/proc/dasd/devices
Can anyone refresh my memory? What do I echo to /proc/dasd/devices to get the kernel to find a new DASD pack? Thanks. - Jason Herne ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: /proc/dasd/devices
Can anyone refresh my memory? What do I echo to /proc/dasd/devices to get the kernel to find a new DASD pack? Thanks. Yes, just echo add range=xxx-yyy /proc/dasd/devices. -- Guillaume Morin [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Poughkeepsie SAK Kernel Development
Re: /proc/dasd/devices
I can never remember either, that's why I like the script, dasd, that's in the Large Scale Deployment redbook: #!/bin/sh # dasd - simple utility for dynamic DASD management if [ $1 = add -a $2 != ]; then echo add range=$2 /proc/dasd/devices elif [ $1 = on -a $2 != ]; then echo set device range=$2 on /proc/dasd/devices elif [ $1 = off -a $2 != ]; then echo set device range=$2 off /proc/dasd/devices elif [ $1 = list ]; then cat /proc/dasd/devices else echo Usage: dasd add|on|off vdev_or_range 12 echo dasd list 12 exit 2 fi -Mike MacIsaac, IBM mikemac at us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Error from SYSLOGD
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:39, you wrote: I have recently upgraded my kernel to 2.4.9-38 with the OCO code for the qdio support. Do I also need to upgrade syslogd and other products? I wouldn't go further than applying any official updates: your vendor thinks it should work. I don't think you're doing a lot of I/O - I recall an Amdahl box clocking 600 pages/sec in the early 80s, and all seemed fine. But then, I'm woefully ignorant of recent hardware. IBM's roadshow came to Perth today;-) I didn't get to see a zedBox, but they assured me a box they did have could have had a Zed in it. There was an ATL I'm sure I could sit at the end of my desk (I have a concrete floor) and which uses 200 Mbyte tapes. Has umpteen petabytes of capacity. The talk about storage virtualisation was interesting: it outlined where IBM's going after SAN. And there was a presentation on Linux Virtual Servers: mostly Zeds, VM Linux, but coming to IA32 with vmware by year's end. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Daniel, You're welcome, but did it help you to the point you're working now? Mark Post -Original Message- From: Daniel Jarboe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend Thank you Mark, that was exactly what I was looking for (it is a lot more specific than the RACF authentication portion outlined in the OpenLDAP chapter of Linux on IBM zSeries and S/390: System Management). Have you read the IBM Redpaper on this? Linux on IBM zSeries and S/390: Securing Linux for zSeries with a Central z/OS LDAP Server (RACF) http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0221.pdf ~ Daniel --- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Another reference is SC24-5923, Security Server LDAP Server Administration and Use. All 3 are handy to keep open when trying to figure it out. What one doesn't explain properly, the others do. On Thursday 05 June 2003 11:36, you wrote: Daniel, You're welcome, but did it help you to the point you're working now? Mark Post -Original Message- From: Daniel Jarboe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend Thank you Mark, that was exactly what I was looking for (it is a lot more specific than the RACF authentication portion outlined in the OpenLDAP chapter of Linux on IBM zSeries and S/390: System Management). Have you read the IBM Redpaper on this? Linux on IBM zSeries and S/390: Securing Linux for zSeries with a Central z/OS LDAP Server (RACF) http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0221.pdf ~ Daniel - -- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Joe, You had to know I was going to ask this... :) Do have a pointer to an online version of this? Mark Post -Original Message- From: Joe Poole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend Another reference is SC24-5923, Security Server LDAP Server Administration and Use. All 3 are handy to keep open when trying to figure it out. What one doesn't explain properly, the others do. On Thursday 05 June 2003 11:36, you wrote: Daniel, You're welcome, but did it help you to the point you're working now? Mark Post -Original Message- From: Daniel Jarboe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend Thank you Mark, that was exactly what I was looking for (it is a lot more specific than the RACF authentication portion outlined in the OpenLDAP chapter of Linux on IBM zSeries and S/390: System Management). Have you read the IBM Redpaper on this? Linux on IBM zSeries and S/390: Securing Linux for zSeries with a Central z/OS LDAP Server (RACF) http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0221.pdf ~ Daniel - -- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Go to... http://www.elink.ibmlink.ibm.com/public/applications/publications/cgibin/pbi.cgi?CTY=US Click 'search for publications' type 'sc24-5923' in the publication number, and hit Go. The actual link is much too long to paste here without wrapping. On Thursday 05 June 2003 12:02, you wrote: Joe, You had to know I was going to ask this... :) Do have a pointer to an online version of this? Mark Post
