Linux-Advocacy Digest #670, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 15:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was (Michael Paquette)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was (Michael Paquette)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 17 Mar 2000 19:39:37 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:04:56 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have met EXTREMELY ignorant Unix programmers also. I have even met
>one or two Unix programmers who do not even know assembly language on
>the machine which they work on (I swear to god I am not kidding).
Maybe that would be because hardly anybody codes in asm on Unix machines.
That would be a real annoyance if you have to move the code to another cpu
architecture.
>If this is true, why is so much Windows software demonstrably superior
>to its Unix counterparts?
I think you misspoke. You meant to say "Windows desktop productivity
software". I don't think Windows database servers, for example, are
demonstrably superior to Unix ones (Drestin's fascination with artificial
benchmarks notwithstanding).
The reason Windows desktop software tends to be "better" in some ways is
that the market for such is 100 times as big and so there are more
resources poured into making such software for Windows than for Unix.
[msvc makes faster code than gcc]
Yes, indeed, msvc makes faster code than gcc. But gcc generates correct
code more often than msvc does and gcc is portable while msvc is not.
Then there's the fact that one is developed by a giant corporation with
virtually unlimited resources, the other largely by volunteers who mostly
work on it part time.
>I have examined the source code of several Unix programs, including GCC,
>GIMP, and the GNU file utilities, and I found the code to be of amateur
>quality. None of these packages handled dynamic memory allocation errors
>properly. Some didn't even check the return code of malloc, and those
>which did simply exited if the condition occurred.
Well, I guess I'm not up to your standards as a programmer, because
frankly it is hard for me to think of what gcc ought to do when it runs
out of memory. Bailing out with "out of memory" would seem to be a
reasonable thing to do. It isn't as if it can just throw away some of the
parse tree or symbol table or something to make more room. Perhaps it can
call up the VMS gods, where we never run out of memory, or at least not
very often.
I find it interesting that you think Unix is worse than other systems in
this regard because you looked at the code of some free applications.
Why do you think that "professional" programmers do any better since by
and large they are the same people who write the free stuff?
>Even the X Windows server does not properly handle failed allocations,
>and simply exits (bringing down the entire desktop along with it) when
>the condition occurs.
Again, what _should_ it do? Kill a couple of apps at random? Switch to
16 color mode? Freeze up for a while to see if more memory will become
available? None of those seem to be particularly appealing.
Well, ok, maybe it could throw away some backing store or some fonts or
something else that isn't critical and can be regenerated. Maybe it
doesn't really need the memory and can do something else that doesn't
require memory allocation. I don't know enough about X to say how easy or
difficult that might be. Maybe you do and can explain it to us. I
expect, though, that handling it "better" would end up requiring a lot of
re-architecting and that something else would have to be sacrificed.
It is true that out-of-memory errors can often be handled more cleanly
than they are. It is also true that this is _not_ an easy thing. Unix
programmers don't have a monopoly on doing it wrong. Windows programs
sure don't have a reputation of handling memory exhaustion cleanly.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Michael Paquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:42:45 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
> I think I read the Paquette post on two levels. On the surface it is an
> obvious statement, that begging or demanding anything is silly-at-best and
> demeaning-at-worst, and that the most straightforward thing to do is write
> some code.
>
> I couldn't help think though, that there was another level below the
> surface of that essay. The strong feeling Paquette feels towards some who
> might share QuickTime code might be overdone. Especially in light of the
> open source software being consumed in the creation of MacOS X.
No, no. Nothing like that. I've never been good at multi-level
writing or subtle undertones. (Me? subtle? Hah!) I just get
tired of all the 'gimme, gimme, gimme' noise around the edges of the
Open Source community.
Back in the Bad Old Days of BBS systems, some of us got fed up with
seeing thousands of downloads for every upload, and seeing almost
nothing but complaints about what was available for download on the
discussion lists. Seeing all this noise reminds me of that sad
time, when I went so far as to disallow more than 100 downloads
without the same account doing an upload.
I do not want to see the Open Source movement go down that same rathole.
Mike Paquette
--
Between the cathedral and the bazaar lies the Alley of Beggars.
------------------------------
From: Michael Paquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:42:52 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >The point you're missing is that it may not be Apple's to provide. (I'm
>
> Actually they do infact 'own' control of the codec.
>
You don't know what you are talking about. It's OK, though.
'Ignorance is Strength' and all that.
The Cinepak and Sorensen codecs are owned by other companies. The
JPEG codes is, well, JPEG. Ted Lane and his working group have
published it. The animation codecs are just RLE stuff, already
published in some X-windows movie players. One of these players
even incorporates the legendary Road Pizza codec.
The X windows players include simple file parsers. There are also
interesting clues inside the QuickTime streaming server. The
QuickTime file format (see also MPEG 4 working group) is pretty
clearly structured, and provides excellent architectural clues.
