Linux-Advocacy Digest #716, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of (Marty)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (George Marengo)
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (David Steinberg)
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of (Gary Hallock)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Gary Hallock)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Terry Porter)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development (Craig
Kelley)
Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux! (Terry Porter)
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
again) ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (josco)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Terry Porter)
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) (abraxas)
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) (abraxas)
Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
(abraxas)
Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux! (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog ("Chris Clement")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 21 Mar 2000 00:03:14 +0100
Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson) wrote:
>>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, I realize that AmigaOS was a monumental achievement at the
>time, but let's be realistic here. The whole system is basically a
>single process with multiple preemptive threads.
>
I know that. The same is true for W95/98...
>There is no file
>security, memory protection, or any notion of user accounts. Any
>program can patch the OS at runtime, for God's sake.
>
Yes, that is true. There are extensions for mutiuser though. Lack of memory
protection makes it easier to hack, though.
>The design makes
>perfect sense if you take into account its goals, but in the Internet
>age the Amiga would be easiest machine to blow up, or the ultimate
>DDoS weapon.
>
I agree up to a point, it would be easy to blow up, but I doubt that it could
be used for DDoS attacks. From the outside that is, running a trojan will
get you any time. As, I might add, it will on W95/98 too.
Oh, and it might just be that I was lucky, but before we got the firewall on
campus some friends of mine were hacked but not me. Their OS? Linux... ;P
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling,
where I'd do anything to bone her.
Harry: That's a special feeling.
/Dumb&Dumber
------------------------------
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: 21 Mar 2000 00:10:04 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>
>Unless you use AmigaGuide :) which would execute commands in the document
>blindly. *ouch*
>
Send me an AmigaGuide document that executes a nasty command when I open
the email, I dare ya :)
>Nice idea, but I think html is better :)
>
More flexible, powerful, etc.. yes. Altough AmigaGuide is smaller and simpler.
I think it's a bit of an overkill to fire up a www browser just to read
some online help :)
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Buck Murdock: Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
/Airplane II: The Sequel
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:11:02 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> They say that Jesus walked upon the water. What they don't tell us is
> that it was in Iceland. Few people know this. In Iceland, we all can
> walk upon the water.
> -- Joel Frank, NPR
That sounds like the infamous Joe Frank (not Joel).
http://www.kcrw.org/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?tmplt_type=program&show_code=jf
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:20:29 GMT
On 20 Mar 2000 23:41:27 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
wrote:
>abraxas wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy 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?
>>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.
>>
>For realtime systems AmigaOS won't do the trick as it isn't a realtime kernel.
>(Neither, of course, is Linux, Solaris, NT/W2000/98/95, etc, etc)
>
>/Stefan
It's Alive, Part 13...
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,34922,00.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: 20 Mar 2000 23:28:32 GMT
Matthias Warkus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: XFree86 4.0 is already out.
My bad. Oops... :)
: And don't forget that we've got three major steps to GNOME 2.0
: scheduled for this year:
: April GNOME will give us a little overhaul and general improvement of
: the suite again, preserving compatibility.
: August GNOME will release Nautilus, the Eazel file manager developed
: by members of the original Mac development team, and Evolution (the
: mail/groupware app) upon the GNOME world.
Really, I had no idea that GNOME was progressing so quickly. I haven't
heard nearly as much noise about it as I have about KDE recently. I
didn't realize that Nautilus and Evolution were coming up so soon.
I didn't mean to offend. Personally, my desktop gets its look from
E and GNOME, and it's very sweet. Of course, I've got the KDE packages
installed too, and use some KDE apps. But, when KDE 2 is released, I'll
be giving the desktop another look. It seems that KDE is winning the
hype war, at least from where I'm sitting. I've been eagerly anticipating
their new release, but have remained clueless about what's up in GNOME
world. I think it's the state of KOffice, more than anything else, that's
really caught people's attention.
Last I'd heard AbiWord and GNUmeric didn't really offer the kind of
integration (embedable parts) that KOffice apps do/will. Is there an
effort underway to move in that direction?
Mmmm...so many choices... :)
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:53:08 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of
Daniel Johnson wrote:
> The government *tried* to stop them. But to this day, IBM retains a
> hammerlock
> on the big iron market and at this point they have pretty well come to own
> the minicomputer market as well.
>
Actually, for a while, IBM was losing a lot of business to Hitachi. It was
only with the introduction of the S/390 G5 in 1998 that IBM regained the
mainframe market and now owns about 95% of it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 07:57:04 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:33:39 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on 20 Mar 2000 08:31:43 +0800
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>[snip for brevity]
>
>>But dont listen to me, tell us why MS is NOT utter crap ???
