Re:Resolving the Uptime Syndrome
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 2
Well, dialup services don't take all that much cpu out of the system.
We've got a squid proxy server that's been up for 80+ days, that's rebooted because of power problems. That server gets a lot more traffic, but I liked the higher number on this one, "for effect" or something like that.
Re:Speaking of uptime...
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 2
I'm an administrator running a Samba network (Linux server running as PDC) serving over 100 NT clients. We tell them not to reboot. However, after about a week or a week and a half of uptime, most of them have to be rebooted anyway because of strange errors and BSOD's. I'd say at least one or two of them BSOD's a day out of them.
These are Dell machines with all the "right" hardware in them.
Re:They fell for the 2.2.11 "joke"...
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 2
Uhm, isn't it good practice to always wait a while before upgrading kernels?
Features and optimizations are not just thrown in there. I think it has something to do with the extensive testing you get when you release a kernel, versus when you just get to test it.
You should always wait before upgrading a server box.
Re:Speaking of uptime...
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 2
You are so full of it.
If Windows NT requires an administrator that REALLY knows what they're doing in order to get a stable system, then why bother using NT, when you can get a stable Linux box without all of that? With Linux, you at least have a lot more flexibility.
I don't get it anymore. First, the NT apologists say that NT is easy enough for anyone to administer. Then they excuse NT's instability by saying you need an expert administrator to have a stable system. So, which is it?
Linux is probably the easiest way to get a stable system.
Re:Resolving the Uptime Syndrome
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 2
Heh. Heh.
Uptime on a dialup SERVER being used quite extensively here:
Re:Resolving the Uptime Syndrome
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 2
Well, there is a significant difference between scheduled downtime and downtime.
With scheduled downtime, users are notified of the impending change, and can prepare for it, and stop using the system for the few minutes that it's down.
Unscheduled downtime, on the other hand, as with crashes of the server operating system, makes people lose work, and can last for a long time, since the administrators may be nowhere near the system.
So, I think even from a user standpoint, scheduled downtime is much more acceptable.
Assuming the problem is big enough to warrant it, they can outsource and fix whatever bugs are ailing them if need be.
What do they do with Microsoft?
Sign over their souls to Bill Gates? I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't care about the little fish in the sea. With Linux, if you don't like one vendor, you go to another.
This ALL makes sense now. I don't know why someone didn't realize this already. The reason Microsoft is saying that there's a buffer overflow exploit for AOL IM is that there might be a way to execute and/or receive certain data from the memory in the system and/or other things. Apparently, AOL's client has some built in functionality to allow them leeway in changing enough of the protocol to be able to detect what information a real client should get. This "buffer overflow exploit" might be one of their mechanisms. Or M$ might just assume that it is one. Obviously, some of those M$ engineers are quite frustrated at being blocked and not knowing how to get around the block.
Re:Incomplete packages released as Open Source...
on
AOL Jilts Open Source
·
· Score: 3
There's nothing stopping those users from using MSIM or anything else. AOL is not blocking them from using it even if they're connected to AOL.
I don't see anything wrong with AOL keeping other clients from using their server resources and their users, especially if it's an attempt at a coup by a competitor.
GNU products in many cases are the glue that holds unixes together since we can have basic system commands that work the same across architectures. Less training costs, more productivity.
Can you give examples where GNU products have stagnated? Where there's a real need for a version that has some feature that doesn't already exist, but isn't being made? Heck, if someone needs a feature that's not implemented badly enough, they'll code it themselves.
GNU products in general don't stagnate.
Re:Incomplete packages released as Open Source...
on
AOL Jilts Open Source
·
· Score: 2
Who cares? AOL spent the marketing effort to get the users, those users are theirs and theirs alone.
If you want to make a new instant messaging paradym, then you create the protocol, you create the servers, and you make the snazzy new clients everyone else will want.
Don't complain that AOL isn't giving away its users. It worked hard for them.
EFNET has gotten better lately as far as the script-kiddies, since it's much harder to get illegitimate channel operator access even if you resort to flooding servers, flooding clients, or the like. It's still possible in many cases, but with a large enough channel, and enough bots, it's next to impossible.
While I'm the spokesperson for EFNET , I will agree that most channels on EFNET are crap. Then again, most channels on most servers are crap. You gotta find what's good and stick to there.
As for IM versus IRC, IRC wins out. It's a lot more 'underground', in many cases.
What I __WOULD__ LOVE to see, is some encrypted IRC servers for the major networks, and some clients to boot. Preferably 128 bit or better encryption.
Even better would be to be able to share keys in private chats and among members of a channel, and keep even the server operators from being able to monitor the connections (since that's not what they do anyway) at any point anywhere in the chain.
This would be a big boon to IRC IMHO, but it might be painted by the media as an area of complete lawlessness since there would absolutely no way the government can monitor conversations between people via the internet. We're talking no phone taps, nothing like that possible. This would be the first completely secure form of communication for large numbers of people.
