I'm sure Jeff @ Anandtech will get around to it; he has enough on his hands already (um, yes I know him).:-)
On that note I'm glad to see reviewers (Tom's, Anandtech, DukeOfURL, etc.) beginning to slant toward Linux and *BSD in their hardware and software reviews. This sort of information would have made my life _much_ easier in choosing compatible hardware earlier.
Actually Kurt is actually quite on target here. He's _not_ being overly paranoid; after all, most of us are "system administrators" and need to be more overtly cautious. The X-Files has it right: "Trust no one."
With that I advocate OpenSSH, the development of which Kurt takes an active part in (read the openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org mailing list!).
Though I am an employee of the University as well, there are several prominent additional reasons why "banning" Napster simply would not succeed, and these by no means constitute official University reasoning:
1) Napster traffic simply does not constitute a significant portion of network bandwidth usage.
2) Firewalling Napster's ports will do nothing to block access, since other implementations steadily growing in popularity among "free OS" users like OpenNap dynamically allocate ports.
3) Ultimately, blocking Napster will not deter the most frenzied "pirates" from obtaining what they wish through other means, such as web/ftp/irc.
In my opinion ReiserFS 3.5.18 is an excellent filesystem. Several Linux machines here run 3.5.18 with the 2.2.14 kernel and easily trounce equivalent ext2 machines running 2.2.14. Several of the machines are undergrad sandboxes where intro data structure programming is done, so they're hit pretty hard when approximately eighty simultaneous g++ commands are issued.:) Another is used for Postfix queueing. None of them have experienced extended downtime beyond the ten to fifteen seconds required to verify the integrity of the journalising fs.
My person machine runs 3.5.18 on kernel 2.2.14 and performs remarkably well under the abuse that I continually heap upon it. The most cutting-edge releases of SuSE and Linux-Mandrake have integrated an option to create ReiserFS partitions as opposed to ext2, and I choose that option whenever presented.:)
Diablo II sounds like a great game; the previews, screenshots, and rumors abounding have really whetted my appetite, but unfortunately I no longer run Windows, so it is pointless to drool. Wait-- perhaps LokiGames will port it, or even better-- perhaps those announcements about Blizzard needing Linux programmers... ooh ooh, I can't wait! =]
This man is brilliant, intimidating and relentless. He's also one of the coolest professors I've had, so it comes as no surprise that he wins the Turing Award for his momentous contributions to the computer industry.
I'm looking forward to this coming semester (I'm taking another computer architecture class under him) already. =)
Um, I can't believe I'm reading some of these replies! After all that John Carmack has contributed to the entire computer industry, we have the gall to lash back at him in this manner... He is one heck of a programmer, not to mention one heck of a nice guy! If he wants to "take a stab" at reworking the Linux IP stack, then the Linux community should welcome him with open arms, not this "are you sure he can do it"/"he's a greedy basta'd" crap. As it has been said before, he has much experience with network optimization (think QuakeWorld, people, not to mention that Q3A plays *wonderfully* on my seriously lagged 28.8!); why shouldn't he be able to hack out (and I mean that in the most respectful manner) something that will ultimately benefit all Internet users?
Btw, the issue of latency is *huge*. I constantly play on a 28.8 in contrast to my school Ethernet connection, and latency sure kicks my rear on that 28.8 (not to mention that I'm a sorry Quake player, too!;-). PowerPlay is definitely a good step in the correct direction.
(1) OSC's track record. Have you ever seen "The Abyss?" Can I get a show of hands (ooh, Rush reference:-) for those of you who think it rocks? Thought so.:D
(2) OSC himself. This man is an amazing author (and arguably the best sci-fi one behind Asimov). He's also a warm, humorous and open guy. I interviewed him when I was in elementary school (long, long ago) for a reading project and have known his family forever (it seems). His tireless energy and keen sense of plot coherence/integrity will not allow the script to be distorted into something beyond recognition.
