Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators? - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators? - Linux ; On 2008-10-02, Hadron wrote: > Ignoramus31561 writes: > >> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote: >>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: >>> >>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only >>>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

  1. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-02, Hadron wrote:
    > Ignoramus31561 writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
    >>>
    >>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>
    >> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >> done
    >>
    >> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >> unattended).
    >>
    >> Try this on windows. Good luck.

    >
    > You probably would not want to.
    >
    > I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
    > packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
    > themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.
    >
    > Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
    > really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
    > SW is a good idea.


    Ubuntu is extremely friendly to doing this, actually, updates in
    have never screwed up any running apps. I have been doing this for a
    while and had a good luck with it. If some machines are not up, the
    same thing can be safey re-run again, the machines that already have
    wantedpackage will do nothing.
    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  2. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Ignoramus23721 writes:

    > On 2008-10-02, Hadron wrote:
    >> Ignoramus31561 writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >>>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >>>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>
    >>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>> done
    >>>
    >>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>> unattended).
    >>>
    >>> Try this on windows. Good luck.

    >>
    >> You probably would not want to.
    >>
    >> I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
    >> packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
    >> themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.
    >>
    >> Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
    >> really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
    >> SW is a good idea.

    >
    > Ubuntu is extremely friendly to doing this, actually, updates in
    > have never screwed up any running apps. I have been doing this for a
    > while and had a good luck with it. If some machines are not up, the
    > same thing can be safey re-run again, the machines that already have
    > wantedpackage will do nothing.


    Just think about cron'ing the other machines to get it when they are
    ready and are running. No work from you at all. Just a suggestion...

    --
    "Your Ref header shows bt.com. The "kustomkomputer" troll nymshifted again?"
    -- William Poaster boring people to death with his header compulsion in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  3. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "Ignoramus23721" wrote in message
    news:A66dnWAdzMheUXnVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@giganews.com ...
    > On 2008-10-02, Hadron wrote:
    >> Ignoramus31561 writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can
    >>>>> only
    >>>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
    >>>> administering
    >>>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>
    >>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>> done
    >>>
    >>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>> unattended).
    >>>
    >>> Try this on windows. Good luck.

    >>
    >> You probably would not want to.
    >>
    >> I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
    >> packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
    >> themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.
    >>
    >> Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
    >> really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
    >> SW is a good idea.

    >
    > Ubuntu is extremely friendly to doing this, actually, updates in
    > have never screwed up any running apps. I have been doing this for a
    > while and had a good luck with it. If some machines are not up, the
    > same thing can be safey re-run again, the machines that already have
    > wantedpackage will do nothing.



    So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine while
    in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are quite
    significant differences in how you can admin a server and a workstation
    unless you want to be unpopular.


  4. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:dX3Fk.43671$vX2.39646@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >>>> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.
    >>> ^^^^^^
    >>>
    >>> guffaw

    >>
    >> I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?

    >
    > It's not a spell "chucker" (good pun by the way) error. It's a
    > deep-structure error ;->
    >


    I thought it was quite a good substitution when it was pointed out, maybe a
    Freudian slip?
    > --
    > List at least two alternate dates.



  5. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>
    >>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>> done
    >>>
    >>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>> unattended).
    >>>
    >>> Try this on windows. Good luck.

    >>
    >> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
    >> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    >> automatically download and update.

    >
    > How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?


    Group Policy and WSUS.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  6. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    > So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine while
    > in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are quite
    > significant differences in how you can admin a server and a workstation
    > unless you want to be unpopular.
    >

    Why would updating a program be a problem in these circumstances?
    Replacing a program is not done by killing a process and restarting it.

    Linux and UNIX have been able to manage this "forever."

    What happens in this case is that the existing process continues to run. All
    new instances of the process use the new version.

    At one time, a hard link was made to the existing program and then the
    original name of it was removed. That way, no one could start the old one.
    But the old process could continue to run. I do not know if that is how they
    do it now, but the effect is the same. My system is up 24/7 except when I
    reboot it for a new kernel, something I can do whenever I choose; or when I
    power it off because the room gets too hot in the summer and it risks
    overheating.

