[Beowulf] Repenting for sins against Dell (on good Friday, no less)
Andrew M.A. Cater
amacater at galactic.demon.co.uk
Sat Apr 18 14:19:58 PDT 2009
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:18:06PM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
>>> I'd like to add that Dell's DKMS (Dynamics Kernel Management System) is
> HP has its own distro, but is still trying to use a traditional approach
> to making patches patches available. (ie, ftp patch files
> that unpack to rpm(s), install script and docs). it seems pretty
> obvious that yum repos are the way to go (is there any _technical_
> reason to prefer deb's?
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa :) Yes: RPMs are binary : .debs
can be unpacked with ar and cpio only - rpm requires a working RPM
system with rpm2cpio
to me, the gist of a distro is the web of
> version dependencies that it presents when installed. why distros
> at all? because dependecies are normally a digraph, sometimes cyclic,
> so it's really hard to share non-leaf packages between distros...
This is _exactly_ why I only use Red Hat under duress: CentOS and SUSE
are little different in this respect. Everything other than a
distribution with a decent dependency policy fails once you get outside
the small core of well maintained packages. Debian just fails much less
often in this respect - though the initial effort needed to sort out and
collaboratively maintain the dependencies web amounts to durance vile for
1000 maintainers :)
>> Cut a deal with vmware on the side, add full out-of-the-box lin/win
> is there any reason to prever vmware over one of the free VMs?
>> via yum and he could take the office desktop by storm. Secure windows
>> -- run from inside linux!
KVM would appear to eat VMWare's lunch when properly implemented. Across
> 500 machines, VMWare becomes prohibitively expensive in terms of
enterprise licence fees and overall administration - and I also have
a private "thing" against proprietary kernel modules that have to be
changed with every upgrade.
> I'm not so sure about that - why would VMed windows be more secure?
> my understanding is that the thing that makes windows vulnerable is the
> hooks that make windows integration work. and it's the integration
> that people expect, no?
VM'ed Windows: you can reduce your Windows to a minimal footprint,
firewall the VMs, use SE Linux and do everything else to produce a
maximally secure VM infrastructure. When it fails, just get the clean
instance of the VM again. If you deny Windows access to a network, email and
the Web unless severely filtered and ensure that the VM can be
replaced/regenerated in an instant then you're starting to produce something
workable. [A silk effect sow's ear purse if seen subject to the right
lighting constraints ... ]
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
More information about the Beowulf