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Hmm. After all is said and done (and clicked upon), it looks like this is the pot of gold: http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/glda2a21.pdf And a mere 500 pages, too. ;) Thanks for the directions! Mark Post -Original Message- From: Joe Poole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend Go to... http://www.elink.ibmlink.ibm.com/public/applications/publications/cgibin/pbi .cgi?CTY=US Click 'search for publications' type 'sc24-5923' in the publication number, and hit Go. The actual link is much too long to paste here without wrapping. On Thursday 05 June 2003 12:02, you wrote: Joe, You had to know I was going to ask this... :) Do have a pointer to an online version of this? Mark Post
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Actually the link is shorter than the link you just posted :) http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/glda2a21.pdf |-+ | | Joe Poole| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | om | | | Sent by: Linux on| | | 390 Port | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | IST.EDU | | || | || | | 06/05/2003 12:16 | | | PM | | | Please respond to| | | Linux on 390 Port| | || |-+ --| | | | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend | --| Go to... http://www.elink.ibmlink.ibm.com/public/applications/publications/cgibin/pbi.cgi?CTY=US Click 'search for publications' type 'sc24-5923' in the publication number, and hit Go. The actual link is much too long to paste here without wrapping. On Thursday 05 June 2003 12:02, you wrote: Joe, You had to know I was going to ask this... :) Do have a pointer to an online version of this? Mark Post
moving db2 data
has anyone moved db2 data from vse to Linux db2?? i have gotten the export to work.. it exports a db2 table to a pc hard disk in ixf format i assume the import will work the same.. what i am needing is the ddl (data def lang) for the table define. i don't want to have to define all my tables on Linux i should be able to import that to Linux for creation.. if that can't be done i guess i need to use something else besides db2.. maybe Mysql or Post Sql.. or whatever if db2 can't move the data i might as well use another database..one that is free.. thanks Ralph
Re: moving db2 data
Hi, I don't know if the db2 for VM have the external command db2look. The -e generate the DDL of the object. Have a look in the Command Reference. Flavien Noll, Ralph a icrit : has anyone moved db2 data from vse to Linux db2?? i have gotten the export to work.. it exports a db2 table to a pc hard disk in ixf format i assume the import will work the same.. what i am needing is the ddl (data def lang) for the table define. i don't want to have to define all my tables on Linux i should be able to import that to Linux for creation.. if that can't be done i guess i need to use something else besides db2.. maybe Mysql or Post Sql.. or whatever if db2 can't move the data i might as well use another database..one that is free.. thanks Ralph
DIAG discipline driver/patch for Redhat 7.2
Anyone have a reference as to if and where it is available, to implement VDISK swapping. Thanks, Charles Kiser Qwest Communications begin:vcard n:Kiser;Charles tel;pager:303-852-0433 tel;work:720-540-2002 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.qwest.com org:;QWEST Information Technologies -OI adr:;;5325 Zuni St. Room 679;Denver;CO;80221;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] fn:Charles Kiser end:vcard
GCC Developer's Summit Proceedings
I found this link to the GCC Developer's Summit Proceedings on the GCC web site. The proceedings include an article on Porting GCC to the IBM S/390 platform by Hartmut Penner and Ulrich Weigand which may be of interest to some people on this forum. The summit conference page is http://www.gccsummit.org/2003/ and the direct link to the proceedings (1.3M) is http://www.linux.org.uk/~ajh/gcc/gccsummit-2003-proceedings.pdf David Bond - Tachyon Software LLC
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Here's one that works for me. It asks if a userid is connected to a certain RACF group. LDAPSRCH -v -h MVSHOST1 -p 3389 - -D racfid=LDAPBIND,profileType=user,sysplex=BOSCOVS_RACF - -w BINDER - -b profiletype=connect,sysplex=BOSCOVS_RACF - ((racfuserid=tsouser)(racfgroupid=DIALGRP)) On Thursday 05 June 2003 15:02, you wrote: You're welcome, but did it help you to the point you're working now? I thought it would be a piece of cake after reading that redpaper... but after much trial and error, I'm still having problems. Here's what I'm up to... pam.d/httpd is a mere: authrequired pam_ldap.so account required pam_ldap.so passwordrequired pam_ldap.so Which should be enough, really. /etc/openldap/ldap.conf is: host (host is fine) base profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX binddn racfid=(racfid),profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX bindpw (password in plain text) ldap_version 3 pam_login_attribute racfid SASL_SECPROPS = none That racfid is from somebody with AUDITOR The messages I'm getting now are: Jun 5 14:38:20 linmast httpd: nss_ldap: could not search LDAP server - Insufficient access Jun 5 14:38:20 linmast last message repeated 15 times Jun 5 14:38:23 linmast httpd: pam_ldap: ldap_search_s Insufficient access Though in the past I also saw: Jun 5 14:19:43 linmast httpd: nss_ldap: could not search LDAP server - DSA is unwilling to perform, but that was when I had ldap in nsswitch.conf. With ldapsearch I have to use -x or the bind fails, so I've tried with and without the SASL_SECPROPS none. Ldapsearch worked with -P 3 so ldap_version 3 should not be breaking anything. And ldapsearch -x -D (racfid),profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX -W -b racfid=(someoneelse),profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX objectclass=* works fine. It fails if I don't specify the -D -W though... Perhaps incorrectly I thought that ldapsearch would bind with the dn specified in /etc/openldap/ldap.conf if none was provided on the command line, but I get: text: R000137 'CN=ANYBODY' is not a valid RACF DN for bind. Check that the syntax is correct and that it is a DN for a RACF user. All in all it's a mess. ~ Daniel - -- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
Re: DIAG discipline driver/patch for Redhat 7.2
Try this link: http://linuxvm.org/Info/HOWTOs/vdiskswp.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/03 02:06PM Anyone have a reference as to if and where it is available, to implement VDISK swapping. Thanks, Charles Kiser Qwest Communications
Support for SuSE SLES 8
I am looking for additional support for a SuSE SLES 8 distribution. I would like a defect and how to support that I can connect to via phone. If anyone out there has this type support or knows a source of this type of support, could you contact me of list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] TIA, Loren Charnley, Jr. Tech Support Administrator Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Phone: (704) 847-6961 Ext. 2000
Re: DIAG discipline driver/patch for Redhat 7.2
Except that is now somewhat out of date, based on what we know now. What you should do now is download this: http://www.sinenomine.net/downloads/SWAPGEN.EXEC Then, make sure your Linux/390 system either does not have FBA support at all, or that it gets loaded _after_ the dasd_diag_mod module so that the swap disk gets picked up by the DIAG code, and not the FBA code. Mark Post -Original Message- From: David Holt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DIAG discipline driver/patch for Redhat 7.2 Try this link: http://linuxvm.org/Info/HOWTOs/vdiskswp.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/03 02:06PM Anyone have a reference as to if and where it is available, to implement VDISK swapping. Thanks, Charles Kiser Qwest Communications
un- subscribe
please un-subscribe me from the list Craig Moody Linux Architect US Linux National Practice Springfield Il 217-793-5880 T/L 747-5880 Mobile Office 217-698-3341 Cellular Phone 217-341-5151 Internet ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ANNOUNCEMENT: Java SDK 1.4.1 is available
The Java SDK v1.4.1 from IBM has been released on all platforms and some are now available for download from developerworks. New Linux platforms supported with this release are 64 bit versions for iSeries, pSeries and zSeries. NOTE that not all the pages on developerworks have yet been updated to reflect the release, but point your browser at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/index.html and you will find the SDKs. Enjoy, Jim
Re: un- subscribe
Hello from Gregg C Levine Typically following these instructions, except substituting this list for the one on it: -- For IBMTCP-L subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO IBMTCP-L Will work. Or at least it should. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Moody Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 4:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LINUX-390] un- subscribe please un-subscribe me from the list Craig Moody Linux Architect US Linux National Practice Springfield Il 217-793-5880 T/L 747-5880 Mobile Office 217-698-3341 Cellular Phone 217-341-5151 Internet ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend
Well, there are some other things you might try. In ldap.conf: do you have pam_password clear did you specify binddn did you specify bindpw - this can alternately be put in /etc/ldap.secret with permissions of 600 Mark Post -Original Message- From: Daniel Jarboe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pam_ldap to LDAP server on z/OS with RACF backend You're welcome, but did it help you to the point you're working now? I thought it would be a piece of cake after reading that redpaper... but after much trial and error, I'm still having problems. Here's what I'm up to... pam.d/httpd is a mere: authrequired pam_ldap.so account required pam_ldap.so passwordrequired pam_ldap.so Which should be enough, really. /etc/openldap/ldap.conf is: host (host is fine) base profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX binddn racfid=(racfid),profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX bindpw (password in plain text) ldap_version 3 pam_login_attribute racfid SASL_SECPROPS = none That racfid is from somebody with AUDITOR The messages I'm getting now are: Jun 5 14:38:20 linmast httpd: nss_ldap: could not search LDAP server - Insufficient access Jun 5 14:38:20 linmast last message repeated 15 times Jun 5 14:38:23 linmast httpd: pam_ldap: ldap_search_s Insufficient access Though in the past I also saw: Jun 5 14:19:43 linmast httpd: nss_ldap: could not search LDAP server - DSA is unwilling to perform, but that was when I had ldap in nsswitch.conf. With ldapsearch I have to use -x or the bind fails, so I've tried with and without the SASL_SECPROPS none. Ldapsearch worked with -P 3 so ldap_version 3 should not be breaking anything. And ldapsearch -x -D (racfid),profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX -W -b racfid=(someoneelse),profiletype=user,sysplex=TIMEPLEX objectclass=* works fine. It fails if I don't specify the -D -W though... Perhaps incorrectly I thought that ldapsearch would bind with the dn specified in /etc/openldap/ldap.conf if none was provided on the command line, but I get: text: R000137 'CN=ANYBODY' is not a valid RACF DN for bind. Check that the syntax is correct and that it is a DN for a RACF user. All in all it's a mess. ~ Daniel --- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
Re: SLES8 dasdfmt problem
I believe that we have the Ramac Dasd Subsystem model 23 with the B23 drawers. I still rather refuse to believe that it is a problem with the controllers. If you can vary them online, CP can use them so I don't see why Linux would have a problem. Friday, I will take a look at my linux(s) and see if I can add dasd. I did it with Linux 7 so I have a couple notes on how I did it. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Dave Myers wrote: Well our ramacs are not working. There is no dasd or 3990 info in /proc/subchannels after the dasd is loaded from yast. /proc/dasd/devices shows the 3380 with an unknown status. No insmods, rmmods modprobes etc. change that symptom. mknod comes back with a message indicating that the 94:0 is already registered..but the linux console messages say otherwise!! I am wondering if 3990-13 might be the problem??? Do you use mod 13 controllers on your ramac?? Dave Myers Denver Solutions Group Senior Systems Engineer Office Phone: (303) 996-7112 Cellular Phone: (303) 619-0782 Home Office:(303) 948-0027 Fax: (303) 706.1713 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Duerbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] scity.com cc: Sent by: Linux onSubject: Re: SLES8 dasdfmt problem 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] ST.EDU 06/04/2003 08:33 AM Please respond to Linux on 390 Port Don't worry about the Ramacs. I have Suse 8 loaded on both 3380 and 3390 Ramac Dasd Subsystems, as well as MP3000 internal dasd. I haven't had to add disk. Mine were added durning installation. I assume that you went to the Suse website. There is a paper on adding S390 dasd to a running Linux system. That worked for me when I added dasd to Linux 7. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting
Re: Support for SuSE SLES 8
SuSE use to have a full support option. It was called Premier support. They have farmed it out to SuSE Business Partners. Go to the SuSE.DE web page and give them a call. They will give you a Business partner in your area. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Loren Charnley, Jr. wrote: I am looking for additional support for a SuSE SLES 8 distribution. I would like a defect and how to support that I can connect to via phone. If anyone out there has this type support or knows a source of this type of support, could you contact me of list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] TIA, Loren Charnley, Jr. Tech Support Administrator Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Phone: (704) 847-6961 Ext. 2000
Microsoft: Linux is a threat
Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Peter Webb Technical Support Analyst Toronto Transit Commission IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly)and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this e-mail in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Toronto Star, March 15, 2003.
