Re: Solaris 10 Success Story.
Jim
<snip>
> I plopped in the Solaris 10 DVD and in less than an hour I was up with a
> base install. I installed their custom POSIX compliant business modeling
> code, which was basically a bunch of Scilab scripts. I ran a test set of
> problems at full capacity. Some very minor disk thrashing occured...5 %
> of what was happening on Linux. Wow. Talk about a professionally
> designed OS! Linux had 95 percent more thrashing!
>
Problem with your math. 1/.05=20, not .95. So you're talking about Linux
with a 2,000% greater thrash.
Not that I'm calling bullshit or anything.
<snip>
--
Cheers,
Jim
-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of
the opinions of its author. You decide.
Web: http://www.dotware.co.uk
http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk
Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS,
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 32...@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768,
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux
More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
John Bailo
> A client called my firm up to help them improve the performance of their
> business modeling applications.
>
> They were running Monte Carlo simulations over huge data sets as well as
> linear programming to model their business landscape. When I got to my
> client's datacenter, I immediatly became concerned. I noticed they were
> running the latest Linux kernel, the 2.6.11.10, on SMP machines.
>
> I sat by the servers and could actually hear the drives thrashing about
> as the kernel inefficiently paged the data. In my head, I began thinking
> this will be a tough case as Linux lacks a tool comparable to DTrace.
> I ran the "top" program and indeed the kernel was thrashing the drives.
> I checked the amount of memory on the system via /proc, and it had 16
> Gigs of RAM running Opteron Processors.
>
> Unfortunately, I had to inform the client that their sys Admins were
> incompetent. First off, the data was connected to the internet, albeit
> through a firewall and NAT. I informed them that there is a security
> vulnerablity in SMP Linux kernels discovered by a PhD researcher. Linus
> Torvalds BRUSHED OFF THE RESULTS, because he couldn't understand the
> problem! Linus, when he seems to not understand the scope of a problem,
> often ignores engineers with 25 years of UNIX kernel experience. It
> happened with Joerg Schilling and now it is happening to Colin Percival.
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5120#comment-129703
>
> This is what Colin says about linus: "it is at times like this that Linux
> really suffers from having a single dictator in charge; when Linus
> doesn't understand a problem, he won't fix it, even if all the
> cryptographers in the world are standing against him."
>
> Joerg Schilling had the SAME IMPRESSION! The achillies heel of Linux is
> Linus Torvalds! When one person says something, it may be a case of a
> grudge, but 2 people, it is becoming a problem! That and the BitkKeeper
> fiasco really is souring people.
>
> Back to my client. I immediately held a conference with the President
> and CEO of my firm's client. I demanded complete authority over their
> datacenter and that I not be disturbed by their incompetent Linux IT
> staff.
>
> After being granted permission to take whatever necessary measures were
> needed, I marched into the datacenter. I backed up the user data. I
> then downloaded Solaris 10 ISOs. and burned them to DVD. I then
> COMPLETELY WIPED THE LINUX PARTITIONS!
>
> I plopped in the Solaris 10 DVD and in less than an hour I was up with a
> base install. I installed their custom POSIX compliant business modeling
> code, which was basically a bunch of Scilab scripts. I ran a test set of
> problems at full capacity. Some very minor disk thrashing occured...5 %
> of what was happening on Linux. Wow. Talk about a professionally
> designed OS! Linux had 95 percent more thrashing!
>
> out these Linux clowns wrote very inefficient SciLab scripts! I re-wrote
> some of the code to have better O(N^2) performance with the help of
> DTrace to maximize the architectural bandwidth.
>
> My client's boss was impressed. Here were the recommendations I gave him:
>
> 1. Get rid of the INTEL boxes because of the SMP vulnerablity. I
> recommended him some nice SUN boxes matched with Solaris 10. The
> upcoming ZFS filesystem will be a god send with their datasets.
>
> 2, Fire your linux staff. They can all be replaced by one competent
> Solaris admin. Linux staff normally grew up on PC bucket hardware and
> don't know what Uptime and reliablity is! Most of them have never seen
> how a proper datacenter is supposed to be run!!
>
So, are you telling us you went to gamble in Monte Carlo? Is that a
hotel in Vegas...how was the free food?
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://texeme.com
Peter Köhlmann
> Mike Cox wrote:
< snip typical Mike Cox idiocy >
>
> So, are you telling us you went to gamble in Monte Carlo? Is that a
> hotel in Vegas...how was the free food?
>
And you, Bailo, just could not help yourself but absolutely have to post
your garbage all over usenet, right?
Anthony Roberts
> incompetent. First off, the data was connected to the internet, albeit
> through a firewall and NAT. I informed them that there is a security
> vulnerablity in SMP Linux kernels discovered by a PhD researcher. Linus
> Torvalds BRUSHED OFF THE RESULTS, because he couldn't understand the
> problem! Linus, when he seems to not understand the scope of a problem,
> often ignores engineers with 25 years of UNIX kernel experience. It
> happened with Joerg Schilling and now it is happening to Colin Percival.
