Upscale wrote:
> "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>Firefox was also designed to beat up on WindBlow Explorer or whatever it's
>>called these days. Explorer is and was so full of holes that something
>>needed to be done and Mozilla was and is the answer. Anyone using Explorer
>>today is a fool, it has not been updated or improved in years.
> Funny you mention this. Firefox is projected to scale up to approximately
> 20% of the market within a few years from its current 9%. As well, with its
> increased presence in the market, it will be certainly be targeted for an
> increased amount of attacks by hackers. And BTW, Explorer 7 is expected to
> hit the market somewhere near the end of 2006.
I don't think Firefox will ever have the underlying problems with
security on Linux that IE has on windows, and if Firefox has a problem
on windows it'll just as surely be through some brain-damage in the
operating system hooks it uses to get access to the cpu/memory/hardware.
The DoD (and others... DHS for one) recommend against IE. And have for
quite some time.
Firefox has many and sophisticated means, as well, to limit risk in
phishing attacks, popups, etc. Best of all, I don't think I would feel
comfortable at all without this after having used it awhile, is an
extension (have you checked out Firefox's extensions? marvelous!) that
allows you to selectively allow javascript depending on your trust of
the sending server. An icon pops up at any site where it's disallowed
(and it is by default) that you can click on to get a menu if you want
to allow it from that site.
Firefox has been ahead of the game for quite awhile... and the
extensions mean IE will always be playing catchup with a much slower
development process.
er
--
email not valid
evodawg wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>
> Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
> DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
> it worse.
> --
> "you can lead them to LINUX
> but you can't make them THINK"
OOOOOOOH! NOOOOO!!!!!!
Are you MAD man???? Hide yourself now before the wolves come to shred
you!!!!
Tom in KY, RUN! RUN!!!RUUUUUUN!!!!!!
evodawg wrote:
> I wouldn't call myself young, maybe young at heart. 50 is still young
> as far as I'm concerned. But what story did I tell? I've been using
> linux since 1995 and have never had a problem or never looked back.
You've got to be kidding. There is NO O/S that you can use for 10 years
without problems.
For instance, I'm using Slackware (and have off and on since version
0.9?) and with my latest installation I can't get CUPS to recognize my
3rd parallel port. Not a major "toss it" type problem, but a problem
nonetheless.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
James T. Kirby wrote:
> But as far as OS stability goes - we live in a different world from
> you Windows users. I had something stuck in a queue a few weeks ago
> that neither I or my system manager could seem to free up. This did
> not crash the system, only froze up my local printer. After staring
> for a while, we decided to do the MS fix - reboot.
> (This nearly caused the manager to weep).
> We noted that the machine's last reboot was over 18 months before.
I helped develop a SCADA system for an aluminum smelter. It ran on SCO
Unix and about the only time it got rebooted was for O/S upgrades. But
then the powers that be decided to add some Windoze workstations with
some pretty graphics from a canned package. The workstations of course
went down frequently. The end users didn't know the difference between
the workstations and the host. As far as they were concerned, the
"system" was buggy. Ah, well.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Enoch Root wrote:
>> 1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
>> phenomenon. Prior to that you had internet search engines like
>> archie, gopher, and others. Netscape was one of the successful .com
>> companies.
>
> No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
> after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the WWW.
>
Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
evodawg wrote:
>>> No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
>>> after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the
>>> WWW.
>>>
>>
>> Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed
>> :-).
>>
>
> I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time.
> What else existed? nada Wasn't that around 1988 or earlier?
Gopher?
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Eugene Nine wrote:
> evodawg wrote:
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>
>> Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>> DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
>> it worse.
> As long as they don't use any part of AOL then were still safe. If AOL
> does to google what they did to roadrunner then we might as well stop
> using google now.
I'm just wondering why any company would buy a losing market share outfit.
AOL has been going down hill for years. The other thing I don't understand,
is why would anyone use this type of service, MSN, Yahoo, AOL and others?
Rich
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
W Canaday wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:04:53 +0000, evodawg wrote:
>
>
>>Guess "problem" is a relative term. I should have said major problem, my
>>mistake. Like you said never a problem where I wanted to toss the OS. In
>>1995 I tossed Windblows forever, I just got so frustrated with it and it
>>was no longer a frustration I wanted to deal with anymore. I too use
>>Slackware as one of my OS's and others I mess with.
>
>
> Dudes .... ;-)
>
> Good to see other Linux users on a woodworking forum!
>
> Ram in my server belched so I kissed off about 300 days. Previous reboot
> was due to a power failure (remember when the East coast grid tanked?).
> Also trashed about 300 days.
>
> Currently typing this from my laptop.
>
> 19:54:38 up 2:35, 0 users, load average: 0.31, 0.33, 0.41
>
> Bill
ok...
17:22:00 up 81 days, 9:14, 14 users, load average: 0.14, 0.08, 0.02
huh, no knew (distro) kernel updates in awhile (hence the extended uptime)
er
--
email not valid
"evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:DQApf.6592$7f3.6422@trnddc01...
> George wrote:
>
> >
> > "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:O5Apf.30864$Ht4.4599@trnddc08...
> >>
> >> Believe Mozilla with Netscapes approval was started by the OPEN SOURCE
> >> community and has been around for a long time. Linux and others had no
> >> really good Browser except for Konqueror. And they said that open
source
> >> would never work. Thousands of Linux user contributed to its
development.
> >> Now FireFox is the best browser available.
> >
> > Are you very young or just opinionated? Those of us who used open
source
> > programs in the past can tell you compatibility stories that would curl
> > your toenails.
> >
> > Which includes operating systems, BTW.
>
> I wouldn't call myself young, maybe young at heart. 50 is still young as
far
> as I'm concerned. But what story did I tell? I've been using linux since
> 1995 and have never had a problem or never looked back. I'm sure you're
> still using Explorer too, right?
Anyone who has said that they've been using Linux since '95 *and* they've
never had a problem, can't be trusted. Perhaps you've never had a problem
you weren't willing to work through, or that you considered big enough to
spoil you on the operating system, but to state you've never had a problem
in a Linux environment only says you've never fired the box up.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:23:47 GMT, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> $ uptime
> 12:13:31 up 8 days, 1:32, 1 user, load average: 0.23, 0.21, 0.32
> Before that it was somewhere in the vicinity of 60 days
That's nothing. I've got a server, busy little box, that's wrapped
around the 497-day "uptime bug" twice and is nearly to a third time.
It's busy but has nothing sensitive on it, and is behind enough
firewalls that I don't care so much about it being way out of patch.
Info Security gets twitchy every time they scan it, though...
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>
>>Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>>DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
>>it worse.
>
> Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
> better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla
> and
> FireFox. Most telling though is the quote, "Time Warner finally accepted
> when Google agreed to give AOL favored search treatment" Wonder what
> *that* means to those of us who don't care where the information is, we
> want the most relevant information requested.
>
Means you get railroaded into Google pay-to-play subsearches. These guys
tell where things came from, which can be a help.
http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html
"evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:O5Apf.30864$Ht4.4599@trnddc08...
>
> Believe Mozilla with Netscapes approval was started by the OPEN SOURCE
> community and has been around for a long time. Linux and others had no
> really good Browser except for Konqueror. And they said that open source
> would never work. Thousands of Linux user contributed to its development.
> Now FireFox is the best browser available.
Are you very young or just opinionated? Those of us who used open source
programs in the past can tell you compatibility stories that would curl your
toenails.
Which includes operating systems, BTW.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:07:14 -0500, Matt Stachoni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But anyone who thinks that *nix can run without at least some amount
> of tweaking (epecially when dealing with graphics hardware) is simply
> stuck in a quaint little fantasy.
Maybe "tweaking" means something different in your world? To me, it
means "go back and change it again to get/keep it working". Are you
maybe using "Yes, that which you have autodetected is, in fact, my
hardware" as a definition for tweaking?
Whatever. Our experiences differ. Mine are current.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:58:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
><snip>
>>
>>Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?
>
> Good books. I almost didn't read 2 & 3, 'cause I didn't see where he
> was going with book one, but I'm glad I did.
Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:51:59 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
>> was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?
> I think reading book 0 before book 1 will raise your curiosity enough
> while reading book 1 to continue on to 2 (& 3).
Um. Can I get a guide to the numbering as used in this context, please?
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:58:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hinz wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?
>>
>> Good books. I almost didn't read 2 & 3, 'cause I didn't see where he
>>was going with book one, but I'm glad I did.
>
>
> Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
> was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?
I think reading book 0 before book 1 will raise your curiosity enough
while reading book 1 to continue on to 2 (& 3).
er
--
email not valid
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:51:59 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
>>>Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
>>>was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?
>
>
>>I think reading book 0 before book 1 will raise your curiosity enough
>>while reading book 1 to continue on to 2 (& 3).
>
>
> Um. Can I get a guide to the numbering as used in this context, please?
