| 00:00.12 | kryptik[home] | hmm ok |
| 00:10.59 | Jayce^ | either that or my gaim is having trouble.. |
| 00:14.06 | han_solo | Ping reply from ibot : 1027.42 second(s) |
| 00:16.52 | Jayce^ | ouch |
| 00:19.31 | levi | That looks like a ping time under 'good' conditions with my satellite broadband adapter at home. |
| 00:21.47 | han_solo | Jayce^: my server went down again. going later tonight to restart it. |
| 00:23.08 | kryptik[home] | why'd it go down |
| 00:44.03 | han_solo | it has some hardware issue |
| 00:44.09 | han_solo | takes it down about once a month |
| 00:44.15 | han_solo | I haven't been able to figure out why yet |
| 00:45.26 | kryptik[home] | hmm |
| 00:46.17 | han_solo | exactly |
| 00:47.48 | kryptik[home] | What piece of hardware? |
| 00:48.06 | han_solo | not sure. the box just stops responding and needs a reset |
| 00:48.19 | kryptik[home] | So are you sure it is a hardware problem |
| 00:48.24 | han_solo | no |
| 00:48.28 | kryptik[home] | Oh. |
| 00:48.41 | han_solo | that's just a guess |
| 00:48.49 | kryptik[home] | How long can it go without a problem. |
| 00:49.27 | han_solo | well, it usually croaks around one month. it's gone longer though, but I haven't kept exact stats |
| 00:50.16 | kryptik[home] | Hmm. Have you researched your distro to see if there are other accounts of your problem. |
| 00:50.57 | han_solo | yeah. one other guy has the same problem with a similar machine (HP 9000 series) |
| 00:52.48 | kryptik[home] | Hmm, so thats where you got the hardware idea... |
| 00:54.43 | han_solo | yup. or at least hardware with linux |
| 00:54.58 | han_solo | but I'd MUCH rather run linux and reboot once a month than run HPUX |
| 00:55.34 | kryptik[home] | Heh, well I have never touched HPUX |
| 00:55.45 | kryptik[home] | But I enjoy linux, so I would have to agree. |
| 00:56.55 | han_solo | of course, give me HPUX over windows anyday |
| 00:57.26 | kryptik[home] | Heh, of course. |
| 00:57.52 | Bradipo | Give me anything over Windows anyday. |
| 00:58.03 | Bradipo | Even Macintosh (now that it has BSD underneath). |
| 00:58.14 | kryptik[home] | Hey, I love macs. Just as much as linux. |
| 00:58.26 | kryptik[home] | Well, maybe thats pushin it. |
| 00:58.29 | kryptik[home] | But dang close |
| 00:58.44 | han_solo | i dunno, I might take windows over dos |
| 00:59.06 | han_solo | although 6.22 was getting close to being worthwhile |
| 00:59.11 | kryptik[home] | Hehe, hesitant are we? |
| 00:59.12 | Bradipo | True. |
| 01:13.31 | kryptik[home] | ruby is sweet shiznat |
| 01:19.38 | levi | I love macs /more/ than Linux. Does that make me an evil heretic? |
| 01:20.14 | kryptik[home] | No not at all... just your not socially accepted |
| 01:20.39 | levi | Well, I can deal with not being socially accepted by Linux geeks. :) |
| 01:20.51 | kryptik[home] | Heh |
| 01:21.08 | kryptik[home] | Good, that is a skill that most never live to develope |
| 01:28.11 | han_solo | heh. I really like OS X. I can't say whether I would love it more than linux until I had a chance to use it as a primary system for awhile. |
| 01:28.36 | levi | I've been doing just that for several months. |
| 01:29.14 | kryptik[home] | I have a friend running it as a web/mail server |
| 01:29.48 | levi | These days I do enough Linux at work that I feel no need to deal with it at home. OS X is nice and comfortable and lets you do nice commandline things whenever that's more convenient. |
| 01:30.12 | levi | Plus, with fink, you can apt-get a lot of the standard open source stuff. |
| 01:30.45 | levi | X programs look a bit out of place, but they run just like they do on Linux. |
| 01:31.28 | kryptik[home] | yea |
| 01:37.07 | levi | Plus, I never have any hassles when I want to watch a video or open a document. Real, Quicktime, Windows Media Player, and Microsoft Office. |
| 01:37.51 | Bradipo | I don't have any hassles either. They either send it to me as PDf or I don't read it. :-) |
| 01:38.09 | Bradipo | Simple as that. |