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 16:36, Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission wrote: Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Its amazing how this leaked after he'd sold all those shares. Or do I just have a suspicious mind
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
You may have a suspicious mind, but that does not change the fact that the timing is suspicious. Kind of like the old saying: Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean there not out to get you. -Original Message- From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 16:36, Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission wrote: Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Its amazing how this leaked after he'd sold all those shares. Or do I just have a suspicious mind
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
How many more shares did he sell short? Great Minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover Gordon Wolfe, Ph.D. (425)856-5940 VM Enterprise Servers, The Boeing Company -- From: Alan Cox Reply To: Linux on 390 Port Sent: Friday, June 6, 2003 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 16:36, Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission wrote: Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Its amazing how this leaked after he'd sold all those shares. Or do I just have a suspicious mind
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
The quote that struck me the most was this: IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, Ballmer said. My first reaction was _illusion_ of support and accountability? That sounds more like Microsoft to me. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Microsoft: Linux is a threat Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Peter Webb Technical Support Analyst Toronto Transit Commission
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
Does that mean that folks in this group are just an illusion? I've seen a lot of support come out of this group in the short time I've been lurking. :-) -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat The quote that struck me the most was this: IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, Ballmer said. My first reaction was _illusion_ of support and accountability? That sounds more like Microsoft to me. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Microsoft: Linux is a threat Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Peter Webb Technical Support Analyst Toronto Transit Commission
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 01:43, you wrote: -- From: KEETON Dave B Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:43:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat Auto forwarded by a Rule Does that mean that folks in this group are just an illusion? I've seen a lot of support come out of this group in the short time I've been lurking. :-) I guess we aren't accountable though. -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat The quote that struck me the most was this: IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, Ballmer said. My first reaction was _illusion_ of support and accountability? That sounds more like Microsoft to me. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Microsoft: Linux is a threat Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Peter Webb Technical Support Analyst Toronto Transit Commission -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
More on SCO and Linux
This is a worthwhile read http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030605.html Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
Linux's weakness, however, was the lack of a central body investing in its development in areas such as engineering, manageability, compatibility and security, Ballmer said. Someone should explain to Mr. Balmer that this weakness is kicking his butt. Especially considering that with all of the money that Microsoft has to invest they still can't seem to produce a manageable, or secure, product. Whew, talk about sleeping through the alarm clock. I wonder what it's going to take to wake Redmond up? On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 10:43, ODOT zSeries Linux wrote: -- From: KEETON Dave B Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:43:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat Auto forwarded by a Rule Does that mean that folks in this group are just an illusion? I've seen a lot of support come out of this group in the short time I've been lurking. :-) -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat The quote that struck me the most was this: IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, Ballmer said. My first reaction was _illusion_ of support and accountability? That sounds more like Microsoft to me. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Microsoft: Linux is a threat Microsoft Corp chief executive, Steve Ballmer warned his staff in an e-mail on Thursday that cheap Linux-based software is a growing threat to the software titan. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_273556,0003.htm Peter Webb Technical Support Analyst Toronto Transit Commission --
Re: More on SCO and Linux
Very interesting. Ken At 12:49 PM 6/6/2003 -0700, you wrote: This is a worthwhile read http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030605.html Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck Kenneth G. Dreger Sr. Systems Programmer Consultant in OS390, z/OS Systems support, z/OS OS390 Capacity Performance reporting, Linux 390 systems support, Web page consulting, Systems Security Member Southern California HTCIA Personal Home pages: http://www.ken.dreger.com Contracting services available at reasonable rates Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender.
strange sendmail problem
We've been experiencing a strange problem that is baffling our mail and network gurus. Our listserv server is hosted on a linux/390 RH 7.2 image. Aside from some hiccups when the server was first built, listserv has just worked. Recently, however, I moved the listserv image from the RH 2.4.9-38 kernel to 2.4.19 with the IBM patches applied and moved from IUCV connections to a guestlan architecture. We immediately began seeing undelivered mail to a few specific sites pile up in the mqueue. Most of the listserv traffic was being delivered but a few sites returned connection refused or connection timed out. These sites, incidentally, also feature higher security then the others. The DNS servers at our site and at the recipient's sites both had the correct info, so it doesn't appear to be a lookup issue. Sending mail manually from the command line (and telnetting to 25) also elicited the same responses. We moved listserv back to the IUCV connection and original ip but the behavior remained the same. In the course of testing, we found that some RH 9 boxes that we have also refuse to take any mail from the server. A quick glance at the logs and sniff of the traffic shows that the connection is rejected before any mail negotiation takes place, as if the packets are malformed or unacceptable in some way. We can traceroute and ping successfully, however. Does this ring any bells for anyone? I would backlevel the server to 2.4.9-38 (although I'm not convinced that the kernel is the problem), but I can't seem to find the rpm any longer. TIA, Michael Lambert
Re: More on SCO and Linux
This is most interesting. Here's a rather funny question that's been kicking around in my pointy head for a couple of weeks: If SCO doesn't own the rights to Unix, as Novell claims, than what was it that Microsoft purchased from SCO? On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 13:15, Ken Dreger wrote: Very interesting. Ken At 12:49 PM 6/6/2003 -0700, you wrote: This is a worthwhile read http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030605.html Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck Kenneth G. Dreger Sr. Systems Programmer Consultant in OS390, z/OS Systems support, z/OS OS390 Capacity Performance reporting, Linux 390 systems support, Web page consulting, Systems Security Member Southern California HTCIA Personal Home pages: http://www.ken.dreger.com Contracting services available at reasonable rates Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender. --
Re: More on SCO and Linux
A proxy in the war against Linux. -Original Message- From: Steven A. Adams [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More on SCO and Linux This is most interesting. Here's a rather funny question that's been kicking around in my pointy head for a couple of weeks: If SCO doesn't own the rights to Unix, as Novell claims, than what was it that Microsoft purchased from SCO?
