Re: Used MP3000
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 13:00 -0500, Hall, Kenneth J wrote: I'd rather take a 4381 cabinet, gut it, and put a very small PC inside running Hercules. Dummy up the control panel and 3279 console terminal, and use the empty space for storage. If only IBM would allow ISV's to put something real on Hercules. It's like IBM doesn't want anyone to learn stuff anymore... not that I mind Linux of course. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Linux and Railroad Diagrams
Jon Brock wrote: Must be due to lack of training. rim shot Woot! or should that be: Whoo! Whoo! :) Jon snip Is it just me? Don't you find the syntax descriptions of Linux commands hard to understand because they're not written with so-called railroad diagrams? /snip -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: VMware vs. VM
Doug Fairobent wrote: I am currently trying to convince the management at my company to launch a server consolidation project using Linux on VM. All of the Intel programmers (who vastly outnumber me) are touting VMware as the server consolidation solution. Does anyone know of an analysis or study that compares the merits of VM to VMware? I hope to find some sort of ammunition I can use to promote Linux on VM. Thanks. At the low-mid range end, it's very hard to beat the flexibility of VMware. ESX server does well, though costly of efficiently managing many guests and now has provision for moving entire machines from host to host while still live (weird... and obviously not completely bulletproof). VMware does have limitations though, which is why it may not be suitable on the high end. Maximum processor support is just for duallies for example. There's also a maxium memory limit as well that's pretty low (2G?). I guess it all depends on what you're consolidating. Web servers... VMware ESX may be a good choice (shoot you'd could get by with GSX or Workstation even). If you need lots of processing muscle in your guests or need large amounts of memory, then VMware is probably not what you want right now. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Can NFS export a samba share?
Romanowski, John (OFT) wrote: Hi, If I have a SLES 8 zLinux server connected via samba to a read-only Windows share can the Linux server export that share read-only via nfs to other SLES8 zLinux servers? Yes, but you may have to run a userland NFS instead of the kernel one. Certainly nicer to allow the other servers to automount/smbmount the area directly at will when needed instead of the putting an extra layer between them and the data (in other words, I'd only do this if I had no choice). -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Cobal on Linux
Gerard Graham wrote: My management is actually considering moving certain cobal apps to Linux,they see savings on the IFL, if we can run cobal there, has any one done this on the z/series, or even intel. If not are there any sites I can be pointed to for info. Call BEA Systems and ask them to PLEASE, please open source their Cobol compiler. It handles many of the IBM nuances since it was designed to compile CICS Cobol in particular. Their compiler compiles code down to C code and uses the native compiler. It was ported to over 20 different *ix platforms. You might as well request them to open source their CICS engine as well. BEA believes they can use the technology in a future leveraged deal.. but it has been collecting dust for many years now. It will likely need some cleanup work, but it is ANSI-C and 64-bit ready. If you ever wanted a reason for why the GPL is a good thing... here's a prime example of IP going down the toilet. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Red Hat AS 3.0
Ferguson, Neale wrote: SLES9 should have NPTL. It will also have the 2.6 kernel. Not sure how well that will play out on the z... but certainly has advantages on other smp. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Red Hat AS 3.0
Biggs, Eric J [ITS] wrote: For anyone that is using Red Hat AS 3.0 for zSeries, can you provide feedback (positive or negative) about your experience with the product? Light years better than RHAS2.1 (or whatever you want to call their 7.x product on z). Might be better than SLES8. We're getting SLES9 shortly.. that'll be very interesting. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Red Hat AS 3.0
James Melin wrote: When you get SLES9, I will be VERY interested in how you upgrade an existing SLES8 system to SLES9. A migration experience story would be nice to see. We're an ISV... likely will be a new install rather than an upgrade (sorry). -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Novell Linux Technical Resource Kit
Adam Thornton wrote: ... Has anyone ever had ACPI do anything useful for them? Seriously. On each of four machines I've installed recently--a Thinkpad X20, a generic 2xP3/833, a VA Research 2xP2/400, and a Netfinity 7500 (4xP3/500, I think), I've had to turn of ACPI because otherwise everything goes all pear-shaped. What good is it *supposed* to be? Well.. on x86(etc) ACPI is the future of power management, you don't have a choice. The problem (as I understand it) is that while the Linux ACPI code strives to be standard compliant, implementations in general are not compliant. So, you end up having to support all of the variations. Again.. this is what I've been told. ACPI when it works gives you more control over power management than APM. Since APM is not SMP safe, that's another reason why you want ACPI to work. Of course, server machines is probably one area that doesn't have to have any power management, but still... there are some cases where it would be nice. I know it doesn't help, but it's actually gotten a lot better over the past couple of years. Perhaps it's impossible to have good ACPI support just because of all of the bad implementations (??). -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Uname info
