Tankless systems are just as energy efficient as a tank water heater, they just don't waste time keeping the water hot all the time. The reason tankless systems have not caught on is that for a long time they did not have multiple stage burners to cope with extra demand. What that means is you could take a shower and wash dishes, but if you also did laundry, you would run out of hot water. Modern tankless systems are available with multiple stage burners and do not have these drawbacks.
Sounds like your parents have an old model. I use to have a model exactly like your parents version. Then again, it was 20 years old. When I installed a new replacement this year I could not believe the difference. No more water cutouts, far more sensitive kick-on relay, pilotless (gas is ignited via electricity generated by a turbine due to the moving water in the incoming water pipe), multiple stages for increased water output during heavy load or for less fuel use during light load.
The new tankless systems are absolutely amazing and very efficient.
I can't even begin to comprehend this problem. That you are using FAT32 in the first place is bloody well nuts. Just because you _can_ share a FAT32 file system from Linux via Samba, does not mean you should.
FAT32 was a kludge from the moment it was created. It was a temporary and awful fix to an awful file system. Instead of fixing the problem correctly and writing a real file system, Microsoft chose to take a half assed approach. Your solution is the same. You've taken a half assed approach to fixing the problem.
Whether or not you can do this under Linux doesn't change the fact that you should have converted the file system to a native Unix file system. If that meant picking up a disk for $50, so be it. Doing so would have been the "correct" solution.
That said, should this work under BSD if it is included in -STABLE and not listed as broken? Absolutely. Should FreeBSD bother to fix it? I don't see why. They should mark it as broken and forget about it. FAT32 is a kludge and should die already.
Linux is hardly free of idiotic little problems. If faced with the choice of dealing with broken FAT32 support or a shitty updater as on RedHat, or a broken glibc as on every distribution on a regular basis, then I will choose broken FAT32 support. For you the priorities may be the other way around.
Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)
I had a feeling the program that I use for graphics every day wasn't really the GIMP:( Oh sure it _claimed_ to be GIMP 2 but I knew it wasn't. I use to use the GIMP on Linux and I knew how it was supposed to work. It was supposed to crash every half hour and be slow as hell. This program that I am on running on my FreeBSD 5.2 desktop does not crash and is not slow:( Some day I hope the FreeBSD folks are able to break FreeBSD enough so that it runs the GIMP just like Linux.
The same goes for OpenOffice. I'm not sure what program is really running on my FreeBSD box but it is too fast and stable to be OpenOffice. I base this on hours of experience fight^H^H^H^H^Hworking with OpenOffice on Linux.
A border crossing is a HELL of a lot different than when you are just driving down the road minding your own business.
Sometimes I think the British government completely missed the message in 1984. They seem to view that bleak future as a goal instead of as a warning.
As draconian as various US laws are, there is one country (these days) that I can always count on to out do us on the big brother front and that is England.
You're assuming I want a simple rule set that can be templated. That isn't how most firewalls work. They share objects, but rarely do they share rules. Can this be done through macros and from the command line? Of course it can. The problem is that when you are updating your firewall during the 1 hour 3 am maintenance window it is easy to make a mistake that you just overlook because you've been staring at rule sets all day. Different data representations (A GUI) are critical to making sure that you understand exactly what your rule set is doing. A GUI is also useful for building intial rule sets and for prototyping changes. Finally, a GUI prevents you from making a typo (at least in terms of syntax). It's not a big deal if you verify your rule sets each time (good advice no matter what) but a GUI won't let you make these mistakes in the first place.
As long as the GUI doesn't prevent you from editing the raw rules, then it should be a welcome addition to any admins toolkit.
I am saying the parent poster is dumb for complaining about the lack of a GUI, when he hasn't even bothered to learn how the thing works, to see if he even needs one.
You don't know anything about the parent poster. You've never met him and you don't know what he or she knows and doesn't know. For all you know you've been insulting Bill Cheswick. Or perhaps he is just one of the many overworked admins out there who would like to see a tool that would make his job just a tiny bit quicker so that he can go home on time and actually see his family before sunset.
Perhaps you should to do your job instead of bitching on Slashdot. Maybe you've heard the expression "A picture is worth a thousand words?"
GUI's can convey more information in less time and do so more accurately than a text based rule set can. If used correctly, it is a valuable asset.
