May be a little bit off topic, but this gave me hard laugh:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Cheers,
Timo
+1 Just Awesome.....ROFL.....too funny :)
Thanks for the link....
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Timo Schoeler timo.schoeler@riscworks.netwrote:
May be a little bit off topic, but this gave me hard laugh:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Cheers,
Timo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
thus Tom Bishop spake:
+1 Just Awesome.....ROFL.....too funny :)
Thanks for the link....
Maybe stuff for then next newsletter...?
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Timo Schoeler timo.schoeler@riscworks.netwrote:
May be a little bit off topic, but this gave me hard laugh:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Cheers,
Timo
* Timo Schoeler (timo.schoeler@riscworks.net) wrote:
May be a little bit off topic, but this gave me hard laugh:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)>
Timo
Good stuff :) Cheers, Chris
On 24 September 2010 14:23, Timo Schoeler timo.schoeler@riscworks.net wrote:
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Although I read the article with some amusement, I have to wonder what's wrong with rsync (has a Windows port, albeit somewhat slow with Cygwin implementation). His fallback is using cp which I found utterly incomprehensible.
On 9/24/2010 10:37 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
On 24 September 2010 14:23, Timo Schoelertimo.schoeler@riscworks.net wrote:
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Although I read the article with some amusement, I have to wonder what's wrong with rsync (has a Windows port, albeit somewhat slow with Cygwin implementation). His fallback is using cp which I found utterly incomprehensible.
The current (1.7.x) cygwin ssh/rsync are OK, but there is a long history of earlier versions randomly hanging when rsync was running under sshd (i.e. started remotely). It always worked with rsync configured as a standalone daemon or when executed from the windows side using ssh to a unix/linux target.
This used to be a problem when using backuppc to back up windows files with rsync.
On 09/24/2010 08:37 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
On 24 September 2010 14:23, Timo Schoelertimo.schoeler@riscworks.net wrote:
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Although I read the article with some amusement, I have to wonder what's wrong with rsync (has a Windows port, albeit somewhat slow with Cygwin implementation). His fallback is using cp which I found utterly incomprehensible.
Until Cygwin's developers decide the join the rest of the window's universe in having an *uninstaller* it will remain "not installed - ever" on many people's systems, including mine. It is completely unacceptable that it is happy to install, but that you have to *manually* rip it out piece-by-piece if you ever want to uninstall it.
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 09:54 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 09/24/2010 08:37 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
On 24 September 2010 14:23, Timo Schoelertimo.schoeler@riscworks.net wrote:
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Although I read the article with some amusement, I have to wonder what's wrong with rsync (has a Windows port, albeit somewhat slow with Cygwin implementation). His fallback is using cp which I found utterly incomprehensible
Until Cygwin's developers decide the join the rest of the window's universe in having an *uninstaller* it will remain "not installed - ever" on many people's systems, including mine.
+1. There are numerous things with Cygwin that are very messy. It avoid it at nearly all costs.
IMO, a windows system with Cygwin and Cygwin tools isn't really a Windows system anymore; it is an crippled and ugly hybrid.
It is completely unacceptable that it is happy to install, but that you have to *manually* rip it out piece-by-piece if you ever want to uninstall it.
Until Cygwin's developers decide the join the rest of the window's universe in having an *uninstaller* it will remain "not installed - ever" on many people's systems, including mine.
IMO, a windows system with Cygwin and Cygwin tools isn't really a Windows system anymore; it is an crippled and ugly hybrid.
Cygwin rocks. No Windows functionalities are lost by installing Cygwin. Cygwin has the SAME uninstall that Windows does: install CentOS. *THAT* unfortunately, loses many widely used Windows capabilities, like support for most video games. *THAT* is the reason I still have Windows at all!
Getting back to CentOS... ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On 24 September 2010 18:04, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
No Windows functionalities are lost by installing Cygwin. Cygwin has the SAME uninstall that Windows does: install CentOS.
cwrsync comes with an uninstallable package and works OK, makes copying loads of files across Windows boxen bearable. The commercial alternatives to Cygwin are not very good either. When I raised a ticket with one of them because a simple call to a binary inside a shell was so incredibly slow they told me that they were twice as fast as their main competitor, Cygwin. When I mentioned to them the same script runs literally hundred times faster on CentOS and that's the real competition, they shut up.
I have to admit I always thought the reason I preferred resorting to cwcygwin when such problems knocked on my own door was my own lack of knowledge on some uberuseful tool in Windows but it appears that's not the case, as an out of the box scriptable platform, it is still as pathetic as it was 10-15 years ago (even probably worse since in Win3.1 I could record macros for the GUI).
On 9/24/2010 11:54 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On 24 September 2010 14:23, Timo Schoelertimo.schoeler@riscworks.net wrote:
Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of data. :)
Although I read the article with some amusement, I have to wonder what's wrong with rsync (has a Windows port, albeit somewhat slow with Cygwin implementation). His fallback is using cp which I found utterly incomprehensible
Until Cygwin's developers decide the join the rest of the window's universe in having an *uninstaller* it will remain "not installed - ever" on many people's systems, including mine.