Bob wrote: my SLES8 under VM does the same thing... as does SLES under x86, etc On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:52:50 -0700, Marcy Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone here wanted to know why uname -p gives unknown. Anyone know? Or is it just my SLES 8 under VM doing that. -- _ Thanks, Bob YahooIM: bobif AOLIM: bobifmd ICQ: 111083556 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MCSE and CNE trained, but use LINUX, declare your PC a Microsoft free zone -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Answers to Microsoft's Mainframe Benchmark Project
Matt Lashley/SCO wrote: I haven't followed the list as much as I'd like lately, can someone direct me to a rebuttal of this: http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/3/e/73e77129-db34-4c95-b182-ab0 b9bd50081/MainframeBenchmarkProj.pdf I only just discovered the link above after seeing a full page ad extolling Windows 2003 in CIO insight that directed reader to a URL ending in getthefacts. (The ad was quite near the front - someone spent some bucks.) If there is a response to this, formal or otherwise, I'd enjoy giving it a read. My two cents. 1. A dual Xeon (or whatever) != mainframe. One is a PC, the other is an entire platform. 2. Simple print and file services IMHO, is not the goal of Linux on z/VM. I'd like to see 1000 virtual hosted machines running on that dual Xeon. 3. I'm not sure if SLES8 31-bit is what everyone is really running. Granted, s390 users will run 31-bit, but probably not zSeries users. Now, as a workstation, the mainframe will not keep up, this is a fact. However, under load, performance does not drop off in the same way as it does for Intel servers. I'd treat this like anything else that comes out of Redmond... rubbish. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: P390 500 for sale on eBay (Repost)
Kevin O'Brien wrote: Apologies for the repost. But sending originally in HTML made the URL unavailable. The link to the item is http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3093640276 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3093640276 Make sure you post when an OEM copy of OS/390 is available on e-bay! (also, CICS, VM, etc.) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: NFS Behaviour Question
James Melin wrote: Fired up NFS and got it working... but I am seeing something that doesn't make sense to me. We're installing piles of trial software from IBM, many that necessitate copying images of CD media to local file systems. That takes a while with a 100 mbit ethernet card. SO what I did instead was use NFS. It works fine with files that are the local file system but not with files that are CD images mounted using the loopback device. Basically copied cd to disk via dd : dd if=/dev/cdrom of=/images/file_name_of_the_moment.iso and the mounted it via the loopback driver mount -o loop,ro /images/file_name_of_the_moment.iso /cdimage The file names of course have been changed to protect my sanity. When I mount the NFS directory I shared and on which I mounted these CD's using the loopback thingy I only see the mount points, not what is mounted on them. /etc/exports looks like /images itasca(ro) calhoun(ro) pepin(ro) phalen(ro) nokomis(ro) rockhopper(ro) pequot(ro) and if mount the iso image elswhere and to the whole tar -clpSf thing into the actual mountpoint, the files show up via NFS. Just not the mounted ISO image. Why is that? Either export the ISO mount points individually and mount each one or use the userland NFS server (it exports just about anything). The kernel NFS implementation doesn't allow exporting subordinate mounts. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: File Space Utilization
Eric D Rossman wrote: It's quite possible that a large file was unlinked, but not closed, so space was being held by it. After the reboot, that file would have been closed, freeing the space. You might be able to track these down using lsof. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: SuSe administrator's guide?
Fulton, Aaron wrote: Does anyone know the title and author's name of a really good SuSe administrator's guide. RedHat information is everywhere but Suse information is pretty hard to come by. (Stating the obvious) Is there something wrong with the SUSE Administration Guide that comes with SUSE? If you don't have the hardcopy, it's a package that can be easily installed (if not already). Now... as far as really good goes... that depends. I haven't found ANY book on ANY *ix that I'd call really good.
Re: distributions
David Boyes wrote: Some vendor applications are not yet certified on SLES 8. If you care about support, running those applications on SLES 7 is the responsible thing to do. Vendor applications not certified on SLES 8 are hardly supported. I'd rethink your vendor choices.
