Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:April:27 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2003/4/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:28236 Activity:kinda low
4/25    liberal propoganda about the lies that bushblair told us:
        \_ George Bush is a good Christian and does not tell lies like that.
           This sort of thing is spread by the liberals and Europeans and
           Godless Communists who just hate our American way of life for
           no good reason.
2003/4/27-28 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:28237 Activity:nil
4/25    I just started playing with the red hat up2date stuff and the redhat
        network stuff with a demo account.  Is there a way to get it to
        update my system from 7.x to 9.0?  It seems that the 7.x "channels"
        have different kernel versions and maybe other stuff than what's in
        the 9.0 "channel".  Thanks!
        \_ Hey Mr. Linux-is-better-than-Irix, answer this one!
2003/4/27-28 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:28238 Activity:kinda low
4/28    Too many political trolls, so here's a computer one:
        Ok... how did sodans/calgrads start up on learning COM/MFC?
        Learning things like VxWorks, RogueWave and J2EE was pretty easy
        given my Cal background, but Win32 has always eluded me. MFC looks
        big an hairy, and COM doesn't seem too much friendlier. That said,
        C# looks to be pretty easy to pick up... although I'd be more
        interested in learning to write things like WinAmp and Win32 Games
        for fun.
        \_ I have used a lot of open-source software on Windows platform.
           From my impression, most of the stuff is written WITHOUT
           using MFC at all.  The general consesus is that MFC is to bloated
           to do anything useful.  Instead, these guys tend to put things
           together using C and Win32 API calls.
           \_ MFC isn't bloated, it simply sucks.  At best it's schizoid, and
              often you have to go down to the C API to do anything anyway.
              Use wxWindows instead, and you also get cross-platform code.
        \_ COM sucks.  Try Qt if you want to do Windows stuff.
           \_ Qt sucks.
              \_ Qt R00lZ0rz; u r n07 37337.
        \_ C# is easy.  It's also easy to get to the point where you want to
           beat your head against the wall until bloody.  The libraries are the
           strong point, but they're woefully underspecified.  (Would it hurt MS
           too much to tell us what the return value is on failure?)
2003/4/27-28 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:28239 Activity:very high
4/27    What's the difference between Windows ME and XP?  Is XP really
        more stable?
        \_ ME is Win 95/98. XP is NT.
        \_ Much. Yes.
        \_ Just pirate a Windows 2000 and use it.  Win2k has the same kernel
           as WinXP, same file system as XP, none of that product
           activation non-sense.
           \_ Just pirate XP Corp. and you get the all that plus the bug fixes,
              etc. from XP.
                \_ Speaking of which.  What is XP's advantage over Win2k
                   anyway? All I know is that XP eats more system's
                   resources, and I don't know what is the advantage of it
                   \_ Nothing.  If you have to run Windows, run 2k.
        \_ 95/98/ME is to NT/2k/XP as Linux is to *BSD/OSF1/IRIX/Solaris/etc.
           Not only is XP more stable but it has a real kernel, real FS, and
           several other things 95/98/me doesn't but you'd want to have.
           \_ "You're a loony"
              \_ Ya whatever.  I've used all of these systems.
                 \_ you jus implied that irix is "better" than Linux.. or
                    whatever.. umm no.
                    \_ hey clueless wonder, you have any idea how much stuff
                       Linux has 'borrowed' from that 'lesser' OS, Irix?  go
                       learn something and come back.  Linux can't even be
                       fully upgraded without hours of downtime.  It's
                       ridiculous.  Irix?  A command or two and reboot to the
                       new kernel.  Linux would be a much better OS if they
                       'borrowed' even more of Irix.  Why do I even have to
                       tell you this?  I know!  It's because you've got about
                       30 seconds of SGI time under your belt.
                       \_ actually I worked for SGI and also supported SGI's
                          for several years. I know them well and would
                          actually say they rank about even in terms of
                          stability. Probably know more about Irix than you
                          attended Berkeley (god, admission standars are just
                          but this argument is pointless now. Irix does have
                          some strengths but overall isn't much better than
                          Linux. As for upgrades? Linux kernel upgrades happen
                          much faster and cleaner than Irix and is much more
                          tunable. inst is also worse than rpm and has fewer
                          overrides and tends to screw its pkg db.
                          \_ You're either lying or insane.  Nothing is easier
                             than an Irix upgrade.  Irix also has about 10
                             gazillion more tunables than Linux and you get to
                             them all through a single tool.  What did you do
                             at SGI?  Wash the outside of the cases and mop
                             floors?  That doesn't count.
                       \_ i don't know what you're doing with your linux boxes
                          but mine don't need any downtime at all. the longest
                          is a single reboot. no downtime at all.
                          \_ Oh yeah?  Let's see you upgrade from Redhat 6.x to
                             7.x or higher without downtime.  Or 7.x to 8.x,
                             etc.  Can't be done without lengthy downtime.
                             \_ Debian! apt-get install upgrade kernel
                                and reboot. Ah hour my ass. 2 minutes.
                                \_ Debian aint redhat.  The world uses redhat.
                          \_Okay, you dumbass jerk-offs. Stop bashing OSes.
                          I expect more from people who supposedly attend or
                          attended Berkeley (god, admission standards are just
                          not up to snuff) Next thing you know we're going to
                          have a fucking vi vs. emacs war. This is 2003, not
                          1996. MS and Linux have won. Time to move on.
                            \_ ED!
                            \_ When you learn to format to the motd standard,
                               you'll have taken step 1 on the path to true
                               motd enlightenment where you'll have earned the
                               right to call others dumbass jerk-offs and make
                               noises about the standards at Cal.  Until then
                               stick your head in a pig you dumbass jerkoff.  I
                               expect more from someone who supposedly attended
                               or attends Berkeley (god, admission standards
                               are just not up to snuff).  Ms & Linux have won?
                               What fantasy land are you living in?  The war
                               continues daily.  Idiot.
2003/4/27 [Uncategorized] UID:28240 Activity:nil
4/27    I want to hook switched ethernets in a couple buildings together.
        Where can I find the max distance spec for cat5e etc?
        \_ google.
2003/4/27-29 [Computer/SW/Unix, Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:28241 Activity:low
4/27    I've heard somewhere that the unix command "nice" to change the
        priority of a process doesn't really do anything useful.  Is that
        true?  Or is it half broken like it's only useful if everybody
        uses it?  Thanks.
        \_ Depends on platform, but it does have noticeable effects on
           FreeBSD & Linux.
        \_ That depends on what you want to do with it.  If you're on
           a multiuser machine, and you want your fair share of CPU,
           don't "nice" your processes.  Odds are no one else will, and
           you'll lose.
           \_ More likely you nice all of the new intern's processes for them
              \_ BOFH!
2003/4/27-29 [Computer/Networking] UID:28242 Activity:high
4/27    I want to hook two ethernets together.  The distance would be greater
        than the 100m max. What's the best way to connect them? Is there an
        such a thing as a UTP-ethernet to coax bridge?
        \_ you need Cisco's LRE (Long Range Ethernet) technology.  It can
           go up to a couple of thousand feets using typical twisted pair
           like a phone line. -cisco guy
           \_ As can optical ethernet (compare prices)
        \_ use STP to extend range, put a switches in the middle (if feasible).
           I have a couple of standalone RJ-45 to BNC things (they look like
           4-port hubs, which is another possiblity... one with a coax port
           on it...  You could also find some old 386's with 10-base T and
           10-base 2 cards and bridge them.  You'll be slowing your network
           down with anything using coax
        \_ Duct tape is the best way.
        \_ Need cable?  Why not just run an ipsec tunnel over an 802.11a/g
           link with directional range extenders?  Unless you absolutely must
           have full 100mbit fdx, performance won't suffer too much in most
           environments.  You can get cheap enough wifi hardware.
           Alternatively, if you can find one, go back to the basics and
           use repeaters (hub = multiport repeater.)  -John
           \_ some people work in secure environments.  wireless != secure.
              \_ thats why he says to use an ipsec tunnel btwn the two sides..
                 about as secure as it can get.
                 \_ no, it isn't.  ipsec over a wire might be.  i said a
                    "secure" environment.  anything that can be picked up
                    in the air is *not* secure no matter what protocol(s)
                    you're using.
                    \_ wire is more secure only if you can truly secure
                       physical access
                        \_ Wire is more secure because physical access
                           to a wire is more difficult than air.
                           \_ which says nothing to address the point
                              \_ I need the codes. I have to get inside
                                 Zion, and you have to tell me how.  You are
                                 going to tell me or you are going to die.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:April:27 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>