• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by _Hyperion_

  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
  16. You might be right there. We have not heard back from SCAJ so far though. :>
  17. >i have 7 independent exchange servers running right now, and the youngest one is still over a year old. no problems. Then you are much luckier than I was. But that does not take away from the fact that I had this problem on two different servers. And I had that MCSE look at it and he has seen the problems too. I did a search on Google with the error and found hundreds (possibly thousands) of hits on it. I guess it does not exist if you dont have the problem. > 'travels over' is correct. so a majority share makes it right? i guess that blows your linux desktop theory out of the water! I keep telling you, I DO NOT HAVE A DESKTOP theory - just a server theory. I actually use Win2K for a desktop at home (Mandrake at work). I just tossed that statement in there because someone said that Windows was more reliable. It is relevant since experts set up the Internet infrastructure and they used *nix (and yes, many use Linux/FreeBSD now too). And you Windows people cant have it both ways. I can't stand when Windows people say something like, "Oh, more people use it for this or that, that makes it right." Then when *nix people have a good point about when *nix is used far more often you say, "Does that make it right?" You can't it both ways. >it sounds like you're interesting in wedging in linux wherever applicable I will give it to you that from what I have said so far it does sound that way. But I do have about a 50/50 mixture of Windows/Linux servers at work and home right now. So I must find uses for those Windows machines somehow. POP3/SMTP/Groupware, I was not brining these into the fray really. I was just saying that I switched from Exchange to qmail. All we were using was POP3/SMTP and I made no such assumptions about anyone else. I help run an ISP and we just do POP3/SMTP out in the wild. What someone does on a LAN is of no interest at that (E-Mail) level. Fine, Exchange is better for you, qmail for me. >what exactly is the best-case scenario for you after making a statement like that? i don't see any positive yield. Yes, it was not intended for you since you have worked with *nix. I cant stand when someone chimes in that only has Windows experience. They should open their eyes to new possibilities, there is more than just Windows out there. But there is also Windows (don't get me wrong) That is what I meant. They should open their eyes to the ENTIRE picture. >if you want to issue some network administration pepsi challenge - windows, unix, or both - name your wager. i'm your huckleberry! I am not sure I follow you here with your pepsi challenge. But I do like the Tombstone quote - one of my favorite parts in fact. I feel that we both know our stuff very well, I see no need to actually measure our penises at this time.
  18. 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. i see uptime as a dick-grabbing metric of insecurity. kernel exploits do exist. then you're only using a narrow scope of functions. there are plenty of instances (one already mentioned being exchange/groupware) where windows/exchange is a decidedly superior and realitistically uncontested solution. > i suppose if they ran unix they would truly own every aspect of the world. Actually they do for Hotmail. At least they did last I checked, Exchange would not handle it I guess. You are correct that qmail would put 20MB in each box, but after the user pulls do the E-mail that space goes away. On Microsoft (be default) that space stays there, from my experience. > this is not typical behavior [of exchange]. This happened to me on two different servers with both Exchange 5.0 and 5.5. When I asked a MSCE about it, he said that it does indeed happen more than you would like. I believe his words were, "Microsoft Exhange is a fickel beast." Do you know what it feels like when you see this message on a Friday around 5:30? I had to stay a few time quite late due to Exhange. Knock on wood this has not happened with qmail. Doing backups for qmail is a breese to since you are just backing up regular text files. It seems I have gotten a few people here actually mad. Look, I am just expressing ACTUAL experience with running game servers for a few years now. The original poster asked for the "Which OS is the best for a gaming server", in my opinion that is NOT Windows. And it certainly is not Windows ME! But that is only an opinion. > i see uptime as a dick-grabbing metric of insecurity. Now you are being silly. How many kernel insecurities are there (remotely exploitable)? Anything else can be handled while not taking down *nix. > there are plenty of instances (one already mentioned being exchange/groupware) where windows/exchange is a decidedly superior and realitistically uncontested solution. Very true. If you need something that is only available on one OS then you NEED that OS. We do not know if this guy ABSOLUTELY NEEDS Windows yet as he has not said what game server he wants to run. I HAD to have Windows to run MW4, but Microsoft owns that game. I had no choice. Since Microsoft will probably NEVER make their products for another OS, this will be true about Exchange. But the overwhelming percentage of the worlds E-Mail travels over Sendmail on *nix, care to dispute that? The overwhelming percentage of Internet traffic is handled by *nix, why you ask? Could reliability/stability have anything to do with it? Open your eyes people. -Hyp
  19. It is currently ONE of the best desktops available. Though I know a few Mac users who would disagree with you rather strongly. Good server? Hmm. Maybe for toys, but for a real Enterprise? Don't get me started. Your Windows had been up for 95 days? My current Linux box with Apache, DNS, etc. has been up for 414 days as of today. And it would have been longer if someone didn't reboot it thinking it was the WinNT machine next to it (yes, I was ready to choke her). Before she did that it had 150 days of uptime. I am positive it would have 564 days of uptime now if not for my coworker. I am going to have to reboot it someday soon when I switch hardware - I am not looking forward to it. For what it is worth, if I put a LOT of time and effort (and money) into it I am sure I COULD run Windows longer. But if I do not have to put all that time and effort into Linux then why should I use Windows? Do you walk to work when driving would be quicker? Do you go out of your way to take a longer route to get to work? Do you like pain? I don't. So this is not an inferiority complex, just common sense if you ask me. I use what works best. -Hyp
  20. i can upgrade apache/nt without rebooting too, i can change dns and 'nic params' without rebooting too, etc. you still have to reboot for kernel changes. i won't contest for a second that updates for windows require too much rebooting, but they get better with every iteration - see windows server 2003. sorry, i got over my unix zealot phase about 7 years ago. this is a silly question. we're talking about game servers. assuming the app was given equal attention for each platform, i would rather run my life support on unix. i'd rather run a game server on windows because there are more game servers. i'd rather run exchange on windows because there is no unix port and no unix equivalent. i'd rather run apache/bind/postfix/etc on unix. It has been 11 years for me, and I have not got over *nix zealotry. I used to run Minix a looong time ago on floppies (ouch). :> You do not have to reboot because you are running Apache rather than IIS, I respect you more already. > this is a silly question. we're talking about game servers. True. >i'd rather run exchange on windows because there is no unix port and no unix equivalent. I run qmail. I got rid of that Exchange garbage after working at my current company for less than a year. Exchange would just stop running (Dr. Watson) every once in a while. After you reboot you had to hold your breath that the service would start again. GOD forbid you did not have a current backup of that JET database it uses. And that database gets HUGE after a while. Maybe this has been fixed, the latest I had was 5.5. I have been on qmail (www.qmail.org) for over two years and have not needed an upgrade, though I have had to recompile it for new systems. > i would rather run my life support on unix. Had you said Windows I would not have believed it anyway. But I respect you more and more. I am not trying to flame, believe me. It just sounded like you were trying to compare the stability of XP Home to *nix, if not directly. Believe it or not, I use and like Win2K Pro at home - I just never cared for the "stability" of XP. Even when I put XP on hardware that runs Linux smoothly for months on end - I still do not get what I would consider stability. I am sorry, but if you have to hand pick hardware and software to keep a system stable that is a load of crap. I think you know what I am getting at here. If you play in the sandbox with XP, you are fine. It seems we see eye to eye more than I thought. No hard feelings I hope. -Hyp
  21. I don't have a problem with Windows either FOR A DESKTOP. I can hardly get my copy of XP Pro to run for 6 days let alone 6 months. I have heard from many people that XP home starts off stable and as they add software it goes down the tubes just like Win98 did. That is my experience too. Win98 and XP is perfectly stable as long as you do not add too much software too it, ME is a different story. Windows for a SERVER I have a problem with. I guess it can run for six months, but you have to reboot whenever you do just about anything. I can upgrade my Apache server and not have to reboot, I can change DNS params and NIC params and not have to reboot. Hell, I just about never need to reboot unless I need to change hardware which requires it. As a server, Windows is just not so hot - I think many would agree. If you know what it is like to run Linux than you must have some part of you that admits this? What if your life depended on it? Would you rather have XP Home or *nix running that equipment? Honestly? -Hyp
  22. You are clustering 18 nodes of XP home together? I have GOT to know what this is for. Let me guess, some clueless trog of a manager will not let you use anything but MS? I sure hope this was not by choice, you were dragged kicking and screaming in that direction, please say it is so. Jeez, why pay 18 x $99 (or is it $129?) for 18 copies of XP home? I saw you respond to a UNIX question about compilers, I know that you are more elightened than that! -Hyp
  23. XP home is just as unstable as XP Pro? Sorry, could not resist. Ok, I agree with you on your choice in cars, but I think it might end there. Especially the VR6 (drool). Hyp ----- 87 VW Scirocco 8V / Koni struts / 600# springs / A/S bars, short shift kit, etc etc etc / SCCA FSP car
  24. True, I don't think you would have to worry about saturating a 10MIPS line let alone Gigabit. It will only be as fast as your upload speed anyway. I think it should be clear when people say XP for stability that most (if not all) are refering to XP Pro and not Home. I would like to hear from the original poster about which game server he wants to run. Is it just for LAN parties, or for Internet games? We could give much better advice knowing such things.
  25. Well, I have two servers. One is just running RedHad 7.2 on a PIII 700 (OC'ed to 770), with a 10,000 RPM SCSI drive and 256MB of RAM. This server runs E-Mail, Apache Webserver, DNS, FTP and the JK2 and AvP2 game servers all at the same time without a problem. Of course, the game servers are really only utilized at night while E-Mail and HTTP are mostly used during the day. The other is more of a desktop machine for my wife. It is Mandrake Linux 9.1 RC2 on an AMD XP 1900+ with 512MB DDR RAM. I have VMWare limited to 156MB of RAM, and it seems to run just fine. However, MW4 is a hog and I needed to have at least the XP 1900 to do it without needing VMWare and Win2K to have focus. Before I put the XP1900 in, I had an AMD Thunderbird 1100 in there, and the games only worked well if VMWare and Win2K were in full screen mode. Now I can minimize VMWare and run other software while the game server is running.