Yeah, there's a Services for UNIX (SFU) pack which allows NFS server, client, pcnfsd, and gateway for NFS.
Is it fast? It's decent.
Is it stable? It's never given me problems.
Small footprint? HAH. It takes between four and eight megs of RAM when no connections are made! It jumps to at least 10-16 when small file transfers/writes are being made.
/* 1) If a mac isn't doing what you expect then it gives you NO debugging information to "figure out what's wrong with it" - trust me.. I work on a help desk. How do you ping something from a mac? erm. there's a COMMERCIAL PACKAGE that can do it.. sheesh. So if it says "can't connect to mail host smtp.foo.com" I have no idea if it's a DNS problem or a TCP problem or an IP problem, and I'm trying to work this out through some 'kwit down the phone who bought a mac fooled into thinking it would be easy to use. */
Irrelevant. Mac OS X will have standard UNIX internet tools a la NeXTstep (which, imo, is one of the best designed OS's but not the best marketed).
Also, Windows NT and 2000 have the 'nslookup' command. Windows 9x doesn't. Obnoxious, isn't it? Wonderful Windows UNIX-alikes like 'ping, tracert, ftp' and you still have to get NT to get 'nslookup' and Services for Unix or the Resource Kit to get 'grep' and other "POSIX tools" (bleh.)
You have to pay for a command line telnet client and disk usage/process monitor/compression and extraction/etc command line utils for NT. (nominal price, but still you have to PAY)
So Mac OS X is currently ahead of Windows 9x and will be equal than or greater to NT/2000 with respect to command line networking utils, and will always be ahead of the NT lineage with respect to command line tools in general.
You have to remember that Mac OS X is based off of a lot of NeXTstep code, and also a lot of NetBSD code (or possibly FreeBSD code, I'm not sure). Part of the reason why Rhapsody was so long in the developing was because a lot of BSD 4.3 code was being migrated to 4.4-Lite code. Don't believe me? Look at the source to Darwin. Looks suspiciously like NetBSD.
4.4-Lite code is really not that archaic, seeing as it has expunged all the offending SysV/ATT USL code.
It's interesting to see the desire to have a hardcopy of otherwise electronic documents. I posit that it is because of an innate human desire to have tactile input.
Tactile input is very important in our lives. It's no coincidence that, differences among languages aside, all of them refer to emotional contact in primarily tactile terms. ("He has a thick skin, I feel a certain way, she rubs me the wrong way," etc.) Studies show that babies who don't receive enough tactile input literally wither away.
This is why point-and-click-and-drag-and-drop is such a powerful concept in computing. When Alan Kaye (I hope I got that name right) at PARC designed Smalltalk, he was on to something. Language can be three things: kinesthetic (literal, seeing, doing, action), iconic (the sound "kat" means this meowy purry thing here), and symbolic (abstract concepts; icons of icons). Most higher language is symbolic, this includes computer languages 2GL and higher. The Drag and Drop computing paradigm made what I like to call 'symbolic kinesthetism' -- the little icons and menus were symbols, but they were accessed in a very 'touchy feely' sort of way, and that's why a Mac (for instance) can appeal to all ages.
Granted, it may not be as powerful, and granted, confusing the simplicity with inconsistency (a Start Menu to shut down??) can offset it, but on the whole, the desire for tactile -- or pseudo-tactile input -- makes such computing paradigms advance. Hence, the Apple and NeXT user interfaces.
But back to paper. The fact is, the human desire to FEEL the paper is very strong. Electronic pads, although just as portable as a notepad, just don't have the same feel. We, as animals, have lived our lives with the notion that to see the rest of something, we either move it or move our eyes or move ourselves. With a computer, scrolling, you don't move; the screen doesn't move; yet somehow the image changes. That's downright unsettling if you let your gut instincts think about it.
Here's a demonstration. Please don't hurt yourself doing it, and I take no responsibility for any injuries caused by this. Put your finger to the corner of your eye and VERY VERY GENTLY nudge the eye. You'll see a very weird thing happen. You haven't moved, the world hasn't moved, and your brain didn't TELL your eyes to move -- but because your eye has unwillingly been pushed out of the way, the image skews. Now you know what the reptile within you thinks when its sees words scroll but the monitor -- and you -- stay still.
