rc nonesense? No offense but how does splitting up rc into 32 different files in 6 directories with sym links to yet another directory make SYS V style startup scripts _EASIER_ to deal with?
Frankly the only thing that bothered me about the persons post was that they thought that they needed a journaled file system. SoftUpdates is fast as can be and stable as hell. With snapshots we will also have the background fsck that will make the system perfect.
No there really isn't. LFS has been dead on FreeBSD for years. Soft-Updates is reliable and very fast. With the ability to do snapshots, there will be no reason to use an LFS or JFS.
Actually, adding an ethernet card gives me a web based interface to my tivo, as well as the ability to extract the video streams which I am simply not interested in.
A lot of people are doing a lot of fun things with the TiVo. Adding ethernet is dirt simple as you simply have to plug in a card. You can also enable 30 second skip on the TiVo if you enter the right codes or run the right software.
I have had a DirecTivo for about a year and unfortunately I lost my modem in a lightning storm. It would not even boot up but just hung. I ripped the drive out, commented out the modem test scripts, installed and network card, and was back in business. All in all it has worked out well for me.
If you double the data density of a hard disk, you have increased it's read speed because much more data passes under the head per revolution.
Personally I would much rather see higher densitty drives than just faster ones. A higher density drive is both faster and bigger. A higher speed drive is just faster.
As for space, I would like to be able to rip all of my DVD's to hard disk and access them via a small dedicated appliance. Trying to do that with SCSI would be not be cost-effective. Besides the initial hardware cost, the power required to run a huge chain of drives is significant. The more data we can fit onto a single drive, the less power we need to use per MB of data. That makes me happy.
It has got nothing to do with getting something for nothing. The ACE server software has always been a terrible kludge. It looked awful and was a nightmare to configure at times. Things have improved greatly in the 5.x series but I still think it sucks.
On top of that, I would like the software to run on something other than Windows (*shudder*) or Solaris.
Finally, the server software is _not_ RSA's big money maker. The tokens are. I have no problem buy and paying for the tokens. I do have a problem with paying for a poorly written piece of server software that does not run on the platforms I prefer to run on.
Why are you wasting Quad Xeon processors on an OpenBSD box? OpenBSD has always had poor dual processor support, and the performance boost drops even further when you go to 4 processors.
As far as the windows installer goes I was referring to it as an installer. RPM, gnorpm are not real installers. Neither is make install. The plusses in windows installer are that it lets you choose full, custom, or small install usually, and also lets YOU the user decise what directory to put stuff in and more often than not if they got it right then you can uninstall stuff too by just a click. Nice easey to use GUI that lets YOU in easier. No it is not an upgrade utiltiy nor does it clain to be. Windows update is just that WINDOWS. Windows add on programs that you install are not part of windows. But if you get XP part of windows update will update internet exploiter.
First, the whole point of a package management system to is put software _where it belongs_ Not wherever you feel like putting it.
Second, the make commands let you choose a myriad of options by just setting the appropriate flag instead of just clicking. make "no_x11=true" install is not very complicated.
What they fail to mention is that FreeBSD is actually already a branch that is part of NetBSD, OpenBSD and all the rest of the BSD's.
I have no idea why everyone keeps saying this. The different BSD's are _different operating systems_! Unlike the Linux distributions which are trying to be the same system! The funny part about this statement is that despite being different operating systems, the BSD's are more binary compatible with each other than the different Linux distributions are. NetBSD will continue to do wild hardware development including being the first OS to support things like USB. FreeBSD will continue to work on stability, scalability and speed. OpenBSD (As long as Theo doesn't get hit by a bus) will continue to concentrate on security.
1. It is a single entity. I do not need to worry which version of libc works with which kernel
2. FreeBSD is consistent. I do not need to worry about where a particular FreeBSD system has installed an application.
3. FreeBSD's ports tree is an excellent utility for managing my system
4. Stability. FreeBSD is stable as can be.
5. Performance. FreeBSD has always be an excellent system when it comes to performance, and it does so without making the sacrafices in stability that Linux traditionally made. (Async file systems anyone?)
Does FreeBSD have a journaled file system? No. FreeBSD has SoftUpdates. Why? Because it gets you everything you want from journaling without the overhead.
How many journaled file systems does it have? One. Why on earth would you need more than 1? Softupdates isn't even seperate from the standard file system. As of 4.5 Softupdates are enabled on file systems by default. The wonderful thing about softupdates, though, is that you can turn them on an off when you want to.
The Windows installer is better? Perhaps you had better stop sitting in front of the radiation that your monitor emits. The last time I checked the Windows installer screwed up about half the time. I also do not see a global menu from which I can tell Windows to install any one of thousands of useful utilities all by typing one command. More importantly Windows sure as hell won't go out and get the software for me!
apt-get is a pretty nice piece of software. It is the first time the Linux folks have released something comparable to the ports tree and I am glad to see it out there.