Book zero would be Cryptonomicon... mostly relatives of the characters
in the trilogy.
er
--
email not valid
Matt Stachoni wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2005 00:43:26 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>the context given was "I can keep tweaking XP and it's just fine for
>>security and stability", which is considerably different from "I can
>>install software on a server".
>
> FYI, I never mentioned "constant tweaking."
>
> In fact, I rarely have to do anything to my system once the OS,
> drivers and applications are installed and certain housekeeping things
> are done.
>
> Most of the "tweaking" steps required are to set certain services to
> Automatic, Manual or Disabled; and deal with application options to
> further enhance system performance. And with SP2 many of those
> Services tweaks are now unecessary because they are turned off by
> default.
>
> And, of course, it's effortless to turn a lengthy XP install down to a
> hands off routine using a simple disk imaging app like Ghost or an
> installation scripting routine.
>
> But anyone who thinks that *nix can run without at least some amount
> of tweaking (epecially when dealing with graphics hardware) is simply
> stuck in a quaint little fantasy.
>
> Here, on someplace I like to call Planet Earth, we all know better.
>
> Matt
You must not know much about what your doing then. My team supports both
windows and unix servers and windows takes a lot more "tweaking" both
during the initial setup and during production.
unix servers get patches and security fixes quarterly, windows gets monthly
and that monthly maintenance isn't just installing the hotfixes from MS,
its making changes to permissions and registry keys to work around holes
they haven't released the patch for yet.
In a large enterprise the ratio of windows system engineers to servers is 1
to 50, the ratio for unix is 1 to 75. So if you have 1000 servers it takes
20 windows engineers and 1000 unix servers only takes 13 or 14.
On 22 Dec 2005 00:43:26 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>the context given was "I can keep tweaking XP and it's just fine for
>security and stability", which is considerably different from "I can
>install software on a server".
FYI, I never mentioned "constant tweaking."
In fact, I rarely have to do anything to my system once the OS,
drivers and applications are installed and certain housekeeping things
are done.
Most of the "tweaking" steps required are to set certain services to
Automatic, Manual or Disabled; and deal with application options to
further enhance system performance. And with SP2 many of those
Services tweaks are now unecessary because they are turned off by
default.
And, of course, it's effortless to turn a lengthy XP install down to a
hands off routine using a simple disk imaging app like Ghost or an
installation scripting routine.
But anyone who thinks that *nix can run without at least some amount
of tweaking (epecially when dealing with graphics hardware) is simply
stuck in a quaint little fantasy.
Here, on someplace I like to call Planet Earth, we all know better.
Matt
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:DQApf.6592$7f3.6422@trnddc01...
>> George wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:O5Apf.30864$Ht4.4599@trnddc08...
>> >>
>> >> Believe Mozilla with Netscapes approval was started by the OPEN SOURCE
>> >> community and has been around for a long time. Linux and others had no
>> >> really good Browser except for Konqueror. And they said that open
> source
>> >> would never work. Thousands of Linux user contributed to its
> development.
>> >> Now FireFox is the best browser available.
>> >
>> > Are you very young or just opinionated? Those of us who used open
> source
>> > programs in the past can tell you compatibility stories that would curl
>> > your toenails.
>> >
>> > Which includes operating systems, BTW.
>>
>> I wouldn't call myself young, maybe young at heart. 50 is still young as
> far
>> as I'm concerned. But what story did I tell? I've been using linux since
>> 1995 and have never had a problem or never looked back. I'm sure you're
>> still using Explorer too, right?
>
>
> Anyone who has said that they've been using Linux since '95 *and* they've
> never had a problem, can't be trusted. Perhaps you've never had a problem
> you weren't willing to work through, or that you considered big enough to
> spoil you on the operating system, but to state you've never had a problem
> in a Linux environment only says you've never fired the box up.
>
I clarified my statement if you would have taken the time to read my reply
you would have noticed that. Take a look at my uptime if you believe I
never "fired the box up"
Geez, I started out explaining Mozilla FireFox and Google's relationship and
now I've been accused of being a liar. Nice! Really makes you want to reply
to a question? Just forget the whole thing.
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>
>>Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>>DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
>>it worse.
>
> Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
> better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla
> and
> FireFox.
What does AOL have to do with Mozilla and Firefox?
On 21-Dec-2005, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> As opposed to the *nix* systems, which work out of the box without
> constant fiddling.
Wha- ha-ha-ha!!!!
Good joke Dave!
Having handled systems with various linux and Unix versions (solaris, redhat,
gentoo, debian etc) I can say that they are more stable than windows but
only don't require tweaking if nothing is done to them. If you keep adding/updating
software, you will tweak forever. Installing software can be anything from a piece
of cake to a nightmare to an exercise in futility. I've had shells stop working
mysteriously, software come up with bizarre error messages and stop working
and so on. "nix" systems are better, but they are far from perfect.
I only wish "user friendly" wasn't a derogatory term among the linux crowd.
Mike
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:04:32 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>XP was the last straw for me. I was running NT4 and w2k for a long time,
>then bought myself a new lappy three years ago with XP. After about 6
>months it wouldn't recognize half my USB devices and I mistyped a web site
>address and got a major spyware infection despite disabling java and active
>x in IE, running an a non Admin user, running AV and antispyware, etc. I
>popped in slackware 8 or 9 and shutdown to upgrade my drive to a 60g then
>installed slack10 and just a few months ago 10.1. I actually get bored now
>since it never breaks.
XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it. My
machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago, and I've have gigabytes
of programs installed/uninstalled, and it still runs as well as it did
when I formatted the HD.
I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
spyware.
Matt
Dave Hinz wrote:
>>My tweaking days are over. I want the computer to disappear when I'm
>>working on it. Since (now) I'm writing statistical apps for a genetics
>>lab I've turned in my sysadmin hat. Hopefully forever.
>
>
> Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
> get to.
For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
friday...
Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers" (and I'm being very
liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
manage the windows stuff. Whomever got that account for us shoulda been
stuffed in the powersupply.
er
--
email not valid
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:34:10 -0600, George Shouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> I work for one of the top 100 corporations in the world that
> happens to be a bank. Their policy is the same in large part
> due to SOX & OCC requirements. Open Source including Linux can
> be used for non-monetary and non-reporting applications like
> analytics or campaign management. If it is mission critical,
> customer facing, handles monetary transactions or participates
> in external reporting there must be a vendor support agreement
> in place.
You say those two things like they're related somehow? Of course you
can get a support contract for Linux. Anyone saying otherwise is
spreading FUD, either through ignorance, or due to an agenda.
> Smaller banks within a single state and especially community
> banks can play a lot faster and looser.
The company I work for (for the next two weeks; just gave notice) is,
let's say, a large name in the mortgage insurance business. We've got
the same governmental requirements, and were temporarily delayed on
several Linux projects by the whole SCO idiocy thing, but I stand by my
statement that the SOX and other folks want to know about recordkeeping
and policies and procedures, how vulerabilities are handled, and all
that, more than what type of Unix we're running.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:43:55 -0500, Odinn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/26/2005 10:00 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2005 11:22 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
/snip/
>>> It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
>>> assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
>>> on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
>>> Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
>>
>> We must work in very different financial industries. Which is odd since
>> the banks whose names are probably on cards in your wallet, don't care
>> what OS we're running anything on. Even the more annoying ones.
>
>2 of the banks who's cards are in my wallet I KNOW won't allow us to run
>the apps/database on Linux unless we have a software assurance agreement
>in place (we have to have it for ANY OS we have for them). RedHat and
>SuSE (the only 2 64bit Linux versions we have working) both cost well
>over $1200 a year for their server licensing.
>>
>> 5 years ago we had a guy saying much the same thing you are. We made
>> the changes anyway, where appropriate, and the sky continued to not
>> fall, the customers (banks) continued not to stay away in droves, the
>> auditors (internal, government, and "sent by customers") just want to
>> see the vulnerabilities and what we've done about them; not what kernel
>> a piece of hardware is running.
>
>It's not about the kernel, it's about having someone responsible for an
>issue. Running Linux isn't the problem, it's running a version with no
>support.
>>
>> Maybe it's not your boss, who needs the upgrading.
>>
>
>I just go by what we are told. We were told we had to have licensed
>software for those reasons I mentioned. I'm not the one paying for
>them, it's ultimately the bank that pays for those licenses, so they
>dictate what they want to pay for.
I work for one of the top 100 corporations in the world that
happens to be a bank. Their policy is the same in large part
due to SOX & OCC requirements. Open Source including Linux can
be used for non-monetary and non-reporting applications like
analytics or campaign management. If it is mission critical,
customer facing, handles monetary transactions or participates
in external reporting there must be a vendor support agreement
in place.
Smaller banks within a single state and especially community
banks can play a lot faster and looser.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:15:57 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matt Stachoni wrote:
>> XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it.
As opposed to the *nix* systems, which work out of the box without
constant fiddling.
