How valuable is a computer?
alt
the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff they
can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what is
left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.
Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday (there
were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3 are all
P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron D 3GHz.
I've tested 3 of these boards already.
Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that I
need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss such
useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and all I
wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
life.
Hadron
Weren't they supposed to be for disadvantaged people?
What will you be using them for that your current set up doesnt handle?
I have a PiV working as mysql server, apache server, mail server and
general file server. It has LOADS of bandwidth spare. Why have 4 or 5
shitty little machines burning up power?
--
If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy
Ezekiel
"alt" <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote in message
news:9sOdndFlZOQEA73V...@giganews.com...
Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the curb so
that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global warming.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Clogwog
news:9sOdndFlZOQEA73V...@giganews.com...
You fucking idiot! *NOBODY* wants Linux, "freedom of choice", huh!
You force them right into Linux hell!
Read the Faq
<aside>
Un-fucking-believable, isn't it!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+ C.O.L.A. Newcomer FAQ and Primer
+ Edition: 23 - 10/24/07
+ Group: comp.os.linux.advocacy
+
+ Copyright (c) 2002-2006 Linux Reality Team
+
+ PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
+
+ http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to comp.os.linux.advocacy, otherwise known as cola.
This FAQ will try to address most of the issues regarding Linux and
this group. Unlike the other FAQs, this one will try to be as
realistic as possible. If you want the straight information from
real people, continue reading. If you would like to be told what
you want to hear, or read a bunch of misinformation that you will
regret later as you find things don't work as they should, feel free
to read one of the other "FAQS" in here.
OK, on to the info! ADDED NEW SECTION BELOW!
Here's a list of some frequently asked and answered question here
and elsewhere that you may find useful in your quest to try linux.
Read these carefully before you decide to invest time in Linux, you
may find that you have better things you can do instead.
SECTION ONE - INSTALLATION
--------------------------
1.1 Q: I heard linux was easy to install, is it?
A: That depends on what distro you try. Most of them will have
trouble detecting all your hardware. Most new hardware devices
are not supported. If your lucky you might be able to find
something that someone threw together on the net. But that's
after spending a couple hours searching and probably won't take
advantage of your hardware to it's fullest capability.
1.2 Q: Once I get it installed, then what?
A: Then you get the joy of making sure everything is configured
right. Plan on a minimum of two hours per device to get it to
work. That's if the device is even supported.
1.3 Q: What happens if I'm in the middle of an install and the
installation freezes or just stops?
A: You get to reboot and start all over again. This happens
every so often with Linux. It seems like it's buggy install
routines or something. Ain't Linux grand?
1.4 Q: What's the deal?! I installed Linux and it took up almost 2GB
hard drive space!
A: The Linux distros usually install a LOT of never-used programs
on the default install. You can pick and choose what you want,
but good luck figuring out what programs are needed and what is
useless, obscure tools. Linux usually installs stuff like 10
different editors, 12 different mail clients, and so on.
(more to come...)
SECTION TWO - CONFIGURATION
---------------------------
2.1 Q: What's with all these cryptic files?
A: All of Linux is configured with cryptic text files. Some of
the more user-friendly distros have configuration utilities
that claim to do it for you, but success with these works
sometimes and other times don't, so sometimes you have to
edit them by hand. With Linux's spotty reliability in UI
programming, you might as well get used to it.
2.2 Q: What is killall, HUP, ls, cat, rm, which, etc and why are
these programs telling me to do them? Arggg!!
A: These are command line programs that do things within the
system. It's what makes Linux a powerful OS for those that
are experienced with it. But it's also what makes it a pain
in the arse to use and inefficient as a desktop system. Who
wants to type all the time when they can just click?!
(more to come...)
SECTION THREE - APPLICATIONS
----------------------------
3.1 Q: Where can I get some programs to run on linux?
A: Good question. Because Linux doesn't have a large user base
on the desktop,(I think it's about 0.24%, less than 1%)
companies that make software won't write their programs for
Linux. There's a lot of community created programs out there,
and some are fairly good, but those are few and far between.
Most of the Linux software that tries to mimic it's windows
counterpart is substandard. It's usually slow and buggy and
early in development.
3.2 Q: I tried to install an RPM but I got 'failed dependencies', what
is that?
A: That's Linux's version of DLL hell. Different versions and
distros use different libraries. So unlike windows where
programs will run on many different versions, Linux programs
will fail if they're not made for your specific version.
3.3 Q: What is compiling and configure, make and make install? And
what is a makefile?
A: This is a way to build the programs from the source code
under Linux. When the question above fails, you can always
build it yourself. The advantage is that it works most of
the time. The disadvantage is that it takes forever to build
large programs, you need to know some cryptic commands and
you have to do all this on a command line. Unlike Windows
where you just double click and you are done.
3.4 Q: Can I go to my local store to buy any Linux applications?
A: Not really. You can buy Linux itself at various stores. But
not too many commercial companies make applications for Linux,
there's no profit in it with 0.24% of the desktop market.
(more to come...)
SECTION FOUR - SPEED ISSUES
---------------------------
4.1 Q: Why is Linux so slow?
A: Linux is built on the technology of the old UNIX OS's. Even
the graphical user interface of Linux is a separate program that
is the same type they used back in the older UNIX days. So
working with old technology will give you the old technology
responsiveness. Also, a lot of the GUI's, although nice to look
at, are still not mature. Using them is slow and sluggish
compared to, say, Windows.
(more to come...)
SECTION FIVE - CONSISTENCY
--------------------------
5.1 Q: Why are the windows different looking?
A: Since Linux isn't built by one company, group or have any
governing body, programs and interfaces can vary dramatically.
You can have everything from the nice look of KDE, to something
as ugly as TK and everything in between. You'll usually see some
varying UI stile in Linux.
5.2 Q: Should I buy Suse Linux?
A: No. They make it difficult to get it for free. All the other
distros provide free ISO's to download. Suse is the only one
that doesn't provide them but instead has a FTP install that's
hard to get to work. Why should they make it easy? The more
people that can't get the download to work have to spend $80
or more for the boxed set. And on top of all that although
it might have a few more user friendly tools, it's still the
same base Linux system that's in development and that all the
other distros are using. In other words, they're all on about
the same level of struggling to catch up to Windows, so you're
not going to find any earth-shattering features in one compared
to another.
(more to come...)
SECTION SIX - LINUX COMMUNITY
-----------------------------
6.1 Q: What is RTFM?!
A: This is an acronym for Read The Fuc*ing Manual. This is a common
answer you'll get when asking for help in the Linux community.
It's meant to make you feel inadequate while boating the Linux
persons ego at the same time. See, Linux enthusiasts consider
themselves to be guru like and above helping out the simple
newbie. You have to earn your respect by spending countless
hours becoming a kernel hacker before you're worthy of getting
any help.
6.2 Q: Why does everyone think they are better than you when
using Linux?
A: Same as above. When people use Linux they believe since it
takes a little more knowledge to use Linux, they are technically
superior, and see themselves as an elite group that doesn't have
time for the pathetic little Windows people.
(more to come...)
SECTION SEVEN - LINUX ADVOCACY, HELPING OR HURTING?
---------------------------------------------------
7.1 Q: Everyone in here says linux is perfect, why would they say that
if it isn't?
A: We really don't know. Maybe they've used Linux so long that
they've gotten used to it. Some of these people haven't used
Windows in years so they are comparing Linux to the
last windows they used, maybe Windows 3.1 or 95.
7.2 Q: Why does everyone call you a troll when you ask something that
questions linux?
A: Most of the people here in C.O.L.A. think of Linux more like a
religion than an OS. They mostly are MS haters and feel that
Linux is the greatest thing to ever hit computing. So when
someone questions Linux it's like questioning their belief
system. Instead of looking at it with some logic and
reasonable judgment, they will lash out at you can't claim your
are a troll or a paid MS supporter.
7.3 Q: Why does everyone <PLONK> you if you question Linux?
A: Fairly similar to above, Linux advocates can not argue their
point rationally. So to make it look like you are under them
or you are not worth it, and at the same time find an easy
way out of having to prove themselves, they will <PLONK> you.