In many ways, such desire to move things around as if we were kids or apes or whatever is a limitation, but it's also part of what makes us human. Call it a charming quirk, if you will. And although I can always sit and read at a terminal, the "Paperless Society" is not kinesthetically comfortable enough for me.;-)
It's interesting to see (from the perspective of a dual computer science/economics major) how increased competition has caused Sun to get off its high horse. Back in the heydey of commercial Unix, the early 90's, it was considered rather declasse to pursue school districts as a viable market for computer sales. Most schools were lucky to get DOS, and people snickered at Apple and NeXT for even considering the idea.
Now all the major vendors are going after schools. Microsoft is doing it in their typical monopolistic style, and Sun is doing it in its own holier-than-thou-technology style, but the fact is the competition caused by Linux (I'll get to that in the next paragraph!) has made the major vendors scramble to make computing a 'push market' again.
A lot of Slashdotters and Linux zealots treat Linux as if it were a competitor to major vendors. Those same people get confused when they say, "I don't get it: IBM is making so much off of AIX, why is it interested in Linux? Sun is making so much money off of Solaris? Why is it interested in Linux? Etc." And the ESRite zealots come out and say "Because they are hardware vendors, and Free Software is our salvation because it lowers operating costs for them and makes the consumer happy."
Well, if I may posit so boldly, maybe Linux isn't a competitor as it is an advance in technology. And from a big-iron vendor like Sun, it's foolish to ignore an increase in Technology. All of a sudden, Linux is the way to secure the low-end server market, with increasing chances of the low-end desktop market. Of course, proprietary products like Tru64/AIX/Solaris/VMS/MVS/UNICOS handle the high-end server market. This leaves the vendors free to handle the NC market.
A lot of people pooh-poohed the NC idea, saying "It will go nowhere, PC users like powerful computers," or "NC will go nowhere except in niche markets." What a few people don't know is that there is no such thing as a Bad idea in business -- there are only better ideas. And since Linux is GPL, and available to everyone, the low-end server/desktop market has been leveled for the time being. Now that the challenge of the 90's has been rendered non-time-critical (in the face of a crumbling-reputation Microsoft and free-software R&D miracles), everyone is free to pursue NC pipe dreams.
I've always thought NCs are wonderful for schools because the main problems of NC usage (namely bandwidth) are not issues -- Schools are for the most part closed entities and outside traffic is usually kept to a minimum. In K-12 anyway.
Personally I think that networked computing is going to help improve computing technology. With less to worry about with respect to i/o overhead, people can make tighter code. It's no coincidence that Windows CE is the most reliable of all the Windows programs. It's essentially the (theoretically very effective) NT/VMS core without any of the win32 cruft. Granted, the Sun Ray is little more than a dumb terminal, but as quick operation of tasks (over a network or otherwise) becomes more important, we need to get rid of cruft like Win32 and other higher level APIs. NC's provide us with a good excuse to:)
Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but I was always taught that EM radiation has *amplitude* AND *frequency* modulations -- presumably one can exponentially increase the amount of available 'frequencies' if one has a receiver that measures frequencies *and* amplitude modulation?
If there was one thing I could tell MS for their feasibility studies:
Use tcp_wrappers. The security benefits of tcp_wrappers have been proven by Wietse Venema; the rest comes only from my own meandering experience.
Run/sbin/lilo -U before you replace one linux distribution with another. It helps get rid of the LI... freeze in your MBR.
If you're going to be paranoid and deny telnet and ftp in favor of SSH, don't send your mail passwords plaintext with POP3.
Maybe Linux will take over the desktop, maybe it won't. Maybe InstallShield for tarballs will be created; maybe it won't. Either way, your Mindcraft scores are half chance -- and so are everyone else's.
Be kind to your root partition. You'll miss it when it's gone.
If you don't know which direction your favorite window manager will go, don't worry. A lot of the greatest programmers I know had no idea what they were doing at version 2.2... or even at 4.0.