(3) Wing Commander. To put it bluntly, the series is great, but the movie was *the* biggest disappointment of my life (next to the near-sterile passing of 1999-> 2000;-), and I *know* EG will blow WC out of the water.
Actually 9x is avoided. NT is, as you say, used "as little...as possible." I'm not one to vouch for the use of any Windows platform or Linux distribution, but I will say that I have never had a prejudice against MacOS, which seems like a secure enough OS from a network standpoint (notice that I did not include stable, however;-).
I, too, find it interesting that such attention is targeted specifically toward OS 9 when all the facts have yet to be laid out. And yes, it is correct that all OSes have the ability to react in the manner as in the original post.
I will differ from you in that I believe OpenBSD is the most secure out-of-box solution. As for "easiest" to maintain, well...;-)
Oh, and these are my views, not the university's. =)
Thanks, dtc
(who is very pleased with his extremely secure stand-alone TI-30)
Wow, I never thought of using an OS's built-in networking code against itself, but heck, this sounds neat-O!
Really, this is a serious security issue. As an admin, I rue the day that OS9 is deployed if such a possibility remains "in the wild." Being stuck in the middle of AOL's subnet doesn't help, either, but at least eliminating this one source will save myself and countless others the hassle of hoping and praying that no script kiddie gets his hands on a tool to exploit this vulnerability.
*BSD has been quietly serving the Internet community at large for much longer than any distribution of Linux has been visible. Walnut Creek ftp, the distributing hub of several Linux distributions, has been dishing out gigs for years, and ISPs have used *BSD since... the inception of ISPs. Chat networks have preferred *BSD servers for their stability and security.
This isn't to downplay Linux, just to say that the ftp from which you downloaded a Linux distribution was probably running *BSD.
How then is it possible to say that *BSD wouldn't be as popular without Linux? =P
I will attempt not to fall into the dreaded "*BSD vs. various distributions of Linux" flamebait here. Here's my story:
I'm still primarily a NT user. Why? Better IDE, more game support and more robust (not to mention widespread) hardware support. However, many, many moons ago I began the Slackware trek. Its simplicity and stability (courtesy of Linus's kernel, of course) really impressed me. I installed a few servers out of curiosity and promptly forgot about them. Four or five months later I realized that they were still running strong (given the requisite `kill ` that one must force on some runaway thread). This was utterly positive; I was used to checking my computers daily to ensure they were still running. Additionally, I noticed that performance wasn't hampered as much as under NT when more users connected or accessed the mounts. Thus, Linux became the fileserver OS.
A few short months later I installed my first copy of FreeBSD (2.7?), again, just out of curiosity. I setup ircd, nfsd, a few other daemons and went on vacation. When I returned, needless to say, ircd (known for its uncanny ability to split) was still running. Of course the other parts of the installation were doing just fine. So when I was called to do a security-apparent job, I tried OpenBSD. Perhaps I was entrigued by the entire "secure by default" mentality (or was it the line-by-line auditing?;-). Needless to say, that box is still running Open (uptime is nearly 500 days!), and I'm rather impressed by its ability to simply reject repeated exploits and intrusions.
Linux has never failed me, nor has *BSD. My limited experience does not qualify me to say that *BSD is any more able to handle mission-critical jobs than Linux, but I will say this: the degree of success that surrounds Walnut Creek is simply amazing. If a site that handles unimaginable daily traffic can withstand attacks and impatient ftp'ers, then I can trust its mission-critical status.
I now use two primary machines: a FreeBSD 3.4 (just made world a few nights ago!;-) machine for the "good stuff" and a NT4 machine for gaming.
Re:cutting edge 3d....done on Linux of course
on
Review:Toy Story 2
·
· Score: 2
Gah?! Um, no. Though rendering progs are up and coming under the Linux kernel, no one in his/her right mind would choose Linux+Intel for graphically-intensive jobs.
The CS department here at UNC-Chapel Hill uses SGIs and Suns.
I believe I remember correctly that in the credits to TS2 the renderfarm was comprised of Sun machines. I caught that the 3D animation software was Alias!/Wavefront, but I don't remember what the 2D software was...
