> Many people want Gentoo for the portage system and not nessesarly for the > advantages of running the most super optimized kernel possible.
Bleh, for the upteenth time:
1) Completing stage3 (whether by unpacking a stage3 tarball or bootstraping plus "emerge system" from previous stages) will net you the base system which is, well, basically complete with all the required system packages FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT CHOICE. Gentoo, is all about choice, so there's still a few things you need to add: your choce of a system logger, cron daemon, and your own customized kernel. There is a utility called "genkernel" which will set you up with a generic kernel, but in most cases this is Considered Harmful. So most users who start from stage3 should still end up with a fairly "super optimized kernel"
and in response to some of the grandparent posters:
2) Installing from a stage earlier than stage3 is ONLY advisable if: a) No reasonably optimized stage3 tarball is available for your particular subarchitecture (unlikely) --OR-- b) The default CFLAGS="-O2" optimization is insufficient for your taste.
3) Realize that even if the stage3 tarballs aren't exactly what you're looking for, they are most likely still close enough that it makes sense to use them to avoid a lengthy install. Bootstraps can fail pretty easily -- even "emerge system" has it's quirks. And in the long run, once your system is up and running, future "emerge -uD world" updates will gradually replace those horribly unoptimized pre-built stage3 packages you've had to endure... (ha!)
Have you used Gmail, yeah its a beta too, but I have not noticed any bugs. Yeah Google news, and Froogle, both beta as well, however not a bug to be found...
Gmail is relatively new and still under active development, so is a beta in practice.
Google news and Froogle on the other hand are beta in name only. The reason the beta monicker is still on them is because Google hasn't figured out a way to make money off of them yet. Seriously, that is the reason.
> I wonder if the "standard" non-hd version of the Xbox Next will have the expansion port for an external hard drive. If that's the case, that will be the key to buying this version and connect a cheap HD to it.
Or a very expensive HD, as opposed to removing a moderately-expensive one from the HD version and having to fing a new home for it : )
> > We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
>the FSF ends up being the ones defending violations in court. You give your software to them, and they use their power of copyright to defend it.
Incorrect, the "We" refers to the person licensing the software under the GPL.
Note how the copyright owner is explicitly named. Also note that Linux falls only under version 2 of the GPL. Many software projects state that they use the GPLv2 or any later version (there is no later version at the moment). There's nothing preventing the FSF from stating that the GPLv3 requires that only GPL software run on a computer where any GPL software runs, or that GPL software can only be used with the HURD. The HURD doesn't have to conquer Linux; it will start out with a full toolchain and many programs to go with it. Under the GPLv3, the FSF could deny the use of those programs under Linux. Suddently the big players in the OS market are Microsoft, the BSDs, and the HURD.
Wrong, the full text in question actually reads: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
Thus if the FSF were to publish a more restrictive GPL v3, Linux and everything else originally licensed under v2 would remain available under the terms of v2.
> The best thing to do is to roll your own license, using either the BSD or GPL as a basis (depending on which you prefer).
No, do not roll your own. This would only promote confusing. BSD and the GPL are accepted and well-recognized standards. Use them!
> well i was talkign about more or less cheap controllers. in the arena of raid controllers 160USD is fucking cheap!
Not compared to $0.
You see, the typical budget RAID 5 builder just wants to store his collection of MPEG4s, MP3s, and other downloads or perhaps uncompressed hobbyist video. It's not a database, it's not a 150+ employee corporate file server, it's just personal. Performance is not a concern.
And if performance is a concern (say he wants / on these disks) then the cheap way to go is software RAID 0, 1 or 1+0 (aka 10) *COMBINED* with a RAID5.
For instance, I just built myself a new system with four 300gb drives and partitioned each one like so:
For the 50mb, I made a bootable RAID 1 of four drives (grub can boot this, dunno about lilo)
For the 1gb swap, I made a RAID 1 with two drives and a RAID 1 with the other 2. Thus I have a net of two 1gb swap partitions, with redundancy so my system will never crash due to drive-induced paging errors. This is essentially a RAID 0+1, though I let the kernel's swap system handle the RAID 0 aspect by giving them equal priorities.
For the 20gb/, I did the same thing (pair of RAID 1s) and put a RAID 0 on top of that, for a net of 40gb redundant and fairly speedy storage.
For the 5gb/tmp and/var I made a simple 10gb RAID 0 for each. Not a whole lot of need for redundancy here, I make a point of backing up the important/var stuff.
With the four equal-sized partitions that were left, I made the RAID 5 for/home
Don't you see what a great cost-effective approach this is?!?
Maybe you work for some company with plenty of money lying around for $160 RAID controllers. But I'm in business for myself, and I don't see the sense in spending money where it isn't needed. Besides, the flexibility of software RAIDs (per-partition, not per-drive) would be well worth it to me even if something like the SX4 were cheaper.
> Do yourself a favour and buy some more or less cheap hardware RAID controllers. You won't regret it. Software RAID is nothing more than "showing it's possible".
