_Hyperion_

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About _Hyperion_

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I looked closer, it appears this is for the XP Home EULA only. Isn't that what you are using for your multi-node cluster? It's not file/webserving is it? FWIW, the "Sydney Morning Herold" is not a technical paper. I do not think they would be pro Linux or Pro anything, but you never know. We are not talking about "Linux Today" or something like that is all. Besides, the MS people are just as guilty, look at that TCO paper they funded - Shock of all shocks - the MS funded report suggests that MS is cheaper. -Hyp
  2. In this article about the XP EULA: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/24/...0777342086.html Here is a quote: Some features about software covered by the EULA: copying was prohibited could be used only on one computer with a maximum of 2 processors cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver required registration after 30 days could stop working if hardware changes were made updates could change the EULA if the company so wished could be transferred to another user only once the new user must agree to the license terms (no specification how this could be achieved) imposes limitations on reverse engineering gives Microsoft rights to collect information about the system and the its use gives Microsoft the right to supply this information to other organisations gives Microsoft the right to make changes to the computer without having to ask. warranty for the first 90 days fixes, updates or patches carry no warranty Some features found in the GPL: freedom to copy, modify and redistribute the software precludes one party from preventing another from having these same freedoms provides coverage for rights of users to copy, modify and redistribute the software no warranty as there is no fee can be sold if the user so decides and services for such software can be charged for any patents must be licensed for everyone's use or not licensed at all modified software must carry no licence fees source code must be provided if there is a change in license, the general terms of the existing one will be maintained. That is straight out of the article. Unless the author misconstrued it. I guess that is possible. Anyone know for sure? -Hyp
  3. EULA may be unenforceable in a court, IANAL though. Since the EULA allows them to make changes on your system without your consent, it stands to reason that they could discover you are using your system to do web serving and shut you down remotely. How bad would that suck? And it would be up to you to take MS to court about it. What are you chances there? It would take years to get a resolution if you had to money to stick with it. MS knows this all too well. -Hyp
  4. I don't know... Re-reading it, it sounds a bit opinionated.... I guess I'll live with till someone comes up with a decent counter argument. One last question as an adendum to my post.... This is to all you linux zealots I really want you to think about this for a day or so before replying though. Would Windows "suck" if it were free? How bout ? How bout ? At what $$ does Windows begin to suck? Thank you for your time, BBH BBH, That depends on a lot of things. Windows is good for a game machine, I think that is without question. Hopefully not forever though... It would help if it costs less, but would MS still invade my privacy? Would they still make changes to my software without my consent? Would their patches still break things or slow my system down considerably? Would there still be a large number of serious security holes? Reliability is not my only consideration when using Linux or other *nix. -Hyp
  5. Man, I lost track of this thread for a while. For some reason it stopped E-Mailing me notices for it. Hanold wrote: Hanold, are you running Apache on Windows XP Home or Pro? I just read today that it is a violation of the EULA to run a file server or web server on XP Home/Pro. In fact, there is a lot of bullshit in their EULA that is disturbing. An article that is linked on slashdot today talks about the differences in the licenses (MS EULA vs. GPL). It was a little bit interesting to have the MS EULA summarized. My guess is most would not know that crazy stinker they put in there. Here are a few highlights: gives Microsoft rights to collect information about the system and its use gives Microsoft the right to supply this information to other organisations gives Microsoft the right to make changes to the computer without having to ask. YIKES! No XP for me (hey, that kinda rhymes). Though I do like Windows CEMENT. http://www.vidbay.com/pics/windowscement.htm -Hyp