(Hint: you might want to write an object for each of the larger
atoms within the file.)
You may have to apply some creativity (Ooooohhhhh!) in designing the
dataflow and soft real time mechanisms, but those tend to be the
OS-specific part of the job any way.
There you go. Get Podlipec 's code, start tweaking or roll your
own, and open negotiations with the owners of the codecs you think
you need in addition to what's already been done while you show
everyone how the totally awesome code you've already written works,
and offer guidance to the uninitiated on how to build and extend
your sources.
Or if you are upset at an actual commercial business setting a
standard for multimedia content, hey, go out and set one of your
own. Produce a rock solid specification, get lots of folks to sign
on to do implementations. (You may have to provide a reference
implementation, but hey, you're a studly coder, go for it.) Propose
the result to a few standards organizations, tweak as they request,
and you've set a new industry standard and derailed the nasty old
corporations. Sure, it may cost you a few man-years, but, hey Jed,
you've like saved the human race from the clutches of propriatary software.
I'm just pointing out that there are alternatives to unproductive
USENET whining. You could, like, do something about it.
There's more to doing open source or free software than demanding
someone else hand it to you. Sometimes you have to create
something, and share your efforts with the community.
Mike Paquette
--
Between the cathedral and the bazaar lies the Alley of Beggars.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:42:49 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > Here you go:
> >
> > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> >
> > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
there -
> > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's impossible
to
> > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these binaries.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> Riddle: When is a virus not a virus? When it requires the informed
> consent of the user. The virus requires root access to infect the
> system, unlike WIndows, where ANY piece of code can infect your system.
> In Windows NT, where most people run as, at least, power user, any piece
> of code will infect NT as well.
>
> In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
> task.
>
ahhh... you live in a programmers dream of what it's really like out there.
I have quite a few guys working for me that think like you. they can code
like freaks but their user interfaces suck because they think like
programmers and admins but not like users. As linux tries to make itself
into the mainstream more and more will run as root ("why should I use su all
the time, why not just run as root?" typically).
Where in the world to you get the idea that most people run NT as admin or
power user? I run as power user cause I am. I keep everyone else below that.
the only place I run admin is at the console doing a specific task.
Otherwise I use runas/su where necessary.
So, i guess we'll agree that crap like BackOriface is not a virus either. It
takes running an application to install itself. Running an application is
concent to run it right? Oh, it's a trojan attached to the application you
thought you were running? uh huh... :)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:46:24 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > tony roth wrote:
> > >
> > > How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one
of
> > the
> > > many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access
> > rights.
> >
> > But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
>
> But most users need to run as power users, or local admin, so as much
> damage as it wishes.
again, most users do NOT need to run as power user and almost never as
admin. What NT have YOU used? I do not have a single user on the floor
running as power user. If they need that for something, they are calling IT
for that task. We run a tight ship. Which is why I never ever see a BSOD or
have crashes or viruses. We actually use our products correctly.
>
> >
> > > Another thing - User ends his/her day at work. Shut down the system -
but
> > > forgets the stiffy (infected with a boot virus) in the drive. Next day
> > comes,
> > > power up - but - oops... Infected disk in drive a causing a new fresh
boot
> > > virus on the hard drive.
> >
> > Not if it's NT on an NTFS disk.
>
> Yea, I've seen this exact scenario, you are right, it does not infect
> Windows NT, it renders it non-bootable.
>
> >
> > > Of course this is also a threat to Linux users.
> >
> > A boot sector virus isn't.
no, it just renders linux non-bootable.
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:45:59 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Wow... where to start with this one...
>
> > It doesn't make a difference really. A default user can fuck up
> > an NT system so bad that it won't run.
>
> False Statement #1
You are dead wrong Mister!
>
> > The default file system permissions are a fucking mess
> > (in other words, wide open), and
>
> Misleading Statement #1, um it's not like you can't change them, and
> that's what the Security Configuration Editor is for: setting up one
> box and replicating the security to others
>
> > to change them to sane values will break almost every app you
> > run,
>
> False Statement #2, this is a gross exaggeration, if not completely
> false.
You are dead wrong Mister!
>There are SOME 3rd party poorly written apps that require
>rediculous permissions, but not very many.
>
You have just validated statements #1 & #2.
> > because they are always writing shit to directories under
> > the system root.
>
> False Statement #3
>
You are dead wrong Mister!
> > Especially M$ apps
> False Statement #4
>
You are dead wrong Mister!
> Office97 can be deployed in a highly secure environment.
> There is a document on MS's site saying that you essentially have
> to have everything open, but it's wrong. The writer was too lazy
> to test it otherwise.
MS has posted on their site that everthing must be wide open and
you call the writer too lazy. Bzzzzzt, wrong answer! You have
just validated statements #1, #2, #3, & #4.
Chadwick, you have been staring at too many checkboxes for too
long.
