EXACTLY. I get hundreds of resumes a week from people looking for administration jobs. However, only about 1 out of every hundred is even remotely qualified. I can find you about a hundred reasonably qualified MCSE's in a week but Unix people are almost non-existant (There are plenty of Unix posers but they are easy to spot).
As for the industry as a whole... Just considering the companies I deal with on a regular basis, this tech boom is anything but over.
What some OpenBSD zealots forget is just how much cross development goes on between OpenBSD and FreeBSD. All of the holes found in FreeBSD in the last two weeks were found by Ra'daat in openbsd first. However the FreeBSD guys quickly fixed them. Besides which it would take 3 years at this exploit pace to come even close to the number of exploits linux has had. And we dont all use FreeBSD just because it is more secure than linux. It is more secure but the reason I use it is stability. Both in the crash sense and in the interface sense. I also use it for the ease of administration. Things stay the same and the update path makes sense. Linux has none of those features. I also use FreeBSD because I dont like the fact that there are some 42 linux distributions out there none of who can agree on how things should work. There is only one FreeBSD and I like that alot.
A lot of people need to calm down when someone posts something even remotely anti-linux to/. The comments that I made are well founded whether anyone reading this believes it or not.
First everyone felt it necessary to write in regarding Oracle. I know Oracle runs on Linux. As does informix. Neither one runs very well on Linux whether you believe me or not. Informix dies randomly and Oracle does not run any where as efficiently as it does on Solaris because the Linux concept of threads is so different from the Solaris concept (For those of you who do threads programming you will recognize how much more efficient Solaris is at handling threads).
Second I made comments about ext2fs being a rather shitty file system. Some people felt the need to write in saying there were other choices. That is fine but I dont find any of the other choices to be stable tested options (at least more stable than ext2fs) Now this may change with reiser and all the open sourcing of xfs but Linux is still not ready for prime time.
Third I said Linux was not ready for the large database or mission critical role and yet a lot of people felt the need to write in saying that Linux has its place in the enterprise. I do not recall saying otherwise. I simply said Linux is not ready for mission critical apps (both because of a lack of trusted and tested HA software and because of the lack of sturdy hardware.)
Finally still more people made comments that Linux does not need 64 processor systems with 16 gigs of ram. Well if you are saying that then you have not been in the enterprise and you should not be commenting on this post. There are actually situations where one needs 64 processors and that much ram and until Linux can run on that type of hardware it wont crack the high end.
In the end I am not saying Linux wont do it eventually. I think that in the future it will make it just not now. Iam also not saying there is no place for Linux in the enterprise... just that its place is not on the high end.
Why does everyone on/. believe Linux is a threat to Sun Microsystems computers? I can not think of a single large corporation who could or would use Linux in either a large database or mission critical role.
Until I see Veritas First watch for Linux... Until I see 64 processor Linux boxes with 16 gigs of ram... Until I see Oracle running on Linux it wont be even a remote threat to Linux. The fact that ext2fs still has a 2 gigabyte file size limitation means it is still not a real choice for a database server.
Linux is an excellent OS but it still needs improvements in stability, performance, commercial software support (a la Oracle, Veritas First Watch, Veritas File System and Veritas Volume Manager) and the hardware it runs on needs to be more robust before Sun has anything to worry about.
While I would never touch a mac with a ten foot pole I do know several people who own macs and upgraded their firmware for the exact reason Apple released the patch. These people were having pci problems (or what seemed like pci issue) and the patch did in fact repair this problem. The fact that it also took away g3 upgradeability was not published and wasnot discovered until after they had applied the patch.
No that is not the reason. Intel was putting the L2 cache on the die (but not the chip which is why the chips were so much larger and more expensive)
As Cache sizes grew it became impossible to fit them on the chip and the costs became prohibitive. Slot 1 came out as a way to keep the cache close to the chip and allow larger caches without putting them on the die itself and without having to put it on the motherboard which would have caused a bandwidth and speed bottleneck while accessing the cache.