> My
>> machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,
One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.
>> I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
>> spyware.
Sure, but if you have to constantly tweak and adjust it, then that's a
lot more screwing around than it should be.
> My tweaking days are over. I want the computer to disappear when I'm
> working on it. Since (now) I'm writing statistical apps for a genetics
> lab I've turned in my sysadmin hat. Hopefully forever.
Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.
On 12/24/2005 4:10 PM George Shouse mumbled something about the following:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:54:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ... snip
>>> It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
>>> assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
>>> on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
>>> Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
>> I'm assuming that those banks don't allow XP either because of the direct
>> door to Msoft that Msoft won't allow to be closed. I know that in my world
>> that gave significant headaches to various groups.
>
> ATMs were predominantly run on OS/2 for a very long time. IBM
> dropped support for OS/2 a couple of years ago and ATM networks
> started making the move to Microsoft Windows. I'm sure there
> are some *nix ATMs.
Our ATM division has only recently started trying to use Windows, most
are still running OS/2, but almost all development on them is Java.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:54:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>... snip
>>
>>It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
>>assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
>>on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
>>Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
>
> I'm assuming that those banks don't allow XP either because of the direct
>door to Msoft that Msoft won't allow to be closed. I know that in my world
>that gave significant headaches to various groups.
ATMs were predominantly run on OS/2 for a very long time. IBM
dropped support for OS/2 a couple of years ago and ATM networks
started making the move to Microsoft Windows. I'm sure there
are some *nix ATMs.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
>> get to.
> For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
> years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
> suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
> department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
> friday...
Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to fuck off, I take it?
> Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
> coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"
Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.
> (and I'm being very
> liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
> manage the windows stuff.
Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
> Whomever got that account for us shoulda been
> stuffed in the powersupply.
Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:54:07 GMT, Michael Daly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 21-Dec-2005, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As opposed to the *nix* systems, which work out of the box without
>> constant fiddling.
> Wha- ha-ha-ha!!!!
Something funny?
> Good joke Dave!
Care to explain?
> Having handled systems with various linux and Unix versions (solaris, redhat,
> gentoo, debian etc) I can say that they are more stable than windows but
> only don't require tweaking if nothing is done to them. If you keep adding/updating
> software, you will tweak forever.
Yes, installing or building software does take time. But that's not
tweaking the OS with the virus-of-the-week updates now, is it. The
context given was "I can keep tweaking XP and it's just fine for
security and stability", which is considerably different from "I can
install software on a server".
> Installing software can be anything from a piece
> of cake to a nightmare to an exercise in futility. I've had shells stop working
> mysteriously, software come up with bizarre error messages and stop working
> and so on. "nix" systems are better, but they are far from perfect.
Never said they were. I said they're secure and stable out of the box,
in sharp contrast to Microsoft's products which ship in "take me, big
boy" mode.
> I only wish "user friendly" wasn't a derogatory term among the linux crowd.
Yawn. I'm sure there's some .advocacy group where people would be happy
to correct you on that.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:47:18 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>> Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
>> Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
> especially if it is set up correctly.
Ah. They're working to get to 2K3 "real soon now". We just got NT 4.0
off the desktops.
> Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bullshit. Any GOOD UNIX
> admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
Tweaking? Naah, once you find the recipe, it keeps working.
> If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server,
I'm really not interested in comparing resumes here, but let's just say
that I'm comfortable with my experience, and making my statements based
on it.
> there are approx 20
> system tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box
> setup.
Yes, once. Well, once for dev, roll it up to QA, and then up to prod.
But you don't have to babysit the damn thing and re-tweak the stack or
whatever else.
> Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of
> the tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right
> out of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them
> right. Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.
You're missing the point. The tweaks you just mentioned are for apps -
with Windows, you have to keep dicking around just to keep ahead of
the OS.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:31:20 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/23/2005 2:29 AM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
>> I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
>> exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
>> aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.
> Try selling a platform to a bank without having support for every piece,
> hardware, OS, etc. It doesn't happen.
Our experience differs. At least in the mortgage industry...
> They want assurance that if
> something fails, they have someone they can blame. Free OSes don't cut
> it if you don't have support.
Of course you have support. And if you have a problem where your boss
encourages blamestorming rather than solving problems with the
appropriate solutions, you need to upgrade your boss.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/23/2005 11:22 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>> Of course you have support. And if you have a problem where your boss
>> encourages blamestorming rather than solving problems with the
>> appropriate solutions, you need to upgrade your boss.
> Online banking is a lot different than something used by the mortgage
> companies internally. Firewalls in front of the web server, firewalls
> between the app server and the database with commuications via IPSec.
> OSes hardened. I'm sure you don't want your account to be hacked by
> someone else.
Of course not. It's interesting that at least one online bank has gone
to shipping Knoppix (Linux) Live CDs to their customers for use of their
banking site. "Here's a hardened OS for your PC, to connect to us
with". Yeah, I can dig up a cite if you want to be confrontational.
> On top of the banks themselves, we have about 5 or 6 different audits
> due to some govt regulation (SOX, SEC, Some California thing, etc).
Yes, I'm familiar with those.
> It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
> assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
> on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
> Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
We must work in very different financial industries. Which is odd since
the banks whose names are probably on cards in your wallet, don't care
what OS we're running anything on. Even the more annoying ones.
5 years ago we had a guy saying much the same thing you are. We made
the changes anyway, where appropriate, and the sky continued to not
fall, the customers (banks) continued not to stay away in droves, the
auditors (internal, government, and "sent by customers") just want to
see the vulnerabilities and what we've done about them; not what kernel
a piece of hardware is running.
Maybe it's not your boss, who needs the upgrading.
On 12/23/2005 2:29 AM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
> Odinn wrote:
>> On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
>
>>>> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
>>>> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
>>>> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
>>>> especially if it is set up correctly.
>
>>> The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
>>> determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
>>> you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
>>> Sony's.
>
>> And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
>> expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
>> previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
>> year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
>> pushing us to upgrade).
>
> I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
> exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
> aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.
>
> er
Try selling a platform to a bank without having support for every piece,
hardware, OS, etc. It doesn't happen. They want assurance that if
something fails, they have someone they can blame. Free OSes don't cut
it if you don't have support.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/26/2005 10:00 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/23/2005 11:22 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>
>>> Of course you have support. And if you have a problem where your boss
>>> encourages blamestorming rather than solving problems with the
>>> appropriate solutions, you need to upgrade your boss.
>
>> Online banking is a lot different than something used by the mortgage
>> companies internally. Firewalls in front of the web server, firewalls
>> between the app server and the database with commuications via IPSec.
>> OSes hardened. I'm sure you don't want your account to be hacked by
>> someone else.
>
> Of course not. It's interesting that at least one online bank has gone
> to shipping Knoppix (Linux) Live CDs to their customers for use of their
> banking site. "Here's a hardened OS for your PC, to connect to us
> with". Yeah, I can dig up a cite if you want to be confrontational.
Doesn't matter to me. Connecting to the bank's web interface is
considerably different than the server running the apps.
>
>> On top of the banks themselves, we have about 5 or 6 different audits
>> due to some govt regulation (SOX, SEC, Some California thing, etc).
>
> Yes, I'm familiar with those.
>
>> It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
>> assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
>> on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
>> Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
>
> We must work in very different financial industries. Which is odd since
> the banks whose names are probably on cards in your wallet, don't care
> what OS we're running anything on. Even the more annoying ones.
2 of the banks who's cards are in my wallet I KNOW won't allow us to run
the apps/database on Linux unless we have a software assurance agreement
in place (we have to have it for ANY OS we have for them). RedHat and
SuSE (the only 2 64bit Linux versions we have working) both cost well
over $1200 a year for their server licensing.
>
> 5 years ago we had a guy saying much the same thing you are. We made
> the changes anyway, where appropriate, and the sky continued to not
> fall, the customers (banks) continued not to stay away in droves, the
> auditors (internal, government, and "sent by customers") just want to
> see the vulnerabilities and what we've done about them; not what kernel
> a piece of hardware is running.
It's not about the kernel, it's about having someone responsible for an
issue. Running Linux isn't the problem, it's running a version with no
support.
>
> Maybe it's not your boss, who needs the upgrading.
>
I just go by what we are told. We were told we had to have licensed
software for those reasons I mentioned. I'm not the one paying for
them, it's ultimately the bank that pays for those licenses, so they
dictate what they want to pay for.
--
Odinn
Odinn wrote:
> On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
>>> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
>>> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
>>> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
>>> especially if it is set up correctly.
>> The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
>> determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
>> you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
>> Sony's.
> And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
> expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
> previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
> year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
> pushing us to upgrade).
I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.
er
--
email not valid
* RH uses a custom kernel that is Open Source and therefore probably
clean, but I haven't looked for news of intrusive damage and am not
inclined to.
