Linux-Advocacy Digest #692, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 06:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: gnome website sabotaged? (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("David Sumner")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Andrew Josey)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Matthias Warkus)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: ("John C.
Randolph")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 19 Mar 2000 07:17:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 16 Mar 2000 19:44:12 -0600,
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> > > Yes exactly. Remember there were *no* user applications running on the
> > > Linux box at the time.
> > Ah, so X is no user app, cron cannot ever be a user app, gnome is
> > no user app ... top and free are not user apps either ... funny
> > that you should count that way. And don't complain that MS
> > implements that as kernel stuff, that's bad design.
> I wouldn't count that stuff as a "user app" anymore than the desktop GUI
> on Windows is a user app.
By that measure you can increase the amount of memory used to
arbitray amounts. Just keep starting multible X servers or
daemons.
But what is X? What is Gnome? What is the Windows-GUI? The
first 2 only make sense with a user working ... and X only when
the user is working on the screen of the computer.
> > > Terminal Services is a far cry from text mode Telnet. Each user gets a
> > > full Windows desktop where they can install their own programs, have
[...]
> > Ah, you mean an old-style X-Terminal as e.g. made by Tectronics.
[...]
> Sort of, but you're totally comparing apples and oranges.
Why apples-oranges? X-Terminals do everything you do with
Terminal Services and more, they need less hardware, ... It's a
fair comparison, don't you think?
> Lamenting the "good old days" may be fun, but the reality today is
> servers with hundreds of megs (if not gigs)of memory and hundreds of
> megs on the desktops. When all this power costs a *fraction* of the
> above ADDS Mentor system with green screen terminals, who cares?
Ok, so tell me, what does "Terminal Services" do that a Tectronics
does not? What does it give me for all the increased cost in RAM
and CPU? Give me a reason why I do need 10 M for a user, so I'd
need 300 M RAM for a peak of 30 users ... what's the gain?
> > > Unless you're doing heavy graphics or somesuch, 64 meg is enough for
> > > most PC users now and has been standard for a long time.
> > So has the 640k barrier. :-)
> But that was the standard 15 years ago. Time has moved on.
With 64 MB I can run hundreds of telnet sessions and many
X-Terminals (it just depends which software the users run, if they
are running The GIMP (an image manipulation program), one will be
too many, if they use mutt, vim or similar non-resource-hungry
programs, I won't run into problems from just having these
connections.)
How many users can you fit in your NT or W2K with 64 MB?
> Well yeah, we have gigabyte dual PIII-500 servers too, that's not the
> point.
> What's special about it is that *everyone* got these. Even the
> receptionist! All with 19" monitors. All with NT 4. All with 10 gig
> hard drives. All costing less than a 386-25 with 16 megs, a 500 meg
> hard drive and a 15" monitor 10 years ago.
A 386-25, 16 MB + 500 MB HD was EXPENSIVE 10 years ago. I know.
My 386-20-SX, 4MB, 40 MB HD still was well over $2000+. And had a
14" screen.
(But then 10GB HD are small today. Cheap, even.)
> THAT'S the reality.
So Word finally needs a PIII-500 to run at a usable speed? :-)
(Or can you explain what the receptionist *needs* that computing
power for?)
> So if the OS needs 50 megs ram and 500 megs of disk
> space, who cares?
Your average user with 64 MB. Which you proclaimed was more or
less standard.
The 500 MB disk usage ... well, my Linux needs and gets more, but
then I get oodles of useful programs with it (for free, yep). If
it was just the Kernel, the GUI, notepad and paint and solitaire &
co ... well, percentually you'd not get half the programs on your
10 GB disks. So, yes, if the OS-distribution size was anything to
guess by, it should use *less*.
> You're *still* better off percentage wise than you
> were 10 years ago, and it costs less to boot!
If I pay for 256 MB, no matter how cheap they are, and only get
to use 100 or 50, because BloatOS uses the rest, yes, I'd have
more than my former 16 MB. Still, I'd feel cheated.
And 10 years ago, DOS used what, 130k at most for a standard
configuration ... so with 4 MB RAM you'd have 550-600 for
DOS-Programs and 3 MB for XMS, EMS, Smartdrive. So you could use
3.5 MB out of 4 (or 15.5 out of 16), and part of the lossage are
the PC internals .. but well. That makes 87.5% or ~97.9% memory
for your perusal. 50 MB filled out of 256 is ~80.5% free.
Ok, so now you'll argue with "640k". (Why did you buy 16 MB
then?) Ok, so you could have bought 640 kb and still have 510
kb free: that's ~79.7%.
You are better off percentage wise? Gee, by less than 1%, and
that only in a much cheaper configuration than the one you mentioned.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
Subject: Re: gnome website sabotaged?
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Mar 2000 02:54:08 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net writes:
> It's obvious...They have finally seen the light :)
> Steve
Steve, your name is both Heather and Steve? Don't tell me you have
both a penis and a vagina.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "David Sumner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:57:02 GMT
How many of these "sales" were actually CDs included along with the sale of
a new PC?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8au4a8$ils$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >> "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>
> >>> Nothing worse than being stopped at a red light only to have a bum
> >>> attempt to wash your windshield and hand you a W2K CD.