Now that the die sizes are shrinking again and newer chips are using a.18 micron process it is once again possible to go back to putting the cache onto the processor. However with these smaller sizes the cache doesnt have to be stuck into another area on the die they can actually put it into the chip area of the die thus keeping sizes and costs down.
Actually the open source movement is very communist... MARXIST communist. Marxist described communism as "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." No mention is made of "control" or other political concepts.
That sounds a lot like the Open Source movement to me.
-sirket
PS: And try not to be so arrogant in your posts. You come across as an idiot. You insult people for not taking a government class and then get it wrong yourself. You describe a communist system as "our software would be provided by one source, and the software that we used would chosen by another." This applies if you are talking about Soviet communism (a political system) instead of Marxist communism (an economic system). Please try to be more specific next time.
The previous poster was pointing out that Eric S. Raymond is not a member of the "liberal media" and so the excuse that they are the only ones perpetrating this definition is not valid.
I work for the second (or third, I forget) largest Sun reseller on the east coast. I have set up mail systems for several fortune 100 companies with 10k+ users. Anyone recommending a *500 series machines for this number of users is insane, especially with more than 2 processors.
None of the MTA's out there are capable of making use of an SMP system and so anything more that 2 processors is really going to go to waste. (This is not entirely true however disk bottlenecks are far more critical to system performance)
I have also set up mail systems based on FreeBSD. My last box was a Dual p][450 with 2 gigs of ram and a pair of mirrored seagate cheetah system disks. The machine has a pair of SmartRAID IV caching RAID controllers from DPT with 64 megs of cache. Connected to each controller is a series of seagate cheetah hard drives in 4 DPT Drive cabinets (per controller). The controllers run RAID 0+1 for maximum performance and reliability.
The OS itself has been configured with a large MAXUSER limit and it is running Postfix using an LDAP server and running UW imapd (all hacked slightly to work together more smoothly). The system is also configured with softupdates to imporve FS performance. This system is as fast as anything I have ever used. It is easily capable of handling 5 million messages a day. This is over 200 messages a day per person on a 25k user system. Needless to say this system continually outperforms my expectations.
I have set up similar systems on Sun hardware but the high cost of that hardware makes these solutions prohibitive. It also makes it a lot harder to get a system to do what you want it to do if you cant hack the source code a little.
In the end a freeware solution like FreeBSD is more than up to the task of handling a large mail system like this. The only issues are proper configuration of this system. This issue applies to Solaris on sun hardware as well so it should not be mistaken as only a freeware problem.
I do not understand why Linux users insist on arguing when a *BSD user says a particular feature is better in in a *BSD than in Linux.
While Linux has excellent support, a lot of apps, a runs on a ton of hardware there are areas where the BSD derivatives are better. 1 of which is the TCP/IP stack (As admitted by a number of Linux kernel developers) and another area is in applications related to ISP's as that has been an important niche for FreeBSD especially.
I wish the Linux users would focus on making Linux better instead of jumping down *BSD users throats any time they point out an area where a BSD is better.
And as for reliability... it will be a long time before I trust Linux in a critical server and I will never trust a development kernel on a critical server. The same holds true for the *BSD's... Development kernels are not for production use and anyone who thinks otherwise has no concept of what business is about.
UFS is a lot more stable than ext2fs. It is more reliable and has fewer problems with fragmentation. Also with softupdates it is a LOT faster than ext2fs.
Secondly the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack has always been more correct and faster than the Linux TCP/IP stack. The new Linux stacks are getting better especially in the 2.2 series but they have a ways to go.
Calling the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack bad because it is old is rather stupid. Unix has gotten better with age not worse. The same applies for the file systems.
The thing to remember here is that this is not a Linux - FreeBSD war. It is not even a Linux VS Microsoft war. This is about giving people options and about making our respective OS's as fast and reliable as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. I was waiting to see who would actually remember this.
-sirket
EXACTLY. I get hundreds of resumes a week from people looking for administration jobs. However, only about 1 out of every hundred is even remotely qualified. I can find you about a hundred reasonably qualified MCSE's in a week but Unix people are almost non-existant (There are plenty of Unix posers but they are easy to spot).