Also, rpm does compile and install under FreeBSD.
Finally, FreeBSD has always doen an amazing job of running Linux applications when required so I just do not see an advantadge to using Linux.
I think, perhaps, that you misunderstand how CheckPoint works. Are you taking into account printers and other devices on your network with IP addresses? These all count towards the host limit. Were you swapping IP addresses frequently and perhaps not giving the license manager time to timeout old addresses? Did you have rogue laptops that you are not counting?
The only thing that CheckPoint does, which bothers me is that a single host with multiple IP addresses count as multiple hosts in the license manager. To me, CheckPoint should be protecting hosts and not IP's.
As far as the license manager goes, I think you are simple wrong about this, or perhaps have a seriously under-powered system. Have you actually tuned the system for CheckPoint? Are you running on Solaris? IPSO? NT? Does the system have enough memory? There are a number of system performance tuning documents for Firewall-1 which are available from CheckPoint's web site. You may want to look into these. If you are running Firewall-1 on Solaris, and have not made changes to/etc/system, the box is probably not configured for optimal performance.
It was never my intention to imply otherwise. But preventative maintenance generally does not require a lot of work (certainly not as much work as fixing a destroyed system) _and_ it results in systems that are secure and stable.
Considering the plight of public schools in America, and the wonderful job that our politicians have done with the issue, it is the responsiblity of students, parents, and the school itself to solve the problem.
In my high school, the computer network was run by the students. Contrary to what some people thought, when these students were given the power to abuse the network, they reacted in exactly the opposite way. They became very responsible. They took their position seriously and did not abuse it. Perhaps it is time we stopped treating high school students like children.
The school administration accepted the situation because it was the only way they got working computers and an Internet connection. The parents accepted it because it resulted in a better environment for their children.
Some safeguards were put in place, such as no students were allowed to work on the file server. This was to help prevent any students from reading other students email and files, but it was more of a token gesture than real security because real security would have stopped things from getting done.
Come to Stuyvesant High School in Manahattan sometime and that is exactly what you will see. I am sorry if my background is different than yours, but that is certainly what I witnessed.
I am not a CheckPoint fan, but I have never seen their license routine cause problems. CheckPoint identifies every IP Address behind the firewall, whether they use the Internet or not, as a client IP. The reason is, as far as CheckPoint is concerned, any IP addrsss behind the firewall is an IP address being protected by the firewall. In that sense they are correct.
As far as processor power required to print those messages, well a) it is not a significant use of processor power and b) if you are not in comliance, why should the product operate at its most efficient? Many companies would shut down the software if it were not in compliance, or perhaps refuse to protect more IP Addresses than you have license for. CheckPoint does not and they deserve credit for that.
The original point of this article was Free Software, and how administrative cost is the most significant aspect of system operations. Since software updates and user additions are a part of _ANY_ coputer system, and are not specific to a Microsoft or Free Software solution, why are you involving them?
Why not stick to the maintenance requires by free software systems versus Microsoft systems which was the original point. In that case, the Free Software solutions comes out ahead. Any Unix solution comes out ahead.
Speaking of horseshit. No proper configuration needs quite a bit of maintenance. A well designed, properly configured system should run on its own, without user intervention, for long periods of time. How often do you need to make changes to a swuid web proxy? Or your DNS servers? The onyl systems which require any sort of serious maintenance are mail servers and shell machines. And even that maintenance can be kept to a minimum if you know what you are doing.
A good computer system does not need a lot of maintenance. Besides which, in any school you can find technologically savvy kids. Make them a part of the computer team that maintains the network. Many a school is run in this way.
Besides which, it sounds as if you are saying that a Windows alternative would require _less_ maintenance than a Unix solution. If a teacher has the skills to handle a Unix system, then that configuration will require a lot less time than the eqwuivalent Microsoft solution.
Stuyvesant uses Linux for their shell machines, mail servers, web proxies and DNS servers. They also use Linux for a majorityof their lab computers. Many desktops still use Windows, but until office comes out for Linux, things will probably stay that way.
Slashdot Mirror
rc nonesense? No offense but how does splitting up rc into 32 different files in 6 directories with sym links to yet another directory make SYS V style startup scripts _EASIER_ to deal with?
Frankly the only thing that bothered me about the persons post was that they thought that they needed a journaled file system. SoftUpdates is fast as can be and stable as hell. With snapshots we will also have the background fsck that will make the system perfect.
-sirket
If you knew anything about SoftUpdates and snapshots you would realize that they are superior to a Journaled File System.
If you were trying to point out that many times superior technology is not chosen, then you are right.
-sirket
No there really isn't. LFS has been dead on FreeBSD for years. Soft-Updates is reliable and very fast. With the ability to do snapshots, there will be no reason to use an LFS or JFS.
