Re: OT: Redmond

[Joe Fleming]

I'm really curious what all the fuss over windows 7
is all about. I mean, it's just vista with a few changes, and from what
I can tell those changes are pretty small. I always think it's funny
seeing sites talk about how bad vista is and how much better 7 is,
considering it's really nothing more than a point release/service pack
with a new name. Apparently m$ actually DOES know how to play the
marketing game. It'll be interesting to see how it's received by
consumers and the press when it's finally released I guess. Me, I still
don't have any problem running XP; works beautifully in VirtualBox ;).

-Joe

James Finstrom wrote:
I like to imagine it is because I am important or that its
because I went to church with many Microsoft cube gnomes when I lived
in Washington but none of these things are true simply because I am on
a Microsoft Spam list I got an invitation and license to download and
play with Windows 7 beta. So let me share the expierience and overview
so far I like things with the word free even if it is only as in beer
and only for a short time, Anyhow with fear and the smell of danger
that acompanies all things that say Microsoft and Beta in the same
typography I clicked the shiny banner answered a few questions and got
a key + link.  the minimum requirements say 1Gig ram and 128M video 
and blah blah something something okay whatever click Anyhow the
download comes up says this could take several days depending on your
provider and the download size is.. 2.44 GIG holy redhat batman I
need to go buy a dvd to burn this down to, well so much for free.
Anyhow it is chewing up some bandwith that can be better allocated but
I am going to grab it if for nothing else just to see if http://xkcd.com/528/ 
is true...
  
  
James Finstrom
Rhino Equipment Corp.
  
  

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss



---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice

[Mark Phillips]

I am running out of room for my backups. I use backuppc and I have almost
filled a 150GB drive with backups from 7 computers, and I need to add
another 2 computers to the set. I have an old Dell Poweredge 1300 server
(Pentium III 550 Mhz, 500 MB RAM, PCI 33.3Mhz) that I could turn into a
backup server. I am looking for suggestions/thoughts on how to set this up.
I need to keep the cost down as much as possible; under $150.

My initial thoughts:

* Keep current 72 GB drive for OS (debian testing, about 68% full)
* Add two 500 GB SATA drives and a PCI SATA controller ~$130
* Software RAID and LVM for the two drives
* Move current 150 GB of backups to the RAID
* Backuppc now runs on this machine and slowly fills up the RAID

My questions:

1. Should I keep the 72 GB drive for OS, or put it on the RAID?

2. I can add another CPU (P III 550 MHz) processor to the box - is it worth
the effort to find one? I found one source for $5/CPU, I just need to find
the heat sink and mounting hardware. Will this improve performance?

3. The box has a built-in SCSI 68-pin Ultra2/wide bus/controller, but SCSI
drives are more expensive, at least from a cursory google search. Is this
correct? I don't think I can use SCSI drives within my budget constraint.

4. Would upgrading the memory to 1GB improve performance - top shows:
Mem: 646676k total,  639300k used 7376k free,  64548k buffers
This would add another ~$60 to my cost.

5. Should I look at hardware RAID cards - they seem very cheap, so perhaps
software is better?

4. Does this plan make sense, or is there a better way to proceed for about
the same cost?

Thanks!

Mark
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:36 -0700, Mark Phillips wrote:
> I am running out of room for my backups. I use backuppc and I have
> almost filled a 150GB drive with backups from 7 computers, and I need
> to add another 2 computers to the set. I have an old Dell Poweredge
> 1300 server (Pentium III 550 Mhz, 500 MB RAM, PCI 33.3Mhz) that I
> could turn into a backup server. I am looking for suggestions/thoughts
> on how to set this up. I need to keep the cost down as much as
> possible; under $150. 
> 
> My initial thoughts:
> 
> * Keep current 72 GB drive for OS (debian testing, about 68% full)
> * Add two 500 GB SATA drives and a PCI SATA controller ~$130
> * Software RAID and LVM for the two drives
> * Move current 150 GB of backups to the RAID
> * Backuppc now runs on this machine and slowly fills up the RAID
> 
> 
> My questions:
> 
> 1. Should I keep the 72 GB drive for OS, or put it on the RAID?
> 
> 2. I can add another CPU (P III 550 MHz) processor to the box - is it
> worth the effort to find one? I found one source for $5/CPU, I just
> need to find the heat sink and mounting hardware. Will this improve
> performance?
> 
> 3. The box has a built-in SCSI 68-pin Ultra2/wide bus/controller, but
> SCSI drives are more expensive, at least from a cursory google search.
> Is this correct? I don't think I can use SCSI drives within my budget
> constraint.
> 
> 
> 4. Would upgrading the memory to 1GB improve performance - top shows:
> Mem: 646676k total,  639300k used 7376k free,  64548k
> buffers
> This would add another ~$60 to my cost.
> 
> 
> 5. Should I look at hardware RAID cards - they seem very cheap, so
> perhaps software is better?
> 
> 4. Does this plan make sense, or is there a better way to proceed for
> about the same cost?

1. One of the tricky things about backuppc (and I don't use it so I am
working from just a general understanding of things) is that it
creates/utilizes lots of hard linked files so if the boot os dies, your
backup may die along with it. The point of RAID is the redundancy part
which means things just keep working even if there's a complete failure
of a single hard drive (assuming everything but RAID 0). Having a RAID
array for your OS would ensure that.

2. Real hard to match processors at this point and unlikely you would
find one that exactly matched. Might be easier to find 2 that match each
other and install them both but for a backup box, that seems
unnecessary.

3. Yes, SCSI drives are more expensive - but performance should be much
better.

4. RAM may help a little. Free shows output of virtual memory but
doesn't suggest how much real RAM you have there. Assuming a text based
interface (not GUI), 256 MB RAM for what you're doing should be enough.

5. Cheap RAID hardware cards are cheap because they suck. Most of the
SATA 'RAID' cards are either 'fake' RAID (they aren't really hardware
RAID) and perform especially poorly on commonly used RAID 5 (3 drives
minimum but maximum drive space).

6. Makes sense.

Software RAID works well. You can create a RAID volume for your OS is
you wish - i.e. one drive on SCSI and one on SATA but the suck thing is
that...
- You can't just convert from an existing filesystem to a RAID array.
You'd have to copy it all off, create your RAID array, copy the files
back and then fix the boot issues
- RAID works much better if the drives are on different controllers - a
controller can only write one drive at a time.

Craig

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[Josh Coffman]

>From what I hear, and this is from .Net devs who are running win7, its
described as "Vista without the crap". It performs nearly as fast as WinXP
and with far lighter hardware requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)
>From the screenshots I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista,
but that's just "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so
I'll see for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my WinXP
vm (which I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them easily.

Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten used to the pain or
its gotten a little less painful. Probably both. I still don't like Vista. I
have to deal with it though. So I hope Win7 is better, a lot better, because
windows a part of my job.

As an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws own
againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux killer
(speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all.

-j

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe Fleming  wrote:

>  I'm really curious what all the fuss over windows 7 is all about. I mean,
> it's just vista with a few changes, and from what I can tell those changes
> are pretty small. I always think it's funny seeing sites talk about how bad
> vista is and how much better 7 is, considering it's really nothing more than
> a point release/service pack with a new name. Apparently m$ actually DOES
> know how to play the marketing game. It'll be interesting to see how it's
> received by consumers and the press when it's finally released I guess. Me,
> I still don't have any problem running XP; works beautifully in VirtualBox
> ;).
>
> -Joe
>
> James Finstrom wrote:
>
> I like to imagine it is because I am important or that its because I went
> to church with many Microsoft cube gnomes when I lived in Washington but
> none of these things are true simply because I am on a Microsoft Spam list I
> got an invitation and license to download and play with Windows 7 beta. So
> let me share the expierience and overview so far I like things with the word
> free even if it is only as in beer and only for a short time, Anyhow with
> fear and the smell of danger that acompanies all things that say Microsoft
> and Beta in the same typography I clicked the shiny banner answered a few
> questions and got a key + link.  the minimum requirements say 1Gig ram and
> 128M video  and blah blah something something okay whatever click Anyhow
> the download comes up says this could take several days depending on your
> provider and the download size is.. 2.44 GIG holy redhat batman I need
> to go buy a dvd to burn this down to, well so much for free. Anyhow it is
> chewing up some bandwith that can be better allocated but I am going to grab
> it if for nothing else just to see if http://xkcd.com/528/  is true...
>
>
> James Finstrom
> Rhino Equipment Corp.
>
> --
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail 
> settings:http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

RE: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice

[Lisa Kachold]

http://shop1.frys.com/%7BA7LPrdOKRokR7xrD8aYi8Q**.node2%7D/product/5718492

Adding memory is probably not going to assist your plight unless you are 
swapping now?  A full backup analysis would be required, but it's doubtful it's 
memory, rather network bottleneck and schedule based.  

