HPUX used to come with a K&R C compiler... barel usable, but enough to do a local build of gcc or equivalent and get a real compiler. Not anything usable for serious development of anything tho. No idea what they included past version 10.2.
Yep, HP-UX comes with a stripped-down compiler, enough to build the kernel, and probably not good for much else. I never was able to even get GCC compiled on a 10.20 machine:-/ Neither have I any idea what is in 11.00 and up, but I suspect more of the same: a minimal cc.
To my horror, once I finally got the thing installed I learned that it doesn't even come with a compiler.
True, but to be fair, no other enterprise UNIX comes bundled with the corresponding proprietary compiler, either.
Sure you can add GCC to it, but there must be some art to making GNU's tools work properly with Sun's libc that is beyond me.
This is a known "issue": AFAIU, the headers included in the GCC package you installed were meant for Solaris 9. Since Solaris 10 is still in beta, this ought to be forgivable, and the blame should go to the mainatiners of the GCC package you used, not Sun. However, Blastwave, the excellent Solaris package repository you missed, has GCC packages that work for Solaris 10/Express.
That is a link to Download Solaris Express (Solaris 10 Beta), not Solaris 10. Sun has been releasing (mostly) monthly builds of Solaris Express, and there have been quite a few advancements and improvements over Solaris 9. I think Solaris 10 is going to be a big release, but we'll all have to wait until later to download it: the announcement of Solaris 10 isn't until 12:30 PDT today, and the actual release of Solaris 10 probably won't be available until a later date. The most recent beta build (b69) says SunOS 5.10 December 2004 from either a uname or in/etc/release:(
Solaris isn't being released until later on today. According to the Solaris 10 Countup Page: While the secrets of Easter Island in the South Pacific remain a mystery, Sun Microsystems is planning to reveal new details regarding Solaris 10 on November 15 at its Network Computing '04 Q4 launch in San Jose.
And according to Sun's NC04Q4 page: NC04Q4 opens at 12:30p.m. PDT on November 15, 2004.
Now, premature announcements are nothing new for Slashdot, but it's hard to discuss much about Solaris 10 before it's officially released; each Solaris Express release has shown continuing strides for Solaris 10, but the Express (Beta) builds have not included ZFS or Project Janus, (a Linux emulation layer.) These are two of the biggest features of Solaris 10, but nobody outside of Sun has much information on them, so we'll just have to wait until later today:)
And 15 years ago, I had x86, 68k, sparc, mips, parisc, alpha, and quite a few more people probably wouldn't even recognize.
Uhhh... do you realize that SPARC, MIPS, and PA-RISC are still in production? Even though at times it may seem like it, all the world is not an x86; there still is choice among architectures.
Dollar for dollar, transistor amplifiers output far more power before they're overloaded, making this discussion moot.
No, the "discussion" you just started was moot even before you started it; the story is about the behavior of tubes vs. transistors when signals are clipped. Have you ever pushed an amplifier into clipping? With a solid-state amp, it's a really harsh, nasty sound, while a tube amp pushed to clipping will overload much more gracefully.
I'm sure a DSP can do it for you.
I don't know - maybe a DSP could make an overdriven amp sound less bad, but I doubt it.
You're either totally missing th point, or I'm wasting my time responding to a troll. Come to think of it, the tubes/transistors debate is about as played out as the vi vs. emacs debate. I'm not going to get into which is analogous to which...:)
It would seem like a good idea to use the info collected by the Darknet to perhaps automatically blacklist those offending IP addresses or perhaps to automatically complain to the offending ISP.
If I understand things correctly, this is part of how spamcop works. They have "dark" email addresses - addresses which have never been used or published anywhere. If they receive any mail to these addresses, it's clear that the hosts sending these messages are spammers. Same principal, but at a higher level.
I installed OpenBSD on my Sparc Station 5 without a hitch, but on my dual CPU ultra2, it paniced...
For one thing, OpenBSD doesn't do SMP (yet) and IIRC it will not function with a second processor present. It's not like other hardware, where if it doesn't recognize it, it just ignores it - I seem to recall that it will panic with more than one processor installed.
"pass in on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to ($ext_if) port $tcp_services flags S/SA keep state"
If you know what you're doing, you shouldn't be worrying about syntax. Choose the product that performs what you need, whatever it is.
You mean that "same" IPtable rule
"iptables -A INPUT -i $ext_if -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,ACK SYN -s $any_addr -d $ext_if_addr -dport $tcp_services -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT"
is more readable?