Perhaps we should all choose a superior solution: 32 FreeBSD boxes (ala _The Matrix_)! =)
Oh wait, that is a flavor of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.;-)
Seriously, I am impressed that Phish is stepping forward and taking advantage of the mp3 scene. Though I don't agree with their selling mp3s of the webcast proceeding the show (I already have that concert both on tape and mp3-- both A+ quality), mp3 webcasting should have been a staple long ago.
Does Real use Icecast/Shoutcast/* ? Or is it proprietary? I'd love to see Icecast step to the forefront. =)
Since I did not actually see the MTV "special" on hackers, I cannot declare that half-hour a total waste.;-) After moderating some replies here on/. however, it became clear that the show was nothing more than any other MTV "special"-- wasted airtime. (Yep, I'm taking a leap in believing in the majority's opinion.)
Shamrock does have a point about television being hollow, etc. I have to inspect the news with a critical eye (even what I screen on the 'net, too), since there exists no unbiased news source. The lengths that reporters will go to is astonishing. =/
On a side note, I'm happy to see that HNN is powered by OpenBSD. Keep those script kiddies busy!
Right now I'm working on some tcl/tk stuff. Rush's A Farewell to Kings is in el cheapo CD player (yum, "Xanadu"). Mendelssohn's 3rd and 4th Symphonies have graced my speakers, and I'm particularly fond of his "Hebrides" Overture (aka "Fingal's Cave"), Opus 26; other times I pop in Kenny Wayne Shepherd, Steve Vai, Dream Theater (!!), Miles Davis, Dexter Gordon, Bizet, or anything that wanders across my mind. The new Live, The Distance to Here, is particularly good. Yes's new album is also excellent. The Unreal soundtrack (yes, there is one!) is also good, as is the soundtrack to The Matrix and the scores to The English Patient and The X-Files: Fight the Future.
I think any pre-Presto Rush dominates my CD-ROM, though. =)
I'm sure the Usual Places(tm) will have the important files mirrored soon, but if there is a crunch to get them, I have placed them on a (gasp) NT machine (excellent uptime, however;~) with a fast connection.
Mirrored are the tarball, the RPM, and the source RPM.
Xing is not necessarily bad; I just prefer the FHG-Radium codec. In fact, I might just stick with MPEG-1.0 Layer 2 encoding, since at higher bitrates (i.e. 192+ kbit/s) the sound quality is even better than that of FHG-Radium at 320.
Wow, interesting replies all around. Welp, I was introduced to CDex tonight, and I must agree that it is awesome. Previously I have been an AudioGrabber addict (for those brief moments in Windows), but CDex 1.20beta5 is really nice. Anyhow, on to the meat and potatoes.
I tried the latest downloadable releases of BladeEnc, LAME (.DLLs only, of course), and the FHG-Radium (== optimised) codecs. I ripped under Win98 using a Plextor UltraPlex 40max hooked to an Adaptec 2930B; my machine is a diehard overclocked Celeron 366 PPGA to 550 (384 MB RAM). My encoding settings are for 192 kbit/s at 44.1 kHz simple stereo (NOT joint-stereo) for track 01 from the 1995 Del Amitri CD, _Twisted_ (the song being "Food for Songs"). I have a Diamond MonsterSound MX300 hooked up to Cambridge SoundWorks (the SoundWorks model) speakers. In short, my system is pretty decent for personal testing.;)
The BladeEnc 0.82 Intel DLL took approximately 2 minutes and 5 seconds to encode. The LAME 3.14 codec (I can't find any mention of it on the LAME history page, however) included with CDex 1.20beta5 took 1 minute and 1 second. The FHG-Radium codec took 2 minutes and 18 seconds.
My take, from "best-sounding" to "worst-sounding" (note the subjectivity; I don't claim to be unbiased =): FHG-Radium-> LAME-> BladeEnc.
