Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
Robin Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Sadly I no longer have shell access to any four-processor Sun
machines to confirm this.)
Which reminds me.
How in gods name do Sun get away with charging so much for stuff?
We've erm, "acquired" an enterprise 420.
For the same money I could build
a clutster
of what, 30 linux boxes? Don't tell me programmer time has got that
expensive? Or that thinking about what you're doing stopped
happening?
If it's good enough for Google...
Help me out here!
It is good kit (and alot of it is rebadged stuff
sense. For other people where you don't have the above
constraints it's probably not worth the extra.
-- Harry
-Original Message-
From: Greg Cope [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 January 2001 10:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sun's Perl was Re: Application servers and e-commerce
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:35:45AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
I suspect things like SMP probably still work better. And if I were
on call supporting a server I would probably still trust a Sparc
running Solaris over some dodgy PC desktop with Redhat stuck on it by
a hobbyist who has never
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:17:21AM +, Greg Cope wrote:
Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
How in gods name do Sun get away with charging so much for stuff?
It is good kit
But it's also a marketing thing I know tow clients whom purchased
15k of sun kit each, and in either case a good
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:35:45AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
I suspect things like SMP probably still work better. And if I were
on call supporting a server I would probably still trust a Sparc
running Solaris over some dodgy PC desktop with
Steve Mynott wrote:
Dave Hodgkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[..]
How in gods name do Sun get away with charging so much for stuff?
Because they can and they have a brand people trust like IBM or
Microsoft. In fact you can buy far cheaper Sun clones from companies
like Transtec
Michael Stevens wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:35:45AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
I suspect things like SMP probably still work better. And if I were
on call supporting a server I would probably still trust a Sparc
running Solaris over some dodgy PC desktop with Redhat stuck on it by
On or about Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:07:02AM +, Michael Stevens typed:
I imagine you could get a pc service contract on the same level as
Sun do, but I have no experience in the area. Has anyone got any experience
paying vast amounts of money for PC support? did you get much for your
money?
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:18:06AM +, Greg Cope wrote:
How about a decently built rack mount PC running Debian[1], by
someone who actually knows how to setup that particular OS decently,
as compared with a Sun box running Solaris setup by someone good
with solaris?
(And, myself,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:19:02AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
On or about Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:07:02AM +, Michael Stevens typed:
I imagine you could get a pc service contract on the same level as
Sun do, but I have no experience in the area. Has anyone got any experience
paying
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
Can't we compare something vaguely equivalent here instead?
I personally would have just as little faith in Solaris run by someone
who didn't know what they were doing as I would in Redhat run by
someone who didn't know what they were doing.
How
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:30:03AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
On or about Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:23:26AM +, Michael Stevens typed:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:19:02AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
Dell offer this on some of their servers. IMHO this is always a waste of
money -
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:30:28AM +, Struan Donald wrote:
on the other hand kickstart files aren't that tricky to write and you
can then set up the box in a sensible way (or something approaching
that) and it's very easy to set up a chunk of boxes the same.
of course you a box to put
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:39:17AM +, Struan Donald wrote:
One of these days I must play with the FAI (fully automatic installation)
stuff for debian.
kickstart is (i assume) teh redhat equiv of FAI. or at least it is if
FAI is stick floppy in system, create symlink in some magic format
Agreed entirely. I was thinking purely of hardware support; software
support IME is always and everywhere a complete waste of time
and money.
I have encountered good software support with applications that:
a) Cost over 20 grand
and/or
b) Are not widely used
I think there are lots of
On or about Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:08:22PM -, Jonathan Peterson typed:
And then people wonder why I like open source...
Even within OS software there's good support and bad support. There's plenty
of OS software that _doesn't_ have helpful user groups, and has very poor
documentation and
This is really sysadminy stuff and probably off topic but here I go:-
Michael Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't kickstart a solaris thing, or have redhat developed new stuff
I didn't know about?
Kickstart is RedHat
http://wwwcache.ja.net/dev/kickstart/KickStart-HOWTO.html
Jumpstart
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:16:52PM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
There's very little off-topic on this list :)
Kickstart is RedHat
http://wwwcache.ja.net/dev/kickstart/KickStart-HOWTO.html
Jumpstart is Solaris
Both are automated install procedures.
Yes. I have learnt.
If it is just
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1] My main gripe with *BSD is lack of binary package management
Um, then what's this?
pkg_add ftp://ftp.plig.org/pub/OpenBSD/2.8/packages/i386/dia-0.86p1.tgz
That installed a precompiled binary of dia for me. Or do you
Rob Partington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That installed a precompiled binary of dia for me. Or do you mean that,
say, pkg_* don't have the same functionality as RPM?
It has the same (or similar functionality) but its database isn't
complete because it doesn't include _every_ system file.
--
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On RedHat I can do something like 'rpm -e sendmail' to clean up before
installing qmail and, alas, I can't do this on OpenBSD (although there
has been talk of extending the binary packages to include the base
OS).