    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 11:45:01 up 7 days, 12:47, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.17, 4.27

  7. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Ignoramus23721" wrote in message
    > news:A66dnWAdzMheUXnVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >> On 2008-10-02, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus31561 writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can
    >>>>>> only
    >>>>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>>>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
    >>>>> administering
    >>>>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>>
    >>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>>> done
    >>>>
    >>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>>> unattended).
    >>>>
    >>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
    >>>
    >>> You probably would not want to.
    >>>
    >>> I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
    >>> packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
    >>> themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.
    >>>
    >>> Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
    >>> really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
    >>> SW is a good idea.

    >>
    >> Ubuntu is extremely friendly to doing this, actually, updates in
    >> have never screwed up any running apps. I have been doing this for a
    >> while and had a good luck with it. If some machines are not up, the
    >> same thing can be safey re-run again, the machines that already have
    >> wantedpackage will do nothing.

    >
    >
    > So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine
    > while in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are
    > quite significant differences in how you can admin a server and a
    > workstation unless you want to be unpopular.


    Why do you think that the application *needs* to be killed when updated?
    Since you obviously know nothing about linux, here is a hint: You can update
    running apps while they run. You can restart them later, after the update
    has taken place, at any time. It is not as with windows where you can't
    replace running apps/dlls without stopping them before.
    --
    We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.


  8. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Ignoramus23721" wrote in message
    > news:A66dnWAdzMheUXnVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >> On 2008-10-02, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus31561 writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who
    >>>>>> can only
    >>>>>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>>>>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
    >>>>> administering
    >>>>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>>
    >>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>>> done
    >>>>
    >>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>>> unattended).
    >>>>
    >>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
    >>>
    >>> You probably would not want to.
    >>>
    >>> I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
    >>> packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
    >>> themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.
    >>>
    >>> Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
    >>> really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
    >>> SW is a good idea.

    >>
    >> Ubuntu is extremely friendly to doing this, actually, updates in
    >> have never screwed up any running apps. I have been doing this for a
    >> while and had a good luck with it. If some machines are not up, the
    >> same thing can be safey re-run again, the machines that already have
    >> wantedpackage will do nothing.

    >
    >
    > So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine
    > while in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are
    > quite significant differences in how you can admin a server and a
    > workstation unless you want to be unpopular.


    Well thats why there are kill levels. to allow things to shut down
    gracefully.

  9. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
    news:1222963476.27441.2@proxy00.news.clara.net...

    >> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine
    >> while in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are
    >> quite significant differences in how you can admin a server and a
    >> workstation unless you want to be unpopular.

    >
    > Well thats why there are kill levels. to allow things to shut down
    > gracefully.


    You know that and I know that but Peter probably doesn't.
    He thinks an update has been done even though the old code is still running.

    I wonder if I can find an application that writes its config out when it
    exits so it overwrites the new one installed by the update?
    Nah, nobody would ever do something that stupid. ;-)


  10. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
    > news:1222963476.27441.2@proxy00.news.clara.net...
    >
    >>> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine
    >>> while in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There
    >>> are quite significant differences in how you can admin a server and a
    >>> workstation unless you want to be unpopular.

    >>
    >> Well thats why there are kill levels. to allow things to shut down
    >> gracefully.

    >
    > You know that and I know that but Peter probably doesn't.
    > He thinks an update has been done even though the old code is still
    > running.
    >


    It all depends on what you mean by update.

    If the program is a child process called by a parent, then when it exist
    gracefully of its own accord, the next instance will be the update.

    If its a forked copy, then it wont.

    If its a complex daemon, you rewrite te start script so that restart
    does the correct thing.

    The power of *nix is that you CAN rewrite it.


    > I wonder if I can find an application that writes its config out when it
    > exits so it overwrites the new one installed by the update?
    > Nah, nobody would ever do something that stupid. ;-)


    Microsoft probably would.

    It would be considered a top priority bug in Linux.


  11. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-02, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine while
    >> in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There are quite
    >> significant differences in how you can admin a server and a workstation
    >> unless you want to be unpopular.
    >>

    > Why would updating a program be a problem in these circumstances?
    > Replacing a program is not done by killing a process and restarting it.
    >
    > Linux and UNIX have been able to manage this "forever."
    >
    > What happens in this case is that the existing process continues to run. All
    > new instances of the process use the new version.
    >
    > At one time, a hard link was made to the existing program and then the
    > original name of it was removed. That way, no one could start the old one.
    > But the old process could continue to run. I do not know if that is how they
    > do it now, but the effect is the same. My system is up 24/7 except when I
    > reboot it for a new kernel, something I can do whenever I choose; or when I
    > power it off because the room gets too hot in the summer and it risks
    > overheating.
    >


    correct. Most things that are patched, are not actually having their
    instances killed. And you CAN remove a file with a running program. It
    continues to exist until the program exits.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  12. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>
    >>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    >>> automatically download and update.

    >>
    >> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?

    >
    > Group Policy and WSUS.


    Ah, thanks Tom! (As you can tell, I don't do much Windows maintenance,
    DFS's demented shriekings to the contrary.)

    --
    When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

  13. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:33:13 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >
    >>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>>
    >>> Nice FUD try.

    >>
    >> Wrong.....
    >>
    >> Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...

    >
    > A Unix admin that can handle Solaris, AIX, and HPUX can easily handle Linux.


    Of course they can.
    I was referring to his comment about the Unix and Linux system admin being
    almost identical.

    A Unix/AIX admin can administer a Linux system with a little OJT.
    It doesn't work as well the other way around though because of what I
    mentioned above, amongst other things.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  14. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    >>>> automatically download and update.
    >>>
    >>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?

    >>
    >> Group Policy and WSUS.

    >
    > Ah, thanks Tom! (As you can tell, I don't do much Windows maintenance,
    > DFS's demented shriekings to the contrary.)
    >


    Me neither actually But, I know enough to know that Ignoramus - is just
    that when he's talking about updating large numbers of machines. No windows
    admin is going to walk from machine to machine to push updates.... That's
    just silly.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  15. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
    news:1222964798.29655.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
    >> news:1222963476.27441.2@proxy00.news.clara.net...
    >>
    >>>> So you think that killing, say, the web server or the database engine
    >>>> while in the middle of a customer transaction isn't a problem? There
    >>>> are quite significant differences in how you can admin a server and a
    >>>> workstation unless you want to be unpopular.
    >>>
    >>> Well thats why there are kill levels. to allow things to shut down
    >>> gracefully.

    >>
    >> You know that and I know that but Peter probably doesn't.
    >> He thinks an update has been done even though the old code is still
    >> running.
    >>

    >
    > It all depends on what you mean by update.
    >
    > If the program is a child process called by a parent, then when it exist
    > gracefully of its own accord, the next instance will be the update.
    >
    > If its a forked copy, then it wont.
    >
    > If its a complex daemon, you rewrite te start script so that restart does
    > the correct thing.
    >
    > The power of *nix is that you CAN rewrite it.
    >
    >
    >> I wonder if I can find an application that writes its config out when it
    >> exits so it overwrites the new one installed by the update?
    >> Nah, nobody would ever do something that stupid. ;-)

    >
    > Microsoft probably would.
    >
    > It would be considered a top priority bug in Linux.
    >


    The bug reports have several instances.


  16. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Tom Shelton writes:

    > On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    >>>>> automatically download and update.
    >>>>
    >>>> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?
    >>>
    >>> Group Policy and WSUS.

    >>
    >> Ah, thanks Tom! (As you can tell, I don't do much Windows maintenance,
    >> DFS's demented shriekings to the contrary.)


    Hilarious. Note the change of tone as Liarnut gets schooled again. You
    can tell he was being derisory and shilling Ignoramous from the "let"
    bit. He actually thought, like most of the tits in this NG, that Windows
    servers do not have such facilities. They still confuse their Win 3.1
    days with corporate server infrastructures.

    >>

    >
    > Me neither actually But, I know enough to know that Ignoramus - is just
    > that when he's talking about updating large numbers of machines. No windows
    > admin is going to walk from machine to machine to push updates.... That's
    > just silly.


    At least he is being positive about Linux even if his solution is
    naive. But if it works for him then fine. The problem is that its a bit
    half arsed and requires multiple download. Much better would be to have
    a common repository for package files using sshfs or something so ONE
    machine downloads the updates and rest share it. Failing that use one to
    download and then have rsync run on a cron job to update the other
    machines. they in turn and install the new packages also using a cron
    job when it suits them. The possibilities are endless but one thing is
    for sure - its amazing how many COLA dwellers honestly think that there
    is no such facility in Windows.



    --
    "Maybe he knows where the body is because he saw where
    it was put." -- "Rick" defending Hans Reiser (his hero) in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  17. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:25:05 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    > Hilarious. Note the change of tone as Liarnut gets schooled again. You
    > can tell he was being derisory and shilling Ignoramous from the "let"
    > bit. He actually thought, like most of the tits in this NG, that Windows
    > servers do not have such facilities. They still confuse their Win 3.1
    > days with corporate server infrastructures.


    LiarMutt tends to be wrong about a lot of things and his "scatter shilling"
    of Roy and others posts just confirms his total ignorance.

    It is funny watching him scramble around attempting damage control after
    one of his screw ups.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  18. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    > It all depends on what you mean by update.
    >
    > If the program is a child process called by a parent, then when it exist
    > gracefully of its own accord, the next instance will be the update.
    >
    > If its a forked copy, then it wont.
    >

    I do not understand the distinction you are making between a "called" child
    process and a "forked" process, since they all get started by one of the
    fork(2) functions.


    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 13:30:01 up 7 days, 14:32, 4 users, load average: 4.24, 4.17, 4.35

  19. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Jean-David Beyer wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >
    >> It all depends on what you mean by update.
    >>
    >> If the program is a child process called by a parent, then when it exist
    >> gracefully of its own accord, the next instance will be the update.
    >>
    >> If its a forked copy, then it wont.
    >>

    > I do not understand the distinction you are making between a "called"
    > child process and a "forked" process, since they all get started by one
    > of the fork(2) functions.
    >
    >

    I suggest you look at Inetd, for something to prove you wrong.

  20. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

    > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:25:05 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Hilarious. Note the change of tone as Liarnut gets schooled again. You
    >> can tell he was being derisory and shilling Ignoramous from the "let"
    >> bit. He actually thought, like most of the tits in this NG, that Windows
    >> servers do not have such facilities. They still confuse their Win 3.1
    >> days with corporate server infrastructures.

    >
    > LiarMutt tends to be wrong about a lot of things and his "scatter shilling"
    > of Roy and others posts just confirms his total ignorance.
    >
    > It is funny watching him scramble around attempting damage control after
    > one of his screw ups.


    I particularly enjoyed this "damage control". It was such a blatant
    about turn and his "homely, pally friendly techy" ruse did not obscure
    the egg yolk dripping off his nose once more.

    Lets revisit it with commentary!

    Liarmutt, all sneering condescension:

    'How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?'

    Tom, polite but cold, factual and accurate:

    'Group Policy and WSUS.'

    (you could almost hear the "you ignorant dickhead" tacked onto the end)

    Liarnut, all flustered and red faced knowing its too late to get out
    of it but trying anyway:

    'Ah, thanks Tom! (As you can tell, I don't do much Windows maintenance,
    DFS's demented shriekings to the contrary.)'

    Also notice the reference to DFS who knows more about Windows than
    Liarnut ever could. A smoke screen attempting to shield the viewers eyes
    from Liarmutt's red face and cold sweat that resulted from being owned
    again.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast