Hi,
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:44:50 +0100
Hartmut Meyer <.> wrote:
> > It's a shame, that on the opensuse list several of the oldie-related
> > threads ended up with the answer "do update" :(
>
> There are hardly any scenarios where one could give any other advise but to
> upgrade from an old/unsu
On Friday 16 March 2007 12:05, John Andersen wrote:
> For a a linux box used as router, or a samba server, you would be highly
> unlikely to ever have to update anything for the life of the hardware.
Correct.
... and this assumes of course that there does not exist some buffer
ove
Op vrijdag 16 maart 2007 23:54, schreef Kai Ponte:
> > An 1 GHz MS XP is slower than a 450 MHz openSUSE system
Sorry the above line is not correct, it should be a 2 GHz, 1GB MS XP vs 450
MHz 382 MB openSUSE-10.2 system.
> I'm honestly not surprised.
>
> I have always felt SUSE (with either K
On Friday 16 March 2007, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> looked at SLED as you
> suggested, but it appears to be GNOME based, and I don't want to go down
> that road. When it actually becomes obsolete, I may look at another distro
I don't blame you regarding the Gnome. It is so pathetically far behind
On Friday 16 March 2007 12:36:45 pm Richard Bos wrote:
> Op vrijdag 16 maart 2007 05:29, schreef Kai Ponte:
> > The OS/2 machine finished all tasks in about two minutes.
> > The Win95 machine finished in half an hour.
>
> I like this comparison, which I did last week because openSUSE felt so much
>
On Thursday 15 March 2007 19:12, M Harris wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 18:53, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> > One of the other things that bothers me is the continual changes to or
> > elimination of things that work, in favor of cutting-edge stuff
> > that doesn't actually work.
>
> Are you
The best server operations team is a Man and a German Shepard Dog.
The man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to make sure
the man never touches the machine.
I certainly agree, I have a myth backend running on opensuse 10.2.
The only updates I allow are to mythtv, that is to gain add
Op vrijdag 16 maart 2007 05:29, schreef Kai Ponte:
> The OS/2 machine finished all tasks in about two minutes.
> The Win95 machine finished in half an hour.
I like this comparison, which I did last week because openSUSE felt so much
faster. Well see for your self:
1. System comparison
Creating
John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 16 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
But then you're not really talking about old/unsupported versions anymore.
Instead you're talking about something that started as - say - 8.1 but by
now has hardly any resemblance to that version anymore. Simply because you
ke
On Friday 16 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> But then you're not really talking about old/unsupported versions anymore.
> Instead you're talking about something that started as - say - 8.1 but by
> now has hardly any resemblance to that version anymore. Simply because you
> kept updating all sen
Kai Ponte wrote:
>
> The OS/2 machine finished all tasks in about two minutes.
> The Win95 machine finished in half an hour.
>
> It was amazing.
>
>
My morning routine at work, with a computer running XP.
Turn on computer.
Go get coffee
Logon to XP
Enjoy coffee and read newspaper, while wai
Hi,
On Friday 16 March 2007 08:21, John Andersen wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> > Are you saying that only kernel security issues are relevant?
> >
> > The next security advisory (from today) was about PHP ...
> >
> > I'm afraid I just don't get what your talking about
On Thursday 15 March 2007, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> And there
> still seem to be, according to the messages on this list.
Don't come to a help list and then point to all the problems
that show up there as evidence of a pandemic problem.
That's like saying that all Fords are lemons, because that's
On Thursday 15 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> Are you saying that only kernel security issues are relevant?
>
> The next security advisory (from today) was about PHP ...
>
> I'm afraid I just don't get what your talking about :-(
Yes, its becoming obvious.
php and mozilla can be compiled and
On Thursday 15 March 2007, M Harris wrote:
> So, WinNT did not truly implement preemption... and the WinNT kernel was
> never preemptable.
Jives with my experience.
I've written loops so tight (with no IO) that you had to power off
the machine to kill them. Any IO in the loop, whether somethin
On Thursday 15 March 2007 03:13:01 pm James Knott wrote:
> M Harris wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >>> It does do user-level preemptive multitasking but not kernel level.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you're drawing some real distinction here, but I'm not sure what
> >> i
On Thursday 15 March 2007 17:13, James Knott wrote:
> Windows has never been able to multi-task as well as OS/2 or Linux.
And this is why...
... notes from NT tutorial ...
-- start
The major role of the kernel in Windows NT is to disp
On Thursday 15 March 2007 17:07, Anders Johansson wrote:
> > in fact... some might argue that updating apps and kernels is how
> > vulnerabilities are introduced into systems in the first place.
>
> Really? Who?
We all rest our case...;-P
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To uns
On Thursday 15 March 2007 18:53, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> One of the other things that bothers me is the continual changes to or
> elimination of things that work, in favor of cutting-edge stuff
> that doesn't actually work.
Are you running SLED or Opensuse?
... makes a difference .
On Thursday 15 March 2007 17:15, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 19:39, John Andersen wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> > > Just for the sake of it, let's have a look at the most recent
> > > recommended update as announced on the suse-security-an
M Harris wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
>>> It does do user-level preemptive multitasking but not kernel level.
>>>
>> Perhaps you're drawing some real distinction here, but I'm not sure what
>> it is.
>>
> The distinction (which I am now re
On Thursday 15 March 2007 21:58, M Harris wrote:
> No, what I am saying is that running a back-level linux kernel is not a
> problem. As far as updating user apps goes... that depends on the app.
It depends. There have been issues. I remember one issue about the TCP stack
leaking kernel mem
On Thursday 15 March 2007 16:42, Anders Johansson wrote:
> What you're saying is that you can run old versions of suse, as long as you
> keep the applications updated manually?
>
> Well, of course you can. It's just a lot more work
No, what I am saying is that running a back-level linux ker
On Thursday 15 March 2007 21:35, M Harris wrote:
> You can run Suse 9.3 all day long every day for the next ten years
> without
> a single problem... and that is not to say that you will not need to update
> Firefox. Firefox may have vulnerabilities that a sensible user will
> patch--- and t
On Thursday 15 March 2007 16:15, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> Are you saying that only kernel security issues are relevant?
>
> The next security advisory (from today) was about PHP ...
>
> I'm afraid I just don't get what your talking about :-(
You are talking past each other...
... you
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:21, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > It does do user-level preemptive multitasking but not kernel level.
>
> Perhaps you're drawing some real distinction here, but I'm not sure what
> it is.
The distinction (which I am now re-researching) is that there is a
differen
Hi,
On Thursday 15 March 2007 19:39, John Andersen wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> > Just for the sake of it, let's have a look at the most recent recommended
> > update as announced on the suse-security-announce mailing list on the 6th
> > of March:
> >
> > --- snip ---
On Thursday 15 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> Just for the sake of it, let's have a look at the most recent recommended
> update as announced on the suse-security-announce mailing list on the 6th
> of March:
>
> --- snip -
> SUSE Security Announcement
>
> Pac
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 09:29:34 pm Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:56, Kai Ponte wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > ...and don't forget that WinNT (XP/Vista/2003) is not preemptive
> > multitasking either. At least not at the kernel level like Linux 2.6+
> > is.
>
> You really ought
Kai,
On Thursday 15 March 2007 09:03, Kai Ponte wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 09:29:34 pm Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:56, Kai Ponte wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > ...and don't forget that WinNT (XP/Vista/2003) is not preemptive
> > > multitasking either. At least
On Thursday 15 March 2007 04:36, James Knott wrote:
> Kai Ponte wrote:
> > Those server guys have one odd sense of humor.
>
> I have often referred to users as "mere mortals". ;-)
Or the classic: "Lusers."
RRS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Chuck Amadi wrote:
James Knott wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
There are hardly any scenarios where one could give any other
advise but to
upgrade from an old/unsupported version to a newer/supported version.
9.1 might be "better" for you,
James Knott wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
There are hardly any scenarios where one could give any other advise but to
upgrade from an old/unsupported version to a newer/supported version.
9.1 might be "better" for you, but unless your s
John Andersen wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
>
>> There are hardly any scenarios where one could give any other advise but to
>> upgrade from an old/unsupported version to a newer/supported version.
>>
>> 9.1 might be "better" for you, but unless your system is not con
Kai Ponte wrote:
> Those server guys have one odd sense of humor.
>
>
I have often referred to users as "mere mortals". ;-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
We probably should not want any one operating system, be it proprietary,
> open-source or a hybrid, to displace all others. Monopolies and
> monocultures have bad consequences by their inherent nature.
Very true. Just as tool boxes are full of both metric and
Hi,
On Thursday 15 March 2007 10:28, John Andersen wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 March 2007 05:43, John Andersen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> > > Linux isn't exactly Windows which can be hacked by 12 year olds
> > >
On Thursday 15 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 05:43, John Andersen wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> > > There are hardly any scenarios where one could give any other advise
> > > but to upgrade from an old/unsupported version to a n
Hi,
On Thursday 15 March 2007 05:43, John Andersen wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> > There are hardly any scenarios where one could give any other advise but
> > to upgrade from an old/unsupported version to a newer/supported version.
> >
> > 9.1 might be "better" for y
On Thu 15 Mar 2007 01:51, M Harris wrote:
> In fact, DOS was
> still very much evident in Windows 95, 98, and even... yes even
> W2000.
DOSEMU & Freedos are handy to have installed :)
Every day use of DOS . . . yes, some old DOS programs have not been
bettered
friendly greetings
--
To
On Thu 15 Mar 2007 01:44, Kai Ponte wrote:
> While dealing with various comprimises to our
> Windows 2003 workstations in the cold room, I went to login
Security of Passwords
_
as mass-market brings price down . . . RSA key-ring Number-Generators
start to make sense for academia & busine
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:53, M Harris wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:29, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > I was just trying to kill some processes on a Win2003 system
> > > today and had to wait for the kernel to finish some tasks before
> > > it would die.
> >
> > That can happen on Linu
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, M Harris wrote:
> My primary firewall | router | dialer is a highly stable
> back-level kernel locked tight--- ship shape Bristol Fashion. The NSA might
> be able to hack into it, but you won't... and neither will the kid next
> door. In fact, our local LUG pla
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 10:44, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> 9.1 might be "better" for you, but unless your system is not connected to
> any network (including internet dialup) staying on an unsupported system
> simply isn't a good idea.
Hog wash...
... you see, one of the reasons *we*
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:29, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > I was just trying to kill some processes on a Win2003 system today
> > and had to wait for the kernel to finish some tasks before it would
> > die.
>
> That can happen on Linux, too. Try to kill a process in a 'D' wait
> state. It's not
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
> There are hardly any scenarios where one could give any other advise but to
> upgrade from an old/unsupported version to a newer/supported version.
>
> 9.1 might be "better" for you, but unless your system is not connected to
> any network (includi
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:25, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> Then if MS is competing fairly in the marketplace of ideas within the
> constraints of limited hardware and software purchasing resources
> (money, i.e.), then the better player will win.
>
> But if MS exerts unjust force, outside proper m
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:56, Kai Ponte wrote:
> ...
>
> ...and don't forget that WinNT (XP/Vista/2003) is not preemptive
> multitasking either. At least not at the kernel level like Linux 2.6+
> is.
You really ought to check your facts. You'll give software managers a
bad name...
> I was j
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 18:51, M Harris wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 18:03, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> ...
>
> > Because Windows will continue to be a predominant OS for a very
> > long time, I think computing professionals should pressure Windows
> > to get its technological act together
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 06:39:36 pm M Harris wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 16:56, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> > If Linux
> > is ever to have a significant proportion of the market, it must be at
> > least as big as the Mac market to survive, and it _must be user-friendly_
> > or it will be as
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 22:32, Stevens wrote:
> I didn't but it is an interesting point. What satisfying their needs would
> do is allow Linux to make inroads into a massively M$ world. As it stands
> now, it ain't ready for prime time. Close, but still no cigar.
Hog wash...
...
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 18:03, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
> I don't really have any idea (nor do I care) what it would take to make
> Linux displace Windows or give it a comparable share of users to Mac OS
> X. I don't need anything from Linux that it does not already have in
> order to make it i
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 20:51, M Harris wrote:
> Also correct. No one really wants Coke or Pepsi to die... what we want
> is
> choice, freedom, and honest competition.
Or Mountain Dew!
> Partially true... Windoze will die... and the first real nails in the
> coffin lid are M$ Fixt
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 18:03, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> CPM and DOS were never used to run large e-commerce and other Internet
> services. There was nothing compelling enough about them to keep them
> going and they had too many deficits to continue in the face of rapidly
> advancing technology
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 16:56, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> If Linux
> is ever to have a significant proportion of the market, it must be at least
> as big as the Mac market to survive, and it _must be user-friendly_ or it
> will be as dead as CPM and DOS.
Hog wash ...
... MAC gave u
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 04:03:33 pm Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 14:56, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > I really don't have anything useful to the list to add, but perhaps
> > useful to Novell and the developers: I agree 100% with the previous
> > writer. If Linux
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 14:56, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> ...
>
> I really don't have anything useful to the list to add, but perhaps
> useful to Novell and the developers: I agree 100% with the previous
> writer. If Linux is ever to have a significant proportion of the
> market, it must be at le
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 10:35, Stevens wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:19, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:06:54 Stevens wrote:
> > > Media devices mount by the volume info which renders any
> > > software invalid that expects to see
> Look, Mac, when a non-guru like my daughter or son-in-law runs into
> roadblocks like these, they don't have (and should not need) the expertise
> it takes to hammer out a command line workaround. The system should just
> work. No muss, no fuss, just work. And there are really important (to lots
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 04:35, Stevens wrote:
> Look, Mac, when a non-guru like my daughter or son-in-law runs into
> roadblocks like these, they don't have (and should not need) the expertise
> it takes to hammer out a command line workaround. The system should just
> work. No muss, no fuss,
Hi,
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 16:08, pelibali wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:06:54 -0500
>
> Stevens <.> wrote:
> > I am 2 months into Suse 10.2 and I still do not have a polished system
> > running as well as my old Suse 9.1 that I ran for over 2 years.
>
> No wonder that some people got stuck
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 10:08, pelibali wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:06:54 -0500
>
> Stevens <.> wrote:
> > I am 2 months into Suse 10.2 and I still do not have a polished system
> > running as well as my old Suse 9.1 that I ran for over 2 years.
>
> No wonder that some people got stuck with
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:13 -0500, Stevens wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 09:51, Clayton wrote:
> > > Functionality IS lost when I have programs that cannot access the
> > > CD/DVD drive because they are looking for a /dev/cdrom or /dev/hdc
> > > mount point and wonderful Suse 10.2 won't provi
That's because you are working in a smaller universe.
Smaller? Naaah... just different. I work in Linux and Unix... work
with it every day at home and on the job (no MS in my world). Just
never run into problems with mount points and HAL.
Dvdshrink is one app that I can think of right now.
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 09:51, Clayton wrote:
> > Functionality IS lost when I have programs that cannot access the
> > CD/DVD drive because they are looking for a /dev/cdrom or /dev/hdc
> > mount point and wonderful Suse 10.2 won't provide it. Why not? Who
> > knows.
>
> I'm curious what applic
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:06:54 -0500
Stevens <.> wrote:
> I am 2 months into Suse 10.2 and I still do not have a polished system
> running as well as my old Suse 9.1 that I ran for over 2 years.
No wonder that some people got stuck with "old" releases! I also kept
SUSE 9.1, which I consider best e
Functionality IS lost when I have programs that cannot access the CD/DVD
drive because they are looking for a /dev/cdrom or /dev/hdc mount point
and wonderful Suse 10.2 won't provide it. Why not? Who knows.
I'm curious what applications or programs you are having issues with.
I've had just one a
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:19, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:06:54 Stevens wrote:
> > Media devices mount by the volume info which renders any
> > software invalid that expects to see a fixed mount point. Yes, someone
> > here posted a link to
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 05:06:54 Stevens wrote:
> Media devices mount by the volume info which renders any
> software invalid that expects to see a fixed mount point. Yes, someone
> here posted a link to a workaround but my question is: why in Hell did
> Suse allow this bastardized code to make
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Steve Jeppesen wrote:
> obviously Fred your mileage varies, but I've gotten a Suse install down
> to it takes less than a week for me to get all the "goodies" up and
> running.
Build your self a check list.
Things to save.
Things to install.
Things to tweak.
I've gotten
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:06:54 -0500
Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am 2 months into Suse 10.2 and I still do not have a polished
> system running as well as my old Suse 9.1 that I ran for over 2
> years. Yes, I think that Suse's potential is there or I wouldn't
> still be using it. I have t
Stevens wrote:
> why in Hell did
> Suse allow this bastardized code to make it into production in the first
> place? It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the system
> should provide static mount points for a device, not the &%$#@ volume info
> of the media in it.
>
IIRC
Jan 7, 2007. That's the day that I finally decided to take the plunge and
install Suse 10.2 on a spare 60GB drive that I installed in my P4/2.4GHz
512MB ram system. The install went as smoothly as any OS that I had ever
loaded. I should have known that was a bad omen.
Feb 6, 2007 System is now
73 matches
Mail list logo
