We much prefer Debian for servers. I have avoided using filesystems that are not native to the Linux kernel. However, I admit I was unaware that XFS supports ACLs. Does this ACL support integrate into Samba?
No, I'm not joking. And I've done quite a bit of Win32 development. The GUI is efficient in the sense that just operating the GUI doesn't affect CPU usage in any appreciable manner. On the other hand, Gnome and KDE are a bit more resource intensive.
Having a firewall protect your vulnerable servers may seem like a good idea, and it is in part, but in most offices the majority of "attacks" come from within the organization. Also, what if your firewall is compromised? It will be easier for a cracker to gain access to systems that are still vulnerable.
Personally this whole "we can't fix NT 4" attitude from MS is suspicious. Sounds like they are simply trying to push people to upgrade. On the other hand, NT 4 is freakin' old. Does Red Hat support a 7 year old version of Linux?
In our office we will never seriously consider Linux as a replacement for Windows file servers simply because the security on the file system is too basic. We need it to support access control lists!
We do, however, use Linux for firewalling, email serving, http proxy, etc.
Windows 2000 was quite usable before SP1 was released. I'm sure people will do a lab test of Windows 2003 before deploying it, but there's probably no reason it flat out wouldn't work.
I would agree, but it depends on the server. Certainly the Linux servers I deploy do not have X installed. And when we were doing Netware servers we would turn off their crappy GUI. Windows, however, cannot be managed completely using the console. You have to use a GUI on Windows. Fortunately the Windows GUI is very efficient and doesn't require any appreciable CPU power, especially when the eye candy is turned off.
Windows 2003 Server doesn't support the XP interface at all. It looks like 2000 and you cannot make it look like Windows XP. A lot of the "eye candy" is left out; it has no place in a server GUI.
Damn, I guess I just exposed myself as a lamer who didn't look at the article before posting. The shell around the disk would certainly help keep them clean. It works great for minidiscs!
I remember watching this movie when I was probably 10... it was on all the time on HBO. For some reason I liked it, but I haven't seen it in like 20 years.
Instead of someone buying a 2.4GHz processor, for example, they'll get a 1.8 and overclock it to 2.4 (or whatever the exact numbers are). Basically Intel is wanting to ensure people buy the more expensive processor instead of overclocking a cheaper one. But what percentage of people actually overclock? 0.1%?
While AMD processors might "crack" when you install the heat sink incorrectly, who has cracked the Intel multiplier lock introduced so long ago? Nobody.
Yeah, those WD JB drives are very quiet. I have a 120GB drive in my system for "junk" like MP3s and games. My Cheetah 15k.3 is a hell of a lot faster though so I use it for my system/app drive. The WD JB was cheaper and has 4 times the capacity though.:) But I expect the Cheetah to outlive it by quite a bit.
Apparently you have never heard a Cheetah 15k.3. It is VERY quiet... barely audible. Also, it runs extremely cool to the touch. Your observation was accurate for first gen 15k drives, but not current 3rd generation ones.
No, I'm not trying to start another flamewar. IDE vs SCSI is an old argument. But one thing is certain: SCSI drives are much, much more reliable. They are designed for server use (24x7x365) and can be much faster. Get the Cheetah 15k.3 and you'll never look back!
Slashdot Mirror
We much prefer Debian for servers. I have avoided using filesystems that are not native to the Linux kernel. However, I admit I was unaware that XFS supports ACLs. Does this ACL support integrate into Samba?
You are joking, right?
No, I'm not joking. And I've done quite a bit of Win32 development. The GUI is efficient in the sense that just operating the GUI doesn't affect CPU usage in any appreciable manner. On the other hand, Gnome and KDE are a bit more resource intensive.
Having a firewall protect your vulnerable servers may seem like a good idea, and it is in part, but in most offices the majority of "attacks" come from within the organization. Also, what if your firewall is compromised? It will be easier for a cracker to gain access to systems that are still vulnerable. Personally this whole "we can't fix NT 4" attitude from MS is suspicious. Sounds like they are simply trying to push people to upgrade. On the other hand, NT 4 is freakin' old. Does Red Hat support a 7 year old version of Linux?
In our office we will never seriously consider Linux as a replacement for Windows file servers simply because the security on the file system is too basic. We need it to support access control lists! We do, however, use Linux for firewalling, email serving, http proxy, etc.
Windows 2000 was quite usable before SP1 was released. I'm sure people will do a lab test of Windows 2003 before deploying it, but there's probably no reason it flat out wouldn't work.
I would agree, but it depends on the server. Certainly the Linux servers I deploy do not have X installed. And when we were doing Netware servers we would turn off their crappy GUI. Windows, however, cannot be managed completely using the console. You have to use a GUI on Windows. Fortunately the Windows GUI is very efficient and doesn't require any appreciable CPU power, especially when the eye candy is turned off.
Windows 2003 Server doesn't support the XP interface at all. It looks like 2000 and you cannot make it look like Windows XP. A lot of the "eye candy" is left out; it has no place in a server GUI.
Yeah, but a 1X CD-ROM only transferred 150KB/sec. 8MB/sec is quite a bit more than that.
Damn, I guess I just exposed myself as a lamer who didn't look at the article before posting. The shell around the disk would certainly help keep them clean. It works great for minidiscs!
A single fingerprint probably covers several hundred megabytes. :)
There are several auctionson ebay for new copies. Too bad it's only VHS, or I might go for it.
Link
I remember watching this movie when I was probably 10... it was on all the time on HBO. For some reason I liked it, but I haven't seen it in like 20 years.
...is only available in Japan for some reason. So you can either import it, hope it is released in the states, or get a silver one.
Can the Canon play the old Phantasy Star games? 'nuff said.
Actually I've never cracked an AMD processor. It's not hard to install a heatsink correctly... you don't even need a shim.
AMD's fastest processor is more expensive than an Intel 3.06GHz HT processor and it doesn't perform as well in most tests.
It's been -217 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment
Oh wait, there's no way around that on Intel procs.
Instead of someone buying a 2.4GHz processor, for example, they'll get a 1.8 and overclock it to 2.4 (or whatever the exact numbers are). Basically Intel is wanting to ensure people buy the more expensive processor instead of overclocking a cheaper one. But what percentage of people actually overclock? 0.1%?
Now companies and other unscrupulous individuals won't sell overclocked systems at a higher price to people who don't know any better.
While AMD processors might "crack" when you install the heat sink incorrectly, who has cracked the Intel multiplier lock introduced so long ago? Nobody.
Then again, is it technically possible to reduce Apple's market share?
Yes, if you use imaginary numbers. (See older slashdot article.)
Yeah, those WD JB drives are very quiet. I have a 120GB drive in my system for "junk" like MP3s and games. My Cheetah 15k.3 is a hell of a lot faster though so I use it for my system/app drive. The WD JB was cheaper and has 4 times the capacity though. :) But I expect the Cheetah to outlive it by quite a bit.
Apparently you have never heard a Cheetah 15k.3. It is VERY quiet... barely audible. Also, it runs extremely cool to the touch. Your observation was accurate for first gen 15k drives, but not current 3rd generation ones.
No, I'm not trying to start another flamewar. IDE vs SCSI is an old argument. But one thing is certain: SCSI drives are much, much more reliable. They are designed for server use (24x7x365) and can be much faster. Get the Cheetah 15k.3 and you'll never look back!
Notice: You will pay for SCSI reliability.
When I panic, the Linux kernel detects that and also panics. Wow, computers have had facial recognition for a long time!