what is wrong?
lf you don't know that, you cIearIly never have checked if your URL has the right letters for i and L
Maybe use a pipe symbo| instead.
Ok, it quite obvious here, but anyway, who designs a font with a word which renders like this: Illogical
What about lIIl|I|llII|Il ?
because one cannot distinguish between several characters which are just vertical bars
tell that to my root kernel exploit I had during 6 months unpatched last year on my Mint laptop. That's a clear Mint fail. And there is no excuse for unstable or dangerous.
I also never ever had an unstability via a new kernel, and I have run ubuntu since it started.
That's why I mostly stay away from mint
Last year there was a linux root exploit in the kernel. I tried the exploit and it worked: bang root shell!
So I waited to see when this would be fixed via the usual upgrade path... nothing happened during 6 months.
Until I finally wanted to use my system and so I looked into the reasons why I'm still vulnerable while all other distributions are ok.
So I need to run apt-get to get a new kernel! That's not "ready for the desktop".
Come on! All distributions are so proud to always say that fixes get quickly spread and there comes mint saying: "I won't even notify the end user that he should upgrade his X or kernel because it is vulnerable". That's dumb. Mint is wrong, Ubuntu is right.
Result: I don't like Ubuntu, I don't like Mint. Is there a Mint derivative which does it correctly or do I need to go with Apple?
I'm not sure what you mean by failover. For me failover is active-passive. So one node just sits there and starts the applicaiton when the other node fails.
If it's some sort of always-live where the data needs to be replicated realtime to all nodes, I confirm that the complexitiy is not worth the gain in uptime. Such constructions often experience more downtime because of the complexity, not because of the failures they should protect against.
I never upgraded the powerbook as the next versions of the OS felt like being a regression.
I kept it only because some software is not available on linux. But wine may be a way out of that.
Currently another laptop made it's appearance. That one has windows and linux. But I only use linux and never had the need to boot into windows.
The smartphone I bought was not iOS but android.
So yes, the Apple adventure was nice but I did not get hooked.
have you run findup (from fslint package) against same. Who wins?
Note: fslint is a shell script, so porting to windows could be a problem. Or simple by installing cygwin.
Well yes, this is a linux tool, but still I was quite pleased with it's results for 800k files. It took some time but it had an end.
It's basically a shellscript doing what others have suggested: sort by size, same size files are checksummed.
find dUPlicate files.
Usage: findup [[[-t [-m|-d]] | [--summary]] [-r] [-f] paths(s)
If no path(s) specified then the currrent directory is assumed.
When -m is specified any found duplicates will be merged (using hardlinks).
When -d is specified any found duplicates will be deleted (leaving just 1).
When -t is specfied, only report what -m or -d would do.
When --summary is specified change output format to include file sizes.
You can also pipe this summary format to
to get a total of the wastage due to duplicates.
As it's a single command line with dozens of pipes, it should use all cores if needed.
some text from the source:
Description
will show duplicate files in the specified directories
(and their subdirectories), in the format:
file1
file2
file3
file4
file5
or if the --summary option is specified:
2 * 2048 file1 file2
3 * 1024 file3 file4 file5
Where the number is the disk usage in bytes of each of the
duplicate files on that line, and all duplicate files are
shown on the same line.
Output it ordered by largest disk usage first and
then by the number of duplicate files.
Caveats/Notes:
I compared this to any equivalent utils I could find (as of Nov 2000)
and it's (by far) the fastest, has the most functionality (thanks to
find) and has no (known) bugs. In my opinion fdupes is the next best but
is slower (even though written in C), and has a bug where hard links
in different directories are reported as duplicates sometimes.
This script requires uniq > V2.0.21 (part of GNU textutils|coreutils)
dir/file names containing \n are ignored
undefined operation for dir/file names containing \1
sparse files are not treated differently.
Don't specify params to find that affect output etc. (e.g -printf etc.)
zero length files are ignored.
symbolic links are ignored.
path1 & path2 can be files &/or directories
and the code has optimizations like this one
sort -k2,2n -k3,3n | #NB sort inodes so md5sum does less seeking all over disk
For the same price (or less) you get this beast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cgGTLMeCQ
it is not MD5 we are talking but MD5crypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_(Unix)#MD5-based_scheme
Which is 1000 times MD5, so you get not 50 billion attempts on your rig but 0.05 billion
unison has already been suggested multiple times.
I used unison. It's perfect to sync from A to B (it only syncs the diffs) then modify B and later sync B to A
You also can modify A and B at the same time as long as it's not the same file, then sync and then A and B are identical.
You can even sync in cycles: A->B->C->A with modifications on all three directory trees and it still works
Unison also handles deletions on both sides fine.
Hint: use the -group -owner -times flags
Yeah, go for it.
paying for security patches is the way to go.
Sometimes gonna hate arial
ARlAL
ariaI
IoI
yeah, like it's done for "TERRAIN - PULL UP" or something like that.
where are you living. What's a quaterback?
oh, american? LOL
Thanks for marking as troll
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
