Linux-Advocacy Digest #722, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 00:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux ISP? (JoeX1029)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Producing Quality Code ("by")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) (abraxas)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Producing Quality Code (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Producing Quality Code ("by")
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:05:12 GMT
In article <E3CB4.2231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:RPBB4.4279$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <ywBB4.2223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:S0BB4.4248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> The intrusiveness of our government and corporations increases year by
>> > year,
>> >> and I find it comforting to keep my public profile fairly low.
>> >
>> > Here you are espousing personal responsibility and making sacrifice for
> the
>> > common good, yet you hide behind a ficticious name because you find it
>> > "comforting".
>> >
>> > I would call you a hypocrite. Start with yourself before condemning
> others
>> > on the moral ground.
>>
>> In what way am I being a hypocrite by calling for better-quality code? My
>> choice to remain anonymous on Usenet is a practical one as much as
>> anything; were I to use my real e-mail, I would have to wade through
>> mountians of spam and flames to get to the "real" mail. Furthermore,
>> as I said before, I have good and sufficient reason to keep my affairs
> low-
>> profile. What I said elsewhere in this thread is true: if you want to
> know
>> my real identity and I think you would benefit by knowing, I'll tell you.
>
> No, I call you a hypocrite because you insist that others "stand up" for
> their ideals, even in the face of hardship. Yet you won't bother to put up
> with a few potential flames and spam in order to stand up to your own
> ideals.
>
> I use my real name and real email address because I feel that one should
> take responsibility for the words they say. Using your real name isn't
> going to give you "mountains" of spam. Using your real email address might
> (though I get very little).
>
> If you want us to take your opinions seriously, you should be serious enough
> to sign your real name.
>
>> > Yet you want people to rise up out of their cubicles and demand change
> at
>> > the expense of their own "comfort".
>>
>> Absolutely. But I would also argue that standing up for your principles
> is
>> not all that dangerous -- in today's climate, a good programmer (even an
>> idealistic one) can get a good job almost anywhere. We can pick and
> choose
>> whom to work for, and how to work; I'm only asking that we make good
> choices.
>
> That's only true in major markets. It's also true that you have to wade
> through dozens of job interviews and weeks of being unemployed. If you have
> children and a family, you can't just quit or risk your job.
>
>> If you're not willing to be part of the solution, you're part of the
> problem.
>
> Then sign your real name.
>
>
You seem to confuse the desire for privacy as a desire to hide something --
you would be a good candidate for the federal government! My reasons for
wanting anonymity are my own; you're free to disagree with them. I tell
people my real name when they need to know it; you do not need to know.
Regarding jobs: if all you're looking for is a sinecure where you can while
away your days in safe anonymity, timidly hoping no one will ask your
opinion about anything controversial, there are plenty of those to go around.
I prefer to make a difference and enjoy my job as much as I can. I prefer
to have a voice (even if, in this forum, it is an anonymous one).
Principles are not a luxury. They are the framework upon which the self
is built. I happen to believe that writing computer software is like taking
up any other craft: you can choose to do it well or choose to do it badly.
If you choose to do it badly, be honest enough to admit that it was a choice
you made and not an obligation that was thrust upon you.
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:11:34 GMT
In article <8b6ou9$e8h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <S0BB4.4248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I find as I get older that paranoia seems more and more reasonable. In
> this day and age
>> when every utterance can be taken out of context and used against you,
> it seems only
>> common sense to keep things anonymous.
>
> Applause, applause. But we need to keep this in mind for those who
> present differing points of view here on C.O.L.A. as well. I've seen
> Drestin taken to task way too many times for his insistence on
> anonyminity, while the rest of us regard it as one of our basic rights.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Agreed. In my case, it's more a practical matter than a philosophical
one, but no reason to give Them any more ammo than They have
already, eh?
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Linux ISP?
Date: 21 Mar 2000 04:15:57 GMT
I need a good dial-up ISP for my Linux box. Anybody have any info please EMAIL
me. Remember: Free is good...
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:17:13 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:52 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:10:16 GMT
>>On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
>>>When MS pressures Intel and Compaq NOT to even pursue software development,
>>>or to put any kind of software on top of windows, what do you call that?
>>I certainly don't call that proof that MS pressures hardware
>>manufacturers not to support any other OS, which is the claim in this
>>thread.
>>
>>Care to address that topic? Without the ad hominem this time?
>No, the ad hominem stays; you're an idiot, Roger.
Try to imagine how much that hurts me, coming from you, Max.
>The particular refute for
>your particular pedantic idiocy is the neo-per-processor-licensing. This is
>what 'pressures' MS applies to manufacturers to prevent them from supporting
>any other OS. It is public record that this exists; the proof will
>nevertheless skitter out from under your hawkish gaze, as always.
