Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 23900 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2005 17:46:38 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2005 17:46:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 47231 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2005 17:46:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 47213 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2005 17:46:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list users@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 47199 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2005 17:46:25 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from smtp1.netglobalis.cl (HELO smtp1.netglobalis.cl) (200.14.80.91) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:46:22 -0800 Received: from cpath.psinet.cl ([200.14.80.251]:57182) by smtp1.netglobalis.cl with esmtp (Exim 4.43 #1 (mailNG/UNIX)) id 1Cyvut-0002Ni-SV for ; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:46:19 -0300 Received: from [200.29.14.68] (200.29.14.68) by cpath.psinet.cl (5.1.056) id 40DFFDAD00590A72 for users@httpd.apache.org; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:46:19 -0300 Message-ID: <420A4C6D.4060906@Ivn.cl> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:46:21 -0300 From: "Ivan Barrera A." Reply-To: Bruce@Ivn.cl Organization: Ivn Systems/Software User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@httpd.apache.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Favorite Linux Distribution X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Yep. I vote the same. We are off-topic right now. :o) g.lams@itcilo.org wrote: > The idea is that, if you don't need something, don't install it. Nobody= is=20 > perfect, software can have bugs, actually they have bugs: if you don't=20 > have something installed (it's fully important whether you use it or no= t),=20 > you don't have to apply patch on it. > The less you have, the better.=20 > For monitoring, use a central server, it's more secure and it helps in=20 > managing more than a few servers. >=20 > Obviously, if you really need X on a server, install it. >=20 > For the rest, better stop the discussion, people could start being=20 > irritated as it's an apache mailing list-) >=20 > Have a nice day all >=20 > Ga=EBl > Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote on 09/02/2005 18.28.= 50: >=20 >=20 >>On Feb 9, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: >> >> >>>Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: >>> >>> >>>>The GUI is another userland program. It is no different than apache=20 >>>>in >>>>that regard. >>> >>>Not true. GUIs have to have special access to the video hardware on=20 >=20 > the >=20 >>>vast majority of operating systems (including UNIX), either because=20 >>>they >>>can't run at all any other way or because performance is so poor=20 >>>without >>>such access that they cannot be practically used >> >>It may be desirable, but is not required. On a server, a simple frame=20 >>buffer or VGA X Server may be all that is required to get real time=20 >>data displays. Such thigs do not require your intrusive kernel level=20 >>stuff. >> >> >> >>>. This direct access is >>>a security breach on most modern operating systems and has a >>>destabilizing influence on the OS. >> >>Prove it. Show me the stats. You are wrong. >> >> >>>>It is possible to have specialized drivers that run at >>>>the kernel level but is not necessary for a GUI. Typical X servers=20 >>>>may >>>>have these special drivers but they are not required. >>> >>>A GUI isn't necessary for a server, period. Many servers run in dark >>>rooms mounted in racks. They don't need GUIs because they aren't even >>>driving displays most of the time. And when they are switched to a >>>display, simple CGA or EGA compatibility will do. >> >>You make claims, but many people find the GUI attractive on the server.= =20 >> I agree that it is not required, but it is not the problem you state=20 >>either. >> >> >>>>Having X11 installed does not make your machine less reliable. >>> >>>All GUIs destabilize the operating systems on which they run, just as >>>games do ... and for similar reasons, which I've already explained. >> >>No they don't. Prove it. Show me studies or test cases or data. >> >> >>>>And unless you are on it all the time, which I mentioned, it does not >>>>slow it down. An idling X Server puts no drain on your machine. >>> >>>It requires more disk, more memory, more system resources, all of=20 >=20 > which >=20 >>>could be better used in running the other daemons on the machine. >> >>disk space is cheap, idling X or GUI takes almost no RAM, or other=20 >>system resources. Show me data to back up your assertions. >> >> >>>>And installing X does not mean you have to run it. >>> >>>If you aren't going to run it, you don't need to install it. >> >>It gives you the option if you need it. >> >> >>>>The fact that setting up X is difficult has no bearing on the >>>>reliability of the machine for server use. User problems are not the >>>>same as the system being less reliable. >>> >>>A GUI isn't just a user program; it inevitably puts hooks into the OS. >> >>You claimed that people having troubles setting up X to do fancy things= =20 >>made it unsuitable for a server, making it less reliable. You have=20 >>conveniently snipped out your part I was replying to. Setting up X,=20 >>and difficulties in doing so, have no bearing on the reliability of a=20 >>server. Your back answer is irrelevant as it is not what we were=20 >>talking about in this section. >> >> >>>>I have X installed on my servers. In general I do not have an X=20 >>>>server >>>>running as I have no need. >>> >>>Then why have X installed? >> >>I explained that. You conveniently snipped that. So I will explain it= =20 >>again. It allows me to link certain applications that require it (java= =20 >>on FreeBSD for example, which I use to run server stuff). It also=20 >>allows me to have client applications that I can display on remote=20 >>displays, not on the server. I can run stuff that requires X and=20 >>display it on my OS X workstation (running Apples X11 server). >> >>There are lots of advantages to installing X even if you are not=20 >>running an X server. Ability to run apps for remote display is one,=20 >>and ability to build certain SW packages that require X is another. >> >> >>>>Windows is a different matter. There the GUI is inter-threaded in=20 >=20 > the >=20 >>>>rest of the system code and there it does have a destabilizing >>>>influence. >>> >>>It's no different than UNIX. All GUIs work that way, for reasons of >>>performance and flexibility. >> >>No they don't. You ought to learn about how these things work.=20 >>Windows has put extensive GUI stuff in the kernel for performance=20 >>reasons. Things that OS X, and other Unix systems, do not do. This is= =20 >>why Windows systems typically have better graphics performance for=20 >>games, web browsers, etc than comparable unix and OS X machines. >> >> >>>>Windows is a bad example. >>> >>>Windows is a classic example, not a bad example. >> >>It is a bad example as MS has made some bad design decisions. >> >> >>>>It depends. Lots of interesting system metrics apps are GUI based as >>>>it is a lot more interesting to look at pretty graphics and graphical >>>>representations of system metrics data than a list of numbers. >>> >>>It depends on one's objectives. And you can always move the numbers=20 >=20 > to >=20 >>>a different machine and generate the graphics there, away from your >>>mission-critical production server. >> >>Not real time data feeds you can't >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server=20 >>>Project. >>>See for more info. >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org >>> " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org >>>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org >>> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server=20 >=20 > Project. >=20 >>See for more info. >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org >> " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Proje= ct. > See for more info. > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org > " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org >=20 >=20 --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org