(more to come...)
SECTION EIGHT - LINUX EVANGELISM, ZEALOTS
-----------------------------------------
8.1 Q: There are some people that call this FAQ lies and seem to treat
it like it's a conspiracy against them, and post all sorts of links
to anti-microsoft articles. Why are they reacting so strongly?
A: The people that are reacting so strongly are most likely the
Linux extremists that believe everything negitive that is said about
Linux comes from Microsoft. Like many cult-like groups, the people
that belong to them don't have the ability to see things rationally
or outside of their view. If someone replies to the FAQ, or
anything questioning a non-favorable view on Linux, that seems a
little "over the edge", do a google search on the person
(http://groups.google.com/) and look at his/her posting history
then decide for yourself if the person is credible or not.
(more to come...)
-----------------------------------------
PLEASE VISIT:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Clogwog
news:9ec5$48209f61$15...@news.teranews.com...
lol ! we won't hear anything from alti for at least one month, cos he's too
busy solving hardware issues, downloading crappy linux drivers and
installing those oddball Linux apps.
Then he comes back saying "I installed Linux on 9 old machines "flawlessly".
What a moron!
The Ghost In The Machine
<a...@b.com>
wrote
on Tue, 6 May 2008 14:11:44 -0400
<9ec5$48209f61$15...@news.teranews.com>:
Ezekiel does have a point; newer hardware is
(presumably!) more efficient, and is also reasonably
priced. I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether one has
done power price calculations.
Best I can do here is note that the cheapie Dell Inspiron
530 Desktops (sans monitor) start at $349, and of course come
with Windows Vista Home Basic. This is a 2 GHz Celeron
(440), 800 FSB, 1 GB 667 MHz RAM, 250 GB drive. HP offers
the slightly cheaper a6400z model, with 1.8 GHz AMD Sempron
2100, 1 GB 800 MHz (2x512) RAM, 250GB or free upgrade to
320GB SATA, and (again) Windows Vista Home Basic.
For its part System76 offers its Ratel, with a 1.6 GHz 800
MHz FSB Celeron 420, 512 MB RAM, and 160 GB Sata, clearly
half a generation or a full generation behind, for $349.
eRacks offers its DESQ model, 2.8 Celeron D, 533 MHz FSB,
512 MB, floppy drive (anachronism city?), 80 GB SATAII,
and a $5 donation to the EFF (by default), all for $395.
This also appears at least one generation removed.
Apple has even worse offerings in this price space. The
Mac mini has 1.86 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (this is arguably
a better processor than the Celeron but I'd have to dig)
and 1 GB RAM, but only an 80 GB hard drive, and are quoting
$599 -- and the expandability of said mini is rather poor;
I've got more hard drive space now on my laptop. (Not that
my laptop is all that hot CPU wise, but at least it's got
1 GB RAM now.)
To be fair, the only thing one's out when picking up
discards is effort to refurbish said discards (if any is
needed; no guarantees of course) and the gasoline consumed
while driving around looking for same. Nor am I all that
clear on performance differences of these processors,
and I've not even looked at graphics capabilities -- some
of the Linux boxes, for example, apparently sport rather
good chips.
But Linux vendors may have some work to do, to get their
prices down. Microsoft wins again, if only because
a slicked machine still has that default Vista license,
and Microsoft realizes pure profit thereby (though they
won't get much follow-on during Vista or Win7 revs).
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
Matt
> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines.
>
> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
> life.
You could wire a few of them together to experiment with parallel or
distributed computing: make your own toy supercomputer---running Linux,
of course, not Windows.
Ezekiel
"Matt" <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message
news:fq2Uj.2620$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
Why not use VMWare (or something like VirtualBox) to create this toy
supercomputer? Why waste all this extra energy for nothing? (x-many power
supplies, x-many video cards, etc.)
Linonut
> Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap to
> the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
> for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff they
> can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
> recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
> for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what is
> left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.
>
> Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday (there
> were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3 are all
> P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron D 3GHz.
> I've tested 3 of these boards already.
You dumpster diver you! <grin>
> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that I
> need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss such
> useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and all I
> wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
>
> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
> life.
<sniff, tear rolls down cheek>
Four machines saved from Windows.
<song>
Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
</song>
</sniff>
--
Bill Gates is a very rich man today ... and do you want to know why? The answer
is one word: versions.
-- Dave Barry
The Ghost In The Machine
<BWAHA...@BWAHAHAHAAA.LOL>
wrote
on Tue, 6 May 2008 20:56:06 +0200
<2008050618561...@mwinf6208.orange.nl>:
> + Edition: 23 - 10/24/07
> + Group: comp.os.linux.advocacy
> +
> + Copyright (c) 2002-2006 Linux Reality Team
> +
> + PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
> +
> + http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
> +
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Welcome to comp.os.linux.advocacy, otherwise known as cola.
> This FAQ will try to address most of the issues regarding Linux and
> this group. Unlike the other FAQs, this one will try to be as
... stupid as possible.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;
The Ghost In The Machine
<lin...@bollsouth.nut>
wrote
on Tue, 6 May 2008 16:18:24 -0400
<e13Uj.71667$vr3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
> * alt peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap to
>> the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
>> for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff they
>> can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
>> recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
>> for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what is
>> left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.
>>
>> Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday (there
>> were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3 are all
>> P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron D 3GHz.
>> I've tested 3 of these boards already.
>
> You dumpster diver you! <grin>
Indeed. I'll admit I hope for no ill effects such as
inadvertantly seeing someone's data.
>
>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
>> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
>> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that I
>> need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss such
>> useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and all I
>> wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
>>
>> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
>> life.
>
> <sniff, tear rolls down cheek>
> Four machines saved from Windows.
> <song>
> Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
> </song>
> </sniff>
>
Pedant point: they were not saved from Windows.
They probably ran Windows prior to discard. ;-)
Still not a bad thing, considering the acquisition price of
said hardware, and they now have a second life as usable
machinery, as opposed to heading for the recycling bin --
or, worse, the trash heap (which in some locales is illegal
because of, among other things, heavy metal toxins).
I'll admit to some curiosity as to which is best, though,
from a cost standpoint (costs including of course such
things as environmental damage, power consumption, and
OS/app replacement):
[1] installing Linux on "outdated" machines.
[2] keeping "outdated" machines on older copies of Windows.
[3] recycling machines and purchasing new ones with Windows.
If one wants to get really silly (and is in a business
environment), one can include additional capabilities:
[4] installing Linux on "outdated" machines, and using ssh to
connect to a central server which does all the heavy lifting,
with the machines displaying the results (ssh -X[Y]).
[5] installing Linux on "outdated" machines, and using rdesktop
to connect to a central server.
[6] recycling machines and purchasing new ones with Windows,
using remote desktop to connect to a central server.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
Andrew Halliwell
Once they're setup, you don't need video cards
or keyboards
or mice
But then, in the wonderful world of windows, a headless machine is
unmanagable because it can't be administered fully without access to the
GUI. Oh, I suppose you could VNC into it, but that's incredibly wasteful of
network bandwidth and not something you want to do when you're clustering.
Linux doesn't need a gui, therefore, it doesn't need direct user access at
all. Anything that needs to be done can be done from the control node of the
cluster. via telnet or ssh.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Linonut
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. Anyhow. I'll be installing
>>>> Linux on these boxes to give them a second life.
>>>
>>> You could wire a few of them together to experiment with parallel or
>>> distributed computing: make your own toy supercomputer---running Linux, of
>>> course, not Windows.
>>
>> Why not use VMWare (or something like VirtualBox) to create this toy
>> supercomputer? Why waste all this extra energy for nothing? (x-many power
>> supplies, x-many video cards, etc.)
>
> Once they're setup, you don't need video cards
> or keyboards
> or mice
>
> But then, in the wonderful world of windows, a headless machine is
> unmanagable because it can't be administered fully without access to the
> GUI. Oh, I suppose you could VNC into it, but that's incredibly wasteful of
> network bandwidth and not something you want to do when you're clustering.
