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
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:07:02AM +, Michael Stevens wrote:
> [1] OS changed on the grounds I feel that Redhat ships something more
> optimised towards desktop use, whereas I feel Debian and Solaris are both
> more suited for servers.
I was schmoozing with the CTO/chairman of Penguin Computi
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, 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 ser
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, 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
>
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
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 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.
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 we
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
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>Isn't kickstart a solaris thing, or have redhat developed new stuff
*>I didn't know about?
Jumpstart.
e.
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 documen
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
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
>
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
> 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
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
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:17:08PM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
> > 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
> l
> 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.
> 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 ->
/u
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
> 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.
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 ev
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,
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 extend
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
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.
Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My only install of solaris has been on a 486, but IIRC you get a decent
> amount of flexibility over what does, and does not, go in.
As you do on most modern UNIX-like systems RedHat included..
> It's been a while since I BSD'd much, but I definate
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 yo
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
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
Jumpsta
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 a
> 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 comp
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 f
* at 26/01 11:33 + Michael Stevens said:
> 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 c
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
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
> >> mo
* at 26/01 11:21 + Michael Stevens said:
>
> IMHO the main significance here is in the default install. You can
> fiddle around with anything if you want and make it vaguely sensible as a
> server.
>
> Redhat as default is not very well setup to use as a server on the internet
> (I feel). De
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 - they don't provide anything that you couldn't do yourself by
>> havi
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.
>
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
> >pay
>
> s /some dodgy PC desktop with Redhat stuck on it by a hobbyist who has
> never used another UNIX/inexperienced/;
>
> Lets not compare inexperience with anyparticular flavour of *nix.
>
> Greg
>
> Who started on Redhat along time ago, and has since used and initially
> disliked Solaris/Sun OS,
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?
> >
> > (An
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
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 o
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
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
> lik
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
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
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
nance and upgrades
So for us it makes 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: Su
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 but the Sun name tends (rathe
>>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
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 enterp
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
Steve Mynott [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>I just installed my own totally separate version of Perl 5.6 in
*>/usr/local, used that and have had no problems to date, although its
*>best to explicitly state '/usr/local/bin/perl' to prevent confusion
*>and have that first in your PATH.
*>
*>I don't th
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:08:10AM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
>
> BTW does any know why Sun refer to cpu0 and cpu2 and not 0 and 1? Is
> it a marketing thing so the number 2 appears as an obvious second
> processor or is there a real reason?
Well, if you have four processors they're numbered 0,
Steve Mynott wrote:
> Anil Madhavapeddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perl is still mashed up, out of the box :-( We had to do
> > some patching to get CPAN to work, and don't even think of
> > installing a fresh copy, or half the admintools (linked
> > against their special copy), fail mis
(cc added to london.pm)
Anil Madhavapeddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Sun do seem to have mended their ways a little. They even ship apache
> > and bash as binary packages on extra CD with Solaris 8 and, most
> > importantly, gcc!
>
> Perl is
60 matches
Mail list logo
