So, uh... What kind? Come one, if you are going to go off topic, go all the way!
Oh, and for those working for WorldCom: do a good job please! My SDSL line is now owned by WorldCom due to them buying Rhythms (or getting Rhythms network, whatever).
If you want hotswap you have to get a controller that supports it. 3ware has the Escalade IDE RAID boards that support hot swap. Some people have said that 3ware is no longer going to be selling these boards but I think 3ware is merely idiotic by not including the details they used to on their product page. You can buy there controllers at a number of places including: http://www.hypermicro.com/store/index.htm
See StorageReview.com for more information. Adaptec's IDE RAID board probably supports hotswap too but it is a bit more pricey. If 3ware continues to be idiotic Adaptec might be a better choice...
What versions of the software are in the source dists? By source dists I presume you mean deb source code packages, not tar.gz, right? I wasn't aware that there were source dists for the latest versions of software - if so, why do the binary packages lag behind?
Then a new release came out, and I wanted to upgrade to it. It took well over an hour, pretty much all of which required my attention.
What took the majority of the time? So far I've upgrade from 4.4-RELEASE to 4.4-STABLE and it was very smooth. The only thing I could see taking a long time is doing the mergemaster to merge in config changes. But even that I can't see taking a whole hour... The compile time might be a bit lengthy for buildworld but that is unattended.
Good points. I wasn't sure if you had cvsup'ed it so I thought I'd point it out. I too had a problem with ports - when I wanted to make the port for portupgrade it would die because the ruby port had some sort of problem. It took a week or so until it worked so I agree that this system isn't faultless but I don't think any are. Basically I'm interested in the least amount of maintenance for a server and so far FreeBSD seems to be it (not counting OpenBSD/NetBSD)...
- copy/usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile to somewhere nice (I put it in/etc)
- edit ports-supfile with a valid cvsup host (I use cvsup11.freebsd.org), choose what you want, I got rid of all the foreign language and desktop stuff but you could just do ports-all
- cvsup -s -z/etc/ports-supfile
Check out portupgrade for a nice handy tool and consider updating your system with stable-supfile and the kernel & world builds.
I don't think it is worth using FreeBSD without using the cvsup and compiling stuff instead of using packages. Of course compiling all this stuff for a desktop system takes a lot of time. I think FreeBSD rocks for servers but if you are going to use it on your desktop be prepared for lengthy compiles (mozilla, xfree86, etc). I haven't tried using it on my desktop yet (I use Debian unstable at the moment) but I'm planning on trying it soon. I know FreeBSD has packages but they just aren't the same...
Also your problem with the port files not existing on archives is that your ports was not up to date. You need to update it using cvsup (the only package I have installed on my system, haven't compiled it yet).
I dunno, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think you should just need to install a distro once, and then from then on, you should be able to do kernel upgrades, etc. (when you really need to) without having to upgrade the whole distro.
Debian is very close to this. Unfortunately the extremely slow release schedule is a major annoyance with Debian. If you run testing or unstable on your desktop machine you should be happy with relatively recent versions of everything. If you run stable you'll find rather old versions of everything patched to hell. Maybe I'm just disillusioned but Debian just doesn't cut it for a server OS. I love the ease of upgrading but using Apache 1.2.9 and similarly outdated releases of mysql, postgresql, and php4 is a major annoyance. I could build the packages myself but there goes the whole ease of use... So for my desktops and non-production servers I run Debian unstable or testing but on my production servers I'm planning on moving 100% to FreeBSD. I don't think any Linux distribution has the ease of use and updating while using up to date software that FreeBSD has with the ports system. Some people were working on copying the FreeBSD system while using the Linux kernel (it was a debian group) but I don't think they are very active...
Ports + CVS update + linux kernel would be awesome...
I'm going off topic here but did you have a good experience with alliance.franklin.edu? I'm checking out their website but feedback would be cool...
For all the potential sysadmins you might want to visit the usenet group alt.sysadmin.recovery (hopefully that link works, you can see the archive at groups.google.com).
There is the fact that the two distros bundle 95% of the same software. Plus the fact that Debian stable is obsolete and Debian unstable is frequently *broken*. Not what I'd call reliable, actually.