Actually, that is changing, with the latest Powershell, I hear.
Anyway, currently Ezekiel and Clogwog are the dumbest clucks here.
--
We don't have the user centricity. Until we understand context, which is way
beyond presence -- presence is the most trivial notion, just am I on this
device or not; it doesn't say am I meeting with something, am I focused on
writing something.
-- Bill Gates, .NET Briefing Day Speech (24 July 2002)
7
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Matt" <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:fq2Uj.2620$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
>>> alt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. Anyhow. I'll be installing
>>>> Linux on these boxes to give them a second life.
>>>
>>> You could wire a few of them together to experiment with parallel or
>>> distributed computing: make your own toy supercomputer---running Linux,
>>> of course, not Windows.
>>
>> Why not use VMWare (or something like VirtualBox) to create this toy
>> supercomputer? Why waste all this extra energy for nothing? (x-many
>> power supplies, x-many video cards, etc.)
>
> Once they're setup, you don't need video cards
> or keyboards
> or mice
>
> But then, in the wonderful world of windows, a headless machine is
> unmanagable because it can't be administered fully without access to the
> GUI. Oh, I suppose you could VNC into it, but that's incredibly wasteful
> of network bandwidth and not something you want to do when you're
> clustering.
Disk throughput which you can achieve only with lots of disks in parallel
machines.
Ezekiel
"Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:dtt6f5-...@ponder.sky.com...
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Matt" <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:fq2Uj.2620$Cn4...@news02.roc.ny...
>>> alt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. Anyhow. I'll be
>>>> installing
>>>> Linux on these boxes to give them a second life.
>>>
>>> You could wire a few of them together to experiment with parallel or
>>> distributed computing: make your own toy supercomputer---running Linux,
>>> of
>>> course, not Windows.
>>
>> Why not use VMWare (or something like VirtualBox) to create this toy
>> supercomputer? Why waste all this extra energy for nothing? (x-many
>> power
>> supplies, x-many video cards, etc.)
>
> Once they're setup, you don't need video cards
> or keyboards or mice
I didn't mention anything about keyboards or mice. That's your strawman.
Fine.. run headless without video cards. Each computer still needs it's own
power-supply, cooling fans, disk-drive(s), motherboard, chip-set
(northbridge, southbridge, etc), memory controller, PCI bus, etc. Not
exactly efficient.
> But then, in the wonderful world of windows, a headless machine is
> unmanagable because it can't be administered fully without access to the
> GUI.
Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this do
tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
slink away.)
> Oh, I suppose you could VNC into it, but that's incredibly wasteful of
> network bandwidth and not something you want to do when you're
> clustering.
Or you could just telnet into the Windows box and do it from the command
line.
> Linux doesn't need a gui, therefore, it doesn't need direct user access
> at
> all. Anything that needs to be done can be done from the control node of
> the
> cluster. via telnet or ssh.
So it's just like Windows in that regard.
7
Corporation:
> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the curb
> so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global warming.
ARE ALL WINDUMMIES THIS IDIOTIC?
The reason why it got there is because of micoshaft products wasting
so many CPU cycles that users are forced to upgrade.
Switching to Linux helps but I see that since you are a WINDUMMY,
you are forcing yourself to do anything to but recommend Linux.
May be you should call Balmer and tell him to put shoe polish on his shiny
head to prevent reflecting sunlight back into the stratosphere.
TIA
Ezekiel
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:2cs6f5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Since "virtualization" is all the rage lately it would seem to be the
winner. It's more cost effective to have a huge honkin box with lots of
power than to manage dozens of individual machines.
For servers at least.
Andrew Halliwell
> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this do
> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
> slink away.)
As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without touching a
GUI? all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML, sometimes flat text
files) and usually very easily edited in textmode consoles.
What about programs that store their settings in the infamous registry?
Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better used
in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have a
video card to show it?
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this
>> do
>> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
>> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
>> slink away.)
Congrats on not slinking away. So let's see what you got.
> As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
I'm not an expert in anything. But I'm pretty decent in a lot of things.
Including Unix.
> Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
Sure. Most software (especially true for "enterprise" type software) has a
way of automatically installing without a GUI. This is how corporations
install software on 1000's of desktops at a time. They don't actually go to
each desktop and clickity-click through the install. It's all scripted and
automated.
> Can you edit config files in all those windows
> programs without touching a GUI?
> all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML, sometimes flat text
> files) and usually very easily edited in textmode consoles.
There are definitely text-mode editors for Windows. vi and emacs for
example. The one that ships with Windows is called "edit" but it's not that
great. But it works for simple things.
> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous registry?
No problem there either. You can read and/or write the registry from the
command line. Using the "console" (CLI) you can even treat the registry
like a database. For example, we have scripts that run each day that
effectively do a "SELECT" query against the registry on each server to
return all of the events where "severity > x" and the event time is between
"now" and 24 hours ago. Since it's trivial to connect to the registry on a
remote-machine we don't even have to run the script on each system. One
machine can query all of them and aggregate the data.
> Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
> Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
Yes and yes. It's not an "editor" the same way you'd edit a text file. It's
more like a CLI interface to a database (think 'sqlplus' on Oracle). You
can also read/write/create any arbitrary key but it's not normally used
that way. At least by us.
> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
Good question. To be honest... I'm not really sure. We have racks of NT
machines but they are all the 1U form factor and have built-in video. They
run through a KVM switch so we can switch to them if we had to. I suspect
that with the newer versions you can turn of the GUI but I'm really not
sure.
> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better
> used
> in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have
> a
> video card to show it?
I doubt it's as bad as you suspect. For starters no GUI apps are running.
It's likely to just be sitting there at the login screen. And since the GUI
isn't doing anything all of the code is paged-out so it's not really taking
any memory or CPU resources. Then again... there may be a way to turn of
the GUI. It's something that I should probably check on some day.
> --
> | spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a
> |
> | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8
> bit |
> | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4
> bit |
> | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company,
> that|
> | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition.
> |
Moshe Goldfarb
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this do
>> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
>> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
>> slink away.)
>
> As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
> Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
Who cares?
The object is to install the program so you can *USE* the program.
The faster the better.
> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without touching a
> GUI? all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML, sometimes flat text
> files) and usually very easily edited in textmode consoles.
Typical Linux.
Sometimes this kind of file.
Sometimes that kind of file.
Yea, that's a real benefit.
And when VI pops up as the default text editor like it does on many Linux
systems, the new user is DOA....
Score another one for Linux......
> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous registry?
> Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
> Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
Why?
I've never had to modify the registry.
> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
On a desktop system why would I want to?
> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better used
> in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have a
> video card to show it?
So you can export it back to the box that DOES have a video card?
So you can use the easy to use, intuitive configuration programs instead of
screwing around with some text editor.
You're a typical dinosaur Linux elitast.
You and your ilk are well on your way to extinction.
People want to USE programs, not tinker around with them.
The idea is to install and use not play with text files all day.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
The Ghost In The Machine
<a...@b.com>
wrote
on Tue, 6 May 2008 19:01:38 -0400
<16727$4820e353$13...@news.teranews.com>:
Exactly. And that huge honking box is able to run Windows
system images, right?
As for virtualization -- *Unix* had it in the 80's.
Every process could use instructions with impunity, but
the kernel was the final arbiter as to whether anything
interesting happened if one used a privileged instruction
such as Intel's INT.
The only real difference AFAICT: a modern virtualizer can
also trap IO port read/writes and interpret the results
of a specific region of virtual memory in the sandbox,
displaying the results, allowing for Windows to be run
within Windows (with VmWare being the virtualizer), among
other combinations. (Personally, I prefer Linux in Linux.)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
The Ghost In The Machine
<spi...@ponder.sky.com>
wrote
on Wed, 7 May 2008 00:23:27 +0100
<fs57f5-...@ponder.sky.com>:
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this do
>> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
>> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
>> slink away.)
>
> As you claim to be the windows expert here,
> why don't you tell me?
I'll do what I can here. I don't claim to be
all knowledgable about Windows, but have knocked
around a bit.
> Can you install any software without going
> through the wizard crap?
Depends on the software, though most software uses
installers such as InstallShield or InstallAnywhere,
presumably because of that horrible hacked-up
lock-when-reading-so-I-can't-update filesystem Windows
uses by default. These installers set up things so that
a reboot moves the files into their final resting place,
when the system is known quiescent.
> Can you edit config files in all those windows
> programs without touching a GUI?
Um...what config files? Win95 had the "innovation"
that stuffed everything into the registry hive.
(Oddly, a fair number of .ini files still exist
when I mount my XP partition. Not sure what
to make of this.)
> all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML,
> sometimes flat text files) and usually very easily
> edited in textmode consoles.
And with built-in documentation, if one's
not deleted the comments. There appears to be
a hook for this in Windows' registry, but I'm
not sure it's consistently applied.
>
> What about programs that store their settings
> in the infamous registry?
> Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
I think so, but I'd have to look. I'm not that familiar
with REGEDIT's text-line mode.
http://www.robvanderwoude.com/regedit.html
shows some examples.
> Is there even a textmode program that can
> safely edit the registry?
Define "safely".
>
> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
Define "turn off".
> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste
> of resources better used in the actual cluster.
> So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have a
> video card to show it?
>
Define "need". :-)
One of the things I like about Linux and the
tools surrounding it is the flexibility.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this
>> do
>> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
>> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
>> slink away.)
>
> As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
> Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without touching
> a
> GUI? all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML, sometimes flat
> text
> files) and usually very easily edited in textmode consoles.
>
> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous registry?
> Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
> Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
>
> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better
> used
> in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have
> a
> video card to show it?
Follow-up. I checked and starting with Windows Server 2003 you can run the
machine in a "headless" configuration. You still need to display in order
to initially install the OS but once installed, you no longer need a local
display.
<quote>
Abstract
The Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 family of operating systems provides
native support for "headless" server operation on Windows platforms-that
is, support for operating without a local display. This paper describes the
hardware and firmware requirements and implementations guidelines to best
support Windows headless functionality.
</quote>
AZ Nomad
Irrelevent.
AZ Nomad
>Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this do
>> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
>> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
>> slink away.)
>As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
>Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
and three reboots?
alt
I've never actually tried that. I'm not sure I'd have an application for
it though.
I will be using them to test out new software and stuff like that.
alt
>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
>> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
>> warming.
I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of an
environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine that has
just travelled across the pacific from China to North America and has
then travelled by either rail or by transport truck around north america
to and from distribution centres to retail stores.
And by the way, my province uses Hydro Electricity, not fossil fuel
generated electricity.
>
> Ezekiel does have a point; newer hardware is (presumably!) more
> efficient, and is also reasonably priced. I'll admit to some curiosity
> as to whether one has done power price calculations.
I can't say that I have made such calculations. I will be using these
systems for test, so its not like they'll be running for any length of
time.
alt
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
> <lin...@bollsouth.nut>
> wrote
> on Tue, 6 May 2008 16:18:24 -0400
> <e13Uj.71667$vr3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
>> * alt peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap
>>> to the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the
>>> curb for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for
>>> stuff they can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the
>>> metals to be recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but
>>> it is worth it for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by
>>> and takes what is left over away to be recycled or put in the
>>> landfill.
>>>
>>> Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday
>>> (there were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3
>>> are all P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron
>>> D 3GHz. I've tested 3 of these boards already.
>>
>> You dumpster diver you! <grin>
>
> Indeed. I'll admit I hope for no ill effects such as inadvertantly
> seeing someone's data.
They pulled the drives (very smart of them), but even then, I may not be
a saint, but I'm also not a devil. I have no interest in other peoples'
data.
>
>
>>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
>>> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
>>> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not
>>> that I need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and
>>> toss such useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old
>>> and all I wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
>>>
>>> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
>>> life.
>>
>> <sniff, tear rolls down cheek>
>> Four machines saved from Windows.
>> <song>
>> Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
>> </song>
>> </sniff>
>>
>>
> Pedant point: they were not saved from Windows. They probably ran
> Windows prior to discard. ;-)
I imagine they did. The hard drives had been stripped out.
>
> Still not a bad thing, considering the acquisition price of said
> hardware, and they now have a second life as usable machinery, as
> opposed to heading for the recycling bin -- or, worse, the trash heap
> (which in some locales is illegal because of, among other things, heavy
> metal toxins).
It's illegal here. I know of one local computer shop that takes computers
for recycling. He sends them to a special needs centre who takes the
machines apart and puts the metal in for recycling (it helps fund their
operation) and seperates out the plastics for recycling and the
motherboard parts... I have no idea what they do with these and other PC
Boards. Also, one brand of bottle recyclers also takes computers to be
melted down at a refinery... motherboards and all.
> I'll admit to some curiosity as to which is best, though, from a cost
> standpoint (costs including of course such things as environmental
> damage, power consumption, and OS/app replacement):
>
> [1] installing Linux on "outdated" machines. [2] keeping "outdated"
> machines on older copies of Windows. [3] recycling machines and
> purchasing new ones with Windows.
I would think that 1 and 2 would be the better options (in that order no
less). I prefer Linux, but I understand if people prefer to use something
they are familiar with. Microsoft is calling XP and 2000 "outdated", but
I think that's just a load of garbage they try and sell so people will
upgrage to their latest greatest (which as the net will tell you, ain't
so great). If people want to continue using their old Operating Systems,
I'm all for it.
When I look at the past, I see Windows. When I look to the future, I see
Linux.
>
> If one wants to get really silly (and is in a business environment), one
> can include additional capabilities:
>
> [4] installing Linux on "outdated" machines, and using ssh to connect to
> a central server which does all the heavy lifting, with the machines
> displaying the results (ssh -X[Y]). [5] installing Linux on "outdated"
> machines, and using rdesktop to connect to a central server.
> [6] recycling machines and purchasing new ones with Windows, using
> remote desktop to connect to a central server.
your forgot [7] installing Linux on on "outdated machines" and using
XDMCP to a central server.
alt
> * alt peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap to
>> the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
>> for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff
>> they can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
>> recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
>> for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what
>> is left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.
>>
>> Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday
>> (there were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3
>> are all P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron
>> D 3GHz. I've tested 3 of these boards already.
>
> You dumpster diver you! <grin>
No dumpsters! It was on the curb! :P
>
>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
>> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
>> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that
>> I need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss
>> such useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and
>> all I wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
>>
>> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
>> life.
>
> <sniff, tear rolls down cheek>
> Four machines saved from Windows.
> <song>
> Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
> </song>
> </sniff>
ha ha. way to make a sick man laugh (chest cold/flu... not sure which,
but I feel like death).
DFS
> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about
>> this do tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via
>> scripting or the command line that you can manage in linux. (This is
>> the part where you slink away.)
>
> As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
> Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/scripts/default.mspx?mfr=true
> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without
> touching a GUI?
What do you mean? When you boot Windows you're working in a graphical
interface (the Windows shell - Explorer.exe). Near as I can tell it uses
about 17mb of memory.
And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
only from the command line?
And having a GUI on the server hasn't stopped Windows from beating up on
Linux in the server room (sales and unit installs).
You lose again, spike.
> all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML,
> sometimes flat text files) and usually very easily edited in textmode
> consoles.
Yes, and they're scattered willy nilly all over the hard drive, in no
standard location, with no standard naming conventions, and with no standard
presentation format/layout.
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/commands/linux_crspfiles.html
> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous
> registry?
Which is virtually every Windows program nowadays. And what's so infamous
about it?
(note: it is an collection of often arcane, unreadable settings, but the
idea is sound. And just to head off any lying lies you were thinking about
making: corrupt registry's are very uncommon)
> Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
> Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
Of course you can read/write/delete/insert the registry with VBScript code
in text files created at the command line (or with any text editor). And
with Powershell via the command line.
> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
No. This is an advantage of Linux.
As of WinServer2008 you can install a GUI-less server.
> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources
> better used in the actual cluster.
Ever seen all the bullshit waste of resources installed by default on any
modern Linux distro, especially a KDE-based one? I went to install Sabayon
on VirtualBox a couple nights ago - it wanted 12gb of free disk space,
including some optional stuff I selected.
> So, why do you need a GUI when you
> don't even have a video card to show it?
Who needs a video card to show a GUI?
The Ghost In The Machine
<nospam@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Tue, 6 May 2008 23:53:55 -0400
<ZH9Uj.18305$28....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>> Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about
>>> this do tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via
>>> scripting or the command line that you can manage in linux. (This is
>>> the part where you slink away.)
>>
>> As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
>> Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/scripts/default.mspx?mfr=true
>
>
>
>
>> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without
>> touching a GUI?
>
> What do you mean? When you boot Windows you're working in a graphical
> interface (the Windows shell - Explorer.exe). Near as I can tell it uses
> about 17mb of memory.
>
> And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
> only from the command line?
>
> And having a GUI on the server hasn't stopped Windows from beating up on
> Linux in the server room (sales and unit installs).
>
> You lose again, spike.
>
DFS does have a point, but ideally both should be
supported. (And in Windows, both are, though the text
support is usually pretty primitive compared to the GUI.
In Linux, the reverse is generally true.)
>
>
>> all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML,
>> sometimes flat text files) and usually very easily edited in textmode
>> consoles.
>
> Yes, and they're scattered willy nilly all over the hard drive, in no
> standard location, with no standard naming conventions, and with no standard
> presentation format/layout.
>
> http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/commands/linux_crspfiles.html
>
>
>
>> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous
>> registry?
>
> Which is virtually every Windows program nowadays. And what's so infamous
> about it?
>
> (note: it is an collection of often arcane, unreadable settings, but the
> idea is sound. And just to head off any lying lies you were thinking about
> making: corrupt registry's are very uncommon)
It is not unreadable. Use REGEDIT to see the settings.
Some of the settings can be a bit obscure, yes.
>
>
>
>> Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
>> Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
>
> Of course you can read/write/delete/insert the registry with VBScript code
> in text files created at the command line (or with any text editor). And
> with Powershell via the command line.
Or with JScript or any .NET language. There's probably even
a Perl module.
>
>
>> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
>
> No. This is an advantage of Linux.
No, this is *NOT* an advantage of Linux, as Linux has no GUI
as such. You are talking about the X/KDE/Gnome level now.
>
> As of WinServer2008 you can install a GUI-less server.
As of Win95 one could also install a GUI-less system, though
the functionality thereof was mostly intended for diagnostic use.
>
>
>> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources
>> better used in the actual cluster.
>
> Ever seen all the bullshit waste of resources installed by default on any
> modern Linux distro, especially a KDE-based one? I went to install Sabayon
> on VirtualBox a couple nights ago - it wanted 12gb of free disk space,
> including some optional stuff I selected.
>
There are other installation methods, you know.
I'm working on some virtual machines right now. (Turns
out the Gentoo 2008 liveDVD sets up a fairly basic XFCE
environment right out of the box, if the autodetection of
one's card works...the QEMU emulator emulates absolutely
ancient Cirrus hardware.)
>
>
>> So, why do you need a GUI when you
>> don't even have a video card to show it?
>
> Who needs a video card to show a GUI?
>
True; Windows supports both Remote Desktop and VNC. (The former
may not be available on all desktops as a service, though it
undoubtedly is available on most desktops as a *client*. The
latter is a 3rd-party tool, readily installable.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
Homer
> I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of
> an environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine that
> has just travelled across the pacific from China to North America and
> has then travelled by either rail or by transport truck around north
> america to and from distribution centres to retail stores.
"Ezekiel" has the brain of a peanut. Only an idiot would think dumping
un-biodegradable junk into a landfill site could be less environmentally
harmful than recycling it.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
06:00:57 up 138 days, 2:36, 6 users, load average: 0.07, 0.08, 0.18
DFS
> It is not unreadable. Use REGEDIT to see the settings.
>
> Some of the settings can be a bit obscure, yes.
This is what I mean by 'unreadable':
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Registry.PNG
>>> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
>>
>> No. This is an advantage of Linux.
>
> No, this is *NOT* an advantage of Linux, as Linux has no GUI
> as such. You are talking about the X/KDE/Gnome level now.
I see you haven't lost any of the pedant in your old age.
Homer
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com>
> wrote on Wed, 7 May 2008 00:23:27 +0100
> <fs57f5-...@ponder.sky.com>:
>> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous
>> registry? Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
>
> I think so, but I'd have to look. I'm not that familiar with
> REGEDIT's text-line mode.
>
> http://www.robvanderwoude.com/regedit.html
There is (or was) Regchg.exe (local) and RRegchg.exe (remote), although
I have no idea if they're still supported, since the most recent
reference I can find pertains to NT4:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/171591
Of course that does not allow one to /browse/ the Registry in order to
actually /find/ what one is looking for, so presumably one would need a
dead-tree reference to hand, assuming Microsoft have licensed such a
thing for public scrutiny.
Given that nearly every config in Windows is in that "Registry", one
wonder how exactly one is supposed to administer it headless, without
either a GUI or a proper CLI tool.
Face it - Windows was never meant to be headless; never meant to be a
server; never meant to do networking; never meant to be used in secure
environments; never meant to be used for mission critical applications;
and in fact never meant to be anything more than a front-end to
Microsoft's bank account (incoming transmissions only). The fact that it
made a popular gaming system was more attributable to ID Software than
Microsoft, and even then that was only because it was so useless for
anything else, that users got bored easily and drifted into playing Doom
instead. If ID Software, IBM, and Windows/DOS users knew then what we
all know now about how crap Windows is, Atari would be where Microsoft
is today, and the world would probably be using some form of *nix for
everything else.
> Define "need". :-)
Microsoft: We "need" your money [now more than ever ;) ]
Windows Users: We "need" something better than Windows. Goodbye.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
06:34:08 up 138 days, 3:09, 6 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.06
bobbie
> "alt" <spamt...@lazyeyez.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9sOdndFlZOQEA73V...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap to
> > the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
> > for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff they
> > can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
> > recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
> > for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what is
> > left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.
>
> > Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday (there
> > were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3 are all
> > P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron D 3GHz.
> > I've tested 3 of these boards already.
>
> > little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
> > 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that I
> > need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss such
> > useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and all I
> > wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
>
> > Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
> > life.
>
> that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global warming.
>
Yeah, better that it all goes straight to the land fill just because
it doesn't meet Vista Basic requirements.
Linonut
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
>>
>>> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without
>>> touching a GUI?
>>
>> What do you mean? When you boot Windows you're working in a graphical
>> interface (the Windows shell - Explorer.exe). Near as I can tell it uses
>> about 17mb of memory.
How many users does that represent on a web server?
Not to mention the resources taken up by the driver and all of the DLLs
needed to support the GUI applications.
And the potential for extra trouble due to interactions between apps and
video driver.
Only a moron needs a GUI wizard to administer a server.
>> And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
>> only from the command line?
The guy at Microsoft and InfomationWeek, that's who. Recent article:
(IIRC) "Feeding your inner UNIX geek", about Microsoft's Powershell, and
how this CLI tools can do a lot for you, and in fact is now beefed up
with better remote management capabilities. Mentioned is how many
people took to it.
>> And having a GUI on the server hasn't stopped Windows from beating up on
>> Linux in the server room (sales and unit installs).
Sales? So what? Practically everyone who has ever used Linux as free
software in a technical environment is running it as a server of some
kind.
Unit installs? Who can count them? They're countless!
>> You lose again, spike.
--
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to
be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive
things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this
and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE
capabilities.
-- Bill Gates, 1998 a memo to the Office product group[2]
Linonut
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
>>
>> Since "virtualization" is all the rage lately it would seem to be the
>> winner. It's more cost effective to have a huge honkin box with lots of
>> power than to manage dozens of individual machines.
