 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-10-19 18:13, Eero Ahonen a écrit :
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> The counter example? I've used the VMware Tools in Linux guests, and
>> they've worked perfectly.
>
> Me too. So there's at least two of us against one Andrew ;-).
>
>> Jim
>>
>
> -Aero
>
This can only mean one thing. You are not of this world.
I, for one, welcome our new extra-terestrial Linux overlords.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> This can only mean one thing. You are not of this world.
>
> I, for one, welcome our new extra-terestrial Linux overlords.
We come in peace. Please don't release pigeons.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> No, it would be accurate for you to say that you've never gotten it to
>>> work.
>>
>> OK, fair enough. But I doubt I'm the only person having this trouble.
>
> That doesn't translate to "nobody can get it to work".
I think the operative question is "how much of an expert do you need to
be to make this work?"
> They build against some specific releases and have a generic installer
> for the rest.
>
> It seems you found one that's not common and not compatible. It
> happens.
When you create a new VM, it asks for the type of guest OS. It has
options listed for RedHat (which I haven't used for decades), Ubuntu,
and SUSE (but not OpenSUSE).
Amusingly, I tried Ubuntu and it didn't work. I also tried OpenSUSE and
it didn't work.
To be fair though, /some/ of these distros somehow "detect" that they're
running in a VM and install optimised video drivers. Windows doesn't do
that.
> I've also seen the incorrect GCC version error (how do they
> determine that? Perhaps, just maybe, there's a "compiled with gcc
> version x" bit in the header
Interesting. I'm not aware of any standard for doing that...
> There's an override option for that.
Now how the heck do you know that? Where is this written down?
> That also doesn't translate to "nobody can get it to work".
Well, no. Strictly speaking, the engineer employed by VMware presumably
got it to work on his test bench. The question is, can anybody /else/
get it to work?
>> IIRC, I did get this stuff to actually compile and install once. But
>> after completing the install and rebooting the guest as requested, the
>> software /still/ didn't actually work. (Presumably there's some way
>> somewhere of determining whether it's even running, but I don't know
>> what that is.)
>
> Hmmm. So, you say it doesn't work, but you don't know if it was
> running. So how do you know it didn't work?
Because I couldn't actually transfer files between the guest OS and the
host OS? That's more or less the only reason to bother installing VMware
Tools. (Other than the accelerated hardware drivers...)
>> In other news, my new employer is apparently paying for me to get Linux
>> Professional Institute Certified...
>
> That's handy/convenient. :)
Well, maybe. Apparently everybody else in the room is LPIC too, and none
of them seem to know anything about Linux either...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2012 11:23 PM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>> This can only mean one thing. You are not of this world.
>>
>> I, for one, welcome our new extra-terestrial Linux overlords.
>
> We come in peace. Please don't release pigeons.
LOL One of the great SF films of all time, IMO.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 00:41:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> No, it would be accurate for you to say that you've never gotten it
>>>> to work.
>>>
>>> OK, fair enough. But I doubt I'm the only person having this trouble.
>>
>> That doesn't translate to "nobody can get it to work".
>
> I think the operative question is "how much of an expert do you need to
> be to make this work?"
That should have been your leading question, then. ;)
>> They build against some specific releases and have a generic installer
>> for the rest.
>>
>> It seems you found one that's not common and not compatible. It
>> happens.
>
> When you create a new VM, it asks for the type of guest OS. It has
> options listed for RedHat (which I haven't used for decades), Ubuntu,
> and SUSE (but not OpenSUSE).
And in the docs they have a list of supported releases.
> Amusingly, I tried Ubuntu and it didn't work. I also tried OpenSUSE and
> it didn't work.
Version?
> To be fair though, /some/ of these distros somehow "detect" that they're
> running in a VM and install optimised video drivers. Windows doesn't do
> that.
Yes, some/many distributions use an open source version of VMware's
tools, and in those cases, the VMware supplied package actively conflicts
with the OST package (as I recall it's named).
