Linux-Advocacy Digest #696, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 15:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (John Sheehy)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (abraxas)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Kenzie)
Re: Make linux primary OS at work? ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Bsd and Linux (David T. Blake)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was (Mike)
Re: Kernel 2.4 (Bastian)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(ZnU)
Re: Kernel 2.4 (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 13:15:40 -0500
In message <8b33vp$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
>: >I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
>: >I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
>: >architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
>: >and it's awfully fast.
>
>: Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
>: embedded environment.
>
>Could you be more specific? After, one thing I can think of that AmigaDOS
>has is a built-in GUI engine. Would this not be useful in an embedded
>environment? Set-top boxes? Perhaps a control station for a
>robotics-baed assmebly plant? Or are you just baiting with anti-Amiga
>sentiment?
No, I just think of an embedded environment as one that runs some
firmware, and does not need much in the way of OS services. I thought
embedded applications usually did not have a user-interface like
intuition; just buttons and an LED or LCD readout.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:21:51 GMT
On 19 Mar 2000 08:21:41 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>On 16 Mar 2000 11:27:16 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>On 14 Mar 2000 23:06:05 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>>>wrote:
>Look, if Windows seems "more flaky" than usual I'm not going to waste
>hours with statistical charts on crash frequencies to try to correlate
>them with my BIOS settings. Just putting EVERYTHING back to its
>original state and starting over saves me a lot of time.
IOW, rather than determining the actual * cause * of the perceived
flakiness, you'd rather nuke it all and start from scratch -- and then
complain about doing so. It seems to me that if it is such a hassle
for you, finding an eliminating the root cause would be of primary
concern.
>>>>> fdisk /mbr <- if boot sector is corrupted
>>>>And since you have not mentioned that the boot sector is corrupt, this
>>>>could be skipped in any case.
>>>Again, this is almost instant. So why not do it anyway - how do I know
>>>it's not corrupt? I am doing a clean reinstall because the computer
>>>won't boot, or Windows crashes every hour instead of once a day, etc. -
>>>I have no idea what is corrupted and what isn't. It also gets rid of
>>>any boot sector viruses. But yes, sometimes I do skip this.
>>You know, based on the behaviour of the box / the error message you
>>get. If, indeed the boot sector is simply corrupt, likely none of the
>>rest of this is needful.
>You cannot determine this by the behavior of the box / the error
>messages in general, only in certain cases.
In the case that there is a problem with the MBR which is preventing a
boot, there is an error message which indicates that to someone
familiar with the boot process on Intel boxes.
>A corrupted boot sector can
>in principle cause a number of strange behaviors. That's how boot
>sector viruses work.
No, boot sector viruses work by loading themselves first. Which
specific strange behaviours did you have in mind what are caused by a
corrupt MBR?
>Since no source code is provided there is no way
>to identify what the problems are and what causes them.
Incorrect -- there are error messages which give one a clue, assuming
that one knows the platform and OS.
>When some
>Windows app starts to behave strangely or no longer runs even after
>reinstalling it, or Windows crashes more frequently than usual, etc.
>just putting EVERYTHING back to its original state and starting over
>from scratch saves me time and guarantees a predictable result (for a
>while anyway). That is just plain common sense in the MS world.
Of course, someone without an axe to grind would try to find out what
the problem is. * That * would be common sense. You obviously prefer
to complain.
>>>Precaution. With a badly corrupted disk, who knows how FDISK will
>>>interpret it.
>>You do, if you use FDISK /STATUS.
>Yes, but that now is 14 keystrokes instead of 2, plus reviewing the
>screen and making a decision vs. a simple linear process.
Of course, you would only do this if you already suspected partition
damage, otherwise the entire partition part can be skipped.
>>>>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>>>>Not necessary -- Win95 installs just fine from CD.
>>>This is to avoid constantly swapping the "Windows 95 CD" and the
>>>"Multimedia Notebook System CD" later on.
>>I know why you're doing it, but it is not "necessary,' as you claimed.
>But we will then constantly swap the CDs later on, making the overall
>procedure much less efficient. In that sense it is "necessary". If I
>*didn't* put this step here you would probably go on and on about how
>inefficient my procedure is because I omitted it. I can't win.
You asked for information on what you could do better, and claimed
that each and every step was absolutely required for your hardware.
You evidently did not actually want that information, preferring to
nuke it all and start from scratch rather than figuring out what is
actually wrong (and I would be very surprised if the availability of
source would help * you * any, since you have demonstrated a less than
complete understanding of the underlying architecture.) So you would
have to rely on other's reading of that source. Let's hope you would
not get your back up when those others respond the way you have done
here.
>[Remaining nitpicking bypassed; I'm getting bored. My procedure works
>just fine, thank you.]
As I said, don't ask for information and then complain when you get
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 18:22:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
> : >I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
> : >I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
> : >architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
> : >and it's awfully fast.
> : Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
> : embedded environment.
> Could you be more specific? After, one thing I can think of that AmigaDOS
> has is a built-in GUI engine. Would this not be useful in an embedded
> environment?
It would indeed not be useful in most modern embedded environments, which
include specialized console managers, robotics command queue programming
and management, fuel injection systems (petrol to rocket), etc. The majority
of embedded systems do not exist inside the home.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 19 Mar 2000 18:27:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<SNIP>
>> 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?
>
> None, but then I wouldn't *try* with only 64 meg!
So you're saying that NT isn't upto the task?
>> 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?)
>
> That's my *entire* point! She *doesn't* need that much power. It's
> just that that much power is so *cheap* these days, who cares?
>
> Her machine costs less than the 386-25 from 10 years ago. Complaining
> about the resource requirements of todays's OSes when those requirements
> come cheaper than 1/100th the power from 10 years ago is kinda silly,
> don't you think?
except that you still had to buy the new machine to run it for word
processing tht doesn't offer much more functionality that word Perfect 4.2
did on my old XT.
>> 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.
>
> Except that DOS is hardly in the same OS class that today's systems are.
> Add in sound suport, CD/DVD ROM, networking, GUI, etc. and how much of
> the 640K is left now? Again you're comparing apples and oranges.
I never saw a BSOD when running DOS. I still run DOS on most of my
machines. I still run most of the software that I had then (WP 5.1, lotus
2.3, FoxPro 2.5, telix 3.1). They didn't offer any features that I wanted
on he new stuff and the harware requirements for the new stuff was ridiculous.
> The point is *still* that 256 megs is cheaper today 2 megs was 12 years
> ago. Do you remember when ram was $500 a *meg*? I do. It was (one of
> the many) reasons OS/2 1.x never took off.
>
> I frankly don't care how much ram todays OSes and apps need. When ram
> is less than a dollar a meg and disk prices even cheaper, who cares?
> I'd much rather pay $130 for 128 meg ram than $2000 for 4 meg anyday.
>
> As I said before, 10 years from now when we're all running 10 GHZ
> processors with 8 gigs ram and terabyte hard disks that come standard on
> the $1500 computers of the day, and Linux 10.0 and Mac OS XX and Windows
> 2010 require 512 megs ram just to boot, will you still be lamenting the
> "good old days" when 64 megs was "plenty to get my work done" and
> Windows 2000 was "lean and mean"?
If you have a system that works why would you go out and buy a new
machine? If you had an OS that actually worked why would you upgrade it
other than if they had bug fixes?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Make linux primary OS at work?
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:29:47 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:23:15 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Try FINDING the Linux version of RealPlayer on their site and you will
>> get a good idea of how much they care about Linux.
>>
>
>I had no problem finding RealPlayer 7 for Linux. It's right on their
>website. Works great.
I stand corrected, it was not there 2 weeks ago when I looked.
The only thing they had was older versions and they were buried 5
pages down under "other".
Also, this is a BETA version and is for Redhat only.
Real Jukebox is still not availible for Linux nor is RealPlayer Plus.