Each day, activate a compiler flag that warns you.
Do not read Slate Magazine -- It will only make you feel ugly.
Accept certain truths as inevitable: USB support is dodgy, "stable" kernels will crash, and you too will lose your CHANGELOG -- at which point you will fantasize that when you were at version 2.2.x, USB suited your purposes, kernels never crashed, and people read their source code.
Read your source code. Source code is a form of nostalgia... it lets you pick it up, parse through the comments, and audit it to make better code in the future.
Win2K advanced Server requires a p166 with 32 megs of RAM. I've had it working no problem in a p133 with 96 megs of RAM.
The secret, you forget, to putting liberal hardware requirements is to save Microsoft tech support from supporting problems with older hardware being blamed on Windows. Why toe the line and say "it PROBABLY will run on a p100, but not all will, here's our number, waste our time if it doesn't work." Is that economical? Yes. Is it moral? No. I'm glad Red Hat will support 386+ hardware (think corporate support, not usenet).
I use my tool for entertainment all the time;-) The use of my tool is certainly one of my longest hobbies. Some people say that I am addicted to playing with my tool. They're probably right; but who cares? I better be careful with my tool; i wouldnt want to pick up any viruses through its use. And in thirty years, my tool will be obsolete:)
I think the only difference between one 'tool' and another is that with computers, smaller IS better!
/* but "as exciting and as dangerous as Sweden"? Girls here sure excites me, but that was perhaps not what they meant. What do we have to do to get rid of this image of being so incredibly boring? */
Remember a key fact about stocks. Doesn't matter how strong the sell is. SOMEONE IS BUYING THESE STOCKS. For each seller there is a buyer.
To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, most people don't do stocks for the dividends, and certainly not for the voting rights. Stocks (for the hoi polloi) are an opinion, that 'this company will be worth more in the future'. Like it or not; SGI's future is uncertain, and thus to have a strong opinion now is folly. Hence the 'strong sell'. But SGI *will* have a future of some sort, people are just wondering about the worth of said future.
-1: Permanently insecure. 0: Insecure. Anything is possible. 1: File flags (e.g, schg, sattr, sunlnk, etc) cannot be modified. No direct memory access. (if you run xdm, raise the level in Xsession or some such so that it happens AFTER x starts) 2: Same as 1 + No direct disk access (can't write directly to block devices) 3: Same as 2 + firewall rules can't be changed.
/* Guess what, NT runs an emulation layer to use 16 bit apps. */
It also runs an *application* (NOT emulation) layer for Windows 9x binaries.
Windows 9x binaries use Win32 syscalls. On a Windows 9x system these are native syscalls. On a Windows NT system these are translated to Native Layer syscalls.
FreeBSD runs an *application* layer. Does not create a virtual machine. Translates Linux syscalls to FreeBSD syscalls.
/* If you want to run with C2 compliant security rating on NT, you have to disable your VDM (Virtual DOS Machine) and it breaks the functionality of your WOW emulation layer (Windows on Windows). */
Again, we're not talking WOWexec, or Win16. Win32 is an *application layer*. Win32 is *not* the native syscall API of Windows NT. The Native API has all of NT's syscalls. There's more or less a one to one correspondence; these translations are made during run-time. Would you say NT is emulated?
/* This "layer" is NOWHERE as good as running the code native on a 98 box. If you think for a second that two machines, running the same speed, one running FreeBSD and the other Linux, and both running Linux binaries, that they both run the programs just as efficiently, you have head problems. For one, there is that emulation layer to go through. */
So you're saying Office 2000 on NT will run orders of magnitude slower than Office 2000 on 98? I call bullshit alert.
Application layer, not emulation layer! *beats AC on head with clue stick*
FreeBSD translates Linux syscalls; that's why you still need Linux libraries to run Linux applications. It is NOT a virtual machine. It is NOT a virtual OS. It's a little slower, sure, but same Order of magnitude.
/* Get your facts straight before opening your pie hole:) */
My advice to you would be to run the two side by side (if you can get seperate systems, it's great). Slowly you will begin to see which applications are better.
