Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
If you're going to call me out for ignoring things, missing things or simply not knowing things, please highlight what it is. the quote isn't very enlightening in this context. You have a nasty habit of referencing things without inlining them or referencing them directly, and this has gotten in the way of clear communication *multiple* times over the last week. I only wrote two lines and you still missed it I respond to what's written in the email I'm replying to, because that's what I've just read, and that's the context of the email. never mind the examples I had given in my original mail that do not only apply to remote content and that you wrongly interpreted. Honestly, I never expected you to be up in arms over being exposed to HTML syntax. I presumed you were concerned about libpng, libjpeg, swf and gif. As I clearly said both, but actually less so html. You seem to be under the impression Androids mail clients let you avoid all that but they do not. Talk about hitting your head against a brick wall. I presumed you were concerned about privacy concerns. Those are what most people who gripe about HTML email security are concerned with. That would be to do with scripts and remote content. Remote content Is as you have said almost always switchable and so was not a concern/thought of mine but yes, what people shout about. Scripts, well with Googles love of javascript (for obvious tracking reasons) I wouldn't be too surprised if that is enabled without recourse on android email. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
Either you ignored what I said about being able to disable loading remote content and being able to disable showing inline rich content, or you're seriously concerned about HTML parser vulnerabilities. You can't disable incoming rich content (which is the important one) like jpg logos on Android and which was the whole point. Considering most phones run Gingerbread it should be noted that this practice is actually rather dangerous. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 03/19/2013 05:09 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: If you're going to call me out for ignoring things, missing things or simply not knowing things, please highlight what it is. the quote isn't very enlightening in this context. You have a nasty habit of referencing things without inlining them or referencing them directly, and this has gotten in the way of clear communication *multiple* times over the last week. I only wrote two lines and you still missed it I respond to what's written in the email I'm replying to, because that's what I've just read, and that's the context of the email. never mind the examples I had given in my original mail that do not only apply to remote content and that you wrongly interpreted. Honestly, I never expected you to be up in arms over being exposed to HTML syntax. I presumed you were concerned about libpng, libjpeg, swf and gif. As I clearly said both, but actually less so html. You seem to be under the impression Androids mail clients let you avoid all that but they do not. Talk about hitting your head against a brick wall. I can't tell any more whether you're complaining about people sending HTML, whether you're complaining about receiving HTML emails without being able to avoid parsing them, or whether you're complaining about other people receiving HTML emails and their being placed at risk of parsing bugs as a result. If you're complaining about other people sending HTML emails: OK, fine. Politely point out to them that it's common courtesy not to send HTML emails. PLONK them if you need to. But make it clear this is what you're complaining about. I don't see the relevance of most of your arguments if your complaint is with other people sending HTML messages. If you're complaining about receiving HTML emails without being able to avoid parsing them: You're clearly technical enough to implement some solution to avoid it. One solution would be to grab the source of an existing mail client and patch it to not handle the HTML parts. Another solution would be to have your mail pass through a server which strips messages of those parts, or modifies them in some way to make them safe. Yet another solution would be to find a mail client which does this for you. I see no reason to continue raging about the state of the mail clients you use, if this is your argument. If you're complaining about other people receiving HTML emails and their being placed at risk of parsing bugs, then provide a solution (I detailed a few in the above paragraph) and allow them to adopt it if they wish. If what you're complaining about isn't enumerated above, please try to state it simply and clearly. I presumed you were concerned about privacy concerns. Those are what most people who gripe about HTML email security are concerned with. That would be to do with scripts and remote content. Remote content Is as you have said almost always switchable and so was not a concern/thought of mine but yes, what people shout about. Scripts, well with Googles love of javascript (for obvious tracking reasons) I wouldn't be too surprised if that is enabled without recourse on android email. I'm pretty sure I've never seen JS in email. Traditionally, tracking is done with image bugs. There's little to no point in using scripting in emails. And given Google is pushing as fast as they can away from RSS and toward Google+, I'm rather expecting them to look for ways to get away from email and XMPP, too. Further, most GMail users use the web interface; there's No Way In Hell Google would allow mail-delivered code to be executed from within that security context. That would be the fastlane to account hijacking. This argument boils down to: I don't trust Google, so I'd like to suggest they would use JS in emails, because that's scary, too. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
Wait, K9 Mail doesn't have a plain text option? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, as I am also unable to comprehend why K9 might enforce top-posting on replies. K9 Mail can do both plain text and bottom posting. Both set in Account settings/Sending mail. It can write but forces html onto users, which potentially includes jpg exploits, png exploits, html exploits, script exploits, font exploits... And before you say anything. For what benefit, annoying ads from paypal. I am quite capable of opening a browser and deciding which domains *I* trust?? Google's network fell into this trap and banned Windows, but did they fix the real problem or just raise the bar a little (though I expect they took other unreleased measures that would be more interesting)? Would be even worse on Iphones where webkit is forced and so as old as the rom image. Rom cycle time is a major reason why even on cyanogenmod I use firefox over the chrome package which is ancient. Of course on Apple laptops even, Safari's webkit is sometimes months old anywhow. Having knocked Android, I haven't found the time to try the latest native email app. I'm not expecting a no html option but I'm pretty sure it will have some major pluses over k9mail, which was a trade of good for bad on Gingerbread. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 03/18/2013 04:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Wait, K9 Mail doesn't have a plain text option? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, as I am also unable to comprehend why K9 might enforce top-posting on replies. K9 Mail can do both plain text and bottom posting. Both set in Account settings/Sending mail. It can write but forces html onto users, which potentially includes jpg exploits, png exploits, html exploits, script exploits, font exploits... And before you say anything. For what benefit, annoying ads from paypal. I am quite capable of opening a browser and deciding which domains *I* trust?? Google's network fell into this trap and banned Windows, but did they fix the real problem or just raise the bar a little (though I expect they took other unreleased measures that would be more interesting)? Would be even worse on Iphones where webkit is forced and so as old as the rom image. Rom cycle time is a major reason why even on cyanogenmod I use firefox over the chrome package which is ancient. Of course on Apple laptops even, Safari's webkit is sometimes months old anywhow. Having knocked Android, I haven't found the time to try the latest native email app. I'm not expecting a no html option but I'm pretty sure it will have some major pluses over k9mail, which was a trade of good for bad on Gingerbread. I don't know what mail client you use (I suppose I could check your headers), but *every* mail client I've used disables loading remote content by default. Further, you're ranting about users being forced to send email with HTML, intimating that this means they'll send exploit-laden messages to their recipients. That's patently silly; the people forced to send HTML emails aren't going to be sending exploits. That's like suggesting that people forced to drive to work are forced to commit vehicular manslaughter... It's the recipient of the email who has the burden of remaining secure, and this is possible largely through simply disabling loading rich media by default. Again, most mail clients disable loading remote media by default, and most I've used support disabling packaged media as well. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
I don't know what mail client you use (I suppose I could check your headers), but *every* mail client I've used disables loading remote content by default. Except the content within the message. Why do you assume I am talking about remote content. Further, you're ranting about users being forced to send email with HTML, intimating that this means they'll send exploit-laden messages to their recipients. I am not. On 03/18/2013 04:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: It can write but forces html onto users, You seem to miss some of the details. I'll find time to respond on ipv6 too at some point ;-) -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:38:11 +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: K9 Mail can do both plain text and bottom posting. Both set in Account settings/Sending mail. It can write but forces html onto users, which potentially includes jpg exploits, png exploits, html exploits, script exploits, font exploits... What are you talking about? K9 forces HTML on no one, it sends plain text if you set it to do so. Having knocked Android, I haven't found the time to try the latest native email app. I'm not expecting a no html option but I'm pretty sure it will have some major pluses over k9mail, which was a trade of good for bad on Gingerbread. K9 is not Android, any more than yourfavouriteemailer is Linux. It is a program that runs on Android. As for being less capable than the native app, the opposite is the case as it is based on the code from the native app, but actively developed. -- Neil Bothwick Pedestrians come in two types: Quick or Dead. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:16:52 -0400 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/18/2013 04:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: It can write but forces html onto users, You seem to miss some of the details. About that. See the attachment. It's a screenshot of the setting in K-9 where you can select composition methods. I took the screenshot on my own phone. (And then ran it through pngcrush -brute in deference to ML bandwidth...) I knew that perfectly well?? You even missed the quote? I only wrote two lines and you still missed it never mind the examples I had given in my original mail that do not only apply to remote content and that you wrongly interpreted. There is a security saying. Assumption is the mother of all f
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:38:11 + Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: K9 Mail can do both plain text and bottom posting. Both set in Account settings/Sending mail. It can write but forces html onto users, which potentially includes jpg exploits, png exploits, html exploits, script exploits, font exploits... What are you talking about? K9 forces HTML on no one, it sends plain text if you set it to do so. If you receive a html email you have no choice but to execute code to handle as per my above examples. Having knocked Android, I haven't found the time to try the latest native email app. I'm not expecting a no html option but I'm pretty sure it will have some major pluses over k9mail, which was a trade of good for bad on Gingerbread. K9 is not Android, any more than yourfavouriteemailer is Linux. It is a program that runs on Android. As for being less capable than the native app, the opposite is the case as it is based on the code from the native app, but actively developed. Googles mail is part of android and they do maintain it. I maintain that while k9 has some improvements it also breaks things and I guess would have not seen light without Googles initial efforts.
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:15:34 +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: What are you talking about? K9 forces HTML on no one, it sends plain text if you set it to do so. If you receive a html email you have no choice but to execute code to handle as per my above examples. That applies to mails from any software set to send as email, it is not specific to K9, Android or the price of fish. K9 is not Android, any more than yourfavouriteemailer is Linux. It is a program that runs on Android. As for being less capable than the native app, the opposite is the case as it is based on the code from the native app, but actively developed. Googles mail is part of android and they do maintain it. I maintain that while k9 has some improvements it also breaks things and I guess would have not seen light without Googles initial efforts. Are you referring to the Googlemail or the Mail program on Android, they are completely different? But I guess there's no defence against such specific accusations as it breaks things. -- Neil Bothwick Bang on the LEFT side of your computer to restart Windows signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 03/18/2013 08:15 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:38:11 + Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: K9 Mail can do both plain text and bottom posting. Both set in Account settings/Sending mail. It can write but forces html onto users, which potentially includes jpg exploits, png exploits, html exploits, script exploits, font exploits... What are you talking about? K9 forces HTML on no one, it sends plain text if you set it to do so. If you receive a html email you have no choice but to execute code to handle as per my above examples. Either you ignored what I said about being able to disable loading remote content and being able to disable showing inline rich content, or you're seriously concerned about HTML parser vulnerabilities. If that's the case, set up a defanging filter for your email. Having knocked Android, I haven't found the time to try the latest native email app. I'm not expecting a no html option but I'm pretty sure it will have some major pluses over k9mail, which was a trade of good for bad on Gingerbread. K9 is not Android, any more than yourfavouriteemailer is Linux. It is a program that runs on Android. As for being less capable than the native app, the opposite is the case as it is based on the code from the native app, but actively developed. Googles mail is part of android and they do maintain it. I maintain that while k9 has some improvements it also breaks things and I guess would have not seen light without Googles initial efforts. I'm really not sure what Google's native client (or K9) breaks. I use K9 because I require GPG support for communicating with one of my clients. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 03/18/2013 08:05 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:16:52 -0400 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/18/2013 04:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: It can write but forces html onto users, You seem to miss some of the details. About that. See the attachment. It's a screenshot of the setting in K-9 where you can select composition methods. I took the screenshot on my own phone. (And then ran it through pngcrush -brute in deference to ML bandwidth...) I knew that perfectly well?? You say 'It can write but forces html onto users'. So I pointed out that, no, it doesn't. So I take it you're complaining that *other peoples'* HTML clients force HTML on you. That's a complete and total abdication of responsibility on your part! You can ignore these people if you wish. You can ignore the HTML parts of emails if you wish. You can defang incoming emails if you wish. You have no obligation to do any more than the minimum required for you to selectively ignore emails with data you don't want. You even missed the quote? If you're going to call me out for ignoring things, missing things or simply not knowing things, please highlight what it is. the quote isn't very enlightening in this context. You have a nasty habit of referencing things without inlining them or referencing them directly, and this has gotten in the way of clear communication *multiple* times over the last week. I only wrote two lines and you still missed it I respond to what's written in the email I'm replying to, because that's what I've just read, and that's the context of the email. never mind the examples I had given in my original mail that do not only apply to remote content and that you wrongly interpreted. Honestly, I never expected you to be up in arms over being exposed to HTML syntax. I presumed you were concerned about libpng, libjpeg, swf and gif. I presumed you were concerned about privacy concerns. Those are what most people who gripe about HTML email security are concerned with. Being concerned with HTML syntax is a new one. Being angry with mail clients for allowing people to send emails you don't want to read? That'd ridiculous. There is a security saying. Assumption is the mother of all f Try including more context, and I won't have to assume as much or as often. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
Am 14.03.2013 09:15, schrieb Dale: I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such? Running Gentoo is not a choice about raw _speed_. I mean, even if you claim that your binaries are running 2-3% faster than e.g. on Debian, this is something really negligable on a production system. I mean, you may gain a small percentage of running speed, but on the other hand you get the need to have a compiler installed on your system, which could be quite a security hole, and having binaries produced by yourself. If you are not that lucky to have your own binary package building host for Gentoo that's something, that you don't want to have on heavy duty production systems, like e.g. database hosts. Compiler runs on such systems are a big nono to me. So running Gentoo is about another thing - _choice_ and _flexibility_. It fits that hole quite nicely if you need package switches enabled most binary based distributions don't have enabled. Otherwise running those distributions is the way to go. Of course, if you like to tinker with your system to shape it the way you like it, Gentoo is a good choice.
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such? Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? I googled a bit but couldn't find anything. Maybe my search terms wasn't good enough. Links would be nice. Dale -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! While I'll start by backing up everything said by others regarding the differences being nearly negligible in a truly equal test, same feature set from source vs the feature set provided by a binary distro, and even a loss in terms of total time when you include the compile times involved, I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence in Gentoo's favor. On the majority of x86 or x86_64 hardware there's very little room for across the board gains in performance over otherwise standard cflags. On slightly less 'normal' hardware, like, say, an Atom N270 based netbook with 1GB of ram, however, a few cflags go a *long* way towards having a usable system. My Mini9 shipped with a variant of Ubuntu that's actually built with general optimizations to make it usable on that hardware, and having run the same version of Ubuntu without those optimizations for a day or two on it, the amount of stutter and stalling was almost unbearable. Then, with the help of a desktop (or three) to handle the bulk of the compilation, I moved to Gentoo on it. I hadn't sorted out what cflags would be best, and simply built what I needed to get back to work on it with fairly minimal use flags, and I was rather frustrated to find that it still ran worse than the factory install, once programs had started (though that process was noticeably faster, as it generally is with so much less running in the background). Once I adjusted to the appropriate cflags, the stutter cleared up, things didn't stall frequently, and the system was simply more responsive. I could even watch flash videos full screen without it stuttering, which I'd given up on as a possibility on the system. A vast majority of the gains I saw were simply from clearing away the 80% of Ubuntu's features I have no use for, but when you have a processor that approaches things just a little differently, like an Atom, you really can gain a bit from letting the compiler put things in an order the processor will agree with better. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 15 March 2013, at 17:36, Kevin Chadwick wrote: ... ROFL. It's called me wrestling with thunderbird to try to remove html formatting but failing. Compulsory html annoys me on Android (If only you could have proper programs like Nokias N9 had claws) Wait, K9 Mail doesn't have a plain text option? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, as I am also unable to comprehend why K9 might enforce top-posting on replies. Stroller.
Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
Stroller wrote: Wait, K9 Mail doesn't have a plain text option? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, as I am also unable to comprehend why K9 might enforce top-posting on replies. K9 Mail can do both plain text and bottom posting. Both set in Account settings/Sending mail.
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:47:49 +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: There's no need to rebuild everything, and those other flags make no sense when using -e. Generally you only need emerge -uaD --changed-use @world I know that, in general principle. But it's a test environment. I'd assume stricter standards of purity there than elsewhere. simply going by changed-use can break some library dependencies. We need to use depclean to remove build deps junk after the emptytree, and we're revdep-rebuilding twice in case the depclean borked something. (To be really strict, revdep-rebuild should be repeated until it stops building things...) portage should handle that itself nowadays, but it doesn't hurt to run revdep-rebuild to be sure. You could use -N instead of --changed-use but I still think -e is unnecessary. Heck in some setups empty-tree will simply fail thanks to circular deps of the global use flags and you'll need manual intervention to bootstrap a package with less USE... And that's a good reason to not use -e. If you do use -e, none of the other options make any sense, -u -D and -N are meaningless if the system thinks nothing is installed and there's no point in using -t without -a or -p, and with -e it would generate so much output I'm not sure many people would bother reading it all. -- Neil Bothwick Cross-country skiing is great in small countries. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:47:49 +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: There's no need to rebuild everything, and those other flags make no sense when using -e. Generally you only need emerge -uaD --changed-use @world I know that, in general principle. But it's a test environment. I'd assume stricter standards of purity there than elsewhere. simply going by changed-use can break some library dependencies. We need to use depclean to remove build deps junk after the emptytree, and we're revdep-rebuilding twice in case the depclean borked something. (To be really strict, revdep-rebuild should be repeated until it stops building things...) portage should handle that itself nowadays, but it doesn't hurt to run revdep-rebuild to be sure. You could use -N instead of --changed-use but I still think -e is unnecessary. Heck in some setups empty-tree will simply fail thanks to circular deps of the global use flags and you'll need manual intervention to bootstrap a package with less USE... And that's a good reason to not use -e. If you do use -e, none of the other options make any sense, -u -D and -N are meaningless if the system thinks nothing is installed and there's no point in using -t without -a or -p, and with -e it would generate so much output I'm not sure many people would bother reading it all. I'm pretty sure I just recycled the emptytree + deep/newuse advice from one of the docs. I see it mentioned in the wiki at least. http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Freeing_Up_Disk_Space Honestly, though, it's just a case of muscle memory at work. Usually I just -uDNtv everything and just add options after that like -1, -a...
Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/14/2013 11:17 AM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:29:54PM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: html head meta content=text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type /head body bgcolor=#FF text=#00 div class=moz-cite-prefixOn 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote:br /div blockquote cite=mid:51418728.7020...@gmail.com type=cite pre wrap=Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? /pre /blockquote What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;)br /body /html What kind of crap email do you call that ^^^ ? From the headers of his email: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros References: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com In-Reply-To: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's perfectly compliant. You may want to correct your mail client to understand HTML. (Admittedly, it's unusual to see email clients send *only* text/html, rather than a multipart message with two different encodings.) ROFL. It's called me wrestling with thunderbird to try to remove html formatting but failing.
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
From the headers of his email: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros References: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com In-Reply-To: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's perfectly compliant. You may want to correct your mail client to understand HTML. (Admittedly, it's unusual to see email clients send *only* text/html, rather than a multipart message with two different encodings.) ROFL. It's called me wrestling with thunderbird to try to remove html formatting but failing. Compulsory html annoys me on Android (If only you could have proper programs like Nokias N9 had claws) Claws would mean you needn't bother and still have html to text by default and can even enable html plugins if desired (right way around). -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On Friday 15 Mar 2013 17:36:48 Kevin Chadwick wrote: From the headers of his email: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros References: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com In-Reply-To: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's perfectly compliant. You may want to correct your mail client to understand HTML. (Admittedly, it's unusual to see email clients send *only* text/html, rather than a multipart message with two different encodings.) ROFL. It's called me wrestling with thunderbird to try to remove html formatting but failing. Compulsory html annoys me on Android (If only you could have proper programs like Nokias N9 had claws) Claws would mean you needn't bother and still have html to text by default and can even enable html plugins if desired (right way around). I understand that you can specify what sort of mail format you want to send per email recipient, including of course gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org, but I don't have T'bird installed to check: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_(Thunderbird) HTH. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 03/16/2013 04:06 AM, Mick wrote: On Friday 15 Mar 2013 17:36:48 Kevin Chadwick wrote: From the headers of his email: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros References: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com In-Reply-To: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's perfectly compliant. You may want to correct your mail client to understand HTML. (Admittedly, it's unusual to see email clients send *only* text/html, rather than a multipart message with two different encodings.) ROFL. It's called "me wrestling with thunderbird to try to remove html formatting but failing". Compulsory html annoys me on Android (If only you could have proper programs like Nokias N9 had claws) Claws would mean you needn't bother and still have html to text by default and can even enable html plugins if desired (right way around). I understand that you can specify what sort of mail format you want to send per email recipient, including of course gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org, but I don't have T'bird installed to check: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_(Thunderbird) HTH. I know about that. But it fails to work on compose windows opened by the thunderbird conversations plugin. Quotes there seem to be hard-quoted as HTML and no amount of fiddling converts those into plaintext quotes.