> >
> >> no, you're mistaken - W2K is not being given away free... the only OS I
can
> >> think of that fits your description is Linux. The bum may have realized
that
> >> no want accepts Linux CDs but would take a W2K copy in a heartbeat.
> >
> > Not true. A popular PC magazine was recently given 120,000 w2k disks by
> > microsoft that they THOUGHT were the 120 day eval version. It turns out
they
> > werent; they were the full version. Alot of people in Spain are very
happy.
> >
> > Microsoft gave away 120k copies of w2k for nothing.
>
> Maybe not. I'm sure they were counted as copies sold. Didn't they just say
> that 1,000,000 copies of w64k had been 'sold' already?
------------------------------
From: Andrew Josey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:50:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: You mean you don't consider the Open Group to be an Open Standards group?
: http://www.opengroup.org/comsource/techref2/TITLE.HTM
: ActiveX is a published open standard.
No it is not a standard from The Open Group. The document
referred to above is just part of the reference technology
developed under a PST project (pre-structed technology).
Its not been thru any standards process.
--
Andrew Josey, #include <disclaimer.h>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 19 Mar 2000 09:06:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:02:35 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:35:38 -0500,
> > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please show us when MS ever claimed NT was C2 when it wasn't? They
> > Every time that MS claims _NT_ is C2-certified (instead of a
> > system X running NT Y with patches Z and setup in the way A is
> > C2-certified), they lie. An OS as such can not be certified, only
> > a complete system.
> Look, they are claiming a NT4sp6a system was evaluated as complient. That's
> right, a system. Cause, that's how it's done.
As long as they say that, I am not going to disagree ... ah,
moment, you included the C2-patches and the 'tuning' in the word
system. Ok. Fair enough.
> Of course not, you NEED the
> hardware to run the OS and you NEED the SQL Server to run the benchmark.
> It's assumed the readers are smart enough to realize this. Same with the C2
> evaulation.
And here it breaks down. Why? Because the benchmark's just
showing a rate that can be done, and if you get less, they'll
laugh at you and tell you to buy proper (or at least the tested)
hardware. Not much harm done.
If you use a WHATEVER-Server with NT4 SP6a and try to claim that
as C2-compliant, you have a NON-C2-System. If you need to have
C2, this is bad (as in breach of contract or something). The
hardware, the C2-patches and the correct setup are important,
since they all comprise the simple word 'system'.
> Kinda hard to test JUST the OS - when the hardware itself plays
> a factor - HOWEVER, in C2 evaluation it's a VERY light accent on hardware.
> VERY light indeed.
You might be right, but ...
1. System is more than hardware. See above.
2. That's the way it's tested. It's arbitrary. It's unfair.
It's life. And that's the way it's tested.
> In fact, you COULD say NT has passed C2 evaluation
> without stretching the truth one iota.
Well, that must be a iota of the size of Microsofts marketing
budget over the last 5 years. Why?
1. NT != NT4. (Ok, there's an NT3.51 ... but there are other NTs,
too.)
2. Even NT4 != NT4SP6a. There are many SP4, SP5 and SP6 NT4's
around. None of them are C2-certified. (and NT5 is not
certified (yet).)
3. NT4SP6a != NT4SP6a with C2-patches. Actually, most NT4SP6a's
are in their current state not C2. How many NT4SP6a's do you
know that actually have the C2 patches on them?
4. And then there is the very trivial bit about following all
these instructions so you'll get an actual C2 system.
> Cause, it's your obligation (and they
> have) to document exactly how it's done and how you too can do this. You can
> effortlessly reproduce the C2 evaluation platform yourself and use it on
> your network - MS gives you all the details.
Sure. But that means that you can make your personal copy of NT4
C2. If you happen to have one of the approved hardware
combinations. (I assume everything else is trivial to
download/apply if you are not a lobotmized flatworm.[1])
[1] Unluckily lusers are everywhere.
You say that the hardware does not matter much, I agree. But
without it you get a system which is probably easy[2] to certify.
But it isn't yet. Sorry. Unless you need C2 as a formal red tape
to cut, it won't matter, though.
[2] unless you have stuff like a postscript printer etc. That
might make it more ... complicated.
> > Or do you claim that an OS, devoid of hardware, was ever C2 (or
> > better) certified? Or that it could? If so, mind sharing the
> > source?
> I'm sorry, can you provide ANY test of any kind, benchmark, whatever, of ANY
> OS, devoid of hardware, that did... um... anything? See how silly?
Well, there are some.
Kilo-lines of code. (and number of expected Bugs)
Features (loadable modules, ACLs, ...)
Number of supported Filesystems.
Cleanliness of implementation (Ok, that's not producing numbers).
Efficency of small (critical?) parts, best/worst/average runtime
of algorithms used.
Number of proprietary algorithms,
Number of spelling errors in comments.
Use of printf instead of snprintf (buffer overflow).
Quality and quantity of the supplied documentation about the OS.
Number of units sold.
Number of units in operation.
Known bugs.