There is no such thing as a "cheap" hardware RAID 5 controller. Well there is, but they'll still set you back at least $120 and are crap.
There are RAID controllers from highpoint and promise, et al that are card-based, but they are still CPU bound (that is where the XOR really takes place). So they're really nothing more than a controller with a driver that does the calculations in the CPU. These cards are good for booting windows to a software RAID (since that is essentially what they are) but not good for anything else.
Most motherboards especially those with only 2 RAID ports (whether IDE or SATA) are software-based, as well. The nvidia nforce3 250 is one of the few notable exceptions.
But the bottom line here is: Linux Software RAID 5 is a logical approach if simple redundant mass storage is your main concern, and will save you at least $120. Also note that for RAID 0/1 it doesn't really matter if you go hardware or software since they aren't very processor intensive anyway. Pure software RAID 0/1 seems to be easier to set up in Linux (less mucking around with drivers) so it often makes sense to go with it for that reason alone.
Slashdot Mirror
> Then IBM can pick over what's left and GPL Unix once and for all.
Fans of the GPL we may be, but I still think BSD would be more appropriate in this case.
Aww come on, it's not dead yet.
Would you be opposed if OSC were to, say, write 10 more Ender's Game sequels?
> Many people want Gentoo for the portage system and not nessesarly for the
> advantages of running the most super optimized kernel possible.
Bleh, for the upteenth time:
1) Completing stage3 (whether by unpacking a stage3 tarball or bootstraping plus "emerge system" from previous stages) will net you the base system which is, well, basically complete with all the required system packages FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT CHOICE. Gentoo, is all about choice, so there's still a few things you need to add: your choce of a system logger, cron daemon, and your own customized kernel. There is a utility called "genkernel" which will set you up with a generic kernel, but in most cases this is Considered Harmful. So most users who start from stage3 should still end up with a fairly "super optimized kernel"
and in response to some of the grandparent posters:
2) Installing from a stage earlier than stage3 is ONLY advisable if:
a) No reasonably optimized stage3 tarball is available for your particular subarchitecture (unlikely)
--OR--
b) The default CFLAGS="-O2" optimization is insufficient for your taste.
3) Realize that even if the stage3 tarballs aren't exactly what you're looking for, they are most likely still close enough that it makes sense to use them to avoid a lengthy install. Bootstraps can fail pretty easily -- even "emerge system" has it's quirks. And in the long run, once your system is up and running, future "emerge -uD world" updates will gradually replace those horribly unoptimized pre-built stage3 packages you've had to endure... (ha!)
Why not just rip to high-quality MP3 and have done?
Maybe because that wouldn't make for a particularly interesting Ask Slashdot.
bash
Solid objects tend not to go "SPLAT," for example:
:)
"I dropped my mobile, it went *SPLAT*"
doesn't really work
It might work better if you dropped it from orbit at 300km
> Run a big fuck off cable between the moon and Earth, maybe? Sure it'll cost a lot, but over a couple of centuries of use it might pay itself off.
I think the space elevator is a better idea.
> I have visions of slaves in third world countries on generator bicycles, all outside pedaling away, while the local bigwig surfs porn
Exactly how would this be more apealing than just fucking the slaves?
> You mean as they all make better products?
No, they MARKET their products as being better.
> RPM is a package. Just like DEB.
> Apt is a package manager, just like Yum.
> Please do not confuse them.
You are the one that is confused: RPM is a recursive acronym for "RPM Package Manager." Yum is just an alternative that uses the same format. Observe:
# whatis rpm
rpm (8) - RPM Package Manager
> But I find the gore and the sexually explicit to be fine. It's the commercials that I find to be objectional!
That's right. So basically he crux of this law is: You are screwed.
Calling into question a circular reference is NOT an instance of begging the question, sorry.
If you don't like it, don't use it, nobody is forced to.
/. crowd that works fine, but you're ignoring the fact that there are millions of lusers WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.
For the
These are the people Microsoft preys on.
Have you used Gmail, yeah its a beta too, but I have not noticed any bugs. Yeah Google news, and Froogle, both beta as well, however not a bug to be found...
Gmail is relatively new and still under active development, so is a beta in practice.
Google news and Froogle on the other hand are beta in name only. The reason the beta monicker is still on them is because Google hasn't figured out a way to make money off of them yet. Seriously, that is the reason.
> I wonder if the "standard" non-hd version of the Xbox Next will have the expansion port for an external hard drive. If that's the case, that will be the key to buying this version and connect a cheap HD to it.
Or a very expensive HD, as opposed to removing a moderately-expensive one from the HD version and having to fing a new home for it : )
The parent is a troll.
> > We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
>the FSF ends up being the ones defending violations in court. You give your software to them, and they use their power of copyright to defend it.
Incorrect, the "We" refers to the person licensing the software under the GPL.
