Modern software on old hardware
by Craig Box
I recently had a Celeron 500 that I wanted to install for my flatmate to use as an internet/email machine.
All evidence points to the 2.6 kernel being better on old hardware than 2.4, and in general support for hardware increases as you have newer software, so I thought I'd try installing Fedora Core 2 (then test3) on the machine. I've heard good things about the XFCE desktop environment, so I installed that.
The machine started out with 64mb of RAM and took an ice age to install (I think it's about the RPM database needing to be in RAM at install time). It quickly got upgraded to 192mb RAM, which isn't exactly "new modern specs" but is a machine that was better specced than many machines we had at the recent installfest.
I ran a quick, responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at 10Mhz. Linux was basically unusable on this machine. Software took an age to load, you could hardly run two things at the same time, and it was constantly in swap. The options seemed to be "run Windows 98" (the OS the machine was originally shipped with), or get some sort of Linux distribution that was around the same age. The Fedora Legacy project provides security updates for Red Hat as far back as 7.3, but I really don't want to run old software. In the end I found a surprising third option - I installed Windows XP and turned off most of the flash visual bits and pieces, and ended up with a usable machine running modern software. Not something that I wanted to have to do!
There's a long standing belief that Linux can be used to revitalise old hardware. Short of using a terminal server of some description (which wasn't an option in this case), is this true?
Craig
15 years, 9 months
IBM and the JVM
by s swami
Hi guys,
here is text of what I'll put up somewhere. Thought I'd get some
feedback here first. It's meant to piss IBM supporters off -- don't
take it personally. I make some unsubstantiated claims but wtf
everybody else is :-)
Cheers, Sid
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In an open letter to Sun,
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-openlet
IBM offers to work with Sun on an open-source implementation of the
Java Virtual Machine (JVM).
Here is how the letter came about.
o IBM had/have been bleating for a while that Sun should open-source
the Sun JVM.
o Some open source enthusiasts had/have been doing the same - i.e.
bleating*.
o Analysts and journalists just repeat what the different factions
say. Some seem to conflate the language, the virtual machine and
the runtime libraries.
It was after an insistent journalist (enraptured by IBM's
self-professed commitment to an "open-source Java") repeated the call
(at a public event) that someone from Sun asked: why does IBM not
open-source its own version of the JVM? i.e. why are the buggers
haranguing Sun?
IBM jumped at this with the open letter mentioned above. In short:
they will gladly work with Sun on a common open-source implementation
of a JVM if both Sun and IBM offered resources including source code
(to their respective JVMs).
Excuse me IBM, who asked you to open-source Sun's JVM? I'd like you
to open-source /yours/ please.
IBM have been veritably shouting their desire for an open source JVM
but they are not willing to open source their own implementation.
They will if Sun does the same (that's what it boils down to). This
smacks of hypocrisy at least and hidden agendas. Why bring Sun into
it? Why not BEA or Oracle or ... the open source community?
The strength of the present arrangement is that the specs are there
for all to see, vendors implement their own JVMs (and they have) and
the consumer chooses one or more implementations based on what he
requires and his estimation of the competing JVMs. This leads to a
thriving industry with high quality JVMs. It gives me choice and I
like that.
Great. So what's the problem? Simple: IBM's JVM just can't compete
with Sun's. Both of them are free for us to download and use. Try
them yourself. Yep, IBM can't even give its JVM away. Whose JVM do
you have running on your machine?
Now Sun's JVM is a beautiful thing! And it is Sun's JVM that will
take hardware customers from IBM to Sun. For the same money, Sun's
JVM running on Solaris and Sun hardware will outperform the
corresponding offering from IBM -- I reckon. And IBM knows it too.
My conclusion: IBM are telling fibs, really obvious ones too.
Hey whattup IBM? Cat got ya source?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* we have lots of sheep in New Zealand.
15 years, 11 months
Re: [wlug] IBM and the JVM
by s swami
On Thursday 01 July 2004 20:43, you wrote:
> Sid
>
> Your arguments seem emotional, poorly founded, irrational
> overreactions stemmed from unrealistic and idealistic goals, and
> you would be best to drop the subject.
