What do you mean "create multiple addresses"? Just create one so you can receive information about the updates. Script it so you parse the URLs from the emails and store the rpm packages on your local ftp or web server. From there how you distribute them to your boxes is your decision. You can do it with apt4rpm, yum or even up2date since it now supports apt and yum software repositories.
Or will novell just throw its proprietary software on top of linux, and ride the open source wave without giving anything worthwhile back (a la apple).
Excuse me? Bugs in FreeBSD have been fixed by Apple developers. They used KHTML in Safari and their improvements were announced to be in the next release of KDE. Oh yea and then there's this
Darwin,
Streaming Server,
Open Directory,
Rendezvous. Oh yea I forgot. They haven't made Quartz/Aqua opensource so that negates everything else that they do.
(Especially as SuSE is perceived as being a safe way to avoid backdoors imposed by foreign Governments.)
Regardless of who is behind the wheel when it comes to developing linux distributions the GPL is still in effect. So if any government is concerned about possible backdoors then hired programmers can just review the code. On a somewhat unrelated note, I'm a pessimist so I'm not particularly happy with this Novell & SuSE announcement. I really hope that I'll stand corrected in the future.
After yesterdays' article regarding Redhat's changes, I started looking at SUSE more carefully. Now we've got such serious flux in the two most important linux distributions that it'll take six months to a year before I feel comfortable pitching either of these to buisnesses.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I use Redhat and I was looking forward to switching to SuSE after the whole Fedora fiasco. Not because I think the Fedora project was an unwise move but because of the roadmap Redhat ironed out. The first release of Fedora comes out this week. Redhat 9 is no longer going to be supported after April 2004. That's a pretty tight squeeze for the Fedora people to become organized. And now who knows what's going to happen to SuSE (the desktop, professional version)? Will suse users have to go through a "fedora" type process as well in the future as well?
$60/year. So XP is cheaper if you're running for > 2 years.
Only if you want to subscribe to Redhat Network which I have yet to do. To receive upgrades or install new apps you can use apt4rpm or yum and the software repositories (for both Fedora and Redhat 9, 8, etc) at fedora or freshmeat. You aren't really forced to spend the $60/year and when you factor that in the price drops back down to $0.
I think Debian + Apt + Anaconda destroys redhat as a desktop distro, as the only problem I had with Debian usability wise was the install, keeping updated and secure is as easy as a cron job.
I disagree. The stable branch of Debian is just too outdated for the Redhat crowd to be considered usable. When I bring up that point I usually hear comments like: "why don't you just use backports from the unstable version instead or run testing/unstable?" That's more of a workaround and not a solution.
I hate to say it, but even Microsoft gives better support guarantees than that.
How much does a copy of Windows XP cost? And then compare that to free downloadable Redhat 9 ISOs. If you want support like what Microsoft gives for their server products then Redhat has their own Enterprise versions as well.
Now that they have decided to stop updating 7, 8 and 9 they are forcing me to migrate both boxes. I don't have time to scan the web looking for security updates for hundreds of packages, so I need an update service.
First of all you don't have to use up2date to update or install software. Use yum instead which is what I do for several redhat boxes and soon fedora ones. Which brings me to the other point, just because redhat is dropping support for their free version doesn't mean there isn't going to be a free one for you to use. Read http://fedora.redhat.com
Lastly you don't need to waste time "looking for security updates for hundreds of packages" just subscribe to redhat's security errata mailing list instead.
We have looked at various distributed filesystems for use in a clustered setup of webservers. We wanted to remove the single point of failure from a central NFS server - Intermezzo was one of the filesystems we had a look at.
[snip]
If you are looking for a SAFE solution then Intermezzo is not for you - you will just end up with garbled data, deadlocks and tons of wasted time...
So does this mean that the FreeBST team isn't patching security issues as they are reported, and are instead fixing them over the period of (presumably) scheduled release iterations?
No. The patches are incorporated at the same time when advisories are released. I'm assuming they list them in the release notes just to imply that since you're using 4.9 you don't have to worry about all the security issues which were discovered in 4.8
If this is the case, why isn't the/. community all over them like they are Microsoft?
I've just recently started looking into LVM and I'm curious as to what it's lacking, if anything, compared to similar solutions by from Vertias. Can someone with experience with both products please be kind enough to throw up a couple points detailing when you should use LVM and when you shouldn't?
Last was getting used to IE from Mozilla (not a problem, Mozilla is slow, clunky, and doesn't support anything as easily as IE on Windows).
Doesn't support anything as easily as IE on Windows eh? Could you be anymore vague? I've been using Mozilla on Win2k Pro since 1.0, and now 1.5. I can't think of one thing that Mozilla doesn't have that IE does.. oh except for
this. I'm sorry but I just don't see how Mozilla would be slow with a 1.8 mhz processor. It's fast on my p2 400 box and amazingly fast on my friend's p3 700. It feels slow while using X on Linux or FreeBSD but not on Windows.
Office was MUCH better than WP for Linux. Interoperability with EVERYONE else I knew. No converting and reformatting, no font problems, no nothing.
