Linux-Advocacy Digest #713, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 16:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Producing Quality Code (Mark Hamstra)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Tim Kelley)
seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Windows 2000: download bog ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000: download bog ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (Ilya Grishashvili)
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) ("2 + 2")
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development (Mig
Mig)
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (Darwin Ou-Yang)
Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
(mr_organic)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Tom Gravgaard Christensen)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Tom Gravgaard Christensen)
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Quote.com: Found themselves rebooting Solaris servers 2-3 times per day (Mig Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:00:12 -0500
Your premise that poor software quality is an acculturated
result of marketing driven decision making and engineers who
do not take their craft seriously is flawed (although the
thread about poor understanding of fundamentals engendered
through tools that isolate their users from understanding and
the bit about overly complex systems have some merit.)
Poor software is not motivated by marketing decision making,
it is fundamental to the core business model: lock in users
to a proprietary platform as early as possible in order to
establish strong network effects. In such a model, speed is
of the essence -- it is more important to be first than to be
right -- and software quality suffers as a result. That is a
business model that works (at least in terms of generating
revenue), and is the one followed by pretty much every
successful software vendor (again, measured in monetary terms).
That strong marketing is essential to such a model is not the
same thing as marketing being the prime mover of the system.
Furthermore, it is not the case that engineers working within
such a business model have no respect for their craft -- but
they are severely restricted by the constraints and demands
of the business model. While there are definitely some
engineers and companies that seek to deliberately exploit
lock-in and network effects with little or no regard for design
and product quality fundamentals, there are also a large number
of coders who would dearly love to be able to write software
that they could be proud of for its technical elegance and not
just for its ability to generate revenue -- although most of
them are not willing to give up personal revenue in order to
acheive that pride in product.
Only by providing a successful alternative to the dominant
software business model will you be able to acheive any
significant change in software quality. Jihads and insulting
pontification will gain you nothing in terms of software
quality -- and will likely generate nothing beyond ill will.
Instead of engaging in easy polemics, you need to contribute
to the hard work of creating software that can break the
business model and established network effects that chain us
to poor software quality. To date, Open Source software
development is the only option that shows any promise of
generating a return on that hard effort.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [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 23:38:07 -0800
In article <8b3eq0$q8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Xcott Craver) wrote:
> John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>>
>>>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.
>
> This may be true for most "embedded" applications, but there
> are a number of applications which need OS and GUI services.
> Stephen's example of set-top boxes is one such. Small net
> and information appliances are another example.
>
> Indeed, the i-Opener internet appliance runs QNX, an OS aimed at
> embedded systems. What do Tivo boxes use, come to think of it---
> Linux?
>
> Saying that embedded environments don't need much in the way of
> OS services is, IMHO at least, reminiscent of early PC-era
> sentiment that personal computers don't need much in the way
> of color or graphics. JMHO.
>
> Now, why AmigaDOS isn't used as an embedded system, I don't know.
> How portable is/was it? Also, systems like QNX are such that
> one can leave out the components of the OS which aren't needed.
> Other OSs are more suitable for net appliances, because of the
> need to run things like real-media files and Macromedia flash.
> But it's a good question.
>
>> John P Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -S
AmigaDos was broken in to two parts IIRC, the kernel, and intuition, the gui
part, you could make direct calls to the kernel, and you could boot up the system
without intuition and get a shell. Nothing like bash (although bash was available)
but adequate.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:13:22 -0600
George Marengo wrote:
>
> On 20 Mar 2000 08:31:43 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
> Porter) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:21:12 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Everything from MS is utter crap.
> <snip>
> >Unlike you George, we have Tim's long history of posting in COLA
> >to tell us he is a rational thinker.
>
> Saying that everything from MS is utter crap isn't a rational position
> to take, regardless of his long history of posting in COLA.
>
> >But dont listen to me, tell us why MS is NOT utter crap ???
>
> Are you starting to get confused already? The issue isn't whether
> "MS is NOT utter crap" but whether everything from MS is utter crap.
Well, that assertion is more or less personal, and has little to
do with stability, security and the usual issues. Though most of
M$' stuff is insecure and unstable.
It has to do with useability and the corporate slickness which I
find nauseating.
Then there's the release churning just to drive profits.
Incompatibilities. Sometimes different apps, both from MS, will
break each other or break windows. The list goes on.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:16:51 -0500
To make the most of its limited capital, seeUthere.com began development
using the Linux platform since the company's engineers were familiar with
UNIX, and Linux tools are very inexpensive. However, after two months of
work, developers were falling behind schedule because the Linux platform
required that they build infrastructure before developing core business
logic. That's part of why seeUthere.com then began a parallel development
program using the Windows DNA platform. Windows DNA provided the necessary
infrastructure so developers could get right to work on business logic.
