Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:06:55 GMT, evodawg
wrote:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28404

Remember something mentioned about Google in a prior post,HANDY FARM
DEVICES. Had something to do with google search. Wonder if this will make
it worse.

Well, in general if AOL has anything to do with it, it *won't* get
better. Although, in fairness, they have done pretty well with Mozilla
and
FireFox. Most telling though is the quote, "Time Warner finally accepted
when Google agreed to give AOL favored search treatment" Wonder what
*that* means to those of us who don't care where the information is, we
want the most relevant information requested.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

AOL owns netscape not Mozilla and Firefox. Some of the people who created
netscape do work on Firefox and Mozilla but AOL has no ownership or control
over them (thankfully). I was still running windows when AOL destroyed
Netscape.

evodawg wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:

1) Was essentially the original browser that started the whole web
phenomenon.**Prior*to*that*you*had*internet*search *engines*like
archie, gopher, and others.**Netscape*was*one*of*the*successful*.com
companies.

No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the WWW.


Correct. I used the original Mosaic before Netscape even existed :-).


I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time.
What
else existed? nada Wasn't that around 1988 or earlier?

I was using gopher in 92 and Lynx a bit after that.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:04:32 -0500, Eugene Nine wrote:


XP was the last straw for me. I was running NT4 and w2k for a long time,
then bought myself a new lappy three years ago with XP. After about 6
months it wouldn't recognize half my USB devices and I mistyped a web site
address and got a major spyware infection despite disabling java and active
x in IE, running an a non Admin user, running AV and antispyware, etc. I
popped in slackware 8 or 9 and shutdown to upgrade my drive to a 60g then
installed slack10 and just a few months ago 10.1. I actually get bored now
since it never breaks.

XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it. My
machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago, and I've have gigabytes
of programs installed/uninstalled, and it still runs as well as it did
when I formatted the HD.

I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
spyware.

Matt

Matt Stachoni wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:04:32 -0500, Eugene Nine wrote:


XP was the last straw for me. I was running NT4 and w2k for a long time,
then bought myself a new lappy three years ago with XP. After about 6
months it wouldn't recognize half my USB devices and I mistyped a web site
address and got a major spyware infection despite disabling java and
active
x in IE, running an a non Admin user, running AV and antispyware, etc. I
popped in slackware 8 or 9 and shutdown to upgrade my drive to a 60g then
installed slack10 and just a few months ago 10.1. I actually get bored
now since it never breaks.

XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it. My
machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago, and I've have gigabytes
of programs installed/uninstalled, and it still runs as well as it did
when I formatted the HD.

I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
spyware.

Matt
Well first problem is you shouldn't have to "tweak" it to get it to run
stable, it should be out of the box. I work with servers all day long and
just want a system that works when i get home. I got tires of constantly
working on my system when i could be doing something else. Imagine how
little woodorking you would get done if you had to tweak your tools more
than you used them.
You also should now have to rebuild the machine, it should go a lot more
than 8 months.
I've only had two instances of spyware infections, both within the 6 months
I was using XP, never had a virus since I had an Amiga in the early 90's.
Despite having XP locked down tight stuff still managed to get it, it would
probably be a decent OS if it didn't have IE stuck inside it. At the
office we have a whole desktop team that downgraded everyone to XP and we
have our machines reimaged about every 6 months, W2k was the most stable
windows OS I have ever ran, it was getting close to unix like uptimes for
me without any need to tweak it.

Matt Stachoni wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:04:32 -0500, Eugene Nine wrote:



XP was the last straw for me. I was running NT4 and w2k for a long time,
then bought myself a new lappy three years ago with XP. After about 6
months it wouldn't recognize half my USB devices and I mistyped a web site
address and got a major spyware infection despite disabling java and active
x in IE, running an a non Admin user, running AV and antispyware, etc. I
popped in slackware 8 or 9 and shutdown to upgrade my drive to a 60g then
installed slack10 and just a few months ago 10.1. I actually get bored now
since it never breaks.


XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it. My
machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago, and I've have gigabytes
of programs installed/uninstalled, and it still runs as well as it did
when I formatted the HD.

I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
spyware.

My tweaking days are over. I want the computer to disappear when I'm
working on it. Since (now) I'm writing statistical apps for a genetics
lab I've turned in my sysadmin hat. Hopefully forever. I just have to
observe some conservative policies regarding network structure (in my
own place) and secure comms for file transfers, and use by-default
restrictive scripting policies in my browser, and the computer does
that, it disappears.

er
--
email not valid

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:15:57 -0800, Enoch Root wrote:
Matt Stachoni wrote:

XP is the same way, if you know what to tweak and how to tweak it.

As opposed to the *nix* systems, which work out of the box without
constant fiddling.

My
machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,

One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.

I'm on the net 24/7 and have yet to be infected with a virus or
spyware.

Sure, but if you have to constantly tweak and adjust it, then that's a
lot more screwing around than it should be.

My tweaking days are over. I want the computer to disappear when I'm
working on it. Since (now) I'm writing statistical apps for a genetics
lab I've turned in my sysadmin hat. Hopefully forever.

Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:58:36 -0500, W Canaday
wrote:

Actually the AOL server software is quite nice and is on a par with Apache
for security and features

5 years ago maybe. These days we're more interested in the best platform
to run Tomcat, and that isn't AOL.

Dave Hinz wrote:

My tweaking days are over. I want the computer to disappear when I'm
working on it. Since (now) I'm writing statistical apps for a genetics
lab I've turned in my sysadmin hat. Hopefully forever.


Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.

For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
friday...

Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers" (and I'm being very
liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
manage the windows stuff. Whomever got that account for us shoulda been
stuffed in the powersupply.

er
--
email not valid

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.

For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
friday...

Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to **** off, I take it?

Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"

Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.

(and I'm being very
liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
manage the windows stuff.

Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.

Whomever got that account for us shoulda been
stuffed in the powersupply.

Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?

On 21-Dec-2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

As opposed to the *nix* systems, which work out of the box without
constant fiddling.

Wha- ha-ha-ha!!!!

Good joke Dave!

Having handled systems with various linux and Unix versions (solaris, redhat,
gentoo, debian etc) I can say that they are more stable than windows but
only don't require tweaking if nothing is done to them. If you keep adding/updating
software, you will tweak forever. Installing software can be anything from a piece
of cake to a nightmare to an exercise in futility. I've had shells stop working
mysteriously, software come up with bizarre error messages and stop working
and so on. "nix" systems are better, but they are far from perfect.

I only wish "user friendly" wasn't a derogatory term among the linux crowd.

Mike

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:15:29 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

evodawg wrote:

No, that was Mosaic... Netscape was a rewrite done by Marc Andreeson
after leaving academia to form a company around the notion of the
WWW.


Correct.**I*used*the*original*Mosaic*before*Netsca pe*even*existed
:-).


I think most of us did if you wanted to use the internet at that time.
What else existed? nada**Wasn't*that*around*1988*or*earlier?

Gopher?

IIRC, gopher was (is?) a protocol not a client. I think Mosaic
would render a gopher info-tree if you put in
gopher://gopherserver. The gopher equivalent of HTML was more
like an indented list. A site was called a gopher hole.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:54:07 GMT, Michael Daly wrote:

On 21-Dec-2005, Dave Hinz wrote:

As opposed to the *nix* systems, which work out of the box without
constant fiddling.

Wha- ha-ha-ha!!!!

Something funny?

Good joke Dave!

Care to explain?

Having handled systems with various linux and Unix versions (solaris, redhat,
gentoo, debian etc) I can say that they are more stable than windows but
only don't require tweaking if nothing is done to them. If you keep adding/updating
software, you will tweak forever.

Yes, installing or building software does take time. But that's not
tweaking the OS with the virus-of-the-week updates now, is it. The
context given was "I can keep tweaking XP and it's just fine for
security and stability", which is considerably different from "I can
install software on a server".