> OF course
> you need the hardware, and the hardware is part of the test. HOWEVER< in a
> C2 evaluation the hardware plays a very minor role, you can configure your
> off the shelf copy of NT4 with SP6a in the same manner without using the
> same hardware (using similar hardware) and it would suffice to pass.
But it has not been tested any more than Linux. Not that it
really matters, but C2 is a rather strict set of rules ... and
they happen to include the hardware.
> What's your point? I don't see linux with a C2 evaluation in any way shape
> or form, with or without hardware <grin>
That NT as NT is not C2-certified. Or, currently, as much as
Linux. More or less what I wrote, and to which you replied.
Claiming is not telling the truth.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:15:46 -0600
Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Are you trying to tell me that users do not need to be trained to use
Linux?
> > And are you claiming that such training costs less than Windows?
>
> Why would it cost more? If the user was already indoctrinated in any one
> system then all bets are off.
So, teaching a user to use TeX is much easier than teaching them to use
Word, right?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:31:44 -0600
Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b1uer$gqi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >I do understand the technical facts.
>
> Obvoisly you do not, as you are repeating what you
> have been told in marketing material, not what you
> can verify programatically.
I am not.
> >You're saying a root user doesn't have full access to everything? Or are
> >you saying that the NT Administrator does?
>
> Both root on UNIX and Administrator on NT have full access to
> everything on the machine. Everything. What part of that
> don't you understand ?
They have full access, yes. What administrator has that root does not is
the ability to remove permissions. Yes, the administrator can reclaim those
permissions but you have to deliberately do so.
> >You can remove the Administrator account from the permissions to modify
your
> >system files and remove ownership. And then the administrator cannot do
so
> >unless they take ownership first. This prevents something like a
recursive
> >delete from wiping out your system.
>
> You are repeating what you have been told. You do *not*
> understand the technical facts as you are demonstrating
> here. Lookup the SE_RESTORE_NAME_ privillage in your
> msdn (if you have ever even *read* the msdn docs :-)
> and *think* about how an Administrator has to restore a
> filesystem......
I've been writing Win32 software for over 5 years.
Were you not aware that you can remove the SE_RESTORE_NAME right from the
administrator group?
> Then maybe you will understand how an NT administrator
> can read *all* your files and do whatever they wish to
> them *WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEGDE*. Just like root on UNIX
> in fact. Removing access is a trivially stupid thing to
> circumvent as Administrator. It's like hanging a label
> on a file saying "Please don't delete me" :-). It provides
> no security.
Who said anything about circumventing an administrator? Of course an
administrator can do whatever they want to do. The difference is that you
can set it up so that the administrator does not have various rights by
default and must change them in order to do so.
> >Yes, they are functionaly equivelant, but not identically equivelant. NT
> >provides features to further lock down your system, so that even
> >Administrators cannot accidentally do something. You have to
deliberately
> >do so.
>
> The actions of root have to be deliberate also.
No, a user running as root need only type rm /* -rf to wipe out a system, no
matter what the file system priveleges are set to. You can't do something
similar under NT if your priveledges are set correctly. Yes, the
administrator can take ownership and change the priveledges then perform the
operation, but that's very different from accidentally typing a space
between the * and the dot.
If you call that deliberate, i'd call that stupid.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:54:02 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:58:18 GMT...
...and Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[capitalism yada yada]
> I wonder if that sound I hear is Ms. Rand doing back flips in her grave...
References to Ayn Rand.
Instant-O-Loss-O-Credibility.
:)
mawa
--
Signature O <-- joystick | ___ (~~~~~~
ASCII Art | | mouse: |_|_| __)
Gallery | | | | (
Volume II /~~~\ T1 backbone cable: | \_/----__)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:47:15 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:05:48 -0500...
...and John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a severe fallacy to suggest that FreeBSD is 'cathedral' when
> Linux is 'bazaar', unless the definition of the words is reversed.
The whole cathedral vs. bazaar analogy is pretty much flawed anyway.
mawa
--
Zook Spur, Iowa | Bug, Kentucky | Number Nine,
What Cheer, Iowa | OK, Kentucky | Maryland
Rabbit Hash, Kentucky | Bald Friar, Maryland |
-- U.S. placenames
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Mar 2000 11:40:16 +0100
abraxas wrote:
>Is it terribly difficult to consider that most operating systems
>have their niche which they fill quite nicely, leaving room in the
>world for the others? I mean, its not like anyone is still running
>AmigaDOS or anything...:)
>
Right.... I'm not anyone, so I guess I'm ok. :)
As a matter of fact, AmigaOS is safer than W95/98 when it comes to viruses
or at least worms. There's no Internet Explorer with ActiveX and no Outlook
that blindly runs attached programs...
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Hudson: Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
Vasquez: No, have you?
/Aliens
------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[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 Re:
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:02:50 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:46:49 GMT, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In comp.sys.next.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[ ...absolutely nothing worth reading, again... ]
> >
> >Plonk.
>
> Sticking your head in the sand won't make the 'bad ideas' go away.
You're not posting "ideas", you're posting a series of uninformed gripes.
-jcr
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