--
Mr Rupert
.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:47:54 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:32:21 GMT, Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <8att52$9ao$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
>> Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : In <8athfr$l0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
>>
>> : > I'll say it again, lest there be confustion "They certainly didn't owe
>it
>> : > to anyone, but why did they decide not to make friends?"
>> : >
>> : > If the answer is that Apple doesn't want those kind of friends, we can
>> : > take that information and move on.
>>
>> : Insanity is asking the same question over again expecting different
>> : answers.
>>
>> But I've gotten several answers already ;-)
>>
>
><rolling on floor>
>Ha, ha, ha...
>
>> : This philosophical matrix you work at constructing around Apple has no
>> : tenetsupon which to host logical debate. Unilaterally assigning
>> : malappropriation of thought and non-actions on Apple's behalf is the
>> : Justice Clarence Thomas dilemna. Accused, maligned and painted a
>> : turncoat on the Linux revolutionary forces - Apple cannot disprove the
>> : falsehood?
>>
>> I've only suggested that non-action shows lack of interest, nothing more
>> sinister.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think there's anything to analyse sinister. Here is a corporate
>culture that invented the revolution and lost it. Now a band a maurauding
>programmers want asendancy to the high throne of Industry standard bearer?
>With no disrespect to Robinhood, Apple is trying to prove:
> 1) They deserve respect.
> 2) That there is a function that they serve in the Industry.
> 3) Their presence can affect the greater good of society.
> 4) People can make a difference buying their products
>
>Apple seem to me to be at 1&2. They need that credibility to accomplish the
>larger 3&4.
You've pegged it again. Part of the appeal of Apple (for those of
us who aren't easily impressed by translucent color cases) is the
notion that Apple might be something more than just another Robber
Baron. I certainly don't want to enable the acendancy of something
that may be worse than what we have dominating the industry already.
I would actually prefer to avoid encouraging the mediocrity that is
the PC platform. However, it does provide some liberty (in real terms)
that Apple just doesn't accomodate. It's licencing of codec technology
is similarly restrictive.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:49:07 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> tony roth wrote:
> >
> > mlw as usual making blanket statements, without a lick of proof! Let me
see
> > I have 2k plus users maybe .005% run as power user or above!
> >
>
> That is truly fortunate, because I have never seen anyone able to use NT
> efficiently as a normal user. Most applications completely ignore user
> rights status and assume they may write data where ever they wish. Often
> times in Microsoft's own knowledge base, they recommend giving someone
> "power user" rights or "Administrator" rights to avoid this. In the past
> few companies I have been in, NT users ALL had either power user, or
> Administrator rights. So, lack of proof? perhaps, uninformed, no.
I think the key is "few" companies you've been in.
or perhaps, the companies that do not have intelligent IT depts/personal.
or they are the kind of people that just log in EVERYONE as Guest and put
guest in the domain admins group.
can't help people who just !bang! disregard any and all security
possibilities...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:47:39 -0500
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > tony roth wrote:
> > >
> > > How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one
of
> > the
> > > many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access
> > rights.
> >
> > But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
> >
> > > Another thing - User ends his/her day at work. Shut down the system -
but
> > > forgets the stiffy (infected with a boot virus) in the drive. Next day
> > comes,
> > > power up - but - oops... Infected disk in drive a causing a new fresh
boot
> > > virus on the hard drive.
> >
> > Not if it's NT on an NTFS disk.
> >
> > > Of course this is also a threat to Linux users.
> >
> > A boot sector virus isn't.
> >
> > > The bottom line?
> > >
> > > All end users need to educated and be made aware of the possibility of
> > virii -
> > > irrespective of the platform they are running on. Hell - I know users
that
> > use
> > > PC's every day but they hit a blank when you ask them which Operating
> > System
> > > they use!
> >
> > Well ideally they shouldn't need to know what the OS is or even that an
> > "Operating System" exists. The computer should run the apps and the OS
> > should be as transparent as possible.
> >
> > > We in the IT field take for granted the level of knowledge we have. I
> > > think we should all concentrate more on Virus prevention and end user
> > training
> > > then biting each others heads of over which system is best protected.
> > Windows
> > > have anyway a very bad reputation concerning the subject.
>
> I wish you could be there when my NT box fell over because of a boot
virus!
> (Disk in drive A: scenario).
>
And... you had no antivirus software running?
Even more basic: You didn't have boot sector virus prevention active in your
BIOS??
... sigh...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:52:49 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8as342$isk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here you go:
> >
> > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> >
> > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
> there -
> > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's
> impossible to
> > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these binaries.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
>
> I got a better virus than that, if you're gonna use "su".
>
> $ su
> Password:
> # rm -rf /
>
> It may be somewhat subtle, but it works....
oh way, I thought "su" didn't necessarily mean root - so, what if a su to
guest or something like that - not very fatal eh?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