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5120#comment-129703
I share your horror that Linus has ignored the hyperthreading
vulnerability, but I'm having trouble understanding why you're worried
about a hyperthreading vulnerability on Opteron machines.
Peter T. Breuer
> > through a firewall and NAT. I informed them that there is a security
> > vulnerablity in SMP Linux kernels discovered by a PhD researcher. Linus
Nonsense. It's a possible information leak in all hyperthreading cpus,
on any operating system, windos included. Not that the leak provides
any usable info at all.
> > Torvalds BRUSHED OFF THE RESULTS, because he couldn't understand the
> > problem!
He seems to be an intelligent man to me. I agree. I also see no real
problem.
> > Linus, when he seems to not understand the scope of a problem,
> > often ignores engineers with 25 years of UNIX kernel experience. It
Good for him.
> > happened with Joerg Schilling and now it is happening to Colin Percival.
Oh, he's blasted off that nutter, has he? That's another notch up in my
estimation.
> > http://kerneltrap.org/node/5120#comment-129703
> I share your horror that Linus has ignored the hyperthreading
I don't. It looks pretty nonsensical, since it doesn't reduce the
space you have to search for the key. I don't even see that you can
map the cache usage pattern in the time in which you have to do it in,
thugh maybe it's possible. Anyway, there's nothing anyone can do about
it (not that the info is useful), except turn off hyperthreading when a
secure thread is in the cpu. And then they'd also have to stop the cpu
heating up in certain recognizable patterns when doing RSA
computations, or making a buzzing noise in its transistors ..
> vulnerability, but I'm having trouble understanding why you're worried
> about a hyperthreading vulnerability on Opteron machines.
I'm not. He's a troll. Maybe you're a troll. Who knows. I see this is
crossposted to slowaris newsgroups, so somebody is trolling. I'll get
rid of the advocacy groups, at least.
Please TRIM newsgroups. These trolls are sillier than you.
I'm keeping only the crosspost to solaris just to annoy JS, who I
assume will beam in on this like a shill.
Peter
Tim Smith
> I checked the amount of memory on the system via /proc, and it had 16 Gigs
> of RAM running Opteron Processors.
>
> incompetent. First off, the data was connected to the internet, albeit
> vulnerablity in SMP Linux kernels discovered by a PhD researcher. Linus
Too bad you don't understand the problem. The systems you made up for that
story would not have been vulnerable. Oops.
--
--Tim Smith
Tony Lawrence
> In comp.os.linux.misc Anthony Roberts <acrobert-at-u...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>>>through a firewall and NAT. I informed them that there is a security
>>>vulnerablity in SMP Linux kernels discovered by a PhD researcher. Linus
>
>
> Nonsense. It's a possible information leak in all hyperthreading cpus,
> on any operating system, windos included. Not that the leak provides
> any usable info at all.
Right. But have you noticed that often things that would affect both
Windows and Linux, like this and a recent hubbub about the horrors of
year 2038 time overflow, are reported (in some places) as affecting
Unix/Linux only?
Seems to me that Microsoft's fud machinery might be playing a part in this?
--
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Tony Lawrence
> Tony Lawrence <f...@pcunix.com> wrote in
> news:eMGdnW5zlJP...@comcast.com:
> share? PLEASE! Get a life, MS has bigger things to worry about than
> Linux.
Microsoft does worry about Linux. They even have a "fund" that can be
used to make special deals when big companies (or whole countries)
threaten to abandon them. They have web pages devoted to explaining
"facts" (so called) about the 'real cost" of using Linux, and their
regional managers regularly try to get quoted in the press on the same
subject. The lady doth protest too much..
In fact, the threat of Linux is one of the most important things on
Microsoft's plate right now. Low market share? Maybe, but growing at a
much faster rate than Microsoft wants to see. Linux may be a small dog,
but it's nipping at Microsofts ever more clumsy heels.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch, I think..
rapskat
<mikeco...@yahoo.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<428bd...@x-privat.org>, details as follows:
>> Seems to me that Microsoft's fud machinery might be playing a part in
>> this?
>>
>
> Why would MS waste time worrying about an OS that has such a low market
> share? PLEASE! Get a life, MS has bigger things to worry about than
> Linux.
Right, which is why they are dedicating millions of dollars in
direct advertising, studies, discounts, new programs and an entire
website in order to address it...
Yup, you can tell they could care less about it.
[hazardous waste container set]
--
rapskat - 20:04:49 up 1 day, 18:29, 7 users, load average: 0.13, 0.26, 0.37
"A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't
change the subject."
-- Winston Churchill
Jason Bowen
> share? PLEASE! Get a life, MS has bigger things to worry about than
> Linux.
Name the number one web server. Now name the number one operating
system that the number one web server is running on. I'm talking about
the number of server, not performance or design or scalability. I'm not
going to argue that Linux is better than Solaris, but Linux is whooping
ass when it comes to Apache installations.
Jeff_Relf
Hi Mike_Cox, Tony_Lawrence, Peter_Breuer, and Anthony_Roberts,
Re: Anti_Linux conspiracy theories, Mike asked:
Why would MicroSoft waste time worrying about
Pike_Place_Market in Seattle is a great open_air market
with a breath_taking view of the ferries plying Elliot Bay.