On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
> I'm almost sure I didn't start this... none of the arguments resemble
> anything I think I was commenting on. (tweaking for me is stuff that
> occurs after you've built your system and adopted your policies.)
>
> Odinn wrote:
>> On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>
>>> Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
>>> Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
>>
>> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
>> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
>> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
>> especially if it is set up correctly.
>
> The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
> determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
> you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
> Sony's.
And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
pushing us to upgrade).
>
>> Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bullshit. Any GOOD UNIX
>> admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
>> If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server, there are approx 20 system
>> tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box setup.
>> Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of the
>> tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right out
>> of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them right.
>> Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.
>
> Oracle needs entirely different configuration settings for each platform
> it is run upon, whether that be *nix flavored or otherwise. In addition
> each platform has different hooks giving you access to make those
> changes. Oracle as an example for platform comparisons would be better
> fit to discussions of scaling. Oracle is also a hugely complex system
> that has enough kitchen sink stuff in it to entirely replace most of the
> OS, bring home the bacon, and sharpen your edgetools.
We're really too small of a company to need to use Oracle HR/Financials,
yet we have 3 Oracle DBA/Developers for a 1500 employee company to keep
our HR/Financials running. We have 1 customer who uses our product with
Oracle as the backend DB to our Personal Banking software. We've tried
to get them to switch over to DB2 (our reference platform), but they
want Oracle, so we charge them extra for it.
>
> Happy ChristmaHanaQuaanzikaa. (or however that goes...)
>
> er (*pop* -- how'd that get in my cheek?)
Happy Yule.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
I'm almost sure I didn't start this... none of the arguments resemble
anything I think I was commenting on. (tweaking for me is stuff that
occurs after you've built your system and adopted your policies.)
Odinn wrote:
> On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>> Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
>> Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
>
>
> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
> especially if it is set up correctly.
The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
Sony's.
> Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bullshit. Any GOOD UNIX
> admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
> If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server, there are approx 20 system
> tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box setup.
> Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of the
> tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right out
> of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them right.
> Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.
Oracle needs entirely different configuration settings for each platform
it is run upon, whether that be *nix flavored or otherwise. In addition
each platform has different hooks giving you access to make those
changes. Oracle as an example for platform comparisons would be better
fit to discussions of scaling. Oracle is also a hugely complex system
that has enough kitchen sink stuff in it to entirely replace most of the
OS, bring home the bacon, and sharpen your edgetools.
Happy ChristmaHanaQuaanzikaa. (or however that goes...)
er (*pop* -- how'd that get in my cheek?)
--
email not valid
Odinn wrote:
> On 12/23/2005 2:29 AM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
>> Odinn wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
>>>>> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
>>>>> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
>>>>> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
>>>>> especially if it is set up correctly.
>>>> The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
>>>> determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will
>>>> leave
>>>> you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices.
>>>> And
>>>> Sony's.
>>> And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
>>> expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
>>> previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
>>> year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
>>> pushing us to upgrade).
>> I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
>> exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
>> aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.
> Try selling a platform to a bank without having support for every piece,
> hardware, OS, etc. It doesn't happen. They want assurance that if
> something fails, they have someone they can blame. Free OSes don't cut
> it if you don't have support.
>
Well the banks obviously should be buying a warm wool Red Hat.
er
--
email not valid
Matt Stachoni wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:04:32 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>XP was the last straw for me. I was running NT4 and w2k for a long time,
>>then bought myself a new lappy three years ago with XP. After about 6
>>months it wouldn't recognize half my USB devices and I mistyped a web site
>>address and got a major spyware infection despite disabling java and
>>active
>>x in IE, running an a non Admin user, running AV and antispyware, etc. I
>>popped in slackware 8 or 9 and shutdown to upgrade my drive to a 60g then
>>installed slack10 and just a few months ago 10.1. I actually get bored
>>now since it never breaks.
>
> XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it. My
> machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago, and I've have gigabytes
> of programs installed/uninstalled, and it still runs as well as it did
> when I formatted the HD.
>
> I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
> spyware.
>
> Matt
Well first problem is you shouldn't have to "tweak" it to get it to run
stable, it should be out of the box. I work with servers all day long and
just want a system that works when i get home. I got tires of constantly
working on my system when i could be doing something else. Imagine how
little woodorking you would get done if you had to tweak your tools more
than you used them.
You also should now have to rebuild the machine, it should go a lot more
than 8 months.
I've only had two instances of spyware infections, both within the 6 months
I was using XP, never had a virus since I had an Amiga in the early 90's.
Despite having XP locked down tight stuff still managed to get it, it would
probably be a decent OS if it didn't have IE stuck inside it. At the
office we have a whole desktop team that downgraded everyone to XP and we
have our machines reimaged about every 6 months, W2k was the most stable
windows OS I have ever ran, it was getting close to unix like uptimes for
me without any need to tweak it.
George Shouse wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:11:53 GMT, evodawg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> Enoch Root wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
>>>>> phenomenon. Prior to that you had internet search engines like
>>>>> archie, gopher, and others. Netscape was one of the successful .com
>>>>> companies.
>>>>
>>>> No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
>>>> after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the WWW.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed :-).
>>>
>>
>>I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time.
>>What
>>else existed? nada Wasn't that around 1988 or earlier?
>
> http://www.ciolek.com/PAPERS/GLOBAL/1900late.html#1993
>
> I used LYNX first
>
> Mosaic was '93
Damn I was way off. Time is just going by to fast. 1994 Oct 13 - [T]
Netscape WWW browser, developed by Marc Andreessen,
I would have sworn on my whatever's life it was earlier than that.
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Odinn wrote:
> On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
>>>> get to.
>>
>>> For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
>>> years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
>>> suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
>>> department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
>>> friday...
>>
>> Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to fuck off, I take it?
>>
>>> Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
>>> coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"
>>
>> Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.
>>
>>> (and I'm being very
>>> liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
>>> manage the windows stuff.
>>
>> Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
>> Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
>
> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
> especially if it is set up correctly.
>
I'm pretty disappointed with w2k3. There are way too many hotfixes needed
to get clustering running stable, about 1/2 are included in sp1 but there
are still way too many fixes and tweaks to get clustering working close to
as stable as w2k.
On 12/22/2005 10:39 AM Eugene Nine mumbled something about the following:
> Odinn wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
>>>>> get to.
>>>> For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
>>>> years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
>>>> suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
>>>> department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
>>>> friday...
>>> Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to fuck off, I take it?
>>>
>>>> Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
>>>> coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"
>>> Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.
>>>
>>>> (and I'm being very
>>>> liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
>>>> manage the windows stuff.
>>> Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
>>> Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
>> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
>> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
>> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
>> especially if it is set up correctly.
>>
>
> I'm pretty disappointed with w2k3. There are way too many hotfixes needed
> to get clustering running stable, about 1/2 are included in sp1 but there
> are still way too many fixes and tweaks to get clustering working close to
> as stable as w2k.
>
I haven't tried clustering in W2k or W2k3. We tried it in HP-UX a few
years ago, and never got it to work right (even had HP in trying to set
it up). I prefer HACMP on AIX, it works right first time every time and
is almost foolproof to setup.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/22/2005 8:40 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:47:18 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>
>>> Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
>>> Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
>
>> Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
>> servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
>> hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
>> especially if it is set up correctly.
>
> Ah. They're working to get to 2K3 "real soon now". We just got NT 4.0
> off the desktops.
>
>> Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bullshit. Any GOOD UNIX
>> admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
>
> Tweaking? Naah, once you find the recipe, it keeps working.
Same with Windows. We have a golden image we use for all of our OSes,
be it Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows, whatever. We don't do
installs, we lay down images. For AIX, I have 4 different images based
on the 4 different apps that we run on them. For Linux, I have 5
different images depending on what it's going to do. Windows, we have 3
different images, Solaris only 2 (one Solaris 9 and the other Solaris
2.7), and way too many HP-UX images (3 different baselines just for the
hardware alone).
>
>> If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server,
>
> I'm really not interested in comparing resumes here, but let's just say
> that I'm comfortable with my experience, and making my statements based
> on it.
>
>> there are approx 20
>> system tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box
>> setup.
>
> Yes, once. Well, once for dev, roll it up to QA, and then up to prod.
> But you don't have to babysit the damn thing and re-tweak the stack or
> whatever else.
I've never babysit any of my systems, Windows or Unix unless I have a
hardware problem. As many times as we go through patching of software
or software upgrades (damn suits always want our apps do something
different, even if it is going back to doing the exact same thing it did
3 versions ago), nothing stays static regardless of the OS it is running on.
>
>> Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of
>> the tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right
>> out of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them
>> right. Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.
>
> You're missing the point. The tweaks you just mentioned are for apps -
> with Windows, you have to keep dicking around just to keep ahead of
> the OS.
>
No, I don't keep dicking around with it. Yes, there are a lot patches
for Windows showing up as critical patches, but you would spend just as
much time with Linux if you try to keep up with all the patches for it.