Note how the copyright owner is explicitly named. Also note that Linux falls only under version 2 of the GPL. Many software projects state that they use the GPLv2 or any later version (there is no later version at the moment). There's nothing preventing the FSF from stating that the GPLv3 requires that only GPL software run on a computer where any GPL software runs, or that GPL software can only be used with the HURD. The HURD doesn't have to conquer Linux; it will start out with a full toolchain and many programs to go with it. Under the GPLv3, the FSF could deny the use of those programs under Linux. Suddently the big players in the OS market are Microsoft, the BSDs, and the HURD.
Wrong, the full text in question actually reads: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
Thus if the FSF were to publish a more restrictive GPL v3, Linux and everything else originally licensed under v2 would remain available under the terms of v2.
> The best thing to do is to roll your own license, using either the BSD or GPL as a basis (depending on which you prefer).
No, do not roll your own. This would only promote confusing. BSD and the GPL are accepted and well-recognized standards. Use them!
it was a preemptory strike ; )
Are you being sarcastic? Because my comment was perfectly serious... Wine (or anything else) inside a VM = very bad game performance.
But *IF* you are bent on this crazy idea of using a VM for games, why not run XP in the VM? Much less hassle.
> And what if you ran it within a VM?
The gaming performance would suffer drastically...
And if you're going to use a VM, you may as well install a bootleg XP and be done with it.
> The concentration of written laws should be at the state level, since the state is much closer to the citizen than the feds will ever be.
If only that were true...
3ware raid controllers kick ass, they are the best on the market especially for Linux
frickin expensive, though... if you need that kind of performance it'd probably be speedier and more cost effective to do a software RAID 0+1
> well i was talkign about more or less cheap controllers. in the arena of raid controllers 160USD is fucking cheap!
/boot / /tmp and /var /home
/, I did the same thing (pair of RAID 1s) and put a RAID 0 on top of that, for a net of 40gb redundant and fairly speedy storage.
/tmp and /var I made a simple 10gb RAID 0 for each. Not a whole lot of need for redundancy here, I make a point of backing up the important /var stuff.
/home
Not compared to $0.
You see, the typical budget RAID 5 builder just wants to store his collection of MPEG4s, MP3s, and other downloads or perhaps uncompressed hobbyist video. It's not a database, it's not a 150+ employee corporate file server, it's just personal. Performance is not a concern.
And if performance is a concern (say he wants / on these disks) then the cheap way to go is software RAID 0, 1 or 1+0 (aka 10) *COMBINED* with a RAID5.
For instance, I just built myself a new system with four 300gb drives and partitioned each one like so:
50mb -
1gb - swap
20gb
5gb -
For the 50mb, I made a bootable RAID 1 of four drives (grub can boot this, dunno about lilo)
For the 1gb swap, I made a RAID 1 with two drives and a RAID 1 with the other 2. Thus I have a net of two 1gb swap partitions, with redundancy so my system will never crash due to drive-induced paging errors. This is essentially a RAID 0+1, though I let the kernel's swap system handle the RAID 0 aspect by giving them equal priorities.
For the 20gb
For the 5gb
With the four equal-sized partitions that were left, I made the RAID 5 for
Don't you see what a great cost-effective approach this is?!?
Maybe you work for some company with plenty of money lying around for $160 RAID controllers. But I'm in business for myself, and I don't see the sense in spending money where it isn't needed. Besides, the flexibility of software RAIDs (per-partition, not per-drive) would be well worth it to me even if something like the SX4 were cheaper.
> Absolutely incorrect. Promise SX4/SX4000 provides hardware XOR capability on the controller. XOR'ing never has to touch the host processor.
Dude, the SX4 will run you $160. I was talking about the cheap sub-$100 promise (and highpoint) cards.
SATA is meant to be used internally, yes.
OP said he switched to fireware for hot swapping reasons alone, that is why I mentioned SATA as an alternative.
If you're beant on having an external RAID 5, you're probably safest going with a DIY gigabit ethernet NAS.
> Do yourself a favour and buy some more or less cheap hardware RAID controllers. You won't regret it. Software RAID is nothing more than "showing it's possible".
There is no such thing as a "cheap" hardware RAID 5 controller. Well there is, but they'll still set you back at least $120 and are crap.
There are RAID controllers from highpoint and promise, et al that are card-based, but they are still CPU bound (that is where the XOR really takes place). So they're really nothing more than a controller with a driver that does the calculations in the CPU. These cards are good for booting windows to a software RAID (since that is essentially what they are) but not good for anything else.
Most motherboards especially those with only 2 RAID ports (whether IDE or SATA) are software-based, as well. The nvidia nforce3 250 is one of the few notable exceptions.
But the bottom line here is: Linux Software RAID 5 is a logical approach if simple redundant mass storage is your main concern, and will save you at least $120. Also note that for RAID 0/1 it doesn't really matter if you go hardware or software since they aren't very processor intensive anyway. Pure software RAID 0/1 seems to be easier to set up in Linux (less mucking around with drivers) so it often makes sense to go with it for that reason alone.