>
>MS is not utter crap. However, it's not clear that it's all that
>good, either.
Well put Mr Ghost :)
>
>But Windows does work, most of the time.
Yeah thats true. As a side note, I have spent a lot of my life repairing
equipment, that worked "most of the time". In 99% of the failures, the cause
was poor design.
When the device was modified to use a part better suited to the task, I rarely
(if ever) saw the same unit fail again.
>
>Of course, there are solutions that work better than Windows NT/Win2K
>and Win95/98 -- Solaris, for one; Linux, for another, FreeBSD
>for still another.
Definetly.
>
>All are more or less freeware (although I don't know if Solaris
>is completely free or not -- but Sun did promise to publish
>the source).
>
>However, MS does have some very interesting value added.
*interesting* is the key ;-)
>
>[.sigsnip]
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 16 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:58:19 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Drestin Black wrote:
> <[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...
You really have to learn to read, Drestin. su == su root because typing su
without a userid defaults to root. That doesn't change the fact that you can
use su to switch to any userid and quite often that is exactly what is done.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 07:58:14 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:06:55 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2000 15:52:28 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>I won't be able to prove it to anyone who would make such a silly
>pronouncement in the first place, so you go right on believing that
>all of it is crap. Meanwhile, you could do likewise and prove your
>position.
Nice not debating with you George, have a happy life.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 17 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Mar 2000 17:08:14 -0700
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Nice.
That must be the reason why IBM is moving AIX and OS/390 over to
Linux.
At least they know the difference between an operating system and a
web-deployment framework...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 08:10:11 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:24:08 +0200, Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just dumped my last NT box for Linux!
>
>W H A T A R U S H ! !
>
>NT crashed after the registry grew out os it's allotted 11MB! Can you
>believe it... I thought the OS should at least warn before kicking the
>bucket. Obviously that did not happen.
>
>Luckily I had my Profile on a VFAT partition (I was dual booting with 95
>previously) so I could backup everything and easily migrate to Linux.
>
>Interesting facts:
>
>How long did it take me to install NT complete with all my apps and do
>all configurations? About two days (a weekend).
>
>How long did a similar Linux install took? Under two hours!
>
>I'm a bit scheptic, but M$'s W2K must really rock before I ever touch a
>M$ box again (home environment).
>
>Cheers all!
>
>Nico
>
There ya go, thanks for the cool post Nico :)))
So Steve tell us again how hard Linux is to install, how it doesnt work well
and how its slowly dying ?
Another nail in Steves coffin, which although made of cheap WindowsPine (tm)
is beginning to look like a metal box ;-)
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 17 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge
yet again)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:16:04 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> > The government *tried* to stop them. But to this day, IBM retains a
> > hammerlock
> > on the big iron market and at this point they have pretty well come to
own
> > the minicomputer market as well.
> >
>
> Actually, for a while, IBM was losing a lot of business to Hitachi. It
was
> only with the introduction of the S/390 G5 in 1998 that IBM regained the
> mainframe market and now owns about 95% of it.
I did not know that.
However, I don't think it dents my point: the justice department did not
break the much reviled "IBM monopoly"; if Hitatchi came close, good
for them; but they probably did it with a better product or something
like that.
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:26:54 -0800
-- joseph
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:54:23 GMT, Forrest Gehrke
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >> >Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill off OS/2
> >> >is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
> >
> >Even if that were granted, what did MS do? IBM management may
> >have been after only a good sized niche, one that MS would
> >never have missed. Why when analyzing IBM's "failure" you
> >do not question what MS did to totally freeze them out?
> >Why act as if there had been no Finding of Fact by Judge Jackson?
>
> I'm not acting as if their had been no finding... IBM knew what the
> terms of their OS bundling contract was; i.e., if they preloaded OS/2
> in preference to Windows, they would lose preferential treatment
> and pricing status. That wasn't hidden from them, and was in fact
> part of the reason why MS was found guilty.
>
> Given MS's history, even to that point, there were NO indications
> that they would ever concede anything... they want it all. If IBM
> thought that MS wouldn't miss "a good sized niche", they failed.
You have your "facts" all wrong.
MS asked IBM to kill OS/2 - Period. Again, Mr. Norris' testimony is
available on-line. Of course some times the facts are made to fit the
opinion, in this case IBM is culpable. IBM decided to not unilaterally
cede markets to MS and also break the law by colluding with MS to not
compete.
"Hey I told him I'd shoot him if he breathed."