When you are writing and hosting banking software, it doesn't matter
what OS you are running, you have to keep one step ahead of ANY possible
security hole, and that means patching a lot, be it Linux, AIX, Windows,
FreeBSD, whatever.
Windows will run unpatched for long periods of time, just as will Linux,
but I'm not going to trust your bank account to either of them having a
security hole in them.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/23/2005 11:22 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:31:20 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/23/2005 2:29 AM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
>
>>> I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
>>> exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
>>> aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.
>
>> Try selling a platform to a bank without having support for every piece,
>> hardware, OS, etc. It doesn't happen.
>
> Our experience differs. At least in the mortgage industry...
>
>> They want assurance that if
>> something fails, they have someone they can blame. Free OSes don't cut
>> it if you don't have support.
>
> Of course you have support. And if you have a problem where your boss
> encourages blamestorming rather than solving problems with the
> appropriate solutions, you need to upgrade your boss.
>
Online banking is a lot different than something used by the mortgage
companies internally. Firewalls in front of the web server, firewalls
between the app server and the database with commuications via IPSec.
OSes hardened. I'm sure you don't want your account to be hacked by
someone else.
On top of the banks themselves, we have about 5 or 6 different audits
due to some govt regulation (SOX, SEC, Some California thing, etc). I
probably spend a good 60% of my time handling auditors (running scripts,
answering questions, explaining why we do something one way instead of
another) between the months of Sep and Dec when all these audits go on.
It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
Matt Stachoni wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:04:32 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>XP was the last straw for me. I was running NT4 and w2k for a long time,
>>then bought myself a new lappy three years ago with XP. After about 6
>>months it wouldn't recognize half my USB devices and I mistyped a web site
>>address and got a major spyware infection despite disabling java and active
>>x in IE, running an a non Admin user, running AV and antispyware, etc. I
>>popped in slackware 8 or 9 and shutdown to upgrade my drive to a 60g then
>>installed slack10 and just a few months ago 10.1. I actually get bored now
>>since it never breaks.
>
>
> XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it. My
> machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago, and I've have gigabytes
> of programs installed/uninstalled, and it still runs as well as it did
> when I formatted the HD.
>
> I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
> spyware.
My tweaking days are over. I want the computer to disappear when I'm
working on it. Since (now) I'm writing statistical apps for a genetics
lab I've turned in my sysadmin hat. Hopefully forever. I just have to
observe some conservative policies regarding network structure (in my
own place) and secure comms for file transfers, and use by-default
restrictive scripting policies in my browser, and the computer does
that, it disappears.
er
--
email not valid
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:54:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ... snip
>>
>>It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
>>assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
>>on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
>>Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
>
> I'm assuming that those banks don't allow XP either because of the direct
> door to Msoft that Msoft won't allow to be closed. I know that in my world
> that gave significant headaches to various groups.
Well, sure. Whatever you have, especially exposed, needs to be secure.
But I don't know of anyone who suggests that Linux is less secure than
Unix, what with them all running the same stuff for the most part
anyway.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:01:31 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In our hosting center, admins aren't allowed to connect directly to any
> server, they connect to a BladeLogic server instead, which connects to
> the server on their behalf and limits the commands they're allowed to
> run as well as logging every keystroke.
How's bladelogic working for you guys? We're _this_ close to buying;
it's in the budget for '06 and I'm looking forward to it. We should
probably make sure we don't work for direct competitors before comparing
notes, though.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>
>It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
>assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
>on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
>Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
I'm assuming that those banks don't allow XP either because of the direct
door to Msoft that Msoft won't allow to be closed. I know that in my world
that gave significant headaches to various groups.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 12/24/2005 2:54 PM Mark & Juanita mumbled something about the following:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:05:48 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .... snip
>> It's not my boss who encourages blaming, it's the banks who want
>> assurance. They won't allow us to use Linux unless we pay for support
>> on it, and only a small portion of the banks we host will even allow
>> Linux (we host over 2000 banks online presense).
>
> I'm assuming that those banks don't allow XP either because of the direct
> door to Msoft that Msoft won't allow to be closed. I know that in my world
> that gave significant headaches to various groups.
I have no idea what they use at teller stations in branch offices (I
haven't been inside a bank in ages, and they were using green screen
terminals there).
In our hosting center, admins aren't allowed to connect directly to any
server, they connect to a BladeLogic server instead, which connects to
the server on their behalf and limits the commands they're allowed to
run as well as logging every keystroke.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/26/2005 10:02 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:01:31 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In our hosting center, admins aren't allowed to connect directly to any
>> server, they connect to a BladeLogic server instead, which connects to
>> the server on their behalf and limits the commands they're allowed to
>> run as well as logging every keystroke.
>
> How's bladelogic working for you guys? We're _this_ close to buying;
> it's in the budget for '06 and I'm looking forward to it. We should
> probably make sure we don't work for direct competitors before comparing
> notes, though.
>
Using it for the admins and pushing out patches is great. Using it for
CRC checks to make sure nothing has changed sucks. Seems it will still
check files that you've told to ignore, triggering flags that auditors
just LOVE to look at.
--
Odinn
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:11:53 GMT, evodawg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> Enoch Root wrote:
>>
>>>> 1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
>>>> phenomenon. Prior to that you had internet search engines like
>>>> archie, gopher, and others. Netscape was one of the successful .com
>>>> companies.
>>>
>>> No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
>>> after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the WWW.
>>>
>>
>> Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed :-).
>>
>
>I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time. What
>else existed? nada Wasn't that around 1988 or earlier?
http://www.ciolek.com/PAPERS/GLOBAL/1900late.html#1993
I used LYNX first
Mosaic was '93
On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
>>> get to.
>
>> For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
>> years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
>> suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
>> department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
>> friday...
>
> Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to fuck off, I take it?
>
>> Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
>> coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"
>
> Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.
>
>> (and I'm being very
>> liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
>> manage the windows stuff.
>
> Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
> Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.
>
>> Whomever got that account for us shoulda been
>> stuffed in the powersupply.
>
> Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?
>
Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bullshit. Any GOOD UNIX
admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server, there are approx 20
system tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box
setup. Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of
the tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right
out of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them
right. Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 31 Dec 2005 00:21:24 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:34:10 -0600, George Shouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I work for one of the top 100 corporations in the world that
>> happens to be a bank. Their policy is the same in large part
>> due to SOX & OCC requirements. Open Source including Linux can
>> be used for non-monetary and non-reporting applications like
>> analytics or campaign management. If it is mission critical,
>> customer facing, handles monetary transactions or participates
>> in external reporting there must be a vendor support agreement
>> in place.
>
>You say those two things like they're related somehow? Of course you
>can get a support contract for Linux. Anyone saying otherwise is
>spreading FUD, either through ignorance, or due to an agenda.
You snipped a little too much. Odinn typed "won't allow us to
use Linux unless we pay for support" which is true for us,too.
We actually have some Linux supported by IBM.
>> Smaller banks within a single state and especially community
>> banks can play a lot faster and looser.
>
>The company I work for (for the next two weeks; just gave notice) is,
>let's say, a large name in the mortgage insurance business. We've got
>the same governmental requirements, and were temporarily delayed on
>several Linux projects by the whole SCO idiocy thing, but I stand by my
>statement that the SOX and other folks want to know about recordkeeping
>and policies and procedures, how vulerabilities are handled, and all
>that, more than what type of Unix we're running.
I've been audited by OCC, PwC, E&Y, and the 2 internal groups.
All but the internal groups are interested in the supportability
of the OS and all other software as a SOX control point. I
suppose that it might be possible to argue that the necessary
support exists within the organization but I've generally heard
from other bank IT guys that the path of least resistance with
the highest level of CYOA is hire that control point out. I've
always gotten away with convincing them that we are purely
analytic.
George wrote:
>
> "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:O5Apf.30864$Ht4.4599@trnddc08...
>>
>> Believe Mozilla with Netscapes approval was started by the OPEN SOURCE
>> community and has been around for a long time. Linux and others had no
>> really good Browser except for Konqueror. And they said that open source
>> would never work. Thousands of Linux user contributed to its development.
>> Now FireFox is the best browser available.
>
> Are you very young or just opinionated? Those of us who used open source
> programs in the past can tell you compatibility stories that would curl
> your toenails.
>
> Which includes operating systems, BTW.
I wouldn't call myself young, maybe young at heart. 50 is still young as far
as I'm concerned. But what story did I tell? I've been using linux since
1995 and have never had a problem or never looked back. I'm sure you're
still using Explorer too, right?
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
James T. Kirby wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> evodawg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I wouldn't call myself young, maybe young at heart. 50 is still young
>>>as far as I'm concerned. But what story did I tell? I've been using
>>>linux since 1995 and have never had a problem or never looked back.
>>
>>
>> You've got to be kidding. There is NO O/S that you can use for 10 years
>> without problems.
