- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] cheap Compaq at Staples

by Jim Dibb

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:15:11 -0500, Marc Hughes <marc.hughes(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:41:32 -0500 (EST), Gary Hanley <gary(a)hanley.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Brian Waite wrote: > > > > True. However Intel is doing quite well with "Centrino" and I'd bet most > > people who buy "Centrino" have no idea what it is. (No one here, of > > course!) > > > > Isn't it just built in 802.11b? If not.. then, yeah lousy marketing =) Someone said to me the other day, "Doesn't Centrino allow you to connect anywhere in the world?", like the ad suggests when connecting from a tent on the side of a mountain. In this case I think the marketing did too good a job of selling.

Jan. 4, 2005

Re: [Wlug] cheap Compaq at Staples

by Marc Hughes

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:41:32 -0500 (EST), Gary Hanley <gary(a)hanley.net> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Brian Waite wrote: > > True. However Intel is doing quite well with "Centrino" and I'd bet most > people who buy "Centrino" have no idea what it is. (No one here, of > course!) > Isn't it just built in 802.11b? If not.. then, yeah lousy marketing =)

Jan. 4, 2005

Re: [Wlug] cheap Compaq at Staples

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 01:25:15AM -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 09:29:45PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > > Staples has a low-priced machine advertised in the Globe: $199.94 for > > a Compaq Presario with an AMD Sempron processor. Any idea how this > > might work with Linux? I picked up a cheap Compaq at Walmart a year > > ago, and I returned it because it was such a dog. > > I don't know, but Sempron is AMD's answer to the Celerons. I would > recommend getting a Small Business server Dell PowerEdge 400SC > instead. Those are Hyperthreading Pentium 4's, they work with Linux > (you can get it preinstalled if you like) and you are not paying any > MS-tax. In addition, they have an AGP slot (unadvertised) so you can > use them as a nice Linux desktop if you want. Dell has deals every > once in a while for these systems in the range of $300-400 in their > minimum configurations. Check slickdeals.net for the coupon codes. There's an add in today's Globe for a 420SC for $375. www.dell.com/globeoffer When I started configuring it (the online price is even cheaper), I got the following warning: The PowerEdge SC420 is ideal for your first server & network. Note: For server use only; CANNOT BE USED AS A DESKTOP. Dell does not support the use of a graphics card on the SC420. Hmm... Should I believe that? Bill

Jan. 4, 2005

Re: [Wlug] lock down /etc

by Charles R. Anderson

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 03:13:09PM -0500, Brett Russ wrote: > If there's a way to distinguish between the two types of accesses I > don't know what it is. SELinux can do this.

Dec. 31, 2004

Re: [Wlug] lock down /etc

by Brett Russ

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:54:20 -0500, Justin Odom <justin.odom(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure if anyone has experience with this, but I would like to lock > down the /etc directory so common users cannot run through the > directory and read all the files. However, programs still need to be > able to read the files to work. I'm not sure you can achieve what you're after--either a user can read the file or he can't. If you turn off read perms for a user, then programs running as that user also will be disallowed. If there's a way to distinguish between the two types of accesses I don't know what it is. Otherwise, maybe you should look into extended attributes--you'll need a filesystem that supports them. ReiserFS and ext3 both do, as do most others I'm sure. BR

Dec. 31, 2004

Re: [Wlug] lock down /etc

by Chuck Haines

Haha, I think that Justin means is that he has some users who think they know about Linux and keep perusing the /etc files and telling him what is wrong with them. That's my best guess. Though I think the people might be right, maybe Justin is just tired of hearing from them :) CH On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:40:46 -0800 (PST), Mike Leo <mleo963(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > yes....fire those users. > > Other than that...i got nothin' > > --- Justin Odom <justin.odom(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Not sure if anyone has experience with this, but I > > would like to lock > > down the /etc directory so common users cannot run > > through the > > directory and read all the files. However, programs > > still need to be > > able to read the files to work. > > > > I'm trying to do this because we have several users > > on our system that > > like to peruse the files within /etc. > > > > Anyone have any suggestions? > > > > Thanks for your help, > > > > Justin > > _______________________________________________ > > Wlug mailing list > > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -- Chuck Haines chaines(a)gmail.com ------------------------------------------- Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity TKE-ZM Web Coordinator ECE Systems Administrator ------------------------------------------- AIM: CyberGrex YIM: CyberGrex_27 ICQ: 3707881 ------------------------------------------- GPG Fingerprint: 303A AB50 4EA9 70ED 2E30 2368 C9CD CCB5 4BD7 0989 GPG Key: http://www.maxslack.com/gpgkey.txt

Dec. 31, 2004

Re: [Wlug] cheap Compaq at Staples

by Gary Hanley

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Brian Waite wrote: > Hyperthreading and hypertransport are vastly different beasts. Right, but the comment wasn't that they were either different or similar - it was that AMD isn't selling hypertransport while Intel is selling hyperthreading. > Where hyperthreading performance can be described by marketeers as > making your app go fatster, hypertransport will speed up everything, > but it is difficult to quantify and thus marketeers can't sell it. True. However Intel is doing quite well with "Centrino" and I'd bet most people who buy "Centrino" have no idea what it is. (No one here, of course!) My own conspiracy theory is that when Intel realized AMD was not selling hypertransport they way they should they named hyperthreading as such to create confusion with the two features. If masses hear Intel barking "hyperthreading" all the time they will assume AMD is talking about the same thing if they ever hear "hypertransport" Eh, it's my paranoid conspiracy theory. I'm sticking to it. :-) -- Gary

Dec. 31, 2004

Re: [Wlug] cheap Compaq at Staples

by Brian Waite

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:10:36 -0500 (EST), Gary Hanley <gary(a)hanley.net> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Charles R. Anderson wrote: > > Those are Hyperthreading Pentium 4's, > > Yea, but Hyperthreading is a nice idea that is still somewhat irrelevant > at this stage. Even with dual-cores on the horizon there has is lots of > optimizations to do before any of this power is utilized. > > More relevant now is Hypertransport, which for some reason AMD doesn't > brag about as must as Intel does for Hyperthreading. Hyperthreading and hypertransport are vastly different beasts. Hyperthreading creates two "virtual" processors on a single CPU. Here is a good description of hyperthreading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading. Hypertransport, on the other hand is a chip to chip transport. It is a serial interface that makes the bits go faster. It is basically the bus logic and thus far too technical to be interesting to the marketing types. Where hyperthreading performance can be described by marketeers as making your app go fatster, hypertransport will speed up everything, but it is difficult to quantify and thus marketeers can't sell it. Just my 2 cents. Thanks Brian > > -- Gary > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug >

Dec. 30, 2004

Re: [Wlug] lock down /etc

by Mike Leo

yes....fire those users. Other than that...i got nothin' --- Justin Odom <justin.odom(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure if anyone has experience with this, but I > would like to lock > down the /etc directory so common users cannot run > through the > directory and read all the files. However, programs > still need to be > able to read the files to work. > > I'm trying to do this because we have several users > on our system that > like to peruse the files within /etc. > > Anyone have any suggestions? > > Thanks for your help, > > Justin > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Dec. 30, 2004

Re: [Wlug] lock down /etc

by Charles R. Anderson

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 01:54:20PM -0500, Justin Odom wrote: > I'm trying to do this because we have several users on our system that > like to peruse the files within /etc. > > Anyone have any suggestions? SELinux with the strict policy may be able to help here, but it would require a lot of hand policy writing and domain transitions for every program. Another possibility is to chroot users to their home directories. This has its own problems.

Dec. 30, 2004