No shit. You experienced better interoperability with other MS Office users while using MS Office yourself?? I don't know where I got this crazy idea that creating software to be compatible with MS Office would be a challenge considering that MS doc formats are locked-in proprietary 'standards'.
It was fast, easy, and nice. IE was far superior to Mozilla. I never used tabs as Roblimo did and I never thought Mozilla was fast. I opened the browser and pages loaded faster, nice. I clicked on movies and low and behold codecs were downloaded automatically and the movies started playing (all without having to compile mplayer, get codecs, and fool with Mozilla to get it to play them).
Now you're trolling, if you weren't before. You first compare IE and Mozilla on windows, complain about speed (which is a problem that I don't think exists but whatever) and then go back to singing praises about IE while comparing Mozilla all of a sudden on Linux to compile mplayer, downloading codecs blah blah. Again, I have yet to do anything of the sort while using Mozilla on Windows. I click on a link and I either save the file or it launches Media Player. Thank you come again.
Who else is waiting for all those reports and recommendations to be released by Gartner and the like advising corporations to hold off on further usage of IE? Isn't this exactly like the SCO situation? Perhaps even worse since nothing has been proven in court about SCO IP being in the Linux kernel.
Expect a future version of Windows to REQUIRE this BIOS, giving Microsoft an even tighter lock on the market.
That makes perfect sense since they're pushing DRM like there's no tomorrow. It seems reasonable to think that MS won't support Windows on anything except 100% DRM compatible hardware, right down to the BIOS as well.
I have been talking with the admins here about using a REAL IMAP server and it is something they plan to do in a year or two. Exchange is proprietary crap, that is why only MS Software can work with it so well. Maybe talk to someone at your company about using a REAL IMAP server that is standards compliant, then you can use any mailer you like.
I've implemented many mail servers using the Cyrus IMAP Server and have nothing but praises for it. It runs on Solaris, Linux, *BSD operating systems and performs amazingly as a standards compliant IMAP server.
Hardware Support: If a vendor chooses to support a piece of hardware for a BSD OS (beyond Windows, Mac and maybe Linux) then most likely it will be FreeBSD.
Applications: FreeBSD has way more ports than OpenBSD. Whether someone uses most of them or not is another topic, but chances are what you need you will probably find ported for FreeBSD already
FreeBSD 5.* onward: Nuff said
FreeBSD and NetBSD are just as secure as OpenBSD so stick with what you're comfortable with. As for new users I'll turn the question around to you: why OpenBSD? You've already mentioned security (which I've addressed, if you think I'm wrong then point out how so) and pf doesn't count since it's already ported or being ported to the other BSD's.
The point is DISTRIBUTING A FIX. I don't see much of an open source solution for that.
How about this
as a solution? This applies if the people "running a brand-spankin-new linux distro that came set up out of the box with sendmail" are using RedHat which is most likely anyway since new linux users seem to be attracted to that product. And if they aren't then other distros like Debian provide apt-get to fetch updates easily. Lots of solutions. People just need to be aware of them.
Before you think that is a good thing - think about every advert popping up a dialog box with just the OK button... 'click OK to non-seamlessly display "herbal viagra for u" ? '
That's where the good folks at mozilla.org will include an option which will allow you to "Select NO automatically when site prompts to load plugin.. unless site is in the "Friendly/non-ad infested" list". Just like how they do it with pop-ups right now.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean "create multiple addresses"? Just create one so you can receive information about the updates. Script it so you parse the URLs from the emails and store the rpm packages on your local ftp or web server. From there how you distribute them to your boxes is your decision. You can do it with apt4rpm, yum or even up2date since it now supports apt and yum software repositories.
Excuse me? Bugs in FreeBSD have been fixed by Apple developers. They used KHTML in Safari and their improvements were announced to be in the next release of KDE. Oh yea and then there's this Darwin, Streaming Server, Open Directory, Rendezvous. Oh yea I forgot. They haven't made Quartz/Aqua opensource so that negates everything else that they do.
Regardless of who is behind the wheel when it comes to developing linux distributions the GPL is still in effect. So if any government is concerned about possible backdoors then hired programmers can just review the code. On a somewhat unrelated note, I'm a pessimist so I'm not particularly happy with this Novell & SuSE announcement. I really hope that I'll stand corrected in the future.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I use Redhat and I was looking forward to switching to SuSE after the whole Fedora fiasco. Not because I think the Fedora project was an unwise move but because of the roadmap Redhat ironed out. The first release of Fedora comes out this week. Redhat 9 is no longer going to be supported after April 2004. That's a pretty tight squeeze for the Fedora people to become organized. And now who knows what's going to happen to SuSE (the desktop, professional version)? Will suse users have to go through a "fedora" type process as well in the future as well?
Only if you want to subscribe to Redhat Network which I have yet to do. To receive upgrades or install new apps you can use apt4rpm or yum and the software repositories (for both Fedora and Redhat 9, 8, etc) at fedora or freshmeat. You aren't really forced to spend the $60/year and when you factor that in the price drops back down to $0.
I disagree. The stable branch of Debian is just too outdated for the Redhat crowd to be considered usable. When I bring up that point I usually hear comments like: "why don't you just use backports from the unstable version instead or run testing/unstable?" That's more of a workaround and not a solution.
Read people. Read.
How much does a copy of Windows XP cost? And then compare that to free downloadable Redhat 9 ISOs. If you want support like what Microsoft gives for their server products then Redhat has their own Enterprise versions as well.
First of all you don't have to use up2date to update or install software. Use yum instead which is what I do for several redhat boxes and soon fedora ones. Which brings me to the other point, just because redhat is dropping support for their free version doesn't mean there isn't going to be a free one for you to use. Read http://fedora.redhat.com
Lastly you don't need to waste time "looking for security updates for hundreds of packages" just subscribe to redhat's security errata mailing list instead.
Anyone know which linux distribution they're using for that cluster?
[snip]
If you are looking for a SAFE solution then Intermezzo is not for you - you will just end up with garbled data, deadlocks and tons of wasted time ...
What did you end up going with?
No. The patches are incorporated at the same time when advisories are released. I'm assuming they list them in the release notes just to imply that since you're using 4.9 you don't have to worry about all the security issues which were discovered in 4.8
If this is the case, why isn't the /. community all over them like they are Microsoft?
See above.
I've just recently started looking into LVM and I'm curious as to what it's lacking, if anything, compared to similar solutions by from Vertias. Can someone with experience with both products please be kind enough to throw up a couple points detailing when you should use LVM and when you shouldn't?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Doesn't support anything as easily as IE on Windows eh? Could you be anymore vague? I've been using Mozilla on Win2k Pro since 1.0, and now 1.5. I can't think of one thing that Mozilla doesn't have that IE does.. oh except for this. I'm sorry but I just don't see how Mozilla would be slow with a 1.8 mhz processor. It's fast on my p2 400 box and amazingly fast on my friend's p3 700. It feels slow while using X on Linux or FreeBSD but not on Windows.
Office was MUCH better than WP for Linux. Interoperability with EVERYONE else I knew. No converting and reformatting, no font problems, no nothing.
No shit. You experienced better interoperability with other MS Office users while using MS Office yourself?? I don't know where I got this crazy idea that creating software to be compatible with MS Office would be a challenge considering that MS doc formats are locked-in proprietary 'standards'.
It was fast, easy, and nice. IE was far superior to Mozilla. I never used tabs as Roblimo did and I never thought Mozilla was fast. I opened the browser and pages loaded faster, nice. I clicked on movies and low and behold codecs were downloaded automatically and the movies started playing (all without having to compile mplayer, get codecs, and fool with Mozilla to get it to play them).
Now you're trolling, if you weren't before. You first compare IE and Mozilla on windows, complain about speed (which is a problem that I don't think exists but whatever) and then go back to singing praises about IE while comparing Mozilla all of a sudden on Linux to compile mplayer, downloading codecs blah blah. Again, I have yet to do anything of the sort while using Mozilla on Windows. I click on a link and I either save the file or it launches Media Player. Thank you come again.
Who else is waiting for all those reports and recommendations to be released by Gartner and the like advising corporations to hold off on further usage of IE? Isn't this exactly like the SCO situation? Perhaps even worse since nothing has been proven in court about SCO IP being in the Linux kernel.
That makes perfect sense since they're pushing DRM like there's no tomorrow. It seems reasonable to think that MS won't support Windows on anything except 100% DRM compatible hardware, right down to the BIOS as well.
I don't think I'll be saying hello to PPC anytime soon unless the prices drop down to what x86 hardware sells for.
I've implemented many mail servers using the Cyrus IMAP Server and have nothing but praises for it. It runs on Solaris, Linux, *BSD operating systems and performs amazingly as a standards compliant IMAP server.
Wow that's the best impression of the sarcastic geeky guy who owns the comic book store in the Simpsons.. oh wait, nevermind.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of applications are being used on the vnc server?
- Hardware Support: If a vendor chooses to support a piece of hardware for a BSD OS (beyond Windows, Mac and maybe Linux) then most likely it will be FreeBSD.
- Jails:
Man page
- Applications: FreeBSD has way more ports than OpenBSD. Whether someone uses most of them or not is another topic, but chances are what you need you will probably find ported for FreeBSD already
- FreeBSD 5.* onward: Nuff said
FreeBSD and NetBSD are just as secure as OpenBSD so stick with what you're comfortable with. As for new users I'll turn the question around to you: why OpenBSD? You've already mentioned security (which I've addressed, if you think I'm wrong then point out how so) and pf doesn't count since it's already ported or being ported to the other BSD's.How about this as a solution? This applies if the people "running a brand-spankin-new linux distro that came set up out of the box with sendmail" are using RedHat which is most likely anyway since new linux users seem to be attracted to that product. And if they aren't then other distros like Debian provide apt-get to fetch updates easily. Lots of solutions. People just need to be aware of them.
So there.
So there what?
Look no further. This one's speech programming is a little off though or maybe it's just due to faulty parts.
That's where the good folks at mozilla.org will include an option which will allow you to "Select NO automatically when site prompts to load plugin.. unless site is in the "Friendly/non-ad infested" list". Just like how they do it with pop-ups right now.