>>
>> For instance, I'm using Slackware (and have off and on since version
>> 0.9?) and with my latest installation I can't get CUPS to recognize my
>> 3rd parallel port. Not a major "toss it" type problem, but a problem
>> nonetheless.
>>
>
> Linux does fall behind in the driver category sometimes - not as much
> interest from equipment manufacturers themselves in making sure the
> drivers are
> there when the equipment ships. Have to wait instead for someone to sit
> and do a good job on the updates.
>
> But as far as OS stability goes - we live in a different world from you
> Windows
> users. I had something stuck in a queue a few weeks ago that neither I or
> my system manager could seem to free up. This did not crash the system,
> only
> froze up my local printer. After staring for a while, we decided to do
> the MS fix - reboot.
> (This nearly caused the manager to weep).
> We noted that the machine's last reboot was over 18 months before.
>
> Jim Kirby
$ uptime
12:13:31 up 8 days, 1:32, 1 user, load average: 0.23, 0.21, 0.32
Before that it was somewhere in the vicinity of 60 days
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Upscale wrote:
> "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Firefox was also designed to beat up on WindBlow Explorer or whatever
>> it's called these days. Explorer is and was so full of holes that
>> something needed to be done and Mozilla was and is the answer. Anyone
>> using Explorer today is a fool, it has not been updated or improved in
>> years.
>
> Funny you mention this. Firefox is projected to scale up to approximately
> 20% of the market within a few years from its current 9%. As well, with
> its increased presence in the market, it will be certainly be targeted for
> an increased amount of attacks by hackers. And BTW, Explorer 7 is expected
> to hit the market somewhere near the end of 2006.
Never said it was the most widely used, just said it's the best available.
Well, I do pity anyone using anything new from MicroCrap, but it's their
choice. Think I've made my choice clear. That's all.
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>>> 1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
>>> phenomenon. Prior to that you had internet search engines like
>>> archie, gopher, and others. Netscape was one of the successful .com
>>> companies.
>>
>> No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
>> after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the WWW.
>>
>
> Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed :-).
>
I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time. What
else existed? nada Wasn't that around 1988 or earlier?
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
evodawg wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>
> Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
> DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
> it worse.
As long as they don't use any part of AOL then were still safe. If AOL does
to google what they did to roadrunner then we might as well stop using
google now.
Enoch Root wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:46:50 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>What does AOL have to do with Mozilla and Firefox?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding was that AOL bought Netscape, the foundation of
>> Mozilla
>> and Firefox.
>
> Mozilla (and Firefox) is a complete bottom up rewrite. Netscape has now
> Mozilla as a foundation and not the other way around.
>
> The mozilla foundation is a not-for-profit (501(c)3) founded by eff (and
> lotus 1-2-3) people, and apache server people. I think it started as a
> "skunk works" project inside the Netscape company.
>
> er
Believe Mozilla with Netscapes approval was started by the OPEN SOURCE
community and has been around for a long time. Linux and others had no
really good Browser except for Konqueror. And they said that open source
would never work. Thousands of Linux user contributed to its development.
Now FireFox is the best browser available.
FireFox has a built in search option, built right into the search window, I
think this is the relationship they talk about between google and firefox.
Firefox was also designed to beat up on WindBlow Explorer or whatever it's
called these days. Explorer is and was so full of holes that something
needed to be done and Mozilla was and is the answer. Anyone using Explorer
today is a fool, it has not been updated or improved in years.
Rich
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
On 21 Dec 2005 18:25:18 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,
>One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
>in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
>the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.
Great, I find myself in a pissing contest over server uptime. No
thanks.
I reboot my corporate Windows servers once every 3.67 hours or my hard
drive will melt and time will stop. Happy?
The rest of your post was too idiotic to even comment on.
Matt
Odinn wrote:
> Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
> firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an
> excess of 3 years. Now you might have mentioned it in another thread,
> but I don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups
> I read. Do what you like with your systems, they don't affect how I
> deal with mine.
>
> Odinn
> RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
>
> "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
> worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
>
> Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
> '03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
> '97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
> Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
> Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
>
> rot13 [email protected] to reply
Odinn, could you please trim that signature? As you can see from the
above, it's often more lines than your post.
I believe tradition says one or two lines should be the limit, although
3 or 4 doesn't seen really excessive. But 13?
--
Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:46:36 -0500, Matt Stachoni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2005 18:25:18 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> My machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,
>
>>One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
>>in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
>>the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.
>
> Great, I find myself in a pissing contest over server uptime. No
> thanks.
Pissing contest? Only if you choose to take it as such. Feel free to
killfile me if you are likely to assume the worst intent of all my
posts.
> The rest of your post was too idiotic to even comment on.
Here, I'll show you how the killfile thing works:
<plonk>
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:52:34 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/21/2005 9:46 PM Matt Stachoni mumbled something about the following:
>> Great, I find myself in a pissing contest over server uptime. No
>> thanks.
> I agree. Any UNIX server that has in excess of 3 years uptime has way
> too many kernel security holes in it, ESPECIALLY if it is Linux.
I could swear I mentioned it was behind several firewalls and has
nothing sensitive on it. But, feel free to lecture me on it.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:12:31 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/22/2005 8:42 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>> I could swear I mentioned it was behind several firewalls and has
>> nothing sensitive on it. But, feel free to lecture me on it.
> Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
> firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an excess
> of 3 years.
It's in this very thread, in the part that you snipped out (oddly
enough). Here's the google link:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/e012748460d66a35?dmode=source
(mind the wrap)
I'll save you a click if you'd like:
"That's nothing. I've got a server, busy little box, that's wrapped
around the 497-day "uptime bug" twice and is nearly to a third time.
It's busy but has nothing sensitive on it, and is behind enough
firewalls that I don't care so much about it being way out of patch."
> Now you might have mentioned it in another thread, but I
> don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups I read.
Nor, apparently, this one.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:58:30 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Odinn, could you please trim that signature? As you can see from the
> above, it's often more lines than your post.
Technically, it's not even a .sig, because it doesn't start with
--
(that's dash dash space newline)
...so even newsreaders which terminate on a proper sig delimiter, won't
on his.
> I believe tradition says one or two lines should be the limit, although
> 3 or 4 doesn't seen really excessive. But 13?
I have a guess as to the nature of his response. Want a little
side-bet?
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:14:39 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/23/2005 12:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> -- (that's dash dash space newline) ....so even newsreaders which
> terminate on a proper sig delimiter, won't on his.
> Then your newsreader is broken because it IS a --(space) newline.
Today, it is, yes.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:13:12 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/23/2005 11:29 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>> It's in this very thread, in the part that you snipped out (oddly
>> enough). Here's the google link:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/e012748460d66a35?dmode=source
>> (mind the wrap)
> Now, please try again. You didn't mention it in this thread prior to my
> post. You need a serious lesson in reading newsgroups.
Google confirms that it's all one thread. Please check your facts
before trying to give anyone a "lesson", because you look like an
arrogant twit when you get it wrong. Hint: There is more than one page
of results on the thread search in google.
On 12/21/2005 9:46 PM Matt Stachoni mumbled something about the following:
> On 21 Dec 2005 18:25:18 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> My machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,
>
>> One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
>> in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
>> the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.
>
> Great, I find myself in a pissing contest over server uptime. No
> thanks.
>
> I reboot my corporate Windows servers once every 3.67 hours or my hard
> drive will melt and time will stop. Happy?
>
> The rest of your post was too idiotic to even comment on.
>
> Matt
I agree. Any UNIX server that has in excess of 3 years uptime has way
too many kernel security holes in it, ESPECIALLY if it is Linux. I have
3 Solaris servers that are in excess of that time, but they are isolated
instances because the software we use is unsupported and will not run on
a later version of the OS, nor will it even run on the patches that fix
the couple of security holes because the patches also do other tweaks
that the software doesn't like. Thank goodness it's an internal machine
and not on the DMZ.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/22/2005 8:42 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:52:34 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/21/2005 9:46 PM Matt Stachoni mumbled something about the following:
>
>>> Great, I find myself in a pissing contest over server uptime. No
>>> thanks.
>
>> I agree. Any UNIX server that has in excess of 3 years uptime has way
>> too many kernel security holes in it, ESPECIALLY if it is Linux.
>
> I could swear I mentioned it was behind several firewalls and has
> nothing sensitive on it. But, feel free to lecture me on it.
>
>
Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an excess
of 3 years. Now you might have mentioned it in another thread, but I
don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups I read.
Do what you like with your systems, they don't affect how I deal with
mine.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/26/2005 10:03 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:14:39 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/23/2005 12:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>
>> -- (that's dash dash space newline) ....so even newsreaders which
>> terminate on a proper sig delimiter, won't on his.
>
>> Then your newsreader is broken because it IS a --(space) newline.
>
> Today, it is, yes.
>
>
And it always has been.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/23/2005 12:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:58:30 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Odinn, could you please trim that signature? As you can see from the
>> above, it's often more lines than your post.
>
> Technically, it's not even a .sig, because it doesn't start with
-- (that's dash dash space newline) ....so even newsreaders which
terminate on a proper sig delimiter, won't on his.
> > I believe tradition says one or two lines should be the limit, although
> > 3 or 4 doesn't seen really excessive. But 13?
I have a guess as to the nature of his response. Want a little
side-bet?
Then your newsreader is broken because it IS a --(space) newline.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/23/2005 11:58 AM Larry Blanchard mumbled something about the
following:
> Odinn wrote:
>
>> Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
>> firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an
>> excess of 3 years. Now you might have mentioned it in another thread,
>> but I don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups
>> I read. Do what you like with your systems, they don't affect how I
>> deal with mine.
>>
>> Odinn
>> RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
>>
>> "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
>> worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
>>
>> Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
>> '03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
>> '97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
>> Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
>> Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
>>
>> rot13 [email protected] to reply
>
> Odinn, could you please trim that signature? As you can see from the
> above, it's often more lines than your post.
>
> I believe tradition says one or two lines should be the limit, although
> 3 or 4 doesn't seen really excessive. But 13?
>
I'll keep my signature as I see fit. Don't like it, don't read it
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 12/23/2005 11:29 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:12:31 -0500, Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/22/2005 8:42 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
>
>>> I could swear I mentioned it was behind several firewalls and has
>>> nothing sensitive on it. But, feel free to lecture me on it.
>
>> Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
>> firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an excess
>> of 3 years.
>
> It's in this very thread, in the part that you snipped out (oddly
> enough). Here's the google link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/e012748460d66a35?dmode=source
> (mind the wrap)
> I'll save you a click if you'd like:
> "That's nothing. I've got a server, busy little box, that's wrapped
> around the 497-day "uptime bug" twice and is nearly to a third time.
> It's busy but has nothing sensitive on it, and is behind enough
> firewalls that I don't care so much about it being way out of patch."
>
>> Now you might have mentioned it in another thread, but I
>> don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups I read.
>
> Nor, apparently, this one.
I didn't reply to your post, I replied to Matt Stachoni.
This is what was in his message that was attributed to you.
>One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
>in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
>the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.
Here's what he replied to
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:15:57 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Matt Stachoni wrote:
>> >> XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it.
As opposed to the *nix* systems, which work out of the box without
constant fiddling.
> > My
>> >> machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,
One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.
>> >> I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
>> >> spyware.
Sure, but if you have to constantly tweak and adjust it, then that's a
lot more screwing around than it should be.
> > My tweaking days are over. I want the computer to disappear when I'm
> > working on it. Since (now) I'm writing statistical apps for a genetics
> > lab I've turned in my sysadmin hat. Hopefully forever.
Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.
Now, please try again. You didn't mention it in this thread prior to my
post. You need a serious lesson in reading newsgroups.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> As I indicated in a previous posting, the history of Netscape is:
>
> 1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
> phenomenon. Prior to that you had internet search engines like archie,
> gopher, and others. Netscape was one of the successful .com companies.
No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the WWW.
MS got the mosaic code as well. Some people think Spyglass was a dummy
company set up to sell the code to MS under conditions that would
prevent MS having to pay the creators any royalties for the code
(because that's what happened: royalties were tied to price per unit
sale and MS bundled it with the OS and called it "free".)
> 2) When Bill Gates "discovered" the internet and the web and made Explorer
> a bundled free part of the MSoft empire, Netscape's business model was
> essentially doomed. At that point AOL bought Netscape:
It was the "bundled" part that got in the way, as Netscape was also
offered for free... at first a nominal restriction to first-time tryers,
and academic users.
And because of the early stage of development of the underlying
protocols, browser/server and browser/markup compatibilities made a good
match between browser and server an issue. Not to mention MS's
determination to embrace and extinguish the new market.
Tie that to the restrictions MS placed on computer OEMs to limit
bundling of Netscape with the computer (making it more expensive for
them to buy Windows if they also were going to bundle Netscape) and
Netscape thereafter had a much higher bar to overcome than IE: the user
was required to download Netscape over what was usually a dialup
connection, whereas IE was prominently displayed on the desktop.
Shitty.
er
--
email not valid
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:46:50 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>What does AOL have to do with Mozilla and Firefox?
>>
>
>
> My understanding was that AOL bought Netscape, the foundation of Mozilla
> and Firefox.
Mozilla (and Firefox) is a complete bottom up rewrite. Netscape has now
Mozilla as a foundation and not the other way around.
The mozilla foundation is a not-for-profit (501(c)3) founded by eff (and
lotus 1-2-3) people, and apache server people. I think it started as a
"skunk works" project inside the Netscape company.
er
--
email not valid
George wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>>
>>>Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>>>DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
>>>it worse.
>>
>> Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
>> better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla
>> and
>> FireFox. Most telling though is the quote, "Time Warner finally accepted
>> when Google agreed to give AOL favored search treatment" Wonder what
>> *that* means to those of us who don't care where the information is, we
>> want the most relevant information requested.
>>
>
> Means you get railroaded into Google pay-to-play subsearches. These guys
> tell where things came from, which can be a help.
> http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html
And how is this worse than the AOL/MSN/Yahoo ad supported searches which do
a good job of crashing MS Internet explorer half the time.
Enoch Root wrote:
> W Canaday wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:04:53 +0000, evodawg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Guess "problem" is a relative term. I should have said major problem, my
>>>mistake. Like you said never a problem where I wanted to toss the OS. In
>>>1995 I tossed Windblows forever, I just got so frustrated with it and it
>>>was no longer a frustration I wanted to deal with anymore. I too use
>>>Slackware as one of my OS's and others I mess with.
>>
>>
>> Dudes .... ;-)
>>
>> Good to see other Linux users on a woodworking forum!
>>
>> Ram in my server belched so I kissed off about 300 days. Previous reboot
>> was due to a power failure (remember when the East coast grid tanked?).
>> Also trashed about 300 days.
>>
>> Currently typing this from my laptop.
>>
>> 19:54:38 up 2:35, 0 users, load average: 0.31, 0.33, 0.41
>>
>> Bill
>
> ok...
>
> 17:22:00 up 81 days, 9:14, 14 users, load average: 0.14, 0.08, 0.02
>
> huh, no knew (distro) kernel updates in awhile (hence the extended uptime)
>
> er
XP was the last straw for me. I was running NT4 and w2k for a long time,
then bought myself a new lappy three years ago with XP. After about 6
months it wouldn't recognize half my USB devices and I mistyped a web site
address and got a major spyware infection despite disabling java and active
x in IE, running an a non Admin user, running AV and antispyware, etc. I
popped in slackware 8 or 9 and shutdown to upgrade my drive to a 60g then
installed slack10 and just a few months ago 10.1. I actually get bored now
since it never breaks.
evodawg wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> Enoch Root wrote:
>>
>>>> 1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
>>>> phenomenon. Prior to that you had internet search engines like
>>>> archie, gopher, and others. Netscape was one of the successful .com
>>>> companies.
>>>
>>> No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
>>> after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the WWW.
>>>
>>
>> Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed :-).
>>
>
> I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time.
> What
> else existed? nada Wasn't that around 1988 or earlier?
I was using gopher in 92 and Lynx a bit after that.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>
>>Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>>DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
>>it worse.
>
> Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
> better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla
> and
> FireFox. Most telling though is the quote, "Time Warner finally accepted
> when Google agreed to give AOL favored search treatment" Wonder what
> *that* means to those of us who don't care where the information is, we
> want the most relevant information requested.
>
>
>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
AOL owns netscape not Mozilla and Firefox. Some of the people who created
netscape do work on Firefox and Mozilla but AOL has no ownership or control
over them (thankfully). I was still running windows when AOL destroyed
Netscape.
Upscale wrote:
> "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Firefox was also designed to beat up on WindBlow Explorer or whatever
>> it's called these days. Explorer is and was so full of holes that
>> something needed to be done and Mozilla was and is the answer. Anyone
>> using Explorer today is a fool, it has not been updated or improved in
>> years.
>
> Funny you mention this. Firefox is projected to scale up to approximately
> 20% of the market within a few years from its current 9%. As well, with
> its increased presence in the market, it will be certainly be targeted for
> an increased amount of attacks by hackers. And BTW, Explorer 7 is expected
> to hit the market somewhere near the end of 2006.
It can be targeted but that doesn't mean it will be as insecure as IE. Part
of the problem with IE is its tight integration with the OS so a hole in IE
is a hole in the OS as well for the most part.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:46:50 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>>>
>>>>Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>>>>DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will
>>>>make it worse.
>>>
>>> Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
>>> better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla
>>> and
>>> FireFox.
>>
>>What does AOL have to do with Mozilla and Firefox?
>>
>
> My understanding was that AOL bought Netscape, the foundation of Mozilla
> and Firefox.