| 01:38.26 | Bradipo | Of course, at work it's another story. |
| 01:39.08 | levi | Yeah, well, if you want to confine yourself that way, that works. I like being able to watch Quicktime movie trailers and open pretty much anything I find on the web. |
| 01:39.37 | Bradipo | I thought there were quicktime players on linux now... |
| 01:39.40 | han_solo | movie trailers is about the only thing I want to see that I have trouble seeing |
| 01:39.58 | levi | There's tons of things for Linux that sort of work if you invest enough time setting them up. |
| 01:40.04 | Bradipo | I don't care to see movie trailers personally. |
| 01:40.19 | levi | I just double-click and it's there. |
| 01:40.26 | Bradipo | But then I don't watch a lot of movies either. |
| 01:40.39 | Bradipo | I think LotR is one of the few movies I have seen this year. |
| 01:40.58 | Bradipo | In fact, I can't even remember the last movie I saw before that. |
| 01:42.14 | levi | Hey, I'm not trying to belittle you for your preference of Linux. I'm just saying why I like OS X better. If my reasons don't apply to you, then OS X probably isn't worth buying a Mac for for you. |
| 01:42.48 | Bradipo | Did I accuse you of belittling? |
| 01:43.05 | Bradipo | I was simply making a statement. |
| 01:43.38 | levi | No, but I can't figure out why you're telling me you don't want to do the things I'm saying I like OS X for. |
| 01:43.52 | Bradipo | If I did buy a Mac it would be for the good graphics handling and visual art stuff that I might be interested in. |
| 01:44.33 | Bradipo | You tell me what you like, I tell you what I like, isn't that how communication works? |
| 01:44.50 | Bradipo | If you like OS X for those things, that fits you. |
| 01:45.04 | Bradipo | I was simply telling you how I do things, that's all. |
| 01:45.34 | Bradipo | I wasn't saying that my way is better or your preferences are stupid. |
| 01:45.48 | Bradipo | Does that clarify things? |
| 01:46.12 | levi | Sure. |
| 01:46.49 | Bradipo | Who knows, maybe one day I will be able to say that I can open up MS documents on linux. |
| 01:46.57 | Bradipo | There's always hope, but I'm not banking on it happening. |
| 01:47.05 | levi | That'd make my life at work a whole lot easier. |
| 01:47.10 | Bradipo | Mine too. |
| 01:47.26 | Bradipo | But for now I just don't worry about it. |
| 01:48.20 | Bradipo | What I really would hope for is that if people want to standardize on WOrd DOC that they do it right by demanding that it be an open format. |
| 01:48.42 | Bradipo | At least then anyone with coding skills could write a program that handles them natively. |
| 01:48.48 | Bradipo | Like PDF. |
| 01:50.32 | levi | Well, the problem with Word documents, as I understand it, is that they're not just saves of data, they're more like serialized objects. So in order to use them, you have to have an approximation of Microsoft's object model. |
| 01:50.48 | Bradipo | Yeah, that sounds right. |
| 01:51.19 | levi | The format of the saves is open, it's just that you have to have a lot of infrastructure to follow the spec. |
| 01:51.53 | Bradipo | I wonder why StarOffice and other office suites have such a hard time using them, then? |
| 01:52.26 | Bradipo | Is it because of this object model? |
| 01:52.32 | Bradipo | Or is it because MS keeps changing it. |
| 01:52.37 | levi | Well, there are probably parts of the object model that aren't open, so they can't emulate it properly. |
| 01:52.45 | Bradipo | What I mean by standard is that it doesn't change every release. |
| 01:52.49 | Bradipo | Like TCP/IP |
| 01:52.58 | Bradipo | Or PDF. |
| 01:53.41 | Bradipo | However, there is nothing wrong with them having proprietary stuff either. |
| 01:53.44 | levi | The save file format is very convenient on a Windows machine, but it's very inconvenient for a non-Microsoft environment. I doubt that was by design, just lack of need. |
| 01:53.47 | Bradipo | That's their choice. |
| 01:54.47 | levi | TCP/IP and PDF were designed for exchanging things, while Word docs were designed to save the state of a document to fixed storage. Totally different goals. |
| 01:54.56 | Bradipo | Good point. |
| 01:55.04 | Bradipo | Then why are people exchanging word docs? :-) |
| 01:55.34 | levi | Because now that most everyone has Word, it's more convenient than converting to an interchange format. |
| 01:56.07 | Bradipo | Oddly enough, there are still some people out there using WordPerfect. |
| 01:56.22 | han_solo | indeed, why? Microsoft couldn't have done it better if it was on purpose. (not that trying to make word the most-used word processor wasn't on purpose) |
| 01:56.25 | Bradipo | I can't even read those at all on linux, at least with Word there's a chance that I will be able to open it. |
| 01:56.27 | levi | Note that Microsoft is including an XML-based save format in their new Office line. |
| 01:56.42 | Bradipo | Yeah, I heard about that. |
| 01:56.49 | han_solo | there are still people using netscape 4 and DOS too |
| 01:56.54 | levi | I had a Linux version of Word Perfect that worked pretty well. |
| 01:56.56 | Bradipo | It will be interesting to see how far off from the XML specs it is. |
| 01:57.15 | Bradipo | I am still using Netscape 4, but I don't use DOS. |
| 01:57.23 | levi | I'll bet it'll be valid XML. |
| 01:57.24 | Bradipo | I did too, but it won't open any of the newer formats. |
| 01:57.47 | Bradipo | That will be great if people actually use it. |
| 01:57.50 | levi | Microsoft HTML is so awful because they're trying to stretch it to do things it wasn't meant to. XML is meant to do what they want it to do. |
| 01:57.57 | Bradipo | Not that I think XML is the best format either. |
| 01:58.33 | Bradipo | I'm personally prefer PDF for documents, on any platform, not just linux. |
| 01:58.42 | Bradipo | s/'m// |
| 01:58.54 | levi | I never understood the XML craze, but at least it's parseable on any platform. |
| 01:58.59 | Bradipo | Yeah. |
| 01:59.18 | Bradipo | I never understood it either. |
| 02:00.33 | levi | I like PDF for published documents that need to retain specific formatting, HTML for published stuff that just needs some logical organization, and plain text for correspondence. |
| 02:01.02 | Bradipo | PDF isn't good if you need to modify it. |
| 02:01.28 | Bradipo | But for printing and publishing it is great. |
| 02:01.46 | levi | As a side note, PDF is the fundamental display format in OS X. Like NeXT used Display Postscript for its display, OS X uses basically Display PDF. |
| 02:02.03 | Bradipo | My brother told me something about that. |
| 02:02.07 | Bradipo | It was quite interesting. |
| 02:02.10 | han_solo | Bradipo: funny you mention that about wordperfect files ('tho it's true), because the wordperfect users are the ones who are more likely (in my experience) to be potential linux users |
| 02:02.10 | han_solo | why not? |
| 02:02.32 | Bradipo | Well, most PDF's are read only. |
| 02:03.09 | levi | Time for me to head home. |
| 02:03.23 | Bradipo | Aren't they? |
| 02:03.33 | Bradipo | At least I thought they were. |
| 02:03.35 | Bradipo | But then again... |
| 02:03.48 | Bradipo | If it's just text, I suppose you could modify it. |
| 02:04.27 | han_solo | xml was overhyped, yes, but it is a valuable format. much more valuable than html |
| 02:04.27 | han_solo | although not as utilized, obviously |
| 02:04.49 | Bradipo | levi: later |
| 02:05.04 | Bradipo | Well, I think HTML is much easier to use than HTML. |
| 02:08.36 | han_solo | if you mean HTML is easier than XML I argue it's only because you're used to HTML. HTML is inconsistent, and otherwise it is a perfect subset of xml |
| 02:09.20 | Bradipo | Well, I mean, easier to edit by hand. |
| 02:09.55 | Bradipo | Less restrictions on it's use. |
| 02:11.41 | Bradipo | Less structure I guess. |
| 02:11.51 | Bradipo | XML is definitely better though. |
| 02:11.56 | han_solo | why do you think HTML is so hard to standardize? |
| 02:12.16 | Bradipo | MS, that's why. :-) |
| 03:22.55 | *** join/#utah bbeattie (~bbeattie@cpe-66-1-180-69.ut.sprintbbd.net) |
| 03:50.57 | han_solo | :) |
| 05:38.56 | *** join/#utah Mecworks (~unknown@208.186.182.174) |
| 05:57.26 | *** join/#utah Mecworks (~unknown@208.186.182.174) |
| 06:00.28 | *** join/#utah Mecworks (~unknown@208.186.182.174) |
| 06:20.21 | *** join/#utah kryptik[out] (Kryptik@208.187.113.43) |
| 07:54.16 | *** join/#utah etah (~etah@12-254-132-189.client.attbi.com) |
| 08:55.53 | *** join/#utah kryptik (Kryptik@208.187.113.43) |
| 13:35.17 | *** join/#utah han_solo (~fugalh@128.187.245.74) |
| 15:16.13 | *** join/#utah neybar (~jalance@dsl233.sisna.com) |
| 15:56.59 | *** join/#utah fugalh (~solo@128.187.175.22) |
| 15:59.06 | fugalh | morning all |
| 15:59.26 | fugalh | anybody worked with scsi tape drives before? |
| 15:59.55 | Jayce^ | not here.. |
| 16:22.06 | Mecworks | fugalh: hi have. what questions do yoy have? |
| 16:22.55 | fugalh | where do I get started learning about it? We have an old scsi tape drive we want to put into service. it's an exabyte drive. |
| 16:23.12 | fugalh | first question is do I need any special drivers/modules or just st.o |
| 16:23.45 | fugalh | then what do I read to learn about doing backups on it (I'm assuming man tar and man cpio, and plan on looking at amanda) |
| 16:24.11 | Mecworks | You should also have sg.o (generic scsi |
| 16:24.24 | Mecworks | also look at mt command |
| 16:25.13 | Mecworks | You will need to install it if it is not already there. The package is somtimes called mt-st on some distros. |
| 16:25.41 | Mecworks | the backup solution you are using should do all the command wrangling for you. |
| 16:26.16 | fugalh | that's assuming I find a backup solution and don't write my own |
| 16:26.36 | fugalh | i haven't dug deep, but I've been surprised by the lack of 'backup solution's |
| 16:27.09 | fugalh | maybe you're familiar with one? We have data on several machines in the lan that needs to be backed up |
| 16:27.21 | Mecworks | there are a couple devices. /dev/stX and /dev/nstX the first is the rewinding tape device the second is the non-reqinding tapedevice. The rewinding one does exactly that, it rewinds that tape after every opperation on it. |
| 16:27.46 | Mecworks | yea, I've used several. |
| 16:27.54 | fugalh | we don't have any network filesystems set up, although I could set up nfs if I had to. |
| 16:29.24 | Mecworks | yea, I've used several. |
| 16:30.30 | Mecworks | I have used scripts I wrote myself, and some of the free projects around but for large sites, I've always used Arkeia. It is _fast_ and reliable and built for small to large (scales well). |
| 16:31.37 | Mecworks | it can be expensive for licenses though. Also, it can be complecated to understand. I traned Caldera's IT and engineering staff on using it as well as a couple people at the U of Utah. |
| 16:31.54 | Mecworks | What type of site are you setting up? |
| 16:32.30 | fugalh | it's a small .com, we have about 10 boxes |
| 16:33.05 | Mecworks | cool; |
| 16:33.18 | Mecworks | What are their requirements? |
| 16:33.23 | Mecworks | all boxes? |
| 16:33.35 | Mecworks | or backing up just a few? How mych data for a full? |
| 16:33.50 | fugalh | Well, some only do things like firewall or email and so on. I have yet to figure out just what needs to be backed up |
| 16:34.46 | Mecworks | for boxes like that, we set up rsync jobs to copy over information to another server and reduces the servers that actualy got backed up./ |
| 16:36.10 | Mecworks | At Caldera in the engineering department we had about 5 servers that actualy got backed up. There were a few more that had their configs and such coppied off to other servers. |
| 16:37.15 | Mecworks | We had 2.7 Tb of storage in the tape library. We were backing up about 1 Tb diring a full and about 100 Gb during incremental backups. |
| 16:38.46 | Mecworks | We did a full every 4 weeks,. incrementals based on that full weekly and nightly incremental backups based on the weekly backups. We rotated tapes out of the library about every two months to off site storage. |