Bars, fresh seafood, fancy bakeries, italian importers,
and lots of small vendors, sell all kinds of niche goods.
The first Starbucks store is there too.
Lots of heroin injectors and street performers too.
It looks like this:
http://www.raincitystory.com/images/ppm_night.jpg
http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/Jonathan-Mies/pac_nw/seattle/fish_toss.jpg
While all that is great, I don't see them putting Wal_Mart out of business.
MicroSoft is Wal_Mart, Linux is Pike_Place_Market.
Daniel Tryba
[snip]
> I checked the amount of memory on the system via /proc, and it had 16
> Gigs of RAM running Opteron Processors.
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5120#comment-129703
[snip]
> My client's boss was impressed. Here were the recommendations I gave him:
>
> 1. Get rid of the INTEL boxes because of the SMP vulnerablity.
Nice troll, to bad Opteron doesn't seems to be vulnerable.
FUP to COLA.
John Bailo
> Linus, when he seems to not understand the scope of a problem,
> often ignores engineers with 25 years of UNIX kernel experience. It
> happened with Joerg Schilling and now it is happening to Colin Percival.
Look, as much as you winTrolls want to saddle Linus with Unix -- he's just
not part of that tradition.
The reason he is successful, is that he is Bill Gate, Model II. A better,
faster, lighter Bill Gates, who actually lives up to his ideals...the old
Bill Gate$, Model I, is like that old robot boxer in the Twilight
Zone...unable to keep fighting in the model world, with strong new
developers.
So, if Linus gives the bum's rush to some beardo the wierdo who wants to add
handles just so zork can run faster -- good riddance I say!
--
Texeme
http://www.texeme.com
John Bailo
RE: Your friend with AIDS
"Genetic' disaeses are ones that we just forgot about or gave up trying to
cure. In the future, people will /mysteriously/ develop AIDS and we'll
say, oh, it's genetic, like leukemia.
Anybody who lives beyond 20 has numbered days ( that reminds me of the Eels
song, Numbered Days) -- people in their twenties are simply 'newly dead'.
> While all that is great, I don't see them putting Wal_Mart out of
> business. MicroSoft is Wal_Mart, Linux is Pike_Place_Market.
Linux is like a web marketplace that emulates Pike Place...but available to
all without added retail costs.
Wal*Mart has overexpanded, and so it cannot sell Windows anymore for
Microsoft, which cannot write software anymore.
I call that M-theory ( M for market ).
If you want to learn about the other M-theory, I highly recommend the BBC's
Elegant Universe chapter called /Parallel/ /Universes/.
It's available as a free and legal torrent at:
--
Texeme
http://www.texeme.com
Robert M. Stockmann
> A client called my firm up to help them improve the performance of their
> business modeling applications.
>
> They were running Monte Carlo simulations over huge data sets as well as
> linear programming to model their business landscape. When I got to my
> client's datacenter, I immediatly became concerned. I noticed they were
> running the latest Linux kernel, the 2.6.11.10, on SMP machines.
>
> I sat by the servers and could actually hear the drives thrashing about
> as the kernel inefficiently paged the data. In my head, I began thinking
> this will be a tough case as Linux lacks a tool comparable to DTrace.
> I ran the "top" program and indeed the kernel was thrashing the drives.
> I checked the amount of memory on the system via /proc, and it had 16
> Gigs of RAM running Opteron Processors.
>
> Unfortunately, I had to inform the client that their sys Admins were
> incompetent. First off, the data was connected to the internet, albeit
> through a firewall and NAT. I informed them that there is a security
> vulnerablity in SMP Linux kernels discovered by a PhD researcher. Linus
> Torvalds BRUSHED OFF THE RESULTS, because he couldn't understand the
> problem! Linus, when he seems to not understand the scope of a problem,
> often ignores engineers with 25 years of UNIX kernel experience. It
> happened with Joerg Schilling and now it is happening to Colin Percival.
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5120#comment-129703
>
> This is what Colin says about linus: "it is at times like this that Linux
> really suffers from having a single dictator in charge; when Linus
> doesn't understand a problem, he won't fix it, even if all the
> cryptographers in the world are standing against him."
>
> Joerg Schilling had the SAME IMPRESSION! The achillies heel of Linux is
> Linus Torvalds! When one person says something, it may be a case of a
> grudge, but 2 people, it is becoming a problem! That and the BitkKeeper
> fiasco really is souring people.
I'm sure Linus has learned a good lesson. This will all be resolved, and
i'm not unhappy how the latest stable kernel 2.6.11.10 runs.
>
> Back to my client. I immediately held a conference with the President
> and CEO of my firm's client. I demanded complete authority over their
> datacenter and that I not be disturbed by their incompetent Linux IT
> staff.
>
> After being granted permission to take whatever necessary measures were
> needed, I marched into the datacenter. I backed up the user data. I
> then downloaded Solaris 10 ISOs. and burned them to DVD. I then
> COMPLETELY WIPED THE LINUX PARTITIONS!
>
> I plopped in the Solaris 10 DVD and in less than an hour I was up with a
> base install.
How about CentOS4 AMD64 my friend? that one plops 4.5Gb onto your SATA
disk in less as 10 minutes on a moderate AMD64 Home PeeCee.
> I installed their custom POSIX compliant business
> modeling code, which was basically a bunch of Scilab scripts. I ran a
> test set of problems at full capacity. Some very minor disk thrashing
> occured...5 % of what was happening on Linux. Wow. Talk about a
> professionally designed OS! Linux had 95 percent more thrashing!
>
> I quickly wrote up a DTrace program with the appropriate sensors. Turns
> out these Linux clowns wrote very inefficient SciLab scripts!
Ahh, now yer talking... A server and its Operating System run just as
good as its admins allow it to be :)
> I re-wrote some of the code to have better O(N^2) performance with the
> help of DTrace to maximize the architectural bandwidth.
>
> My client's boss was impressed. Here were the recommendations I gave
> him:
>
> 1. Get rid of the INTEL boxes because of the SMP vulnerablity. I
> recommended him some nice SUN boxes matched with Solaris 10. The
> upcoming ZFS filesystem will be a god send with their datasets.
>
> 2, Fire your linux staff. They can all be replaced by one competent
> Solaris admin. Linux staff normally grew up on PC bucket hardware and
> don't know what Uptime and reliablity is! Most of them have never seen
> how a proper datacenter is supposed to be run!!
[mail:stock]:(~)$ w
5:35am up 437 days, 53 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT
stock pts/1 stokkie.demon.nl 5:32am 0.00s 0.04s 0.00s w
[mail:stock]:(~)$ uname -a
Linux mail.fenedex.nl 2.4.25 #1 SMP Mon Mar 8 01:54:25 CET 2004 i686 unknown
[mail:stock]:(~)$
Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org st...@stokkie.net
Alexander Skwar
> Why would MS waste time worrying about an OS that has such a low market
> share?
Yep, I don't know either why MS should care about Solaris. You're
right.
> PLEASE! Get a life, MS has bigger things to worry about than
> Linux.
Actually - no.
Alexander Skwar
--
<Knghtbrd> Trust us, we know what we're doing... We may have no idea HOW
we're doing it, but we know WHAT we're doing.
ralph
I'll argue Linux is better than solaris! I just dumped gentoo off my Sun
sparc Ultra 5 and installed Solaris 10. I can say that Package management
SUCKS in Solaris! The Java desktop is a loser as well as CDE so I am
installing KDE as I write. I'm hoping that KDE will make things a little
faster with Solaris because Gentoo outperformed solaris BIG TIME on this
device. One good thing is bash is now included so I set all the users to
use bash so I don't have to worry so much about that sucky ^H every time
you hit a back space key feature! Why can't sun have something like emerge,
apt-get or urpmi to help with Package management?
It's so nice with Linux, so much just comes with the OS, installes and works
from the start. Everything with Solaris is a PAIN IN THE ASS to do.
Jeff_Relf
Hi John_Bailo, I, along with some of my fellow housmates,
have a nasty cough and soar throat right now, and it's way past my bedtime,
so all I'll say for now is: I already have a copy of NOVA's show on M-theory:
The_Elegant_Universe, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
We've discussed it before too. I told you: By definition,
virtual particles are particles that are Not directly observed.
That's why no virtual particle, such as a tachyon,
can refute relativity... they're simply not physical.
M-theory pales compared to my assertion that:
Entropy is the fifth Spatial dimension.
Observationally, there was zero entroy at the start of the big bang,
and, again, observationally, infinte entropy at the end of our universe.
From infinite density to an infinite vacuum, observationally.
With hubris, we define that middle density, where humans live, as life.
BSOD
On 2005-05-18, Mike Cox <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip ravings of Mike Cox]
Mike, Solaris 10 might be a success, but on the
Sparc platform, not x86.
I myself downloaded Solaris 10 DVD iso only last week. I attempted
first to install it on my run of the mill clone machine. It
failed to detect my NIC. Ok, onto another machine, this
time an IBM thinkpad. It failed to boot. Next,
because I was now desperate to get this work somewhere, because
of the amount of time I had spent downloading it, I took
one of the machines at work, an HP DX2000. It failed
to detect the NIC.
I admit that I never expected the clone machine to work
properly, but the Thinkpad and HP box has fairly high spec
hardware and is not what I would consider cheap shit.
Sun's failure to support x86 hardware has been getting
worse since Solaris 7. Each release appears to drop
support for more hardware each time.
As far as I am concerned, this failure renders Solaris
10 totally useless for the x86. And its no good
crying out that we should all go out and buy Sun
hardware, because that is just not going to happen.
I download on a regular basis various different Linux distros,
because I like to try them out. 9 times out of 10 I can
make them boot, and recognise all my hardware. This
is because the amount of effort that goes in to produce
Linux as a quality operating system.
--
Blue Screen of Death is Trademark Microshite Computer Corp.
For all versions of Windows. Press alt-ctrl-delete to
kill your machine, and wipe your unsaved files from
memory.