Now you are supposed to run "testing." I couldn't live without my cutting edge software so as much as I like Debian I'm reinvestigating FreeBSD.
I shoehorned in two a stout UPS unit with two marine batteries coupled by 6 guage wire.
Would you please share the brand and model of these UPS units? I'd be interested in something that can take a marine battery. Did you modify the units to do this? Either way, please share:).
You can still buy OS/2 but the package now says "eComStation" - eComStation.com. Just do a google search for "eComStation" and you'll get lots more info.
Re:Installing Linux software.
on
Debian On DVD
·
· Score: 1
I did switch to testing a couple months ago. But I still am uncomfortable with the solution because security fixes are low priority on testing and it is testing. I don't care how stable it is (and I know it is stable) - I shouldn't have to run a "testing" release on a server just to get up to date software. I've also found that the prepackaged apache+php4 really doesn't work for me so I'll have to recompile it manually and either use debians tools to create a package or use ports on freebsd. FreeBSD's ports is less work. Obviously it is a rather large choice to switch operating systems but I'm beginning to see a number of advantages to FreeBSD. I'll always run Debian on my laptop but on my servers I'm no longer so sure...
So I've gone ahead and setup FreeBSD as a test bed (I've already run a FreeBSD server for a couple years but I haven't maintained it in the same manner I maintain Debian with apt in terms of upgrading the OS, etc). The only way I can answer my question is by having experience with both so in a couple months I should have a clear view of which I prefer and find easier to maintain. I'm not trying to start a flame war here but rather find out which works best for me and why.
One last note - I don't have a problem compiling apache+php4 myself. After all that is how I did it all along until I decided to give Debian a try. But once I have to step outside of the packages that make Debian so easy I start to spend more time using Debian tools to build packages to install software. This strikes me as horribly silly because we've moved from compiling source to packages to compiling soure to build packages. When you always want to compile from source ports is much simplier...
To keep this on topic - I think Debian on DVD is a wonderful idea but like many of the other people in this thread I'll be using the net install and upgrade method over any other medium (as long as I have my broadband connection!).
Re:Installing Linux software.
on
Debian On DVD
·
· Score: 1
Are you serious? Don't you notice when you type "apt-get install my_daddy" it grabs the dependencies too? When you "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" it'll grab all the new versions of the packages. If anything the package management in Debian is more robust than the package management in FreeBSD. That doesn't neccessarily mean it is a better though! Personally I'm thinking of moving all my servers to FreeBSD due to the slow releases that come from the Debian project. I'd rather track FreeBSD stable via cvs and get up to date software via ports then deal with Apache 1.2.9-patch-29343234 on Debian Stable. Debian has built up a fascinating infrastructure but in my opinion it is all a waste of time if a release can't get out the door on a regular basis. It's a crying shame.
Re:NOT Debian unstable!
on
Debian On DVD
·
· Score: 1
Highly off topic but what exactly are your problems with IDE?
Are you sure about this? I've heard the rumor too but I also read that it was false because 3ware's own products require the cards they are selling... I'm not saying you're wrong but it would be nice to have some proof.
Personally I find it funny just because some people are so uptight they can't handle a missing . This site has been a pay site all along. Maybe you and I didn't pay for it but someone did. Just because/. is going to offer a pay version without ads doesn't suddenly mean they will have mounds of income to invest in spelling assistants.
What I wonder is if the editors edit the stories in little textarea boxes like we do. If so I'm not surprised at all with the error rates. Now that/. has migrated to the new slashcode perhaps it is time for them to look at how editing is done. A simple parser for missing tags, a spell checker, an URL checker (in case of multiple stories), etc... For all the time we spend here and the number of people working on/. the slow speed of change is rather depressing.
So in the end maybe I agree with you guys. But I still think you are weenies for getting excited over a missing tags and spelling errors...
I didn't even notice he forgot the [/i]. Come on now... Lets bitch about something useful today. If you have been reading/. for years, even months, you should expect these types of errors on a regular basis. Instead of finding fault perhaps you should look at the beauty of human error. After all it is the subtle differences in an artists technique that enlivens art. Look for the errors and celebrate them as proof that our dear/. crew has not been replaced by robots.