In my experience (standard disclaimer; your mileage may vary) Linux makes a pretty robust database server (Berkely DB was never my thing), and a fun client (especially on my laptop). BSD is a kickass bridging router and firewall (packet filtering type). It can take network beatings.
ObNostalgicMoment: The day when I got FreeBSD running on a K5 with 16 megs of RAM, brought the load average up to *19* with about 15 concurrent 'make -j ', and was still able to browse the web with lynx no problem:-)
Why did I do that? To show my boss that FreeBSD could take a beating that Windows NT couldn't. I then switched his desktop machine (a p75; this was a while ago mind you) to Linux, and he was astounded by the stability.
Now we run a healthy mix of Linux and BSD among our Windwos and Solaris machines. Each is tailored to its purpose. Linux DB, Solaris DB, BSD firewall, BSD web and file servers.
/* They are envious of the tons of software that we have and the amount of hardware that Linux supports not to mention that we have KDE and gnome now that make Linux the awesome OS it is. */
Sheesh where to start?
1. "Tons of Software" a. FreeBSD has a Linux application layer. I stress this is NOT AN EMULATOR. Unless you want to think that Windows NT "Emulates" Windows 95 apps. The syscalls are different but there is an application layer to do translation. (Of course, if you think that Windows NT -- a fundamentally VMS-like system -- 'emulates' Win95/98 apps then be my guest). The application layer runs Linux apps at native speed.
b. Most programs come in source as well, so you can compile it for your system. Beauty of open source? FreeBSD can run most Open/NetBSD apps without recompilation (s'true; i've done it) but you'd have a cleaner conscience if you compiled it anyway;-)
2. KDE and GNOME a. How does KDE and GNOME make a great OS? They make great *DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS*. They make wonderful *WINDOW MANAGERS*. Until KDE replaces vmlinux or/kernel, however, it doesnt make an OS;-)
b. FreeBSD has KDE and GNOME as well; ever heard of packages and ports?
/* No matter how much we try to befriend the BSDers they will always try to stab us in the back, even though they want a piece of what we have. If they are so good why do they need Linux compatibility, why, because they are jealous of what we have. */
I use both. I like both. Some tasks are better suited to each OS. Linux has better SMP and laptop support. FreeBSD, in my *personal experience* (no flames kids; your mileage may vary) is a better desktop workstation and server. I don't want to stab you in the back. Beat you with a clue stick, sure. Stab you in the back, never.
Why need Linux compatibility? Why does NT have a shared application layer for Windows 95 binaries? Why a shared layer for OS/2 and POSIX applications? (okay, their posix is broken; so what;-)
Cost of development. If I don't have to waste time procuring a SEPERATE set of applications for a fundamentally similar operating system, I can spend more time making it better (and what improvements FreeBSD has seen ever since they moved CAM into 3.x and changed the VM subsystem!)
My $0.02; a penny for your thoughts but i'd have change coming
the apt-get/dselect system is almost exactly like the FreeBSD ports-packages system.
Some key points are:
FreeBSD lets you download binary packages via/stand/sysinstall, these are (i assume) tweaked for 386 systems. For better performance, you can use the ports (what most people think of when they hear the phrase 'FreeBSD package management' [or ANY *bsd for that matter]) -- then you can optimize it for your system, set various compiler flags, choose to include (or exclude) debug symbols, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there's a Services for UNIX (SFU) pack which allows NFS server, client, pcnfsd, and gateway for NFS.
Is it fast? It's decent.
Is it stable? It's never given me problems.
Small footprint? HAH. It takes between four and eight megs of RAM when no connections are made! It jumps to at least 10-16 when small file transfers/writes are being made.
NT NFS is a hog.
You are wrong. I am using a beta of Windows 2000 and I can assure you that it is NT based.
Allow me to clarify.
NeXTstep was based off of 4.3 BSD, back when BSD had USL code in it.
Free/Net/Open/BSD is *not* an older codebase. It uses 4.4-Lite code which is free of *any* actual "UNIX"(TM) code.
/* 1) If a mac isn't doing what you expect then it gives you NO debugging information to "figure out what's wrong with it" - trust me.. I work on a help desk. How do you ping something from a mac? erm. there's a COMMERCIAL PACKAGE that can do it.. sheesh. So if it says "can't connect to mail host smtp.foo.com" I have no idea if it's a DNS problem or a TCP problem or an IP problem, and I'm trying to work this out through some 'kwit down the phone who bought a mac fooled into thinking it would be easy to use. */
Irrelevant. Mac OS X will have standard UNIX internet tools a la NeXTstep (which, imo, is one of the best designed OS's but not the best marketed).
Also, Windows NT and 2000 have the 'nslookup' command. Windows 9x doesn't. Obnoxious, isn't it? Wonderful Windows UNIX-alikes like 'ping, tracert, ftp' and you still have to get NT to get 'nslookup' and Services for Unix or the Resource Kit to get 'grep' and other "POSIX tools" (bleh.)
You have to pay for a command line telnet client and disk usage/process monitor/compression and extraction/etc command line utils for NT. (nominal price, but still you have to PAY)
So Mac OS X is currently ahead of Windows 9x and will be equal than or greater to NT/2000 with respect to command line networking utils, and will always be ahead of the NT lineage with respect to command line tools in general.
... Yes and no.
You have to remember that Mac OS X is based off of a lot of NeXTstep code, and also a lot of NetBSD code (or possibly FreeBSD code, I'm not sure). Part of the reason why Rhapsody was so long in the developing was because a lot of BSD 4.3 code was being migrated to 4.4-Lite code. Don't believe me? Look at the source to Darwin. Looks suspiciously like NetBSD.
4.4-Lite code is really not that archaic, seeing as it has expunged all the offending SysV/ATT USL code.
chmod 0x01B6 == chmod 0666
The CSPL is based on the (Daemon-mascotted) BSD license?
Please.
The page says "All *NEW* code" (emphasis my own) is to be released under the CSPL.
I hate to nitpick but wouldn't it be
.)
?
It's interesting to see the desire to have a hardcopy of otherwise electronic documents. I posit that it is because of an innate human desire to have tactile input.
;-)
Tactile input is very important in our lives. It's no coincidence that, differences among languages aside, all of them refer to emotional contact in primarily tactile terms. ("He has a thick skin, I feel a certain way, she rubs me the wrong way," etc.) Studies show that babies who don't receive enough tactile input literally wither away.
This is why point-and-click-and-drag-and-drop is such a powerful concept in computing. When Alan Kaye (I hope I got that name right) at PARC designed Smalltalk, he was on to something. Language can be three things: kinesthetic (literal, seeing, doing, action), iconic (the sound "kat" means this meowy purry thing here), and symbolic (abstract concepts; icons of icons). Most higher language is symbolic, this includes computer languages 2GL and higher. The Drag and Drop computing paradigm made what I like to call 'symbolic kinesthetism' -- the little icons and menus were symbols, but they were accessed in a very 'touchy feely' sort of way, and that's why a Mac (for instance) can appeal to all ages.
Granted, it may not be as powerful, and granted, confusing the simplicity with inconsistency (a Start Menu to shut down??) can offset it, but on the whole, the desire for tactile -- or pseudo-tactile input -- makes such computing paradigms advance. Hence, the Apple and NeXT user interfaces.
But back to paper. The fact is, the human desire to FEEL the paper is very strong. Electronic pads, although just as portable as a notepad, just don't have the same feel. We, as animals, have lived our lives with the notion that to see the rest of something, we either move it or move our eyes or move ourselves. With a computer, scrolling, you don't move; the screen doesn't move; yet somehow the image changes. That's downright unsettling if you let your gut instincts think about it.
Here's a demonstration. Please don't hurt yourself doing it, and I take no responsibility for any injuries caused by this. Put your finger to the corner of your eye and VERY VERY GENTLY nudge the eye. You'll see a very weird thing happen. You haven't moved, the world hasn't moved, and your brain didn't TELL your eyes to move -- but because your eye has unwillingly been pushed out of the way, the image skews. Now you know what the reptile within you thinks when its sees words scroll but the monitor -- and you -- stay still.
In many ways, such desire to move things around as if we were kids or apes or whatever is a limitation, but it's also part of what makes us human. Call it a charming quirk, if you will. And although I can always sit and read at a terminal, the "Paperless Society" is not kinesthetically comfortable enough for me.
It's interesting to see (from the perspective of a dual computer science/economics major) how increased competition has caused Sun to get off its high horse. Back in the heydey of commercial Unix, the early 90's, it was considered rather declasse to pursue school districts as a viable market for computer sales. Most schools were lucky to get DOS, and people snickered at Apple and NeXT for even considering the idea.
:)
Now all the major vendors are going after schools. Microsoft is doing it in their typical monopolistic style, and Sun is doing it in its own holier-than-thou-technology style, but the fact is the competition caused by Linux (I'll get to that in the next paragraph!) has made the major vendors scramble to make computing a 'push market' again.
A lot of Slashdotters and Linux zealots treat Linux as if it were a competitor to major vendors. Those same people get confused when they say, "I don't get it: IBM is making so much off of AIX, why is it interested in Linux? Sun is making so much money off of Solaris? Why is it interested in Linux? Etc." And the ESRite zealots come out and say "Because they are hardware vendors, and Free Software is our salvation because it lowers operating costs for them and makes the consumer happy."
Well, if I may posit so boldly, maybe Linux isn't a competitor as it is an advance in technology. And from a big-iron vendor like Sun, it's foolish to ignore an increase in Technology. All of a sudden, Linux is the way to secure the low-end server market, with increasing chances of the low-end desktop market. Of course, proprietary products like Tru64/AIX/Solaris/VMS/MVS/UNICOS handle the high-end server market. This leaves the vendors free to handle the NC market.
A lot of people pooh-poohed the NC idea, saying "It will go nowhere, PC users like powerful computers," or "NC will go nowhere except in niche markets." What a few people don't know is that there is no such thing as a Bad idea in business -- there are only better ideas. And since Linux is GPL, and available to everyone, the low-end server/desktop market has been leveled for the time being. Now that the challenge of the 90's has been rendered non-time-critical (in the face of a crumbling-reputation Microsoft and free-software R&D miracles), everyone is free to pursue NC pipe dreams.
I've always thought NCs are wonderful for schools because the main problems of NC usage (namely bandwidth) are not issues -- Schools are for the most part closed entities and outside traffic is usually kept to a minimum. In K-12 anyway.
Personally I think that networked computing is going to help improve computing technology. With less to worry about with respect to i/o overhead, people can make tighter code. It's no coincidence that Windows CE is the most reliable of all the Windows programs. It's essentially the (theoretically very effective) NT/VMS core without any of the win32 cruft. Granted, the Sun Ray is little more than a dumb terminal, but as quick operation of tasks (over a network or otherwise) becomes more important, we need to get rid of cruft like Win32 and other higher level APIs. NC's provide us with a good excuse to
And now, a typical Slashdot Response (TM)
But will it run Linux?
/* disclaimer: this is humor. If you don't get it, please hang up and try again. */
Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but I was always taught that EM radiation has *amplitude* AND *frequency* modulations -- presumably one can exponentially increase the amount of available 'frequencies' if one has a receiver that measures frequencies *and* amplitude modulation?
yes, I know what a subjunctive is. ;)
...
if there *were*
oops
If there was one thing I could tell MS for their feasibility studies:
/sbin/lilo -U before you replace one linux distribution with another. It helps get rid of the LI... freeze in your MBR.
... or even at 4.0.
Use tcp_wrappers. The security benefits of tcp_wrappers have been proven by Wietse Venema; the rest comes only from my own meandering experience.
Run
If you're going to be paranoid and deny telnet and ftp in favor of SSH, don't send your mail passwords plaintext with POP3.
Maybe Linux will take over the desktop, maybe it won't. Maybe InstallShield for tarballs will be created; maybe it won't. Either way, your Mindcraft scores are half chance -- and so are everyone else's.
Be kind to your root partition. You'll miss it when it's gone.
If you don't know which direction your favorite window manager will go, don't worry. A lot of the greatest programmers I know had no idea what they were doing at version 2.2
Each day, activate a compiler flag that warns you.
Do not read Slate Magazine -- It will only make you feel ugly.
Accept certain truths as inevitable: USB support is dodgy, "stable" kernels will crash, and you too will lose your CHANGELOG -- at which point you will fantasize that when you were at version 2.2.x, USB suited your purposes, kernels never crashed, and people read their source code.
Read your source code. Source code is a form of nostalgia... it lets you pick it up, parse through the comments, and audit it to make better code in the future.
But trust me on the tcp_wrappers.
/* thanks to Baz Luhrmann */
Sorry to rain on *your* parade, but GCC can cross compile.
Slash 0.4 anyone?
Win2K advanced Server requires a p166 with 32 megs of RAM. I've had it working no problem in a p133 with 96 megs of RAM.
The secret, you forget, to putting liberal hardware requirements is to save Microsoft tech support from supporting problems with older hardware being blamed on Windows. Why toe the line and say "it PROBABLY will run on a p100, but not all will, here's our number, waste our time if it doesn't work." Is that economical? Yes. Is it moral? No. I'm glad Red Hat will support 386+ hardware (think corporate support, not usenet).
I use my tool for entertainment all the time ;-) :)
The use of my tool is certainly one of my longest hobbies.
Some people say that I am addicted to playing with my tool.
They're probably right; but who cares?
I better be careful with my tool; i wouldnt want to pick up any viruses through its use.
And in thirty years, my tool will be obsolete
I think the only difference between one 'tool' and another is that with computers, smaller IS better!
/*
but "as exciting and as dangerous as Sweden"? Girls here sure excites me, but that was perhaps not what they meant. What do we have to do to get rid of this image of being so incredibly boring?
*/
Beat up Norway and steal its lunch money.
Remember a key fact about stocks.
Doesn't matter how strong the sell is.
SOMEONE IS BUYING THESE STOCKS.
For each seller there is a buyer.
To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, most people don't do stocks for the dividends, and certainly not for the voting rights. Stocks (for the hoi polloi) are an opinion, that 'this company will be worth more in the future'. Like it or not; SGI's future is uncertain, and thus to have a strong opinion now is folly. Hence the 'strong sell'. But SGI *will* have a future of some sort, people are just wondering about the worth of said future.
With BSD kernel securelevels:
-1: Permanently insecure.
0: Insecure. Anything is possible.
1: File flags (e.g, schg, sattr, sunlnk, etc) cannot be modified. No direct memory access.
(if you run xdm, raise the level in Xsession or some such so that it happens AFTER x starts)
2: Same as 1 + No direct disk access (can't write directly to block devices)
3: Same as 2 + firewall rules can't be changed.
Very good things, these levels.
/*
:)
Guess what, NT runs an emulation layer to use 16 bit apps. */
It also runs an *application* (NOT emulation) layer for Windows 9x binaries.
Windows 9x binaries use Win32 syscalls. On a Windows 9x system these are native syscalls. On a Windows NT system these are translated to Native Layer syscalls.
FreeBSD runs an *application* layer. Does not create a virtual machine. Translates Linux syscalls to FreeBSD syscalls.
/*
If you want to run with C2 compliant security rating on NT, you have to disable your VDM (Virtual DOS Machine) and it breaks the functionality of your WOW emulation layer (Windows on Windows).
*/
Again, we're not talking WOWexec, or Win16. Win32 is an *application layer*. Win32 is *not* the native syscall API of Windows NT. The Native API has all of NT's syscalls. There's more or less a one to one correspondence; these translations are made during run-time. Would you say NT is emulated?
/*
This "layer" is NOWHERE as good as running the code native on a 98 box. If you think for a second that two machines, running the same speed, one running FreeBSD and the other Linux, and both running Linux binaries, that they both run the programs just as efficiently, you have head problems. For one, there is that emulation layer to go through.