What are the unrealistic and idealistic goals you refer to? How is it
emotional, poorly founded and an overreaction. You would be best to
do better :-)
> If you really want to help, do some real research into what IBM is
> doing give them real-world reasons to do what you ask, things that
> managers will respond to.
They have themselves given reasons for open-sourcing their JVM. I'm
just asking them to do it.
> This isn't a personal attack and I apoligise if this is the way I
> come across. I really think you're overreacting here, try to >
>approach the situation pragmatically.
Hey no worries Dr Spooner. But unfortunately you've got yourself into
an interesting situation. Please read carefully what you have
written and you will see that all you have done is given us your
opinion with "jack" to back them up.
> Best Regards
And to you my friend.
Sid.
15 years, 11 months
Samba (re Monday's meeting)
by Daniel Lawson
One thing I forgot to mention when Greig asked me to talk about Samba in
general, is that I am completely and utterly sick of samba playing catchup.
Samba will always chase behind Microsoft's implementation. If Samba ever
fully catches up and can play the AD game perfectly, and has zero
problems, MS only has to move to another structure. It's a futile game
to play at.
Current Samba implementations fall foul of many of the problems Greig
talked about. It's almost the same, but it is subtly different in many
ways, and this causes problems. There aren't really any decent unified
configuration systems yet, so running an LDAP backed samba system which
*works* is not a trivial task to set up.
The entire domain model of samba is tedious to work with unless you're
running MS gear.
That said, it's the only option right now. There are ways around it
which have been implemented on large university networks, however
support is tedious. I'm looking at using a custom GINA (the login part
of windows) which will auth via Kerberos or LDAP, and having an AFS
based network (Andrew File System), a distributed file system).
It's not all doom and gloom, I guess. I get fairly frustrated with the
attitude that seems to dominate overall major linux development which
says that we have to mimic Windows. GNOME and KDE have done this, Samba
is perpetually doing this. If Linux actually *is* better than Windows,
why do we have to mimic them?
We could at least be mimicing Mac OS X. I'd like that.
Daniel
15 years, 11 months
Fw: Transparent Proxy install - RH linux 7.3(2.4.20-28.7) updated via RHN w/ IPtables enabled & Squid 2.5-Stable5 w/ Dansguardian-2.6.1 & AV plug-in.
by scott.pichelman＠weirslurry.com
Ok, since I haev to wait moderator approval for over 40KB , I did not
attach my files and will have to later on...
TIA!
Scott
Scott Pichelman
Systems Administrator
Weir Slurry TM
North America
2701 S Stoughton Rd
Madison WI 53716 USA
T: +001 608 226 5615
F: +001 608 221 5807
M: +001 608 279 0368
E: scott.pichelman(a)weirslurry.com
W: http://weirslurry.com
----- Forwarded by Scott Pichelman/US/WAR/Weir on 06/30/2004 09:55 AM
-----
Scott Pichelman/US/WAR/Weir
06/30/2004 09:36 AM
To
wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
cc
Subject
Transparent Proxy install - RH linux 7.3(2.4.20-28.7) updated via RHN w/
IPtables enabled & Squid 2.5-Stable5 w/ Dansguardian-2.6.1 & AV plug-in.
Hi all,
Can anyone help me out with my dilemma?
Here is a brief overview of my situation...
Research:
I have been trying to get the above mentioned to work for some time!
I have read Doc from these sources:
http://dansguardian.org/?page=documentation
http://dansguardian.org/?page=dgflow
http://www.nyetwork.org/wiki/DansGuardian
And...other posts/threads and doc as well!
Mission:
We are a mid-sized organization trying to set-up a Proxy server to cache &
filter requests from Windows users.
We "would" like to set-up all the above in the email "subject" line on one
machine.
Can we use it as a gateway like transparent proxying suggests?
Can I use a test machine w/ a "DHCP" address & will the FW(iptables) still
work properly?
In what order should I configure, whast type of logging could I use to
troubleshoot?
I know it has been done and I have little time now, sigh.
So, I found your list while searching google noticed that WPAD might be a
better way to go, is this true in some cases?
We do not want to have to change "browser settings" on all of the client
machines.
I am unfamiliar with a transparent proxy versus other options but wonder
if someone could help me out with doc?
Finally, I may be missing something very easily, if so, please forgive my
carelessness.
Is there a simple procedure to follow so I install simply and than add
complexity as I go?
Tryed installing one app at a time starting w/ Squid then DG w/ plug-in,
then IP tables but to no avail...
I used the standard config files in many cases and will attach those
files.
The errors I receive are when setting my browser to "direct connection"
are "ERROR Requested URL could not be retrieved" & "Access Denied".
There have been times when Squid/DG & IPtables filtering seem to work, but
would filter "all" sites most of the time.
Most of the time when I enable the FW or IPtables it does not seem to work
correctly.
Meanwhile, I am trying a new distro - RH AS 2.1 server and will patch 2/
up2date.
Please view my attached doc and conf files.
root@Linux-Test dansguardian]# cat /etc/sysconfig/iptables
# Generated by iptables-save v1.2.8 on Tue Jun 29 16:49:36 2004
*nat
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [22:4542]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [1:132]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [1:132]
-A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8080
COMMIT
# Completed on Tue Jun 29 16:49:36 2004
# Generated by iptables-save v1.2.8 on Tue Jun 29 16:49:36 2004
*filter
:INPUT ACCEPT [627:56813]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [293:29548]
-A INPUT -s ! 127.0.0.1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 3128 -j DROP
COMMIT
# Completed on Tue Jun 29 16:49:36 2004
Any help is greatly appreciated, if possible.
Thanks.
Scott
Scott Pichelman
Systems Administrator
Weir Slurry TM
North America
2701 S Stoughton Rd
Madison WI 53716 USA
T: +001 608 226 5615
F: +001 608 221 5807
M: +001 608 279 0368
E: scott.pichelman(a)weirslurry.com
W: http://weirslurry.com
The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential, subject to copyright and for the use of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this message after notifying the sender. Unauthorised retention, alteration or distribution of this email is forbidden and may be actionable.
Attachments are opened at your own risk and you are advised to scan incoming email for viruses before opening any attached files. We give no guarantee that any communication is virus-free and accept no responsibility for virus contamination or other system loss or damage of any kind.
15 years, 11 months
Re: [wlug] IBM and the JVM
by s swami
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 22:43, Oliver wrote:
> > Now Sun's JVM is a beautiful thing! And it is Sun's JVM that
> > will take hardware customers from IBM to Sun. For the same
> > money, Sun's JVM running on Solaris and Sun hardware will
> > outperform the corresponding offering from IBM -- I reckon. And
> > IBM knows it too.
> >
> > My conclusion: IBM are telling fibs, really obvious ones too.
>
> I'm not so sure about the current state of affairs but certainly in
> JDK 1.3 days IBM's JVM and Jikes compiler were often quoted as
> being faster and better than Sun's respectively.
I was talking about the Sun combination vs the IBM combination. But
I'll take it out since it detracts from the main point. Thanks.
Sid.
15 years, 11 months
Trouble connecting linux to ValueNet
by Glenn Ramsey
Hi,
My Dad has asked me to help with a dialup connection problem to
ValueNet. He has Mandrake 9.0 and it works fine when connecting to Xtra.
connection. The ValueNet connection also works fine from a win95 PC.
From the log it appears that PPP is not starting:
Valuenet with correct login data (same result with incorrect user name
or password)
Jun 24 20:50:03 localhost pppd[2645]: pppd 2.4.1 started by trevor, uid 1001
Jun 24 20:50:03 localhost pppd[2645]: using channel 38
Jun 24 20:50:03 localhost pppd[2645]: Using interface ppp0
Jun 24 20:50:03 localhost pppd[2645]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ham
Jun 24 20:50:03 localhost pppd[2645]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap
0x0> <magic 0xe86fb3e4> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Jun 24 20:50:06 localhost pppd[2645]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap
0x0> <magic 0xe86fb3e4> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Jun 24 20:50:33 localhost pppd[2645]: LCP: timeout sending Config-Requests
Jun 24 20:50:33 localhost pppd[2645]: Connection terminated.