If you'd rather bitch feel free but I think there are much better things to bitch about like the unintentional duplicate stories. This reminds me of usenet where flames about spelling pretty much mark the man.
If you don't mind spending a bit the 3ware IDE RAID cards support hot swap. I think their cheapest card is around $125 or so. Maybe some other cards do to?
I think this is a good idea too. We brought a tape drive a while back but I never got around to figuring out the best combination of tools to back things up. This is a great solution especially considering we have backup IDE drives sitting around waiting for a good one to go bad (RAID mirrors).
Sure, ok... What is your point? Someone is just going to come along and bitch about the lack of ATA-133 support or 1 Gb ethernet. It's a moving target, not a fixed target. I agree completely with you but I don't see why you are making the comment.
What do you think they are doing with this whole AOL interface?
Oh come on... An operating system == AOL interface? I understand where you are going with your idea but I still doubt that AOL is going to want to support an entire operating system.
A few years back I was in a discussion with some guy with blinders on who issued a statement that no home-user would ever need a system with 1 Gig of memory. The old 640k-should-be-enough-for-anyone quote mis(?)attributed to Mr. Gates is dredged up as an example of shortsighted thinking. Same for this fellow, as he had no concept of where sound and video would go, and subsequent demands on memory. Ok, maybe you have a 1.8GHz P4 or a 1.5GHz Athlon smoking through your sound/video/apps/whatever, but, as I've learned over the years, no architecture remains fast for long. Eventually applications come along, which were written off as impractical or impossible before, and tax the resources to the max.
Where are you going with this? I think anyone with half a clue on/. isn't going to disagree that increases in processor speed and memory compacity are a regular event and there will never be "enough" of either.
Imagine AOL viewing Hammer-based systems and the thing with enough horsepower to provide some service while Microsoft views it beneath their dignity to do a port of XP. If it draws customers you'll see some real change in the thinking in Redmond. I think the Hammer is another excellent move by AMD, as it's likely to hit the consumer market, perhaps not first, but with a lot of force when it does.
Windows XP should run just fine in 32 bit mode on the Hammer like linux runs in 32 bit mode on some 64 bit chips. The whole point of Hammer is that it is so backwards compatible compared to Itanium that it won't be a big pain to upgrade for the end user. Anyone have any proof that XP is going to have a hard time running on Hammer? If I were running Microsoft I'd have someone keep up to speed on Hammer. Then if it is released as expected and sells well I'd make sure we support the processor in 64 bit mode. It shouldn't be too hard after all because Microsoft is working on the Itanium support. What advantage does Microsoft get by supporting Hammer right now?
What I don't see is how you think Hammer suddenly makes possible for AOL a number of things that aren't possible today. I think the big break throughs will come with inexpensive and highly accessible bandwidth. The bandwidth will make the difference for AOL - not the cpu speed. In either case high speed CPUs will be here no matter what...
Right now, people have to deal with Windows being dominant in the OS market...80-90% dominant at that. But if people find that the non-MS supported Hammer is that much better than P4's...which you have to admit it probably will be...and almost as cheap...there might be a spot, a crack in the wall as it were.
But how would they even know their system was faster because they can't run any of their old applications (well, they could with wine, but do we really expect AOL users to setup wine). I agree that it would be cool and I think these small problems could be taken care of but I doubt that AOL wants to get into providing an operating system. There would be a *lot* of small problems to take care of...
What a strange thought. You want to be stuck with the crap that comes stock on your mobo? And how would you upgrade it? Toss the whole system?
Look buddy - get your head out of the days of yore with emachines and such fruit filled computers. Go take a look at new motherboards. The day of bargin bin intergrated motherboards is passing. Sure you'll still find some crap among the perls but you will find perls these days. Amazing, isn't it? But don't take my word for it - go look.
Oh, that is simple! You buy a new motherboard. Seriously.
Ok, so in some cases it doesn't make sense but lets be realistic - if you have to upgrade everything on the motherboard you can easily afford to simply buy a new one than spend more on individual parts. If you need to only upgrade a few simple things like IDE or a NIC than go ahead. What's holding you back?
Slashdot Mirror
You just gotta get the right kind.
So, uh... What kind? Come one, if you are going to go off topic, go all the way!
Oh, and for those working for WorldCom: do a good job please! My SDSL line is now owned by WorldCom due to them buying Rhythms (or getting Rhythms network, whatever).
If you want hotswap you have to get a controller that supports it. 3ware has the Escalade IDE RAID boards that support hot swap. Some people have said that 3ware is no longer going to be selling these boards but I think 3ware is merely idiotic by not including the details they used to on their product page. You can buy there controllers at a number of places including: http://www.hypermicro.com/store/index.htm
See StorageReview.com for more information. Adaptec's IDE RAID board probably supports hotswap too but it is a bit more pricey. If 3ware continues to be idiotic Adaptec might be a better choice...
What versions of the software are in the source dists? By source dists I presume you mean deb source code packages, not tar.gz, right? I wasn't aware that there were source dists for the latest versions of software - if so, why do the binary packages lag behind?
Then a new release came out, and I wanted to upgrade to it. It took well over an hour, pretty much all of which required my attention.
What took the majority of the time? So far I've upgrade from 4.4-RELEASE to 4.4-STABLE and it was very smooth. The only thing I could see taking a long time is doing the mergemaster to merge in config changes. But even that I can't see taking a whole hour... The compile time might be a bit lengthy for buildworld but that is unattended.
Good points. I wasn't sure if you had cvsup'ed it so I thought I'd point it out. I too had a problem with ports - when I wanted to make the port for portupgrade it would die because the ruby port had some sort of problem. It took a week or so until it worked so I agree that this system isn't faultless but I don't think any are. Basically I'm interested in the least amount of maintenance for a server and so far FreeBSD seems to be it (not counting OpenBSD/NetBSD)...
Here is a step by step on cvsup'ing ports:
/usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile to somewhere nice (I put it in /etc)
/etc/ports-supfile
- copy
- edit ports-supfile with a valid cvsup host (I use cvsup11.freebsd.org), choose what you want, I got rid of all the foreign language and desktop stuff but you could just do ports-all
- cvsup -s -z
Check out portupgrade for a nice handy tool and consider updating your system with stable-supfile and the kernel & world builds.
I don't think it is worth using FreeBSD without using the cvsup and compiling stuff instead of using packages. Of course compiling all this stuff for a desktop system takes a lot of time. I think FreeBSD rocks for servers but if you are going to use it on your desktop be prepared for lengthy compiles (mozilla, xfree86, etc). I haven't tried using it on my desktop yet (I use Debian unstable at the moment) but I'm planning on trying it soon. I know FreeBSD has packages but they just aren't the same...
Also your problem with the port files not existing on archives is that your ports was not up to date. You need to update it using cvsup (the only package I have installed on my system, haven't compiled it yet).
I dunno, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think you should just need to install a distro once, and then from then on, you should be able to do kernel upgrades, etc. (when you really need to) without having to upgrade the whole distro.
Debian is very close to this. Unfortunately the extremely slow release schedule is a major annoyance with Debian. If you run testing or unstable on your desktop machine you should be happy with relatively recent versions of everything. If you run stable you'll find rather old versions of everything patched to hell. Maybe I'm just disillusioned but Debian just doesn't cut it for a server OS. I love the ease of upgrading but using Apache 1.2.9 and similarly outdated releases of mysql, postgresql, and php4 is a major annoyance. I could build the packages myself but there goes the whole ease of use... So for my desktops and non-production servers I run Debian unstable or testing but on my production servers I'm planning on moving 100% to FreeBSD. I don't think any Linux distribution has the ease of use and updating while using up to date software that FreeBSD has with the ports system. Some people were working on copying the FreeBSD system while using the Linux kernel (it was a debian group) but I don't think they are very active...
Ports + CVS update + linux kernel would be awesome...
I'm going off topic here but did you have a good experience with alliance.franklin.edu? I'm checking out their website but feedback would be cool...
For all the potential sysadmins you might want to visit the usenet group alt.sysadmin.recovery (hopefully that link works, you can see the archive at groups.google.com).
There is the fact that the two distros bundle 95% of the same software. Plus the fact that Debian stable is obsolete and Debian unstable is frequently *broken*. Not what I'd call reliable, actually.
Now you are supposed to run "testing." I couldn't live without my cutting edge software so as much as I like Debian I'm reinvestigating FreeBSD.
I shoehorned in two a stout UPS unit with two marine batteries coupled by 6 guage wire.
:).
Would you please share the brand and model of these UPS units? I'd be interested in something that can take a marine battery. Did you modify the units to do this? Either way, please share
You can still buy OS/2 but the package now says "eComStation" - eComStation.com. Just do a google search for "eComStation" and you'll get lots more info.
I did switch to testing a couple months ago. But I still am uncomfortable with the solution because security fixes are low priority on testing and it is testing. I don't care how stable it is (and I know it is stable) - I shouldn't have to run a "testing" release on a server just to get up to date software. I've also found that the prepackaged apache+php4 really doesn't work for me so I'll have to recompile it manually and either use debians tools to create a package or use ports on freebsd. FreeBSD's ports is less work. Obviously it is a rather large choice to switch operating systems but I'm beginning to see a number of advantages to FreeBSD. I'll always run Debian on my laptop but on my servers I'm no longer so sure...
So I've gone ahead and setup FreeBSD as a test bed (I've already run a FreeBSD server for a couple years but I haven't maintained it in the same manner I maintain Debian with apt in terms of upgrading the OS, etc). The only way I can answer my question is by having experience with both so in a couple months I should have a clear view of which I prefer and find easier to maintain. I'm not trying to start a flame war here but rather find out which works best for me and why.
One last note - I don't have a problem compiling apache+php4 myself. After all that is how I did it all along until I decided to give Debian a try. But once I have to step outside of the packages that make Debian so easy I start to spend more time using Debian tools to build packages to install software. This strikes me as horribly silly because we've moved from compiling source to packages to compiling soure to build packages. When you always want to compile from source ports is much simplier...
To keep this on topic - I think Debian on DVD is a wonderful idea but like many of the other people in this thread I'll be using the net install and upgrade method over any other medium (as long as I have my broadband connection!).
Are you serious? Don't you notice when you type "apt-get install my_daddy" it grabs the dependencies too? When you "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" it'll grab all the new versions of the packages. If anything the package management in Debian is more robust than the package management in FreeBSD. That doesn't neccessarily mean it is a better though! Personally I'm thinking of moving all my servers to FreeBSD due to the slow releases that come from the Debian project. I'd rather track FreeBSD stable via cvs and get up to date software via ports then deal with Apache 1.2.9-patch-29343234 on Debian Stable. Debian has built up a fascinating infrastructure but in my opinion it is all a waste of time if a release can't get out the door on a regular basis. It's a crying shame.
Highly off topic but what exactly are your problems with IDE?
Are you sure about this? I've heard the rumor too but I also read that it was false because 3ware's own products require the cards they are selling... I'm not saying you're wrong but it would be nice to have some proof.
Personally I find it funny just because some people are so uptight they can't handle a missing . This site has been a pay site all along. Maybe you and I didn't pay for it but someone did. Just because /. is going to offer a pay version without ads doesn't suddenly mean they will have mounds of income to invest in spelling assistants.
/. has migrated to the new slashcode perhaps it is time for them to look at how editing is done. A simple parser for missing tags, a spell checker, an URL checker (in case of multiple stories), etc... For all the time we spend here and the number of people working on /. the slow speed of change is rather depressing.
What I wonder is if the editors edit the stories in little textarea boxes like we do. If so I'm not surprised at all with the error rates. Now that
So in the end maybe I agree with you guys. But I still think you are weenies for getting excited over a missing tags and spelling errors...
You would probably get a lot more hits if you mentioned whether the Acer NT-150 can still be brought (and hopefully for cheap).
I didn't even notice he forgot the [/i]. Come on now... Lets bitch about something useful today. If you have been reading /. for years, even months, you should expect these types of errors on a regular basis. Instead of finding fault perhaps you should look at the beauty of human error. After all it is the subtle differences in an artists technique that enlivens art. Look for the errors and celebrate them as proof that our dear /. crew has not been replaced by robots.
