System with 12 CPUs will not boot
in [General Linux]
|
From: HoneyMonster on 9 Jul 2010 23:34 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:26:48 -0500, Ignoramus30064 wrote: > But what does it mean, serious, corporate level distro? > Red Hat, with a support contract, you berk. And root restricted to competent admins, as opposed to those who fart around with screensavers.
From: Ignoramus30064 on 9 Jul 2010 23:54 On 2010-07-10, HoneyMonster <someone(a)someplace.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:26:48 -0500, Ignoramus30064 wrote: > >> But what does it mean, serious, corporate level distro? > > Red Hat, with a support contract, you berk. I hear this a lot. "How can it be serious if you are not paying to anyone". At least retrospectively, paying very substantial contract fees would not yield benefits commensurate with the expense. As of now, admining many dozens of these boxes is not even my full time job and I spend, perhaps, 2-3 hours a week at most administering them. The reason for this is that Ubuntu is highly suitable for administration by scripts, and I wrote a bunch of scripts two years ago that take the hard work out of administering many machines, watching them etc. I added stuff to them, but tried very hard to make system administration automated. This is because I approached system administration not as an "administrator", but as a computer programmer. My job title is not "system administrator", either, but some variation of "computer programmer". > And root restricted to competent admins, as opposed to those who fart > around with screensavers. Why, the screensaver works wonderfully, everyone loves it. The box with the screensaver has been up 274 days and shows extremely cute pictures. And we are not paying "service fees". i
From: John Hasler on 10 Jul 2010 08:07 HoneyMonster writes: > Red Hat, with a support contract, you berk. Professional paid support is available for every major distribution. Canonical would sell him a support contract for Ubuntu. So would many others. > I hear this a lot. "How can it be serious if you are not paying to > anyone". The problem is that the PHBs can't understand that because it is open source non-"vendor" support is not inferior: the "vendor" is not in the privileged position of having sole access to the source. They seem to actually want sole-source support. > The box with the screensaver has been up 274 days and shows extremely > cute pictures. Why does a server have a monitor at all? -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Hadron on 10 Jul 2010 08:12 John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> writes: > HoneyMonster writes: >> Red Hat, with a support contract, you berk. > > Professional paid support is available for every major distribution. > Canonical would sell him a support contract for Ubuntu. So would many > others. > >> I hear this a lot. "How can it be serious if you are not paying to >> anyone". > > The problem is that the PHBs can't understand that because it is open > source non-"vendor" support is not inferior: the "vendor" is not in the > privileged position of having sole access to the source. They seem to > actually want sole-source support. > >> The box with the screensaver has been up 274 days and shows extremely >> cute pictures. > > Why does a server have a monitor at all? because some people like to have one ? This constant "dont need a monitor" bollox is tiring. It has a LOCAL monitor (frequently via a monitor/knd switch) in a secure room and NO ssh or vnc access quite frequently. I find it amazing so many idiots in this group dont seem to understand REAL security. Its the old case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing once more.
From: J G Miller on 10 Jul 2010 08:27
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:07:24 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > They seem to actually want sole-source support. Yes because then they think that they can "rely" on them to get a problem fixed and can "blame" them if things go wrong. |