Re: distributions
Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: Post, Mark K wrote: No additions, but one correction. SUSE is currently shipping SLES8, not SLES7. I *still* see Enterprise Server 7 in SuSE's catalog: http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/server/sles7/index.html While obviously supported... one must ask the question... Why would someone want SLES7? SLES8 works with a much broader range of HW and SW. If you have SLES7 in house.. great... but otherwise, if you choose SUSE, I'd go with SLES8. SLES9 apparently will have full 2.6 kernel support (from what I hear). I'm guessing that SLES9 will also have 2.4 kernel support as well. You can already see the elements in SUSE 9 for attempting to handle both kernels transparently (though more work needs to be done).
Re: Archives???
Eric Sammons wrote: I was looking to have RH across my enterprise. Take advantage of Red Hat Network etc. . . If I do in fact loose Red Hat support by altering the kernel can I obtain that support from IBM. My understanding was that with z/Linux you basically had to purchase 2 support contracts, see other message post. I would get my updates etc. . . from Red Hat but receive my defect support IBM / IGS? By implementing the timer patch would I still receive that support from IBM / IGS? Perhaps another party would provide the support? At least within my environment everyone is sold on the idea that Red Hat is the solution for IA32 and IA64 and that the zPlatform was still open to discussion because of the fcp support. Though Red Hat and SuSE are both Linux their suite of support tools and several configuration files do differ so to teach someone SuSE and Red Hat seems to me like educating someone on AIX and Solaris. It seems to be a better business call to have one common flavor of Linux across the enterprise. However, with support being a potential issue who knows? And I am not certain I can bring SuSE into the IA32 platform given that we haven't seen yet what Novell will do with them. Images of Word Perfect and NOVELL Networking come to mind when I think about the future of SuSE Linux. Red Hat or SUSE are good choices across the enterprise. As an ISV, we have to support both. The SUSE administration tool is quite sophisticated (for Linux). Red Hat just doesn't have anything close today. The new Novell is NOT like the old Novell. SUSE is my personal choice and has been even before Red Hat moved away from RHL. But I don't think RHEL is a bad route, I just find things easier to do with SUSE (less manual tweaking).
Re: Linux stress reducer
McKown, John wrote: This is now an epidemic here! People playing and calling out their scores over the cubical walls! This is the first Linux Virus I heard a rumor that according to SCO, it's impossible that the open source community produced the program. They are currently very suspicious of Intel.
Re: Computerworld Ad
Dave Jousma wrote: I have seen it, they are comparing SAMBA on a 2-CP Z900 to a 2 processor 900Mhz xeon box. Of course it is going to be more expensive, if the only thing running on the z900 is samba. This is a common slant to the us vs. them picture. While there have been a few documented cases where some shops buy a z-series box for just linux, it is much more common to add IFL's to an already existing mainframe infrustructure. Compare *those* costs, and it becomes much more competitive. Whew! We can finally replace our mainframe... and with a dual 900Mhz Xeon!! Who knew!! I may have it water cooled just for old-times sake though. :) Microsoft, Telling You Where to Go, Today!
Re: Windows? Blue Screen?
Jim Sibley wrote: News: Spirit's Troubled Memory First Mars rover went into cycle of reboots after memory failure. The NASA spokeswoman last night said that the solution was to delete a lot of old files, so it sounds more like any auxiliary disc got full, not a RAM problem. Back in the '60's these were called x37 abends. She also said they had some kind of excecution trace enabled now so they can track down the bad code. I don't think we'll ever know what actually happened.
Re: SCO sues Novell
Phil Payne wrote: I for one hope they get what they really deserve and it to be a corner movement to nail anyone else that tries this again..and maybe bleed over to other dumb case like suing MacDonald's for hot coffee .. I can't get the following URL not to fold - I'm afraid you'll have to rebuild it. From the Association of Trial Lawyers of America web site: http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffee case.aspx ... This one is a bit more apropos: http://www.wisinfo.com/thereporter/news/archive/local_14044768.shtml
Re: SCO sues Novell
Dave Jones wrote: SCO sues Novell over Unix rights It's kind of interesting... I think that SCO does have more rights than what Novell has been saying recently. This I gathered reading each ones Edgar stored filings. However, SCO's suit filing still looks to be written by an angry 4 year old. If I were a judge, I throw it out just because of that. SCO must have the stupidest lawyers in the world.
Re: SCO sues Novell
Ryan Ware wrote: .. No, they have some of the best and some of the richest. I too think that SCO may have an ace yet. So... the best lawyers are the ones that let Microsoft get away with a simple hand slap for being a monopoly?? I don't think they have a clue. Just look at the stupid remarks that SCO keeps on making. Any reasonable lawyer would have gagged Darl by now nope... I don't believe any part of that except the richest part.