>> I've also seen the incorrect GCC version error (how do they determine
>> that? Perhaps, just maybe, there's a "compiled with gcc version x" bit
>> in the header
>
> Interesting. I'm not aware of any standard for doing that...
>
>> There's an override option for that.
>
> Now how the heck do you know that? Where is this written down?
As I recall, from the last time I installed the tools (which has been a
while as I'm using VirtualBox now), it was part of the tools build script
- provides an option to "build anyways".
>> That also doesn't translate to "nobody can get it to work".
>
> Well, no. Strictly speaking, the engineer employed by VMware presumably
> got it to work on his test bench. The question is, can anybody /else/
> get it to work?
Asked and answered. I had it working when I used VMware.
>> Hmmm. So, you say it doesn't work, but you don't know if it was
>> running. So how do you know it didn't work?
>
> Because I couldn't actually transfer files between the guest OS and the
> host OS? That's more or less the only reason to bother installing VMware
> Tools. (Other than the accelerated hardware drivers...)
So, shared folders didn't work. That's but one feature the tools
provide. As noted, they add accelerated (or more properly /optimised/)
hardware drivers, and also some host/guest API integration.
>
>>> In other news, my new employer is apparently paying for me to get
>>> Linux Professional Institute Certified...
>>
>> That's handy/convenient. :)
>
> Well, maybe. Apparently everybody else in the room is LPIC too, and none
> of them seem to know anything about Linux either...
LPIC-1 is a starting point, but it doesn't cover a lot of depth. I've
held that one since 2003 myself.
But remember that technical certifications are a measurement of the /
minimally qualified candidate/ (and remember that I used to work in
certification program development, so I do know what I'm talking about
with it).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think the operative question is "how much of an expert do you need to
>> be to make this work?"
>
> That should have been your leading question, then. ;)
Well, it's certainly not as simple as just clicking a button. (Whilst it
*is* literally that simple under Windows.) But sure, maybe there's some
secret technique which makes it actually work properly...
>> Amusingly, I tried Ubuntu and it didn't work. I also tried OpenSUSE and
>> it didn't work.
>
> Version?
I don't recall that information off the top of my head.
I tried Debian, I *think* it was Etch.
I tried Ubuntu. I think I tried Maverick Meerkat, and I definitely tried
Natty Narwhal. (But sure if I ever tried Oneiric Ocelot.)
I tried OpenSUSE, I believe it was 10.something, but I don't really
recall anything further than that. (I suppose I could try searching for
images...)
>> To be fair though, /some/ of these distros somehow "detect" that they're
>> running in a VM and install optimised video drivers. Windows doesn't do
>> that.
>
> Yes, some/many distributions use an open source version of VMware's
> tools, and in those cases, the VMware supplied package actively conflicts
> with the OST package (as I recall it's named).
I suppose that's not *so* surprising... although I would have expected
either the VMware package or the open source replacements to have code
to detect this and deal with it.
>>> Hmmm. So, you say it doesn't work, but you don't know if it was
>>> running. So how do you know it didn't work?
>>
>> Because I couldn't actually transfer files between the guest OS and the
>> host OS? That's more or less the only reason to bother installing VMware
>> Tools. (Other than the accelerated hardware drivers...)
>
> So, shared folders didn't work. That's but one feature the tools
> provide. As noted, they add accelerated (or more properly /optimised/)
> hardware drivers, and also some host/guest API integration.
I don't use "shared folders" at all. I just use the feature where you
can drag and drop files between the guest OS and the host OS. Works fine
for Windows, doesn't seem to work for Linux.
All it means is that for Linux, I have to use Samba instead. (Assuming
the distro in question installs that by default. Installing it manually
doesn't appear to make it work...) I suppose the really ironic thing is
that Linux can connect to the host OS via SMB just fine, and yet a
Windows guest OS cannot seem to achieve this feat. (??!)
