Re: ubuntu - linux for smart humen beings only
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Yotam Rubin wrote: I don't want to be rude or anything, but your subject was rather ironic: Linux for smart HUMEN beings Eheheh. Yeah, the 'U' could be a misspelling of 'Y' ... P. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ubuntu - linux for smart humen beings only
although i am not new to linux (using it since about 1995, both as user and sysadmin) i am relativly new to ubuntu (and debian). i migrated from fedora, which was not stable, to centos (rhel clone) which was stable enough but missing a lot of applications, and the apps it had were of older versions, which did not support many needed things. so i decided to test ubuntu. at work i installed ubuntu 6.10 edy x86_64 about a month ago. it was easy to use as windows is it was stable as windows is (it crushed in 1 month more than centos in 2 years) however, i was told it is the 64bit issue. many apps are missing in the 64version (for example macromedia's oroginal flash). some where solved by installing the 32bit versions of firefox, flash, mplayer ... mplayer32 crashes every time so i am using the mplayer64 which is stable but not many codecs firefox32 works well about Nvidia: for some reason, i have to reinstall nvidia after each end every boot !!! what i did like about ubuntu is that it has almost any program i can think of ported to it and easily installed with 'apt-get program' although it took me a lot of time adapting to not have /etc/inittab. so i decided to install it on a spare partition on my home machine. and had the problems i reported in my original mail. the subject is 'ubuntu for smart human beings only' becuase the error report i got was cryptic, which does not suit a distribution which calles itself 'linux for human beings'. and not because i didn't understand the error msg. so, what is the ubuntu convention ? which ubuntu is stable, which is not fully baked (aka beta), and which is alpha ? thanks, erez. On 2/11/07, Julian Daich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: El dom, 11-02-2007 a las 22:35 +0200, ik escribió: The real problem with Ubuntu (that hopefully 7.06 will solve that) is that 6.10 was half beaked when it was released, and you feel it. There were problems with some packages as, I experienced, Nvidia drivers, Flash plugin and the HAL daemon all of them solved by the updates. Another issue was the integration with some BIOS. Most cases were solved and everything is well documented at the Ubuntu wiki/ forum. Ubuntu 7.04 will solve many problems and will opens new ones as usual. Neither 6.10 or 7.04 are intended for long time support as is 6.06 Julian Ido On 2/11/07, Erez D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi have tryed to install ubuntu edgy 6.10 i386 on my pc, and it crashed during install so i did a 'check disk for defects' and got a strange msg: check finished: 0 checksums failed. what is that ? is that a psycometric test to see if i am smart enough to install ubuntu ? (btw, i googled for it, and i saw people thinking this means error, and other thinking this means ok) and at ubuntu.com they say: ubuntu - linux for human beings go figure. -- Julian Daich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ubuntu - linux for smart humen beings only
El lun, 12-02-2007 a las 10:48 +0200, Erez D escribió: i migrated from fedora, which was not stable, to centos (rhel clone) which was stable enough but missing a lot of applications, and the apps it had were of older versions, which did not support many needed things. I migrated my main system, a PIII, from Fedora to Ubuntu 6.10 and noted huge improvements in performance, speed, usability, configuration( Hebrew in Gnome and OOo just works!) and packages availability. at work i installed ubuntu 6.10 edy x86_64 about a month ago. it was easy to use as windows is it was stable as windows is (it crushed in 1 month more than centos in 2 years) however, i was told it is the 64bit issue. many apps are missing in the 64version (for example macromedia's oroginal flash). some where solved by installing the 32bit versions of firefox, flash, mplayer ... mplayer32 crashes every time so i am using the mplayer64 which is stable but not many codecs firefox32 works well about Nvidia: for some reason, i have to reinstall nvidia after each end every boot !!! what i did like about ubuntu is that it has almost any program i can think of ported to it and easily installed with 'apt-get program' although it took me a lot of time adapting to not have /etc/inittab. You may try with Ubuntu 6.06( or Kubuntu) with long time support( LTS). It also stills has Init. You could replace Firefox 1.5 by Swiftfox 2.0( 1) which is an optimised version of FF for GNU/ Linux. Swiftfox has optimized versions for many processors. Regarding multimedia, Ubuntu works well with the combination Totem/ Xine for me, but I don´t know about 64 bits. You may check it out at the Ubuntu wiki/ forums´s answers. so i decided to install it on a spare partition on my home machine. and had the problems i reported in my original mail. So, what is going on with your home machine now?! so, what is the ubuntu convention ? which ubuntu is stable, which is not fully baked (aka beta), and which is alpha ? Ubuntu 6.06 is better tuned, more stable as has LTS( 2) but many packages as Firefox or OpenOffice are not updated( they are on 1.5.08 and 2.0.3 respectively), 6.10 is the current release and 7.04 is still on beta. You may also try Debian Etch as an alternative if you find that Ubuntu does not meet your expectatives. Links ( 1)http://getswiftfox.com/debian.htm ( 2)http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases thanks, erez. On 2/11/07, Julian