-sirket
Actually, adding an ethernet card gives me a web based interface to my tivo, as well as the ability to extract the video streams which I am simply not interested in.
-sirket
Or the new production run uses a smaller die and thus consumes less power and runs cooler.
-sirket
A lot of people are doing a lot of fun things with the TiVo. Adding ethernet is dirt simple as you simply have to plug in a card. You can also enable 30 second skip on the TiVo if you enter the right codes or run the right software.
I have had a DirecTivo for about a year and unfortunately I lost my modem in a lightning storm. It would not even boot up but just hung. I ripped the drive out, commented out the modem test scripts, installed and network card, and was back in business. All in all it has worked out well for me.
-sirket
No offense but are you fucking crazy? Did you happen to notice the COST of those drives??? Jesus Christ! $1800 for a 180 gigabyte drive???
You really should try comparing apples to apples.
-sirket
Additional spindle speed? Why?
If you double the data density of a hard disk, you have increased it's read speed because much more data passes under the head per revolution.
Personally I would much rather see higher densitty drives than just faster ones. A higher density drive is both faster and bigger. A higher speed drive is just faster.
As for space, I would like to be able to rip all of my DVD's to hard disk and access them via a small dedicated appliance. Trying to do that with SCSI would be not be cost-effective. Besides the initial hardware cost, the power required to run a huge chain of drives is significant. The more data we can fit onto a single drive, the less power we need to use per MB of data. That makes me happy.
-sirket
Thanks for finally pointing out what should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.
I honestly can not believe that 20 people or so all believed that that was the password.
-sirket
It has got nothing to do with getting something for nothing. The ACE server software has always been a terrible kludge. It looked awful and was a nightmare to configure at times. Things have improved greatly in the 5.x series but I still think it sucks.
On top of that, I would like the software to run on something other than Windows (*shudder*) or Solaris.
Finally, the server software is _not_ RSA's big money maker. The tokens are. I have no problem buy and paying for the tokens. I do have a problem with paying for a poorly written piece of server software that does not run on the platforms I prefer to run on.
-sirket
The poster mentioned 802.11a not b. As a result, the product will be operating in the 5 GHz spectrum instead of 2.4.
-sirket
Why are you wasting Quad Xeon processors on an OpenBSD box? OpenBSD has always had poor dual processor support, and the performance boost drops even further when you go to 4 processors.
Are you sure these boxes weren't running FreeBSD?
-sirket
Sigh, at least get the name right, even if you have no id ea how the technology works.
-sirket
As far as the windows installer goes I was referring to it as an installer. RPM, gnorpm are not real installers. Neither is make install. The plusses in windows installer are that it lets you choose full, custom, or small install usually, and also lets YOU the user decise what directory to put stuff in and more often than not if they got it right then you can uninstall stuff too by just a click. Nice easey to use GUI that lets YOU in easier. No it is not an upgrade utiltiy nor does it clain to be. Windows update is just that WINDOWS. Windows add on programs that you install are not part of windows. But if you get XP part of windows update will update internet exploiter.
First, the whole point of a package management system to is put software _where it belongs_ Not wherever you feel like putting it.
Second, the make commands let you choose a myriad of options by just setting the appropriate flag instead of just clicking. make "no_x11=true" install is not very complicated.
What they fail to mention is that FreeBSD is actually already a branch that is part of NetBSD, OpenBSD and all the rest of the BSD's.
I have no idea why everyone keeps saying this. The different BSD's are _different operating systems_! Unlike the Linux distributions which are trying to be the same system! The funny part about this statement is that despite being different operating systems, the BSD's are more binary compatible with each other than the different Linux distributions are. NetBSD will continue to do wild hardware development including being the first OS to support things like USB. FreeBSD will continue to work on stability, scalability and speed. OpenBSD (As long as Theo doesn't get hit by a bus) will continue to concentrate on security.
-sirket
Reasons for running FreeBSD:
1. It is a single entity. I do not need to worry which version of libc works with which kernel
2. FreeBSD is consistent. I do not need to worry about where a particular FreeBSD system has installed an application.
3. FreeBSD's ports tree is an excellent utility for managing my system
4. Stability. FreeBSD is stable as can be.
5. Performance. FreeBSD has always be an excellent system when it comes to performance, and it does so without making the sacrafices in stability that Linux traditionally made. (Async file systems anyone?)
Does FreeBSD have a journaled file system? No. FreeBSD has SoftUpdates. Why? Because it gets you everything you want from journaling without the overhead.
How many journaled file systems does it have? One. Why on earth would you need more than 1? Softupdates isn't even seperate from the standard file system. As of 4.5 Softupdates are enabled on file systems by default. The wonderful thing about softupdates, though, is that you can turn them on an off when you want to.
The Windows installer is better? Perhaps you had better stop sitting in front of the radiation that your monitor emits. The last time I checked the Windows installer screwed up about half the time. I also do not see a global menu from which I can tell Windows to install any one of thousands of useful utilities all by typing one command. More importantly Windows sure as hell won't go out and get the software for me!
apt-get is a pretty nice piece of software. It is the first time the Linux folks have released something comparable to the ports tree and I am glad to see it out there.
Also, rpm does compile and install under FreeBSD.
Finally, FreeBSD has always doen an amazing job of running Linux applications when required so I just do not see an advantadge to using Linux.
-sirket
I think, perhaps, that you misunderstand how CheckPoint works. Are you taking into account printers and other devices on your network with IP addresses? These all count towards the host limit. Were you swapping IP addresses frequently and perhaps not giving the license manager time to timeout old addresses? Did you have rogue laptops that you are not counting?
/etc/system, the box is probably not configured for optimal performance.
The only thing that CheckPoint does, which bothers me is that a single host with multiple IP addresses count as multiple hosts in the license manager. To me, CheckPoint should be protecting hosts and not IP's.
As far as the license manager goes, I think you are simple wrong about this, or perhaps have a seriously under-powered system. Have you actually tuned the system for CheckPoint? Are you running on Solaris? IPSO? NT? Does the system have enough memory? There are a number of system performance tuning documents for Firewall-1 which are available from CheckPoint's web site. You may want to look into these. If you are running Firewall-1 on Solaris, and have not made changes to
-sirket
It was never my intention to imply otherwise. But preventative maintenance generally does not require a lot of work (certainly not as much work as fixing a destroyed system) _and_ it results in systems that are secure and stable.
-sirket
How does one delete software or crash the system when running a real operating system instead of Windows?
Also, all I said was that a good system does not need a _LOT_ of maintenance. I never said it needed _NO_ maintenance.
-sirket
Considering the plight of public schools in America, and the wonderful job that our politicians have done with the issue, it is the responsiblity of students, parents, and the school itself to solve the problem.
In my high school, the computer network was run by the students. Contrary to what some people thought, when these students were given the power to abuse the network, they reacted in exactly the opposite way. They became very responsible. They took their position seriously and did not abuse it. Perhaps it is time we stopped treating high school students like children.
The school administration accepted the situation because it was the only way they got working computers and an Internet connection. The parents accepted it because it resulted in a better environment for their children.
Some safeguards were put in place, such as no students were allowed to work on the file server. This was to help prevent any students from reading other students email and files, but it was more of a token gesture than real security because real security would have stopped things from getting done.
-sirket
Come to Stuyvesant High School in Manahattan sometime and that is exactly what you will see. I am sorry if my background is different than yours, but that is certainly what I witnessed.
-sirket
I am not a CheckPoint fan, but I have never seen their license routine cause problems. CheckPoint identifies every IP Address behind the firewall, whether they use the Internet or not, as a client IP. The reason is, as far as CheckPoint is concerned, any IP addrsss behind the firewall is an IP address being protected by the firewall. In that sense they are correct.
As far as processor power required to print those messages, well a) it is not a significant use of processor power and b) if you are not in comliance, why should the product operate at its most efficient? Many companies would shut down the software if it were not in compliance, or perhaps refuse to protect more IP Addresses than you have license for. CheckPoint does not and they deserve credit for that.
-sirket
The original point of this article was Free Software, and how administrative cost is the most significant aspect of system operations. Since software updates and user additions are a part of _ANY_ coputer system, and are not specific to a Microsoft or Free Software solution, why are you involving them?
Why not stick to the maintenance requires by free software systems versus Microsoft systems which was the original point. In that case, the Free Software solutions comes out ahead. Any Unix solution comes out ahead.
-sirket
Speaking of horseshit. No proper configuration needs quite a bit of maintenance. A well designed, properly configured system should run on its own, without user intervention, for long periods of time. How often do you need to make changes to a swuid web proxy? Or your DNS servers? The onyl systems which require any sort of serious maintenance are mail servers and shell machines. And even that maintenance can be kept to a minimum if you know what you are doing.
-sirket
A good computer system does not need a lot of maintenance. Besides which, in any school you can find technologically savvy kids. Make them a part of the computer team that maintains the network. Many a school is run in this way.
Besides which, it sounds as if you are saying that a Windows alternative would require _less_ maintenance than a Unix solution. If a teacher has the skills to handle a Unix system, then that configuration will require a lot less time than the eqwuivalent Microsoft solution.
-sirket
Stuyvesant uses Linux for their shell machines, mail servers, web proxies and DNS servers. They also use Linux for a majorityof their lab computers. Many desktops still use Windows, but until office comes out for Linux, things will probably stay that way.
-sirket