> LPIC-1 is a starting point, but it doesn't cover a lot of depth. I've
> held that one since 2003 myself.
>
> But remember that technical certifications are a measurement of the /
> minimally qualified candidate/ (and remember that I used to work in
> certification program development, so I do know what I'm talking about
> with it).
I gather that being Microsoft-certified has become something of a joke
in industry circles. I'm wondering how much credibility LPIC actually
has. (Although I guess that depends primarily on who you ask.)
Regardless, I may learn something interesting in the process. E.g.,
everybody knows that you can go through the Bash history using the arrow
keys. But did you realise you can actually /search/ this? I had no idea.
There's also half a dozen text-processing commands that I've never heard
of. (E.g., "od", "fmt", "pr", "nl", etc.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:25:50 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> I think the operative question is "how much of an expert do you need
>>> to be to make this work?"
>>
>> That should have been your leading question, then. ;)
>
> Well, it's certainly not as simple as just clicking a button. (Whilst it
> *is* literally that simple under Windows.) But sure, maybe there's some
> secret technique which makes it actually work properly...
Up until my experience with WS 7, it was pretty straightforward. The 4.x
days might have been when it started getting "difficult" because they
tried to include pre-built modules for many distributions. As a result,
I think they didn't spend as much time on the "build your own" modules.
>>> Amusingly, I tried Ubuntu and it didn't work. I also tried OpenSUSE
>>> and it didn't work.
>>
>> Version?
>
> I don't recall that information off the top of my head.
>
> I tried Debian, I *think* it was Etch.
>
> I tried Ubuntu. I think I tried Maverick Meerkat, and I definitely tried
> Natty Narwhal. (But sure if I ever tried Oneiric Ocelot.)
>
> I tried OpenSUSE, I believe it was 10.something, but I don't really
> recall anything further than that. (I suppose I could try searching for
> images...)
All fairly old, IIRC. Certainly openSUSE (note: spelling is important -
it's openSUSE, not OpenSUSE, OpEnSuSe, OpenSuSE, opensuse, ....) is well
past a 10.x release being supported.
>> Yes, some/many distributions use an open source version of VMware's
>> tools, and in those cases, the VMware supplied package actively
>> conflicts with the OST package (as I recall it's named).
>
> I suppose that's not *so* surprising... although I would have expected
> either the VMware package or the open source replacements to have code
> to detect this and deal with it.
Certainly that would make sense.
>> So, shared folders didn't work. That's but one feature the tools
>> provide. As noted, they add accelerated (or more properly /optimised/)
>> hardware drivers, and also some host/guest API integration.
>
> I don't use "shared folders" at all. I just use the feature where you
> can drag and drop files between the guest OS and the host OS. Works fine
> for Windows, doesn't seem to work for Linux.
I've never counted on that working, and have never used it. I prefer my
guests to be somewhat more isolated than allowing drag and drop.
> All it means is that for Linux, I have to use Samba instead. (Assuming
> the distro in question installs that by default. Installing it manually
> doesn't appear to make it work...) I suppose the really ironic thing is
> that Linux can connect to the host OS via SMB just fine, and yet a
> Windows guest OS cannot seem to achieve this feat. (??!)
You don't have to use SAMBA, use shared folders. That's what it's for.
But when connecting a host to a guest filesystem, make sure the firewall
permits it. Most Linux distros lock the firewall down to only permitted
services.
>> LPIC-1 is a starting point, but it doesn't cover a lot of depth. I've
>> held that one since 2003 myself.
>>
>> But remember that technical certifications are a measurement of the /
>> minimally qualified candidate/ (and remember that I used to work in
>> certification program development, so I do know what I'm talking about
>> with it).
>
> I gather that being Microsoft-certified has become something of a joke
> in industry circles. I'm wondering how much credibility LPIC actually
> has. (Although I guess that depends primarily on who you ask.)