*/
So you're saying Office 2000 on NT will run orders of magnitude slower than Office 2000 on 98? I call bullshit alert.
Application layer, not emulation layer! *beats AC on head with clue stick*
FreeBSD translates Linux syscalls; that's why you still need Linux libraries to run Linux applications. It is NOT a virtual machine. It is NOT a virtual OS. It's a little slower, sure, but same Order of magnitude.
/*
Get your facts straight before opening your pie hole
*/
mmm.. pie
My advice to you would be to run the two side by side (if you can get seperate systems, it's great). Slowly you will begin to see which applications are better.
:-)
:-)
In my experience (standard disclaimer; your mileage may vary) Linux makes a pretty robust database server (Berkely DB was never my thing), and a fun client (especially on my laptop). BSD is a kickass bridging router and firewall (packet filtering type). It can take network beatings.
ObNostalgicMoment: The day when I got FreeBSD running on a K5 with 16 megs of RAM, brought the load average up to *19* with about 15 concurrent 'make -j ', and was still able to browse the web with lynx no problem
Why did I do that? To show my boss that FreeBSD could take a beating that Windows NT couldn't. I then switched his desktop machine (a p75; this was a while ago mind you) to Linux, and he was astounded by the stability.
Now we run a healthy mix of Linux and BSD among our Windwos and Solaris machines. Each is tailored to its purpose. Linux DB, Solaris DB, BSD firewall, BSD web and file servers.
Diversity is a good thing
Hello Troll!
;-)
/kernel, however, it doesnt make an OS ;-)
;-)
/* They are envious of the tons of software that we have and the amount of hardware that Linux supports not to mention that we have KDE and gnome now that make Linux the awesome OS it is. */
Sheesh where to start?
1. "Tons of Software"
a. FreeBSD has a Linux application layer. I stress this is NOT AN EMULATOR. Unless you want to think that Windows NT "Emulates" Windows 95 apps. The syscalls are different but there is an application layer to do translation. (Of course, if you think that Windows NT -- a fundamentally VMS-like system -- 'emulates' Win95/98 apps then be my guest). The application layer runs Linux apps at native speed.
b. Most programs come in source as well, so you can compile it for your system. Beauty of open source? FreeBSD can run most Open/NetBSD apps without recompilation (s'true; i've done it) but you'd have a cleaner conscience if you compiled it anyway
2. KDE and GNOME
a. How does KDE and GNOME make a great OS? They make great *DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS*. They make wonderful *WINDOW MANAGERS*. Until KDE replaces vmlinux or
b. FreeBSD has KDE and GNOME as well; ever heard of packages and ports?
/* No matter how much we try to befriend the BSDers they will always try to stab us in the back, even though they want a piece of what we have. If they are so good why do they need Linux compatibility, why, because they are jealous of what we have. */
I use both. I like both. Some tasks are better suited to each OS. Linux has better SMP and laptop support. FreeBSD, in my *personal experience* (no flames kids; your mileage may vary) is a better desktop workstation and server. I don't want to stab you in the back. Beat you with a clue stick, sure. Stab you in the back, never.
Why need Linux compatibility? Why does NT have a shared application layer for Windows 95 binaries? Why a shared layer for OS/2 and POSIX applications? (okay, their posix is broken; so what
Cost of development. If I don't have to waste time procuring a SEPERATE set of applications for a fundamentally similar operating system, I can spend more time making it better (and what improvements FreeBSD has seen ever since they moved CAM into 3.x and changed the VM subsystem!)
My $0.02; a penny for your thoughts but i'd have change coming
the apt-get/dselect system is almost exactly like the FreeBSD ports-packages system.
/stand/sysinstall, these are (i assume) tweaked for 386 systems. For better performance, you can use the ports (what most people think of when they hear the phrase 'FreeBSD package management' [or ANY *bsd for that matter]) -- then you can optimize it for your system, set various compiler flags, choose to include (or exclude) debug symbols, etc.
Some key points are:
FreeBSD lets you download binary packages via