Ah, so * that's * why, ATI and certain other video card manufacturers
don't release the info required for the creation of Linux drivers --
because of licensing of MS's OSes.
Or did you miss the fact that the discussion was hardware
manufacturers in general?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:27:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Hamstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic) writes:
>
>> On 20 Mar 2000 15:00:12 -0500, mr_organic pronounced:
>> >
>> >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.)
>> >
>> Marketeering is what drives modern buying decisions, which
>> in turn forms other business strategies; in this, it is a
>> self-perpetuating medium. The media/marketers whip up
>> demand for a (usually vaporous) product; users clamor for
>> the product; business then rush to produce the product.
>
> Nope, marketing is only part of the process. Yes, it can be
> critical to this business model in the early stages, but it
> is no more the determining factor in closed source software
> development than is the match that starts a forest fire --
> critical to getting things started, but not nearly so
> important once the whole process is fully engaged. Regardless
> of marketing, most Windows users couldn't switch OSes now if
> they wanted to, and neither can many people change from
> proprietary software tools and data formats.
>
What's stopping them, apart from simple inertia? Granted, it
would be a hassle to convert document formats and retrain
for new applications, but corporations did it once, and will do
it again; why not now? This is an empty point, but everyone
seems to have bought into it. Dropping Windows is not an
impossibility; it simply takes imagination and foresight,
along with a willingness to be flexible.
>
> These are fundamental economic issues, at have little to do
> at the point of full engagement of the proprietary software
> engine with marketing efforts or principled stands by
> software engineers. If you don't fully understand the forces
> of economy in play, then you stand to be spanked by Adam
> Smith's invisible hand.
>
Whenever I hear economists ramble on about "market forces",
I want to reach for a gun. We are at a stage where computer
software is becoming essential to the functioning of our
society, which in my mind places it in a fairly special category.
It is not a "product" or a "good", but closed-source software
companies insist on selling software as if it were a product.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that software is a *service*,
and that the code we write is simply one piece of the delivery
mechanism.
>
>> Engineers are usually aware of this dichotomy, but elect to
>> put up with it rather than protesting strongly and acting
>> as agents for change.
>
> Engineers with inadequate understandings of economic realities
> make poor agents provocateur in the software marketplace.
> Those who understand and respect the realities stand the best
> chance of making a difference.
>
Crap. And crap again. Business majors make crappy software
engineers, and vice versa. Arguments like yours are part of the
reason we're in the mess we're in vis a vis software. If
"economic realities" mandate shitty code, then we are all in a
world of hurt.
>
>> >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.
>> >
>> I disagree; see my previous comments.
>
> I have, and they're flawed.
>
>> >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.
>>
>> First, I object to your terminology -- "easy polemics" and
>> "insulting potification" are inflammatory words, and I do
>> not thing my orignal post indulged in either.
>
> Yes, I am sure you are correct that other engineers love to
> be told they have no respect for their profession or pride in
> their craft, that they should stop being so foolish and "Just
> Say No". The slogan didn't work when Nancy Reagan didn't
> understand the realities of drug addiction and economics, and
> I wouldn't expect it to be much more successful when applied
> to software.
>
>> You seem to
>> be one of the engineers who simply throw up their hands and
>> say, "What can I do?"
>
> Part of what I mean by "easy polemics" and "insulting
> pontifications": you have not a clue who I am or what drives
> my decision making -- and just for the record, I am currently
> in the process of assuming a great deal more responsibility
> and personal financial risk in an effort to make a difference
> in the portions of the software market I care most about, so
> your straw man could hardly be more inappropriately placed.
>
I made no judgement about you personally (although I must
have hit a nerve if you took it that way). I will say that your
"realities of economy" fooferaw is the same kind of fatalist
B.S. that has gotten software into this sorry state to begin
with. As a group, computer people seem to be hobbled by
greed -- we express noble intentions, but lose our backbone
when presented with fat stock options or the threat of loss of
pay.
>
>> It means doing more than simply paying lip-service to writing
>> good code. It means not only writing good code yourself, but
>> not putting up with less from anyone else, either. It means
>> making sacrifices to enforce good code -- eschewing the new
>> release of WhizBangProd 1.0 just because it has niftier graphics
>> or a multimedia layer, for example, until the vendor fixes bugs.
>
> "Just Say No" isn't going to get the job done, and getting
> insubordinate to the point of risking significantly decreased
> revenues under the current business model is likely to get you
> nothing but fired. Only through providing enough functionality
> to get the job done and tangible benefits that the proprietary
> model can't match can the Open Source effort hope to break the
> constraints of the current software market.