You think apache isn't as good as IIS because they don't have a GUI too? Oh, wait, there are *THOUSANDS* of tools to manage, edit, and distribute text based config files. Its no more difficult to admin dozens of firewalls than it is to admin dozens of webservers.
Yeah because web servers and firewalls have lots of things in common. I am constantly making changes to my web server configuration (hasn't changed in over a year) whereas I am never asked to change my firewall configuration (3 times this week by one customer). You may be so arrogant as to believe you never make a mistake. I am not so deluded. I write my rule sets using the config files and I use the GUI to verify the changes. Other times I use the GUI to lay the groundwork for a more complex rule set and then I edit the resulting rules by hand to get exactly what I want. Ever try writing CheckPoint rules without the editor? I use to do it all the time but I always checked them with the GUI to be sure they were right.
No one here is talking about creating your typical useless Windows GUI. Ever use the Borderware firewall GUI? It was a masterpiece.
A GUI editor is a tool, and when used right it makes you more efficient. I can't help it if you have your head so far up your ass you can't recognize a good thing when you see it.
So what you're saying is "I don't want to do my job, cause that's too much work."?
No. What he is saying is that unlike you, he is not an idiot. He recognizes how easy it is to make a typo when you have to enter the same rule and object definition on 25 firewalls. He recognizes the security advantages of a simple clean way to view firewall rules to help avoid a mistake in the ruleset.
The biggest information security threat to any company is the arrogance of its admins. Instead of bitching about a GUI a good firewall admin would welcome additional tools to help manage his or her firewalls. As long as the GUI doesn't stop you from editing rules by hand, why not make use of its ability to display your rules in a different way?
I configure PIX's all day long and I love the simplicity of a PIX config file. That said, Cisco has been losing market share for years because they don't have a GUI. Ever try to set up a ton of VPN's through the command line? Doable? Certainly. Fun? Not a chance.
This is a idotic comment. I've been a firewall admin for years. I admin CheckPoint, PIX, NetScreen, ipfw, ipf, and pf firewalls.
Have you ever tried to configure a fully meshed VPN topology between 30 sites by hand? Are you really going to sit there and write 900 rules by hand and expect to do it without making a mistake?
What about defining a group of objects on one firewall (say a cluster of web servers) and then going to implement a rule on a different firewall that uses that web server group? With a central GUI, you can define the object once and not worry about changing it in 5 places or making a mistake when you copy it over to another firewall. (Yes this can be done with scripts but if you are going to write a whole management interface, why not stick a GUI on top of it to make browsing rules easier?)
What about when you need to print out the rule sets for a compliance officer or your CEO?
What about when you have have 25 firewalls and you forgot to backup the rule set on a firewall that just died. Wouldn't it be nice to have a management box with all the rule sets stored locally?
There are about 50 good reasons to have a GUI and very few reasons not to have one. As long as you can configure the boxes from the command line and the GUI doesn't generate gibberish rules, then it is an excellent addition to a great firewall package.
-sirket
Re:Yet another crippling BSD vulnerability
on
BSD Interview Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Funny
- removal of *BSD operating system, replace with Linux or Windows XP
The fact that you chose to lump Linux in with Windows XP is not lost those of who use FreeBSD:)
There is no point in trying to convince you that BSD as you have already made up your mind.
Copying a 17 meg file should not take _any_ time as all it requires is an update to the file systems tables. It might take some time if you are moving the file from one file system to another (/usr to/var for example where/usr and/var are different partitions) but even then a 17 meg file can be moved in a few seconds.
I am not sure what you (or the person who set the box up) screwed up, but something is definitely wrong. I would suggest you find a unix admin and figure out what is really happening. Are you trying to copy/dev/random to/dev/null? are you trying to copy a file to a recursive symlink?
If you've never seen a FreeBSD box run faster than it's Windows counterparts then again we can not help you. You claim this 800 MHz box is slow. That is certainly possible. How about finding a properly configured system and givnig that a try? How about letting someone who knows what they are doing use the box?
I do a lot of Windows work. These days it is mostly active directory related stuff. Setting up servers, replication, DNS, etc. I have never seen an instance where Windows was faster to set up, easier to patch, or more stable. You want reasons, how about starting with those three.
Another clue is the fact that he set the domain name up as his own property so the town would be unable to switch to another server.
Just for the record, a lot of devlopers register in their own name because the client is completely incompetent.