Re: Isn't that nice of them?
Phil Payne wrote: The SCO Group has received US copyright registrations for UNIX System V source code, a jurisdictional pre-requisite to enforcement of its UNIX copyrights. Novell I believe has also filed US copyright registrations for UNIX System V source code. Maybe everyone should file for copyright on it!! Of course, Novell is now offering indemnification for its SUSE (SLES) customers. An interesting, but not surprising move.
Re: Red Hat acquires Sistana (and LVM)
Post, Mark K wrote: I heard about this before, from somewhere. What's the interesting question to me is, will Red Hat make GFS GPL licensed again? I would think so, but we'll have to wait and see, I suppose. If Alan C. doesn't respond there's at least a bit more about the potential that it all goes GPL here: http://lwn.net/Articles/63816/ It's very likely that Red Hat will make it GPL unless there is something inside the thing that would prevent that (even then, it just means it'll take a bit longer). Do you know yet, Alan?
Re: Anyone Nagios? (GPL discussion)
Alan Cox wrote: On Llu, 2004-01-05 at 18:58, Chris Cox wrote: a Fedora thing (a community support model). The RH Board basically saw a big RED item on the books.. their consumer dist... they eliminated it. Its funny how many people make that assumption. Well.. we can only assume that RH wanted to avoid the expense of RHL in light of the much better supported and maintained external efforts (like Fedora). Feel free to clear up my bad assumption.
Re: Anyone Nagios? (GPL discussion)
Alan Cox wrote: Well.. we can only assume that RH wanted to avoid the expense of RHL in light of the much better supported and maintained external efforts (like Fedora). You can make money on a straight forard Linux distribution, and indeed several vendors do that. Fedora is about fixing a much more fundmanetal problem - the things that developers want and the things large corporate customers want don't just differ but conflict. So now there are two seperate things. Sigh So (trying to get a straightforward answer) Are you saying that Red Hat's RHL was always targeted at the corporate customer? I don't think so. Didn't everyone tend to feel that Red Hat produced RHAS because the things that developers want and the things large corporate customers want don't just differ but conflict? Very likely. Or was that the whole issue? Did RHAS not come out early enough on so that many considered RHL, even after the appearance of RHAS, to be a fully supported product from RH (which was implied by the RHN subscription mechanism)?? I guess what I'm hearing is that until the creation of Fedora(tm) and RHEL, Red Hat really did NOT portray clearly the distinction that existed (IMHO) already between RHL and RHAS. Is that it?? One of them is boring, behind the leading edge and slowly updating (and all the other things that make developers unhappy and CIO's delighted), the other is much more like the old old Red Hat - 3 or so releases a year, people stamping CD's of it cheap and so on. Its leading edge, fast changing, has cool new technologies on it that developers and hackers like but your average CIO really doesn't want. Uhh... yes... we agree. I certainly did not have any problem with the goals of Fedora... which.. in summary were to fix the shortcomings of RHL. That is to say, RHL, which was designed to be a boxed hobbiest version of Red Hat, simply could not address the needs of the market it was targetting. So, many external projects were formed and ultimately, Fedora became the most coordinated/active of the bunch. And so.. we assume (we have to assume since no clear answer seems to be given) that Red Hat opted out of RHL production (which I assumed.. saved Red Hat quite a bit of money) and turned it over (with some RH help of course... and apparently some guidance) to the community based Fedora project which proved it was much, much better than Red Hat at delivering what the consumer wanted (more updates, better support). Sounds like Fedora was able to release the product that RHL should have been and many recognized that. So much that RH moved RHL completely to Fedora (normally a company does not eliminate a good revenue stream... thus all of the assumptions surrounding all of this). I can't help but feel that some of the original ideas of the original Fedora team are at odds with RH... but given the current circumstances... probably not an issue anymore (?). (perhaps Warren finally got paid.. not with a red cap?) I'm sorry... seems the more I talk to RH or Fedora(tm) the more confused it all seems to get but I will admit, there is a common thread of what I'll call hatspeak: A RH sponsored spinoff of orginal community generated truth.