>
>
>
>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
AOL did buy netscape but the code for netscape was not used for Mozilla and
Firefox.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> evodawg wrote:
>
>
>>I wouldn't call myself young, maybe young at heart. 50 is still young
>>as far as I'm concerned. But what story did I tell? I've been using
>>linux since 1995 and have never had a problem or never looked back.
>
>
> You've got to be kidding. There is NO O/S that you can use for 10 years
> without problems.
>
> For instance, I'm using Slackware (and have off and on since version
> 0.9?) and with my latest installation I can't get CUPS to recognize my
> 3rd parallel port. Not a major "toss it" type problem, but a problem
> nonetheless.
>
Linux does fall behind in the driver category sometimes - not as much interest
from equipment manufacturers themselves in making sure the drivers are
there when the equipment ships. Have to wait instead for someone to sit
and do a good job on the updates.
But as far as OS stability goes - we live in a different world from you Windows
users. I had something stuck in a queue a few weeks ago that neither I or
my system manager could seem to free up. This did not crash the system, only
froze up my local printer. After staring for a while, we decided to do the MS
fix - reboot.
(This nearly caused the manager to weep).
We noted that the machine's last reboot was over 18 months before.
Jim Kirby
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:46:50 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>>
>>>Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>>>DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
>>>it worse.
>>
>> Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
>> better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla
>> and
>> FireFox.
>
>What does AOL have to do with Mozilla and Firefox?
>
My understanding was that AOL bought Netscape, the foundation of Mozilla
and Firefox.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:15:29 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>evodawg wrote:
>
>>>> No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
>>>> after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the
>>>> WWW.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed
>>> :-).
>>>
>>
>> I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time.
>> What else existed? nada Wasn't that around 1988 or earlier?
>
>Gopher?
IIRC, gopher was (is?) a protocol not a client. I think Mosaic
would render a gopher info-tree if you put in
gopher://gopherserver. The gopher equivalent of HTML was more
like an indented list. A site was called a gopher hole.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:49:35 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:46:50 -0500, Eugene Nine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>What does AOL have to do with Mozilla and Firefox?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding was that AOL bought Netscape, the foundation of Mozilla
>> and Firefox.
>
>Mozilla (and Firefox) is a complete bottom up rewrite. Netscape has now
>Mozilla as a foundation and not the other way around.
>
I think you mis-understood my meaning. The Netscape people designed and
wrote Mozilla. And most likely in doing so, took lessons learned from the
original Netscape when designing Mozilla.
>The mozilla foundation is a not-for-profit (501(c)3) founded by eff (and
>lotus 1-2-3) people, and apache server people. I think it started as a
>"skunk works" project inside the Netscape company.
>
>er
AOL bought Netscape in 1999 after MSoft made IE a free piece of software
bundled into the Msoft OS:
<http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet>
<http://news.com.com/Shareholders+approve+AOL,+Netscape+deal/2100-1023_3-223131.html>
It was spun off as a 501(c)3 foundation by AOL:
<http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/07/15.17.shtml>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Firefox was also designed to beat up on WindBlow Explorer or whatever it's
> called these days. Explorer is and was so full of holes that something
> needed to be done and Mozilla was and is the answer. Anyone using Explorer
> today is a fool, it has not been updated or improved in years.
Funny you mention this. Firefox is projected to scale up to approximately
20% of the market within a few years from its current 9%. As well, with its
increased presence in the market, it will be certainly be targeted for an
increased amount of attacks by hackers. And BTW, Explorer 7 is expected to
hit the market somewhere near the end of 2006.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:57:35 -0500, James T. Kirby wrote:
> But as far as OS stability goes - we live in a different world from you
> Windows users. I had something stuck in a queue a few weeks ago that
> neither I or my system manager could seem to free up. This did not crash
> the system, only froze up my local printer. After staring for a while, we
> decided to do the MS fix - reboot.
> (This nearly caused the manager to weep). We noted that the machine's last
> reboot was over 18 months before.
>
> Jim Kirby
Couldn't just re-run the init process? That is, take lpr / lpq down and
back up?
Bill
Long time Linux user.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:04:53 +0000, evodawg wrote:
>>
> Guess "problem" is a relative term. I should have said major problem, my
> mistake. Like you said never a problem where I wanted to toss the OS. In
> 1995 I tossed Windblows forever, I just got so frustrated with it and it
> was no longer a frustration I wanted to deal with anymore. I too use
> Slackware as one of my OS's and others I mess with.
Dudes .... ;-)
Good to see other Linux users on a woodworking forum!
Ram in my server belched so I kissed off about 300 days. Previous reboot
was due to a power failure (remember when the East coast grid tanked?).
Also trashed about 300 days.
Currently typing this from my laptop.
19:54:38 up 2:35, 0 users, load average: 0.31, 0.33, 0.41
Bill
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:05:48 -0500, Eugene Nine wrote:
> evodawg wrote:
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>>
>> Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>> DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will
>> make it worse.
> As long as they don't use any part of AOL then were still safe. If AOL
> does to google what they did to roadrunner then we might as well stop
> using google now.
Actually the AOL server software is quite nice and is on a par with Apache
for security and features.
Bill
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:21:17 +0000, evodawg wrote:
> I'm just wondering why any company would buy a losing market share outfit.
> AOL has been going down hill for years. The other thing I don't
> understand, is why would anyone use this type of service, MSN, Yahoo, AOL
> and others?
>
> Rich
Because, like my Dad, they think these services ARE the internet. And
Windows does nothing to convince them otherwise.
Bill
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:58:36 -0500, W Canaday <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Actually the AOL server software is quite nice and is on a par with Apache
>for security and features
5 years ago maybe. These days we're more interested in the best platform
to run Tomcat, and that isn't AOL.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> evodawg wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't call myself young, maybe young at heart. 50 is still young
>> as far as I'm concerned. But what story did I tell? I've been using
>> linux since 1995 and have never had a problem or never looked back.
>
> You've got to be kidding. There is NO O/S that you can use for 10 years
> without problems.
>
> For instance, I'm using Slackware (and have off and on since version
> 0.9?) and with my latest installation I can't get CUPS to recognize my
> 3rd parallel port. Not a major "toss it" type problem, but a problem
> nonetheless.
>
Guess "problem" is a relative term. I should have said major problem, my
mistake. Like you said never a problem where I wanted to toss the OS. In
1995 I tossed Windblows forever, I just got so frustrated with it and it
was no longer a frustration I wanted to deal with anymore. I too use
Slackware as one of my OS's and others I mess with.
--
"you can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:21:15 -0500, Tom Quackenbush <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
>>was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?
> Well, if nothing else, you'll get some closure. I think you'll find
> books 2 & 3 much more enjoyable reads, though. I found myself looking
> forward to reading them every day, as opposed to book 1, which I sort
> of slogged through.
Yeah, me too. I finished it out of sheer obstinance (no, really.
Imagine that, of me.) So, 2 & 3 are a bit less sloggy, then?
Dave "I may have just invented a word there..." Hinz
Dave Hinz wrote:
>Tom Quackenbush wrote:
<snip>
>> Good books. I almost didn't read 2 & 3, 'cause I didn't see where he
>> was going with book one, but I'm glad I did.
>
>Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
>was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?
Well, if nothing else, you'll get some closure. I think you'll find
books 2 & 3 much more enjoyable reads, though. I found myself looking
forward to reading them every day, as opposed to book 1, which I sort
of slogged through.
R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404
>
>Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
>DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
>it worse.
Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla and
FireFox. Most telling though is the quote, "Time Warner finally accepted
when Google agreed to give AOL favored search treatment" Wonder what
*that* means to those of us who don't care where the information is, we
want the most relevant information requested.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:33:57 GMT, evodawg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>
>> "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:DQApf.6592$7f3.6422@trnddc01...
>>> George wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > news:O5Apf.30864$Ht4.4599@trnddc08...
>>> >>
>>> >> Believe Mozilla with Netscapes approval was started by the OPEN SOURCE
>>> >> community and has been around for a long time. Linux and others had no
>>> >> really good Browser except for Konqueror. And they said that open
>> source
>>> >> would never work. Thousands of Linux user contributed to its
>> development.
>>> >> Now FireFox is the best browser available.
>>> >
As I indicated in a previous posting, the history of Netscape is:
1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
phenomenon. Prior to that you had internet search engines like archie,
gopher, and others. Netscape was one of the successful .com companies.
2) When Bill Gates "discovered" the internet and the web and made Explorer
a bundled free part of the MSoft empire, Netscape's business model was
essentially doomed. At that point AOL bought Netscape:
AOL bought Netscape in 1999 after MSoft made IE a free piece of software
bundled into the Msoft OS:
<http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet>
<http://news.com.com/Shareholders+approve+AOL,+Netscape+deal/2100-1023_3-223131.html>
3) It was after this that AOL spun off Netscape as a separate entity
It was spun off as a 501(c)3 foundation by AOL:
<http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/07/15.17.shtml>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+