Re: gentoo you decide

From: Dale Pontius (dale_at_edgehp.invalid)
Date: 11/14/03

  • Next message: Tom: "Have I been compromised? chkrootkit: "Warning: Possible LKM Trojan installed" - nmap: "port 1313 open"" 
    Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:40:55 GMT

    In article <864qx8vcls.fsf@potato.vegetable.org.uk>,
            Tim Haynes <usenet-20031113@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
    > dale@edgehp.invalid (Dale Pontius) writes:
    >
    >> I'm looking at moving to Gentoo, at least partly because it seems like it
    >> would bring back some fun again, rather than wading through rpm h311,
    >> like I have been with RedHat, lately. It also sounds like the best choice
    >> to have my nForce2 board working well, easily. I don't count clock-time
    >> compiling against Gentoo, only my time at the console. I trust it's
    >> largely start-and-come-back-later?
    >
    > Seems to work that way for me, or at least that's how I like to keep it :)
    >
    >> But I also like keeping ONE distribution in the house, so I'm not losing
    >> details and misadministering the odd box. Are there really inherent
    >> security problems with Gentoo? (At least this is all behind a Netgear
    >> router, though I plan to forward some ports.)
    >
    > The worst thing I can think of is you have to go slightly out of your way
    > to avoid having a compiler on the box - compilation happens as user
    > `portage' instead of root, if that helps, otherwise you can set up one box
    > to do the building for you, automatically creating tarballs of packages
    > which you ferry across to the "secure" box. So it's possible to avoid the
    > compiler-on-a-"firewall" syndrome, if you want.
    >
    >>> The Falkirk Wheel, <http://www.falkirk-wheel.com/>, apparently. Still
    >>> prefer my larger pics of it on a misty morning though :)
    >>
    >> Wish they had a bit better pictures on the web. (as opposed to for sale)
    >
    > I should've said, mine were to be found towards the bottom of
    > <http://pig.sty.nu/Pictures/pix.jlc?dir=stirling> - the 5 consecutive grey
    > misty things.
    >
    Got a look at those pictures - most impressive. In some respects, it
    still resembles the Peterborough Lift Locks, though. Big difference
    is that upper and lower pans are on a wheel instead of hydraulic rams.
    I suspect the propulsive force is still water-level differential, and
    the cogs exist to control/limit the rotation rate. A quick Google and
    I see that the pans are in balance, with power used to rotate, but not
    to lift. I also see that the wheel is 35m in diameter, though the
    vertical lift is probably 5-10m shy of that to accomodate rotating the
    pans. The Peterborough lift locks have a vertical lift of a bit over
    20m. (70 ft) They're also buried into the side of a hill, which makes
    them less impressive since they don't stick out like Falkirk. But they
    were also built almost a century earlier, too. (1904)

    Here's the best picture I could quickly find:
    http://www.boldts.net/album/Peterborough-Lift-Lock.shtml

    Dale Pontius

  • Next message: Tom: "Have I been compromised? chkrootkit: "Warning: Possible LKM Trojan installed" - nmap: "port 1313 open""