I hope they throw the book at him, and throw it at him hard, to serve as a warning to anyone else thinking of pulling a stunt like this.
There was no contract in place. This guy offered to host the site for free. That also meant he could pull the site any time he wanted to for whatever reason he wanted to. If the city wanted a fucking guarantee then they should have signed a contract. The only fool in this endeavor was the city.
Where does the city get off arresting this guy? He designed the site, he hosted it, and he registered the domain name. If they city felt that his services were not worth $300k then they should have moved to a different provider and built their own damned web site.
The point is not to play DVD's using the xBox DVD player, but to play DVD VOB files over the network using EvoX. The remote isn't great, but it works and I will be using a programmable remote for my main system.
As for the DVD drive itself, I have never had a problem but I would not be surprised to learn that some people have had problems.
It is smaller than a PC and no bigger than the majority of DVD players. By the time you factor in a power supply, I can't even build a smaller mini-itx system.
So far the actual statements from the FSF and Apache have been sensible and reasonable
The problem is not the FSF or Apache. The problem is the crackpots who write nasty emails without any knowledge of the subject matter. It happens all the time in the OSS community. We have 100 evangelists for every coder and you know as well as I do that they have a tendency to get vicious and/or nasty.
This is _exactly_ what I want to do with my 300+ DVD collection.
I am planning on picking up an xBox, modding it, and running EvoX on it. I get the hardware for approximately $200 (soon to be less) including the remote and you get a spare S controller with the xBox. Add in a few dollars for the mod chip and you are set.
Besides being cheap, EvoX looks good and the xBox itself is small and the case is easily modded. It also starts up quickly which is nice. EvoX will read DVD files off the network as well as a few other file formats.
You just know that the author of the Apache rebuttal page wanted to end his analysis with: "So get bent."
Apache is a pretty good piece of software and if folks don't like the new license, well that's just tough. They have a right to license their code however they choose to. The people who write to them and tell them otherwise really do need to drop off the planet.
What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?
Did it ever occur to you to read the article before posting? Your question would have been answered.
The problem is that the nVidia chipsets (especially the audio chipset) use patentented technology and algorithms. Emulating that technology would require licensing it. Sure you could port the game but the whole point is that the end user already has the game and does not want to buy it again.
There's a few things that I anticipate will be tricky, like Xinerama support for my Radeon 7000 VE dual display
This is an X-windows/ATI problem. The issue is that most ATI cards are simply ATI branded and don't work exactly the same as another ATI branded card of the same model. I had this same problem both under FreeBSD and Linux. ATI manufactured cards would work fine, but ATI branded cards would not.
openoffice is being strangely adamant at not compiling.
Do _NOT_ attempt to compile OpenOffice. It simply is not worth it. Install the package and get on with your life. OpenOffice is so big and so complex that compiles will inevitably fail on some obscure error that you can't possibly fix.
These simply do not exist publicly for download for large ports such as Open Office or gnome2 although you could roll your own.
Actually these packages do exist. Have you ever gone into sysinstall and done a full package list? It isn't as big as the ports collection but it huge nonetheless.
This is an old study that was already addressed by the NetBSD folks whereby they beat Linux in almost every test.
(The Linux Kernel supports more architectures than the NetBSD kernel, idiot).
I love any argument that falls into random name calling, moron. As for architectures, go ahead and list them.
And nobody cares about your shitty DEC Alphas.
Jealous?
IA64, POWER are where its at now).
Why isn't google running on IA64's or POWER processors then? Because for most applications, 5 PC's are a better bargain than 1 POWER based system. As for IA64, as you already pointed out, FreeBSD runs on it.
has the fastest TCP/IP stack
I like how you link to a discussion about a particular driver as an example of which TCP stack is faster.
The Linux 2.4 kernel (2.4.20 was the last time I did an install where I ran into this problem), which is still the stock kernel, has 2 TB block device limit and -STABLE does not. Look it up.
As for a minor issue? Jesus christ. I have run into it so many times my head hurts. If you don't run file systems larger than 2TB than we have nothing to discuss because we are clearly in different ends of the business.
Slashdot Mirror
Tankless systems are just as energy efficient as a tank water heater, they just don't waste time keeping the water hot all the time. The reason tankless systems have not caught on is that for a long time they did not have multiple stage burners to cope with extra demand. What that means is you could take a shower and wash dishes, but if you also did laundry, you would run out of hot water. Modern tankless systems are available with multiple stage burners and do not have these drawbacks.