>
How many software companies would survive if no programmers
would work for them? That was my whole point; programmers are
the most important part of the process, and yet they have no
sense of their own power. We still are mired in the belief that
we can lose our jobs and be destitute at any moment (or lose
millions in vested stock options). Your argument seems to boil
down to nothing more than "status quo" -- leave things alone and
maybe it'll get better. Well, there's no evidence of that; if fact the
situation is worsening at an alarming rate.
>
>> For myself, posting the original memo was the first part of my
>> own project to raise awareness to the issue; the next step is
>> to evangelize it in my own circle of developers. If the ill-
>> will of lazy programmers is the worst I suffer, I'll be glad
>> of it.
>
> I couldn't care less about ill will that you engender among lazy
> programmers, but you are equally or more likely to offend the
> good ones at the same time, and that's not a particularly good way
> to garner quality support. While ill will may be the worst you'll
> suffer, it's also likely the most you'll gain -- in which case,
> what's the point?
>
> --
> Mark Hamstra
> Bentley Systems, Inc.
You persist in seeing things in terms of how they are -- I speak of
how things *can be*, given willingness of people to effect change.
If all this dialogue garners is ill-will, wouldn't you say that there
is a larger problem among the ranks of programmers? After all,
all I'm advocating is rigor and quality in a field that desperately
needs it.
What's so frightening about that?
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:20:35 -0800
Reply-To: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <RANT>
> I more or less agree with you. I have been interviewing people for the
> last few months and can't find a decent guy in the bunch.
>
> Just one freaken person should know about SMP performance issues with
> shared data.
> Qsort issues with ordered vs random files.
> How to write a good algorithm.
> When to use and when not to use recursion.
> Just once give me a guy that knows how to write a decent hash table.
> Can't anyone discuss pros/cons of using trees, hashtables, and
> array+bsearch?
> Doesn't anyone know what a histogram is used for anymore?
> Every time I see a Windows guy app guy come in, they don't know squat
> about how to code decently.
> And, if you know these things, drop me an e-mail, we need good people.
>
Hey, I'm Windows app guy & I know these things. Blanket statements are
generally wrong.
Also, I think those are the kind of questions they ask you when you go apply
for a programming job at Microsoft. At least the group who interviewed me
asked me those kind of questions, and I had to write a bunch of code on the
spot, including a recursive binary tree walk.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:08:24 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:40:15 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 02:36:30 GMT
>>On 14 Mar 2000 04:49:58 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>wrote:
>>You misspelled "bugs in the NeoMagic MagicGraph 128XD driver," since
>>it is the only driver I have ever run across / heard about with this
>>problem.
>And here we are, come full circle to "No, Roger, he spelled 'MS bugs'
>correctly." If they're going to be the whole computer, they get to take
>responsibility for the whole computer.
The key word being "If. Since MS is not and does not claim to be the
whole computer, your argument breaks down.
Our regular viewers are hardly surprized.
>>That being the case, it is likely in the extreme that starting in Safe
>>Mode would allow you to correct this problem -- exactly as it is
>>designed to do.
>Yes; it would allow you to recover to the point where you can reformat the
>drive and re-install from scratch again because if you screw up the "magic
>steps" in this Gateway laptop install, that is your ONLY option.
Nope. Reboot in Safe Mode. Change back to the Standard VGA driver.
Reboot. Install the newer version of the driver available from
Gateway's site, which doesn't seem to have this problem.
------------------------------
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 04:34:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As Abraxas mentions, PitBull is nothing like BlackICE. BlackICE is
> essentially a network intrusion detection system. PitBull is a security
> platform that enhances the security on an OS. It allows you to
> encapsulate applications so that they are isolated from eachother and
> gets rid of uid 0 and replaces it with least privilege concepts.
Ive noticed that currently you seem to only ship your product for
the Solaris platform. Any plans on expanding? I'm particularly
interested in a FreeBSD port...
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:58:51 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[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
There are Realtime linux systems, Soft or hard, your choice, Uclinux is a soft
realtime system, there's Bluecat and some others also.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:53:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:54:43 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
><RANT>
>I more or less agree with you. I have been interviewing people for the
>last few months and can't find a decent guy in the bunch.
>
>Just one freaken person should know about SMP performance issues with
>shared data.
One word: semaphores. :-)
(Or maybe mutexes. I'll have to research it; on MS, at least,
there's a CSemaphore class. But in Linux, there's no such animal,
at least not on a stock RedHat system. Of course, IMO they're not
that hard to implement using mutexes, although I haven't tried
to do so yet...)
>Qsort issues with ordered vs random files.
Yuck.
>How to write a good algorithm.
specify problem;
break_down problem into problem_pieces;
repeat
break_down problem_piece into smaller_pieces
until problem_completely_broken_down :-)
>When to use and when not to use recursion.
That's a bit of a toughie. It gets even tougher, because one can
always simulate a recursive solution iteratively (add a pushdown state
stack, and loop), and an iterative solution recursively (although
the recursion might be trivial!).
Still, sometimes it's just so....obvious. :-) If one has a tree
structure, iterative looping is so lame... :-)
>Just once give me a guy that knows how to write a decent hash table.
Who needs one? Just use hash_map<> :-)
One nice thing about hash tables, though -- if they self-extend,
doubling in size, and one uses a good hash function (i.e., no hash
collisions), the time to insert N elements in them is very roughly
O(K) + O(K) + O(2K) + ... + O(PK)
where P is the highest power of 2 not exceeding N/K, and K is the
initially allocated number of slots -- usually a prime or primeish
number.
Note that the time to copy PK elements is technically
a rehash of PK elements, which will take O(PK) time, and
O(PK) + O(PK) = O(PK). Allocating the new slots also takes O(PK).
Therefore, the time to insert all N elements is O(N) -- a rather
surprising result, actually -- at least to me; a sorted bucket
insertion scheme, for example, has O(N log N) complexity. (I could
be wrong! One issue is assuming constant hash index computation
time -- which isn't entirely true for such things as variable
length strings. However, a fairly stupid test program seems to
bear out this analysis; the number of insertions (initial and
reinsertion) is about twice the number of items in the table.
Source available on request; maybe I should curve-fit this.)
Of course, if one doesn't extend the hash table, it's O(N*N).
If one is stupid about extending the hash table (i.e., the
table is extended a constant amount each time), it's O(N*N).
There also might be some issues with respect to the hash function
being less than brilliant performance-wise with non-prime numbers.
The same issues ensue for string classes. Ideally, as one concatenates
characters onto a string, the string buffer length is known, so that
it's allocated exactly once; failing that, one could start with
a small number (32 or so, 4 times the size of a double), and double the
allocation amount each time it is needed. This isn't quite as
good as the hash table -- O(N log N) -- but should work reasonably well.
Of course, that's the bit that puzzles me; I'm forgetting a step,
somewhere...
>Can't anyone discuss pros/cons of using trees, hashtables, and
>array+bsearch?
A bit too general. If you wish to discuss space/time complexity
issues, though, I certainly know enough to trip over things :-).
Regrettably, I'm not up on my AVL trees. I barely know what they are. :-)
(Side point: VAX/VMS had a very interesting file system with
a built-in bucketsort scheme; one specifies a key in the file
definition block (I forget the VAX term for it), and it automatically
splits and merges buckets as necessary; one can find any record,
given the key, and a standard read of the file results in the records
being fetched in sequential order. One of the neater, if bulkier,
file systems I've ever come across.)
>Doesn't anyone know what a histogram is used for anymore?
That's statistics. A bit out of the programming field, but
not too far out.
>Every time I see a Windows guy app guy come in, they don't know squat
>about how to code decently.
>And, if you know these things, drop me an e-mail, we need good people.
Well, I'll admit, I don't know ADO, so in a sense, I and the
Windows guys are even. :-) (It used to be RDO, just to be different.)
>
></RANT>
[mr_organic's rant snipped -- but I do wonder about the quality
of programming, nowadays; this stuff's almost elementary]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:56:47 -0800
Reply-To: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...
> At base, the problem is a cultural one -- we are not training
> programmers correctly, regardless of the platform they use. The
> software industry today does not reward stable, carefully-crafted
> programs; it rewards newness, whiz-bang features, and layers of
> eye-candy. In short, *potential* is rewarded, not *execution*.
True. Also most people - especially those who have no programming
experience - are more easily impressed by whiz-bang features, whereas a
solid, bug-free implementation is not apparent and more difficult for them
to appreciate.
>...
> Unix tends to have less of a problem than Windows in this regard for a
> couple of reasons: one, Unix programmers are generally more
> technically adept than Windows programmers, and consequently produce
> better code; two, the architecture of Unix tends to promote "correct"
No, I think the reason is that unix USERS are generally more technically
adept than Windows users, plus unix is not as widely used as windows.
------------------------------
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 05:00:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8b6f9k$2212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> 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
> Pretty cool. What model router is it?
Its an old-ish 2611--
Its got an 8x analog modem module and two ethernet ports; its a bit
overkill for the job that it does...But it does very well as a network
gateway and has *tons* of nifty security features.
It was mostly an intellectual exercize to approach unofficial B
series classification; I had a router, it had a modem card, the rest
was pretty straightforward...:)
=====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
******************************