It's possible that your backup application is no longer efficient?  Might try 
the NAS approach?  Even via firewire or USB?

www.Obnosis.com |  http://wiki.obnosis.com | http://hackfest.obnosis.com 
(503)754-4452


PLUG HACKFESTS - http://uat.edu Second Saturday of Each Month Noon - 3PM
> Subject: Re: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice
> From: craigwh...@azapple.com
> To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:58:27 -0700
> 
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:36 -0700, Mark Phillips wrote:
> > I am running out of room for my backups. I use backuppc and I have
> > almost filled a 150GB drive with backups from 7 computers, and I need
> > to add another 2 computers to the set. I have an old Dell Poweredge
> > 1300 server (Pentium III 550 Mhz, 500 MB RAM, PCI 33.3Mhz) that I
> > could turn into a backup server. I am looking for suggestions/thoughts
> > on how to set this up. I need to keep the cost down as much as
> > possible; under $150. 
> > 
> > My initial thoughts:
> > 
> > * Keep current 72 GB drive for OS (debian testing, about 68% full)
> > * Add two 500 GB SATA drives and a PCI SATA controller ~$130
> > * Software RAID and LVM for the two drives
> > * Move current 150 GB of backups to the RAID
> > * Backuppc now runs on this machine and slowly fills up the RAID
> > 
> > 
> > My questions:
> > 
> > 1. Should I keep the 72 GB drive for OS, or put it on the RAID?
> > 
> > 2. I can add another CPU (P III 550 MHz) processor to the box - is it
> > worth the effort to find one? I found one source for $5/CPU, I just
> > need to find the heat sink and mounting hardware. Will this improve
> > performance?
> > 
> > 3. The box has a built-in SCSI 68-pin Ultra2/wide bus/controller, but
> > SCSI drives are more expensive, at least from a cursory google search.
> > Is this correct? I don't think I can use SCSI drives within my budget
> > constraint.
> > 
> > 
> > 4. Would upgrading the memory to 1GB improve performance - top shows:
> > Mem: 646676k total,  639300k used 7376k free,  64548k
> > buffers
> > This would add another ~$60 to my cost.
> > 
> > 
> > 5. Should I look at hardware RAID cards - they seem very cheap, so
> > perhaps software is better?
> > 
> > 4. Does this plan make sense, or is there a better way to proceed for
> > about the same cost?
> 
> 1. One of the tricky things about backuppc (and I don't use it so I am
> working from just a general understanding of things) is that it
> creates/utilizes lots of hard linked files so if the boot os dies, your
> backup may die along with it. The point of RAID is the redundancy part
> which means things just keep working even if there's a complete failure
> of a single hard drive (assuming everything but RAID 0). Having a RAID
> array for your OS would ensure that.
> 
> 2. Real hard to match processors at this point and unlikely you would
> find one that exactly matched. Might be easier to find 2 that match each
> other and install them both but for a backup box, that seems
> unnecessary.
> 
> 3. Yes, SCSI drives are more expensive - but performance should be much
> better.
> 
> 4. RAM may help a little. Free shows output of virtual memory but
> doesn't suggest how much real RAM you have there. Assuming a text based
> interface (not GUI), 256 MB RAM for what you're doing should be enough.
> 
> 5. Cheap RAID hardware cards are cheap because they suck. Most of the
> SATA 'RAID' cards are either 'fake' RAID (they aren't really hardware
> RAID) and perform especially poorly on commonly used RAID 5 (3 drives
> minimum but maximum drive space).
> 
> 6. Makes sense.
> 
> Software RAID works well. You can create a RAID volume for your OS is
> you wish - i.e. one drive on SCSI and one on SATA but the suck thing is
> that...
> - You can't just convert from an existing filesystem to a RAID array.
> You'd have to copy it all off, create your RAID array, copy the files
> back and then fix the boot issues
> - RAID works much better if the drives are on different controllers - a
> controller can only write one drive at a time.
> 
> Craig
> 
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

_
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://li

Hadron, REM, Freetards and Gaming?

[Lisa Kachold]

Since they turned on the Hadron Collider, it's obviously the "END OF THE WORLD 
as We KNOW It!" - while misery loves company, we might as well apply this 
slowdown and re-evaluation of everything for something useless?

What games does everyone play?

Linux Gamers' Game List· Video Games
Course the Linux Hater's Redux has some interesting Games ideas and lampooning 
of "freetards":

Linux Hater's Redux: CrossOver Games Free TrialReferences:
YouTube - REM End Of The World As We Know It (And I feel ...· MusicThe 
Large Hadron Collider: End of the world, or God's own particle ...· 
Science/TechList of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia· 
Cognitive Science
www.Obnosis.com |  http://wiki.obnosis.com | http://hackfest.obnosis.com 
(503)754-4452
PLUG HACKFESTS - http://uat.edu Second Saturday of Each Month Noon - 3PM



_
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice

[Mark Phillips]

Lisa,

Thanks for the link to Frys. I thought about a single external drive as it
is well within my budget. However, wouldn't a RAID on a slower CPU be a
better solution? At least if a drive fails not all is lost as with the
single external drive. I also think the RAID on a slower CPU will be
faster...is that the case? I have a 100MB Ethernet LAN for most of the
machines...two machines are remote across the Internet.

The problem is simple - trying to backup more than 150GB to a 150GB
driveI have just run out of room. :-(

Mark

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Lisa Kachold wrote:

>
> http://shop1.frys.com/%7BA7LPrdOKRokR7xrD8aYi8Q**.node2%7D/product/5718492
>
> Adding memory is probably not going to assist your plight unless you are
> swapping now?  A full backup analysis would be required, but it's doubtful
> it's memory, rather network bottleneck and schedule based.
>
> It's possible that your backup application is no longer efficient?  Might
> try the NAS approach?  Even via firewire or USB?
>
> www.Obnosis.com |  http://wiki.obnosis.com | 
> http://hackfest.obnosis.com(503)754-4452
>
>
> PLUG HACKFESTS - http://uat.edu Second Saturday of Each Month Noon - 3PM
> > Subject: Re: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice
> > From: craigwh...@azapple.com
> > To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:58:27 -0700
> >
> > On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:36 -0700, Mark Phillips wrote:
> > > I am running out of room for my backups. I use backuppc and I have
> > > almost filled a 150GB drive with backups from 7 computers, and I need
> > > to add another 2 computers to the set. I have an old Dell Poweredge
> > > 1300 server (Pentium III 550 Mhz, 500 MB RAM, PCI 33.3Mhz) that I
> > > could turn into a backup server. I am looking for suggestions/thoughts
> > > on how to set this up. I need to keep the cost down as much as
> > > possible; under $150.
> > >
> > > My initial thoughts:
> > >
> > > * Keep current 72 GB drive for OS (debian testing, about 68% full)
> > > * Add two 500 GB SATA drives and a PCI SATA controller ~$130
> > > * Software RAID and LVM for the two drives
> > > * Move current 150 GB of backups to the RAID
> > > * Backuppc now runs on this machine and slowly fills up the RAID
> > >
> > >
> > > My questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Should I keep the 72 GB drive for OS, or put it on the RAID?
> > >
> > > 2. I can add another CPU (P III 550 MHz) processor to the box - is it
> > > worth the effort to find one? I found one source for $5/CPU, I just
> > > need to find the heat sink and mounting hardware. Will this improve
> > > performance?
> > >
> > > 3. The box has a built-in SCSI 68-pin Ultra2/wide bus/controller, but
> > > SCSI drives are more expensive, at least from a cursory google search.
> > > Is this correct? I don't think I can use SCSI drives within my budget
> > > constraint.
> > >
> > >
> > > 4. Would upgrading the memory to 1GB improve performance - top shows:
> > > Mem: 646676k total, 639300k used 7376k free, 64548k
> > > buffers
> > > This would add another ~$60 to my cost.
> > >
> > >
> > > 5. Should I look at hardware RAID cards - they seem very cheap, so
> > > perhaps software is better?
> > >
> > > 4. Does this plan make sense, or is there a better way to proceed for
> > > about the same cost?
> > 
> > 1. One of the tricky things about backuppc (and I don't use it so I am
> > working from just a general understanding of things) is that it
> > creates/utilizes lots of hard linked files so if the boot os dies, your
> > backup may die along with it. The point of RAID is the redundancy part
> > which means things just keep working even if there's a complete failure
> > of a single hard drive (assuming everything but RAID 0). Having a RAID
> > array for your OS would ensure that.
> >
> > 2. Real hard to match processors at this point and unlikely you would
> > find one that exactly matched. Might be easier to find 2 that match each
> > other and install them both but for a backup box, that seems
> > unnecessary.
> >
> > 3. Yes, SCSI drives are more expensive - but performance should be much
> > better.
> >
> > 4. RAM may help a little. Free shows output of virtual memory but
> > doesn't suggest how much real RAM you have there. Assuming a text based
> > interface (not GUI), 256 MB RAM for what you're doing should be enough.
> >
> > 5. Cheap RAID hardware cards are cheap because they suck. Most of the
> > SATA 'RAID' cards are either 'fake' RAID (they aren't really hardware
> > RAID) and perform especially poorly on commonly used RAID 5 (3 drives
> > minimum but maximum drive space).
> >
> > 6. Makes sense.
> >
> > Software RAID works well. You can create a RAID volume for your OS is
> > you wish - i.e. one drive on SCSI and one on SATA but the suck thing is
> > that...
> > - You can't just convert from an existing filesystem to a RAID array.
> > You'd have to copy it all off, create your RAID array, copy the files
> > back and then fix the boot issues
> > - RAID wo

Re: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice

[Mark Phillips]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Craig White  wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:36 -0700, Mark Phillips wrote:
> > I am running out of room for my backups. I use backuppc and I have
> > almost filled a 150GB drive with backups from 7 computers, and I need
> > to add another 2 computers to the set. I have an old Dell Poweredge
> > 1300 server (Pentium III 550 Mhz, 500 MB RAM, PCI 33.3Mhz) that I
> > could turn into a backup server. I am looking for suggestions/thoughts
> > on how to set this up. I need to keep the cost down as much as
> > possible; under $150.
> >
> > My initial thoughts:
> >
> > * Keep current 72 GB drive for OS (debian testing, about 68% full)
> > * Add two 500 GB SATA drives and a PCI SATA controller ~$130
> > * Software RAID and LVM for the two drives
> > * Move current 150 GB of backups to the RAID
> > * Backuppc now runs on this machine and slowly fills up the RAID
> >
> >
> > My questions:
> >
> > 1. Should I keep the 72 GB drive for OS, or put it on the RAID?
> >
> > 2. I can add another CPU (P III 550 MHz) processor to the box - is it
> > worth the effort to find one? I found one source for $5/CPU, I just
> > need to find the heat sink and mounting hardware. Will this improve
> > performance?
> >
> > 3. The box has a built-in SCSI 68-pin Ultra2/wide bus/controller, but
> > SCSI drives are more expensive, at least from a cursory google search.
> > Is this correct? I don't think I can use SCSI drives within my budget
> > constraint.
> >
> >
> > 4. Would upgrading the memory to 1GB improve performance - top shows:
> > Mem: 646676k total,  639300k used 7376k free,  64548k
> > buffers
> > This would add another ~$60 to my cost.
> >
> >
> > 5. Should I look at hardware RAID cards - they seem very cheap, so
> > perhaps software is better?
> >
> > 4. Does this plan make sense, or is there a better way to proceed for
> > about the same cost?
> 
> 1. One of the tricky things about backuppc (and I don't use it so I am
> working from just a general understanding of things) is that it
> creates/utilizes lots of hard linked files so if the boot os dies, your
> backup may die along with it. The point of RAID is the redundancy part
> which means things just keep working even if there's a complete failure
> of a single hard drive (assuming everything but RAID 0). Having a RAID
> array for your OS would ensure that.

OK, then I can dump the old OS and do a fresh install. Appears to be a
little easier with Debian these days for RAID and LVM.

>
>
> 2. Real hard to match processors at this point and unlikely you would
> find one that exactly matched. Might be easier to find 2 that match each
> other and install them both but for a backup box, that seems
> unnecessary.

I was trying to find another use for this monster (ie big imposing black
Dell case), so I thought I would have some fun with a dual processor.

>
>
> 3. Yes, SCSI drives are more expensive - but performance should be much
> better.
>
> 4. RAM may help a little. Free shows output of virtual memory but
> doesn't suggest how much real RAM you have there. Assuming a text based
> interface (not GUI), 256 MB RAM for what you're doing should be enough.

There is currently 512 MB installed.

>
>
> 5. Cheap RAID hardware cards are cheap because they suck. Most of the
> SATA 'RAID' cards are either 'fake' RAID (they aren't really hardware
> RAID) and perform especially poorly on commonly used RAID 5 (3 drives
> minimum but maximum drive space).

So, I need three 500GB drives, not 2? And 3 PCI SATA controllers (based on
your comments below)? Any recommendations on manufacturerers? Do all three
drives have to be the same?

>
>
> 6. Makes sense.

Especially since you are better at creating a list of 6 consecutive numbers
than I am. ;-)

>
>
> Software RAID works well. You can create a RAID volume for your OS is
> you wish - i.e. one drive on SCSI and one on SATA but the suck thing is
> that...
> - You can't just convert from an existing filesystem to a RAID array.
> You'd have to copy it all off, create your RAID array, copy the files
> back and then fix the boot issues
> - RAID works much better if the drives are on different controllers - a
> controller can only write one drive at a time.

Thanks!

>
>
> Craig
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[keith smith]

So can we speculate that M$ is making Vista/win7 less resource intensive so it 
can compete in the netbook environment.

I understand it takes up about 10 Gigs of space.  

Would be nice to have an O/S that requires less and is more efficient.  Maybe 
we can recycle some old hardware :)



Keith Smith




--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Josh Coffman  wrote:
From: Josh Coffman 
Subject: Re: OT: Redmond
To: "Main PLUG discussion list" 
Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:59 AM

>From what I hear, and this is from .Net devs who are running win7, its 
>described as "Vista without the crap". It performs nearly as fast as WinXP and 
>with far lighter hardware requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)  From 
>the screenshots I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista, but 
>that's just "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so I'll see 
>for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my WinXP vm (which 
>I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them easily.


Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten used to the pain or its 
gotten a little less painful. Probably both. I still don't like Vista. I have 
to deal with it though. So I hope Win7 is better, a lot better, because windows 
a part of my job. 


As an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws own 
againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux killer 
(speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all. 


-j

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe Fleming  wrote:




  


I'm really curious what all the fuss over windows 7
is all about. I mean, it's just vista with a few changes, and from what
I can tell those changes are pretty small. I always think it's funny
seeing sites talk about how bad vista is and how much better 7 is,
considering it's really nothing more than a point release/service pack
with a new name. Apparently m$ actually DOES know how to play the
marketing game. It'll be interesting to see how it's received by
consumers and the press when it's finally released I guess. Me, I still
don't have any problem running XP; works beautifully in VirtualBox ;).