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On Friday 15 Mar 2013 20:34:14 Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/16/2013 04:06 AM, Mick wrote: I understand that you can specify what sort of mail format you want to send per email recipient, including of course gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org, but I don't have T'bird installed to check: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_(Thunderbird) HTH. I know about that. But it fails to work on compose windows opened by the thunderbird conversations plugin. Quotes there seem to be hard-quoted as HTML and no amount of fiddling converts those into plaintext quotes. OK, I am not a T'bird user, let alone plugins for this application - but Google tells me that the 'Quick Reply' feature creates plain text responses. Is this the case? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Bulk] Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 03/15/2013 04:34 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/16/2013 04:06 AM, Mick wrote: On Friday 15 Mar 2013 17:36:48 Kevin Chadwick wrote: From the headers of his email: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros References: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com In-Reply-To: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's perfectly compliant. You may want to correct your mail client to understand HTML. (Admittedly, it's unusual to see email clients send *only* text/html, rather than a multipart message with two different encodings.) ROFL. It's called me wrestling with thunderbird to try to remove html formatting but failing. Compulsory html annoys me on Android (If only you could have proper programs like Nokias N9 had claws) Claws would mean you needn't bother and still have html to text by default and can even enable html plugins if desired (right way around). I understand that you can specify what sort of mail format you want to send per email recipient, including of course gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org, but I don't have T'bird installed to check: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_(Thunderbird) HTH. I know about that. But it fails to work on compose windows opened by the thunderbird conversations plugin. Quotes there seem to be hard-quoted as HTML and no amount of fiddling converts those into plaintext quotes. Reply created from conversation view in Thunderbird. (Though I've got some configuration item set somewhere to only send in plaintext; Enigmail complains that text/html emails don't always work right with PGP signing.) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
Howdy, I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such? Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? I googled a bit but couldn't find anything. Maybe my search terms wasn't good enough. Links would be nice. Dale -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
Hi !! On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such? First things first ... What do you mean by speed. Benchmarking is a very complicated job ;) Do you mean boot time, network bandwidth, HDD bandwidth, number crunching, graphics, ...? What application(s)? What data volume? ... MHO: never trust benchmarks unless you do them and you know what you are doing ;) Even then ... be careful ;) If you decide to run some benchmarks, take into account that Gentoo has so many USE flags ... youo might not use one of those flags ... but the other distros do use them. Same applies to compiler flags so ... would it be a fair comparison ? ;) Last, but not least ... Imagine Gentoo is faster ... would compile time be worth it? IOW: installing a precompiled distro (like RHEL, SLES, ...) can about 30 - 60 minutes. Gentoo can take 24 hours (or more ... or less, depending on what you install, your experience, ...). Now imagine speed up is 0.1% ... is it worth it? Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? Sorry, can't be of any help here :( I googled a bit but couldn't find anything. Maybe my search terms wasn't good enough. Links would be nice. MHO Rafa
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:15:36 -0500, Dale wrote: I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such? Mandrake? Where have you been for the last ten years, Dale? ;) -- Neil Bothwick ... I just forgot to increment the counter, Tom said, nonplussed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:15:36 -0500, Dale wrote: I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such? Mandrake? Where have you been for the last ten years, Dale? ;) Sorry, it was called Mandrake when I used it last. It's Mandriva now. Odd, it was about 10 years ago that I switched to Gentoo from Mandrake. That 9.1 to 9.2 upgrade was awful. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
Did this few years back for an online magazine sponsored by a local linux sysadmin company who wanted to see the difference between generic debian and optimised (not necessarily gentoo, but thats what I used.) Difference in times was ~10% across the board for graphics manipulations (gimp scripts), spreadsheet tasks (gnumeric) and the like. The kicker - simple optimisations gained far, far more than generic compiler settings. e.g., initially, the gnumeric versions were slightly different, with some wild times across the tasks. Make em the same version (and cuedos to the gnumeric maintainer for jumping in and helping diagnose/fix the problem - newer version on gentoo was heaps slower :) and there was little difference. Shared libs like glibc didnt make a huge difference, but being smart about how/what a particular task was handled gained more. If a debian app was compiled with similar options as to gentoo, little difference between them in performance which considering shared libs etc wasn't what I expected. The intel compilers are/were said to be a lot better than gcc, not sure if the gap is still there (supposedly 20% better again) Its how long is a piece of string kind of question if considered OS wide, but pick a narrow task and optimise away with smart programmers and you will do well on almost anything. Big advantage of gentoo - configurability, version control (what version is installed and changing it at short notice) and general flexibility. 10 % on software is a lot better than forking out $$$ on faster hardware to do that (as gamers do!), but at the end of the day, I can also make my car go faster by painting the diff red (urban myth/joke from my hotrodding days:) and see roughly the same performance boost - i.e., probably wont notice it in real life) BillK On 14/03/13 16:15, Dale wrote: Howdy, I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such? Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? I googled a bit but couldn't find anything. Maybe my search terms wasn't good enough. Links would be nice. Dale
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
2013/3/14 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com Howdy, Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? I googled a bit but couldn't find anything. Maybe my search terms wasn't good enough. Yeehaw, domainfactory (http://df.eu) uses a modified version of gentoo on their servers. df is one of the largest domain/hosting/mail providers in german-speaking countries.
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote: Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? What exactly does it mean to run a "modified version of Gentoo"? Don't we all? ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