Wow, I knew iptables rules were terse, but that's just ridiculous compared to the plain-english-like flow of pf and IPFilter rules. Sure, if you know what you're doing, there shouldn't be any comprehension problem. But frankly when a single rule is as obscenely long as that iptables rule, it leaves a lot more room for errors, and it leaves a lot more for the admin to have to check over.
You're shelling out $50k for the software but complain about a $40 book?
Uh, if I were shelling out $50,000 for any software, I would complain that the software didn't include so much as a $40 book. If I were a Checkpoint customer I would seriously wonder why they don't include Phoneboy's book with the software, and/or why they aren't paying him for his book.
Heh, the power of understatement. Although I think NetBSD is really the king of understatement - NetBSD is only at version 1.6.2, and it's been around for more than 10 years.
Sources working at the Redmond campus say that it is common knowledge on campus that Longhorn will not ship until mid 2007
Wow... Windows XP was released in 2001, so that will end up being a 6-7 year interval between OS releases. I'm not sure what that will mean, but that's a really long interval between OS releases.
Here is a very informative article not only describing Solaris Zones, but also showing it in action. From what I can see, it seems similar to UserMode Linux, but nicely integrated into the OS, and supplied with a good set of administration tools.
Funny, 4.1.1 was the first version of FreeBSD I used, and I was hooked right from then. Heh, even a "bad" release of FreeBSD is still pretty good compared, oh, say, a bad RedHat release (anyone remember the whole GCC 2.96 fiasco?)
because it held up to shipping long distances. at the turn of the century getting beer from point a to point b wasn't easy and it often went bad.
Budweiser was a very different beer back then, and I suppose the type of beer it may have been at that time would be better suited to shipping than today's Bud. In general, pre-prohibition beers were more heavily hopped than today's mass-produced beers, which helped stave off bacerial infestation during shipping. However, the lack of refrigerated transport is the main reason why beers of the time didn't ship well.
The same can be said of IPAs. They were designed to travel from england to india.
Again, this is true, but it has nothing to do with Bud. Bud was changed around World War II to appeal to the increasingly female beer-drinking market. As such, it was made to be lighter and less flavorful. These changes actually made it much more difficult to ship - the light color made it very prone to oxidation due to light exposure, and the lack of taste made even a hint of oxidation very noticable. Since then, A-B has stopped caring about the actual taste of the beer and focused solely on consistency.
Some like bud, some like IPA's. Taste is subjective.
Taste is subjective, but there's no denying that Budweiser has very little taste.
You wouldn't believe how much work goes into making such a thoroughly below average beer.
This is true - and each Bud you buy, anywhere across the country, will taste just as shitty as the next - in exactly the same way. I have no idea why A-B or Miller decided on the particularly horrible taste of any of their beers, but they are extremely consistent.
Bluelines and whiteprints are the same, I guess its all where youre from or where you learned. Of course, it could be that my memory is a little hazy after inhaling ammonia fumes around the blueprint machine all day back then:)
Actually those are called WHITEPRINTS, Reversed with text in white background in blue are BLUPRINTS. I've never heard of whiteprints, but anyway, we used to refer the the white background, blue text prints as "bluelines."
But source code isn't the blueprint: it is the thing itself. I agree - what most people don't understand is that a blueprint is, by definition, a copy of an original _print_. Blueprints (copies) are made of the original drawings and distributed to the machinists/builders/whatever so that the original copy is not destroyed or lost on the job site. With source code, a (digital) copy is indistinguishable from the original, whereas a blueprint is noticably different from the original. A more accurate metaphor for source code might be simply the "design."
How many 486's had PCI slots? I don't think I've ever run into a single one.
I've got one at home. It's an AT&T Globalyst, 486-DX2/66-WB, I think it has 3 PCI slots. It was manufactured in 1995 - really the last gasp for 486s - and it seems a lot faster and it's a lot easier to work with than most 486s.
I'me also hard pressed to find ATA/133 ISA cards
I don't think those were ever made:), but that PCI 486 did come with - get this - a 100 BaseTX ISA ethernet card, a 3COM 3c515. Actually that machine is pretty unusual now that I think about it.
They've buried it even deeper in Windows XP (it's now in Programs...Accessories rather than just Programs).
How about the fact that Windows Explorer is also buried there. They apparently seem to think that everyone goes to "My Computer" to manage files, because My Computer is in the root of the Start menu.
Slashdot Mirror
HPUX used to come with a K&R C compiler... barel usable, but enough to do a local build of gcc or equivalent and get a real compiler. Not anything usable for serious development of anything tho. No idea what they included past version 10.2.
:-/ Neither have I any idea what is in 11.00 and up, but I suspect more of the same: a minimal cc.
Yep, HP-UX comes with a stripped-down compiler, enough to build the kernel, and probably not good for much else. I never was able to even get GCC compiled on a 10.20 machine
To my horror, once I finally got the thing installed I learned that it doesn't even come with a compiler.
True, but to be fair, no other enterprise UNIX comes bundled with the corresponding proprietary compiler, either.
Sure you can add GCC to it, but there must be some art to making GNU's tools work properly with Sun's libc that is beyond me.
This is a known "issue": AFAIU, the headers included in the GCC package you installed were meant for Solaris 9. Since Solaris 10 is still in beta, this ought to be forgivable, and the blame should go to the mainatiners of the GCC package you used, not Sun. However, Blastwave, the excellent Solaris package repository you missed, has GCC packages that work for Solaris 10/Express.
That is a link to Download Solaris Express (Solaris 10 Beta), not Solaris 10. Sun has been releasing (mostly) monthly builds of Solaris Express, and there have been quite a few advancements and improvements over Solaris 9. I think Solaris 10 is going to be a big release, but we'll all have to wait until later to download it: the announcement of Solaris 10 isn't until 12:30 PDT today, and the actual release of Solaris 10 probably won't be available until a later date. The most recent beta build (b69) says SunOS 5.10 December 2004 from either a uname or in /etc/release :(
Solaris isn't being released until later on today. According to the Solaris 10 Countup Page: While the secrets of Easter Island in the South Pacific remain a mystery, Sun Microsystems is planning to reveal new details regarding Solaris 10 on November 15 at its Network Computing '04 Q4 launch in San Jose.
:)
And according to Sun's NC04Q4 page: NC04Q4 opens at 12:30p.m. PDT on November 15, 2004.
Now, premature announcements are nothing new for Slashdot, but it's hard to discuss much about Solaris 10 before it's officially released; each Solaris Express release has shown continuing strides for Solaris 10, but the Express (Beta) builds have not included ZFS or Project Janus, (a Linux emulation layer.) These are two of the biggest features of Solaris 10, but nobody outside of Sun has much information on them, so we'll just have to wait until later today
And 15 years ago, I had x86, 68k, sparc, mips, parisc, alpha, and quite a few more people probably wouldn't even recognize.
Uhhh... do you realize that SPARC, MIPS, and PA-RISC are still in production? Even though at times it may seem like it, all the world is not an x86; there still is choice among architectures.
Uhh, Windows XP doesn't run on workstations - it only runs on PCs.
Dollar for dollar, transistor amplifiers output far more power before they're overloaded, making this discussion moot.
:)
No, the "discussion" you just started was moot even before you started it; the story is about the behavior of tubes vs. transistors when signals are clipped. Have you ever pushed an amplifier into clipping? With a solid-state amp, it's a really harsh, nasty sound, while a tube amp pushed to clipping will overload much more gracefully.
I'm sure a DSP can do it for you.
I don't know - maybe a DSP could make an overdriven amp sound less bad, but I doubt it.
You're either totally missing th point, or I'm wasting my time responding to a troll. Come to think of it, the tubes/transistors debate is about as played out as the vi vs. emacs debate. I'm not going to get into which is analogous to which...
It would seem like a good idea to use the info collected by the Darknet to perhaps automatically blacklist those offending IP addresses or perhaps to automatically complain to the offending ISP.
If I understand things correctly, this is part of how spamcop works. They have "dark" email addresses - addresses which have never been used or published anywhere. If they receive any mail to these addresses, it's clear that the hosts sending these messages are spammers. Same principal, but at a higher level.
... bad gnus for GNOME.org
I installed OpenBSD on my Sparc Station 5 without a hitch, but on my dual CPU ultra2, it paniced...
For one thing, OpenBSD doesn't do SMP (yet) and IIRC it will not function with a second processor present. It's not like other hardware, where if it doesn't recognize it, it just ignores it - I seem to recall that it will panic with more than one processor installed.
"pass in on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to ($ext_if) port $tcp_services flags S/SA keep state"
If you know what you're doing, you shouldn't be worrying about syntax. Choose the product that performs what you need, whatever it is.
You mean that "same" IPtable rule
"iptables -A INPUT -i $ext_if -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,ACK SYN -s $any_addr -d $ext_if_addr -dport $tcp_services -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT"
is more readable?
Wow, I knew iptables rules were terse, but that's just ridiculous compared to the plain-english-like flow of pf and IPFilter rules. Sure, if you know what you're doing, there shouldn't be any comprehension problem. But frankly when a single rule is as obscenely long as that iptables rule, it leaves a lot more room for errors, and it leaves a lot more for the admin to have to check over.
You're shelling out $50k for the software but complain about a $40 book?
Uh, if I were shelling out $50,000 for any software, I would complain that the software didn't include so much as a $40 book. If I were a Checkpoint customer I would seriously wonder why they don't include Phoneboy's book with the software, and/or why they aren't paying him for his book.
If only all "Version 2" software worked this well
Heh, the power of understatement. Although I think NetBSD is really the king of understatement - NetBSD is only at version 1.6.2, and it's been around for more than 10 years.
Sources working at the Redmond campus say that it is common knowledge on campus that Longhorn will not ship until mid 2007
Wow... Windows XP was released in 2001, so that will end up being a 6-7 year interval between OS releases. I'm not sure what that will mean, but that's a really long interval between OS releases.
Here is a very informative article not only describing Solaris Zones, but also showing it in action. From what I can see, it seems similar to UserMode Linux, but nicely integrated into the OS, and supplied with a good set of administration tools.
Funny, 4.1.1 was the first version of FreeBSD I used, and I was hooked right from then. Heh, even a "bad" release of FreeBSD is still pretty good compared, oh, say, a bad RedHat release (anyone remember the whole GCC 2.96 fiasco?)
because it held up to shipping long distances. at the turn of the century getting beer from point a to point b wasn't easy and it often went bad.
Budweiser was a very different beer back then, and I suppose the type of beer it may have been at that time would be better suited to shipping than today's Bud. In general, pre-prohibition beers were more heavily hopped than today's mass-produced beers, which helped stave off bacerial infestation during shipping. However, the lack of refrigerated transport is the main reason why beers of the time didn't ship well.
The same can be said of IPAs. They were designed to travel from england to india.
Again, this is true, but it has nothing to do with Bud. Bud was changed around World War II to appeal to the increasingly female beer-drinking market. As such, it was made to be lighter and less flavorful. These changes actually made it much more difficult to ship - the light color made it very prone to oxidation due to light exposure, and the lack of taste made even a hint of oxidation very noticable. Since then, A-B has stopped caring about the actual taste of the beer and focused solely on consistency.
Some like bud, some like IPA's. Taste is subjective.
Taste is subjective, but there's no denying that Budweiser has very little taste.
You wouldn't believe how much work goes into making such a thoroughly below average beer.
This is true - and each Bud you buy, anywhere across the country, will taste just as shitty as the next - in exactly the same way. I have no idea why A-B or Miller decided on the particularly horrible taste of any of their beers, but they are extremely consistent.
After seeing that picture I can confirm that Maxwell House is good to the last drop - going down and coming back up through your nose...
Bluelines and whiteprints are the same, I guess its all where youre from or where you learned. :)
Of course, it could be that my memory is a little hazy after inhaling ammonia fumes around the blueprint machine all day back then
Actually those are called WHITEPRINTS, Reversed with text in white background in blue are BLUPRINTS.
I've never heard of whiteprints, but anyway, we used to refer the the white background, blue text prints as "bluelines."
But source code isn't the blueprint: it is the thing itself.
I agree - what most people don't understand is that a blueprint is, by definition, a copy of an original _print_. Blueprints (copies) are made of the original drawings and distributed to the machinists/builders/whatever so that the original copy is not destroyed or lost on the job site. With source code, a (digital) copy is indistinguishable from the original, whereas a blueprint is noticably different from the original. A more accurate metaphor for source code might be simply the "design."
How many 486's had PCI slots? I don't think I've ever run into a single one.
:), but that PCI 486 did come with - get this - a 100 BaseTX ISA ethernet card, a 3COM 3c515. Actually that machine is pretty unusual now that I think about it.
I've got one at home. It's an AT&T Globalyst, 486-DX2/66-WB, I think it has 3 PCI slots. It was manufactured in 1995 - really the last gasp for 486s - and it seems a lot faster and it's a lot easier to work with than most 486s.
I'me also hard pressed to find ATA/133 ISA cards
I don't think those were ever made
They've buried it even deeper in Windows XP (it's now in Programs...Accessories rather than just Programs).
How about the fact that Windows Explorer is also buried there. They apparently seem to think that everyone goes to "My Computer" to manage files, because My Computer is in the root of the Start menu.
Any info against what least common denominator the binaries are compiled for ? 386 , 486, pentium ?
I don't know what the binaries are compiled for, but I can tell you that Solaris 9 doesn't support 486 at all (i.e. it will not let you install.)