-Joe



James Finstrom wrote:
I like to imagine it is because I am important or that its
because I went to church with many Microsoft cube gnomes when I lived
in Washington but none of these things are true simply because I am on
a Microsoft Spam list I got an invitation and license to download and
play with Windows 7 beta. So let me share the expierience and overview
so far I like things with the word free even if it is only as in beer
and only for a short time, Anyhow with fear and the smell of danger
that acompanies all things that say Microsoft and Beta in the same
typography I clicked the shiny banner answered a few questions and got
a key + link.  the minimum requirements say 1Gig ram and 128M video 
and blah blah something something okay whatever click Anyhow the
download comes up says this could take several days depending on your
provider and the download size is.. 2.44 GIG holy redhat batman I
need to go buy a dvd to burn this down to, well so much for free.
Anyhow it is chewing up some bandwith that can be better allocated but
I am going to grab it if for nothing else just to see if http://xkcd.com/528/ 
is true...

  

  

James Finstrom

Rhino Equipment Corp.

  

  
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss




---

PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us

To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:

http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss


---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss


  ---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice

[Joe Fleming]

I don't have any personal experience with backuppc, but I'll still chime
in with what I know:
>
> 1. Should I keep the 72 GB drive for OS, or put it on the RAID?
>
I would. Booting from a RAID array can be tricky. Not impossible, but I
personally don't think it's worth the effort. It sounds like you have an
old server box anyway, so you shouldn't be lacking space of connections
for a third drive.
>
> 2. I can add another CPU (P III 550 MHz) processor to the box - is it
> worth the effort to find one? I found one source for $5/CPU, I just
> need to find the heat sink and mounting hardware. Will this improve
> performance?
>
Of course it will, but on a simple backup machine, it won't really
matter much. I have a Debian-based software RAID-5 setup running on a
1.2GHz VIA chip with 256MB RAM. Is it slow? Sure, but only when I'm
trying to encrypt something or rebuilding the array (4x500GB drives,
~1.5TB array, full rebuild on a replaced drive takes about 10 hours). It
does rsync, ftp, smb and scp/ssh just fine. even at the same time.
Sure your 500MHz chip is probably slower, but probably not by much. If
you want to play, go for it, but I wouldn't consider it a requirement.
>
> 3. The box has a built-in SCSI 68-pin Ultra2/wide bus/controller, but
> SCSI drives are more expensive, at least from a cursory google search.
> Is this correct? I don't think I can use SCSI drives within my budget
> constraint.
>
SCSI is faster, but if you're running SATA-II you'll have plenty of
speed. Your bottleneck is going to be the 100-baseT connection, which
even an ATA/33 drive could keep up with (see the bus speeds link below).
Unless you are running a production server and have a ton of constant
disk access (and you don't), SCSI won't really offer you much. Not worth
the cost for most consumer applications as far as I'm concerned.

Bus speeds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Computer_buses_.28storage.29
>
> 4. Would upgrading the memory to 1GB improve performance - top shows:
> Mem: 646676k total,  639300k used 7376k free,  64548k buffers
> This would add another ~$60 to my cost.
>
Sure, why not. Again, I'm running 256MB and doing just fine though
>
> 5. Should I look at hardware RAID cards - they seem very cheap, so
> perhaps software is better?
>
Cheap hardware RAID is fakeraid Google that one. The card does all
its work through the CPU so you don't really save anything. The only
thing that's useful is that it looks like 1 drive to the OS but if
that card ever fails and you can't get your hands on another one, you
could be SOL. Softraid, on the other hand, should port properly from
install to install, even from distro to distro. I've never had any
problems with mine. I would highly recommend just getting a SATA-II card
and staying away from fakeraid personally. I run the Promise TX4 card (4
SATA-II ports on a normal PCI interface, $60 shipped on newegg) and it
works flawlessly with Debian and Ubuntu.
>
> 4. Does this plan make sense, or is there a better way to proceed for
> about the same cost?
>
Sounds solid enough. You could probably find a NAS/USB/Firewire/eSATA
enclosure that would offer on-board mirroring, but that's going to be
kind of expensive, it may be difficult to replace drives and you won't
have the unfettered control you get from running a real machine. I've
read a lot of horror stories with the enclosures corrupting the entire
dataset too. You have the machine already, you just need the drives and
a controller card, I'd stick with that if I were you.

One thing to consider too is that 750GB and 1TB drives have come down in
price dramatically. If you're running a mirror (which I assume you are)
and you have the budget, you might consider springing for larger drives
from the start. That'll theoretically give you some more time before you
have to revisit the setup and upgrade the drives again.

Hope that helps.

-Joe
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[Joe Fleming]

I don't know that they are specifically targeting
that market. I mean, most of the netbooks run vista already. Run over
the Fry's if you don't believe me. all of their netbooks on display
are running vista. It was enough to make me not want to buy any of
them, but I digress. I've read the m$ has claimed that the reason most
of them can't is because of the lack of storage space, a problem that 7
clearly doesn't solve.

As for the storage space, my Ubuntu install is using about 10GB right
now. Of course, that's with an office suite, a webserver, a few
websites, my email, a bunch of pictures and documents accumulated over
the 2 years it's been installed (over 3GB in my home directory right
now).. that's kind of the same, right? I mean, kinda, right?

For the life of me I can't understand how the hell they use up so much
space for JUST the operating system! As an aside, I read that IE8 uses
more memory that the whole of XP too. Crazy.

-Joe

keith smith wrote:

  

  

So can we speculate that M$ is making Vista/win7 less resource
intensive so it can compete in the netbook environment.

I understand it takes up about 10 Gigs of space.  

Would be nice to have an O/S that requires less and is more efficient. 
Maybe we can recycle some old hardware :)



Keith Smith




--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Josh Coffman 
wrote:
From:
Josh Coffman 
Subject: Re: OT: Redmond
To: "Main PLUG discussion list"

Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:59 AM
  
  From what I hear, and this is from
.Net devs who are running win7, its described as "Vista without the
crap". It performs nearly as fast as WinXP and with far lighter
hardware requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)  From the
screenshots I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista, but
that's just "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so
I'll see for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my
WinXP vm (which I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them easily.
  
Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten used to the pain
or its gotten a little less painful. Probably both. I still don't like
Vista. I have to deal with it though. So I hope Win7 is better, a lot
better, because windows a part of my job. 
  
As an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws
own againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux
killer (speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all. 
  
-j
  
  On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe
Fleming 
wrote:
  
I'm really curious what all the
fuss over windows 7
is all about. I mean, it's just vista with a few changes, and from what
I can tell those changes are pretty small. I always think it's funny
seeing sites talk about how bad vista is and how much better 7 is,
considering it's really nothing more than a point release/service pack
with a new name. Apparently m$ actually DOES know how to play the
marketing game. It'll be interesting to see how it's received by
consumers and the press when it's finally released I guess. Me, I still
don't have any problem running XP; works beautifully in VirtualBox ;).

-Joe

James Finstrom wrote:
I like to imagine it is because I
am important or that its
because I went to church with many Microsoft cube gnomes when I lived
in Washington but none of these things are true simply because I am on
a Microsoft Spam list I got an invitation and license to download and
play with Windows 7 beta. So let me share the expierience and overview
so far I like things with the word free even if it is only as in beer
and only for a short time, Anyhow with fear and the smell of danger
that acompanies all things that say Microsoft and Beta in the same
typography I clicked the shiny banner answered a few questions and got
a key + link.  the minimum requirements say 1Gig ram and 128M video 
and blah blah something something okay whatever click Anyhow the
download comes up says this could take several days depending on your
provider and the download size is.. 2.44 GIG holy redhat batman I
need to go buy a dvd to burn this down to, well so much for free.
Anyhow it is chewing up some bandwith that can be better allocated but
I am going to grab it if for nothing else just to see if http://xkcd.com/528/ 
is true...
  
  
James Finstrom
Rhino Equipment Corp.
  
  
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss



---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.a

Re: Looking For RAID Hardware/Software Advice

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 11:14 -0700, Mark Phillips wrote:

> 
> 2. Real hard to match processors at this point and unlikely
> you would
> find one that exactly matched. Might be easier to find 2 that
> match each
> other and install them both but for a backup box, that seems
> unnecessary.
> 
> I was trying to find another use for this monster (ie big imposing
> black Dell case), so I thought I would have some fun with a dual
> processor. 

a dual processor does have its advantages but I would suspect that a box
that only does backup processing wouldn't be of much use unless it
compresses the files on the fly (which may be what backuppc does)

the 'big' box tends to have a higher wattage power supply - i.e. can
support more hard drives and expansion slots.

> 5. Cheap RAID hardware cards are cheap because they suck. Most
> of the
> SATA 'RAID' cards are either 'fake' RAID (they aren't really
> hardware
> RAID) and perform especially poorly on commonly used RAID 5 (3
> drives
> minimum but maximum drive space).
> 
> So, I need three 500GB drives, not 2? And 3 PCI SATA controllers
> (based on your comments below)? Any recommendations on
> manufacturerers? Do all three drives have to be the same?

interesting thought for sure...SATA is notorious for slow RAID 5. That
would likely help but I don't know for sure.

> 
> 
> 6. Makes sense.
> 
> Especially since you are better at creating a list of 6 consecutive
> numbers than I am. ;-) 

sometimes - not always.

Craig


---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[Josh Coffman]

well its looking a lot better than Vista even though its still in Beta; and
stuff tends to get tightened up and more efficient just prior RTM.  So this
should be mountains better than the Vista release.

I wouldn't bet on it for old hardware or netbooks though. It's still
microsoft ya know.  Yeah, Win7 weighs in around 16gig, which is a far cry
from the metric ton of Vista. 16gig is still not a flyweight.  At one time,
I think I had a usable Fedora install around 7-8 gig without trying; don't
remember for sure.

-j


On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:43 AM, keith smith  wrote:

>
> So can we speculate that M$ is making Vista/win7 less resource intensive so
> it can compete in the netbook environment.
>
> I understand it takes up about 10 Gigs of space.
>
> Would be nice to have an O/S that requires less and is more efficient.
> Maybe we can recycle some old hardware :)
>
>
> 
> Keith Smith
> 
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 1/16/09, Josh Coffman * wrote:
>
> From: Josh Coffman 
> Subject: Re: OT: Redmond
> To: "Main PLUG discussion list" 
> Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:59 AM
>
>
> From what I hear, and this is from .Net devs who are running win7, its
> described as "Vista without the crap". It performs nearly as fast as WinXP
> and with far lighter hardware requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)
> From the screenshots I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista,
> but that's just "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so
> I'll see for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my WinXP
> vm (which I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them easily.
>
> Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten used to the pain or
> its gotten a little less painful. Probably both. I still don't like Vista. I
> have to deal with it though. So I hope Win7 is better, a lot better, because
> windows a part of my job.
>
> As an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws own
> againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux killer
> (speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all.
>
> -j
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe Fleming  wrote:
>
>>  I'm really curious what all the fuss over windows 7 is all about. I
>> mean, it's just vista with a few changes, and from what I can tell those
>> changes are pretty small. I always think it's funny seeing sites talk about
>> how bad vista is and how much better 7 is, considering it's really nothing
>> more than a point release/service pack with a new name. Apparently m$
>> actually DOES know how to play the marketing game. It'll be interesting to
>> see how it's received by consumers and the press when it's finally released
>> I guess. Me, I still don't have any problem running XP; works beautifully in
>> VirtualBox ;).
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>> James Finstrom wrote:
>>
>> I like to imagine it is because I am important or that its because I went
>> to church with many Microsoft cube gnomes when I lived in Washington but
>> none of these things are true simply because I am on a Microsoft Spam list I
>> got an invitation and license to download and play with Windows 7 beta. So
>> let me share the expierience and overview so far I like things with the word
>> free even if it is only as in beer and only for a short time, Anyhow with
>> fear and the smell of danger that acompanies all things that say Microsoft
>> and Beta in the same typography I clicked the shiny banner answered a few
>> questions and got a key + link.  the minimum requirements say 1Gig ram and
>> 128M video  and blah blah something something okay whatever click Anyhow
>> the download comes up says this could take several days depending on your
>> provider and the download size is.. 2.44 GIG holy redhat batman I need
>> to go buy a dvd to burn this down to, well so much for free. Anyhow it is
>> chewing up some bandwith that can be better allocated but I am going to grab
>> it if for nothing else just to see if http://xkcd.com/528/  is true...
>>
>>
>> James Finstrom
>> Rhino Equipment Corp.
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
>>
>> ---
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[Alan Dayley]

My 10-month-ish old Eee PC 701 is running the Ubuntu Eee distribution
with Firefox, OpenOffice.org suite and many other apps, and my data on
the 4GB storage it came with.  10GB just for the OS (no office suite,
etc.) seems really, REALLY big to me.

Microsoft is just stuck in the hardware upgrade treadmill for their
development model.  Computers got "fast enough" for the public back at
Windows XP.  But MS kept counting on the public running the hardware
treadmill for Vista.  The public stopped running and Vista was left
too bloated for what people wanted.  Now MS is trying to change to
match the market's growing realization that most computers and
software are already "good enough."  That's my theory as to why MS
missed the mark with Vista.

Windows 7? Don't care about it until I run into it on my path to a
Linux install.  ;^)

Alan

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Joe Fleming  wrote:
> I don't know that they are specifically targeting that market. I mean, most
> of the netbooks run vista already. Run over the Fry's if you don't believe
> me. all of their netbooks on display are running vista. It was enough to
> make me not want to buy any of them, but I digress. I've read the m$ has
> claimed that the reason most of them can't is because of the lack of storage
> space, a problem that 7 clearly doesn't solve.
>
> As for the storage space, my Ubuntu install is using about 10GB right now.
> Of course, that's with an office suite, a webserver, a few websites, my
> email, a bunch of pictures and documents accumulated over the 2 years it's
> been installed (over 3GB in my home directory right now).. that's kind
> of the same, right? I mean, kinda, right?
>
> For the life of me I can't understand how the hell they use up so much space
> for JUST the operating system! As an aside, I read that IE8 uses more memory
> that the whole of XP too. Crazy.
>
> -Joe
>
> keith smith wrote:
>
> So can we speculate that M$ is making Vista/win7 less resource intensive so
> it can compete in the netbook environment.
>
> I understand it takes up about 10 Gigs of space.
>
> Would be nice to have an O/S that requires less and is more efficient.
> Maybe we can recycle some old hardware :)
>
>
> 
> Keith Smith
>
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 1/16/09, Josh Coffman  wrote:
>
> From: Josh Coffman 
> Subject: Re: OT: Redmond
> To: "Main PLUG discussion list" 
> Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:59 AM
>
> From what I hear, and this is from .Net devs who are running win7, its
> described as "Vista without the crap". It performs nearly as fast as WinXP
> and with far lighter hardware requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)
> From the screenshots I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista,
> but that's just "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so
> I'll see for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my WinXP
> vm (which I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them easily.
>
> Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten used to the pain or
> its gotten a little less painful. Probably both. I still don't like Vista. I
> have to deal with it though. So I hope Win7 is better, a lot better, because
> windows a part of my job.
>
> As an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws own
> againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux killer
> (speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all.
>
> -j
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe Fleming  wrote:
>>
>> I'm really curious what all the fuss over windows 7 is all about. I mean,
>> it's just vista with a few changes, and from what I can tell those changes
>> are pretty small. I always think it's funny seeing sites talk about how bad
>> vista is and how much better 7 is, considering it's really nothing more than
>> a point release/service pack with a new name. Apparently m$ actually DOES
>> know how to play the marketing game. It'll be interesting to see how it's
>> received by consumers and the press when it's finally released I guess. Me,
>> I still don't have any problem running XP; works beautifully in VirtualBox
>> ;).
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>> James Finstrom wrote:
>>
>> I like to imagine it is because I am important or that its because I went
>> to church with many Microsoft cube gnomes when I lived in Washington but
>> none of these things are true simply because I am on a Microsoft Spam list I
>> got an invitation and license to download and play with Windows 7 beta. So
>> let me share the expierience and overview so far I like things with the word
>> free even if it is only as in beer and only for a short time, Anyhow with
>> fear and the smell of danger that acompanies all things that say Microsoft
>> and Beta in the same typography I clicked the shiny banner answered a few
>> questions and got a key + link.  the minimum requirements say 1Gig ram and
>> 128M video  and blah blah something something okay whatever click Anyhow
>> the download comes up says this c