I could see the government making something like the scenario above impossible to achieve.
Re:"We want open protocols" from Yahoo+MS, yeah ri
on
AOL Jilts Open Source
·
· Score: 3
Maybe it doesn't push ads now, that MSIM has like no marketshare. But if they succeed in getting marketshare, I'm sure MS will capitalize on it.
Here's how I see it:
M$ is once again jumping on a bandwagon after it has proven to be a moneymaker, and they're trying to use AOL's own servers against them.
Once they get enough marketshare, they'll simply add new "enhancements" that will be hard for AOL to duplicate using their networks, include it in future OEM releases of Windows, and gain marketshare unfairly, with their Windows monopoly advantage.
Without the false "Open Standards" push, and connectivity to AOL Instant Messenger, they run a risk of people installing the AOL IM Client even if the MSIM client comes with Windows, so they can talk to their AOL friends.
Microsoft needs to be able to make MSIM interoperate with AOL IM, or their whole strategy won't work.
The fact that M$ owns 90%+ of the OEM Operating System Pre-installs makes the whole thing tilted in Microsoft's favor. In anything to do with the Internet, that's what they're banking on.
They're too easy to read, especially after all those trials showing their business practices.
This is a good thing. SGI has a lot to offer to Linux, and the more companies that have a vested interest in Linux's success, the better the support we'll get for Linux.
With the neat things like the journalled file system and other enhancements, Linux is going to be looking better and better. I think Linux finally has enough of a foothold to stay in the picture no matter how hard MS fights.
I like.debs simply because of apt-get. With apt-get I can upgrade a package without having to search for and find the appropriate file, or the newest version. I can just do an apt-get install , and it automatically upgrades the current version to the newest one and does everything that needs to be done. apt-get dist-upgrade will upgrade every package, without a whole lot of hassle. It's a completely upgradable distribution without having to wait for a new release, if you keep up with unstable.
Yeah, in comparison, Microsoft's expediency with fixes to bugs is phenomenal. You have to wait 6 months for a service pack that fixes a bug that exists but supposedly hasn't affected anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know who this is, but I have been checking the kernel list archives, and there's no mention of anything like this.
Linux isn't about vaporware, like some software companies.
Here it is. Our squid proxy server:
Allie:/home/edgy# uptime
9:56am up 91 days, 23 min, 8 users, load average: 2.09, 1.78, 1.72
Well, dialup services don't take all that much cpu out of the system.
We've got a squid proxy server that's been up for 80+ days, that's rebooted because of power problems. That server gets a lot more traffic, but I liked the higher number on this one, "for effect" or something like that.
I'm an administrator running a Samba network (Linux server running as PDC) serving over 100 NT clients. We tell them not to reboot. However, after about a week or a week and a half of uptime, most of them have to be rebooted anyway because of strange errors and BSOD's. I'd say at least one or two of them BSOD's a day out of them.
These are Dell machines with all the "right" hardware in them.
Uhm, isn't it good practice to always wait a while before upgrading kernels?
Features and optimizations are not just thrown in there. I think it has something to do with the extensive testing you get when you release a kernel, versus when you just get to test it.
You should always wait before upgrading a server box.
You are so full of it.
If Windows NT requires an administrator that REALLY knows what they're doing in order to get a stable system, then why bother using NT, when you can get a stable Linux box without all of that? With Linux, you at least have a lot more flexibility.
I don't get it anymore. First, the NT apologists say that NT is easy enough for anyone to administer. Then they excuse NT's instability by saying you need an expert administrator to have a stable system. So, which is it?
Linux is probably the easiest way to get a stable system.
Heh. Heh.
Uptime on a dialup SERVER being used quite extensively here:
$ uptime
6:12am up 145 days, 9:48, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
{grin}
Well, there is a significant difference between scheduled downtime and downtime.
With scheduled downtime, users are notified of the impending change, and can prepare for it, and stop using the system for the few minutes that it's down.
Unscheduled downtime, on the other hand, as with crashes of the server operating system, makes people lose work, and can last for a long time, since the administrators may be nowhere near the system.
So, I think even from a user standpoint, scheduled downtime is much more acceptable.
Assuming the problem is big enough to warrant it, they can outsource and fix whatever bugs are ailing them if need be.
What do they do with Microsoft?
Sign over their souls to Bill Gates? I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't care about the little fish in the sea. With Linux, if you don't like one vendor, you go to another.
One improvement.. The size of the binaries for Linux have been reduced to a level much closer to the other platforms.
Why are the Linux binaries still larger than the others? Does anyone know?
Hopefully by then we'll get our journaling filesystem under Linux. It's enough of a hassle fscking 16GB... :)
So there could concievably be another planet that has intelligent life debating on whether or not matter exists?