Installing software can be anything from a piece
of cake to a nightmare to an exercise in futility. I've had shells stop working
mysteriously, software come up with bizarre error messages and stop working
and so on. "nix" systems are better, but they are far from perfect.

Never said they were. I said they're secure and stable out of the box,
in sharp contrast to Microsoft's products which ship in "take me, big
boy" mode.

I only wish "user friendly" wasn't a derogatory term among the linux crowd.

Yawn. I'm sure there's some .advocacy group where people would be happy
to correct you on that.

On 21 Dec 2005 18:25:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

My machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,

One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.

Great, I find myself in a ****ing contest over server uptime. No
thanks.

I reboot my corporate Windows servers once every 3.67 hours or my hard
drive will melt and time will stop. Happy?

The rest of your post was too idiotic to even comment on.

Matt

On 22 Dec 2005 00:43:26 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

the context given was "I can keep tweaking XP and it's just fine for
security and stability", which is considerably different from "I can
install software on a server".

FYI, I never mentioned "constant tweaking."

In fact, I rarely have to do anything to my system once the OS,
drivers and applications are installed and certain housekeeping things
are done.

Most of the "tweaking" steps required are to set certain services to
Automatic, Manual or Disabled; and deal with application options to
further enhance system performance. And with SP2 many of those
Services tweaks are now unecessary because they are turned off by
default.

And, of course, it's effortless to turn a lengthy XP install down to a
hands off routine using a simple disk imaging app like Ghost or an
installation scripting routine.

But anyone who thinks that *nix can run without at least some amount
of tweaking (epecially when dealing with graphics hardware) is simply
stuck in a quaint little fantasy.

Here, on someplace I like to call Planet Earth, we all know better.

Matt

On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.

For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
friday...

Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to **** off, I take it?

Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"

Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.

(and I'm being very
liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
manage the windows stuff.

Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.


Whomever got that account for us shoulda been
stuffed in the powersupply.

Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?


Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bull****. Any GOOD UNIX
admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server, there are approx 20
system tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box
setup. Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of
the tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right
out of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them
right. Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 12/21/2005 9:46 PM Matt Stachoni mumbled something about the following:
On 21 Dec 2005 18:25:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

My machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,

One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.

Great, I find myself in a ****ing contest over server uptime. No
thanks.

I reboot my corporate Windows servers once every 3.67 hours or my hard
drive will melt and time will stop. Happy?

The rest of your post was too idiotic to even comment on.

Matt

I agree. Any UNIX server that has in excess of 3 years uptime has way
too many kernel security holes in it, ESPECIALLY if it is Linux. I have
3 Solaris servers that are in excess of that time, but they are isolated
instances because the software we use is unsupported and will not run on
a later version of the OS, nor will it even run on the patches that fix
the couple of security holes because the patches also do other tweaks
that the software doesn't like. Thank goodness it's an internal machine
and not on the DMZ.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:07:14 -0500, Matt Stachoni wrote:

But anyone who thinks that *nix can run without at least some amount
of tweaking (epecially when dealing with graphics hardware) is simply
stuck in a quaint little fantasy.

Maybe "tweaking" means something different in your world? To me, it
means "go back and change it again to get/keep it working". Are you
maybe using "Yes, that which you have autodetected is, in fact, my
hardware" as a definition for tweaking?

Whatever. Our experiences differ. Mine are current.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:47:18 -0500, Odinn wrote:
On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:

Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.

Ah. They're working to get to 2K3 "real soon now". We just got NT 4.0
off the desktops.

Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bull****. Any GOOD UNIX
admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.

Tweaking? Naah, once you find the recipe, it keeps working.

If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server,

I'm really not interested in comparing resumes here, but let's just say
that I'm comfortable with my experience, and making my statements based
on it.

there are approx 20
system tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box
setup.