Re: OT: Redmond

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 12:06 -0700, Joe Fleming wrote:
> I don't know that they are specifically targeting that market. I mean,
> most of the netbooks run vista already. Run over the Fry's if you
> don't believe me. all of their netbooks on display are running
> vista. It was enough to make me not want to buy any of them, but I
> digress. I've read the m$ has claimed that the reason most of them
> can't is because of the lack of storage space, a problem that 7
> clearly doesn't solve.
> 
> As for the storage space, my Ubuntu install is using about 10GB right
> now. Of course, that's with an office suite, a webserver, a few
> websites, my email, a bunch of pictures and documents accumulated over
> the 2 years it's been installed (over 3GB in my home directory right
> now).. that's kind of the same, right? I mean, kinda, right?
> 
> For the life of me I can't understand how the hell they use up so much
> space for JUST the operating system! As an aside, I read that IE8 uses
> more memory that the whole of XP too. Crazy.

nope - yesterday, I just got an Acer Aspire One and it has WinXP. All of
the 'Windows' based offerings on Acer Aspire One are WinXP. Most of the
devices termed 'netbooks' offer WinXP or Linux...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_netbooks

and for illustrative purposes, I got the one with 160GB hard drive,
shrank the base Windows partition down to 32 GB, there's a 5 GB restore
partition which I left alone, and partitioned the rest for Fedora 10
which installed quick/easy from USB key.

FWIW - on the Windows partition...I removed the trial version of
Microsoft Office, the included Microsoft Works, the addiction version of
MacAfee, installed HP Web JetDirect Admin, OOo 3.0, AVG Free, iTunes and
it's using 10 Gb...not that I plan on using Windows very much.

In defense of Windows installations, Fedora isn't exactly known for a
light footprint installation either and I'll get back to you on the full
installation size later but I don't expect it to be much less than 6 Gb.

Linux is running on my KVM/19" LCD at 1280x1024, wireless is working
(without madwifi crap) and once my media library finishes copying, it's
ready to roll.

The thing rocks!

Craig

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 12:24 -0700, Alan Dayley wrote:
> My 10-month-ish old Eee PC 701 is running the Ubuntu Eee distribution
> with Firefox, OpenOffice.org suite and many other apps, and my data on
> the 4GB storage it came with.  10GB just for the OS (no office suite,
> etc.) seems really, REALLY big to me.
> 
> Microsoft is just stuck in the hardware upgrade treadmill for their
> development model.  Computers got "fast enough" for the public back at
> Windows XP.  But MS kept counting on the public running the hardware
> treadmill for Vista.  The public stopped running and Vista was left
> too bloated for what people wanted.  Now MS is trying to change to
> match the market's growing realization that most computers and
> software are already "good enough."  That's my theory as to why MS
> missed the mark with Vista.
> 
> Windows 7? Don't care about it until I run into it on my path to a
> Linux install.  ;^)

Vista...

- device drivers had to be re-written to conform to their new security
roles
- security implementations added to application startup delays and much
of this has migrated into WinXP now via SP3
- various 'dumbing down' default settings tends to get a lot of ridicule
from power users
- poorly written applications break or work poorly on Vista
- and the killer in corporate world is that changes to networking and
user environments breaks a lot of things that they finally got working.

Yes, the Aero stuff requires more/better hardware but really is only
cosmetic.

Current hardware - RAM is cheap, hard drives are cheap, processor power
is cheap - so the ramped up requirements seemed to be an easy hurdle.

I don't think that the issue is whether Vista hit the mark or not, I
think the buying public mostly didn't care and were happy enough with
WinXP which mostly works now and wasn't eager for another beta cycle
where things would be fixed over time.

Craig

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

RE: OT: Redmond

[Bob Elzer]

And lets not forget about DRM and the logs that Vista/Win7 will be keeping.
 
I can't wait for DRM, it's mind boggling trying to make decisions of what I
want to watch or listen to, DRM takes those hard decisions out of my hands
and tells me I shouldn't be watching or listening to, this will make my life
so much easier.
 
And if one of those nasty unallowed files does sneak through, and I forget
about it, win 7s hidden log files will make sure no one else does.
 
It just make life so much easier  :-)
 
 

  _  

From: plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Joe
Fleming
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:07 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: OT: Redmond


I don't know that they are specifically targeting that market. I mean, most
of the netbooks run vista already. Run over the Fry's if you don't believe
me. all of their netbooks on display are running vista. It was enough to
make me not want to buy any of them, but I digress. I've read the m$ has
claimed that the reason most of them can't is because of the lack of storage
space, a problem that 7 clearly doesn't solve.

As for the storage space, my Ubuntu install is using about 10GB right now.
Of course, that's with an office suite, a webserver, a few websites, my
email, a bunch of pictures and documents accumulated over the 2 years it's
been installed (over 3GB in my home directory right now).. that's kind
of the same, right? I mean, kinda, right?

For the life of me I can't understand how the hell they use up so much space
for JUST the operating system! As an aside, I read that IE8 uses more memory
that the whole of XP too. Crazy.

-Joe

keith smith wrote: 


So can we speculate that M$ is making Vista/win7 less resource intensive so
it can compete in the netbook environment.

I understand it takes up about 10 Gigs of space.  

Would be nice to have an O/S that requires less and is more efficient.
Maybe we can recycle some old hardware :)



Keith Smith




--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Josh Coffman  
 wrote:



From: Josh Coffman   
Subject: Re: OT: Redmond
To: "Main PLUG discussion list"


Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:59 AM


>From what I hear, and this is from .Net devs who are running win7, its
described as "Vista without the crap". It performs nearly as fast as WinXP
and with far lighter hardware requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)
>From the screenshots I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista,
but that's just "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so
I'll see for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my WinXP
vm (which I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them easily.

Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten used to the pain or
its gotten a little less painful. Probably both. I still don't like Vista. I
have to deal with it though. So I hope Win7 is better, a lot better, because
windows a part of my job. 

As an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws own
againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux killer
(speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all. 

-j


On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe Fleming  wrote:


I'm really curious what all the fuss over windows 7 is all about. I mean,
it's just vista with a few changes, and from what I can tell those changes
are pretty small. I always think it's funny seeing sites talk about how bad
vista is and how much better 7 is, considering it's really nothing more than
a point release/service pack with a new name. Apparently m$ actually DOES
know how to play the marketing game. It'll be interesting to see how it's
received by consumers and the press when it's finally released I guess. Me,
I still don't have any problem running XP; works beautifully in VirtualBox
;).