If you'd rather bitch feel free but I think there are much better things to bitch about like the unintentional duplicate stories. This reminds me of usenet where flames about spelling pretty much mark the man.
If you don't mind spending a bit the 3ware IDE RAID cards support hot swap. I think their cheapest card is around $125 or so. Maybe some other cards do to?
I think this is a good idea too. We brought a tape drive a while back but I never got around to figuring out the best combination of tools to back things up. This is a great solution especially considering we have backup IDE drives sitting around waiting for a good one to go bad (RAID mirrors).
Sure, ok... What is your point? Someone is just going to come along and bitch about the lack of ATA-133 support or 1 Gb ethernet. It's a moving target, not a fixed target. I agree completely with you but I don't see why you are making the comment.
What do you think they are doing with this whole AOL interface?
/. isn't going to disagree that increases in processor speed and memory compacity are a regular event and there will never be "enough" of either.
Oh come on... An operating system == AOL interface? I understand where you are going with your idea but I still doubt that AOL is going to want to support an entire operating system.
A few years back I was in a discussion with some guy with blinders on who issued a statement that no home-user would ever need a system with 1 Gig of memory. The old 640k-should-be-enough-for-anyone quote mis(?)attributed to Mr. Gates is dredged up as an example of shortsighted thinking. Same for this fellow, as he had no concept of where sound and video would go, and subsequent demands on memory. Ok, maybe you have a 1.8GHz P4 or a 1.5GHz Athlon smoking through your sound/video/apps/whatever, but, as I've learned over the years, no architecture remains fast for long. Eventually applications come along, which were written off as impractical or impossible before, and tax the resources to the max.
Where are you going with this? I think anyone with half a clue on
Imagine AOL viewing Hammer-based systems and the thing with enough horsepower to provide some service while Microsoft views it beneath their dignity to do a port of XP. If it draws customers you'll see some real change in the thinking in Redmond. I think the Hammer is another excellent move by AMD, as it's likely to hit the consumer market, perhaps not first, but with a lot of force when it does.
Windows XP should run just fine in 32 bit mode on the Hammer like linux runs in 32 bit mode on some 64 bit chips. The whole point of Hammer is that it is so backwards compatible compared to Itanium that it won't be a big pain to upgrade for the end user. Anyone have any proof that XP is going to have a hard time running on Hammer? If I were running Microsoft I'd have someone keep up to speed on Hammer. Then if it is released as expected and sells well I'd make sure we support the processor in 64 bit mode. It shouldn't be too hard after all because Microsoft is working on the Itanium support. What advantage does Microsoft get by supporting Hammer right now?
What I don't see is how you think Hammer suddenly makes possible for AOL a number of things that aren't possible today. I think the big break throughs will come with inexpensive and highly accessible bandwidth. The bandwidth will make the difference for AOL - not the cpu speed. In either case high speed CPUs will be here no matter what...
Right now, people have to deal with Windows being dominant in the OS market...80-90% dominant at that. But if people find that the non-MS supported Hammer is that much better than P4's...which you have to admit it probably will be...and almost as cheap...there might be a spot, a crack in the wall as it were.
But how would they even know their system was faster because they can't run any of their old applications (well, they could with wine, but do we really expect AOL users to setup wine). I agree that it would be cool and I think these small problems could be taken care of but I doubt that AOL wants to get into providing an operating system. There would be a *lot* of small problems to take care of...
What a strange thought. You want to be stuck with the crap that comes stock on your mobo? And how would you upgrade it? Toss the whole system?
Look buddy - get your head out of the days of yore with emachines and such fruit filled computers. Go take a look at new motherboards. The day of bargin bin intergrated motherboards is passing. Sure you'll still find some crap among the perls but you will find perls these days. Amazing, isn't it? But don't take my word for it - go look.
Oh, that is simple! You buy a new motherboard. Seriously.
Ok, so in some cases it doesn't make sense but lets be realistic - if you have to upgrade everything on the motherboard you can easily afford to simply buy a new one than spend more on individual parts. If you need to only upgrade a few simple things like IDE or a NIC than go ahead. What's holding you back?