If you
Rob Partington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On RedHat I can do something like 'rpm -e sendmail' to clean up before
installing qmail and, alas, I can't do this on OpenBSD (although there
has been talk of extending the
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 01:59:09PM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
Rob Partington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On RedHat I can do something like 'rpm -e sendmail' to clean up before
installing qmail and, alas, I can't do this
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:08:22PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
I've encountered good support for Veritas' Netbackup package, but again we
were paying about 6k / annum for the support contract.
Lucky you! I spit on the earth that NetBackup walks on! It's one of
the worst packages I've
Redvers Davies wrote:
Would this still hold for a RedDrat system with all the X stuff and
other unncessary stuff removed ?
Nah, ou want slackware A, N and D... No more. 10 meg for your base
OS, compile what you need.
Stop IT ... I am not using slackware !
Greg
Under FreeBSD, you've got sendmail-wrapper instead, which you can
configure to point to any installed file.
Linux has that too - its called a symbolic link:
tonkatsu:~# ls -al /usr/lib/sendmail /usr/sbin/sendmail
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 9 1998 /usr/lib/sendmail -
Stop IT ... I am not using slackware !
Ans why not?? For a server it is perfect. Very small, very compact.
Perfect for a secure environment.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:19:08PM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
Stop IT ... I am not using slackware !
Ans why not?? For a server it is perfect. Very small, very compact.
Perfect for a secure environment.
Is that why slackware.com got broken into a few weeks ago then? :-)
-Dom
Is that why slackware.com got broken into a few weeks ago then? :-)
I'm not going to rise to that at all as you know full well that the
security of a product has more to do with its installation, configuration
and maintainence than the code. Regardless of supplier, if the admin does
not lock
Roger Burton West [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*On or about Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:08:22PM -, Jonathan Peterson typed:
*
* And then people wonder why I like open source...
*Even within OS software there's good support and bad support. There's plenty
*of OS software that _doesn't_ have helpful
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:40:13AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
*Oh, agreed entirely. The key thing is that nobody _expects_ a professional
*support service, so they're less disappointed when it doesn't happen.
I don't think this is true for the great majority of software end-users
out
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*
*I personally would have just as little faith in Solaris run by someone
*who didn't know what they were doing as I would in Redhat run by
*someone who didn't know what they were doing.
I would have more faith in Solaris. On an acadmeic network, no
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*
*Can anyone point to actual studies of the "we took some end users, and
*found they wanted FOO amounts of documentation". And, for completeness,
*"we took some end users, looked at what they were actually using, and
*then looked at how much
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*
*Isn't kickstart a solaris thing, or have redhat developed new stuff
*I didn't know about?
Jumpstart.
e.
Redvers Davies wrote:
Stop IT ... I am not using slackware !
Ans why not?? For a server it is perfect. Very small, very compact.
Perfect for a secure environment.
Only joking - I'm used to redhat - I might move to Debian who knows
?
I am quite happy with redhat / debian as I know
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:50:00AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*I personally would have just as little faith in Solaris run by someone
*who didn't know what they were doing as I would in Redhat run by
*someone who didn't know what they were
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:59:08AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*Isn't kickstart a solaris thing, or have redhat developed new stuff
*I didn't know about?
Jumpstart.
yes, I found that out, my memory sucks.
Dominic Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, don't forget that symbolic links originated in BSD, thank you. :-)
Don't forget that pretty much everything of any use in Unix came out
of Berkely! I spit on your system V IPC, I want my select()...
--
Dave Hodgkinson,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 06:04:07PM +, Michael Stevens wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:50:00AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
I take that post back. I don't think it would be productive to
continue the discussion.
Michael
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:50:00AM -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
I would have more faith in Solaris. On an acadmeic network, no firewalls,
we had user workstations that pretty much lived on their own and at the
mercy of their users. One day, one of the AI profs installed RedHat after
David Cantrell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*
*And yet this is not Linux's fault. It is the fault of:
* the person who set it up wrongly in the first place
* the network people for making their network so vulnerable to this
*sort of predictable stupidity
OpenBSD hasn't had a exploitable
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
I have a farm of suns, if you want to make a benchmark, I'll be very
interested to run and compare the results.
I have three E250s running Informix in my hareem, the only time those
suckers have broken is when someone broke the database
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:42:16AM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
Multi processor Solaris runs rings around any of the free Unixes.
They've had kernel threads for nearly 10 years, and it's very optimized.
Hmm, last time I checked Solaris threads were a nightmare...
I suspect that SGIs IRIX
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 02:33:54PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
Under FreeBSD, you've got sendmail-wrapper instead, which you can
configure to point to any installed file.
Debian has generalised this in /etc/alternatives,
$ ls -l /etc/alternatives/ | head -6
total 1
-rw-r--r--1 root
Robin Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Sadly I no longer have shell access to any four-processor Sun
machines to confirm this.)
Which reminds me.
How in gods name do Sun get away with charging so much for stuff?
We've erm, "acquired" an enterprise 420. this box has 2 CPUs, 4G or
RAM and
46 matches
Mail list logo