-sirket
Sounds like your parents have an old model. I use to have a model exactly like your parents version. Then again, it was 20 years old. When I installed a new replacement this year I could not believe the difference. No more water cutouts, far more sensitive kick-on relay, pilotless (gas is ignited via electricity generated by a turbine due to the moving water in the incoming water pipe), multiple stages for increased water output during heavy load or for less fuel use during light load.
The new tankless systems are absolutely amazing and very efficient.
-sirket
Speak for yourself! I need 2 billion addresses for... for... for strategic sheep herding purposes! :)
-sirket
I can't even begin to comprehend this problem. That you are using FAT32 in the first place is bloody well nuts. Just because you _can_ share a FAT32 file system from Linux via Samba, does not mean you should.
FAT32 was a kludge from the moment it was created. It was a temporary and awful fix to an awful file system. Instead of fixing the problem correctly and writing a real file system, Microsoft chose to take a half assed approach. Your solution is the same. You've taken a half assed approach to fixing the problem.
Whether or not you can do this under Linux doesn't change the fact that you should have converted the file system to a native Unix file system. If that meant picking up a disk for $50, so be it. Doing so would have been the "correct" solution.
That said, should this work under BSD if it is included in -STABLE and not listed as broken? Absolutely. Should FreeBSD bother to fix it? I don't see why. They should mark it as broken and forget about it. FAT32 is a kludge and should die already.
Linux is hardly free of idiotic little problems. If faced with the choice of dealing with broken FAT32 support or a shitty updater as on RedHat, or a broken glibc as on every distribution on a regular basis, then I will choose broken FAT32 support. For you the priorities may be the other way around.
-sirket
Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)
:( Oh sure it _claimed_ to be GIMP 2 but I knew it wasn't. I use to use the GIMP on Linux and I knew how it was supposed to work. It was supposed to crash every half hour and be slow as hell. This program that I am on running on my FreeBSD 5.2 desktop does not crash and is not slow :( Some day I hope the FreeBSD folks are able to break FreeBSD enough so that it runs the GIMP just like Linux.
I had a feeling the program that I use for graphics every day wasn't really the GIMP
The same goes for OpenOffice. I'm not sure what program is really running on my FreeBSD box but it is too fast and stable to be OpenOffice. I base this on hours of experience fight^H^H^H^H^Hworking with OpenOffice on Linux.
-sirket
A border crossing is a HELL of a lot different than when you are just driving down the road minding your own business.
Sometimes I think the British government completely missed the message in 1984. They seem to view that bleak future as a goal instead of as a warning.
As draconian as various US laws are, there is one country (these days) that I can always count on to out do us on the big brother front and that is England.
-sirket
You're assuming I want a simple rule set that can be templated. That isn't how most firewalls work. They share objects, but rarely do they share rules. Can this be done through macros and from the command line? Of course it can. The problem is that when you are updating your firewall during the 1 hour 3 am maintenance window it is easy to make a mistake that you just overlook because you've been staring at rule sets all day. Different data representations (A GUI) are critical to making sure that you understand exactly what your rule set is doing. A GUI is also useful for building intial rule sets and for prototyping changes. Finally, a GUI prevents you from making a typo (at least in terms of syntax). It's not a big deal if you verify your rule sets each time (good advice no matter what) but a GUI won't let you make these mistakes in the first place.
As long as the GUI doesn't prevent you from editing the raw rules, then it should be a welcome addition to any admins toolkit.
I am saying the parent poster is dumb for complaining about the lack of a GUI, when he hasn't even bothered to learn how the thing works, to see if he even needs one.
You don't know anything about the parent poster. You've never met him and you don't know what he or she knows and doesn't know. For all you know you've been insulting Bill Cheswick. Or perhaps he is just one of the many overworked admins out there who would like to see a tool that would make his job just a tiny bit quicker so that he can go home on time and actually see his family before sunset.
-sirket
Perhaps you should to do your job instead of bitching on Slashdot. Maybe you've heard the expression "A picture is worth a thousand words?"
GUI's can convey more information in less time and do so more accurately than a text based rule set can. If used correctly, it is a valuable asset.
You think apache isn't as good as IIS because they don't have a GUI too? Oh, wait, there are *THOUSANDS* of tools to manage, edit, and distribute text based config files. Its no more difficult to admin dozens of firewalls than it is to admin dozens of webservers.
Yeah because web servers and firewalls have lots of things in common. I am constantly making changes to my web server configuration (hasn't changed in over a year) whereas I am never asked to change my firewall configuration (3 times this week by one customer). You may be so arrogant as to believe you never make a mistake. I am not so deluded. I write my rule sets using the config files and I use the GUI to verify the changes. Other times I use the GUI to lay the groundwork for a more complex rule set and then I edit the resulting rules by hand to get exactly what I want. Ever try writing CheckPoint rules without the editor? I use to do it all the time but I always checked them with the GUI to be sure they were right.
No one here is talking about creating your typical useless Windows GUI. Ever use the Borderware firewall GUI? It was a masterpiece.
A GUI editor is a tool, and when used right it makes you more efficient. I can't help it if you have your head so far up your ass you can't recognize a good thing when you see it.
-sirket
So what you're saying is "I don't want to do my job, cause that's too much work."?
No. What he is saying is that unlike you, he is not an idiot. He recognizes how easy it is to make a typo when you have to enter the same rule and object definition on 25 firewalls. He recognizes the security advantages of a simple clean way to view firewall rules to help avoid a mistake in the ruleset.
The biggest information security threat to any company is the arrogance of its admins. Instead of bitching about a GUI a good firewall admin would welcome additional tools to help manage his or her firewalls. As long as the GUI doesn't stop you from editing rules by hand, why not make use of its ability to display your rules in a different way?
-sirket
I configure PIX's all day long and I love the simplicity of a PIX config file. That said, Cisco has been losing market share for years because they don't have a GUI. Ever try to set up a ton of VPN's through the command line? Doable? Certainly. Fun? Not a chance.
-sirket
There is absolutely no benefit to a GUI at all
This is a idotic comment. I've been a firewall admin for years. I admin CheckPoint, PIX, NetScreen, ipfw, ipf, and pf firewalls.
Have you ever tried to configure a fully meshed VPN topology between 30 sites by hand? Are you really going to sit there and write 900 rules by hand and expect to do it without making a mistake?
What about defining a group of objects on one firewall (say a cluster of web servers) and then going to implement a rule on a different firewall that uses that web server group? With a central GUI, you can define the object once and not worry about changing it in 5 places or making a mistake when you copy it over to another firewall. (Yes this can be done with scripts but if you are going to write a whole management interface, why not stick a GUI on top of it to make browsing rules easier?)
What about when you need to print out the rule sets for a compliance officer or your CEO?
What about when you have have 25 firewalls and you forgot to backup the rule set on a firewall that just died. Wouldn't it be nice to have a management box with all the rule sets stored locally?
There are about 50 good reasons to have a GUI and very few reasons not to have one. As long as you can configure the boxes from the command line and the GUI doesn't generate gibberish rules, then it is an excellent addition to a great firewall package.
-sirket
- removal of *BSD operating system, replace with Linux or Windows XP
:)
The fact that you chose to lump Linux in with Windows XP is not lost those of who use FreeBSD
-sirket
There is no point in trying to convince you that BSD as you have already made up your mind.
/var for example where /usr and/var are different partitions) but even then a 17 meg file can be moved in a few seconds.
/dev/random to /dev/null? are you trying to copy a file to a recursive symlink?
Copying a 17 meg file should not take _any_ time as all it requires is an update to the file systems tables. It might take some time if you are moving the file from one file system to another (/usr to
I am not sure what you (or the person who set the box up) screwed up, but something is definitely wrong. I would suggest you find a unix admin and figure out what is really happening. Are you trying to copy
If you've never seen a FreeBSD box run faster than it's Windows counterparts then again we can not help you. You claim this 800 MHz box is slow. That is certainly possible. How about finding a properly configured system and givnig that a try? How about letting someone who knows what they are doing use the box?
I do a lot of Windows work. These days it is mostly active directory related stuff. Setting up servers, replication, DNS, etc. I have never seen an instance where Windows was faster to set up, easier to patch, or more stable. You want reasons, how about starting with those three.
-sirket
Another clue is the fact that he set the domain name up as his own property so the town would be unable to switch to another server.
Just for the record, a lot of devlopers register in their own name because the client is completely incompetent.