>>
>> For servers at least.
>
> Exactly. And that huge honking box is able to run Windows
> system images, right?
Indeed. The extra license fees are /grrrreeeeeeeeeat/ for Microsoft's
bottom line.
And Zeke forgets that, once you fill up a machine, it's nice to be able
to add more machines to the mix.
I hope he doesn't forget to pay up all his server licenses.
> As for virtualization -- *Unix* had it in the 80's.
IBM had it in 1966, I noticed in an article yesterday.
--
Bill Gates is a very rich man today ... and do you want to know why? The answer
is one word: versions.
-- Dave Barry
Linonut
> ha ha. way to make a sick man laugh (chest cold/flu... not sure which,
> but I feel like death).
To your health!
--
Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether the idea will move
the industry forward, they ask, 'how will it help us sell more copies of
Windows?'
-- Bill Gates, The Seattle Weekly, (April 30, 1998)[2]
Linonut
> On May 6, 11:11 am, "Ezekiel" <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the curb so
>> that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global warming.
>
> Yeah, better that it all goes straight to the land fill just because
> it doesn't meet Vista Basic requirements.
He sure is a dumbass, isn't he?
--
People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented,
didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines...
There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time,
people will come to accept their silicon masters.
-- Bill Gates
chrisv
>Ezekiel <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>(snip snot)
>
>As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
>Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
>Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without touching a
>GUI? all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML, sometimes flat text
>files) and usually very easily edited in textmode consoles.
>
>What about programs that store their settings in the infamous registry?
>Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
>Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
>
>More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
>On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better used
>in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have a
>video card to show it?
This is where the fsckwitted troll slinks away.
Matt
> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that I
> need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss such
> useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and all I
> wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
One thing that happens is that the machines often don't come with an XP
reinstallation disc, so the user can only reinstall from the vendor's
unmounted Windows reinstallation partition on the hard drive. If the OS
gets corrupted, the user may not know he can restore from that hidden
partition. If he has more money than brains or patience, he simply buys
a new machine. If the hard drive goes bad and the machine is out of
warranty, he will have to pay to get a new copy of the XP disc.
Matt
>>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
>>> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
>>> warming.
>
> I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of an
> environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine
Hadron is blowing smoke---not at all unusual.
Suppose a new machine uses 50W less than a reused one, although I
seriously doubt that the difference is that large.
A typical cost for power in the US is ten cents per kilowatt-hour:
http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices.html
So you would pay twelve cents more per day if you ran the reused machine
continually. That comes to $43.80 per year if you run the computer
24/7. It comes to $3.65 per year if you run it two hours per day.
Many of the newer CPUs have far greater maximum power usage than ones a
few years old. If the user leaves the machine on and parked at a
CPU-hogging web page, the CPU may be maxed out, in which case the newer
high-power system may use _more_ power than the older one.
Hey, there are many people for whom a 3 GHz HT P4 will be more than
adequate for a few more years.
Hadron
> alt wrote:
>
>>>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
>>>> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
>>>> warming.
>>
>> I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less
>> of an environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine
>
> Hadron is blowing smoke---not at all unusual.
Not at all. As usual you idiots snip to support your points. I said
specifically what is his *existing* set up doing. I then went on to
ADVOCATE Linux by saying my Piv could do all that and more on ONE
existing machine.
>
> Suppose a new machine uses 50W less than a reused one, although I
> seriously doubt that the difference is that large.
>
What part of "accumulation" is difficult for you to understand? He is
going to plug in 4 "old" machines. Why?
> A typical cost for power in the US is ten cents per kilowatt-hour:
> http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices.html
Cost is NOT the issue as even you should be aware of.
I can poor oil into a fish pond and the cost is minimal. The resulting
carnage is another thing altogether.
> So you would pay twelve cents more per day if you ran the reused
> machine continually. That comes to $43.80 per year if you run the
> computer 24/7. It comes to $3.65 per year if you run it two hours per
> day.
>
> Many of the newer CPUs have far greater maximum power usage than ones
> a few years old. If the user leaves the machine on and parked at a
> CPU-hogging web page, the CPU may be maxed out, in which case the
> newer high-power system may use _more_ power than the older one.
Absolute and total garbage. Especially when taken into account I said
his EXISTING system is probably not maxed out. Also take into account
CPU frequency regulators.
>
> Hey, there are many people for whom a 3 GHz HT P4 will be more than
> adequate for a few more years.
Nice moving of the goalposts.
William Poaster
Nasty. I hope you're soon feeling better. :-)
--
This message was sent from a
computer which is guaranteed
100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
-- 64bit Mandriva 2008.1 --
William Poaster
> alt wrote:
>
>>>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
>>>> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
>>>> warming.
>>
>> I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of an
>> environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine
>
> Hadron is blowing smoke---not at all unusual.
Uh...*he* calls it advocacy.
> Suppose a new machine uses 50W less than a reused one, although I
> seriously doubt that the difference is that large.
>
> A typical cost for power in the US is ten cents per kilowatt-hour:
> http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices.html So you would pay
> twelve cents more per day if you ran the reused machine continually. That
> comes to $43.80 per year if you run the computer 24/7. It comes to $3.65
> per year if you run it two hours per day.
>
> Many of the newer CPUs have far greater maximum power usage than ones a
> few years old. If the user leaves the machine on and parked at a
> CPU-hogging web page, the CPU may be maxed out, in which case the newer
> high-power system may use _more_ power than the older one.
>
> Hey, there are many people for whom a 3 GHz HT P4 will be more than
> adequate for a few more years.
--
William Poaster
> * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
>>>
>>>> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without
>>>> touching a GUI?
>>>
>>> What do you mean? When you boot Windows you're working in a graphical
>>> interface (the Windows shell - Explorer.exe). Near as I can tell it
>>> uses about 17mb of memory.
>
> How many users does that represent on a web server?
>
> Not to mention the resources taken up by the driver and all of the DLLs
> needed to support the GUI applications.
>
> And the potential for extra trouble due to interactions between apps and
> video driver.
>
> Only a moron needs a GUI wizard to administer a server.
Which is why M$ probably makes it with a GUI.
Which is why the likes of DooFu$ uses (used) Windows Server 2003 as a
desktop!
Ergo DooFu$ is a moron.
Q.E.D
>>> And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a
>>> computer only from the command line?
>
> The guy at Microsoft and InfomationWeek, that's who. Recent article:
> (IIRC) "Feeding your inner UNIX geek", about Microsoft's Powershell, and
> how this CLI tools can do a lot for you, and in fact is now beefed up with
> better remote management capabilities. Mentioned is how many people took
> to it.
>
>>> And having a GUI on the server hasn't stopped Windows from beating up
>>> on Linux in the server room (sales and unit installs).
>
> Sales? So what? Practically everyone who has ever used Linux as free
> software in a technical environment is running it as a server of some
> kind.
>
> Unit installs? Who can count them? They're countless!
>
>>> You lose again, spike.
--
Matt
> Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> writes:
>
>> alt wrote:
>>
>>>>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
>>>>> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
>>>>> warming.
>>> I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less
>>> of an environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine
>> Hadron is blowing smoke---not at all unusual.
>
> Not at all. As usual you idiots snip to support your points.
Oh sorry, Zeke said that.
Ezekiel
"alt" <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05...@lazyeyez.net...
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:22:55 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
>>> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
>>> warming.
>
> I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of an
> environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine that has
> just travelled across the pacific from China to North America and has
> then travelled by either rail or by transport truck around north america
> to and from distribution centres to retail stores.
Idiot. I never said that it's more efficient to buy a new machine. I never
said anything at all about buying a new machine.
What I said is that it's a waste of electricity/emergy to run a bunch of
machines just because you found them on the curb. If the purpose is to "play
around" then it's more efficient (and easier) to do that within a virtual
machine.
The "buying a new machine" is some goalpost that you and your fellow idiots
created and moved.