Re: Anyone Nagios? (GPL discussion)
Alan Cox wrote: ... Unfortunately I can't do anything about what you decide is truth any more than NASA can convince people who believe the moonlandings were faked. Alan Sheesh.. for a guy who still did not clear anything up you sure do get on the defensive... Forget I bought the whole thing up... I'll just live with the Fedora is good answer... the rest will just have to make assumptions about. Even with all said.. I still like Fedora... (this exchange of information hasn't changed that yet)
Re: Anyone Nagios? (GPL discussion)
Brief summary: GPL allows anyone to sell what is produced. GPL also allows anyone to freely distribute what is produced. GPL mandates that source code be made available when distributed. The question being raised primarily seems to be: How can a programmer make money from created SW with the GPL if anyone can freely distribute it... even sell it as long as the also make the source available? The question lies in where the value is. If the produced SW is of value (monetary), then GPL certainly makes little sense from the profit angle. I think many at RH made this mistake with their business model with RHL. However, if the only value is the programmer... that is, the produced SW, while valuable (non monetary), it is much more valuable if you consider the programmer. For example, the fact that GNU/Linux is GPL doesn't mean that I plan to try maintain my own distribution. There's just way, way too much effort involved. And I certainly could not become the sole maintainer of every application included in GNU/Linux. So just because I have the source, does not mean I get the GPL programmer value unless I consider their value separately from the SW itself. And I may have to consider value in terms other than just money. It's a different way of looking at things. And certainly it begs for a community based payment mechanism for all of the talented programmers who contribute freely to GNU/Linux (and other GPL software). Feel free to contribute to FSF and other organizations... shoot, buy something from RH... something from SUSE... even that has impact on the development of free SW. However, sending money the cheapbytes for a copy of RH, in general, does't help put food on the table of ANY free software programmer. Just makes money for cheapbytes (basically a handout to cheapbytes really). RMS speaks of the need for localized customizations (non distributed) work on GPL software. The idea is that programmers should get paid for making local customizations. Doesn't necessarily address the SW shop though... where the SW is the source of revenue. But of course, community SW isn't produced by a company.. but by a community. Also, RMS recognizes there is a limited class of SW that does not have broad market appeal... he's satisified that those SW projects do not have to be free (of course, most companies prefer large markets). I know this probably doesn't clear things up any.. but might make folks go deeper (it's not just about money). Other places of value come with support. Even if you are NOT the prime creator of the SW (community created), you can add the glue and support infrastructure that gives your free version value... and thus something you can charge for. This is the prime revenue source for commerical GNU/Linux distributors. SUSE arguably kept an Intellectual Property ace up their sleeve by gluing their dist together with a non-GPL piece of administration SW called YaST. Unlike RH, this kept the cheapbytes, etc. from copying and reselling (RH sold RHL for $190 and cheapbytes sold the same for $10!!). Thus Novell/SUSE has the option of continuing to do business as usual rather than having to do a Fedora thing (a community support model). The RH Board basically saw a big RED item on the books.. their consumer dist... they eliminated it. SUSE doesn't necessarily have to follow suit.. though it has become much cloudier now that they are Novell (a publically traded company like RH... money aside, there's power being private). Of course, you'll hear many complaints against the SUSE model... but I think most of those people are the ones buying from cheapbytes (sigh). To me, those people really do not see value (reward) correctly at all. They are the free loaders of society and are really no different from the destitute addicted gambler on the Vegas strip, or the alcoholic looking for help in downtown Atlanta. Best thing I can do is to support free software by PAYING for it but isn't it nice to know that I don't HAVE to pay for it? Just don't get addicted to the idea of free software reward the developers (voluntary shareware)!! Random thoughts Chris
Re: Anyone Nagios? (GPL discussion)
Ryan Ware wrote: GPL does seem to work though for some. I think you need to look at what you are trying to accomplish and think hard about the best license to do that. snip Another real life example of where GPL is neat. Consider all of the lost IP due to acquisition. For instance, I worked for a company that developed a portable Cobol compiler. It basically translated to C and compiled using your native C compiler. We ported the compiler to over 20 different *ix variants. This was in the mid-late 1980's. It was part of a much bigger engine that allowed you to run CICS directly on *ix. The technology was acquired by a company who was not interested in the compiler at all. We pleaded with them to GPL the software... but they wanted it to use as a potential bargaining chip (in future acquisitions, etc.). However, the dust has collected, the product is forgotten and even today, there are many, many people who who benefit from the software. Shame. Companies need to think about their IP in light of potential future acquisitions. In my example, the company lost a golden opportunity to gain technical mindshare with a lot of developers (many of whom buy products from the company), but instead it was total loss. Here's a what-if scenario: What if Microsoft acquires EMC? Perhaps they want to foster a storage arm of Microsoft (they've done stranger things). We all know that EMC owns VMware... so what do you suppose happens to VMware in the process? Another good piece of technology bites the dust!