  6. This is true for playing games, but when it comes to dedicated servers (running a server for a game) there are many games that have a Linux version. I started this thread by saying that I have experience both ways (running on Win2K and on Linux) and the Linux dedicated servers BY FAR are easier to admin and are WAY more reliable (running for over 6 months without restarting in some cases). Now admitedly, this may have more to do with the games themselves. JK2 which is based on Q3 is very solid. Like a rock I would say. But do not confuse game availability with dedicated server availability. This is easy to do. Also, to Honold: Cute. By most of your comments so far, you could have fooled me. Though I admit I do not know you well, I must say you have a strange way of expressing your admiration of non Windows software (via this thread, at least). If Linux is not more reliable/stable than Windows XP, why does the general public mostly believe that Linux (FreeBSD, et al) is more reliable? Are they all delusional? Could they all just be negatively biased by how bad Win9x was? Perhaps I am biased because of Win9x. I still think *nix is more reliable than XP, and I think you really do too. Otherwise you would not have chosen it over XP in the life support question. Hey, maybe you are a (closet) *nix guy after all. -Hyp
  7. Future Shock said: I had a similar problem in reverse. I was running a copy of Linux (RH 7.0, IIRC) on some hardware (Asus A7V, IIRC) for well over a year without needing a reboot. Then I switched out the OS to make it into a game machine. So I went to put Win2K Pro on it - it would lock up during the install. I tried putting Win98 on it - it went through the install fine but locked up when it said, "Running Windows for the first time". This is the exact same hardware that the Linux machine was on several hours before. I found out it was the soundcard. When I removed the soundcard everything was working fine. I guess this can work both ways. It just always seems one sided for me. Linux always FEELS more stable to me. You guys are starting to make me think that I may have been just lucky on the Linux side and unlucky on the Windows side. But I guess that is how people form opinions. The same could probably be said in an argument for the reliability of Ford vs. Chevy. People saying they had good/bad luck, etc. Thanks for the input guys. BTW, I have that Asus Nforce board (A7N8X), nice board. -Hyp
  8. I am afraid you are the one who is talking out of his ass now. A quick search of Google turns up this: The unix paradigm includes a fundamental division between "kernel space" and "user space". Kernel space is memory in which the uncompromisingly crafted kernel interacts directly with the hardware, and where constraints on what a program can have in terms of hardware (memory, access to the disk drive, access to the video card, etc) are enforced. All other programs reside in "user space," and each has a segment of memory that belongs to it and it alone. If something goes wrong with an individual process, it cannot affect other processes, nor can it corrupt what is going on within the kernel. All requests for memory go through the kernel, and if the kernel detects an attempt to access memory the requesting program does not normally have permission to read or write, the event is a SEGFAULT (A fault caused by accessing an invalid memory segment) and the program crashes-- but not the kernel, which usually just tidies up and keeps right on running. In contrast, Windows does not have quite the same rigid distinctions. Individual programs *can* reach all the way down to address the hardware directly, where one bug can cause all kinds of mischief. Microsoft made this decision back in Windows 3.0 because they assumed three things: one, that direct access to the hardware would make their software faster and therefore more game- and video-processing friendly; two, that for the desktop the assumption of "one machine, one user" meant that no user needed the security supplied by rigid address segmentation (no user would ever be running code that would compromise his system, right?); and three, desktop commodity software could use this performance increase because it did not need the stability of kernel-mediated address segmentation. Another, similar example of this kind of division can be found in the X windows system. "Windows" is a monolithic program-- the OS, the windowing system, and individual programs running at any given time are all sharing a single common core. But, assuming that a small team (with a vast sea of bug-catchers) has made the kernel stable, another small team (with a similarly vast sea of bug-catchers) can make X stable. But X and X programs don't share a common core. Instead, X programs make requests to X-- "draw a window", "put this text here", "update this window with this frame", and the X program decides if the request made is possible and legal. Individual X programs can fail without tearing down X. Also, Windows has a single point of failure - the registry - which is written to and read from almost constantly - where *nix has seperate config files and if one fails the rest continue to work. -Hyp
  9. the first step would probably be to get the latest stable video drivers for your card, and then hit deja.com This is what gets me about Windows, especially as late a version as XP. Am I alone in thinking that a video driver should not take an entire system down? Or a soundcard driver? These things should not cause an entire OS to lockup. I had this problem with a Yamaha soundcard not too long ago - as soon as something played a note it would just die and CRTL-ALT-DEL would not work. That is (just) one reason why I think that Windows is not ready for the Enterprise. If you are REALLY careful in how you set Windows up, it could be stable. But you have to be careful, and a little luck helps too. I do not think this is the way it should be. In Linux a bad sound card driver would simply result in no sound (or garbled sound) because that is the way the system was designed from the ground up, to be as stable as can be. I feel one of the reasons is very basic. Microsoft integrates things into Windows (every version) so that they can say it is part of the system and is therefor unremovable without breaking things. At least this is the argument they used in court. They are risking stability/reliability so that they can continue to do unscrupulus things. This is yet another reason I feel Windows should be avoided if at all possible for server environments. -Hyp
  10. >i don't get it. with how much technical mention i've given already, isn't it clear that i'm aware of its uses? Fair enough. > well thanks for that deeply founded statement! Ouch. > but i am certain that they were and are intent on removing them all [*nix]. I am sure that is their intention. It is a source of embarasment. I do live in a world of basic services. I help run an ISP, so HTTP/FTP/POP3/SMTP/DNS, etc etc etc. SCAJ, sorry about hijacking your thread. If you have to choose between WinME and WinXP for anything I would suggest XP. If you had to choose Windows, I would take Win2K. And since Linux is free, I would keep an open mind to it. -Hyp
  11. when the alternative is free, faster, and runs on much slower hardware? there's no reason to employ exchange as an edge server that's just doing smtp. Then certainly you can admit just as I have done that both have their place in the world and we can all start getting along. I just wanted to hear you say something good about *nix before our discussion ended. I guess I am the problem here, I only admit that Windows is great for the desktop. I submit that it is marginally good for a server. But when Linux/FreeBSD is free and has better uptime/reliabilty (in my opinion) and runs with less resources why not choose it whenever/whereever applicable as you suggest I am guilty of? Something else inside me is telling me that Exchange could not handle being an edge server. Maybe that will upset people, but I really don't think it would handle a huge load very well. Maybe it is what MS is using for Hotmail now, I could be wrong. Hell, it took them about 2 - 3 years to get Hotmail over to Windows. And I still think there are parts of Hotmail that are *nix. Maybe I am wrong there. Can you shed some light on this? -Hyp
  12. and proud we all are of qmail. too bad its license/author sucks If your users shell is "/bin/false" when a program is exploited the program does not drop into a shell. In theory this should give a person nowhere to go. In a chrooted jail, they cannot leave the directory they are rooted in. And Linux kernel exploits are far and few between. Man, keeping up with you is difficult. Too much typing. Whew. -Hyp
  13. My experience would suggest otherwise. I am sure I am not alone. If Exchange were the best thing since sliced bread, most of the Internet would be changing over to it to pass information along. I just don't see that happening. Again this is if you only need POP3/SMTP. I feel people should be using POP3/SMTP or some newer standard that helps cut down on SPAM, instead of some MS only protocol. Hopefully this will be a standard that Microsoft will play nice with, but that is probably unlikely.
  14. I guess I jumped the gun when you said, " yeah it's a wonder microsoft is able to be the most successful software company in the world considering they run on their enterprise on their own non-enterprise software! i suppose if they ran unix they would truly own every aspect of the world. " Then I felt like blowing the *nix horn a little after that. I guess it was not appropriate. Sorry for suggesting you are "Windows people", maybe you are just playing the devil's advocate. Thats cool. -Hyp
  15. Forgot about this part: honold wrote: I run as apache/apache in a chrooted jail, apache has no shell access. Even still, I doubt there are many vulnerabilities in the Kernel itself. Most casually admit this. qmail had a $500 prize out for over a year to anyone who could find a vulnerability in it. It went unclaimed. My Bind runs in a chrooted jail. I feel safe about my kernel. Anyone who suggests that you really dont need uptime is really trying to convince themselves that reliability is not that important. At least that is how it sounds from here. -Hyp