Linux-Advocacy Digest #160, Volume #30 Fri, 10 Nov 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: The LAMP solution... (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: What I dont like about Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux & Motif (Donn Miller)
Re: What I dont like about Linux
Re: If Microsoft Made Cars: (Donn Miller)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Phillip Lord)
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: OS stability ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:00:50 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
> > techniques or special filesystems.
> >
> > Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
>
> Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of database technology, in
> particular Oracle.
>
> I think I'll go back to work on my 80 gigabyte Oracle database which
> runs under Linux now.
And performs like crap...
-Chad
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:04:21 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote...
> > > > I disagree, no other OS, except maybe the Mac, which was very costly in
the
> > > > time span we are talking about, came even close to Windows GUI in
comfort
> > > > and ease of use.
> > >
> > > OS/2 anyone? Unfortunately, the extra cost was a deterrent. Not to
> > > mention IBM's 'brilliant' marketing.
> >
> > Um... OS/2's UI sucked. It was completely unintuitive. IBM didn't have
> > to market OS/2, its suckiness preceeded it.
>
> Anything without a Start menu is unintuitive to you, Chad.
Ah yes, let the infamous Craig Kelley ad homonym attacks begin...
OS/2's UI sucked, it's a fact. Even KDE's UI is much better. Of course,
KDE's UI is a direct copy of Windows, so I guess Windows is better too.
Windows has better navigation, presentation, options, features,
customizability, consistency, among many others over OS/2.
If you wish to dispute this, please do so to your own embarrassment.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The LAMP solution...
Date: 10 Nov 2000 17:10:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 2. Is anyone using a variation on the LAMP solution (ie: PostgreSQL
: instead of MySQL, Javascript/CGI instead of PHP, etc.)? How are you
: finding that?
I'd reccomend against MySQL for anything critical or complex, and
using Postgres instead. This is simply because Postgres can do
atomic transaction blocks, and MySQL can't (without adding your own
code technique to protect the atomic sections). Concurrency issues
are a lot simpler when you can do SQL transactions.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:06:35 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uh91v$8mi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8zPO5.72271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:33:02 GMT,
> :> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :> >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
> :> >techniques or special filesystems.
> :>
> :>
> :> That is quite nonsensical.
>
> : How so? How do you get >2GB databases with Oracle on Linux?
>
> : Some here, from your camp, reported that Oracle uses a special filesystem
> : to deal with the discrepancy.
>
> You are either ignorant or lying when you claim a 2GB limit is the
> reason for the use of the 'special filesystem'. Performance
> is the reason for assigning a raw partition to oracle's use.
> (And it's not a "filesystem" - Oracle just uses the partition
> as raw blocks of bytes because that's faster than going through
> an unneccessary filesystem layer (Since all Oracle wants to do
> is have a huge array of bytes of permanent store, the indirection
> of a filesystem is just fluff.) Even with access to a filesystem
> that can make one file larger than 2GB, oracle setup guides *still*
> reccomend that you use some raw partitions for oracle, for PERFORMANCE.
Of course they do because ext2's performance sucks. However, on NT,
NTFS is much better and so such a recommendation is uncessary.
Tell us, how do you get a database file larger than 2GB with Oracle on
Linux?
The BigFile patch changes the addressing to 64-bit which would potentially
screw up any existing apps that required the 32-bit addressing. Such
apps would have to be recompiled to support >32-bit addressing. Has
Oracle been "recompiled" to support this?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:16:41 GMT
In article <DAVO5.242519$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ud4os$s0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The people at netcraft have started tracking uptime. Here is the top
50
> > "up-times"
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
> >
> ...
> > The longest uptime on the list comes from Universitaetsklinikum
Rudolf
> > Virchow with 825 days, OVER 2 years! Number 50 came was Octel
> > Communications Corporation at just under a year, arespectable 347
days!
> > Linux's best reported uptime? Over a year 406 days.
> >
> > But what about MS? None in the top 50? Well to be fair W2000 has
only
> > been out for what 9 months and the best uptime I found came from
Dell
> > with a W2K server up for 81 days less than 1/3 of the total time w2k
has
> > been out. The best w2k uptime reported by MS? 75 long days!
> ...
> > These are not benchmarks or staged tests, this is the real world
folks!
>
> But are these numbers meaningful? It seems to me that what you're
really
> interested in is unexpected downtime,
This is where you are VERY wrong! Down time even scheduled down time is
costly. The more I can get away from down time scheduled or otherwise
the better.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Date: 10 Nov 2000 17:20:04 GMT
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Does anyone get the sense here that if MS spun off a facade company to port
: a few MS apps to linux, say Word for instance, and they were to call it
: LinWordz or something.....
: I can hear you in here now singing the praises of this product like it was
: the best thing since X rated internet sites. Oh, forget that last part.
: Doesn't apply in cola., Uh, er,..since Konqueror...
: Funny, this two sided argument known as linux advocacy.
So now that you've been shot down trying to make fun of Linux advocates,
you have to resort to making up hypothetical situations, and then
poke fun at how you *think* linux advocates would respond to them?
What a baldfaced strawman fallacy!
Given how much IE on solaris sucked, I'd be really surprised if
the situation you surmised would ever come to be. MS clearly
doesn't know how to write software that can be easily ported.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Motif
Date: 10 Nov 2000 11:26:48 -0600
Tim Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been looking around for Motif development tools
> (UIL compiler etc) for Linux with little success.
> Does anyone know of any resources out there, or has
> Motif died the death in light of Lesstif, Gnome, Kdeetc?
You have seen www.openmotif.org, haven't you? I've seen mention on that web
page of themes for Motif. Isn't open source great?
- Donn
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:38:25 GMT
On 10 Nov 2000 17:20:04 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Does anyone get the sense here that if MS spun off a facade company to port
>: a few MS apps to linux, say Word for instance, and they were to call it
>: LinWordz or something.....
>: I can hear you in here now singing the praises of this product like it was
>: the best thing since X rated internet sites. Oh, forget that last part.
>: Doesn't apply in cola., Uh, er,..since Konqueror...
>
>: Funny, this two sided argument known as linux advocacy.
>
>So now that you've been shot down trying to make fun of Linux advocates,
>you have to resort to making up hypothetical situations, and then
>poke fun at how you *think* linux advocates would respond to them?
>What a baldfaced strawman fallacy!
>
>Given how much IE on solaris sucked, I'd be really surprised if
>the situation you surmised would ever come to be. MS clearly
>doesn't know how to write software that can be easily ported.
MS doesn't know how to write software unless they can secretly tweak the OS to
accomidate their S/W. MS-word uses hundreds of undocumented system calls.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft Made Cars:
Date: 10 Nov 2000 11:35:13 -0600
Gavin Cato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you want to pull anything else out of your hat that we all heard years
> ago you twit?
Haha, this is the first time I heard this. Pretty funny. BTW, it's fitting
that a person calling someone else a twit quotes an entire post for no
reason.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: 10 Nov 2000 17:39:42 GMT
On 10 Nov 2000 08:47:19 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>> Laughably false. They are projects to provide Linux with a modern set
>> of development tools. It's not that there's anything *wrong* with the
>> standard POSIX development tools -- but they do not in themselves make
>> a complete application development framework.
>
>True, and I don't begrudge those that need them. This "modern set of
>development tools" is that as implemented in Microsoft Windows, right?
Not really. For example, I don't think that the runtime XML based
GUIs glade provides have very much to do with anything Microsoft has
done.
I don't really think it has anything to do with Microsoft in particular,
though the Windows platform is popular enough that most technology tends
to find its way there sooner or later.
It's more about supporting new technology (such as XML, Corba, and
OO ) than it is about "being like Microsoft".
Not everything from Microsoft is "modern" (eg classic Win32 as described
in Petzold's book) and not everything modern comes from Microsoft.
>> Component programming for decades ? Hmmmm ... I don't see anything close
>> to KDE and GNOME that's more than a few years old. (possibly Motif/CDE,
>> but that's been saddled by licensing problems, and it's also saddled with
>> C as its language)
>
>Sure:
>
> cut -f1 file | grep foo | wc -l > blah_count
A pipe is not the same as a component. For example, you don't have
bidirectional communication in the above example. The interfaces
don't do anything besides read and write a text stream. There is
no object orientation. It is not even close to something like Corba,
which supports object orientation, distributed objects, and late
binding (even in C).
>> Personally, I think the Glib/GTK and Qt APIs offer a lot to programmers,
>> and GUI programming would be a hell of a lot harder without them.
>
>I program to GTK all the time (note that neither GTK nor Qt is GNOME
>or KDE).
KDE and GNOME have a similar purpose to Qt and Gtk. They add to the
application development framework. For example, both include several
widgets. Gnome includes glade, and an XML API that is not part of GTK.
Both include component frameworks (GNOME uses ORBit, KDE uses its own
thing which is different from CORBA). Both include base projects that
include a bunch of macros for autoconf builds.
>I didn't say "dislike"; I just meant that there are those of us who
>would still be using Linux becaus it is UNIX, not because KDE and
>GNOME are so spiffy.
I agree that UNIX was a wonderful platform even before KDE and GNOME
came along, but its important not to stagnate.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Nov 2000 17:56:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uh91v$8mi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> : news:8zPO5.72271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:33:02 GMT,
>> :> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :>
>> :>
>> :> >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
>> :> >techniques or special filesystems.
>> :>
>> :>
>> :> That is quite nonsensical.
>>
>> : How so? How do you get >2GB databases with Oracle on Linux?
>>
>> : Some here, from your camp, reported that Oracle uses a special filesystem
>> : to deal with the discrepancy.
>>
>> You are either ignorant or lying when you claim a 2GB limit is the
>> reason for the use of the 'special filesystem'. Performance
>> is the reason for assigning a raw partition to oracle's use.
>> (And it's not a "filesystem" - Oracle just uses the partition
>> as raw blocks of bytes because that's faster than going through
>> an unneccessary filesystem layer (Since all Oracle wants to do
>> is have a huge array of bytes of permanent store, the indirection
>> of a filesystem is just fluff.) Even with access to a filesystem
>> that can make one file larger than 2GB, oracle setup guides *still*
>> reccomend that you use some raw partitions for oracle, for PERFORMANCE.
> Of course they do because ext2's performance sucks. However, on NT,
> NTFS is much better and so such a recommendation is uncessary.
Yet it is still recommended. You're an idiot, chad. You are outright
lying.
> Tell us, how do you get a database file larger than 2GB with Oracle on
> Linux?
You simply set the raw partition to be as large as you want, and then you
point oracle at it. Its very, very simple.
I'm not surprised that you dont know this however, because although
you pretend to know something about computers, you actually know
nothing at all.
> The BigFile patch changes the addressing to 64-bit which would potentially
> screw up any existing apps that required the 32-bit addressing. Such
> apps would have to be recompiled to support >32-bit addressing. Has
> Oracle been "recompiled" to support this?
You dont even have any idea how DB applications work, do you.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: 10 Nov 2000 18:01:42 +0000
>>>>> "Clifford" == Clifford W Racz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Clifford> "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Clifford> wrote in message
Clifford> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Just a point of fact - Windoze will *require* swap space, even
>> with 512 MB of RAM. It's so a crashdump can be written to disk
>> before the system checks out, in the event of a crash (which BTW
>> is far more likely under Windoze)...
>>
>> -- Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human. jcostom
>> {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/ Quidquid latine
>> dictum sit, altum viditur.
Clifford> I have yet to, in 9 months of daily usage, have Windows
Clifford> 2000 lockup once. But Linux never locked up either, once
Clifford> i got it running.
Clifford> My Windows 2000 disk cost me $5. Took me 2 hours to set
Clifford> up. Since I get paid (as a contractor so i work as little
Clifford> or as much as I choose) $20 an hour; I figure Win2000 cost
Clifford> me a total of $45 to get running. In contrast, Linux has
Clifford> cost me an estimated $1000 and netted me very little in
Clifford> return. I don't care who Claire is...
I've spent a lot of time being frustrated both by linux
and windows. Neither are perfect OS's, but on the whole for me some
form of unix is the way ahead. Tying the OS so tightly to the
windowing system seems a bit strange to me, and to get windows to do
something trivial as export its display requires a very expensive
license.
I guess its a question of what is important to you in an OS.
When I used windows I ended up installing so many unix like tools that
it was getting silly. I am a lot happier on linux, and my windows
period is fading backwards into the stage of a bad memory.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: 10 Nov 2000 18:06:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tell me Rex, how can someone improperly select "Install Almost
> Everything" and screw it up?
> Tell me.
> I'm listening.
Like Rex said a bit earlier in his posting: the problem is not the
install. The problem is in the stuff that comes after the installation,
the administation of the system. The user (also the admin. on a
desktopbox(usually)) has to familiarize himself with the OS and learn
some basic stuff. If all usefull utils are there but one doesn't know
how to set them up initially or use them, then those tools are useless.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:19:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:33:02 GMT
<O%JO5.2487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Alsina
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:23:12 GMT
>> <8ubr4n$mcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >In article <3a080572$0$36976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:8u8rlg$8k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > In article <3a07d40b$0$14416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > > news:8u77je$vai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > > In article <3a06de7b$0$32739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > > > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > > > By the way, what is the maximum
>> >> > > > > partition size limit on Linux, and what is the maximum file
>> >size
>> >> > on
>> >> > > > 32bit
>> >> > > > > hardware?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Assuming ext2:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Max file size: 2GB, unless you use the "bigfile" patch.
>> >> > > > Max part size: 4TB
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 4TB maximum FS size is quite decent, but 2GB filesize is hardly an
>> >> > > "enterprise scale" limit. Needs to mature a bit :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Or you need to use the "bigfile" patch. You seem to enjoy selective
>> >> > reading.
>> >>
>> >> Oh yes, and what are you going to do, recompile Oracle to use the new
>> >API?
>> >
>> >What new API? Are you smoking something funny?
