecture at some point. Usually when an architecure is released, the next is well in developement. Maybe Intel lagged because they put to many people on IA-64.. but either case Intel should have an outstanding architecture if they've been hard at work on it. Last I heard its schedualed for 2001 (pitiful)... but gives AMD further pressure.
whoops.. 15 hours. 17 from chicago (where I am now). Either way, I could funner things to do than sit in a plane for 15 or so hours.
I think the aspect that scared me the most was:
1. The tour guide was a CS/CE (computer engineering.. not civil), and said he spent 8 hours max / day (generally 5) on classes and work.. and then complained that he had 1 class on friday.. never worked weekends. Four years for both.
2. The people I was staying with all had either 1 major and 2-3 minors, or 2 majors and 1-2 minors. One was leaving in 3 years. Now, some people are smart, but the guy I talked to (2 guys, 2 girls) said it was common. With the people in charge making such a big fuss about how great RPI is tied to the industry.. I was skeptical.
3. Didn't like their facilities / campus. Personal preference.
In any case, that was all my opinion.. and it isn't much because when I got a tour of the CS stuff.. a junior tagged along and kept asking dumb questions about SAT scores and talking about his conceptual physics class when we were showed some class playing with little robots. hehe.. just didn't have a great showing I presume. Like IIT, cept housing was dumb so I'm on a upper-classman floor (nice dorms!).. so know no freshman (damn!).
Still.. UNIX/Windows, always see SGIs.. and physics teacher answered a few problems with gnuPlot. Just has that diversity and UNIX love to it.
Playing along, wondering it you actually were going anywhere.. if you were, I'd be interested.. but amusing otherwise. And of course, got enough karma to play around with. :^)
Remember that;s not a complaint by Greg Lehey, that's logic. FreeBSD, Inc. has numerously stated that its position to companies that wish to port to FreeBSD is toport to Linux first, for economics, and then port to FreeBSD. The Linux emulator is sufficent and porful enough to run their programs, and all it takes left is the will to port to FreeBSD after Linux. With Linux having a bigger infrostructure, more users, more UGs, more books, etc, its logical if you are on your own. That's one thing I greatly admire, telling users to use another platform because its better for them, and they can go to BSD when they're ready.
:-)
oh, and if it was a complaint.. I doubt he would have flown in for FreeBSD Con. Coming to the U.S. from Australia (around a 19 hour time change from Bay area), cannot be fun. Hope he had a laptop (especially with BSD) to keep him company on the flight.
Yahoo, Microsoft, Wistle.. OpenBSD got $10k from very happy corperations that base products on it. Why not go to FreeBSD's page and take a look at the list they made. Its not nearly complete, but shows its got some big names. Yahoo has been very happy. Microsoft too, cept they refuse to update virus scanners so they can blame BSD...
Your right, but wrong. I looked at RPI.. my biggst disgust was that EVERYTHING is moving towards NT. I tried asking what UNIX boxes they had on the tour (they tried to keep them away from our eyes) and the CS guy had no clue... stayed with a few people in their rented house, and talked to one about UNIX. They think its dead, he thinks its dead, Microsoft's NT is king. heh... I just didn't feel good about the prospect of going their for CS when they're moving as strongly to NT (because businesses are/were), etc. Wasn't for me, but I wont spout various attacks because if he's going there, he likely found it comfortable.
Got a 7000. Be careful about the video! Mines an ATI-Media-P (they upgraded it behind my back.. would be good if xfree worked). Ok, so xfree does work, just is a pain. Check out the linux laptop pages for info on the i7000 to make sure xfree is setup correctly. I've kept putting off spending another hour or two tryingto get the config to work (kept doing something wrong)... hoping to get a desktop soon enough....
386BSD was the origional free BSD UNIX. Xenix (MS, later SCO) was in the 80s and quite popular as a usuable UNIX, and BSDI came around at some point and offered another x86 UNIX.
OpenBSD is a 3, I believe, year old splinter from NetBSD. There should be many similarities, and many changes from NetBSD.
BSD is more focused at the task that its goal is, and what its developers are working towards. Linux is developed at what every one or two developers are interested in, and throw their code up and hope Linus takes it. Its not a targetted, planned growth, but definately covers all corners.
As deep and from the soul this sounds, I can't sem to find anything than 'FreeBSD needs to grow up.' Sure, I agree that for a long time FreeBSD was considerd the underdog, and now that people are treating it more like an operating system rather than an annoyance to 'linux world domination,' there's some lag in changing attitude. This isn't by the leaders, but by some followers. Linux advocates had to grow up some, and maybe a few BSD ones do too... who knows.. maybe this is bs too..
But, where is your examples? How is FreeBSD being evil to other BSDs? How is it robbing the poor and giving to the rich, or anything else one could hold ethical and important where FreeBSD breaks community trust. I'm willing to listen, just not accept statements blindly. I like the FreeBSD people I've met, though never met other BSD people since I'm all x86, and used the BSD a system administrator told me to try. I've got an HP Apollo, but no luck yet with the NetBSD port (used to chat a bit with the guy), and just got another HP... might get it working...
So, where's FreeBSD hurt us? I can forgive some evils, because FreeBSD has helped user choice a great deal in knocking the linux zealots over and over again with the fact that there are other, and at times substatually superior, open source operating systems out there. That doesn't make everything ok.. but then what am I to despise FreeBSD for? I don't see them breaking my, or the communities, trust.
must have been a bit to tired when writing that one above... Past little grammer things... didn't mean to enfasize BSD in the list (that was the point, its not the only OS to split). heh...
BTW, since BSD and SysV were the two styles of UNIX, would you not say that if BSD split, so did System V? The code for both is still available from the archives (who holds SysV now? Last I remember was Novell letting the UNIX trademark go, though not sure what happened with SysV code.. All UNIX OSs are BSD or SysV, and UNIX-like being BSD or just.. -like. Would seem pointless to make a big deal about BSD splitting if System V did too, and they were the two design styles of UNIX, not full fledged OSs, just the building blocks.