SEO

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:25:39 +0200, lukaswu wrote:

> The only thing I have against OBSD (if regular use is considered) is IO
> efficiency- it is really sloooow.

Really? From what outhouse wall did you read that?

> And smaller thing: CPU scalability is far behind Linux kernel.

How many CPUs do you require to build a firewall? A 486DX2 will handle
10 Mbit/sec IP traffic at 10% CPU utilization.

> PS. God bless ed, if you install OBSD from floppy you will know what I
> mean

Really, with the install sets on a server the entire OS goes onto HDD in
less than 5 minutes. Makes me fall to sleep waiting.

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>
> There are still ppl without broadband? Horrors!
>

Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....

- Kurt

On 2008-04-30, Realto Margarino <rm@justlinux.ca> wrote:
> Robby Workman <newsgroups@rlworkman.net> says:
>>On 2008-04-30, GuestUser <guestuser@mailer-fake.org> wrote:
>>> What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
>>> and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
>>> gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?
>
>
>>With which one are you *most* familiar? Use that one.
>>I *like* OpenBSD; it's installed in another partition on my laptop;
>>If I weren't using Slackware, I'd definitely be an OpenBSD user.
>>However, "secure by default" is not very useful if the admin can't
>>maintain it securely or has to do insecure things in order to use it.
>
> How is BSD for packages these days? The last time we did an
> install, admittedly 4 or 5 years ago, the big packages were two or
> three revisions behind.


Some of them are a bit "behind" and some are current, but I have yet
to find one that doesn't "just work" when installed. Quality and
stability is more important than having that "new and shiny" version
number.

-RW

Robby Workman <newsgroups@rlworkman.net> says:
>On 2008-04-30, Realto Margarino <rm@justlinux.ca> wrote:

>> How is BSD for packages these days? The last time we did an
>> install, admittedly 4 or 5 years ago, the big packages were two or
>> three revisions behind.

>Some of them are a bit "behind" and some are current, but I have yet
>to find one that doesn't "just work" when installed. Quality and
>stability is more important than having that "new and shiny" version
>number.

We were talking about revisions and updates, not new versions.
Usually revisions are made in the name of quality and stability.
But you are right about new versions - they are usually not as
stable.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/R...lishments.html

On 2008-05-01, ~kurt <actinouranium@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....

I doubt anyone thinks it's worth that. I didn't, even though I paid it
because that's how crumcast sets up its extortion racket. OTOH, (your
response was so predictable) who the Hell needs a firewall/router/server for
dial-up?

nb

Robby Workman wrote:
> On 2008-04-30, Realto Margarino <rm@justlinux.ca> wrote:
>> Robby Workman <newsgroups@rlworkman.net> says:
>>> On 2008-04-30, GuestUser <guestuser@mailer-fake.org> wrote:
>>>> What are your thoughts about Slackware versus OpenBSD as a highly stable
>>>> and secure infrastructure server for the following roles - firewall,
>>>> gateway, file and print, DNS, and SMTP mail?
>>
>>> With which one are you *most* familiar? Use that one.
>>> I *like* OpenBSD; it's installed in another partition on my laptop;
>>> If I weren't using Slackware, I'd definitely be an OpenBSD user.
>>> However, "secure by default" is not very useful if the admin can't
>>> maintain it securely or has to do insecure things in order to use it.
>> How is BSD for packages these days? The last time we did an
>> install, admittedly 4 or 5 years ago, the big packages were two or
>> three revisions behind.
>
>
> Some of them are a bit "behind" and some are current, but I have yet
> to find one that doesn't "just work" when installed. Quality and
> stability is more important than having that "new and shiny" version
> number.
>
> -RW
well i tried to use ports on firefox
a month ago (freebsd 7.0) and after downloading it (may i say the
progress indicators (even in the install )are pretty neat )
but it failed during compiling so i emerged the linux version
in linux-compat and that one did work.

i found this to be very confusing but heej
it could have very well be my own doing.
it took me a while to ... well do anything ( damn csh )
and the fact you can't su out of the box and the fact
that vmware sometimes interferes with numlock settings
didn't make it any easier

On Thu, 1 May 2008, notbob wrote:

>
> On 2008-05-01, ~kurt <actinouranium@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....
>
> I doubt anyone thinks it's worth that. I didn't, even though I paid it
> because that's how crumcast sets up its extortion racket. OTOH, (your

Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
email alone.

its basically forced because the assholes who own the last mile copper
(telstra) are extorionate fucknuts and the AGVC tail alone with dslam port
without data probably costs more then what your avg U.S ISP charges you,
and any ISP here dumb enough to get their transit data from tel$tra will
charge you even more becasue of their extortionate practices. competition
like Optus and MCI are great, they charge similar in transit data to each
other, between 200 to 500 cheaper per MB, and more reliable

Lets go back a few years, say about 7/8 years ago, most U.S ISP's got
data at a rate of between $2 and $5 per GB, that same data was costing us
between $150 and $190 GB, thankfully they cant do that anymore because of
competition, but just goes to show what a monopolistic profiteering mob
of c#n%$ telstra are.

Its cheaper here to get ADSL2, with large more amounts of data, why?
because tel$tra are not an ADSL2 player, thats Optus and a few smaller
companies. But ADSL2 is only available in select areas, not the entire
country, yet, when it is most aussie ISP's will shove the ADSL1 contracts
down the loo and stick to hel$tra (as they are commonly known here)

moral of my rant, cheaper internet for most != .au
we'd like to give more for less but ISP's are businesses and running at a
loss is not an option, like any business.

There, now I'm sure you dont feel as bad having to pay 60 bucks a month

/coffee-time

--
Cheers
Res

I read usenet and lists in pine. But m$ outlook, thunderbird and gmail
often use html span/whatever for quotes, makes it hard to tell who said
what, so I dont try. If I ignore you, thats why! Use a compliant mailer.

On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:18:59 +1000, Res wrote:

> On Thu, 1 May 2008, notbob wrote:
>
>
>> On 2008-05-01, ~kurt <actinouranium@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not everyone thinks broadband is worth $60/month....
>>
>> I doubt anyone thinks it's worth that. I didn't, even though I paid it
>> because that's how crumcast sets up its extortion racket. OTOH, (your
>
> Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
> bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
> 2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
> email alone.

I have an account like that with Optus. I get 2000MBytes a month, up and
download. When I go over that limit then I get capped back to 64Kb/s. I
can't unfortunately afford a $60 or better plan.

Frankly I blame the government. Australia didn't have decent Internet
access before the privatisation of Telstra nor do we have it afterwards.
They have let our communications systems rot for so many decades it is
not funny, considering how much opportunity we had to switch to ISDN in
the 90's.

Richard James
--
sig fail on line -1

Richard James <rjames@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:18:59 +1000, Res wrote:
>
>> Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
>> bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
>> 2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
>> email alone.
>

<snip>

> Frankly I blame the government. Australia didn't have decent Internet
> access before the privatisation of Telstra nor do we have it afterwards.
> They have let our communications systems rot for so many decades it is
> not funny, considering how much opportunity we had to switch to ISDN in
> the 90's.

This is actually a great example of how studies can so easily misrepresent
reality. The " 2008 International Broadband Rankings", which was just posted
to /. today, would claim Australia is doing a lot better than the US, and
claims broadband costs almost 1/3 of what it costs here in the US:

<http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/05/02/1148205.shtml>
<http://www.itif.org/files/2008BBRankings.pdf>

- Kurt

On 2008-05-03, ~kurt <actinouranium@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Richard James <rjames@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:18:59 +1000, Res wrote:
>>
>>> Dont move to Australia then, 60 is cheap, oh sure you get the sneaky
>>> bastards try advertise broadband from 29.95 but that includes like 1 or
>>> 2 hundred megs and typcially only on a 256/64 dsl, I'd do that a week in
>>> email alone.
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> Frankly I blame the government. Australia didn't have decent Internet
>> access before the privatisation of Telstra nor do we have it afterwards.
>> They have let our communications systems rot for so many decades it is
>> not funny, considering how much opportunity we had to switch to ISDN in
>> the 90's.
>
> This is actually a great example of how studies can so easily misrepresent
> reality. The " 2008 International Broadband Rankings", which was just posted
> to /. today, would claim Australia is doing a lot better than the US, and
> claims broadband costs almost 1/3 of what it costs here in the US:
>
><http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/05/02/1148205.shtml>
><http://www.itif.org/files/2008BBRankings.pdf>
>
> - Kurt

After looking at itif.org, looks like, smells like a lobby group rather than
a non-partisan organization - besides their domain registration is private -
strange for a non-partisan group. In addition, too many members of
congress give itif the thumbs up...

ken