MS certifications are somewhat regarded as a joke. LPI doesn't have that
reputation, and have worked to try to prevent that, but IME there are
things on their exams that don't make sense to test on - things like what
command-line switches are used to create a user's home directory when
using the useradd command. I can find that out easily by using -h or man
to find out, so I don't need to memorise that useless kind of information.
I prefer hands-on exams, myself - much better to show that you can do
something rather than that you know something. Application of knowledge
is important to me, moreso than the knowledge itself.
I did a practical Linux exam once that required bash scripting. I taught
myself the syntax during the exam. If it'd been a written exam, I'd have
been stuffed, but because it was a practical exam, I could demonstrate an
ability to do what I needed to do in the time allotted. That's far more
valuable. :)
> Regardless, I may learn something interesting in the process. E.g.,
> everybody knows that you can go through the Bash history using the arrow
> keys. But did you realise you can actually /search/ this? I had no idea.
> There's also half a dozen text-processing commands that I've never heard
> of. (E.g., "od", "fmt", "pr", "nl", etc.)
Well, I did, of course. Did you know there are a bunch of different
shells? I use tcsh myself. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Version?
>>
>> I don't recall that information off the top of my head.
>>
>> I tried Debian, I *think* it was Etch.
>>
>> I tried Ubuntu. I think I tried Maverick Meerkat, and I definitely tried
>> Natty Narwhal. (But sure if I ever tried Oneiric Ocelot.)
>>
>> I tried OpenSUSE, I believe it was 10.something, but I don't really
>> recall anything further than that. (I suppose I could try searching for
>> images...)
>
> All fairly old, IIRC. Certainly openSUSE (note: spelling is important -
> it's openSUSE, not OpenSUSE, OpEnSuSe, OpenSuSE, opensuse, ....) is well
> past a 10.x release being supported.
At the time when I tried this, these were the latest versions available
for download.
> I've never counted on that working, and have never used it. I prefer my
> guests to be somewhat more isolated than allowing drag and drop.
Fair enough. For particularly /large/ binaries, I sometimes use other
methods. (In the vein hope that it will keep the disk image size under
control...)
>> All it means is that for Linux, I have to use Samba instead. (Assuming
>> the distro in question installs that by default. Installing it manually
>> doesn't appear to make it work...) I suppose the really ironic thing is
>> that Linux can connect to the host OS via SMB just fine, and yet a
>> Windows guest OS cannot seem to achieve this feat. (??!)
>
> You don't have to use SAMBA, use shared folders. That's what it's for.
Like I say, I don't even know how that works. Presumably under Linux it
would show up as an NFS share or something weird which would be hard to
configure.
> But when connecting a host to a guest filesystem, make sure the firewall
> permits it. Most Linux distros lock the firewall down to only permitted
> services.
It seems to vary. I did a default install of OpenSUSE 12.2 yesterday,
and it defaults to leaving the firewall disabled. (I'm pretty sure
earlier versions had it enabled by default...)
> MS certifications are somewhat regarded as a joke. LPI doesn't have that
> reputation, and have worked to try to prevent that
Well, it makes sense that any provider would /try/ to prevent the
devaluing of their expensive certifications...
> but IME there are
> things on their exams that don't make sense to test on - things like what
> command-line switches
Yeah, indeed. The difference between cat -n and cat -b? Well, if I EVER
NEED TO KNOW THAT, it's going to take me a few split seconds to look
that up. Knowing that cat is even the program I need to be looking at in
the first place? That sounds far more important.
> I prefer hands-on exams, myself - much better to show that you can do
> something rather than that you know something. Application of knowledge
> is important to me, moreso than the knowledge itself.
I hear you...
>> Regardless, I may learn something interesting in the process. E.g.,
>> everybody knows that you can go through the Bash history using the arrow
>> keys. But did you realise you can actually /search/ this? I had no idea.
>> There's also half a dozen text-processing commands that I've never heard
>> of. (E.g., "od", "fmt", "pr", "nl", etc.)
