SCSI: They only just started offering SCSI drives. Not my idea of total reliability.
EIDE: They usually last for a year or two and then die. Don't count on the drive to last very long, though sometimes they will surprise you with a very long life.
Maxtor
EIDE: Not too fast, but they are more reliable than Western Digital. The newer Maxtors might be faster, but they've always been rather sluggish compared to WD in the past.
Seagate
SCSI: Very, very reliable, except for the first generation drives, which sometimes overheat or suffer other minor problems. They usually last a decade.
EIDE: Avoid, avoid, avoid. Do not use.
Quantum
SCSI: I just bought an Atlas 10K. Damn, it's awesome. Get one!
EIDE: Inexpensive, fast, innovative. Sometimes the reliability is called into question, but it seems no worse than WD.
IBM
Can't say that I've ever owned one, but all recent reviews have been positive.
Fujitsu
A dealer that I used to know swore by these drives, claiming they were the #1 company in reliability. I never used one.
Others
I wouldn't mess with them. Old Micropolis SCSI drives might be okay, though.
He's more than a newbie to *BSD, he's a newbie in every respect!
He doesn't even know what half the binaries on his Linux system do.
I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out Linux, then you're really not the guy to be writing about OpenBSD.
I expected to see an in-depth article about firewalls, custom-written daemons, how the security relates to the average Linux desktop install, how difficult (or easy) it is to admin the system with all that security in your way, the state of hardware support, how it runs on alternate architectures, etc...
I don't see the problem with the Linux documentation that so many people seem to be complaining about. Yes, there's a great deal of information out there. But, you managed to find your way to Slashdot, didn't you? There are millions, perhaps billions, of web sites out there, yet you somehow found a web site that answers your questions, reports on news you care about, and hosts essays written by people you admire.
If you can find Slashdot, you can find the proper man page or howto document.
I don't understand why all these comments saying "hey, it wasn't that bad for a newbie's overview!" are getting moderated up. I mean, once was good enough. We get the point. The moderators want us to say it was a good article.
Personally, I thought it was about as interesting as a 5th grade book report.
"This was a difficult to read book. It was a good book, though. I had to actually read the first chapter before I could wade into the book. The list of contents was very good. Everyone told me this was a good book, and I agree that it is a good book, because it was very interesting. After I got past the first chapter, I realized the chapters were pretty minimalistic and not that hard to figure out after all. The plot was about a hero who had to face a conflict. He beat the conflict at the end. In conclusion, I thought this was a good book."
You know, there's a reason why binaries are spread out so much on your distribution./bin and/sbin are for *required* binaries, stuff that *has* to be there during bootup, like fsck and sh./usr/bin and/usr/sbin are for optional binaries, while/usr/local/bin and/usr/local/sbin are for local, machine-specific programs (and, sometimes, for non-packaged binaries). You might find a/opt, too, but that's somewhat nonstandard. I first saw that on a SPARCstation at college a number of years ago - mostly, they dumped optional software, like bash and other GNU utils, in there.
Why do you need all those directories? Try mounting / as read-write and/usr read-only some time. It might save your system.
I hate doing things the same way that they've always been done as much as the next guy, but there are, in general, reasons why we do things in a certain way when it comes to the long history of UNIX. Chances are, it's one of the better ways of doing it. You need to research the reasons why things are done this way before you start questioning it. After you understand the reasoning, that's when you should question it.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to move everything into one directory (actually, I think that's a horrid idea); rather, I ask that you research the reason why things are the way they are on your Linux system before your propose change. You might find out that you like the current way of doing things better once you understand it.
Hercules is hardly a little known company. Maybe you newcomers don't know about/remember the innovations that Hercules made in the 80s, but video cards basically *sucked* until Hercules saved us. Not to mention the speedy cards they sold in the 90s...
If you want old brand names, try leafing through an 80s Computer Shopper or Byte sometime. I occasionally find them lying around my house. It brings back such memories seeing AMI or Micronics 386/33 motherboards for $600+, not to mention Matrox video cards that were slow as hell under anything but graphics mode under Windows 3.x. I'm not quite sure the really old ones even supported text mode!
My first PC/XT clone was soooo IBM compatible, IBM sued Panasonic over it.
I have a better processor in my monitor than what was in my Commore 64 or Amiga...
No, Netscape Communicator is not based on Mosaic all "hacked to hell." Internet Explorer *is* based on Mosaic. To see for yourself, load up Internet Explorer and hit "About". It will say quite clearly that it is based on the NCSA Mosaic code.