BSOD
Not only that, but the twerp has to quote the whole Cox garbage
as well, just to add at the bottom something that makes
no sense at all.
Alexander Skwar
> As far as I am concerned, this failure renders Solaris
> 10 totally useless for the x86. And its no good
> crying out that we should all go out and buy Sun
> hardware, because that is just not going to happen.
>
> I download on a regular basis various different Linux distros,
> because I like to try them out. 9 times out of 10 I can
> make them boot, and recognise all my hardware. This
> is because the amount of effort that goes in to produce
> Linux as a quality operating system.
Exactly. I also got a Solaris 10 DVD/CD collection for x86
to play with. Because I was interested, I tried to install
it on an old Compaq AP400 PC. Installation went somewhat
fine, but then it couldn't boot.
After that failure, I downloaded and installed
Fedora Core 3 on that same machine. No need to mention that
the installation was a *LOT* smoother and that the machine
now works just fine.
BTW: I did not check the HCL. Neither for Solaris nor for
FC3. I just expect a new OS to work on such a common
hardware.
Alexander Skwar
--
BOFH Excuse #433:
error: one bad user found in front of screen
John Bailo
> With hubris, we define that middle density, where humans live, as life.
While waiting to see Lenny Kravitz, I visited Elliot Bay Books and purchased
"Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker.
In chapter 2, he writes about the birth of our understanding of infinity.
He mentions infinite sets, whose subsets are also infinite and hence equal.
This reminded me of the speed of light. A beam of light must be an
infinite set.
--
Texeme
http://www.texeme.com
BSOD
You shoud not have to check the HCL for common hardware,
and especially when its Intel chipsets. You expect
them to work. It's that failure that makes Solaris
a non option for x86.
Alexander Skwar
> You shoud not have to check the HCL for common hardware,
> and especially when its Intel chipsets. You expect
> them to work. It's that failure that makes Solaris
> a non option for x86.
You're right. That's the point I wanted to bring across.
This Compaq machine is using nothing but common hardware.
This has to be supported - if not, well, it's certainly
not something that will help Solaris 10 being a success.
Alexander Skwar
--
Max told his friend that he'd just as soon not go hiking in the hills.
Said he, "I'm an anti-climb Max."
[So is that punchline.]
Donn Miller
> 1. Get rid of the INTEL boxes because of the SMP vulnerablity. I
> recommended him some nice SUN boxes matched with Solaris 10. The
> upcoming ZFS filesystem will be a god send with their datasets.
What specific model Sparc processors were they running? I think you're
making this crap up, but oh well...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BSOD
> share? PLEASE! Get a life, MS has bigger things to worry about than
> Linux.
You are out of touch with reality. MS take linux very very seriously,
and that is why they spend untold millions on FUD to destroy it. Money
down the toilet, it would appear.
Donn Miller
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:09:26 +0200, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>
> Enough said...
>
> Troll O Meter
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
> ___________________________________________________
> | | | | | | | | | | |
> ---------------------------------------------------
> ^
> |
>
> WOW! This idiot broke the gauge!
I'd give it an 8.2 for effort, although I think it deserved a 7.8. It's
not bad, but it's apparent his story is completely fictional.
Greg Menke
ralph <n...@way.com> writes:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> > Name the number one web server. Now name the number one operating
> > system that the number one web server is running on. I'm talking about
> > the number of server, not performance or design or scalability. I'm not
> > going to argue that Linux is better than Solaris, but Linux is whooping
> > ass when it comes to Apache installations.
>
> I'll argue Linux is better than solaris! I just dumped gentoo off my Sun
> sparc Ultra 5 and installed Solaris 10. I can say that Package management
> SUCKS in Solaris! The Java desktop is a loser as well as CDE so I am
> installing KDE as I write. I'm hoping that KDE will make things a little
> faster with Solaris because Gentoo outperformed solaris BIG TIME on this
> device. One good thing is bash is now included so I set all the users to
> use bash so I don't have to worry so much about that sucky ^H every time
> you hit a back space key feature! Why can't sun have something like emerge,
> apt-get or urpmi to help with Package management?
>
> It's so nice with Linux, so much just comes with the OS, installes and works
> from the start. Everything with Solaris is a PAIN IN THE ASS to do.
Solaris looks clumsy the same way Linux did when you first worked with
it. Just because you can install an OS and click on the pretty windows
don't assume you can judge it technically. And its really a big mistake
to judge a *nix OS on the basis of a window manager- particuarly on the
basis of gnome or its clones.
Theres a reason Solaris is so baroque from a clean install- its as
absolutely consistent as possible from the outset. No crazy variations
in the user environment from version to version. You the user get to
decide on what craziness you want to add.
FWIW, Solaris does have an apt-alike manager- it works well and its
super handy for getting a consistent and useful and modern suite of
tools into a new install- look at blastwave.org. THere is at least one
other person working on an emerge like feature, hopefully that doesn't
require the silly mid-install hand-configuration that Gentoo packages
sometimes want.
OTOH, I'll freely admit you have a point with the backspace/del. Linux
has finally fixed that outrageous PITA, it persists in Solaris.