As for the industry as a whole... Just considering the companies I deal with on a regular basis, this tech boom is anything but over.
-sirket
Pittsburgh rocks. The whole area around cmu was beautiful. The school was nice and the friends I made there were generally awesome people.
If you are really set on college for computers check cmu out.
-sirket
As any Unix admin here knows you can change your mac address any time you want to. Simply choose a locally unique number and then who cares?
-sirket
on video november 21st
Actually FreeBSD runs both hotmail and yahoo.
... there are holes for any OS. There just always seem to be more holes in Linux than anywhere else.
As for security holes
-sirket
What some OpenBSD zealots forget is just how much cross development goes on between OpenBSD and FreeBSD. All of the holes found in FreeBSD in the last two weeks were found by Ra'daat in openbsd first. However the FreeBSD guys quickly fixed them. Besides which it would take 3 years at this exploit pace to come even close to the number of exploits linux has had. And we dont all use FreeBSD just because it is more secure than linux. It is more secure but the reason I use it is stability. Both in the crash sense and in the interface sense. I also use it for the ease of administration. Things stay the same and the update path makes sense. Linux has none of those features. I also use FreeBSD because I dont like the fact that there are some 42 linux distributions out there none of who can agree on how things should work. There is only one FreeBSD and I like that alot.
-sirket
A lot of people need to calm down when someone posts something even remotely anti-linux to /. The comments that I made are well founded whether anyone reading this believes it or not.
First everyone felt it necessary to write in regarding Oracle. I know Oracle runs on Linux. As does informix. Neither one runs very well on Linux whether you believe me or not. Informix dies randomly and Oracle does not run any where as efficiently as it does on Solaris because the Linux concept of threads is so different from the Solaris concept (For those of you who do threads programming you will recognize how much more efficient Solaris is at handling threads).
Second I made comments about ext2fs being a rather shitty file system. Some people felt the need to write in saying there were other choices. That is fine but I dont find any of the other choices to be stable tested options (at least more stable than ext2fs) Now this may change with reiser and all the open sourcing of xfs but Linux is still not ready for prime time.
Third I said Linux was not ready for the large database or mission critical role and yet a lot of people felt the need to write in saying that Linux has its place in the enterprise. I do not recall saying otherwise. I simply said Linux is not ready for mission critical apps (both because of a lack of trusted and tested HA software and because of the lack of sturdy hardware.)
Finally still more people made comments that Linux does not need 64 processor systems with 16 gigs of ram. Well if you are saying that then you have not been in the enterprise and you should not be commenting on this post. There are actually situations where one needs 64 processors and that much ram and until Linux can run on that type of hardware it wont crack the high end.
In the end I am not saying Linux wont do it eventually. I think that in the future it will make it just not now. Iam also not saying there is no place for Linux in the enterprise... just that its place is not on the high end.
-sirket
Why does everyone on /. believe Linux is a threat to Sun Microsystems computers? I can not think of a single large corporation who could or would use Linux in either a large database or mission critical role.
Until I see Veritas First watch for Linux... Until I see 64 processor Linux boxes with 16 gigs of ram... Until I see Oracle running on Linux it wont be even a remote threat to Linux. The fact that ext2fs still has a 2 gigabyte file size limitation means it is still not a real choice for a database server.
Linux is an excellent OS but it still needs improvements in stability, performance, commercial software support (a la Oracle, Veritas First Watch, Veritas File System and Veritas Volume Manager) and the hardware it runs on needs to be more robust before Sun has anything to worry about.
-sirket
While I would never touch a mac with a ten foot pole I do know several people who own macs and upgraded their firmware for the exact reason Apple released the patch. These people were having pci problems (or what seemed like pci issue) and the patch did in fact repair this problem. The fact that it also took away g3 upgradeability was not published and wasnot discovered until after they had applied the patch.
-sirket
No that is not the reason. Intel was putting the L2 cache on the die (but not the chip which is why the chips were so much larger and more expensive)
.18 micron process it is once again possible to go back to putting the cache onto the processor. However with these smaller sizes the cache doesnt have to be stuck into another area on the die they can actually put it into the chip area of the die thus keeping sizes and costs down.