Jun 24 20:50:33 localhost pppd[2645]: Receive serial link is not 8-bit
clean:
Jun 24 20:50:33 localhost pppd[2645]: Problem: all had bit 7 set to 0
Jun 24 20:50:33 localhost pppd[2645]: Exit.
Does anyone have a working linux dialup connection to ValueNet? If so
would you be able to let me know what configuration is required?
Anyone else got any ideas?
TIA
g
--
Glenn Ramsey <glenn(a)componic.co.nz> 07 8627077
http://www.componic.co.nz
15 years, 11 months
WLUG Meeting is tonight
by Meeting Reminder bot
The WLUG meeting is this evening
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeting Linux to Business.
GreigMcGill plans to cover:
* What Linux is currently very good at.
* What I think is required to improve this.
* What Linux currently CAN'T do
* What I think is required to help this
* Some notes on advocating Linux to businesses.
Please replace Linux with OSS/FreeBSD/Whatever as your needs dictate. :)
CrawshawSchool.
15 years, 11 months
Re: [wlug] WLUG Meeting is tonight
by s swami
> > > The language doesn't have to be interpreted. Java is a
> > > compiled language. It's just not compiled to the native
> > > machine code.
> >
> > Most JVMs compile to native code, either JIT or ahead-of-time.
>
> Yes I know that the JVM does a certain amount of byte code to
> native code translation. But this is implementation specific and
> not guaranteed. It's called a virtual machine for a reason.
Please clarify in your mind the differences among the language, the
libraries and the JVM. Then you will realise that the specification
for the Java language is silent about whether it is to be
interpreted, byte-compiled or compiled to machine code. That is why
I responded to your incorrect statements:
"Java is a compiled language.
It's just not compiled to the native machine code."
by explicitly mentioning the JVM.
You will also then realise why your claim that IBM has "forked" java
is incorrect. (Aristotle points this out to you).
As to fears of forking, they are genuine. here is a link for you:
http://firebird.sourceforge.net/
And here is an excerpt from one of the pages from that site:
--QUOTE-------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2000, Borland Software Corp. (formerly known as Inprise)
released the beta version of InterBase 6.0 as open source. The
community of waiting developers and users preferred to establish
itself as an independent, self-regulating team rather than submit to
the risks, conditions and restrictions that the company proposed for
community participation in open source development. A core of
developers quickly formed a project and installed its own source tree
on SourceForge. They liked the Phoenix logo which was to have been
ISC's brandmark and adopted the name "Firebird" for the project.
Because Borland's open source efforts regarding InterBase never really
took off beyond prime release of the source code and the company
returned its focus to closed commercial development, Firebird became
THE Open Source version of InterBase.
--END OF QUOTE--------------------------------------------------------
<ethical_rant>
You see what these f--ks did? Now I don't give a shit what reasons
they had, they should have gotten over it like Netscape/Mozilla did.
It goes against the values I hold -- respect the company for the
steps they took to open their sources and work with them for the
benefit of all. If you have a problem, get some self-respect and
write your own damn code from scratch.
As more companies open their sources, I hope that similar sentiments
to mine will enter the hacker ethic.
</ethical_rant>
> The main reason is so that Java's fortunes are not tied to Suns
> fortunes. Which frankly are looking a little bleak.
> ...
Java as a platform is not tied to Sun's fortunes. Read the license,
write code and give the code to Sun. You, IBM and MS can all do that.
So far I have seen two arguments for "open sourcing" Java that are
worth considering:
(1) It will be convenient for Debian users since it will enable apt to
transparently manage any packages.
(2) Freedom will be good for the platform.
To (1): This is a problem with Debian and apt. It can't be the
download (I do it on my 33K) it is the hoops that /Debian/ and /apt/
require us to jump through.
To (2): Yes. Let us hope that if it happens, we get a license similar
in spirit to that of freedom, that Sun is given the respect it
deserves and is able to profit fairly from it.
And boy if I see the Firebird faction turning their evil green eyes
thataway ...
Sid
15 years, 11 months