Re: Setuid programs on SLES 7 8
Marcy Cortes wrote: Our security group wants us to turn off setuid for all programs or document why it's there. Well... sounds like you need a new security team Not a bad idea to document why they're all there though. The good news... you have the source... could take a while. Try mailing the authors/maintainers and seeing if they can help expedite the process. SLES 7 seems to have the following: mount ping umount at chage chfn chsh crontab gpasswd rlogin rcp rsh sendmail traceroute SLES 8 has all the above except for rcp rlogin rsh sendmail traceroute Is everything going to fall apart if I change them? Or can anyone point out why these programs need it so I can justify it to them? Thanks! Does make one wonder why similar issues aren't raised with Windows though. Especially when you consider things like the way backup software works smells like a witch hunt to me. Marcy Cortes Wells Fargo Services Company
Re: Political Correctness goes mad in L.A. County (USA)
McKown, John wrote: ... One such recent example included the manufacturer's labeling of equipment where the words Master/Slave appeared to identify the primary and secondary sources. Based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable identification label. At least one major company is advocating for SCO/Linux as an adequate replacement for those labels.
Re: SCO Vs IBM
Adam Thornton wrote: On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 11:08, Phil Payne wrote: I don't think there's a real issue for SCO users, ..since there are only about four of them. Oh, hush my mouth! That's the problem with the Linux community. I can assure you that your numbers are a full order of magnitude off! I'm pretty sure they have 40 :-) Many of those are probably unaware that they are still SCO customers though... and some are probably being sued by SCO and wish they had never heard of them. If you want to know what SCO is really worth.. check out ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3638988871category=4619
Re: Filesystems and growing them online
David Boyes wrote: 1. Is there an issue with reiserfs on the Z platform installs of Linux? The same limitations apply on Z as on Intel. 2. Is there a way of growing a filesystem without unmounting it? I thought you could do this with Reiserfs but I have found nothing that is related to Reiserfs on the Z Platform. The same limitations apply as on Intel. See the extendfs man page for details. Shouldn't that be resize_reiserfs? It's there with SLES8. But SLES is partial to reiserfs. I've used it on Intel many times to grow them dynamically... even while being heavily used... seemed to work. Haven't tried on s390. Have to lvextend the volume first of course.
Re: Linux ready for the desktop: IBM
John Cassidy wrote: Hello all, until the Open Source community come up with something that at least looks like Lookout or Express Lookout, a lot of people will stay with the devil they know. Human beings are... human beings, and until they get such an equivalent from the Linux (Unix) world, they will stay with what they have. That is the only reason that is stopping me setting the format God on my XP partition. Evolution is a better than Outlook clone. However, that doesn't solve issues regarding proprietary formats, etc. coming with and used in integration with Exchange. I run real Outlook 2000 under CrossOver Office today.. no problems... I attach straight to the Exchange server... it can't tell the difference.. it's Outlook after all. Fortunately, we enabled pop on our Exchange internally so I can use Mozilla mail (which is what I used for everything except calendaring... for that, I still use Outlook... just Outlook under Linux). We have about 25 users now using SuSE 8.2 or SLES 8 based desktops running CrossOver Office with Office 2000 (incl. Outlook). People love it!! However, this is an expensive solution since you still have to license Office. That, boy and girls, was my 0.15 (euro) cents worth. John Cassidy Dipl.-Ing (Informatique) S390 zSeries Systems Engineering Schleswigstr. 7 D-51065 Cologne EU Tel: +49 (0) 221 61 60 777 . GSM: +49 (0) 177 799 58 56 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HTTP : www.jdcassidy.net
Re: history of Linux/390
Post, Mark K wrote: For pricing information, SUSE refers people in the US to their resellers. http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/server/sles/prices.html Others, they ask to email either [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat has their prices on their web site: http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/rhel/as/#ibmz390 Generally speaking... SUSE is anywhere from 35-45% less than comparable RH pricing (generally).
Re: Novell buys SuSE
Ann Smith wrote: Interesting development. More interesting is IBM's $50 million blessing on the arrangement. I wonder if BEA will try to acquire RH?? The problem with RH is they are too overvalued for acquisition. This Novell buy can't be good news for RH (even with Novell's track record).
Re: XEN. Interesting, following the VMWARE thread
Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission wrote: Although the page is a little hard to understand, I think the 'ported' OS is the one that runs XEN. The guest operating systems would appear to be fairly standard, although it appears that special device drivers would be required. Hmm.. I would say the OP got the interpretation correctly. Xen runs specially ported versions of various OS's. Will Xen do what we want it to do someday? Not sure. Their tight ties with Microsoft will make a true VMware replacement nearly impossible (Microsoft just won't allow it).