>
> Well, I did, of course. Did you know there are a bunch of different
> shells? I use tcsh myself. :)
I knew several shells exist. I didn't realise quite how many though.
Also, the book I'm reading seems to indicate that these shells are
actually far more similar than I had imagined; I expected the similarity
between (say) bash and zsh to be the same as the similarity between Lisp
and Python (i.e., no similarity whatsoever). But the impression I get is
that actually that's not true... which leaves me wondering what the
actual difference is.
Still, I'm only a few chapters in. Perhaps this will become clear later...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:52:44 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> All fairly old, IIRC. Certainly openSUSE (note: spelling is important
>> - it's openSUSE, not OpenSUSE, OpEnSuSe, OpenSuSE, opensuse, ....) is
>> well past a 10.x release being supported.
>
> At the time when I tried this, these were the latest versions available
> for download.
Ah, I see - a present idea of how it works based on something that
happened at least several years ago. (openSUSE 10.x is at least 3 years
old now, since 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 12.1, and 12.2 have been
released pretty consistently - except for 12.2 - on an 8-month release
cycle. So that's about 50 months of openSUSE releases, as 12.2 was a 10-
month cycle IIRC....)
>> I've never counted on that working, and have never used it. I prefer
>> my guests to be somewhat more isolated than allowing drag and drop.
>
> Fair enough. For particularly /large/ binaries, I sometimes use other
> methods. (In the vein hope that it will keep the disk image size under
> control...)
Or indeed the "vain" hope. ;)
What I do is used shared folders and put data on the host. That way I
can just have the software installed in the VM and take a snapshot, and
if something gets borked in the VM, I can just revert and not lose data.
>>> All it means is that for Linux, I have to use Samba instead. (Assuming
>>> the distro in question installs that by default. Installing it
>>> manually doesn't appear to make it work...) I suppose the really
>>> ironic thing is that Linux can connect to the host OS via SMB just
>>> fine, and yet a Windows guest OS cannot seem to achieve this feat.
>>> (??!)
>>
>> You don't have to use SAMBA, use shared folders. That's what it's for.
>
> Like I say, I don't even know how that works. Presumably under Linux it
> would show up as an NFS share or something weird which would be hard to
> configure.
Nope.
Shared folders are VERY easy to use. Take the time to try it rather than
assuming it's impossible to use (and then declaring it's impossible to
use). Giving up without even trying is a poor approach to life.
>> But when connecting a host to a guest filesystem, make sure the
>> firewall permits it. Most Linux distros lock the firewall down to only
>> permitted services.
>
> It seems to vary. I did a default install of OpenSUSE 12.2 yesterday,
> and it defaults to leaving the firewall disabled. (I'm pretty sure
> earlier versions had it enabled by default...)
That doesn't sound right for 12.2. If it does, that's something that
needs to be fixed. All earlier versions do leave it enabled by default,
and 12.2 *should* as well.
>> MS certifications are somewhat regarded as a joke. LPI doesn't have
>> that reputation, and have worked to try to prevent that
>
> Well, it makes sense that any provider would /try/ to prevent the
> devaluing of their expensive certifications...
Yes, but dealing with braindump sites (for example) is like a huge game
of whack-a-mole. The same organizations shut down one site and open a
new one under a new name.
There are other ways to address it - one of the more interesting
techniques I heard of was to create a HUGE question pool - say 10,000
items, and release it publicly.
All questions on the exam come from the pool, but only use about 1% of
the questions from the pool, with the item bank changing frequently.
Creating a pool that large takes a huge amount of effort, though.
There are some specific countries where item banks tend to leak from -
due to poor security practices or (more often) testing centres that
actively participate in stealing the content for publication. I've had
to deal with some of those in the past myself. It's sometimes why you'll
see exams available worldwide except for select countries.