:-)
This ALL makes sense now. I don't know why someone didn't realize this already. The reason Microsoft is saying that there's a buffer overflow exploit for AOL IM is that there might be a way to execute and/or receive certain data from the memory in the system and/or other things. Apparently, AOL's client has some built in functionality to allow them leeway in changing enough of the protocol to be able to detect what information a real client should get. This "buffer overflow exploit" might be one of their mechanisms. Or M$ might just assume that it is one. Obviously, some of those M$ engineers are quite frustrated at being blocked and not knowing how to get around the block.
There's nothing stopping those users from using MSIM or anything else. AOL is not blocking them from using it even if they're connected to AOL.
I don't see anything wrong with AOL keeping other clients from using their server resources and their users, especially if it's an attempt at a coup by a competitor.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the GPL is working towards removing copyright laws. Don't try and paint this into a picture it isn't.
The GPL simply protects the source code, but it wouldn't be necessary if there were no way to limit access to source code.
GNU products in many cases are the glue that holds unixes together since we can have basic system commands that work the same across architectures. Less training costs, more productivity.
Can you give examples where GNU products have stagnated? Where there's a real need for a version that has some feature that doesn't already exist, but isn't being made? Heck, if someone needs a feature that's not implemented badly enough, they'll code it themselves.
GNU products in general don't stagnate.
Who cares? AOL spent the marketing effort to get the users, those users are theirs and theirs alone.
If you want to make a new instant messaging paradym, then you create the protocol, you create the servers, and you make the snazzy new clients everyone else will want.
Don't complain that AOL isn't giving away its users. It worked hard for them.
One relatively unrelated note here:
EFNET has gotten better lately as far as the script-kiddies, since it's much harder to get illegitimate channel operator access even if you resort to flooding servers, flooding clients, or the like. It's still possible in many cases, but with a large enough channel, and enough bots, it's next to impossible.
While I'm the spokesperson for EFNET , I will agree that most channels on EFNET are crap. Then again, most channels on most servers are crap. You gotta find what's good and stick to there.
As for IM versus IRC, IRC wins out. It's a lot more 'underground', in many cases.
What I __WOULD__ LOVE to see, is some encrypted IRC servers for the major networks, and some clients to boot. Preferably 128 bit or better encryption.
Even better would be to be able to share keys in private chats and among members of a channel, and keep even the server operators from being able to monitor the connections (since that's not what they do anyway) at any point anywhere in the chain.
This would be a big boon to IRC IMHO, but it might be painted by the media as an area of complete lawlessness since there would absolutely no way the government can monitor conversations between people via the internet. We're talking no phone taps, nothing like that possible. This would be the first completely secure form of communication for large numbers of people.
I could see the government making something like the scenario above impossible to achieve.
Maybe it doesn't push ads now, that MSIM has like no marketshare. But if they succeed in getting marketshare, I'm sure MS will capitalize on it.
Here's how I see it:
M$ is once again jumping on a bandwagon after it has proven to be a moneymaker, and they're trying to use AOL's own servers against them.
Once they get enough marketshare, they'll simply add new "enhancements" that will be hard for AOL to duplicate using their networks, include it in future OEM releases of Windows, and gain marketshare unfairly, with their Windows monopoly advantage.
Without the false "Open Standards" push, and connectivity to AOL Instant Messenger, they run a risk of people installing the AOL IM Client even if the MSIM client comes with Windows, so they can talk to their AOL friends.
Microsoft needs to be able to make MSIM interoperate with AOL IM, or their whole strategy won't work.
The fact that M$ owns 90%+ of the OEM Operating System Pre-installs makes the whole thing tilted in Microsoft's favor. In anything to do with the Internet, that's what they're banking on.
They're too easy to read, especially after all those trials showing their business practices.
On the other hand, the Windows 2000 box might have crashed after receiving 200+ packets/second, and never had a chance to go up to 417 packets/second.
Wish we could know exactly what's happening, but MS is trying to spin this, not really gain anything from it.
This is a good thing. SGI has a lot to offer to Linux, and the more companies that have a vested interest in Linux's success, the better the support we'll get for Linux.
With the neat things like the journalled file system and other enhancements, Linux is going to be looking better and better. I think Linux finally has enough of a foothold to stay in the picture no matter how hard MS fights.
Knock on wood.
I like .debs simply because of apt-get. With apt-get I can upgrade a package without having to search for and find the appropriate file, or the newest version. I can just do an apt-get install , and it automatically upgrades the current version to the newest one and does everything that needs to be done. apt-get dist-upgrade will upgrade every package, without a whole lot of hassle. It's a completely upgradable distribution without having to wait for a new release, if you keep up with unstable.
Yeah, in comparison, Microsoft's expediency with fixes to bugs is phenomenal. You have to wait 6 months for a service pack that fixes a bug that exists but supposedly hasn't affected anyone.
I thought that's how they came out with the Windows 2000 Betas..
Not only are executions more expensive, but there is always the risk that you are executing someone that isn't guilty.
So, then, why don't we just throw them in jail with no possibility of parole?