Re: z/VM and VMware
Coffin Michael C wrote: snipped ...They replied saying We are not Technical Support - but if you click on the links below you'll find everything you need to know and they proceeded to steer me back to the very A link like: http://www.vmware.com/support/linux/troubleshooting/peripherals_ts_linux.html Which states plainly that VMWARE DOES NOT support PCMCIA devices (except where already abstracted as in the case of the network interface and some serial/modem cards).
Re: z/VM and VMware
Coffin Michael C wrote: Hi Chris, Well, that's pretty clear - so my question should have been simple to answer. But no, they didn't give me THAT link (in fact, drilling down from their Home page I cannot get to THAT page at all) - first they gave me: Sadly, the VMware staff is more interested in supporting their product running on Windoze at the host platform (why is a mystery to me, it runs much slower under W2K than it does under Linux). I will agree that VMware has failed to see their full potential. It may well be that if they REALLY get serious, they'll hit Microsoft just a little too hard below the belt... and well, you know what happens to companies that do that. Of course, my guess is that Microsoft has had VMware in its sights for a while... the date of their destruction has probably already been set. Just a matter of Microsoft throwing the switch. If that plan includes Microsoft taking over VMware ... the hosted Linux VMware will be pulled as a product offering... guaranteed. I just wish that VMware would GPL the stuff before their demise to prevent it from forever being locked into the Microsoft Vault of Shame.
Re: z/VM and VMware
Ledbetter, Scott E wrote: Microsoft has no reason to buy VMWare now that they have bought Connectix. Microsoft Virtual Server will be available sometime in the next year, and then VMWare will have competition. They will get better or die. I realize this thread is getting WAY off topic.. but you SERIOUSLY believe that Microsoft uses competition to eliminate companies with significant marketshare?? That'll be a first. It's much easier to eliminate your competition (by whatever means) than to take the slow route. Look for Microsoft to dessimate VMware sometime in 2004 (they will leave NO survivors). Microsoft compete ... LOL! Btw... show me the Connectix product that hosts on Linux that is superior to VMware?... answer: none... never, ever, no NOT EVER, going to happen. So.. we already know that the argument get better or die could ONLY apply to Microsoft... and again, Microsoft will take extremely drastic measures (no bounds) if that were to ever happen.
Re: z/VM and VMware
Tobleman, Vicky wrote: We're considering partitioning larger Intel servers using VMware and setting up our Linux environments ... production and development. Is anyone else doing this - have any experiences to share? Pros/Cons? And is 6 servers per engine consolidation reasonable (i.e., 4 engines would equate to 24 machines)? Realizing that it is dependent on type of workload - file, print, web, etc. We've got a few Linux Intel boxes and would like to avoid the WinTel farms we've acquired. Hmmm... if the goal is just to run Linux I would think UML or alternatives would be more efficent. VMware is very nice, but if they're all Linux... might as well gain back some performance (VMware is resource expensive). Not sure if 6 per engine is reasonable with VMware, you'll need a LOT of memory (which presents its own set of problems with both the Intel platform and VMware). Now.. if VMware supported large scale Opteron platforms!! (just dreaming at the moment) ... might even challenge z/VM (?) (well.. not management wise... but scalability wise).
Re: maintenance strategy
Phil Hodgson wrote: Has anyone any thoughts (sensible or otherwise) about keeping a penguin colony up to date with it's software? We have a SuSE base system from which we cut all new systems. I try to keep the base system up to date. The problems come when a) we have to roll out a fix to all our systems. I don't want to log on to all of them in turn. Setup an ssh key'd login. Fire off a script to loop through and update all of your hosts. b) we want to install a new piece of software that is not on the base system and the version on the delivery CD images may (or may not) have been superseded with new maintenance. Again, the ssh script is ideal for this. You could have the package area NFS mounted to all hosts for instance, or scp copy the packages. Then just ssh to invoke the install routine on each platform via a script.
Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Guillaume Morin wrote: [ on the discussion about RH vs. SuSE ] ... stuff snipped... Come on :) , it is trivial to get one package with the utils for something as common... I really have no preference for any for Redhat or SuSE, but you're being a bit unfair. Guillaume. Actually, not unfair at all. Though as a Debian person you are quite used to doing many things on your own outside of support, corporate customers are not likely to install packages outside of the vendor's support. Just adding reiserfs to RH is not as simple as pulling (potentially non vendor supported) packages off the web. Granted, RH may provide packages for that particular case, but their track record with reiserfs hasn't been great even when packages were available. RH really likes ext3. With that said, RH has money coming out of its ears in comparison to SuSE. So money is NOT standing in the way of RH turning up the heat in a future distribution (the money difference is actually quite grotesque). Now with that said, I do highly admire the level of determination and committment by SuSE and so I like SuSE better. But as an ISV, we have to support both. I prefer the player who's motiviation is strong regardless of the number $$$'s presented to him/her but many (if not most) people base decisions on a company's financial data. SuSE certainly has enough enterprise level customers... I'm going to throw my hat in with them (and RH because I have to).
Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Guillaume Morin wrote: ... You like Debian then :-) Guillaume. Debian is my preferred choice on platforms not supported (well) by RH and SuSE (e.g. Alpha).
Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:40:16PM -0500, Chris Cox wrote: Actually, not unfair at all. Though as a Debian person you are quite used to doing many things on your own outside of support, corporate customers are not likely to install packages outside of the vendor's support. Actually it is quite the opposite. I tend to find everything that I need already provided and supported by Debian and need to install very little additional software. Good for you. My experience is that Debian is a bit out of date. I'm guessing your running Debian unstable (?). That's your choice. Just somewhat of a moving target.
Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Matt Zimmerman wrote: .. I'd be curious to hear what you found to be missing from Debian 3.0. Most of the complaints I hear tend to boil down to version numbers are smaller, or misunderstandings about backported security fixes (which actually boils down to the same issue of version numbers). Yes... it's strictly a feature thing only in certain circumstances. Sounds like Debian does a good job of back porting security fixes, similar to SuSE. I do use Debian, just not on s390/z. Our company supports both RH AS and SLES on s390/z.
Re: Well, I've gone and done it. I'm quoted in an article in the who SCO/IBM Fracas.
James Melin wrote: http://www.esj.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=668 Preaching to the choir!! Nice article and good quotes from ya!
Re: Issue with tn3270 sessions to z/VM logging off guests
Eric Sammons wrote: Yesterday when working on a problem I stumbled on to a pretty sizeable problem, in my opinion. I discovered that when connected to a guest via a 3270 session, like x3270 or Exceed's Host access tools, if I use the x in the upper right corner to close the window prior to executing cp disc that guest will be shutdown asap. Interestingly I found this to be true in the event of blue screens, power failure, logoff, proper shutdown, or improper shutdown. Any event that closes my 3270 window prior to my executing cp disc will cause the logged in guest to basically power down on the spot (logoff). This holds true when establishing a 3270 connection from Windows using Windows utilities (Exceed), or connecting from Unix / Linux using X11 tools. Has anyone else seen this problem? If so is there a fix? This is in my opinion an unacceptable feature for what should be a production worthy solution. Not exactly sure about the thing you're seeing (power down?) The solution is ugly at best and certainly incomplete (okay... basically not a REAL solution). You can set local window manager resources in an X11 environment to exclude the pretty little X (close) detail. This keeps the novices from wacking their client... but the sophisticated user will ALWAYS be able to shut it down improperly. And of course shutting down clients improperly is a way of life if your client OS is Windows (BSOD, etc.). Not sure if there's something on the mainframe side that can be done to clean these up correctly but I'm not too sure about the symptom you're reporting either... I just know what can or can't be done with regards to improper client termination... and unfortunately, apart from tricking the novice user, there's not too much you can do unless there's a mechanism on the mainframe side to clean up the improper client disconnects. If it does something bad immediately at the time of the bad disconnect... well... there's probably no solution for that. I'm not a mainframe guru...
Re: Yahoo News Article: Linux OK'd for Use on Most-Sensitive PCs
test acker man wrote: The link below appears to have expired. I did find some other links, to otehr newspapaers, by searching on Yahoo. Here is one: http://www.modbee.com/24hour/technology/story/960517p-6731069c.html Questions: It says installed on a particular line of IBM's server computers. WHICH line of server computers??? Why is only SuSE approved, and not Red Hat? Redhat is working on their cert. Supposedly the company (I believe it's a UK company...rumor in link below) that RH got to help them with this faltered on getting it done. There's a lot to certification though and frankly I'm not surprised that RH didn't make it. But I'm not RH's biggest fan. In all fairness to RH, they did get COE cert, whereas SLES didn't yet. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11067 I work for a major enterprise ISV and frankly there's nobody here that likes RH on the mainframe, everyone likes SLES though. But hey, RH is working on the next version... so who knows about tomorrow. (we don't like RH on Intel that much either... just fyi)