>> but IME there are things on their exams that don't make sense to test
>> on - things like what command-line switches
>
> Yeah, indeed. The difference between cat -n and cat -b? Well, if I EVER
> NEED TO KNOW THAT, it's going to take me a few split seconds to look
> that up. Knowing that cat is even the program I need to be looking at in
> the first place? That sounds far more important.
Yep. Which is why I would tend to look for (and value) performance based
exams like the SUSE CLP/CLE and Cisco CCIE more than something like an
MCSE.
>> I prefer hands-on exams, myself - much better to show that you can do
>> something rather than that you know something. Application of
>> knowledge is important to me, moreso than the knowledge itself.
>
> I hear you...
It's one of the reasons I didn't start taking certification exams until I
was employed by the exam sponsor (Novell/SUSE in my case).
>>> Regardless, I may learn something interesting in the process. E.g.,
>>> everybody knows that you can go through the Bash history using the
>>> arrow keys. But did you realise you can actually /search/ this? I had
>>> no idea.
>>> There's also half a dozen text-processing commands that I've never
>>> heard of. (E.g., "od", "fmt", "pr", "nl", etc.)
>>
>> Well, I did, of course. Did you know there are a bunch of different
>> shells? I use tcsh myself. :)
>
> I knew several shells exist. I didn't realise quite how many though.
> Also, the book I'm reading seems to indicate that these shells are
> actually far more similar than I had imagined; I expected the similarity
> between (say) bash and zsh to be the same as the similarity between Lisp
> and Python (i.e., no similarity whatsoever). But the impression I get is
> that actually that's not true... which leaves me wondering what the
> actual difference is.
Well, derivatives of bash tend to use one type of scripting, csh
derivatives use another. Most of the actual differences seem to be
fairly small, though, these days.
> Still, I'm only a few chapters in. Perhaps this will become clear
> later...
Probably. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> All fairly old, IIRC. Certainly openSUSE (note: spelling is important
>>> - it's openSUSE, not OpenSUSE, OpEnSuSe, OpenSuSE, opensuse, ....) is
>>> well past a 10.x release being supported.
>>
>> At the time when I tried this, these were the latest versions available
>> for download.
>
> Ah, I see - a present idea of how it works based on something that
> happened at least several years ago.
Perhaps I was mistaken and it was 11.x; I can't really be sure. I rather
doubt that 18 months or whatever is really going to make that much of a
difference to how easy it isn't to compile new kernel modules from
source and get them to install...
> What I do is used shared folders and put data on the host. That way I
> can just have the software installed in the VM and take a snapshot, and
> if something gets borked in the VM, I can just revert and not lose data.
Yeah, that sounds like the way to go, if it wasn't so hard to set up.
(Then again, I generally use a VM so that I can install some piece of
software and check that it works. Once I've done that I delete the VM
and install on my real box...)
>>> You don't have to use SAMBA, use shared folders. That's what it's for.
>>
>> Like I say, I don't even know how that works. Presumably under Linux it
>> would show up as an NFS share or something weird which would be hard to
>> configure.
>
> Nope.
>
> Shared folders are VERY easy to use. Take the time to try it rather than
> assuming it's impossible to use (and then declaring it's impossible to
> use). Giving up without even trying is a poor approach to life.
Well let's face it, /most/ things are pretty hard under Linux. And
VMware's documentation isn't exactly stellar either...
> There are other ways to address it - one of the more interesting
> techniques I heard of was to create a HUGE question pool - say 10,000
> items, and release it publicly.
I gather from my colleagues that LPIC chooses each question at random,
but from a set of only 5 possibilities. So once a few people from your
office have been certified, everybody knows the entire question pool... heh.
>>> I prefer hands-on exams, myself - much better to show that you can do
>>> something rather than that you know something. Application of
>>> knowledge is important to me, moreso than the knowledge itself.
>>
>> I hear you...
>
> It's one of the reasons I didn't start taking certification exams until I
> was employed by the exam sponsor (Novell/SUSE in my case).
Like I say, my employer wants me LPIC-1 certified. It wasn't *my*
idea... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