In three months, the team working with Windows DNA caught up with the work
it had taken the Linux group five months to do.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews2/031700.htm
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:23:22 -0500
and what facts do you have?
did you consider for a second that what the press reports just maybe (shock!
gasp!) might not be exactly teh truth of what really happened? and/or that
B&N is "fibbing" to cover a mistake of their own (shock! gasp! that NEVER
happens!)
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b12e2$9uf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I have *never* seen this kind of effect on a Sun Sparc/Solaris based
> >> high volume email system. Ever.
>
> > Not that kind of blatant ignorance deserves any type of reply, but
> > the "download-queue" is not anything to do with Windows2000.
>
> Interesting that you know exactly where the problem was.
>
> > Probably what is happening
>
> "probably". Tell me, Chad, do you ever resort to backing up your
> arguments with actual FACTS?
>
> And what about my requests for your opinions on a few posts over
> the last couple of days? Would you rather keep silent than admit
> that you actually dont have any facts to back up your arguments?
>
> > is that B&N had put restrictions on how
> > many simultaneous downloads can be happening to conserve bandwidth
> > and not suck down all their pipe for downloads and not allow the
> > other paying people to be able to simply view the site.
>
> I see. "Probably" what happened, eh. Thats a very strong argument
> youve got there, Chad.
>
> > And yes, you can do this on Solaris and any other system too.
>
> Indeed you can. Yet Solaris and "any other system" continually do
> not break in this manner.
>
> > In fact, many FTP servers have this built in as well.
>
> Sure do. "Maximum simultanious connections exceeded" is a much
> more acceptable error than "the page you requested cannot be
> displayed" though, wouldnt you say?
>
> > C'mon guys... even this is beneath you.
>
> Facts, Chad.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:23:44 -0500
"rm_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How come Barnes and Nobles hasn't migrated to W2K? I bet their
they have
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:25:40 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "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?
> > >
> > > Actually, from Microsoft's own recommendations in the knowledge base
for
> > > running Microsoft's own apps.
> >
> > Oh - you found two, a whole two. yipee - besides, as you might know if
you
> > actually used NT frequently (and recently) - it's not unusual to have a
> > particular install require power user just to keep the common users from
> > messing the system up and generating those errors most users never see.
>
> Those are the first two. "and recently?" please, give me a break. Still,
> you are claiming that people can't use an NT system without someone
> being a power user, even after it has been setup. I can use Linux and
> NEVER need to su unless I want to change system settings and affect the
> system as a whole.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >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... :)
> > >
> > > Clue famine.
> >
> > yes - you could use many clues. Are you prepared to argue that
BackOrifice
> > is a virus? ha! might as well call pcAnywhere (or any remote control
> > software) a virus too.
>
> No, a virus is a program that can propagate on its own in a covert and
> independent manner. (There are other definitions)
>
> >
> > You really should remove the Windows 95/NT part of your tagline. ( or at
> > least update to indicate that Win95 is 6 years old and the NT you refer
to
> > is obviously 3.50)
>
> Ahh, insults, it is so you.
>
making it up as you go along ... so like you...
is windows 95 really as current as you get? it's YOUR .sig - I didn't make
it up - but it sounds belivable
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:26:27 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8auogt$g57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > oh way, I thought "su" didn't necessarily mean root
>
> su == su root (at least for the past fifteen years on all the *nix
> systems I've been cursed with....)
ouch - well, you'll find that you and I are the ONLY people in the universe
who seem to know that this is the case on many other systems other than
Linux. Or at least was for some time...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:27:07 -0500
"Trevor Fuson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b5skc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> abraxas wrote in message <8atve7$ils$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >When you upgrade to Windows 2000 from Windows NT 4.0, you may be told by
> Windows 2000 that these network adapters will not be supported: 3Com
> EtherLink 905x 10/100 series of Adapters; Compaq Ethernet or Fast Ethernet
> PCI Adapters; DEC FDDI Controller PCI (Defpa) Adapters; HP EN1207D-TX PCI
> 10/100 Fast Ethernet Adapters; Intel EtherExpress PRO/10 Adapters; Intel
> Pro/100 Intelligent Server Adapters (I960). Yet after installation, you
may
> find that they work anyway. Microsoft says you might have to reset any
> static network settings.
>
>
> Things such as this constitute as a Top 50 Bug? Is this even a bug?
>
their desperation and hence FEAR of W2K is showing through posts like these.