As much as I dislike rebooting just to encode mp3s, I have to admit that the FHG-Radium codec is hands-down the winner. The intro segment with the hi-hat is superb for testing high-frequency response in the encoded MPEG-1.0 layer 3 file, and while all three codecs produced top-notch quality high-frequency response, the FHG-Radium codec retained the "finesse"/crispness of the hi-hat; the remaining two did not retain such crispness. (Caveat: I am EXTREMELY picky about crispness in high-frequency response.;)
Interestingly enough, CDex's internal mp2 (MPEG-1.0 layer 2) encoder produced a file of equal if not better quality than the mp3 produced by the FHG-Radium codec. This may be due to the nature of the mp3 routines. Additionally, it took just fifty seconds to encode. =)
My recommendation? If you're looking for professional quality, then you may wish to invest in hardware encoding (no software solution will ever top those!). If you use Windows, then FHG-Radium is your best bet. If you use *nix, then LAME is your best bet. If you straddle the fence a bit (as I do), then choose whichever the sun shines on that day.;)
As a side note: the versions of the codecs, with the exception of the FHG-Radium one, that I tested were not the latest and greatest. I believe LAME is up to 3.24 (beta) and BladeEnc is up to 0.85 (beta). Next time I'll test in Slink.;)
After reading through the post, the motley responses, and the two mentioned sites, I have concluded that while Cliffy B.'s approach may not be the "appropriate" one, it certainly is a "great leap forward." Why? Well, I can't claim that I was abused, persay, in school, but I certainly empathize with those of you who cowered in the corner due to "undue attention" (a euphemism for not wanting to get your behind kicked into outer space). I received my fair share (and one-third more, I believe) of butt-kicking (my behind still aches), but I have rebounded (somewhat). I'm still bitter over the thirteen years I wasted in public education, but heck, North Carolina *is* ranked 49th in the nation for public education, right?!;-)
Perhaps what gets to me is the fact that the myriad of responses here on/. have blasted Cliffy B.'s attempt at harnessing chaos. Nothing irks me more than blundering geeks who cannot express themselves succinctly (distinct irony here, eh?). Most of the responses here bitch about the lack of pretty colors and round shapes in HellMouth.org, but who really cares? The site accomplishes its mission: "to get the word out." One doesn't need a Macromedia site to spread the word!
The short and sweet of my response: I applaud Cliffy B.'s valiant attempt to persuade us to jettison some of our baggage. Perhaps an administrator or one of those who tormented us will happen across the site and feel a twinge of guilt (yeah, right).
To those of you who don't believe: f* you. Have a nice day.
Wow, I never thought of it that way, so it has to be interesting. =) Is Win3.1 really *that* fragmented from, say, NT, though? I never even thought of them under the same umbrella. Correct me if I'm wrong, but just how multiuser is 3.1 (not 3.11)?
1) I use Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, MacOS, Netware, WinX, and occasionally OS/2. Frankly, I care close to nil that NT "came out on top" in the NT vs. Linux test because most of the platforms I use are based on U*ix. Whether a test shows one platform over another to be "faster" has no bearing on my decision to use a certain OS-- I am still using Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, MacOS, Netware, WinX, and occasionally OS/2. Nor am I bitter that under one very particular and controlled environment Linux "lost." The "real world" is not controlled.;-)
2) Linux performance is not at the bottom of the U*ix pack. I believe (for me, that is) that Solaris has been relatively good in terms of performance, yet Linux still manages to best it. I place *BSD at the top. For stability, however, Solaris really takes the cake. But who really cares?! Anything is better than trying to run a Q3TEST server under WinX! =)
Red Hat 6.0 i386 mirror (US east coast)
on
RedHat 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I just noticed that my "mirror" isn't 100% complete. I'm counting on MetaLab to get their act together and retrieve the entire Red Hat 6.0 distribution, tho', and then I'll be able to use my PC again. Thanks, Slashdotters, everyone!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Jeff @ Anandtech will get around to it; he has enough on his hands already (um, yes I know him). :-)
On that note I'm glad to see reviewers (Tom's, Anandtech, DukeOfURL, etc.) beginning to slant toward Linux and *BSD in their hardware and software reviews. This sort of information would have made my life _much_ easier in choosing compatible hardware earlier.
Actually Kurt is actually quite on target here. He's _not_ being overly paranoid; after all, most of us are "system administrators" and need to be more overtly cautious. The X-Files has it right: "Trust no one."
With that I advocate OpenSSH, the development of which Kurt takes an active part in (read the openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org mailing list!).
Though I am an employee of the University as well, there are several prominent additional reasons why "banning" Napster simply would not succeed, and these by no means constitute official University reasoning:
1) Napster traffic simply does not constitute a significant portion of network bandwidth usage.
2) Firewalling Napster's ports will do nothing to block access, since other implementations steadily growing in popularity among "free OS" users like OpenNap dynamically allocate ports.
3) Ultimately, blocking Napster will not deter the most frenzied "pirates" from obtaining what they wish through other means, such as web/ftp/irc.
Btw, UNC doesn't support piracy, just privacy. =)
In my opinion ReiserFS 3.5.18 is an excellent filesystem. Several Linux machines here run 3.5.18 with the 2.2.14 kernel and easily trounce equivalent ext2 machines running 2.2.14. Several of the machines are undergrad sandboxes where intro data structure programming is done, so they're hit pretty hard when approximately eighty simultaneous g++ commands are issued. :) Another is used for Postfix queueing. None of them have experienced extended downtime beyond the ten to fifteen seconds required to verify the integrity of the journalising fs.
:)
My person machine runs 3.5.18 on kernel 2.2.14 and performs remarkably well under the abuse that I continually heap upon it. The most cutting-edge releases of SuSE and Linux-Mandrake have integrated an option to create ReiserFS partitions as opposed to ext2, and I choose that option whenever presented.
Diablo II sounds like a great game; the previews, screenshots, and rumors abounding have really whetted my appetite, but unfortunately I no longer run Windows, so it is pointless to drool. Wait-- perhaps LokiGames will port it, or even better-- perhaps those announcements about Blizzard needing Linux programmers... ooh ooh, I can't wait! =]
Gracias, Muerte2, you have clarified what I so brilliantly fux0r3d up. ;-)
This man is brilliant, intimidating and relentless. He's also one of the coolest professors I've had, so it comes as no surprise that he wins the Turing Award for his momentous contributions to the computer industry.
I'm looking forward to this coming semester (I'm taking another computer architecture class under him) already. =)
Um, I can't believe I'm reading some of these replies! After all that John Carmack has contributed to the entire computer industry, we have the gall to lash back at him in this manner... He is one heck of a programmer, not to mention one heck of a nice guy! If he wants to "take a stab" at reworking the Linux IP stack, then the Linux community should welcome him with open arms, not this "are you sure he can do it"/"he's a greedy basta'd" crap. As it has been said before, he has much experience with network optimization (think QuakeWorld, people, not to mention that Q3A plays *wonderfully* on my seriously lagged 28.8!); why shouldn't he be able to hack out (and I mean that in the most respectful manner) something that will ultimately benefit all Internet users?
;-). PowerPlay is definitely a good step in the correct direction.
Btw, the issue of latency is *huge*. I constantly play on a 28.8 in contrast to my school Ethernet connection, and latency sure kicks my rear on that 28.8 (not to mention that I'm a sorry Quake player, too!
Reasons why this movie will *not* "blow":
:-) for those of you who think it rocks? Thought so. :D
;-), and I *know* EG will blow WC out of the water.
(1) OSC's track record. Have you ever seen "The Abyss?" Can I get a show of hands (ooh, Rush reference
(2) OSC himself. This man is an amazing author (and arguably the best sci-fi one behind Asimov). He's also a warm, humorous and open guy. I interviewed him when I was in elementary school (long, long ago) for a reading project and have known his family forever (it seems). His tireless energy and keen sense of plot coherence/integrity will not allow the script to be distorted into something beyond recognition.
(3) Wing Commander. To put it bluntly, the series is great, but the movie was *the* biggest disappointment of my life (next to the near-sterile passing of 1999-> 2000
-dtc
Actually 9x is avoided. NT is, as you say, used "as little...as possible." I'm not one to vouch for the use of any Windows platform or Linux distribution, but I will say that I have never had a prejudice against MacOS, which seems like a secure enough OS from a network standpoint (notice that I did not include stable, however ;-).
;-)
I, too, find it interesting that such attention is targeted specifically toward OS 9 when all the facts have yet to be laid out. And yes, it is correct that all OSes have the ability to react in the manner as in the original post.
I will differ from you in that I believe OpenBSD is the most secure out-of-box solution. As for "easiest" to maintain, well...
Oh, and these are my views, not the university's. =)
Thanks,
dtc
(who is very pleased with his extremely secure stand-alone TI-30)
Wow, I never thought of using an OS's built-in networking code against itself, but heck, this sounds neat-O!
Really, this is a serious security issue. As an admin, I rue the day that OS9 is deployed if such a possibility remains "in the wild." Being stuck in the middle of AOL's subnet doesn't help, either, but at least eliminating this one source will save myself and countless others the hassle of hoping and praying that no script kiddie gets his hands on a tool to exploit this vulnerability.
Heh heh, I believe you have it reversed.
*BSD has been quietly serving the Internet community at large for much longer than any distribution of Linux has been visible. Walnut Creek ftp, the distributing hub of several Linux distributions, has been dishing out gigs for years, and ISPs have used *BSD since... the inception of ISPs. Chat networks have preferred *BSD servers for their stability and security.
This isn't to downplay Linux, just to say that the ftp from which you downloaded a Linux distribution was probably running *BSD.
How then is it possible to say that *BSD wouldn't be as popular without Linux? =P
I will attempt not to fall into the dreaded "*BSD vs. various distributions of Linux" flamebait here. Here's my story:
;-). Needless to say, that box is still running Open (uptime is nearly 500 days!), and I'm rather impressed by its ability to simply reject repeated exploits and intrusions.
;-) machine for the "good stuff" and a NT4 machine for gaming.
I'm still primarily a NT user. Why? Better IDE, more game support and more robust (not to mention widespread) hardware support. However, many, many moons ago I began the Slackware trek. Its simplicity and stability (courtesy of Linus's kernel, of course) really impressed me. I installed a few servers out of curiosity and promptly forgot about them. Four or five months later I realized that they were still running strong (given the requisite `kill ` that one must force on some runaway thread). This was utterly positive; I was used to checking my computers daily to ensure they were still running. Additionally, I noticed that performance wasn't hampered as much as under NT when more users connected or accessed the mounts. Thus, Linux became the fileserver OS.
A few short months later I installed my first copy of FreeBSD (2.7?), again, just out of curiosity. I setup ircd, nfsd, a few other daemons and went on vacation. When I returned, needless to say, ircd (known for its uncanny ability to split) was still running. Of course the other parts of the installation were doing just fine. So when I was called to do a security-apparent job, I tried OpenBSD. Perhaps I was entrigued by the entire "secure by default" mentality (or was it the line-by-line auditing?
Linux has never failed me, nor has *BSD. My limited experience does not qualify me to say that *BSD is any more able to handle mission-critical jobs than Linux, but I will say this: the degree of success that surrounds Walnut Creek is simply amazing. If a site that handles unimaginable daily traffic can withstand attacks and impatient ftp'ers, then I can trust its mission-critical status.
I now use two primary machines: a FreeBSD 3.4 (just made world a few nights ago!
Gah?! Um, no. Though rendering progs are up and coming under the Linux kernel, no one in his/her right mind would choose Linux+Intel for graphically-intensive jobs.
The CS department here at UNC-Chapel Hill uses SGIs and Suns.
I believe I remember correctly that in the credits to TS2 the renderfarm was comprised of Sun machines. I caught that the 3D animation software was Alias!/Wavefront, but I don't remember what the 2D software was...
