top of page


Public·4 members

Hearts Of Iron 4 Linux

Did you see that Fabor gets famous?Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:40:06 +0200Robos (robos from comments by Faber Fedor Famous? Obviously not famous enough for my name to get spelledcorrectly! Hi all!Well, there is this "Is linux dead?" comment on /. and in the MSNBCarticle ( ) Fabor is quoted ratherextensively. The /. news comment is really bad (doesn't fit at all)but Fabor comes along really nice.

Hearts Of Iron 4 Linux

As a question to fabor: Why do you say (as the article quotes) "It'sfor geeks"?I mean, we're mostly geeks (ok, all) but those people whowrite us with questions are most certainly not geeks (most of them)since then they would probably figured out the thing themselves. Theselusers might have some probs with "linux" but only because when theybuy some win crap they wine to the support stuff of that firm, inGNU/linux they get all the tools at once and don't have such atechnical support (suse and redhat for a short time at the beginning,ok..) to ask questions. So they come to us and thats what TAG isfor. Bit I think that most luser get along with GNU/Linux pretty wellgiven the fact that GNU/Linux is far more powerful andcustomizable. With most questions they come to either us or debianhelpfor example, they wouldn't even ask those questions on win since therethey wouldn't get the fix idea to run their own webserver just-for-funsince there it isn't that much free (as in beer) software to play with(that sentence is rather crap, granted, but I hope you get my generaldrift) -- Robos

So, to make it clear: I think with a little help (about as much as youneed in the beginning with windoze) and some distro like suse ormandrake a pretty normal user can now easily use linux and theaccompained software (as long as they can and are willing to read).

ummm... what "several hundred megabytes" statement?Here's a link to your earlier statement about this topic from not so long ago. Quote:It would also be nice to be able to build perf without having to download the entire kernel tree, I often don't have the space or the bandwidth for hundreds of megabytes of kernel source when I just want to quick build perf on a new machine.(Plus your claim that there is no "perf only" mailing list is wrong as well, there's one at,Ingo real world? Posted Jul 28, 2010 2:46 UTC (Wed) by deater (subscriber, #11746) [Link]

I wouldn't mind this article if it phrased things as academia being very different than kernel devel. I do object to the idea of kernel devel being the real-world common case. I'm pretty sure for most people the real world is being stuck in userspace, often without the ability to do things as root.As a user, building a custom library in my home dir and linking my tools against it is easy; getting the sysadmins to replace the kernel is hard.I brought up the recent perf-events issue as there's a large overlap between the rt-linux developers and the perf developers, and the whole idea ofwhat constitutes real-world to perf developers came up recently in thislkml thread. real world? Posted Jul 28, 2010 3:18 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

It largely depends on how serious the effects of a bad upgrade are and how hard it is to go back to the old component.The kernel is unique there: there can be multiple kernel packages installed at once, and switching between them is as easy as selecting a different kernel on bootup.With glibc (or with any other user-space library) there is no such multi-version capability: if the glibc upgrade went wrong and even /bin/ls is segfaulting then it's game over and you are on to a difficult and non-standard system recovery job.So yes, i agree with the grandparent and i too see it in the real world that the kernel is one of the easiest components to upgrade and is one of the easiest components to downgrade. It's also very often dependency-less. (there's a small halo of user-space tools like mkinitrd but nothing that affects many apps)Try to upgrade/downgrade Xorg or glibc from a rescue image. I've yet to see a distro that allows that in an easy way.(The only inhibitor to kernel upgrades are environments where rebooting is not allowed: large, shared systems. Those are generally difficult and constrained environments and you cannot do many forms of bleeding-edge development of infrastructure packages in such environments.) real world? Posted Aug 8, 2010 12:33 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

They're scared of going to 64-bit kernels no matter what the benefits because that's not what they currently have installed so 'stuff might break' (as if 'cannot fork()' is not breakage): 32->64, the kernels simply must be completely different, right? Have to retest everything.This is not a rare attitude among people who run big production Oracle systems without really knowing what they're doing because they're Oracle DBAs at heart, who learnt to handle Solaris and have now been forced to Linux by the lower costs. Yes, you'd hope that everyone running big iron databases backing huge financial things with billions riding on them would have a sysadmin who understood the machine a bit as well as DBAs who understood the database: you'd be wrong. real world? Posted Jul 28, 2010 20:09 UTC (Wed) by tglx (subscriber, #31301) [Link]

it depends on how you define 'the standard linux way'are you using make install to install the kernel? (works if you are installing it on the kernel you build it on)are you using the make system to create a .deb/.rpm file (I don't remember the make command for this, is it make kpkg?)if you are doing neither, then you have the same problem that you can have an any distro, the modules directory is per kernel version, and if you don't compile all the modules you need you may end up using modules that were compiled from a prior version.I avoid these problems by not using modules for my production servers. This lets me just worry about installing the kernel file itself on the systems. real world? Posted Jul 28, 2010 2:37 UTC (Wed) by deater (subscriber, #11746) [Link]

  • Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
    bottom of page