I hope they throw the book at him, and throw it at him hard, to serve as a warning to anyone else thinking of pulling a stunt like this.
There was no contract in place. This guy offered to host the site for free. That also meant he could pull the site any time he wanted to for whatever reason he wanted to. If the city wanted a fucking guarantee then they should have signed a contract. The only fool in this endeavor was the city.
Where does the city get off arresting this guy? He designed the site, he hosted it, and he registered the domain name. If they city felt that his services were not worth $300k then they should have moved to a different provider and built their own damned web site.
-sirket
The point is not to play DVD's using the xBox DVD player, but to play DVD VOB files over the network using EvoX. The remote isn't great, but it works and I will be using a programmable remote for my main system.
As for the DVD drive itself, I have never had a problem but I would not be surprised to learn that some people have had problems.
-sirket
It is smaller than a PC and no bigger than the majority of DVD players. By the time you factor in a power supply, I can't even build a smaller mini-itx system.
-sirket
So far the actual statements from the FSF and Apache have been sensible and reasonable
The problem is not the FSF or Apache. The problem is the crackpots who write nasty emails without any knowledge of the subject matter. It happens all the time in the OSS community. We have 100 evangelists for every coder and you know as well as I do that they have a tendency to get vicious and/or nasty.
-sirket
This is _exactly_ what I want to do with my 300+ DVD collection.
I am planning on picking up an xBox, modding it, and running EvoX on it. I get the hardware for approximately $200 (soon to be less) including the remote and you get a spare S controller with the xBox. Add in a few dollars for the mod chip and you are set.
Besides being cheap, EvoX looks good and the xBox itself is small and the case is easily modded. It also starts up quickly which is nice. EvoX will read DVD files off the network as well as a few other file formats.
-sirket
You just know that the author of the Apache rebuttal page wanted to end his analysis with: "So get bent."
Apache is a pretty good piece of software and if folks don't like the new license, well that's just tough. They have a right to license their code however they choose to. The people who write to them and tell them otherwise really do need to drop off the planet.
-sirket
What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?
Did it ever occur to you to read the article before posting? Your question would have been answered.
The problem is that the nVidia chipsets (especially the audio chipset) use patentented technology and algorithms. Emulating that technology would require licensing it. Sure you could port the game but the whole point is that the end user already has the game and does not want to buy it again.
-sirket
There's a few things that I anticipate will be tricky, like Xinerama support for my Radeon 7000 VE dual display
This is an X-windows/ATI problem. The issue is that most ATI cards are simply ATI branded and don't work exactly the same as another ATI branded card of the same model. I had this same problem both under FreeBSD and Linux. ATI manufactured cards would work fine, but ATI branded cards would not.
openoffice is being strangely adamant at not compiling.
Do _NOT_ attempt to compile OpenOffice. It simply is not worth it. Install the package and get on with your life. OpenOffice is so big and so complex that compiles will inevitably fail on some obscure error that you can't possibly fix.
-sirket
These simply do not exist publicly for download for large ports such as Open Office or gnome2 although you could roll your own.
Actually these packages do exist. Have you ever gone into sysinstall and done a full package list? It isn't as big as the ports collection but it huge nonetheless.
-sirket
You should be a politician. Pick issues where your candidate is ahead and pretend the other issues do not exist. I like that.
As a side note, who had USB support first?
-sirket
2. is the most algorithmically scalable
This is an old study that was already addressed by the NetBSD folks whereby they beat Linux in almost every test.
(The Linux Kernel supports more architectures than the NetBSD kernel, idiot).
I love any argument that falls into random name calling, moron. As for architectures, go ahead and list them.
And nobody cares about your shitty DEC Alphas.
Jealous?
IA64, POWER are where its at now).
Why isn't google running on IA64's or POWER processors then? Because for most applications, 5 PC's are a better bargain than 1 POWER based system. As for IA64, as you already pointed out, FreeBSD runs on it.
has the fastest TCP/IP stack
I like how you link to a discussion about a particular driver as an example of which TCP stack is faster.
-sirket
The Linux 2.4 kernel (2.4.20 was the last time I did an install where I ran into this problem), which is still the stock kernel, has 2 TB block device limit and -STABLE does not. Look it up.
As for a minor issue? Jesus christ. I have run into it so many times my head hurts. If you don't run file systems larger than 2TB than we have nothing to discuss because we are clearly in different ends of the business.
-sirket