Yes, once. Well, once for dev, roll it up to QA, and then up to prod.
But you don't have to babysit the damn thing and re-tweak the stack or
whatever else.

Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of
the tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right
out of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them
right. Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.

You're missing the point. The tweaks you just mentioned are for apps -
with Windows, you have to keep dicking around just to keep ahead of
the OS.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:46:36 -0500, Matt Stachoni wrote:
On 21 Dec 2005 18:25:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

My machine was last rebuilt about 8 months ago,

One of my busier servers hasn't been rebuilt, and hasn't been rebooted
in (let's see...497+497+199= 1193 days). It was a sunday morning, and
the reboot was due to a clumsy mistake, not a system problem.

Great, I find myself in a ****ing contest over server uptime. No
thanks.

****ing contest? Only if you choose to take it as such. Feel free to
killfile me if you are likely to assume the worst intent of all my
posts.

The rest of your post was too idiotic to even comment on.

Here, I'll show you how the killfile thing works:
plonk

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:52:34 -0500, Odinn wrote:
On 12/21/2005 9:46 PM Matt Stachoni mumbled something about the following:

Great, I find myself in a ****ing contest over server uptime. No
thanks.

I agree. Any UNIX server that has in excess of 3 years uptime has way
too many kernel security holes in it, ESPECIALLY if it is Linux.

I could swear I mentioned it was behind several firewalls and has
nothing sensitive on it. But, feel free to lecture me on it.

Odinn wrote:

On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.

For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
friday...

Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to **** off, I take it?

Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"

Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.

(and I'm being very
liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
manage the windows stuff.

Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.


I'm pretty disappointed with w2k3. There are way too many hotfixes needed
to get clustering running stable, about 1/2 are included in sp1 but there
are still way too many fixes and tweaks to get clustering working close to
as stable as w2k.

Matt Stachoni wrote:

On 22 Dec 2005 00:43:26 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

the context given was "I can keep tweaking XP and it's just fine for
security and stability", which is considerably different from "I can
install software on a server".

FYI, I never mentioned "constant tweaking."

In fact, I rarely have to do anything to my system once the OS,
drivers and applications are installed and certain housekeeping things
are done.

Most of the "tweaking" steps required are to set certain services to
Automatic, Manual or Disabled; and deal with application options to
further enhance system performance. And with SP2 many of those
Services tweaks are now unecessary because they are turned off by
default.

And, of course, it's effortless to turn a lengthy XP install down to a
hands off routine using a simple disk imaging app like Ghost or an
installation scripting routine.

But anyone who thinks that *nix can run without at least some amount
of tweaking (epecially when dealing with graphics hardware) is simply
stuck in a quaint little fantasy.

Here, on someplace I like to call Planet Earth, we all know better.

Matt
You must not know much about what your doing then. My team supports both
windows and unix servers and windows takes a lot more "tweaking" both
during the initial setup and during production.
unix servers get patches and security fixes quarterly, windows gets monthly
and that monthly maintenance isn't just installing the hotfixes from MS,
its making changes to permissions and registry keys to work around holes
they haven't released the patch for yet.
In a large enterprise the ratio of windows system engineers to servers is 1
to 50, the ratio for unix is 1 to 75. So if you have 1000 servers it takes
20 windows engineers and 1000 unix servers only takes 13 or 14.

I'm almost sure I didn't start this... none of the arguments resemble
anything I think I was commenting on. (tweaking for me is stuff that
occurs after you've built your system and adopted your policies.)

Odinn wrote:
On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:

Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.


Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.

The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
Sony's.

Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bull****. Any GOOD UNIX
admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server, there are approx 20 system
tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box setup.
Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of the
tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right out
of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them right.
Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.

Oracle needs entirely different configuration settings for each platform
it is run upon, whether that be *nix flavored or otherwise. In addition
each platform has different hooks giving you access to make those
changes. Oracle as an example for platform comparisons would be better
fit to discussions of scaling. Oracle is also a hugely complex system
that has enough kitchen sink stuff in it to entirely replace most of the
OS, bring home the bacon, and sharpen your edgetools.

Happy ChristmaHanaQuaanzikaa. (or however that goes...)

er (*pop* -- how'd that get in my cheek?)
--
email not valid

Dave Hinz wrote:
snip

Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?

Good books. I almost didn't read 2 & 3, 'cause I didn't see where he
was going with book one, but I'm glad I did.

R,
Tom Q.

--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

On 12/22/2005 8:40 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:47:18 -0500, Odinn wrote:
On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:

Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.

Ah. They're working to get to 2K3 "real soon now". We just got NT 4.0
off the desktops.

Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bull****. Any GOOD UNIX
admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.

Tweaking? Naah, once you find the recipe, it keeps working.

Same with Windows. We have a golden image we use for all of our OSes,
be it Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows, whatever. We don't do
installs, we lay down images. For AIX, I have 4 different images based
on the 4 different apps that we run on them. For Linux, I have 5
different images depending on what it's going to do. Windows, we have 3
different images, Solaris only 2 (one Solaris 9 and the other Solaris
2.7), and way too many HP-UX images (3 different baselines just for the
hardware alone).

If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server,

I'm really not interested in comparing resumes here, but let's just say
that I'm comfortable with my experience, and making my statements based
on it.

there are approx 20
system tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box
setup.

Yes, once. Well, once for dev, roll it up to QA, and then up to prod.
But you don't have to babysit the damn thing and re-tweak the stack or
whatever else.

I've never babysit any of my systems, Windows or Unix unless I have a
hardware problem. As many times as we go through patching of software
or software upgrades (damn suits always want our apps do something
different, even if it is going back to doing the exact same thing it did
3 versions ago), nothing stays static regardless of the OS it is running on.


Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of
the tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right
out of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them
right. Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.

You're missing the point. The tweaks you just mentioned are for apps -
with Windows, you have to keep dicking around just to keep ahead of
the OS.


No, I don't keep dicking around with it. Yes, there are a lot patches
for Windows showing up as critical patches, but you would spend just as
much time with Linux if you try to keep up with all the patches for it.
When you are writing and hosting banking software, it doesn't matter
what OS you are running, you have to keep one step ahead of ANY possible
security hole, and that means patching a lot, be it Linux, AIX, Windows,
FreeBSD, whatever.

Windows will run unpatched for long periods of time, just as will Linux,
but I'm not going to trust your bank account to either of them having a
security hole in them.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 12/22/2005 10:39 AM Eugene Nine mumbled something about the following:
Odinn wrote:

On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:41 -0800, Enoch Root
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Ah, so you're a fully-recovered sysadmin, then. A difficult state to
get to.
For me, it was a determination hard-won one Thanksgiving Day, around 6-7
years ago, when I spent my dinner getting yelled at by some third-party
suit while trying to ensure Santa's cam stayed up for a large NY
department store that everybody knows about in preparation for black
friday...
Lovely. Not allowed to tell him to **** off, I take it?

Third party developers (two 3rd-party outfits involved), me on the west
coast, managing (ugh. juggling!) Windows "servers"
Yeah, that'd be enough to turn anyone off.

(and I'm being very
liberal using that term) back east, because I said I'd be willing to
manage the windows stuff.
Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.
Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.


I'm pretty disappointed with w2k3. There are way too many hotfixes needed
to get clustering running stable, about 1/2 are included in sp1 but there
are still way too many fixes and tweaks to get clustering working close to
as stable as w2k.


I haven't tried clustering in W2k or W2k3. We tried it in HP-UX a few
years ago, and never got it to work right (even had HP in trying to set
it up). I prefer HACMP on AIX, it works right first time every time and
is almost foolproof to setup.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
I'm almost sure I didn't start this... none of the arguments resemble
anything I think I was commenting on. (tweaking for me is stuff that
occurs after you've built your system and adopted your policies.)

Odinn wrote:
On 12/21/2005 4:04 PM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:

Oddly enough, our Linux boxes use exactly the same hardware as the
Windows team's servers, and, well, guess which ones are stable.

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.

The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
Sony's.

And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
pushing us to upgrade).


Saying that UNIX just runs out of the box is bull****. Any GOOD UNIX
admin knows that there is tweaking to do to make a system run properly.
If you've never run Oracle on a UNIX server, there are approx 20 system
tweaks that need to be made to the server from an out of the box setup.
Informix has another 20 tweaks that are different (well, some of the
tweaks are the same). Yes, for the most part, UNIX will run right out
of the box, so will Windows, but BOTH need tweaking to get them right.
Anyone that tells you different is an idiot.

Oracle needs entirely different configuration settings for each platform
it is run upon, whether that be *nix flavored or otherwise. In addition
each platform has different hooks giving you access to make those
changes. Oracle as an example for platform comparisons would be better
fit to discussions of scaling. Oracle is also a hugely complex system
that has enough kitchen sink stuff in it to entirely replace most of the
OS, bring home the bacon, and sharpen your edgetools.

We're really too small of a company to need to use Oracle HR/Financials,
yet we have 3 Oracle DBA/Developers for a 1500 employee company to keep
our HR/Financials running. We have 1 customer who uses our product with
Oracle as the backend DB to our Personal Banking software. We've tried
to get them to switch over to DB2 (our reference platform), but they
want Oracle, so we charge them extra for it.


Happy ChristmaHanaQuaanzikaa. (or however that goes...)

er (*pop* -- how'd that get in my cheek?)

Happy Yule.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On 12/22/2005 8:42 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:52:34 -0500, Odinn wrote:
On 12/21/2005 9:46 PM Matt Stachoni mumbled something about the following:

Great, I find myself in a ****ing contest over server uptime. No
thanks.

I agree. Any UNIX server that has in excess of 3 years uptime has way
too many kernel security holes in it, ESPECIALLY if it is Linux.

I could swear I mentioned it was behind several firewalls and has
nothing sensitive on it. But, feel free to lecture me on it.


Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an excess
of 3 years. Now you might have mentioned it in another thread, but I
don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups I read.
Do what you like with your systems, they don't affect how I deal with
mine.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Odinn wrote:
On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.

The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
Sony's.

And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
pushing us to upgrade).

I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.

er
--
email not valid
* RH uses a custom kernel that is Open Source and therefore probably
clean, but I haven't looked for news of intrusive damage and am not
inclined to.

On 12/23/2005 2:29 AM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
Odinn wrote:
On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.

The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will leave
you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices. And
Sony's.

And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
pushing us to upgrade).

I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.

er

Try selling a platform to a bank without having support for every piece,
hardware, OS, etc. It doesn't happen. They want assurance that if
something fails, they have someone they can blame. Free OSes don't cut
it if you don't have support.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Odinn wrote:
On 12/23/2005 2:29 AM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:
Odinn wrote:
On 12/22/2005 2:42 PM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:

Ours do too. The windows servers are just as stable as the linux
servers. Don't get me wrong, I've been a UNIX admin for 20+ years, I
hate windows, but I have to admit, that Win2k3 is pretty damn stable,
especially if it is set up correctly.

The problem is the purveyor of that has already superceded W2K and is
determined to get you to "upgrade": the MS box of chocolates will
leave
you at the mercy of their marketing department's OS design choices.
And
Sony's.

And RedHat, or SuSE don't do the same? Hell, the cost of RH ES3 is as
expensive as Win2k3, and they try to get you to upgrade from their
previous version or they won't support you (we have about 20 $1200 a
year support contracts with them on an earlier version and they are
pushing us to upgrade).

I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.

Try selling a platform to a bank without having support for every piece,
hardware, OS, etc. It doesn't happen. They want assurance that if
something fails, they have someone they can blame. Free OSes don't cut
it if you don't have support.


Well the banks obviously should be buying a warm wool Red Hat.

er
--
email not valid

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:58:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
snip

Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?

Good books. I almost didn't read 2 & 3, 'cause I didn't see where he
was going with book one, but I'm glad I did.

Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:31:20 -0500, Odinn wrote:
On 12/23/2005 2:29 AM Enoch Root mumbled something about the following:

I don't know, I use Debian (a copy costs you (given a net install)
exactly one writable CD). I'm almost certain* those other distributions
aren't suffering the same design/marketing problems Windows is.

Try selling a platform to a bank without having support for every piece,
hardware, OS, etc. It doesn't happen.

Our experience differs. At least in the mortgage industry...

They want assurance that if
something fails, they have someone they can blame. Free OSes don't cut
it if you don't have support.

Of course you have support. And if you have a problem where your boss
encourages blamestorming rather than solving problems with the
appropriate solutions, you need to upgrade your boss.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:12:31 -0500, Odinn wrote:
On 12/22/2005 8:42 AM Dave Hinz mumbled something about the following:

I could swear I mentioned it was behind several firewalls and has
nothing sensitive on it. But, feel free to lecture me on it.

Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an excess
of 3 years.

It's in this very thread, in the part that you snipped out (oddly
enough). Here's the google link:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...5?dmode=source
(mind the wrap)
I'll save you a click if you'd like:
"That's nothing. I've got a server, busy little box, that's wrapped
around the 497-day "uptime bug" twice and is nearly to a third time.
It's busy but has nothing sensitive on it, and is behind enough
firewalls that I don't care so much about it being way out of patch."

Now you might have mentioned it in another thread, but I
don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups I read.

Nor, apparently, this one.

Odinn wrote:

Going back through the thread that I can read, there is no mention of
firewalls or having nothing sensitive on it, just an uptime of an
excess of 3 years.**Now*you*might*have*mentioned*it*in*another *thread,
but*I don't remember every thread I read in the 7 different newsgroups
I read. Do*what*you*like*with*your*systems,*they*don't*aff ect*how*I
deal*with mine.

Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself."**--*Sir*Richard*Francis*Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Odinn, could you please trim that signature? As you can see from the
above, it's often more lines than your post.

I believe tradition says one or two lines should be the limit, although
3 or 4 doesn't seen really excessive. But 13?

--
Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:58:30 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:

Odinn, could you please trim that signature? As you can see from the
above, it's often more lines than your post.

Technically, it's not even a .sig, because it doesn't start with
--
(that's dash dash space newline)
....so even newsreaders which terminate on a proper sig delimiter, won't
on his.

I believe tradition says one or two lines should be the limit, although
3 or 4 doesn't seen really excessive. But 13?

I have a guess as to the nature of his response. Want a little
side-bet?

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:58:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
snip

Yowch. How's Shaftoe, by the way?

Good books. I almost didn't read 2 & 3, 'cause I didn't see where he
was going with book one, but I'm glad I did.


Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?

I think reading book 0 before book 1 will raise your curiosity enough
while reading book 1 to continue on to 2 (& 3).

er
--
email not valid

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:51:59 -0800, Enoch Root wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?

I think reading book 0 before book 1 will raise your curiosity enough
while reading book 1 to continue on to 2 (& 3).

Um. Can I get a guide to the numbering as used in this context, please?

Dave Hinz wrote:

I believe tradition says one or two lines should be the limit,
although 3 or 4 doesn't seen really excessive.**But*13?

I have a guess as to the nature of his response.**Want*a*little
side-bet?

Not unless I'm betting the same way you are :-).

--
Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:51:59 -0800, Enoch Root wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:


Ah, I _didn't_ read book 2 and 3, because, well, I didn't see where he
was going with book one. So it's a book to add to the pile, then?


I think reading book 0 before book 1 will raise your curiosity enough
while reading book 1 to continue on to 2 (& 3).


Um. Can I get a guide to the numbering as used in this context, please?

Book zero would be Cryptonomicon... mostly relatives of the characters
in the trilogy.

er
--
email not valid