Daich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: El dom, 11-02-2007 a las 22:35 +0200, ik escribió: The real problem with Ubuntu (that hopefully 7.06 will solve that) is that 6.10 was half beaked when it was released, and you feel it. There were problems with some packages as, I experienced, Nvidia drivers, Flash plugin and the HAL daemon all of them solved by the updates. Another issue was the integration with some BIOS. Most cases were solved and everything is well documented at the Ubuntu wiki/ forum. Ubuntu 7.04 will solve many problems and will opens new ones as usual. Neither 6.10 or 7.04 are intended for long time support as is 6.06 Julian Ido On 2/11/07, Erez D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi have tryed to install ubuntu edgy 6.10 i386 on my pc, and it crashed during install so i did a 'check disk for defects' and got a strange msg: check finished: 0 checksums failed. what is that ? is that a psycometric test to see if i am smart enough to install ubuntu ? (btw, i googled for it, and i saw people thinking this means error, and other thinking this means ok) and at ubuntu.com they say: ubuntu - linux for human beings go figure. -- Julian Daich [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Julian Daich [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xen vs OpenVZ vs VServer
What's the score? Where should I put my money/(server resources)? A call for comments. RedHat/Fedora/Centos seem to preffer OpenVZ Debian seems to preffer Xen or VServer I've seen comments like the ones below: Why OpenVZ and not XEN or the recent KVM kernel module? Well, XEN is not very stable for 64-bit architectures (yet), and it comes with quite a bit of overhead (every VM runs its own kernel) due to its complexity. KVM is very simple but restricts you to run a kernel as one process, so the VM cannot benefit from multi core systems. ..OpenVZ outshines the competition, comparing it to VServer, Xen and User Mode Linux. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xen vs OpenVZ vs VServer
On 12/02/07, Chaim Keren-Tzion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the score? Where should I put my money/(server resources)? A call for comments. I'm not sure what's the difference between OpenVZ vs. VServer, but the main difference is that these two are distinct from VMware or Xen in that they share the kernel among multiple environments or vistual servers. VMware and Xen will allow you to run separate OS's and kernels on each instance, while OpenVZ and VServer share the same kernel among them, therefore they are much lighter on the hardware resources (mainly CPU). It apprears that OpenVZ is more mature (it was a commercial product before it was GPL'ed) while VServer still has some holes to fill in. Personally, I have a leaning towards VServer if it proves suitable (I might have a chance to start using it soon) because it's more open, and I'm not sure how useable is OpenVZ without the proprietary parts. RedHat/Fedora/Centos seem to preffer OpenVZ Debian seems to preffer Xen or VServer Then go with VServer, of course (because you *should* go with Debian :) --Amos
Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. Assuming I'm not interested in any information besides the answer if file existing or not. I would only need to access the directory listing and not the inode of each file, right? Is there some utility that can do this very simple search efficiently? real0m8.445s user0m0.198s sys 0m0.636s [EMAIL PROTECTED] /]$ time find usr/ real0m21.405s user0m0.332s sys 0m1.524s [EMAIL PROTECTED] /]$ time du -a usr/ real0m9.228s user0m0.992s sys 0m1.304s [EMAIL PROTECTED] /]$ time ls -1R usr/ Thanks, -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler Free as in Freedom - Do u GNU ? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On Monday 12 February 2007, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. Assuming I'm not interested in any information besides the answer if file existing or not. I would only need to access the directory listing and not the inode of each file, right? Is there some utility that can do this very simple search efficiently? Why not use a find predicate for that? shlomi:~/progs/perl/cpan$ find . -name Ack.pm -print -quit /ack/trunk/Ack.pm shlomi:~/progs/perl/cpan$ find . -name Floooble.pong -print -quit shlomi:~/progs/perl/cpan$ Instead of -name Ack.pm you can use a different set of predicates to pinpoint your file, including -exec which allows you to run a different program. Regards, Shlomi Fish - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://www.shlomifish.org/ Chuck Norris wrote a complete Perl 6 implementation in a day but then destroyed all evidence with his bare hands, so no one will know his secrets. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 15:56 +0200, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. Assuming I'm not interested in any information besides the answer if file existing or not. I would only need to access the directory listing and not the inode of each file, right? Is there some utility that can do this very simple search efficiently? What about $ file -name FILE ? - Gilboa = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