Here is the Link if anyone is interested.
http://proforma.real.com/real/player/player.html?src=000317realhome,000315choice_1&dc=320319318
Steve
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 19 Mar 2000 17:55:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >...The Linux code is pretty stable, but at
> >least OpenBSD kills it in the security stakes,
> Don't be too sure about claiming this. Remember RedHat will be
> including tripwire with it's dist pretty soon and the other dists
> will follow, and the RedHat 6.2 beta defaults with a lot of
> things turned off that used to be turned on in the older RedHat
> 5.0-6.0 dists.
Among Unices, and linuxes, redhat is far from a security
standout. I'd rank it close to the worst. While it is
overcoming some of its past ills, it still does things like
automatically start inet with telnet and ftp open with
no hosts.deny entries.
OpenBSD is the standard for a secure place with which to begin
to build a server. Ships with cryptography built in everywhere,
full-time security auditors, good secure default install
configuration...
But there is a general secure:convenient tradeoff.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike <[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: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:30:27 GMT
I would much rather have the real player than quick time. Quick time for
windows is way over rated and it's no wonder why Apple is still far
behind Real and Microsoft among Windows users. Of course Windows users
have no taste I suppose since they are using Windows.
Sal Denaro wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:06:32 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Did you read Mike's post? _he_ wrote a clone of QT for Unix with three
> >>other programmers using information published by Apple. It took him
> >
> > He did NOT write a complete replacement for Quicktime in 1.5
> > weeks. You are a sleazy piece of shit for trying to claim he
> > did.
>
> I did not say that. Did you read my post?
>
> >The 'wrapper' bit of Quicktime has been accessable for
> > years. NOONE is complaining about that bit.
>
> Then what are you complaining about? That Sorenson isn't giving away
> their property so you can watch movies on Linux? That Apple isn't
> giving you a free movie player? Next you'll be bitching that no one
> will give you change for the bus...
>
> >>1.5 man weeks to write a file type decoder. That's peanuts when compared
> >>to the effort put into Samba or LessTif.
>
> BTW, I stated that he put in 1.5 man weeks to decode the file type, not
> clone QT.
>
> >>1) QuickTime is a published spec
> >
> > So, where do I get this published copy of the sorenson Codec?
> > Please provide a specific url rather than sleazy indirection.
>
> From sorenson. As other's have pointed out, there are products that
> use the sorenson codec other than Apple's QuickTime.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Salvatore Denaro
--
You say it's cool to be yourself,
but you want me to be like you
and that is not being myself
http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
--
Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4
Date: 19 Mar 2000 19:36:37 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:06:05 GMT, Net Walker wrote:
>> Because odd number revisions (2.1, 2.3, etc..) are developmental, hence
>> experimental code, and the even numbers, like 2.2 and 2.4 are stable code.
>
> I know, but were'nt 2.3.51 going to be turned to 2.4pre ?
>
2.3.99 is some kind of pre-pre-2.4 kernel, because the pre-2.4 kernel will be
named pre-2.4 (at least they did this with the pre-2.0 kernel).
Bastian
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:58:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would much rather have the real player than quick time. Quick time for
> windows is way over rated and it's no wonder why Apple is still far
> behind Real and Microsoft among Windows users. Of course Windows users
> have no taste I suppose since they are using Windows.
QuickTime is not "far behind Real and Microsoft among Windows users."
Data in a CNN article showed that many more people use QuickTime than MS
Media Player (I don't feel like searching Deja for the exact figures at
the moment). Real is still king of the hill though.
Of course QuickTime is much more than a media player, so comparing it to
media players is somewhat misleading. It's something like comparing an
iMac to a WebTV. Both can be used for basic Internet access, but one
does quite a bit more. Having the full QuickTime media layer in Linux
would be far more useful than just having a streaming media player.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4
Date: 19 Mar 2000 20:00:49 GMT
Net Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because odd number revisions (2.1, 2.3, etc..) are developmental, hence
>> experimental code, and the even numbers, like 2.2 and 2.4 are stable code.
> I know, but were'nt 2.3.51 going to be turned to 2.4pre ?
Hello.
2.3.51, though a very VERY late UNSTABLE kernel, is still UNSTABLE, hence
the naming scheme. It apparantly is correctly named, hence the present bugs.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