As Cache sizes grew it became impossible to fit them on the chip and the costs became prohibitive. Slot 1 came out as a way to keep the cache close to the chip and allow larger caches without putting them on the die itself and without having to put it on the motherboard which would have caused a bandwidth and speed bottleneck while accessing the cache.
Now that the die sizes are shrinking again and newer chips are using a
-sirket
Actually the open source movement is very communist... MARXIST communist. Marxist described communism as "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." No mention is made of "control" or other political concepts.
That sounds a lot like the Open Source movement to me.
-sirket
PS: And try not to be so arrogant in your posts. You come across as an idiot. You insult people for not taking a government class and then get it wrong yourself. You describe a communist system as "our software would be provided by one source, and the software that we used would chosen by another." This applies if you are talking about Soviet communism (a political system) instead of Marxist communism (an economic system). Please try to be more specific next time.
No one said the hackers were liberal.
The previous poster was pointing out that Eric S. Raymond is not a member of the "liberal media" and so the excuse that they are the only ones perpetrating this definition is not valid.
-sirket
Sigh...
I work for the second (or third, I forget) largest Sun reseller on the east coast. I have set up mail systems for several fortune 100 companies with 10k+ users. Anyone recommending a *500 series machines for this number of users is insane, especially with more than 2 processors.
None of the MTA's out there are capable of making use of an SMP system and so anything more that 2 processors is really going to go to waste. (This is not entirely true however disk bottlenecks are far more critical to system performance)
I have also set up mail systems based on FreeBSD. My last box was a Dual p][450 with 2 gigs of ram and a pair of mirrored seagate cheetah system disks. The machine has a pair of SmartRAID IV caching RAID controllers from DPT with 64 megs of cache. Connected to each controller is a series of seagate cheetah hard drives in 4 DPT Drive cabinets (per controller). The controllers run RAID 0+1 for maximum performance and reliability.
The OS itself has been configured with a large MAXUSER limit and it is running Postfix using an LDAP server and running UW imapd (all hacked slightly to work together more smoothly). The system is also configured with softupdates to imporve FS performance. This system is as fast as anything I have ever used. It is easily capable of handling 5 million messages a day. This is over 200 messages a day per person on a 25k user system. Needless to say this system continually outperforms my expectations.
I have set up similar systems on Sun hardware but the high cost of that hardware makes these solutions prohibitive. It also makes it a lot harder to get a system to do what you want it to do if you cant hack the source code a little.
In the end a freeware solution like FreeBSD is more than up to the task of handling a large mail system like this. The only issues are proper configuration of this system. This issue applies to Solaris on sun hardware as well so it should not be mistaken as only a freeware problem.
I do not understand why Linux users insist on arguing when a *BSD user says a particular feature is better in in a *BSD than in Linux.
While Linux has excellent support, a lot of apps, a runs on a ton of hardware there are areas where the BSD derivatives are better. 1 of which is the TCP/IP stack (As admitted by a number of Linux kernel developers) and another area is in applications related to ISP's as that has been an important niche for FreeBSD especially.
I wish the Linux users would focus on making Linux better instead of jumping down *BSD users throats any time they point out an area where a BSD is better.
And as for reliability... it will be a long time before I trust Linux in a critical server and I will never trust a development kernel on a critical server. The same holds true for the *BSD's... Development kernels are not for production use and anyone who thinks otherwise has no concept of what business is about.
-ket
A couple things:
UFS is a lot more stable than ext2fs. It is more reliable and has fewer problems with fragmentation. Also with softupdates it is a LOT faster than ext2fs.
Secondly the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack has always been more correct and faster than the Linux TCP/IP stack. The new Linux stacks are getting better especially in the 2.2 series but they have a ways to go.
Calling the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack bad because it is old is rather stupid. Unix has gotten better with age not worse. The same applies for the file systems.
The thing to remember here is that this is not a Linux - FreeBSD war. It is not even a Linux VS Microsoft war. This is about giving people options and about making our respective OS's as fast and reliable as possible.
-Don