Hi, Use shell globbing, like `echo *' Gilboa Davara wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 15:56 +0200, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. Assuming I'm not interested in any information besides the answer if file existing or not. I would only need to access the directory listing and not the inode of each file, right? Is there some utility that can do this very simple search efficiently? What about $ file -name FILE ? - Gilboa = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Moshe Gorohovsky A6 CC A7 E1 C2 BD 8C 1B 30 8E A4 C3 4C 09 88 47 Tk Open Systems Ltd. --- - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il - = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Monday 12 February 2007, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. Assuming I'm not interested in any information besides the answer if file existing or not. I would only need to access the directory listing and not the inode of each file, right? Is there some utility that can do this very simple search efficiently? Why not use a find predicate for that? Why not write a COBOL application that uses a FORTRAN subroutine to do that ? Peter = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. locate FILE You can alias locate to actually use grep which allows using regexps for finding things in locate output directly. E.g. in my case this is set to: #!/bin/sh /usr/bin/locate.orig /|grep -E $* This can be made nicer but it's good enough. Peter = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On 2/12/07, Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 12 February 2007, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. Assuming I'm not interested in any information besides the answer if file existing or not. I would only need to access the directory listing and not the inode of each file, right? Is there some utility that can do this very simple search efficiently? Why not use a find predicate for that? Well... laziness. I find find|grep be a much simpler to type then find . -name XYZ [-noleaf] -quit Regards, Shlomi Fish Maxim. -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler Free as in Freedom - Do u GNU ? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On 2/12/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Monday 12 February 2007, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. Assuming I'm not interested in any information besides the answer if file existing or not. I would only need to access the directory listing and not the inode of each file, right? Is there some utility that can do this very simple search efficiently? Why not use a find predicate for that? Why not write a COBOL application that uses a FORTRAN subroutine to do that ? Peter Hmmm, OK. Please CC me on your first beta announcement. -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler Free as in Freedom - Do u GNU ? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On 2/12/07, Gilboa Davara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 15:56 +0200, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. What about $ file -name FILE ? Real situation: I've just done a major build which created 5th level directories hierarchy (debug/Main/Engine/Simple/he). Now I wish to run some quick shell test to see if anywhere inside all of this directory jungle a file named libHelpTest.a was build. Doing locate is no brainier because it's a major time waste on updatedb (this directory is there only until the next scons execution). What I'm asking is for hacks to squeeze the last bit of performance (just for fun) out of this simple file existence test. In the mean time the find|grep pair seems to be the best performer in the balance between (quick-to-type)/(fast-to-get-answer). - Gilboa Thanks, Maxim. -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler Free as in Freedom - Do u GNU ? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:17:59PM +0200, Maxim Veksler wrote: On 2/12/07, Gilboa Davara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 15:56 +0200, Maxim Veksler wrote: Hi, Someone at work told me that doing du -a DIR|grep FILE is faster then find DIR|grep FILE. I've measured, it doesn't looks quite so. It did OTOH got me wondering what's the quickest way to answer if file existed in a hierarchy of directories. What about $ file -name FILE ? Real situation: I've just done a major build which created 5th level directories hierarchy (debug/Main/Engine/Simple/he). Now I wish to run some quick shell test to see if anywhere inside all of this directory jungle a file named libHelpTest.a was build. If you're using zsh, you only need $ ls **/libHelpTest.a (I wonder whether Nadav has already sent this answer to the list...) -- Dan Kenigsberghttp://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~dankenICQ 162180901 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickest way to list content of directory(s)
On 13/02/07, Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So do I sometimes. However, you specifically asked about speed and find . -name *is* faster than find | grep. And on top of that, GNU find is smart enough not to stat(2) the file if the test can be satisfied without it. A quick strace find -name ... supports this claim (see --no-leaf option for more detailed explanation). --Amos
revoking old uid's
Hello, I'm trying to clean up my public GPG keys - I have a few old keys who's private keys were lost and some uid's from which I cannot longer send or receive e-mail - and read in the GnuPG documentation that the proper way to do this is to revoke uid. So I try to follow the manual and run gpg --edit-key 0C6D642D (that's actually a key I want to get completely rid off but I though it's a good candidate to practice uid revocation first). Here is what I get: Secret key is available. pub 1024D/0C6D642D created: 2003-08-26 expires: never usage: SCA trust: ultimate validity: ultimate sub 1024g/A8A01FE9 created: 2003-08-26 expires: never usage: E [ultimate] (1). Amos Shapira (Used at Optier Inc) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Command revuid 0C6D642D You must select at least one user ID. What am I doing wrong? Whatever I try to type after revuid I get the same message. Google didn't find anything useful about this. GnuPG version is 1.4.6 on Debian Etch. Thanks, --Amos