>
> >from preventing PC vendors from selling a PC with anything
> >but MS OS and had they done the very simple thing of providing
> >ports of their Office Suite for OS/2 as they did for the Mac.
>
> True, but was any of that a secret that was kept from IBM? Of
> course not, they knew MS's terms.
"Hey I told him I'd shoot him if he breathed." Those are the terms.
When does this argument become ridiculous? A man who wants to ridicule
IBM for not supporting OS/2 has now flipped his argument. IBM should have
know better.....so should have MS which is why they are the ones who butts
are in court facing a break-up. It is not as if anti-trust laws were kept
secret. MS knew the law. IBM survived the encounter, MS will probably
not survive. Who won?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 08:18:35 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:34 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:21:11 GMT
>>On 14 Mar 2000 23:06:05 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>On 14 Mar 2000 04:49:58 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Now, to be honest I do not know if you *really* have to reformat and
>>>>>start over - perhaps something could be recovered in Safe mode - but
>>>>>life is short and I have better things to do with my time than
>>>>>experiment with MS bugs.
>
>I seem to be jumping in to the middle of a thread again. Ho-hum. What's this
>about MS bugs?
>
Nice post Max, and nice to hear from you again :)
We all thought you'd found better things to do, than post on COLA as
the rest of us reprobates do, so often ;-)
Running Linux yet mate ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 17 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1)
Date: 21 Mar 2000 00:21:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On a personal note, I am in the midst of setting up a home system
> gateway based on PitBull and will be giving away the root account on
> /etc/issue to start to show people what kinds of things can be done with
> a secure OS.
On a similar note, I have a cisco router in my house that is doing a fair
amount of actual work that is almost entirely B1 compliant. The only
snag is the remote access interface; unfortunately it is a simple analog
modem on an entirely insecure line.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1)
Date: 21 Mar 2000 00:21:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8b67ho$1ds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Argus will also be launching a new program called the Argus Revolution
>> that will be giving away free non-commercial licenses to our PitBull
>> product. These licenses are currently available for Sparc and x86. We
>> will be officially launching this program at SANS and during the first
>> Bay Area PitBull Users Group (BAPUG - www.bapug.org). Information on
>> the Revolution will be found at http://www.argusrevolution.com/
>> Using PitBull allows individuals to protect their home systems from
>> attack and can change your chance of system wide penetration due to
>> application exploits from 99% to almost 0%.
> Sounds like products like BlackICE Defender...
It is exactly nothing like either product.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
Date: 21 Mar 2000 00:24:41 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8b5pro$mks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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?
> Nope.
Wrong. Actually, it will be just fine.
Now try doing that on an NT box.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux!
Date: 21 Mar 2000 00:25:56 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it took you 2 hours to install Linux?
> Shit, using a network push I install W2K pro including all of Office 2000
> pro in about 15 minutes all configured to fire up with DHCP and a user name.
> Put machine into suspend mode and have it wake by lan all from Active
> Directory. Yawn...
A few distributions of linux have offered kickstart-installs for quite a
number of years now.
It appears windows is catching up, yet again.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Chris Clement" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:35:52 -0600
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b0dp6$2rtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy rm_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Isn't Barnes and Noble's one of Drestin's highly touted sites
> > for NT excellence!???
>
> > [bn.com / barnesandnoble.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4
> > or Windows 98]
>
> > http://cnn.com/2000/books/news/03/15/king.ebook/index.html
>
> > "A CNN editor who attempted to
> > download the story from Barnes &
> > Noble's site on Tuesday was told the
> > downloading queue was backed up,
> > and offered the opportunity to have
> > the book e-mailed directly to him.
> > Some hours later, he received an
> > e-mail saying high demand had
> > delayed the e-mail delivery."
>
> I have *never* seen this kind of effect on a Sun Sparc/Solaris based
> high volume email system. Ever.
Perhaps you should check with Amazon.com. They have been going through the
exact same problem. Their platform? Sun Solaris and Stronghold web server.
There download queue is full and I am still waiting for an email.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:40:37 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Jeff Greer wrote:
> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
> programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
> Gnucash? This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
> packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
> lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
> program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
> version number of 1.x. A version number this high is very misleading to
> anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
> deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
> install it. It seems that the Gnome programmers are focusing too much
> on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
>
It's time to put an end to all this nonsense. I just happened to have a
pristine copy of Redhat 6.1 installed in another partition. This is
straight out of the box. No additional packages downloaded. No tools
from the Redhat Powertools disks installed. Just a basic install. I
downloaded the rpm file for gnucash and it installed perfectly with no
dependency problems. I then tried running it and it ran perfectly.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