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
Does that mean that folks in this group are just an illusion? Of course it does - didn't you know that all the answers here are generated automatically by a pipe written by Rob, fed over a network link from Alan via an interface written by Neil? Whew, talk about sleeping through the alarm clock. I wonder what it's going to take to wake Redmond up? That's not the point. It's the sheer blindness of people where Windows is concerned that's the problem - quite frankly, I don't think that they know any better. It drove me to tears in my last job. And the problem is exacerbated by managers who think that the thing that they have at home that they play games on can be used to run a company. Now, if OS/2 had been promoted as a home system... no, wait that's another story... To be honest, most of the Windows people that I've had to deal with don't know anything about alternatives and quite frankly, they wouldn't last two minutes on a more complex system. Sigh... I despair, really, I do... Rod
Re: More on SCO and Linux
I understand that this was the intent but from the looks of it they ended up with beach-front property in Idaho. On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 14:15, Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission wrote: A proxy in the war against Linux. -Original Message- From: Steven A. Adams [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More on SCO and Linux This is most interesting. Here's a rather funny question that's been kicking around in my pointy head for a couple of weeks: If SCO doesn't own the rights to Unix, as Novell claims, than what was it that Microsoft purchased from SCO? --
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
-Original Message- From: Rod Furey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat snip To be honest, most of the Windows people that I've had to deal with don't know anything about alternatives and quite frankly, they wouldn't last two minutes on a more complex system. Sigh... I despair, really, I do... Rod I agree. One of our LAN people made a router change which interrupted about 200 CICS users (TCP connected). They entered a problem ticket on it. His question: What's the big deal? It was less than a minute and they're all back working now. This is not to say that the LAN people don't care, but just that they don't understand the mainframe availability standards that the users demand. Why the same users don't scream when an Win2K server is down, I don't know. I guess they are used to Win2K servers being flakey. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer UICI Insurance Center Applications Solutions Team +1.817.255.3225 This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its' content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
SCO owns Unix
New claims by SCO claim they *do* own Unix http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81887,00.html?nas=PM-81887 Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
Just Microslop talking in terms they are familar withthe illusion of support. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/06 4:19 PM Does that mean that folks in this group are just an illusion?
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 14:19, Rod Furey wrote: Does that mean that folks in this group are just an illusion? Of course it does - didn't you know that all the answers here are generated automatically by a pipe written by Rob, fed over a network link from Alan via an interface written by Neil? Whew, talk about sleeping through the alarm clock. I wonder what it's going to take to wake Redmond up? That's not the point. We'll have to disagree on this one (which is ok by me). Bill and the boys are the only ones that will correct the err of their ways. As soon as they wake up and realize that their market share is diminishing they will take care of the problem(s) with their product (which happens to be, IMHO, the belief that the product will effectively run in the data center along side of mature and stable operating systems). It's the sheer blindness of people where Windows is concerned that's the problem - quite frankly, I don't think that they know any better. It drove me to tears in my last job. And the problem is exacerbated by managers who think that the thing that they have at home that they play games on can be used to run a company. Now, if OS/2 had been promoted as a home system... no, wait that's another story... From my experience it's been a *hope* that their home PC would do what they needed at work. If they could be made to do this then all of that MSFT stock that they own would be worth enough to feed a small country for a decade. To be honest, most of the Windows people that I've had to deal with don't know anything about alternatives and quite frankly, they wouldn't last two minutes on a more complex system. Sigh... I despair, really, I do... The margin is narrowing. I work with a lot of sharp Windows folks that are starting to show a big interest in the more complex midrange and mainframe installations, some of these folks will succeed. Welcome change too, get some fresh blood in too fill the openings left from the impending retirements.
Re: SCO owns Unix
It appears that there is still no evidence to back this claim up. On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 14:36, Lionel Dyck wrote: New claims by SCO claim they *do* own Unix http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81887,00.html?nas=PM-81887 Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck --
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 04:17, you wrote: Someone should explain to Mr. Balmer that this weakness is kicking his butt. Especially considering that with all of the money that Microsoft has to invest they still can't seem to produce a manageable, or secure, product. Whew, talk about sleeping through the alarm clock. I wonder what it's going to take to wake Redmond up? Do you really think they don't understand the threat? I'm sure their understanding has little relationship to the truth: they say what they _want_ people to believe. The counter to illusion of support is to emphasise the support available from businesses such as Red Hat, SuSE, IBM, Sine Nomine Associates and anyone else who wants to. Every one of whom has unfettered access to all the documentation, including the source code. Emphasise too, that those who want to do it themselves also have unfettered access to all the documentation, including the source code. For the most part, individual developers are willing to discuss problems with their creations. I personally have exchanged information with several kernel developers, ESR (fetchmail) and some of the GNU authors. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 15:43, John Summerfield wrote: On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 04:17, you wrote: Someone should explain to Mr. Balmer that this weakness is kicking his butt. Especially considering that with all of the money that Microsoft has to invest they still can't seem to produce a manageable, or secure, product. Whew, talk about sleeping through the alarm clock. I wonder what it's going to take to wake Redmond up? Do you really think they don't understand the threat? I'm sure their understanding has little relationship to the truth: they say what they _want_ people to believe. John, It really wasn't intended to be quite so serious. But since you mention it, I am not convinced that they do understand. I'm sure that we have all seen the interviews with x-MS'ers that speak to the fact that they may well be this disconnected. Of course my paranoid side wants to believe that it's all a play on words to get the community to believe that Linux is insecure, unmanageable and evil. As far as the support illusion, I too have had excellent experiences working through issues directly with developers and members of the open-source community.
Re: More on SCO and Linux
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 03:49, you wrote: This is a worthwhile read http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030605.html With salt. ... the only version of Linux that includes any IBM authorship claim is for the S/390 mainframes. What about JFS, the IBM OMNI driver project (alright, not kernel), Thinkpad other drivers, rs6000, pci hotplug - I've picked a few addresses out of the 2.4 kernel's MAINTAINERS list. Almost certainly there are IBMers involved who are not listed there. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: More on SCO and Linux
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 03:49, you wrote: This is a worthwhile read http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/31086.html -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 05:19, you wrote: That's not the point. It's the sheer blindness of people where Windows is concerned that's the problem - quite frankly, I don't think I dropped in to see some people I worked with in a bank. There, I was writing PL/1 code, using an IBM PC running Windows 2000 Professional and IBM's 3270 emulator. I did a little word processing. There was nothing I did, or that I know of that others did, that I couldn't do equally well (or better) with Linux. These are mainframe professionals, their PCs tools management provides. They had no idea about that they could do with Linux. I guess the job description of the network administrators does not include continuously monitor and evaluate alternative technologies. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: strange sendmail problem
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 04:42, you wrote: In the course of testing, we found that some RH 9 boxes that we have also refuse to take any mail from the server. A quick glance at the logs and sniff of the traffic shows that the connection is rejected before any mail negotiation takes place, as if the packets are malformed or unacceptable in some way. We can traceroute and ping successfully, however. RHL 9 boxes don't listen for incoming mail by default: you need to change its configuration. btw You are aware of the short support life of RHL 9 aren't you? -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 07:02, you wrote: John, It really wasn't intended to be quite so serious. But since you mention it, I am not convinced that they do understand. I'm sure that we have all seen the interviews with x-MS'ers that speak to the fact that they may well be this disconnected. Of course my paranoid side wants to I tend to think a good number below the top levels are: they'd be likely to believe what the bosses say. If you're right and Gates, Ballmer etc don't understand, then maybe we don't have much to worry about. I really don't think many people will be going back, and those who've made the move will continue to evangelise. Which is more effective: word of mouth, or paid advertising? believe that it's all a play on words to get the community to believe that Linux is insecure, unmanageable and evil. Well! I reallh do hope Bill can't manage it;-) -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: strange sendmail problem
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 03:42:57PM -0500, Michael Lambert wrote: We've been experiencing a strange problem that is baffling our mail and network gurus. Our listserv server is hosted on a linux/390 RH 7.2 image. Aside from some hiccups when the server was first built, listserv has just worked. Recently, however, I moved the listserv image from the RH 2.4.9-38 kernel to 2.4.19 with the IBM patches applied and moved from IUCV connections to a guestlan architecture. We immediately began seeing undelivered mail to a few specific sites pile up in the mqueue. Most of the listserv traffic was being delivered but a few sites returned connection refused or connection timed out. These sites, incidentally, also feature higher security then the others. What do you mean by higher security? What hosts do recieve messages? What hosts don't? The DNS servers at our site and at the recipient's sites both had the correct info, so it doesn't appear to be a lookup issue. Sending mail manually from the command line (and telnetting to 25) also elicited the same responses. We moved listserv back to the IUCV connection and original ip but the behavior remained the same. In the course of testing, we found that some RH 9 boxes that we have also refuse to take any mail from the server. A quick glance at the logs and sniff of the traffic shows that the connection is rejected before any mail negotiation takes place, as if the packets are malformed or unacceptable in some way. We can traceroute and ping successfully, however. Can you use any other tcp services? e.g: a simple http server? Does this ring any bells for anyone? I would backlevel the server to 2.4.9-38 (although I'm not convinced that the kernel is the problem), but I can't seem to find the rpm any longer. Is there any issue of IP address change and relay? Some hosts expect that mail should come only from specific IPs? -- Tzafrir Cohen +---+ http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---+
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 17:12, John Summerfield wrote: On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 07:02, you wrote: John, It really wasn't intended to be quite so serious. But since you mention it, I am not convinced that they do understand. I'm sure that we have all seen the interviews with x-MS'ers that speak to the fact that they may well be this disconnected. Of course my paranoid side wants to I tend to think a good number below the top levels are: they'd be likely to believe what the bosses say. If you're right and Gates, Ballmer etc don't understand, then maybe we don't have much to worry about. I really don't think many people will be going back, and those who've made the move will continue to evangelise. If they did fully understand it we would have been whipped into submission a long time ago. Which is more effective: word of mouth, or paid advertising? With the beating that the media is taking right now I'm thinking that stable installations and credible word of mouth is going to win (unfortunately, for some folks, it's a little too slow). believe that it's all a play on words to get the community to believe that Linux is insecure, unmanageable and evil. Well! I reallh do hope Bill can't manage it;-) Now this we can agree upon!
Re: More on SCO and Linux
On Sad, 2003-06-07 at 00:54, John Summerfield wrote: What about JFS, the IBM OMNI driver project (alright, not kernel), Thinkpad other drivers, rs6000, pci hotplug - I've picked a few addresses out of the 2.4 kernel's MAINTAINERS list. Almost certainly there are IBMers involved who are not listed there. There are quite a few, much more in 2.5. Sadly thinkpad mostly is not. In fact I've been trying to get docs for some thinkpad stuff from IBM for over two years now.
Re: Microsoft: Linux is a threat
On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 22:25, McKown, John wrote: I agree. One of our LAN people made a router change which interrupted about 200 CICS users (TCP connected). They entered a problem ticket on it. His question: What's the big deal? It was less than a minute and they're all back working now. This is not to say that the LAN people don't care, but just that they don't understand the mainframe availability standards that the users demand. Why the same users don't scream when an Win2K server is down, I don't know. I guess they are used to Win2K servers being flakey. Its about what you are used to. I have a friend who designs aeroplane wings. By their standard the QA even in an OS as solid as Linux is flakey 8) Alan
Re: strange sendmail problem
On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 21:42, Michael Lambert wrote: We immediately began seeing undelivered mail to a few specific sites pile up in the mqueue. Most of the listserv traffic was being delivered but a few sites returned connection refused or connection timed out. These sites, incidentally, also feature higher security then the others. More likely they think they do. If you build with ECN support you get all the nice new standards approved TCP features. A few old firewall systems mishandle ECN TCP. ALl the main vendors fixed this long ago so you are probably seeing a site with prehistoric firewalls or misconfigured firewall setups. You could kick em off (thats what we do for the linux-kernel list 8)) or turn ECN off ( echo 0 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn , or in a kernel build) Alan
Re: pgp vs gpg
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:33:25AM -0500, Tom Duerbusch wrote: My impression is that gpg is basically the same as pgp with the exception that gpg is fully in the public domain. GnuPG is not in the public domain, it is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation and licensed under the GPL. Great intent... But, just how compatable are they? I haven't found any statement in this area. Where did you look? Question 1.2 in the GnuPG FAQ says: 1.2) Is GnuPG compatible with PGP? In general, yes. GnuPG and newer PGP releases should be implementing the OpenPGP standard. But there are some interoperability problems. See question 5.1 for details. -- - mdz
Linux and Mainframes, Part 1: Odd Couple or Perfect Match?
See: http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2003060600326NWHESV; At first glance, Linux and the IBM mainframe are an odd couple. The teenage operating system and senior citizen computer are worlds apart in their origins and pricing philosophies, among other things. Yet they do make a good team, according to Maria Eisenhaendler and Ingolf Salm, co-authors of the new Prentice Hall book Linux on the Mainframe... Why does Linux run well on a mainframe? Eisenhaendler: There are two main reasons why Linux runs on the IBM mainframes so well. First, Linux is largely independent of the computer architecture on which it runs. The small amount of architecture-dependent Linux code is in well-defined locations in the Linux source tree. For Linux, the mainframe is just another supported architecture...