They cannot find anything wrong with W2K to put it down so they resort to
tiny misquitoe bites...
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:28:50 -0600
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> To make the most of its limited capital, seeUthere.com began development
> using the Linux platform since the company's engineers were familiar with
> UNIX, and Linux tools are very inexpensive. However, after two months of
> work, developers were falling behind schedule because the Linux platform
> required that they build infrastructure before developing core business
> logic. That's part of why seeUthere.com then began a parallel development
> program using the Windows DNA platform. Windows DNA provided the necessary
> infrastructure so developers could get right to work on business logic.
>
> In three months, the team working with Windows DNA caught up with the work
> it had taken the Linux group five months to do.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews2/031700.htm
Drestin dear boy, think for a minute what the above URL contains...
It contains the domain, 'microsoft.com'.
I will hand you this, you are the laziest corporate shill fudster
I have ever come across on USENET.
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: Ilya Grishashvili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:41:05 -0800
Tim Kelley wrote:
> > Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
> > and for programmers or researchers !!!
>
> Yeah, and windows was developed by monkeys, for monkeys? What are you talking
> about?
>
> --
windows was developed by cryminals for trolls like you
--
================================================
Ilya Grishashvili
Computer Systems Group
Ph.D. CS Department
Marlan & Rosemary Bourns College of Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Office: Bourns Hall B246
Phone: (909) 787-2893
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: mirage.cs.ucr.edu/~elias/
================================================
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:42:38 -0500
BTW, little known facts about penquins.
Penquins are quite clumsy on land.
But in the sea, penquins fly like birds when they swim.
Totally amazing to see!
2 + 2
2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<8b5l7h$rta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Thread = overblown hysteria.
>
>2 + 2
>
>Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>>Ready or not, Linux viruses are coming, and no one is inoculated.
>>
>>http://www.securityfocus.com/commentary/2
>>
>>How to get infected using Linux...
>>by ralmeida
>>
>>calvin:~$ wget http://somesite/happy99.tar.gz
>>calvin:~$ tar zxf happy9.tar.gz
>>calvin:~$ cd happy99
>>calvin:~$ ./configure
>>calvin:~$ make
>>calvin:~$ su
>>calvin:~$ make install
>>calvin:~$ exit
>>calvin:~$ happy99
>>You must be root to run this program
>>calvin:~$ su
>>calvin:~$ happy99
>>(ops!)
>>
>>
>>
>>Re:How to get infected using Linux...
>>by QuantumG ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>>(User Info) http://www.virusexchange.org/vlad/
>>
>>hehe.. more like:
>>
>>calvin:~$ wget http://somesite/pointlessgadget.tgz
>>calvin:~$ tar -xzvf pointlessgadget.tgz
>>calvin:~$ cd pointlessgadget
>>calvin:~$ ./configure
>>calvin:~$ make
>>calvin:~$ ./pointlessgadget
>>
>>"that was boring.. I'm gunna go shoot stuff"
>>
>>calvin:~$ su
>>calvin:~$ /usr/leet/leetgame
>>
>>pointlessgadget was infected with a virus.. when you ran the virus it
>>infected every one of your running processes, including your shell. You
>su'd
>>to root and it peaked at your psuedoterminal to snarf the root password.
It
>>then su'd to root and infected every running process on the machine. You
>>then ran leetgame and the virus infected it. Next you'll probably run 'ls'
>>and then it's all over.
>>
>>Fiction? You can do it using ptrace.
>>You can read about it here(some linux viruses are at the bottom of this
>>link - feel free to experiment):
>>
>>http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:43:53 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
> To make the most of its limited capital, seeUthere.com began development
> using the Linux platform since the company's engineers were familiar with
> UNIX, and Linux tools are very inexpensive. However, after two months of
> work, developers were falling behind schedule because the Linux platform
> required that they build infrastructure before developing core business
> logic. That's part of why seeUthere.com then began a parallel development
> program using the Windows DNA platform. Windows DNA provided the necessary
> infrastructure so developers could get right to work on business logic.
>
> In three months, the team working with Windows DNA caught up with the work
> it had taken the Linux group five months to do.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews2/031700.htm
When are you going to post something original - something not from
Microsofts PR department ?
Give us an opinion on something Drestin - youre hopefully something more
than a monkey copying others.
Greetings to all lemmings
BTW.. Is this the first company that switches the other way around?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:46:29 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
2 + 2 wrote:
> BTW, little known facts about penquins.
>
> Penquins are quite clumsy on land.
>
> But in the sea, penquins fly like birds when they swim.
