Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 6th Mar 2011 12:45 UTC, submitted by Petur
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "In this post I show step-by-step how you can setup your own "Super computer cluster" using Ubuntu MPI Cluster from multiple machines with the goal of bruteforcing strong encrypted passwords with John the Ripper for academic purposes. Owners of quad core machines will also benefit from this setup as the "john" binaries found in the Ubuntu Repositories are compiled to run on only one core. I managed to decrease the time required to crack password hashes using this setup."
Thread beginning with comment 464930
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sun 6th Mar 2011 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26


Boy, dont even get me started on too-cheap-to-pay-for-RHEL and OpenSUSE. CentOS is getting seriously long in the tooth and SUSe is just, eh, meh.
Ubuntu Server kicks their asses by not being bloated with a gazillion things in the default install and by being generally leaner.

Nobody uses a default install on servers anyway. I mean who wants XWindows on a headless system, for example?
The nice thing about CentOS (and OpenSUSE IIRC) was how easy it was to just do a minimal server install. In fact I have a CentOS webserver running on 256MB RAM right now and that only took my a few mins to set up, yet it's been lean enough to manage 2 virtual hosts - albeit neither with heavy traffic.
No fricken Yast, thank God.

I hear people moan about Yast constantly but I can't say I ever had a problem with it. Granted it has it's short comings but nobody is forced into using it (you can configure the system the old fashioned way in vi / nano if you want) and and Yast actually quite good for some some jobs.


I know it's all horses for courses though (I'm running CentOS, ArchLinux and FreeBSD servers) so I was just polling to see what others use / thought

Edited 2011-03-06 22:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Laurence
by Soulbender on Sun 6th Mar 2011 23:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Laurence"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The nice thing about CentOS (and OpenSUSE IIRC) was how easy it was to just do a minimal server install.


Well, my point was that it's even easier with Ubuntu Server. It's entirely barebones *by default* and you don't get any additional stuff unless you chose to install it. Other than Slackware it's probably the most BSD-ish of Linux distros.
You should give it a try.

I hear people moan about Yast constantly but I can't say I ever had a problem with it.


I'm just a sucker for simplicity and vi, I guess. Plus Yast becomes obsolete as soon as you start doing serious configuration management.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Mon 7th Mar 2011 00:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Well, my point was that it's even easier with Ubuntu Server. It's entirely barebones *by default* and you don't get any additional stuff unless you chose to install it.

But IIRC all I did in CentOS was select the 'minimal install' radio option. It was hardly a difficult process and I certainly wasn't there unticking all the programs and daemons I didn't want.
In fact one could even argue that CentOS had a few "default installs" and you just select which default profile you wanted.

In fact I seem to recall Ubuntu Server wasn't as "one click install" as you make out. I found there was still a lot of stuff pushed during the default install that I had to deselect (their cloud tools, auto-updates, etc).

However who even cares how few clicks a server install takes? You should only need to install the damn thing once. I don't even want to see the units reboot more than once a quarter - and even then only for critical kernel updates. So spending a little longer during the install is neither here nor there.

Other than Slackware it's probably the most BSD-ish of Linux distros.
You should give it a try.

You mean other than Slackware, Gentoo, ArchLinux.... :p

Seriously though I had installed Ubuntu Server last year and I really don't see what was BSD-ish about it. For one thing, it's the same SysV inits as Ubuntu desktop. One of the things that attracted me to ArchLinux was the elegance of it's BSD-like design - more so even then Slackware (not that I'm in anyway criticising the excellent work Patrick has done with Slackware). Ironically it's also more barebones than Ubuntu Server.


I don't mean this to slag off Ubuntu Server. It did surpass my preconceptions. But for me it just didn't bring enough to the table to make me want to switch my servers over.

Reply Parent Score: 2