+1. There are numerous things with Cygwin that are very messy. It avoid it at nearly all costs.
There are some separately packaged components like deltacopy and cwrsync that just install ssh and rsync that might make it easier to deal with. All you really need is the one dll and an executable, but it is pretty hard to get that from the cygwin installer.
IMO, a windows system with Cygwin and Cygwin tools isn't really a Windows system anymore; it is an crippled and ugly hybrid.
I'd call it 'enhanced' rather than crippled, since the point of using the tools is normally to make windows act like a more sensible unix box, but it is still sort of an ugly hybrid.
But in any case it is really hard to beat rsync and ssh for moving files around.
On 9/24/2010 10:54 AM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
Until Cygwin's developers decide the join the rest of the window's universe in having an *uninstaller* it will remain "not installed - ever" on many people's systems, including mine. It is completely unacceptable that it is happy to install, but that you have to *manually* rip it out piece-by-piece if you ever want to uninstall it.
You make Cygwin sound like some kind of malware that gets its hooks into the system and has to be forced to let go.
Effective uninstallation is easy. Stop any Cygwin services. (sshd, crond, etc.) Stop X. Delete c:\cygwin. Delete icons. Done.
That's a condensed version of this item from the Cygwin FAQ:
http://www.cygwin.com/faq/faq-nochunks.html#faq.setup.uninstall-all
There are a few more things you could clean up, but they're all harmless to leave laying around.
An uninstaller would be nice, but it's not as desirable as for programs that do scatter files all over the system, set up auto-runs, install drivers, etc.
On 24/9/10 2:16 PM, "Warren Young" warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
On 9/24/2010 10:54 AM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
Until Cygwin's developers decide the join the rest of the window's universe in having an *uninstaller* it will remain "not installed - ever" on many people's systems, including mine. It is completely unacceptable that it is happy to install, but that you have to *manually* rip it out piece-by-piece if you ever want to uninstall it.
You make Cygwin sound like some kind of malware that gets its hooks into the system and has to be forced to let go.
Effective uninstallation is easy. Stop any Cygwin services. (sshd, crond, etc.) Stop X. Delete c:\cygwin. Delete icons. Done.
That's a condensed version of this item from the Cygwin FAQ:
http://www.cygwin.com/faq/faq-nochunks.html#faq.setup.uninstall-allThere are a few more things you could clean up, but they're all harmless to leave laying around.
An uninstaller would be nice, but it's not as desirable as for programs that do scatter files all over the system, set up auto-runs, install drivers, etc. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Which if necessary can all be done using a Batch or Windows Scripting Host script pretty easily.
May be a little bit off topic, but this gave me hard laugh:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/
VERY nice! Thank you for the link!
It was funny, but it would have been more efficient to use tar over netcat instead of CP or rsync to initially populate the directory. It would be a steady data stream to the network and wouldn't beat up on the file system as bad as rsync would.
Good read none the less. :)
----- Original Message ----- | May be a little bit off topic, but this gave me hard laugh: | | http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/ | | Windows admins use a virtualized CentOS machine to copy files because | their own tools are not able to handle copying a bigger amount of | data. :) | | Cheers, | | Timo | _______________________________________________ | CentOS mailing list | CentOS@centos.org | http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 9/24/2010 12:08 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
It was funny, but it would have been more efficient to use tar over netcat instead of CP or rsync to initially populate the directory. It would be a steady data stream to the network and wouldn't beat up on the file system as bad as rsync would.
I'll trade being able to stop/start and repeat the same command (rsync) for a few extra packets over my local net any day.
----- Original Message ----- | On 9/24/2010 12:08 PM, James A. Peltier wrote: | > It was funny, but it would have been more efficient to use tar over | > netcat instead of CP or rsync to initially populate the directory. | > It would be a steady data stream to the network and wouldn't beat up | > on the file system as bad as rsync would. | | I'll trade being able to stop/start and repeat the same command | (rsync) | for a few extra packets over my local net any day. | | -- | Les Mikesell | lesmikesell@gmail.com | | | _______________________________________________ | CentOS mailing list | CentOS@centos.org | http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Keep in mind I mentioned "to initially populate the directory". Had the tar over netcat failed you could still then use rsync to restart.
Just a thought is all. ;) -- James A. Peltier Systems Analyst (FASNet), VIVARIUM Technical Director Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus Phone : 778-782-6573 Fax : 778-782-3045 E-Mail : jpeltier@sfu.ca Website : http://www.fas.sfu.ca | http://vivarium.cs.sfu.ca MSN : subatomic_spam@hotmail.com
Does your OS has a man 8 lart? http://www.xinu.nl/unix/humour/asr-manpages/lart.html
-
Adam Tauno Williams -
Benjamin Franz -
Brunner, Brian T. -
Chris W Tucker -
Gary Greene -
Hakan Koseoglu -
James A. Peltier -
Les Mikesell -
miguelmedalha＠sapo.pt -
Timo Schoeler -
Tom Bishop -
Warren Young