| 16:39.36 | Mecworks | "off site" storage ment down the hall and in a storage room. It really should have been a bank vault or something similan. |
| 16:39.45 | Mecworks | s/similar/g |
| 16:40.17 | Mecworks | Do you know how much data you will be backing up? |
| 16:40.47 | fugalh | not yet, no |
| 16:41.05 | fugalh | but if I'm guessing right something on the order of a few to tens of GB |
| 16:43.17 | Mecworks | You might want to look into a tape library or something so you don't have to change tapes often. Unless they already have the hardware. |
| 16:43.32 | fugalh | we already have the ol' tape drive |
| 16:43.55 | Mecworks | What's its size? |
| 16:43.56 | fugalh | assuming it still works... we probably won't buy new equipment at the moment |
| 16:44.19 | fugalh | it's an exabyte ce-something-or-other |
| 16:44.25 | fugalh | 8mm tapes |
| 16:45.07 | Mecworks | so anywhere from 10 to 40 gigs I think the new ones are near 80 or something like that. I havent looked at exabyte drives for quite a while. |
| 16:49.53 | Mecworks | I think their Mamoth drives are either 40 or 80 gigs. |
| 16:51.01 | Mecworks | The 8mm media is a cheaper that DLT but not as rugged |
| 16:51.41 | fugalh | DLT? |
| 16:53.54 | fugalh | gotta run. han_solo is listening, go ahead and answer. ;-) |
| 16:56.46 | Mecworks | Yea, another formfactor. More rugged but more expensive. Your tapes are 8mm DAT tapes. |
| 16:57.52 | Mecworks | The leader in DLT tapes in Quantum. http://www.quantum.com/AM/products/dlt/default.htm |
| 16:57.59 | Mecworks | (and drives) |
| 17:00.15 | Mecworks | (DLT tape drives, that is) |
| 17:31.32 | *** join/#utah Bonez39 (~scott@206.71.67.22) |
| 17:36.41 | *** join/#utah Mecworks (~unknown@208.186.182.174) |
| 17:53.13 | *** join/#utah Mecworks (~unknown@208.186.182.174) |
| 17:59.42 | *** join/#utah Mecworks (~unknown@208.186.182.174) |
| 18:31.18 | *** join/#utah Mecworks (marc@208.186.182.174) |
| 19:13.15 | *** join/#utah fugalh (~solo@128.187.175.128) |
| 19:38.18 | *** join/#utah bbeattie (~bbeattie@cpe-66-1-180-69.ut.sprintbbd.net) |
| 19:58.24 | fugalh | i need a good analogy |
| 19:58.25 | fugalh | web discussion board is to email list (for us unixy people) like <x normal-people real-world thing> is to <y less-efficient and more time-consuming normal-people real-world thing> |
| 19:58.32 | fugalh | er, vice versa |
| 20:16.54 | *** join/#utah brailsmt (~michael@128.187.254.17) |
| 20:18.51 | *** join/#utah brailsmt (~michael@128.187.254.17) |
| 20:19.42 | *** join/#utah brailsmt (~michael@12-254-226-160.client.attbi.com) |
| 20:25.44 | fozz | A web discussion board is to an e-mail list as reading the news from a newspaper is to listening to news on the radio? |
| 20:37.07 | Jayce^ | what I really want is a list -> site gateway script.. so you can choose either way.. |
| 20:38.23 | fugalh | i like that |
| 20:38.23 | fugalh | or even watching it on tv |
| 20:39.35 | Jayce^ | fugalh: you and your all powerful ruby write that script, and I'll let you implement it on plug :) |
| 20:39.55 | Jayce^ | besides just outputting the rss or html pages through your svideo |
| 20:40.01 | Jayce^ | dangit.. he left :/ |
| 20:46.47 | Bradipo | fozz: Not sure about that analogy. |
| 20:47.04 | Bradipo | I find that I read more news via webpages than I do listen to it on the radio. |
| 20:47.28 | Bradipo | If I didn't have the Internet, I would probably read the newspaper. |
| 20:48.13 | Bradipo | How about reading news via the web versus reading news in a newspaper? |
| 20:56.02 | *** join/#utah TimRiker (timr@rikers.org) |
| 20:56.54 | *** mode/#Utah [+o TimRiker] by ChanServ |
| 22:19.57 | *** join/#utah Jayce^ (~jayce@65.204.214.20) |
| 22:21.25 | *** join/#utah Jayce^ (~jayce@65.204.214.20) |
| 22:23.26 | *** join/#utah Jayce^ (~jayce@65.204.214.20) |
| 22:45.16 | *** join/#utah neybar (~jalance@65.204.214.20) |
| 23:53.35 | *** join/#utah neybar (~jalance@65.204.214.20) |