Hi Just my $0.02: Of course there are distro-related issues on performance, but once the system is up and running, wouldn't it be a matter of compiler/linker optimization differences? Francisco 2013/3/14 Michael Hampicke mgehampi...@gmail.com 2013/3/14 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com Howdy, Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? I googled a bit but couldn't find anything. Maybe my search terms wasn't good enough. Yeehaw, domainfactory (http://df.eu) uses a modified version of gentoo on their servers. df is one of the largest domain/hosting/mail providers in german-speaking countries. -- If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 14/03/2013 13:29, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote: Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;) I've always claimed to colleagues that there is no such thing as a running Gentoo. There's an AlanOS, and a DaleOS and a MarkOS and they are all forks of Gentoo, but nobody actually ever runs Gentoo :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Mar 14, 2013 6:39 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/03/2013 13:29, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote: Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;) I've always claimed to colleagues that there is no such thing as a running Gentoo. There's an AlanOS, and a DaleOS and a MarkOS and they are all forks of Gentoo, but nobody actually ever runs Gentoo :-) LOL... that's why I got into the habit of saying Gentoo-based system :-) Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Mar 14, 2013 4:14 PM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote: Did this few years back for an online magazine sponsored by a local linux sysadmin company who wanted to see the difference between generic debian and optimised (not necessarily gentoo, but thats what I used.) Difference in times was ~10% across the board for graphics manipulations (gimp scripts), spreadsheet tasks (gnumeric) and the like. The kicker - simple optimisations gained far, far more than generic compiler settings. e.g., initially, the gnumeric versions were slightly different, with some wild times across the tasks. Make em the same version (and cuedos to the gnumeric maintainer for jumping in and helping diagnose/fix the problem - newer version on gentoo was heaps slower :) and there was little difference. Shared libs like glibc didnt make a huge difference, but being smart about how/what a particular task was handled gained more. If a debian app was compiled with similar options as to gentoo, little difference between them in performance which considering shared libs etc wasn't what I expected. The intel compilers are/were said to be a lot better than gcc, not sure if the gap is still there (supposedly 20% better again) Its how long is a piece of string kind of question if considered OS wide, but pick a narrow task and optimise away with smart programmers and you will do well on almost anything. Big advantage of gentoo - configurability, version control (what version is installed and changing it at short notice) and general flexibility. This. Why I prefer Gentoo over other distros: Full control. I mean, I can (and do) leverage -march=native. And I certainly have an overly long USE flags... but it's the sheet satisfaction of knowing that my system is MY system that made me stick with Gentoo... It's eminently satisfying -- a geekgasm, if you will -- to know that one's kernel is lean and customized, all the toolchains have been tuned, and there are no useless things being installed... In regards to performance, the benefits might not be groundbreaking, but it's there, and when your server is being relentlessly hammered by requests, Gentoo seems to have additional breathing space where other distros choke... Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 03/14/2013 07:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 14/03/2013 13:29, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote: Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? What exactly does it mean to run a "modified version of Gentoo"? Don't we all? ;) I've always claimed to colleagues that there is no such thing as "a running Gentoo". There's an AlanOS, and a DaleOS and a MarkOS and they are all forks of Gentoo, but nobody actually ever runs "Gentoo" :-) Smart call that you called it a "running" Gentoo rather than an "installed" one, because my followup question would have been, "Well what exactly does it mean to have installed Gentoo? I've had this laptop two years now and I'm still not done tinkering with it!" ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 14/03/2013 14:31, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/14/2013 07:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 14/03/2013 13:29, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote: Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;) I've always claimed to colleagues that there is no such thing as a running Gentoo. There's an AlanOS, and a DaleOS and a MarkOS and they are all forks of Gentoo, but nobody actually ever runs Gentoo :-) Smart call that you called it a running Gentoo rather than an installed one, because my followup question would have been, Well what exactly does it mean to have installed Gentoo? I've had this laptop two years now and I'm still not done tinkering with it! ;) This is my fifth Dell laptop in a row with Gentoo installed. Tinkering? yeah I do that too :-) Some days this system looks like one of those crazy Wily E. Coyote machines with all the bits I bolt on the back :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 14/03/2013 14:12, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Mar 14, 2013 4:14 PM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au mailto:bi...@iinet.net.au wrote: Did this few years back for an online magazine sponsored by a local linux sysadmin company who wanted to see the difference between generic debian and optimised (not necessarily gentoo, but thats what I used.) Difference in times was ~10% across the board for graphics manipulations (gimp scripts), spreadsheet tasks (gnumeric) and the like. The kicker - simple optimisations gained far, far more than generic compiler settings. e.g., initially, the gnumeric versions were slightly different, with some wild times across the tasks. Make em the same version (and cuedos to the gnumeric maintainer for jumping in and helping diagnose/fix the problem - newer version on gentoo was heaps slower :) and there was little difference. Shared libs like glibc didnt make a huge difference, but being smart about how/what a particular task was handled gained more. If a debian app was compiled with similar options as to gentoo, little difference between them in performance which considering shared libs etc wasn't what I expected. The intel compilers are/were said to be a lot better than gcc, not sure if the gap is still there (supposedly 20% better again) Its how long is a piece of string kind of question if considered OS wide, but pick a narrow task and optimise away with smart programmers and you will do well on almost anything. Big advantage of gentoo - configurability, version control (what version is installed and changing it at short notice) and general flexibility. This. Why I prefer Gentoo over other distros: Full control. I mean, I can (and do) leverage -march=native. And I certainly have an overly long USE flags... but it's the sheet satisfaction of knowing that my system is MY system that made me stick with Gentoo... It's eminently satisfying -- a geekgasm, if you will -- to know that one's kernel is lean and customized, all the toolchains have been tuned, and there are no useless things being installed... In regards to performance, the benefits might not be groundbreaking, but it's there, and when your server is being relentlessly hammered by requests, Gentoo seems to have additional breathing space where other distros choke... Gentoo excels as a -dev system where your devs need to test things in different environments. A classic case is different pythons. We have many Centos 4 machines in production that run python-2.4, the developers naturally run something bleeding edge like 2.7 or 3.3 on their laptops. Many many times they need to know if their bespoke code runs properly on Centos, or PyPy or whatever other valid environment difference could happen in the real world. Tweak USE, tweak the masking and let emerge world do it's thing. Now the dev can do valid tests. If the dev machines are VMs, snapshot them just before starting this and you have the best possible solution for my money. Or, try remove LDAP, NIS and PAM support for auth from a RHEL machine to test if it works without those things in place. RHEL? Impossible. Gentoo? Trivially easy. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 03/14/2013 09:28 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 14/03/2013 14:12, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Mar 14, 2013 4:14 PM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au mailto:bi...@iinet.net.au wrote: Did this few years back for an online magazine sponsored by a local linux sysadmin company who wanted to see the difference between generic debian and optimised (not necessarily gentoo, but thats what I used.) Difference in times was ~10% across the board for graphics manipulations (gimp scripts), spreadsheet tasks (gnumeric) and the like. The kicker - simple optimisations gained far, far more than generic compiler settings. e.g., initially, the gnumeric versions were slightly different, with some wild times across the tasks. Make em the same version (and cuedos to the gnumeric maintainer for jumping in and helping diagnose/fix the problem - newer version on gentoo was heaps slower :) and there was little difference. Shared libs like glibc didnt make a huge difference, but being smart about how/what a particular task was handled gained more. If a debian app was compiled with similar options as to gentoo, little difference between them in performance which considering shared libs etc wasn't what I expected. The intel compilers are/were said to be a lot better than gcc, not sure if the gap is still there (supposedly 20% better again) Its how long is a piece of string kind of question if considered OS wide, but pick a narrow task and optimise away with smart programmers and you will do well on almost anything. Big advantage of gentoo - configurability, version control (what version is installed and changing it at short notice) and general flexibility. This. Why I prefer Gentoo over other distros: Full control. I mean, I can (and do) leverage -march=native. And I certainly have an overly long USE flags... but it's the sheet satisfaction of knowing that my system is MY system that made me stick with Gentoo... It's eminently satisfying -- a geekgasm, if you will -- to know that one's kernel is lean and customized, all the toolchains have been tuned, and there are no useless things being installed... In regards to performance, the benefits might not be groundbreaking, but it's there, and when your server is being relentlessly hammered by requests, Gentoo seems to have additional breathing space where other distros choke... Gentoo excels as a -dev system where your devs need to test things in different environments. A classic case is different pythons. We have many Centos 4 machines in production that run python-2.4, the developers naturally run something bleeding edge like 2.7 or 3.3 on their laptops. Many many times they need to know if their bespoke code runs properly on Centos, or PyPy or whatever other valid environment difference could happen in the real world. Tweak USE, tweak the masking and let emerge world do it's thing. Now the dev can do valid tests. If the dev machines are VMs, snapshot them just before starting this and you have the best possible solution for my money. Or, try remove LDAP, NIS and PAM support for auth from a RHEL machine to test if it works without those things in place. RHEL? Impossible. Gentoo? Trivially easy. Trivially easy, of course, means an emerge -euDNtv world emerge -ctv revdep-rebuild -i revdep-rebuild ... ehehehe I dunno, it might actually be easier to setup the said distros in a VM. And if those configurations don't work, you shouldn't have to support them, eh? ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 14/03/2013 15:40, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/14/2013 09:28 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 14/03/2013 14:12, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Mar 14, 2013 4:14 PM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au mailto:bi...@iinet.net.au wrote: Did this few years back for an online magazine sponsored by a local linux sysadmin company who wanted to see the difference between generic debian and optimised (not necessarily gentoo, but thats what I used.) Difference in times was ~10% across the board for graphics manipulations (gimp scripts), spreadsheet tasks (gnumeric) and the like. The kicker - simple optimisations gained far, far more than generic compiler settings. e.g., initially, the gnumeric versions were slightly different, with some wild times across the tasks. Make em the same version (and cuedos to the gnumeric maintainer for jumping in and helping diagnose/fix the problem - newer version on gentoo was heaps slower :) and there was little difference. Shared libs like glibc didnt make a huge difference, but being smart about how/what a particular task was handled gained more. If a debian app was compiled with similar options as to gentoo, little difference between them in performance which considering shared libs etc wasn't what I expected. The intel compilers are/were said to be a lot better than gcc, not sure if the gap is still there (supposedly 20% better again) Its how long is a piece of string kind of question if considered OS wide, but pick a narrow task and optimise away with smart programmers and you will do well on almost anything. Big advantage of gentoo - configurability, version control (what version is installed and changing it at short notice) and general flexibility. This. Why I prefer Gentoo over other distros: Full control. I mean, I can (and do) leverage -march=native. And I certainly have an overly long USE flags... but it's the sheet satisfaction of knowing that my system is MY system that made me stick with Gentoo... It's eminently satisfying -- a geekgasm, if you will -- to know that one's kernel is lean and customized, all the toolchains have been tuned, and there are no useless things being installed... In regards to performance, the benefits might not be groundbreaking, but it's there, and when your server is being relentlessly hammered by requests, Gentoo seems to have additional breathing space where other distros choke... Gentoo excels as a -dev system where your devs need to test things in different environments. A classic case is different pythons. We have many Centos 4 machines in production that run python-2.4, the developers naturally run something bleeding edge like 2.7 or 3.3 on their laptops. Many many times they need to know if their bespoke code runs properly on Centos, or PyPy or whatever other valid environment difference could happen in the real world. Tweak USE, tweak the masking and let emerge world do it's thing. Now the dev can do valid tests. If the dev machines are VMs, snapshot them just before starting this and you have the best possible solution for my money. Or, try remove LDAP, NIS and PAM support for auth from a RHEL machine to test if it works without those things in place. RHEL? Impossible. Gentoo? Trivially easy. Trivially easy, of course, means an emerge -euDNtv world emerge -ctv revdep-rebuild -i revdep-rebuild ... ehehehe I dunno, it might actually be easier to setup the said distros in a VM. And if those configurations don't work, you shouldn't have to support them, eh? ;) Well, devs tend to ask questions like would this thing X work in practice? or do I have to munge my code? They want to know if shipped code supports something. And, I don't get to say I'm sorry, I cannot support Centos 4 on this Business has a stock answer Well, find a way to make it work. Flexibility is the key. At least with emerge -euDNtv world emerge -ctv revdep-rebuild -i revdep-rebuild I can walk away and come back in three hours, look at logs and tell them to test. Plus I don't have to re-install their customer code everyt time from scratch (said code *never*, of course, coming with anything resembling a MakeFile) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Why I prefer Gentoo over other distros: Full control. That's it, in a nutshell. I mean, I can (and do) leverage -march=native. I've been scared away from -march and instead of -mtune in case i need to drop my hard drive into another system for recovery which might have an incompatible CPU.
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:40:49 +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: Or, try remove LDAP, NIS and PAM support for auth from a RHEL machine to test if it works without those things in place. RHEL? Impossible. Gentoo? Trivially easy. Trivially easy, of course, means an emerge -euDNtv world emerge -ctv revdep-rebuild -i revdep-rebuild ... ehehehe There's no need to rebuild everything, and those other flags make no sense when using -e. Generally you only need emerge -uaD --changed-use @world -- Neil Bothwick Set phasers to extreme itching! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On 14/03/13 22:31, Paul Hartman wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Why I prefer Gentoo over other distros: Full control. That's it, in a nutshell. I mean, I can (and do) leverage -march=native. I've been scared away from -march and instead of -mtune in case i need to drop my hard drive into another system for recovery which might have an incompatible CPU. Ok, thats another valid comparison to go with dropping Alans gentoo on a USB stick, centos on a DVD ... so what OS goes with a hard drive when its dropped? Is anyone near Piza ... Ive been told they have a tower that's been used for these types of test in the past. BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:29:54PM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: html head meta content=text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type /head body bgcolor=#FF text=#00 div class=moz-cite-prefixOn 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote:br /div blockquote cite=mid:51418728.7020...@gmail.com type=cite pre wrap=Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? /pre /blockquote What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;)br /body /html What kind of crap email do you call that ^^^ ? -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:31:54PM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: html head meta content=text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type /head body bgcolor=#FF text=#00 div class=moz-cite-prefixOn 03/14/2013 07:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:br /div blockquote cite=mid:5141b649.1090...@gmail.com type=cite pre wrap=On 14/03/2013 13:29, Mark David Dumlao wrote: /pre blockquote type=cite pre wrap=On 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote: /pre blockquote type=cite pre wrap=Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? /pre /blockquote pre wrap=What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;) /pre /blockquote pre wrap= I've always claimed to colleagues that there is no such thing as a running Gentoo. There's an AlanOS, and a DaleOS and a MarkOS and they are all forks of Gentoo, but nobody actually ever runs Gentoo :-) /pre /blockquote Smart call that you called it a running Gentoo rather than an installed one, because my followup question would have been, Well what exactly does it mean to have installed Gentoo? I've had this laptop two years now and I'm still not done tinkering with it! ;)br /body /html Kindly turn off your HTML ... this is email, not your personal web page. ;) -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
On 03/14/2013 11:17 AM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:29:54PM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: html head meta content=text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type /head body bgcolor=#FF text=#00 div class=moz-cite-prefixOn 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote:br /div blockquote cite=mid:51418728.7020...@gmail.com type=cite pre wrap=Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? /pre /blockquote What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;)br /body /html What kind of crap email do you call that ^^^ ? From the headers of his email: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros References: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com In-Reply-To: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's perfectly compliant. You may want to correct your mail client to understand HTML. (Admittedly, it's unusual to see email clients send *only* text/html, rather than a multipart message with two different encodings.) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Email encodings (was Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros )
2013/3/14 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com On 03/14/2013 11:17 AM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:29:54PM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: html head meta content=text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type /head body bgcolor=#FF text=#00 div class=moz-cite-prefixOn 03/14/2013 04:15 PM, Dale wrote:br /div blockquote cite=mid:51418728.7020...@gmail.com type=cite pre wrap=Also, I read that Nasdaq runs a modified version of Gentoo. Do any other large corps run it that we know of? /pre /blockquote What exactly does it mean to run a modified version of Gentoo? Don't we all? ;)br /body /html What kind of crap email do you call that ^^^ ? From the headers of his email: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros References: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com In-Reply-To: 51418728.7020...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's perfectly compliant. You may want to correct your mail client to understand HTML. (Admittedly, it's unusual to see email clients send *only* text/html, rather than a multipart message with two different encodings.) At least one link: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7574/ . It is kinda old, but I liked the reading. -- João de Matos Linux User #461527
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/03/2013 15:40, Mark David Dumlao wrote: On 03/14/2013 09:28 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Or, try remove LDAP, NIS and PAM support for auth from a RHEL machine to test if it works without those things in place. RHEL? Impossible. Gentoo? Trivially easy. Trivially easy, of course, means an emerge -euDNtv world emerge -ctv revdep-rebuild -i revdep-rebuild ... ehehehe I dunno, it might actually be easier to setup the said distros in a VM. And if those configurations don't work, you shouldn't have to support them, eh? ;) Well, devs tend to ask questions like would this thing X work in practice? or do I have to munge my code? No, that doesn't make sense. The situation you presented above was removing impossible to remove components on an OS and asking if the software still works. You don't get to call that a vaild test environment if the test environment itself doesn't work in the first place. They want to know if shipped code supports something. And, I don't get to say I'm sorry, I cannot support Centos 4 on this Business has a stock answer Well, find a way to make it work. Actually, business has a stock answer of Supported on Windows XP or later, Mac OS X some cat, Red Hat version foo, SuSE In general they target actual known platforms, and YES they get to say I cannot support Centos 4 on this all the time. Flexibility is the key. At least with emerge -euDNtv world emerge -ctv revdep-rebuild -i revdep-rebuild I can walk away and come back in three hours, look at logs and tell them to test. Plus I don't have to re-install their customer code everyt time from scratch (said code *never*, of course, coming with anything resembling a MakeFile) Hoo boy what I would give for -euDNtv to take less than 3 hours on my setup ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:40:49 +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote: Or, try remove LDAP, NIS and PAM support for auth from a RHEL machine to test if it works without those things in place. RHEL? Impossible. Gentoo? Trivially easy. Trivially easy, of course, means an emerge -euDNtv world emerge -ctv revdep-rebuild -i revdep-rebuild ... ehehehe There's no need to rebuild everything, and those other flags make no sense when using -e. Generally you only need emerge -uaD --changed-use @world I know that, in general principle. But it's a test environment. I'd assume stricter standards of purity there than elsewhere. simply going by changed-use can break some library dependencies. We need to use depclean to remove build deps junk after the emptytree, and we're revdep-rebuilding twice in case the depclean borked something. (To be really strict, revdep-rebuild should be repeated until it stops building things...) Heck in some setups empty-tree will simply fail thanks to circular deps of the global use flags and you'll need manual intervention to bootstrap a package with less USE...