Gregm
George Jones IV
> sparc Ultra 5 and installed Solaris 10. I can say that Package management
> SUCKS in Solaris! The Java desktop is a loser as well as CDE so I am
> installing KDE as I write. I'm hoping that KDE will make things a little
> faster with Solaris because Gentoo outperformed solaris BIG TIME on this
> device. One good thing is bash is now included so I set all the users to
> use bash so I don't have to worry so much about that sucky ^H every time
> you hit a back space key feature! Why can't sun have something like
emerge,
> apt-get or urpmi to help with Package management?
>
> It's so nice with Linux, so much just comes with the OS, installes and
works
> from the start. Everything with Solaris is a PAIN IN THE ASS to do.
This just goes to show how long you've been using an *nix of any type. If
you're going to show support for Linux, do so with some real data, not
garbage like:
"... I don't have to worry so much about that sucky ^H every time you hit a
back space key feature..."
Had you been exposed to Unix for any length of time, you would know how to
solve that problem simply. Any Linux user worth their distro SHOULD know
how. Package management isn't that bad in solaris. pkgadd, patchadd, pkginfo
all do what they're supposed to do. What do you think of Linux distro's that
you compile everything with? (which is the way I do nearly everything with
Mandrake 10, I just don't feel like bothering with it during initial setup)
.
BTW, the Java Desktop is really nothing more than Gnome, the preferred
desktop of many a Linux user.
I'm not saying that Solaris is better than Linux, I prefer Linux all day
long. But if you're going to make derogatoy remarks, at least be educated
about them.
Spike
worried. Just check out their toting of Linux applications running on
Solaris 10 without modifications.
spike
Michael Heiming
> In comp.os.linux.misc Anthony Roberts <acrobert-at-u...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> > through a firewall and NAT. I informed them that there is a security
>> > vulnerablity in SMP Linux kernels discovered by a PhD researcher. Linus
> Nonsense. It's a possible information leak in all hyperthreading cpus,
> on any operating system, windos included. Not that the leak provides
> any usable info at all.
>> > Torvalds BRUSHED OFF THE RESULTS, because he couldn't understand the
>> > problem!
> He seems to be an intelligent man to me. I agree. I also see no real
> problem.
>> > Linus, when he seems to not understand the scope of a problem,
>> > often ignores engineers with 25 years of UNIX kernel experience. It
> Good for him.
>> > happened with Joerg Schilling and now it is happening to Colin Percival.
> Oh, he's blasted off that nutter, has he? That's another notch up in my
> estimation.
;)
>> > http://kerneltrap.org/node/5120#comment-129703
Good info, thx!
Looks to me as if Linus proves exactly Peter's points!
[..]
>> vulnerability, but I'm having trouble understanding why you're worried
>> about a hyperthreading vulnerability on Opteron machines.
> I'm not. He's a troll. Maybe you're a troll. Who knows. I see this is
> crossposted to slowaris newsgroups, so somebody is trolling. I'll get
> rid of the advocacy groups, at least.
So we others can enjoy it?
> Please TRIM newsgroups. These trolls are sillier than you.
> I'm keeping only the crosspost to solaris just to annoy JS, who I
> assume will beam in on this like a shill.
;-))
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 117: the printer thinks its a router.
Michael Heiming
>> I'll argue Linux is better than solaris! I just dumped gentoo off my Sun
>> sparc Ultra 5 and installed Solaris 10. I can say that Package management
>> SUCKS in Solaris! The Java desktop is a loser as well as CDE so I am
>> installing KDE as I write. I'm hoping that KDE will make things a little
>> faster with Solaris because Gentoo outperformed solaris BIG TIME on this
>> device. One good thing is bash is now included so I set all the users to
>> use bash so I don't have to worry so much about that sucky ^H every time
>> you hit a back space key feature! Why can't sun have something like
> emerge,
>> apt-get or urpmi to help with Package management?
>>
>> It's so nice with Linux, so much just comes with the OS, installes and
> works
>> from the start. Everything with Solaris is a PAIN IN THE ASS to do.
> This just goes to show how long you've been using an *nix of any type. If
> you're going to show support for Linux, do so with some real data, not
> garbage like:
Where does this come from? You should try at least a working
newsreader, there's no line telling us who wrote the above?
> "... I don't have to worry so much about that sucky ^H every time you hit a
> back space key feature..."
> Had you been exposed to Unix for any length of time, you would know how to
> solve that problem simply. Any Linux user worth their distro SHOULD know
> how.
How on earth should any Linux user know? If you'd said any *nix
admin worth his money should know, I'd agree. But alas you don't
tell him to do how, so he won't get anything out of your
contribution. IIRC 'stty erase ^H' or so should solve the problem.
[..]
> BTW, the Java Desktop is really nothing more than Gnome, the preferred
> desktop of many a Linux user.
Yep, from what I saw some time ago during a short test it was
just a customized suse, nothing more.
Anyway, if customer demand something like this to take advantage
of the usually pretty good Sun support, why not?
Not really uncommon, once met a guy from Cray supercomputing,
during some Linux course. Curious about the fact asked him, and
he answered customers running Linux in addition to their systems
would demand Linux support from them. Which is one of the great
things about Linux, anyone can support it in opposite to closed
source OS, where you can't chose.
> I'm not saying that Solaris is better than Linux, I prefer Linux all day
> long. But if you're going to make derogatoy remarks, at least be educated
> about them.
Yep, Solaris is a pretty good/reliable unix OS, the one problem
it faces strong competition from Linux, which outperforms it on
cheaper hardware and runs as stable.
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvp...@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 313: your process is not ISO 9000 compliant
Captain Dondo
Anyone wonder why the WinTrolls are trying to steer people to Solaris?
SInce I left my tinfoil hat at home, I'm going to guess that they see
the linux juggernaut rolling, and they want to steer people towards
another *nix, that may not be as good? ;-)
Then they can point and say, "See, that unix crap is no good, I told you
so, here, install Windows!"
;-)
KJ
> Anyone wonder why the WinTrolls are trying to steer people to Solaris?
> SInce I left my tinfoil hat at home, I'm going to guess that they see
> the linux juggernaut rolling, and they want to steer people towards
> another *nix, that may not be as good? ;-)
>
> Then they can point and say, "See, that unix crap is no good, I told you
> so, here, install Windows!"
>
> ;-)
Hardly. Anyone should try them all and make their own judgment. None
are perfect, but each has it's strengths. I'm biased and will migrate
from Linux to Solaris next week, but that doesn't mean I think either is
inferior to the other. Like any other topic, use the right tool for the
job. That's all an OS is, a tool.
esste...@worldbadminton.com
:> ;-)
: Hardly. Anyone should try them all and make their own judgment. None
: are perfect, but each has it's strengths. I'm biased and will migrate
: from Linux to Solaris next week, but that doesn't mean I think either is
: inferior to the other. Like any other topic, use the right tool for the
: job. That's all an OS is, a tool.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
careful what you say- for many here it is a religion and you could
easily get flamed for your blasphemy.
Good to hear a rational voice here every now and then. Of
course I agree 100%- OS is just another tool among many.
Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com
Tony Lawrence
> In comp.os.linux.misc KJ <he...@there.net> wrote:
> :> ;-)
>
> : Hardly. Anyone should try them all and make their own judgment. None
> : are perfect, but each has it's strengths. I'm biased and will migrate
> : from Linux to Solaris next week, but that doesn't mean I think either is
> : inferior to the other. Like any other topic, use the right tool for the
> : job. That's all an OS is, a tool.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> careful what you say- for many here it is a religion and you could
> easily get flamed for your blasphemy.
>
> Good to hear a rational voice here every now and then. Of
> course I agree 100%- OS is just another tool among many.
>
Yes, an OS is just a tool.. but there are tools and then there are tools.
I understand your comment about religion and I certainly agree: there
are zealots for just about every OS - some have more than others, of
course. I don't like zealots, whether they are pushing Jesus, Linux, or
the latest fad diet.
I do have a bias, not toward a specific OS, but I admit to liking
Unixish style much better than anything else. I also have a political
bias toward Open Source and against software patents and traditional
copyrights, but that has weaker binding than my Unix-like preference.
But for the most part, computers are just tools to accomplish some other
task. Much of what I do could be done on any OS, so I find it hard to
get really incensed about any of it. I dislike Microsoft much more for
their corporate behaviour than for their OS features (though there's
plenty there to dislike!). There are still computer hobbyists who are
using their systems more or less as most of us did way back in the 70's
when this all started, but those folks are a very small minority today..
and the real hobbyists are probably playing with experimental OSes much
more than anything else ( see http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/hobbyos.html ).
--
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Jeff_Relf
Hi John_Bailo, You told me:
While waiting to see Lenny Kravitz, I visited Elliot Bay Books
and purchased " Infinity and the Mind " by Rudy Rucker.
In chapter 2, he writes about the birth of our understanding of infinity.
He mentions infinite sets, whose subsets are also infinite and hence equal.
This reminded me of the speed of light.
A beam of light must be an infinite set.
Zero is a mere approximation, as the precision is always finite.
I have no idea why you think: A beam of light must be an infinite set.
Andrew Schulman
I have no idea why you think: this belongs on comp.os.linux.misc.
--
To reply by email, replace "deadspam.com" by "alumni.utexas.net"
John Bailo
> Hi John_Bailo, You told me:
> While waiting to see Lenny Kravitz, I visited Elliot Bay Books
> and purchased " Infinity and the Mind " by Rudy Rucker.
> In chapter 2, he writes about the birth of our understanding of infinity.
> He mentions infinite sets, whose subsets are also infinite and hence equal.
> This reminded me of the speed of light.
> A beam of light must be an infinite set.
>
> Infinity is not a number, plain and simple.
The Aleph is Georg Cantor's representation as such and he was able to
use it in calculations as a number.
He is a genius.
http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/history/cantor.html
> Zero is a mere approximation, as the precision is always finite.
>
> I have no idea why you think: A beam of light must be an infinite set.
>
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://texeme.com
Peter T. Breuer
> Jeff_Relf wrote:
> > Hi John_Bailo, You told me:
> > While waiting to see Lenny Kravitz, I visited Elliot Bay Books
> > and purchased " Infinity and the Mind " by Rudy Rucker.
> > In chapter 2, he writes about the birth of our understanding of infinity.
> > He mentions infinite sets, whose subsets are also infinite and hence equal.
Well, some of them are.
> > This reminded me of the speed of light.
> > A beam of light must be an infinite set.
> >
> > Infinity is not a number, plain and simple.
> The Aleph is Georg Cantor's representation as such and he was able to
> use it in calculations as a number.
That's countable infinity, cardinal. I suspect he meant the first
ordinal infinity by "infinity". That is, omega, which is one less than
omega plus one. And very countable. He meant the limit of all finite
integer speeds, which is definitely the ordinal omega.
Or maybe he meant an upper limit for all real numbers. I think that
would be omega too, but we'd have to move into the surreal domain from
the ordinal domain to compute it ... yes it is.
Or maybe he meant some nonstandard model of the peano axiom system?
There are plenty of those, with numbers greater than any finite
number. But the trouble is that anything that you say about all
large finite numbers is automatically true of the extra numbers too,
in such systems, so they're a bit strange. A fraction that tends to
one of all of them tend to have nontrivial factors. Unforunately,
nobody is going to see them all, in any case! Oh, and half of them are
divisible by two.
> He is a genius.
Was. And an 80 year old genius at that.
> http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/history/cantor.html
> > Zero is a mere approximation, as the precision is always finite.
Grumph. Well, we know what he means. Any measurement of a real quantity
is an approximation to the truth, "zero" included.
> >
> > I have no idea why you think: A beam of light must be an infinite set.
> >
He is on mushrooms.
Peter
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 12:07 AM, p...@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) said:
>Or maybe he meant an upper limit for all real numbers. I think that
>would be omega too,
No. Google for "two point compactification".
>But the trouble is that anything that you say about all large finite
>numbers is automatically true of the extra numbers too,
No. Extend the reals and something has to give. Some properties carry
over, some don't. The Devil is in the details.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
John Winters
[snip]
>Why would MS waste time worrying about an OS that has such a low market
>share?
I don't know - why do they place so many adverts trying to convince
people that their OS is better than Linux? You can kid yourself all
you like - Microsoft clearly are *very* worried, or they wouldn't
be spending all that money.
>PLEASE! Get a life, MS has bigger things to worry about than
>Linux.
So explain the spend.
John
--
Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England
i = (free(NULL), i++);
John Winters
[snip drivel]
What I really love about these postings is how the author makes it
crystal clear that he doesn't even understand the words he's using.
It's like it's meant to be a technical report but written by a marketing
droid.
Peter T. Breuer
> begin In <ol32m2-...@news.it.uc3m.es>, on 05/21/2005
> at 12:07 AM, p...@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) said:
> >Or maybe he meant an upper limit for all real numbers. I think that
> >would be omega too,
> No. Google for "two point compactification".
Thanks, but I don''t need to. Two point compactification of what? The
reals? That would be the reals plus pos/neg infinity, and the added
points are the ordinal pos/neg omega, by the isomrphism of the embedded
integers in the reals with the pos/neg ordinals.
And anyway, I as talking about the surreal numbers.
> >But the trouble is that anything that you say about all large finite
> >numbers is automatically true of the extra numbers too,
> No.
Yes. I am stating a well known model-theoretic characterisation
of non-standard models of Peano arithmetic. The induction axiom has to
hold. I.e. if p(0) & p(x)->p(x+1), then p holds for all numbers. How do
you prove something about "all large finite numbers"? That's right -
you use induction.
> Extend the reals and something has to give.
I extended Peano arithmetic, not the reals. The reals have the extra
axiom that every bounded set has a supremum. If you were to add that
axiom to (non-standard) Peano integers, you would be able to start
distinguishing some of the extra numbers, and induction would break
down.
> Some properties carry
> over, some don't. The Devil is in the details.
Peter
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 08:19 AM, p...@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) said:
>Thanks, but I don''t need to. Two point compactification of what?
>The reals? That would be the reals plus pos/neg infinity, and the
>added points are the ordinal pos/neg omega, by the isomrphism of the
>embedded integers in the reals with the pos/neg ordinals.
While you could do it that way, I haven't seen it done and there
doesn't seem much point to it.
>Yes. I am stating a well known model-theoretic characterisation of
>non-standard models of Peano arithmetic.
Stating it imprecisely.
>How do you prove something about "all large finite numbers"?
The term "finite" in the model doesn't mean the same as "finite" in
the system used to construct the model. You need precise language when
dealing with models.
Sandlin
Nice site. Have it bookmarked.
Tony Lawrence
Thanks for the kind words, though my view of it is more like the junk
room that never gets cleaned up.. :-) Gad, there's stuff there that
dates from TRS-80 days.. but I just don't have the heart to clean it up.
--
Jorgen Moquist
> A client called my firm up to help them improve the performance of their
> business modeling applications.
>
Client ?, customer i hope !
/jörgen