>
> Totally amazing to see!
And, they beat the NY Rangers Sundays night (Jagr's back).
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darwin Ou-Yang)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: 20 Mar 2000 20:11:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is patently false marketing propaganda. Microsoft has never chosen
>stability of ease of implementing features. Name one feature that was
>added to NT that "improved" stability.
What about the driver verifier?
Darwin Ouyang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic)
Subject: Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
Date: 20 Mar 2000 19:58:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:15:35 GMT, mr_organic pronounced:
>My company is planning on hosting roughly 200 web sites on a single
>Linux box (I am unsure as to which flavor), using Apache server. The
>server will have roughly between 500 megs ~ 1 gig of memory. These
>sites will by dynamic and primarily database driven on a separate
>server which will be using MYSQL as the back end and Perl to access the
>data. Is this a feasible notion, can a single Linux box coupled with a
>database server with the previous stats be capable of hosting and
>handling approximately 200 dynamic web sites?
>Thanks in advance
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Opinions in this forum will vary, but here's my $0.02 -- no way
in hell would I do that on a Linux box at present, unless you have
some dedicated admins, a *really good* hardware platform, and
very little organized tech support. Linux is great for small
or medium sites, or even large sites if you're willing to babysit,
but if you just want to have a hassle-free webserver than can handle
a huge load, I'd consider a SPARC/Solaris solution right now. It's
battle-tested and proven, apache runs fine on it, and it's got
prodigious support not only from Sun but from the ISP community as
well.
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: Tom Gravgaard Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:54:58 +0100
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:43:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pjtg0707)
wrote:
<snip>
>Linux's network
>code is also derived from BSD, but not as mature.
It certainly is not!
There is *no* BSD code in the Linux network stack.
In ancient times (we're talking linux 0.9x/1.0) there was a port of
the BSD network stack to linux, but it was never really used.
The network stack in linux is original work, it's not based on any
previous implementation.
It's been rewritten from scratch several times, and is at it's fourth
generation (NET4.0) in 2.2.x
-tgc
------------------------------
From: Tom Gravgaard Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:54:59 +0100
On 19 Mar 2000 04:25:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:05:48 -0500, John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>Linus has full control of Linux, and is indeed a single person
>>cathedral
>
>Hold on a second -- Linus has veto control over the Linux kernel. So if
>you mean "the Linux kernel" when you say "Linux", maybe that's true.
>However, Linux is more than just a kernel, as is FreeBSD.
No it's not.
Linux is just the kernel, nothing else, that cannot be argued.
Unlike FreeBSD which includes the userland too.
Lot's of distributions use the Linux kernel, but that's really a
different thing entirely, they could in theory just as well have used
the FreeBSD kernel (can you say Redhat/FreeBSD :))
-tgc
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:38:12 -0300
> As readers of my previous rants probably know by now, I have emarked
> on something of a Jihad against sloppy programming. The target of my
<long rant cut>
I was wondering, you talk a lot about programming, but you don't mention
design methodology at all. Now, do you ever abstract from the programming
level? If so, what methodology do you use?
A lot of people in the open source community seem to believe that software
design is equivalent to coding ("hacking"). What happened to the distinction
concept / algorithm / code? Where can a find a high-level, but *formal*,
specification of, say, Linux?
Francis.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Quote.com: Found themselves rebooting Solaris servers 2-3 times per day
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:04:44 +0100
Hey this is really funny...
quotestory.com is owned by geiser, chris (CG5345) [EMAIL PROTECTED],
The Garrigan Lyman Group
(http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=quotestory.com)
Guess what the Garrigan Lyman Group do
(rtp://www.seattlechamber.com/biznet/sbn-consultants.htm)
"Hi-tech advertising and marketing communications specializing in
brand strategy, identity, web design and development, films and
events. GLG is based in Seattle with offices in New York and San
Francisco."
So now one could guess who really is paying for this site and the material
on it :-) But no you dont even have to guess... from quotestory.com
" © 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO ????
Guess this is part of the strategy to fight Linux... Not bad for a free
operating system written by amateurs:-)
Chad Myers wrote:
> www.quotestory.com
>
> "Relying on Sun Solaris machines, in 1998 Quote.com began experiencing
> server outages and capacity problems. In an environment with zero
> tolerance for downtime, servers were locking up because they lacked enough
> memory for more user connections, making momentary outages daily events.
> The Quote.com staff had to reboot their servers two or three times a day -
> sometimes six times a day - when they would hang up. They found themselves
> in an increasingly uncomfortable position of supporting a growing on-line
> business with a technology platform that was unable to deliver."
>
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