Perhaps we should all choose a superior solution: 32 FreeBSD boxes (ala _The Matrix_)! =)
Hopefully...
:-)
It's dead.
Oh wait, that is a flavor of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. ;-)
Seriously, I am impressed that Phish is stepping forward and taking advantage of the mp3 scene. Though I don't agree with their selling mp3s of the webcast proceeding the show (I already have that concert both on tape and mp3-- both A+ quality), mp3 webcasting should have been a staple long ago.
Does Real use Icecast/Shoutcast/* ? Or is it proprietary? I'd love to see Icecast step to the forefront. =)
-dan
NP : Ice Age - Spare Chicken Parts
Since I did not actually see the MTV "special" on hackers, I cannot declare that half-hour a total waste. ;-) After moderating some replies here on /. however, it became clear that the show was nothing more than any other MTV "special"-- wasted airtime. (Yep, I'm taking a leap in believing in the majority's opinion.)
Shamrock does have a point about television being hollow, etc. I have to inspect the news with a critical eye (even what I screen on the 'net, too), since there exists no unbiased news source. The lengths that reporters will go to is astonishing. =/
On a side note, I'm happy to see that HNN is powered by OpenBSD. Keep those script kiddies busy!
Right now I'm working on some tcl/tk stuff. Rush's A Farewell to Kings is in el cheapo CD player (yum, "Xanadu"). Mendelssohn's 3rd and 4th Symphonies have graced my speakers, and I'm particularly fond of his "Hebrides" Overture (aka "Fingal's Cave"), Opus 26; other times I pop in Kenny Wayne Shepherd, Steve Vai, Dream Theater (!!), Miles Davis, Dexter Gordon, Bizet, or anything that wanders across my mind. The new Live, The Distance to Here, is particularly good. Yes's new album is also excellent. The Unreal soundtrack (yes, there is one!) is also good, as is the soundtrack to The Matrix and the scores to The English Patient and The X-Files: Fight the Future.
I think any pre-Presto Rush dominates my CD-ROM, though. =)
I'm sure the Usual Places(tm) will have the important files mirrored soon, but if there is a crunch to get them, I have placed them on a (gasp) NT machine (excellent uptime, however ;~) with a fast connection.
Mirrored are the tarball, the RPM, and the source RPM.
anon FTP-> 152.2.174.242 port 29
Xing is not necessarily bad; I just prefer the FHG-Radium codec. In fact, I might just stick with MPEG-1.0 Layer 2 encoding, since at higher bitrates (i.e. 192+ kbit/s) the sound quality is even better than that of FHG-Radium at 320.
Wow, interesting replies all around. Welp, I was introduced to CDex tonight, and I must agree that it is awesome. Previously I have been an AudioGrabber addict (for those brief moments in Windows), but CDex 1.20beta5 is really nice. Anyhow, on to the meat and potatoes.
;)
;)
;)
;)
I tried the latest downloadable releases of BladeEnc, LAME (.DLLs only, of course), and the FHG-Radium (== optimised) codecs. I ripped under Win98 using a Plextor UltraPlex 40max hooked to an Adaptec 2930B; my machine is a diehard overclocked Celeron 366 PPGA to 550 (384 MB RAM). My encoding settings are for 192 kbit/s at 44.1 kHz simple stereo (NOT joint-stereo) for track 01 from the 1995 Del Amitri CD, _Twisted_ (the song being "Food for Songs"). I have a Diamond MonsterSound MX300 hooked up to Cambridge SoundWorks (the SoundWorks model) speakers. In short, my system is pretty decent for personal testing.
The BladeEnc 0.82 Intel DLL took approximately 2 minutes and 5 seconds to encode. The LAME 3.14 codec (I can't find any mention of it on the LAME history page, however) included with CDex 1.20beta5 took 1 minute and 1 second. The FHG-Radium codec took 2 minutes and 18 seconds.
My take, from "best-sounding" to "worst-sounding" (note the subjectivity; I don't claim to be unbiased =): FHG-Radium-> LAME-> BladeEnc.
As much as I dislike rebooting just to encode mp3s, I have to admit that the FHG-Radium codec is hands-down the winner. The intro segment with the hi-hat is superb for testing high-frequency response in the encoded MPEG-1.0 layer 3 file, and while all three codecs produced top-notch quality high-frequency response, the FHG-Radium codec retained the "finesse"/crispness of the hi-hat; the remaining two did not retain such crispness. (Caveat: I am EXTREMELY picky about crispness in high-frequency response.
Interestingly enough, CDex's internal mp2 (MPEG-1.0 layer 2) encoder produced a file of equal if not better quality than the mp3 produced by the FHG-Radium codec. This may be due to the nature of the mp3 routines. Additionally, it took just fifty seconds to encode. =)
My recommendation? If you're looking for professional quality, then you may wish to invest in hardware encoding (no software solution will ever top those!). If you use Windows, then FHG-Radium is your best bet. If you use *nix, then LAME is your best bet. If you straddle the fence a bit (as I do), then choose whichever the sun shines on that day.
As a side note: the versions of the codecs, with the exception of the FHG-Radium one, that I tested were not the latest and greatest. I believe LAME is up to 3.24 (beta) and BladeEnc is up to 0.85 (beta). Next time I'll test in Slink.
After reading through the post, the motley responses, and the two mentioned sites, I have concluded that while Cliffy B.'s approach may not be the "appropriate" one, it certainly is a "great leap forward." Why? Well, I can't claim that I was abused, persay, in school, but I certainly empathize with those of you who cowered in the corner due to "undue attention" (a euphemism for not wanting to get your behind kicked into outer space). I received my fair share (and one-third more, I believe) of butt-kicking (my behind still aches), but I have rebounded (somewhat). I'm still bitter over the thirteen years I wasted in public education, but heck, North Carolina *is* ranked 49th in the nation for public education, right?! ;-)
/. have blasted Cliffy B.'s attempt at harnessing chaos. Nothing irks me more than blundering geeks who cannot express themselves succinctly (distinct irony here, eh?). Most of the responses here bitch about the lack of pretty colors and round shapes in HellMouth.org, but who really cares? The site accomplishes its mission: "to get the word out." One doesn't need a Macromedia site to spread the word!
Perhaps what gets to me is the fact that the myriad of responses here on
The short and sweet of my response: I applaud Cliffy B.'s valiant attempt to persuade us to jettison some of our baggage. Perhaps an administrator or one of those who tormented us will happen across the site and feel a twinge of guilt (yeah, right).
To those of you who don't believe: f* you. Have a nice day.
Wow, I never thought of it that way, so it has to be interesting. =) Is Win3.1 really *that* fragmented from, say, NT, though? I never even thought of them under the same umbrella. Correct me if I'm wrong, but just how multiuser is 3.1 (not 3.11)?
My $0.04 worth...
;-)
1) I use Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, MacOS, Netware, WinX, and occasionally OS/2. Frankly, I care close to nil that NT "came out on top" in the NT vs. Linux test because most of the platforms I use are based on U*ix. Whether a test shows one platform over another to be "faster" has no bearing on my decision to use a certain OS-- I am still using Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, MacOS, Netware, WinX, and occasionally OS/2. Nor am I bitter that under one very particular and controlled environment Linux "lost." The "real world" is not controlled.
2) Linux performance is not at the bottom of the U*ix pack. I believe (for me, that is) that Solaris has been relatively good in terms of performance, yet Linux still manages to best it. I place *BSD at the top. For stability, however, Solaris really takes the cake. But who really cares?! Anything is better than trying to run a Q3TEST server under WinX! =)
Yeah, I just noticed that my "mirror" isn't 100% complete. I'm counting on MetaLab to get their act together and retrieve the entire Red Hat 6.0 distribution, tho', and then I'll be able to use my PC again. Thanks, Slashdotters, everyone! ;-)