>>
>> Technically, it's a new API, but one can recompile apps
>> by using the options:
>>
>> g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64 ...
>>
>> The source code -- at least for open() level stuff; I don't know
>> about fopen() or iostream -- would not have to change.
>> However, the objects would not be compatible, as open() and
>> other such things become macros with the real calls becoming
>> open64().
>>
>> Makes life interesting. :-)
>
>So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
>techniques or special filesystems.
>
>Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
I'd put it even more strongly than that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use
Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases on *any* file system, on
*any* 32-bit machine, without a recompile using the above options
and/or explicit use of the xxx64() API and/or multiseeking techniques.
(It is possible they have done so already; I don't know. Any good
software developer -- and Oracle should be one of 'em :-) -- would
encapsulate this issue anyway, in a small segment of the code in
an OS-specific corner of their database.)
Look at the API! open() et al do not take a long long, which means
that any 32-bit integer based system is automatically hosed.
By default, off_t is a long unless the above options are defined.
(I'd have to look.)
Any build of Oracle -- or anything else -- which don't use these
options, or the "real" names of the functions (lseek64, presumably),
is therefore doomed.
Note that two relative seeks should accomplish what one absolute seek
cannot, but extending this for files that could be as huge as
20 gigabytes -- or 200 gigabytes -- or 200 terabytes! -- becomes
a royal pain.
By contrast, NT has been able to handle 64-bit seek offsets apparently
from its design inception. This is not to say it handles them horribly
well; the routine is called SetFilePointer(), which has a
rather odd API; the low longword is specified by value,
the high longword specified by pointer (with NULL probably being
interpreted as either 0 or -1, depending on context). Took me awhile
to find this (I was looking for something with "Seek" in it). :-)
But this is available in Borland C++ 4.51, warts and all.
IMO, this is a typically Microsoft solution -- but it's better
than no solution at all. (xxx64() presumably came *after* the
publication of the Microsoft SetFilePointer() call.)
>
>-Chad
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:19:32 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <fACO5.7361$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 03:37:09 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:8ud4os$s0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> The longest uptime on the list comes from Universitaetsklinikum
> Rudolf
> > > >> Virchow with 825 days, OVER 2 years! Number 50 came was Octel
> > > >> Communications Corporation at just under a year, arespectable 347
> days!
> > > >> Linux's best reported uptime? Over a year 406 days.
> > > >
> > > >Hmm... Sounds like a bunch of servers with security holes. Since
> they're
> > on
> > > >the internet, they can be easily identified and targeted by their
> > uptimes.
> > >
> > > Most of the security upgrades don't require a reboot.
> >
> > Most is not all.
> >
> > If even one known security hole remains, then that site is vulnerable.
>
> no less vunearable than MS software while you waiting for that next
You mean less vulnerable....because the Linux site is going to be patched
before MS even admit that there's a problem.
> service pack.
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:20:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:09:38 GMT
<8uh6js$554$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <O%JO5.2487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Alsina
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote
>> > on Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:23:12 GMT
>> > <8ubr4n$mcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > >In article <3a080572$0$36976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >> news:8u8rlg$8k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> > In article <3a07d40b$0$14416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > >> > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >> > > news:8u77je$vai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> > > > In article <3a06de7b$0$32739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > >> > > > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > By the way, what is the maximum
>> > >> > > > > partition size limit on Linux, and what is the maximum
>file
>> > >size
>> > >> > on
>> > >> > > > 32bit
>> > >> > > > > hardware?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Assuming ext2:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Max file size: 2GB, unless you use the "bigfile" patch.
>> > >> > > > Max part size: 4TB
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 4TB maximum FS size is quite decent, but 2GB filesize is
>hardly an
>> > >> > > "enterprise scale" limit. Needs to mature a bit :)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Or you need to use the "bigfile" patch. You seem to enjoy
>selective
>> > >> > reading.
>> > >>
>> > >> Oh yes, and what are you going to do, recompile Oracle to use the
>new
>> > >API?
>> > >
>> > >What new API? Are you smoking something funny?
>> >
>> > Technically, it's a new API, but one can recompile apps
>> > by using the options:
>> >
>> > g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64 ...
>> >
>> > The source code -- at least for open() level stuff; I don't know
>> > about fopen() or iostream -- would not have to change.
>> > However, the objects would not be compatible, as open() and
>> > other such things become macros with the real calls becoming
>> > open64().
>> >
>> > Makes life interesting. :-)
>>
>> So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
>> techniques or special filesystems.
>
>If Oracle for Linux supports raw partitions, that's hardly fancy.
That wouldn't solve the problem without a recompile; see my other post
for details.
(It's a pity, admittedly. Maybe 2.4 and a glibc upgrade will take
care of all this?)
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