Slashdot Mirror
That's really funny... that making fun of someone's religion is funny, yet pointing out how ignorant that is gets labeled as "trolling".
Thanks, Slashdot moderators, for showing your true colors.
Yeah, it's real funny to call a Catholic stupid. I'm still laughing from that one. It's soooo different from being a racist.
Why are these bigoted posts being moderated up as "funny"?
What's next? Jokes about Jews and blacks?
"interesting... (score:5, funny)
by IgnorantAsshole (asshole@howdoIuseprocmail.com)
(User info)
A Jew, a spic, and a wetback enter a bar and..."
Well... I suppose I mostly agree with that.
Here're my experiences:
Western Digital
Maxtor
Seagate
Quantum
IBM
- Can't say that I've ever owned one, but all recent reviews have been positive.
FujitsuOthers
Rather than offering it for free, why not make it a commercial product with source available?
Gimme a break. Don't bust on people for downloading or saving money on a product that's offered as a gift.
He's more than a newbie to *BSD, he's a newbie in every respect!
He doesn't even know what half the binaries on his Linux system do.
I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out Linux, then you're really not the guy to be writing about OpenBSD.
I expected to see an in-depth article about firewalls, custom-written daemons, how the security relates to the average Linux desktop install, how difficult (or easy) it is to admin the system with all that security in your way, the state of hardware support, how it runs on alternate architectures, etc...
This was rather pathetic...
I don't see the problem with the Linux documentation that so many people seem to be complaining about. Yes, there's a great deal of information out there. But, you managed to find your way to Slashdot, didn't you? There are millions, perhaps billions, of web sites out there, yet you somehow found a web site that answers your questions, reports on news you care about, and hosts essays written by people you admire.
If you can find Slashdot, you can find the proper man page or howto document.
Geez.
I don't understand why all these comments saying "hey, it wasn't that bad for a newbie's overview!" are getting moderated up. I mean, once was good enough. We get the point. The moderators want us to say it was a good article.
Personally, I thought it was about as interesting as a 5th grade book report.
"This was a difficult to read book. It was a good book, though. I had to actually read the first chapter before I could wade into the book. The list of contents was very good. Everyone told me this was a good book, and I agree that it is a good book, because it was very interesting. After I got past the first chapter, I realized the chapters were pretty minimalistic and not that hard to figure out after all. The plot was about a hero who had to face a conflict. He beat the conflict at the end. In conclusion, I thought this was a good book."
You know, there's a reason why binaries are spread out so much on your distribution. /bin and /sbin are for *required* binaries, stuff that *has* to be there during bootup, like fsck and sh. /usr/bin and /usr/sbin are for optional binaries, while /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin are for local, machine-specific programs (and, sometimes, for non-packaged binaries). You might find a /opt, too, but that's somewhat nonstandard. I first saw that on a SPARCstation at college a number of years ago - mostly, they dumped optional software, like bash and other GNU utils, in there.
/usr read-only some time. It might save your system.
Why do you need all those directories? Try mounting / as read-write and
I hate doing things the same way that they've always been done as much as the next guy, but there are, in general, reasons why we do things in a certain way when it comes to the long history of UNIX. Chances are, it's one of the better ways of doing it. You need to research the reasons why things are done this way before you start questioning it. After you understand the reasoning, that's when you should question it.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to move everything into one directory (actually, I think that's a horrid idea); rather, I ask that you research the reason why things are the way they are on your Linux system before your propose change. You might find out that you like the current way of doing things better once you understand it.
Hercules is hardly a little known company. Maybe you newcomers don't know about/remember the innovations that Hercules made in the 80s, but video cards basically *sucked* until Hercules saved us. Not to mention the speedy cards they sold in the 90s...
If you want old brand names, try leafing through an 80s Computer Shopper or Byte sometime. I occasionally find them lying around my house. It brings back such memories seeing AMI or Micronics 386/33 motherboards for $600+, not to mention Matrox video cards that were slow as hell under anything but graphics mode under Windows 3.x. I'm not quite sure the really old ones even supported text mode!
My first PC/XT clone was soooo IBM compatible, IBM sued Panasonic over it.
I have a better processor in my monitor than what was in my Commore 64 or Amiga...
No, Netscape Communicator is not based on Mosaic
all "hacked to hell." Internet Explorer *is*
based on Mosaic. To see for yourself, load up
Internet Explorer and hit "About". It will say
quite clearly that it is based on the NCSA Mosaic
code.