> And by the way, my province uses Hydro Electricity, not fossil fuel
> generated electricity.
Doesn't matter. Energy is energy and electricity is electricity. Hydro
energy that you save could be used by someone else that gets their power
from a fossil fuel source. Electricity does travel over wires you know.
>>
>> Ezekiel does have a point; newer hardware is (presumably!) more
>> efficient, and is also reasonably priced. I'll admit to some curiosity
>> as to whether one has done power price calculations.
>
> I can't say that I have made such calculations. I will be using these
> systems for test, so its not like they'll be running for any length of
> time.
The Ghost In The Machine
<lin...@bollsouth.nut>
wrote
on Wed, 7 May 2008 07:33:31 -0400
<drgUj.18478$28....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
> * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
>>>
>>> Since "virtualization" is all the rage lately it would seem to be the
>>> winner. It's more cost effective to have a huge honkin box with lots of
>>> power than to manage dozens of individual machines.
>>>
>>> For servers at least.
>>
>> Exactly. And that huge honking box is able to run Windows
>> system images, right?
>
> Indeed. The extra license fees are /grrrreeeeeeeeeat/ for Microsoft's
> bottom line.
>
> And Zeke forgets that, once you fill up a machine, it's nice to be able
> to add more machines to the mix.
>
> I hope he doesn't forget to pay up all his server licenses.
Indeed.
>
>> As for virtualization -- *Unix* had it in the 80's.
>
> IBM had it in 1966, I noticed in an article yesterday.
>
Hmm...I don't go quite that far back. ;-) But I do
know about VM/CMS, and was using VP/CSS (a derivative)
in the late 70's (ah, youth). QEMU and UML both remind
me of those, generally.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
Andrew Halliwell
> And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
> only from the command line?
Not very good at following conversations, are you doofy?
We're talking about headless machines here.
Specifically for use in clustering. Why do you need a GUI in such a
situation? How do you ACCESS it in such a situation without wasting network
bandwidth and hammering your cluster's efficiency?
>
>> all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML,
>> sometimes flat text files) and usually very easily edited in textmode
>> consoles.
>
> Yes, and they're scattered willy nilly all over the hard drive
The /etc directory is now "scattered all over the hard drive willy nilly"?
Stupid doofy... You couldn't get anymore foolish if you tried.
> in no standard location, with no standard naming conventions, and with no
> standard presentation format/layout.
HAHAHAHA
>> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous
>> registry?
>
> Which is virtually every Windows program nowadays. And what's so infamous
> about it?
You're serious?
>> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
>
> No. This is an advantage of Linux.
Exactly. Though we seem to have a difference of opinion Jeffrey....
(note: this is a cultural reference that'll go over your head)
Mr Ezekial claims the GUI can be disabled in 2003 onwards.
>> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources
>> better used in the actual cluster.
>
> Ever seen all the bullshit waste of resources installed by default on any
> modern Linux distro,
Hint: A cluster doesn't use a "default linux install" by any stretch of the
imagination. All security is disabled for the nodes (apart from the access
node), only the useful stuff is installed and only the essensials running.
especially a KDE-based one? I went to install Sabayon
> on VirtualBox a couple nights ago
Why would you install KDE on a CLUSTER?
dum dum-dum dum duuuuum...
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Hadron
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
>> only from the command line?
>
> Not very good at following conversations, are you doofy?
> We're talking about headless machines here.
> Specifically for use in clustering. Why do you need a GUI in such a
> situation? How do you ACCESS it in such a situation without wasting network
> bandwidth and hammering your cluster's efficiency?
headless machines can also support X you blithering idiot - look up X
forwarding. Very little overhead when not in use. very convenient for
running GUI admin interfaces for things like mysql.
The Ghost In The Machine
<hadro...@googlemail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 07 May 2008 21:30:54 +0200
<fvt00h$5hq$1...@registered.motzarella.org>:
To be pedantic: headless machines easily support the X
*protocol*, but not an X *server*; the server is running
on the machine with the monitor, somewhere else. One very
common setup uses a command such as
ssh -X[Y] remoteuser<at>remotemachine
where remotemachine usually [%] has a compiled set of
the X client libraries (libX, libXext, libXt, libICE,
etc.) along with sshd for this particular setup [+].
The remote machine sees localhost:10 [*], which is a
proxy for the real server at localhost:0; ssh/sshd shuttle
the packets back and forth in the encrypted tunnel (see
/usr/include/X11/Xproto.h for the details, along with
Volume 0 of the O'Reilly Manuals).
Of course there is the Xvfb server, which one can run
anywhere (memory permitting); it doesn't display much,
though. (It is possible to pull the data from the virtual
screen, represented as a picture. User-provided events are
difficult, though one can try synthetic event injection
using XSendEvent() if the application is sufficiently
naive; there might be other extensions available which
I'd have to dig for.)
Other protocols can also be used, such as VNC, to implement
the display of a GUI. One might even use HTML/HTTP to
implement a GUI; the result is, of course, a webserver,
requiring a web browser to display the GUI (pages).
(DAV, AJP, SOAP, Java's RMI, Java's JNDI, Java applets,
XML, and AJAX are optional extras.)
These methods vary in efficiency, responsiveness, security,
and ease of implementation.
[%] I've worked on projects where the client writes packets
using ConnectionNumber(dpy) directly. Such code is of course
rather fragile.
[+] other setups are possible but may not be as secure.
[*] on most machines, localhost is 127.0.0.1 or ::1, and is
bound to a different interface ('lo') than 'remotemachine'
('eth*').
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
Andrew Halliwell
> headless machines can also support X you blithering idiot
Awwww
Isn't it sweet?
Hadron can't read either.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEADLESS CLUSTER NODES!
You don't NEED or even WANT any form of GUI in one of those.
Now who's the blithering idiot?
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
alt
>>>> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
>>>> life.
>>>
>>> <sniff, tear rolls down cheek>
>>> Four machines saved from Windows.
>>> <song>
>>> Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
>>> </song>
>>> </sniff>
>>
>> ha ha. way to make a sick man laugh (chest cold/flu... not sure which,
>> but I feel like death).
>
> Nasty. I hope you're soon feeling better. :-)
Not really. this is the 2nd day I've left the office early. Today I left
about 11am. I was feeling really rough (and still am). I figure I'll be
good by the weekend.
Ezekiel
You probably got some nasty disease while dumpster-diving for your
computers.
Hadron
> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> headless machines can also support X you blithering idiot
>
> Awwww
> Isn't it sweet?
> Hadron can't read either.
> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEADLESS CLUSTER NODES!
> You don't NEED or even WANT any form of GUI in one of those.
> Now who's the blithering idiot?
Poor Degree Boy. Now he's telling people what they want and need! This
degree you earned show made you omnipotent!
Hadron
The average keyboard has more germs than the average public toilet
apparently.
JEDIDIAH
Toilets tend to get cleaned regularly.
Dunno what would happen to my keyboard if I sprayed scrubbing
bubbles on it. Not sure I want to find out...
--
iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
...well.
You can WASTE your network bandwidth on pushing pictures around
or you can get ACTUAL REAL WORK DONE. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist or a gypsy to figure out which one of these options
that pragmatic business minded types would prefer.
...although keep in mind that many cluster architectures call
for a dedicated interconnect network to begin with. So you
won't necessarily bog down the cluster by engaging in
unnecessary UI bloat.
Hadron
> On 2008-05-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> headless machines can also support X you blithering idiot
>>>
>>> Awwww
>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>> Hadron can't read either.
>>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEADLESS CLUSTER NODES!
>>> You don't NEED or even WANT any form of GUI in one of those.
>>> Now who's the blithering idiot?
>>
>> Poor Degree Boy. Now he's telling people what they want and need! This
>> degree you earned show made you omnipotent!
>
> ...well.
>
> You can WASTE your network bandwidth on pushing pictures around
> or you can get ACTUAL REAL WORK DONE. It doesn't take a rocket
For goodness sake - if its an admin task and you bother to use
x-forwarding for a few minutes its not going to kill the system you
know.
Sheesh.
> scientist or a gypsy to figure out which one of these options
> that pragmatic business minded types would prefer.
>
> ...although keep in mind that many cluster architectures call
> for a dedicated interconnect network to begin with. So you
> won't necessarily bog down the cluster by engaging in
> unnecessary UI bloat.
Make up your mind :-;
--
Whoever asked if the debian organization was dead isn't reading
debian-devel. 66 messages in one day, and it's not over. I find it
difficult to keep up.
-- Bruce Perens
The Ghost In The Machine
<fvtb26$vtd$2...@registered.motzarella.org>:
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>> On 2008-05-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> headless machines can also support X you blithering idiot
>>>>
>>>> Awwww
>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>> Hadron can't read either.
>>>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEADLESS CLUSTER NODES!
>>>> You don't NEED or even WANT any form of GUI in one of those.
>>>> Now who's the blithering idiot?
>>>
>>> Poor Degree Boy. Now he's telling people what they want and need! This
>>> degree you earned show made you omnipotent!
>>
>> ...well.
>>
>> You can WASTE your network bandwidth on pushing pictures around
>> or you can get ACTUAL REAL WORK DONE. It doesn't take a rocket
>
> For goodness sake - if its an admin task and you bother to use
> x-forwarding for a few minutes its not going to kill the system you
> know.
>
> Sheesh.
Such would require installation of the X libraries on
the system, as well as the requisite GUI control system.
A minor matter, easily done if privileges permit.
>
>
>> scientist or a gypsy to figure out which one of these options
>> that pragmatic business minded types would prefer.
>>
>> ...although keep in mind that many cluster architectures call
>> for a dedicated interconnect network to begin with. So you
>> won't necessarily bog down the cluster by engaging in
>> unnecessary UI bloat.
>
> Make up your mind :-;
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
Matt
So maybe there isn't much computational or bandwidth cost in having GUI
access to each headless node. But since the several nodes are
equivalent, or (at least) there is some regular structure among the
nodes, are you going to want to connect to each node individually to
carry out the same or similar task on each one? No, you would want to
send some kind of script or sequence of commands to each one. So you
don't _need_ GUI access to the individual nodes.
Matt
Probably you can take the top and bottom shells including the keys apart
from the innards and soak them in the bathtub. Lather, rinse repeat.
Dry and reassemble.
Matt
> Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> writes:
>> Suppose a new machine uses 50W less than a reused one, although I
>> seriously doubt that the difference is that large.
>>
>
> What part of "accumulation" is difficult for you to understand? He is
> going to plug in 4 "old" machines. Why?
>
He never said he was going to run all those machines at once. He never
even said he was going to keep them for himself. He mentions elsewhere
on the thread a charity that collects and distributes reusable
computers. That indicates he isn't going to keep them and run them all
at once as you assume.
>> A typical cost for power in the US is ten cents per kilowatt-hour:
>> http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices.html
>
> Cost is NOT the issue as even you should be aware of.
>
> I can poor oil into a fish pond and the cost is minimal. The resulting
> carnage is another thing altogether.
>
>> So you would pay twelve cents more per day if you ran the reused
>> machine continually. That comes to $43.80 per year if you run the
>> computer 24/7. It comes to $3.65 per year if you run it two hours per
>> day.
One is supposed to be able to reason that if the change in energy cost
is $3.65 per year, the increase in energy usage is environmentally
insignificant.
alt
> Toilets tend to get cleaned regularly.
>
> Dunno what would happen to my keyboard if I sprayed scrubbing
> bubbles on it. Not sure I want to find out...
Wipe it down with a cloth soaked in 99% Pure Isopropyl Alcohol. That'll
kill 99.999% of the germs. Careful, Isopropyl Alcohol is _very_ flammable.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
wrote
on Thu, 08 May 2008 01:28:15 GMT
<aHsUj.2677$Cn4....@news02.roc.ny>:
An interesting subpoint, and I agree. I'd want both,
though, if possible.
Admittedly, I'm a bit spoiled. Mentor Graphics had
an excellent combination of text and graphics prior
to 8.0 (and 8.0 wasn't that bad, but went a little too
goo-ey); the general idea was that one would do something
graphically and the transcript would capture the equivalent
scripting. One could also type in part of a command and
"expand" it with a keystroke, allowing one to see all of
its options and set them in a reasonably intuitive fashion.
Once the script is developed, of course, one can simply
execute it. Might simply therefore be better to present
a text editor, a set of documentation for each script
command and option (hmm...man pages?), and maybe a method
by which one can do a dry run of the script, or at least
set up something where the script can do no damage to a
production system (hmm....QA backup copies).
There's also the issue that I can type in the following command:
"find . -type f -mtime +7 | cpio -oc -o archive.cpio"
a lot faster than clicking and dragging entries from an
Explorer-type window to an archiving program. (To be
sure, I'm cheating a bit here; cpio takes its file list
from standard input -- but that's one of the more useful
things to know when making archives. Granted, spaces in
the filenames make life annoying.)
>
>>>> scientist or a gypsy to figure out which one of these options
>>>> that pragmatic business minded types would prefer.
>>>>
>>>> ...although keep in mind that many cluster architectures call
>>>> for a dedicated interconnect network to begin with. So you
>>>> won't necessarily bog down the cluster by engaging in
>>>> unnecessary UI bloat.
>>> Make up your mind :-;
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> writes:
>
>>> Suppose a new machine uses 50W less than a reused one, although I
>>> seriously doubt that the difference is that large.
>>>
>>
>> What part of "accumulation" is difficult for you to understand? He is
>> going to plug in 4 "old" machines. Why?
>>
>
>
> He never said he was going to run all those machines at once. He
> never even said he was going to keep them for himself. He mentions
> elsewhere on the thread a charity that collects and distributes
> reusable computers. That indicates he isn't going to keep them and
> run them all at once as you assume.
In that case fine - but there is a trend here to waffle on about running
"8 rigs" hidden away in basements and what have you with uptimes of 99
years etc all doing little things.
These old machines are far better off being recycled IMO.
>
>
>>> A typical cost for power in the US is ten cents per kilowatt-hour:
>>> http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices.html
>>
>> Cost is NOT the issue as even you should be aware of.
>>
>> I can poor oil into a fish pond and the cost is minimal. The resulting
>> carnage is another thing altogether.
>>
>>> So you would pay twelve cents more per day if you ran the reused
>>> machine continually. That comes to $43.80 per year if you run the
>>> computer 24/7. It comes to $3.65 per year if you run it two hours per
>>> day.
>
> One is supposed to be able to reason that if the change in energy cost
> is $3.65 per year, the increase in energy usage is environmentally
> insignificant.
Every bit helps. As you well know. The best way to become a millionaire
is to borrow a penny off ever man in China. That kind of thing.
--
If you are going to run a rinky-dink distro made by a couple of
volunteers, why not run a rinky-dink distro made by a lot of volunteers?
-- Jaldhar H. Vyas on debian-devel
Cork Soaker
: More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
: On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better
used
: in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have
a
: video card to show it?
Windows Home Server can run without a graphics card, keyboard or mouse.
As this is based on Server 2003 (or is it 2008?) I assume that those Server
version can also.
However, they still load the GUI and expect you to use Remote Desktop to
administer them.
Tattoo Vampire
> Not at all. As usual you idiots snip to support your points. I said
> specifically what is his existing set up doing. I then went on to
> ADVOCATE Linux by saying my Piv could do all that and more on ONE
> existing machine.
The only thing you advocate is having Moshe's and DFS's noses up your ass.
Preferably both at the same time.
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/Proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
The judge fined the jaywalker fifty dollars and told him if he was
caught again, he would be thrown in jail. Fine today, cooler tomorrow.
alt
> alt wrote:
I'm just starting to feel the "pain" of a single core CPU. Google Earth
runs slow on my 3GHz P4 Laptop. Everything else runs fine.
On a serious note, my system with the NTSC Tuner Card and DVB-S card
performs much better with that fancy new HT CPU ;-)