-Joe

James Finstrom wrote: 

I like to imagine it is because I am important or that its because I went to
church with many Microsoft cube gnomes when I lived in Washington but none
of these things are true simply because I am on a Microsoft Spam list I got
an invitation and license to download and play with Windows 7 beta. So let
me share the expierience and overview so far I like things with the word
free even if it is only as in beer and only for a short time, Anyhow with
fear and the smell of danger that acompanies all things that say Microsoft
and Beta in the same typography I clicked the shiny banner answered a few
questions and got a key + link.  the minimum requirements say 1Gig ram and
128M video  and blah blah something something okay whatever click Anyhow
the download comes up says this could take several days depending on your
provider and the download size is.. 2.44 GIG holy redhat batman I need
to go buy a dvd to burn this down to, well so much for free. Anyhow it is
chewing up some

RE: OT: Redmond

[Lisa Kachold]

Devil's Advocate Day:   

http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/at-least-we-dont-have-any-viruses.html
 
http://linux-haters-redux.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-linux-is-not-more-secure-than.html

www.Obnosis.com |  http://wiki.obnosis.com | http://hackfest.obnosis.com 
(503)754-4452
PLUG HACKFESTS - http://uat.edu Second Saturday of Each Month Noon - 3PM

From: bob.el...@gmail.com
To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Subject: RE: OT: Redmond
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:04:22 -0700








And lets not forget about DRM and the logs that Vista/Win7 
will be keeping.
 
I can't wait for DRM, it's mind boggling trying to make 
decisions of what I want to watch or listen to, DRM takes those hard decisions 
out of my hands and tells me I shouldn't be watching or listening to, this will 
make my life so much easier.
 
And if one of those nasty unallowed files does sneak 
through, and I forget about it, win 7s hidden log files will make sure no one 
else does.
 
It just make life so much easier  
:-)
 
 



From: 
plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us 
[mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Joe 
Fleming
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:07 PM
To: Main 
PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: OT: Redmond


I don't know that they are specifically targeting 
that market. I mean, most of the netbooks run vista already. Run over the Fry's 
if you don't believe me. all of their netbooks on display are running 
vista. 
It was enough to make me not want to buy any of them, but I digress. I've read 
the m$ has claimed that the reason most of them can't is because of the lack of 
storage space, a problem that 7 clearly doesn't solve.

As for the storage 
space, my Ubuntu install is using about 10GB right now. Of course, that's with 
an office suite, a webserver, a few websites, my email, a bunch of pictures and 
documents accumulated over the 2 years it's been installed (over 3GB in my home 
directory right now).. that's kind of the same, right? I mean, kinda, 
right?

For the life of me I can't understand how the hell they use up so 
much space for JUST the operating system! As an aside, I read that IE8 uses 
more 
memory that the whole of XP too. Crazy.

-Joe

keith smith 
wrote: 

  


  
So can we speculate that M$ is making Vista/win7 less 
resource intensive so it can compete in the netbook 
environment.

I understand it takes up about 10 Gigs of 
space.  

Would be nice to have an O/S that requires less and 
is more efficient.  Maybe we can recycle some old hardware 
:)



Keith Smith




--- On Fri, 1/16/09, 

Josh Coffman  
wrote:

From: 
  Josh Coffman 
Subject: 
  Re: OT: Redmond
To: "Main PLUG discussion list" 
Date: 
  Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:59 AM


  From what I hear, and this is from .Net devs who 
  are running win7, its described as "Vista without the crap". It 
  performs nearly as fast as WinXP and with far lighter hardware 
  requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)  From the screenshots 
  I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista, but that's just 
  "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so I'll 
  see for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my 
  WinXP vm (which I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them 
  easily.

Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten 
  used to the pain or its gotten a little less painful. Probably both. 
I 
  still don't like Vista. I have to deal with it though. So I hope Win7 
  is better, a lot better, because windows a part of my job. 

As 
  an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws 
own 
  againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux 
  killer (speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all. 
  

-j


  On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe Fleming 
   
  wrote:

  
I'm really curious what all the fuss over 
windows 7 is all about. I mean, it's just vista with a few changes, 
and from what I can tell those changes are pretty small. I always 
think it's funny seeing sites talk about how bad vista is and how 
much better 7 is, considering it's really nothing more than a point 
release/service pack with a new name. Apparently m$ actually DOES 
know how to play the marketing game. It'll be interesting to see 
how 
it's received by consumers and the press when it's finally released 
I guess. Me, I still don't have any problem running XP; works 
beautifully in VirtualBox ;).

-Joe

James 
Finstrom wrote: 
I like to imagine it is because I am 
  important or that its because I went to 

HackFest Series: OpenSSL, MD5, CA security flaws

[Lisa Kachold]

I just talked with two admins from a well known solutions provider who didn't 
know anything about these issues?

Is anyone taking this seriously?

From: lisakach...@obnosis.com
To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Subject: HackFest Series: OpenSSL, MD5, CA security flaws
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:22:20 +








1) OpenSSL malformed signature checking:

http://openssl.org/news/secadv_20090107.txt

This effects a great number of products and installations.

Who is affected?
=

Everyone using OpenSSL releases prior to 0.9.8j as an SSL/TLS client
when connecting to a server whose certificate contains a DSA or ECDSA key.

Use of OpenSSL as an SSL/TLS client when connecting to a server whose
certificate uses an RSA key is NOT affected.

Verification of client certificates by OpenSSL servers for any key type
is NOT affected.

Recommendations for users of OpenSSL
=

Users of OpenSSL 0.9.8 should update to the OpenSSL 0.9.8j release
which contains a patch to correct this issue.

The patch used is also appended to this advisory for users or
distributions who wish to backport this patch to versions they build
from source.

Recommendations for projects using OpenSSL
===

Projects and products using OpenSSL should audit any use of the
routine EVP_VerifyFinal() to ensure that the return code is being
correctly handled.  As documented, this function returns 1 for a
successful verification, 0 for failure, and -1 for an error.

General recommendations


Any server that has clients using OpenSSL verifying DSA or ECDSA
certificates, regardless of the software used by the server, should
either ensure that all clients are upgraded or stop using DSA/ECDSA
certificates. Note that unless certificates are revoked (and clients
check for revocation) impersonation will still be possible until the
certificate expires.
2) MD5 Impersonation:

An MD5 flaw has been suggested theoretically in various ways, but a complete 
proof of concept was not completely dissected, described and announced until 
December 30, 2008.  I think that MD5 impersonation "discovery" is now owned by 
Alexander Sotirov, Mark Stevens, Jacob Appelbaum, Arjen Lenstra, David Molnar, 
Dag Arne Osvik, Benne de Weger from the Netherlands, announced at Chaos on 
December 30, 2008 in Berlin - here's that presentation  
http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/downloads/md5-collisions-1.0.pdf

Here's the HomeLand Security Recommendations two days later:

[added Jan. 2] US-CERT, the US Department of Homeland Security's Computer 
Emergency Readiness Team,
published Vulnerability Note VU#836068:
"MD5 vulnerable to collision attacks". Interesting quotes from this 
note:

"Do not use the MD5 algorithm"

"Software developers, Certification Authorities, website owners, 
and users should avoid using the
MD5 algorithm in any capacity. As previous research has 
demonstrated, it should be considered
cryptographically broken and unsuitable for further 
use.""Scrutinize SSL certificates signed by certificates using the MD5 
algorithm"

"Users may wish to manually analyze the properties of web site 
certificates (...)
Certificates listed as md5RSA or similar are affected.
Such certificates that include strange or suspicious fields or 
other anomalies may be fraudulent.
Because there are no reliable signs of tampering it must be noted 
that this workaround is
error-prone and impractical for most users."

Here's Microsoft's Response (touting the EV certs of course and their update 
process [which was only released this week] which says it's released on 
12/30/0):

Do not sign digital certificates with MD5

Certificate
Authorities should no longer sign newly generated certificates using
the MD5 algorithm, as it is known to be prone to collision attacks.
Several alternative and more secure technologies are available,
including SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512.
So if you guys discover something that doesn't make sense?  Follow up on it.  
Dissect it and publish it in a big way  Many of us ignored the DNS flaws 
described and exploited by Kaminsky for years.  Believe me there are a great 
many working exploits before every published exploit. 
















Yes, I was asleep working on a projectbut Hans and I discussed some of the 
cert auth triangulation auth issues and wondered when it might be coming!


> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:19:17 -0700
> From: pl...@lufthans.com
> To: PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: OpenSSL, MD5, CA security flaws, oh my
> 
> moin moin,
> 
> Lisa has probably posted the second issue, but I'm a bit behind on the
> list. The first one appears to be from today and I don't see anything from
> her today.
> 
> http://openssl.org/news/secadv_20090107.txt
> 
> OK, so DSA and ECDSA certs in 

Re: OT: Redmond

[kitepi...@kitepilot.com]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/ptech/01/16/virus.downadup/index.html?iref=mpst 
oryview 


I always wonder about people who dares to trust private information to M$.
Never mind people who "owns" "pirate" copies...
I must be nuts, I've been a happy Linux user for the las 5 years an 
counting...
ET 

 

 


Lisa Kachold writes: 

> 
> Devil's Advocate Day:
> 
> http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/at-least-we-dont-have-any-viruses.html
>  
> http://linux-haters-redux.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-linux-is-not-more-secure-than.html
>  
> 
> www.Obnosis.com |  http://wiki.obnosis.com | http://hackfest.obnosis.com 
> (503)754-4452
> PLUG HACKFESTS - http://uat.edu Second Saturday of Each Month Noon - 3PM 
> 
> From: bob.el...@gmail.com
> To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: RE: OT: Redmond
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:04:22 -0700 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> And lets not forget about DRM and the logs that Vista/Win7 
> will be keeping.
>  
> I can't wait for DRM, it's mind boggling trying to make 
> decisions of what I want to watch or listen to, DRM takes those hard 
> decisions 
> out of my hands and tells me I shouldn't be watching or listening to, this 
> will 
> make my life so much easier.
>  
> And if one of those nasty unallowed files does sneak 
> through, and I forget about it, win 7s hidden log files will make sure no one 
> else does.
>  
> It just make life so much easier  
> :-)
>  
>   
> 
>  
> 
> From: 
> plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us 
> [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Joe 
> Fleming
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:07 PM
> To: Main 
> PLUG discussion list
> Subject: Re: OT: Redmond 
> 
> 
> I don't know that they are specifically targeting 
> that market. I mean, most of the netbooks run vista already. Run over the 
> Fry's 
> if you don't believe me. all of their netbooks on display are running 
> vista. 
> It was enough to make me not want to buy any of them, but I digress. I've 
> read 
> the m$ has claimed that the reason most of them can't is because of the lack 
> of 
> storage space, a problem that 7 clearly doesn't solve. 
> 
> As for the storage 
> space, my Ubuntu install is using about 10GB right now. Of course, that's 
> with 
> an office suite, a webserver, a few websites, my email, a bunch of pictures 
> and 
> documents accumulated over the 2 years it's been installed (over 3GB in my 
> home 
> directory right now).. that's kind of the same, right? I mean, kinda, 
> right? 
> 
> For the life of me I can't understand how the hell they use up so 
> much space for JUST the operating system! As an aside, I read that IE8 uses 
> more 
> memory that the whole of XP too. Crazy. 
> 
> -Joe 
> 
> keith smith 
> wrote:  
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
> So can we speculate that M$ is making Vista/win7 less 
> resource intensive so it can compete in the netbook 
> environment. 
> 
> I understand it takes up about 10 Gigs of 
> space.   
> 
> Would be nice to have an O/S that requires less and 
> is more efficient.  Maybe we can recycle some old hardware 
> :) 
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Smith 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/16/09,  
> 
> Josh Coffman  
> wrote: 
> 
> From: 
>   Josh Coffman 
> Subject: 
>   Re: OT: Redmond
> To: "Main PLUG discussion list" 
> Date: 
>   Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:59 AM 
> 
> 
>   From what I hear, and this is from .Net devs who 
>   are running win7, its described as "Vista without the crap". It 
>   performs nearly as fast as WinXP and with far lighter hardware 
>   requirements than Vista. (which isn't hard)  From the screenshots 
>   I've seen, it has a lighter look and feel that Vista, but that's 
> just 
>   "make-up".  I'm going to make a vmware machine with it so I'll 
>   see for myself.  Since it will be on the same machine (mac) as my 
>   WinXP vm (which I do use a lot), I'll be able to compare them 
>   easily. 
> 
> Vista was a near daily frustration, either I've gotten 
>   used to the pain or its gotten a little less painful. Probably 
> both. I 
>   still don't like Vista. I have to deal with it though. So I hope 
> Win7 
>   is better, a lot better, because windows a part of my job.  
> 
> As 
>   an aside, I use Vista, WinXP, and Mac OSX a lot. Ubuntu holds itws 
> own 
>   againts all of them. I've read some people think Win7 is a linux 
>   killer (speaking of the netbook market). I don't buy that at all. 
>
> 
> -j 
> 
> 
>   On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Joe Fleming 
>
>   wrote: 
> 
>   
> I'm really curious what all the fuss over 
> windows 7 is all about. I mean, it's just vista with a few 
> changes, 
> and from what I can tell those changes are prett

Re: OT: Redmond

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 12:24 -0700, Craig White wrote:

> FWIW - on the Windows partition...I removed the trial version of
> Microsoft Office, the included Microsoft Works, the addiction version of
> MacAfee, installed HP Web JetDirect Admin, OOo 3.0, AVG Free, iTunes and
> it's using 10 Gb...not that I plan on using Windows very much.
> 
> In defense of Windows installations, Fedora isn't exactly known for a
> light footprint installation either and I'll get back to you on the full
> installation size later but I don't expect it to be much less than 6 Gb.

pretty complete install (Fedora 10) 3.8 Gigabytes

Craig

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[keith smith]

I've got a Fedora 5 box that is almost 2 years old.  I us it for LAMP dev and I 
have tons of data and web stuff on it and it is at 4.9G.  I suspect the full 
install was less than 2G.

9 years ago I bout 2 20G drives and thought I had arrived It was a lot back 
then.



Keith Smith




--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Craig White  wrote:
From: Craig White 
Subject: Re: OT: Redmond
To: "Main PLUG discussion list" 
Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 6:25 PM

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 12:24 -0700, Craig White wrote:

> FWIW - on the Windows partition...I removed the trial version of
> Microsoft Office, the included Microsoft Works, the addiction version of
> MacAfee, installed HP Web JetDirect Admin, OOo 3.0, AVG Free, iTunes and
> it's using 10 Gb...not that I plan on using Windows very much.
> 
> In defense of Windows installations, Fedora isn't exactly known for a
> light footprint installation either and I'll get back to you on the
full
> installation size later but I don't expect it to be much less than 6
Gb.

pretty complete install (Fedora 10) 3.8 Gigabytes

Craig

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss



  ---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Redmond

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 18:55 -0800, keith smith wrote:
> 
> 
> I've got a Fedora 5 box that is almost 2 years old.  I us it for LAMP
> dev and I have tons of data and web stuff on it and it is at 4.9G.  I
> suspect the full install was less than 2G.
> 
> 9 years ago I bout 2 20G drives and thought I had arrived It was a
> lot back then.

Lots more packages now - Linux has arrived.

Fedora gave up the notion of a 'full install' several releases ago just
because of that and conflicting packages too I suppose.

Craig

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: HackFest Series: OpenSSL, MD5, CA security flaws

[James Lee Bell]

I know my company sure as heck did. When all our feeds got the news on
the 30th, we were digging through all of our own certs ensuring we
didn't have an issue there. Then pushing plans to the server guys to
start looking at OpenSSL upgrades soon as they came out.

All of the certs/listed CA's that are embedded in the browsers by the
vendors are another matter entirely. Does one go overboard and rip out
the cert for every one that isn't using RSA hash, or wait for the b
browser vendors with baited breath and crossed fingers?

Lisa Kachold wrote:
> I just talked with two admins from a well known solutions provider who
> didn't know anything about these issues?
> 
> Is anyone taking this seriously?
> 
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss