Linux-Advocacy Digest #730, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (piddy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:33:23 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No. I said that Administrator is not exactly like root. You can take away
> priveledges from Administrator so that they cannot accidentally modify or
> delete certain files. I was told that you can do the same thing in Linux,
> which is incorrect, since root ignores all rights and priveleges other than
> global read-only status.
>
Linux has capabilities, as do many other Unixen. So yes, if you really
want to lock down root you can.
BUT on Linux/other Unixen - once a privilege is revoked it can not be
claimed back. WHICH IS A DAMM SIGHT BETTER than NT.
> You can't see the difference here?
>
Yes i can. IE the ability to remove privileges which you can always get
back, and that is useless.
> No, his point was to contradict my statement. My statement is true.
> Administrator is not the exact same thing as root. Very similar, but they
> have different characteristics.
>
Yes NT administrator is slightly different to unix root. (NT is just
different to Unix full stop). However, Jeremy's point was that NT/Admin
can at any point do what they wish to do, just as root can on Unix - and
you did not manage to refute that point.
> Under Unix, your right. Under NT, Administrator *IS* a normal user that can
> be given (or removed) any specific rights. Hell, you can remove
> Administrator status from the Administrator account and it will no longer
> even be able to be an administrator.
>
hell, root doesn't have to be a special account either... you could call
uid==0 "stoolie" if you wanted, but that's not your point.
Note though, If you use capabilities you can do the exact same thing on
Linux. Ie you can have a uid==0 (root) account with limited or no
privileges.
(and as i've pointed out before in this post, and other posts which you
conveniently ignore - on linux/unix once root loses a privilege it
cannot claim it back)
> Which is simply not the case with NT. Adminstrator, can only be such if you
> give them rights to every file on the system.
that's rubbish. Go talk to Jeremy if you want to be informed. (did you
read his post??).
> I said nothing about Unix having a problem. Try and follow the thread. My
> argument is only that Administrator under NT is different from Root under
> Unix.
>
agreed. and thankfully so.
> I don't want interactive. I want the ability to not effect files which I do
> not own unless I specifically take those rights.
>
why? if the intention is safety then that should be a function of the
tool (as it is on Unix). If it is intended for security then
Administrator should not be able to claim back the privilege, else the
security is non-existant/useless!
if you are obliquely reffering to access control lists, no linux does
not have this. The commercial unixen (and openbsd iirc) do have ACLs
though...
however, ACL's are over rated...
> > Unix is not NT, thanks be to god, so don't try to claim that because
> > Unix lacks idiocy ABC that therefore NT must be superior because it does
> > have idiocy ABC.
>
> How does lack of a very useful feature equate to idiocy?
>
it's not a useful feature. It's a moronic and useless security feature.
If you want /safety/ then it should be in the tool.
(and in unix it is).
if it's for security, it's useless.
> Your attitude is typical "We can't do it, so it's stupid to want to"
>
we do have it. Capabilities. And it's actually BETTER cause it is
actually SECURE.
> No, you seem to do just fine without being paid.
i just drop in every now and then and try to catch up when i have time.
I notice you post /very/ frequently to this group....
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:53:40 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 13:22:19 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:34:08 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>And your proof of IBM moving Aix to Linux?
>>
>>IBM is running Linux on an OS/390 as far as I have heard they have
>>absolutely no plans what so ever to abandon AIX in favor of Linux.
>>
>>First off Linux does not support Chrp.
>>RAS is not honored. (ie: concurrent maintenance)
>>
>>Proof please?
>>
>>Steve
>
>Why would you want to know "Steve" ?
Because the original statement is highly misleading. First off he
implies IBM is using Linux on the entire RS/6k line which is untrue.
Linux is only used on the lowest end machines. Second of all how is
Linux going to manage the PSSP code on the control workstation for IBM
Sp systems?
While IBM may be running Linux on these as well as system 390's I find
it highly unlikely MVS/Esa will be replaced by Linux in the near
future.
>You're just an average, and disgrunled Linux wannabee, who has odd printers
>and soundcards that just don't *happen* to be supported under Linux ?
Linux wannabee?
Ha ha! that's a good one.
I didn't think there was such a thing. I'd rather go to the dentist
than be forced to use Linux.
I wouldn't call a SoundBlaster Live card and a Canon printer circa
1999 odd.
>Or are you ??
>
>Perhaps your anonymous persona will prevent us from ever finding out who "Steve"
>the troll really is ?
I like to keep you guessing Terry. Giving you just enough technical
information, but not quite enough. Duping you into thinking I know
absolutely nothing about the industry and then springing the trap on
you after you walk onto the battlefield unprotected hurling insults
instead of factual data.
Now how about addressing RAS, Chrp, and Linux on high end RS/6k
machines replacing AIX in shipping machines, not in some lab
somewhere.
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:53:43 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 05:16:17 -0500, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 03/21/2000 at 01:44 AM,
> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> No, I don't have my facts wrong. I was using OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 when this
>> was occurring and I know the history of the two companies. The point is
>> that IBM PSP on one hand was pushing OS/2 while another part of the
>> same division was selling Windows.
>
>You most assuredly DO have your facts wrong. When OS2 2.0 and 2.1
>were in development, they were a joint development of MS and IBM.
Incorrect -- OS/2 1.3 was a joint development effort. MS worked on
some parts of version 2.0 but by 2.1 it was an all IBM development.
>The split did not come around until the release of Warp 3 in 1993 or so.
Your 'facts' are hosed... the split occurred in 1990-1991.
>Again you have your facts wrong. When IBM decided to fight for the HO/SO
>market with television advertisements, sponsorship of the Sun Bowl, etc.,
>MS began the illegal process of forcing OEM's into signing the per
>processor agreements which were found illegal.
IBM signed it because they wanted to sell Windows on their PC's.
The could have chosen to sell only OS/2 on it's PCs, and then they
would need MS, but they didn't.
>> What in the world are you talking about? My argument has been that
>> regardless of the illegal activity that MS did, OS/2 ultimately failed
>> because of IBM.
>
>And that argument is specious, self-serving, MS sponsored FUD. Warp failed
>in the individual user market because it was shut out of the new machine
>market by illegal contracts foisted off on OEM's by MS.
That certainly had an impact, but IBM could have chosen to ditch MS
and offer only IBM operating systems on IBM personal computers.
>> Whatever MS _wanted_ them to do, what IBM did with OS/2 was their
>> choosing, not MS's.
>
>Pure MS sponsored and paid for FUD.
Are you saying that it wasn't up to IBM to decide what IBM would do?
How is that FUD?
<incredible amounts of babbling snipped>
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:50:04 -0600
For once, I firmly agree with Eric.
--
Mr Rupert
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > *snort*
> > I can't say for sure on Software, but every company I consult with is
> > begging for
> > engineers, the demand is huge. Provided you avoid wandering down the halls
> > with a shotgun, getting fired is not a problem. The reason the companies
> > are hiring
> > as many H1-B's as they can, is because of that demand.
>
> This is patently false. It's a myth fostered by the IT industry to get more
> H1-B visa's. There are literally hundreds of thousand unemployed software
> engineers out there working as janitors, cooks, paper deliverers, any job
> they can get because companies refuse to hire them.
>
> Why do they refuse to hire them? Cost. Someone with 25 years of experience
> won't work for entry-level pay. There is serious age discrimination in this
> industry. Rather than retrain older workers, they would much rather hire
> cheap young blood that will work 60 hours a week for no overtime and churn
> out tons of code. It doesn't matter if that code is poor or not because
> they know the code will be obsolete in 6 months or a year.
>
> H1-B's are even further in demand because they're slave labor. H1-B's are
> prevented from switching jobs. If they quit, they get deported, regardless
> of whether they get a different job or not. That means they can pay them
> nothing and force them to stay, work them long hours and burn them out.
>
> That's the real reason they hire H1-B's. Not because of a lack of
> engineers, but because of a lack of cheap, entry level engineers that will
> work long hours without overtime and cannot quit their jobs no matter how
> poorly they're treated without being deported.
>
> As an example. Microsoft has over 6,000 open positions waiting to be
> filled, yet they only hire less than 1% of those that apply. If they really
> were that desperate, they would hire anyone that walked in the door.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:00:28 GMT
You might want to let the original person know how it was so easy for
you to install.
BTW you said you have a stock RedHat 6.1 install with no
modifications?
What happened when you typed in Gnucash or whatever the name of the
script that starts the program running?
Steve
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:25:12 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> True the original thread was about GnuCash, but you responded to MY
>> post about Gnome.
>>
>> BTW I have, at least from an install and general setup perspective
>> tried every major distribution, current versions of course, except for
>> Mandrake.
>>
>> See dejanews searching on linux distribution comparison.
>>
>> I don't have the time to screw around trying some Quicken wannabe. If
>> it works for you under RedHat that's fine. Make sure you let your
>> accountant know though cause chances are your data will be useless to
>> him/her. Unless of course he/she is using GnuCash which is highly
>> unlikely.
>>
>
>And that is your problem. If you don't have the time to screw around with some
>"Quicken
>wannabe" then you have no business making comments about the install process for it.
> I
>don't use gnucash myself, but I got fed up with your stupid comments about something
>you
>know nothing about. So, unlike you, I tried it. No go back under your bridge.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:08:46 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux has capabilities, as do many other Unixen. So yes, if you really
> want to lock down root you can.
And which version of Linux does that ship with? Certainly not Red Hat.
> BUT on Linux/other Unixen - once a privilege is revoked it can not be
> claimed back. WHICH IS A DAMM SIGHT BETTER than NT.
Only if you're concerned about your admin having access to those rights. My
argument is not that admin should be prohibited from accessing those things,
but that admin can be set up to prevent accidental problems.
> > You can't see the difference here?
>
> Yes i can. IE the ability to remove privileges which you can always get
> back, and that is useless.
Not useless at all. Again, the textbook case of an rm /* -rf .whatever
(with a space between the * and dot) makes such a feature extremely useful.
> > No, his point was to contradict my statement. My statement is true.
> > Administrator is not the exact same thing as root. Very similar, but
they
> > have different characteristics.
>
> Yes NT administrator is slightly different to unix root. (NT is just
> different to Unix full stop). However, Jeremy's point was that NT/Admin
> can at any point do what they wish to do, just as root can on Unix - and
> you did not manage to refute that point.
My argument was never that an NT admin couldn't do what they wanted to. My
argument was that NT allows you to configure it to prevent an admin from
doing something he didn't want to do by accident.
> > Under Unix, your right. Under NT, Administrator *IS* a normal user that
can
> > be given (or removed) any specific rights. Hell, you can remove
> > Administrator status from the Administrator account and it will no
longer
> > even be able to be an administrator.
>
> hell, root doesn't have to be a special account either... you could call
> uid==0 "stoolie" if you wanted, but that's not your point.
No, it's not my point.
> Note though, If you use capabilities you can do the exact same thing on
> Linux. Ie you can have a uid==0 (root) account with limited or no
> privileges.
And again, which distribution does that ship with?
> (and as i've pointed out before in this post, and other posts which you
> conveniently ignore - on linux/unix once root loses a privilege it
> cannot claim it back)
Useful for daemons running as root, but not useful when you simply want to
disable the feature from accidental use.
> > Which is simply not the case with NT. Adminstrator, can only be such if
you
> > give them rights to every file on the system.
>
> that's rubbish. Go talk to Jeremy if you want to be informed. (did you
> read his post??).
Yes, I did. He didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
> > I don't want interactive. I want the ability to not effect files which
I do
> > not own unless I specifically take those rights.
>
> why? if the intention is safety then that should be a function of the
> tool (as it is on Unix). If it is intended for security then
> Administrator should not be able to claim back the privilege, else the
> security is non-existant/useless!
The "tool" is the OS.
> if you are obliquely reffering to access control lists, no linux does
> not have this. The commercial unixen (and openbsd iirc) do have ACLs
> though...
Yes, they do. But we're not just talking about ACL's either. I believe
that root is still root when using ACL's and that root ignores them.
> however, ACL's are over rated...
Why?
> > > Unix is not NT, thanks be to god, so don't try to claim that because
> > > Unix lacks idiocy ABC that therefore NT must be superior because it
does
> > > have idiocy ABC.
> >
> > How does lack of a very useful feature equate to idiocy?
>
> it's not a useful feature. It's a moronic and useless security feature.
> If you want /safety/ then it should be in the tool.
> (and in unix it is).
>
> if it's for security, it's useless.
Given that you can take away the administrators rights to reclaim things as
well, I don't see how.
> > Your attitude is typical "We can't do it, so it's stupid to want to"
>
> we do have it. Capabilities. And it's actually BETTER cause it is
> actually SECURE.
And you can explain exactly why it's secure, right?
> > No, you seem to do just fine without being paid.
>
> i just drop in every now and then and try to catch up when i have time.
> I notice you post /very/ frequently to this group....
Not really, only for a very few specific threads i'm interested in.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:57:04 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 20 Mar 2000 23:28:32 GMT...
...and David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : XFree86 4.0 is already out.
>
> My bad. Oops... :)
It does Just Fine(TM) on my machine. And with it, I got rid of having
Netscape display its icons in black-and-white.
> : 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.
The GNOME project don't make as much noise as KDE (usually).
> I didn't realize that Nautilus and Evolution were coming up so soon.
Nautilus is already a usable piece of software, for sufficiently small
values of "usable", that is. A very, very impressive file manager.
> 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.
Seems like it. But then, we've got two start-up companies that are
rather gung-ho about supporting GNOME, and with the adoption of GNOME
by TurboLinux, it seems that we are going to see GNOME market share go
up in Asia.
> 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.
Yes. KOffice, especially KWord, is impressive. However, as another
poster has pointed out, Gnumeric is probably the best free spreadsheet
out there and it is rapidly evolving.
> 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?
AbiWord has GNOME integration to some degree, and I think there are
people trying to get Bonobo support into it.
mawa
--
When I'm out in the sun too long, I don't just think along a
tangent... I /AM/ one.
-- Dwight A. Lee
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:13:49 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Yeah, another 6 months or so.
>
> 6 months?? hahahahaa...
Yes, 64 bit NT will coincide with the release of Merced. MS has also proven
that they're willing to run beta's of Win2k in production. They were
running Win2k on www.microsoft.com since beta 3.
> > They could have, but it would be expensive to do so and would have to be
> > done again when Merced hits. Why should they do it twice?
>
> if its coded properly why would they have to port it again to go to
> Merced?
Differences in memory models for one. They'd have to take advantage of VLM
extensions in NT4 and Win2k, while 64 bit would be flat model. Different
device drivers (for file store and TCP/IP), and plenty of other differences.
> In fact why would they have to port from NT4 to W2K? Are they not
> compatible?
In most ways, yes. Unless you want to take advantage of new features, which
something like Hotmail most certainly would want to do.
> > > just to point to whoever said that: hotmail currently runs on /32 bit/
> > > platforms!
> >
> > Who said that?
>
> uhmmm.. what do they use? Solaris and FreeBSD -> 32 bit.
>
> Solaris kernel was 32bit up to 2.51 or 2.6 iirc. Solaris userspace is
> still 32bit.
And how do you know what they've implemented in the kernel and what they
haven't?
> > I believe that FreeBSD runs on Alpha and is 64 bit on that version.
>
> yes it is, but they don't use alpha do they?
I don't know. Do you?
> > The kernel is generally the defining item as to whether the OS is 32 bit
or
> > 64 bit or 16 bit.
>
> but i doubt that hotmail is implemented in kernel.
Parts of it most certainly are. Certainly the I/O is.
> > I did not write what you claim I did. That is just plain dishonest.
Here
> > is what I wrote:
> >
> > "They never said it would be done 3 years ago, they said they would be
> > moving it to NT"
> >
> > You are now worse than uninformed, you're being deliberately dishonest.
> >
>
> sorry. i made an honest cuting and pasting mistake, which reflected very
> dishonestly on you. I apologise.
It didn't reflect dishonestly on me, it reflected dishonestly on you.
> > > > and they have been slowly introducing NT
> > > > into the system.
> > >
> > > have they? where? on the desktops of Hotmail staff no doubt..
> > >
> > > Show proof (as you love saying) that NT is used /anywhere/ on hotmail.
>
> you forgot to respond to this one....
Microsoft has stated they use NT in hotmail.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:11:25 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:09:48 -0500, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Marengo wrote:
>> No, I don't have my facts wrong. I was using OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 when
>> this was occurring and I know the history of the two companies. The
>> point is that IBM PSP on one hand was pushing OS/2 while another
>> part of the same division was selling Windows.
>
>And I was using OS/2 since version 1.0 (windows since v 2) and I also
>know the history of the two companies. So what the hell does that mean
>except if longevity wins then I win.
It means that I was an OS/2 advocate. It means that I know the history
of OS/2.
>You're wrong that the IBM MS fight with WARP was over OS pre-loads.
>MS wanted IBM to stop all OS/2 development and withdraw OS/2 when
>they muscled IBM with Win95 licenses for PSP.
Good grief... I know they wanted IBM to stop development -- that's
what caused the split. Microsoft changed course and said Windows
is the future, but IBM wanted to continue development of OS/2, so they
went their separate ways.
>"tooth and nail" What is tjhat but a nonsense comment.
That means to do whatever it takes. Don't preload Windows on your own
hardware. See if you can sell that hardware if Windows isn't on it.
>> What in the world are you talking about? My argument has been that
>> regardless of the illegal activity that MS did, OS/2 ultimately failed
>> because of IBM.
>
>The Judge in the anti-trust case thinks otherwise, that MS's behavior
>was illegal and anti-competitive.
The judge said that MS's behavior was illegal -- did MS decide that
they would sell Windows on IBM hardware?
>Oh so you say IBM should have know MS would break the law and so
>it is still IBM's fault - yes as much as it is any victim's fault for being
>the victim of a crime.
No, I'm saying they should have offered OS/2 on IBM hardware and
not offered Windows, or offered it as an extra-cost option.
>> MS isn't the one who decided that the default OS install on IBM PC's
>> would be Windows, MS isn't the one who decided that it would chase
>> the moving target called the Win32 API.
>
>No more than a man with gun a pointed at his head "decides" to to what
>he is told. You're view runs contrary to the simple and recognized
>facts that justified the Consent Decree and the Anti-Trust case.
To the extent that offering only OS/2 on IBM hardware would probably
have killed off their sales, that's true. But what does that say about
the desire for OS/2 on the part of the consumer? By and large, they
simply didn't want it.
>> Whatever MS _wanted_ them to do, what IBM did with OS/2 was their
>> choosing, not MS's.
>
>Naive.
Maybe so, but it doesn't make it untrue.
>You think Software is like Oil? It isn't.
Wow... I didn't know that.
>Break up MS and into three independent sources and watch their software
>prices drop as OEms play them off each other.
It depends entirely on how it's broken up. It it's just an OS and
Applications split, how do you play one against the other?
>I wouldn't think MS could maintain their monopoly supported profit margins
>when split up and in competion. Competiton forces price cuts, lower prifts,
>lower corporate value.
Surely... but who would the split companies be in competition with, if
they don't make competing products?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:20:28 GMT
In article <8b6u49$2212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> 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
Actually we have quite a few plans for expansion. We are officially
porting to AIX, UnixWare, and Linux at this time. However, we have no
official plans to port to FreeBSD as of now.
I don't know what your specific ties to the FreeBSD platform are, but I
would recommend taking a look at Solaris x86 w/PitBull as an alternative
platform. With XFree86 and Gnu compiler tools installed on a Solaris
x86 box, you get an excellent platform. PitBull gives you a flexible
and secure platform.
For my own information, what sort of things are you using FreeBSD for?
Why do you prefer it to other platforms? These are always good things
to know when internal porting discussions come up.
Cheers,
Jeff
Jeff Thompson
Software Evangelist and Visionary
Argus Systems Group, Inc.
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: www.argus-systems.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (piddy)
Subject: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:28:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. It's buggy.
2. It's ugly.
3. It's slow.
4. Netscape is owned by AOL
5. It has no useful GUI
6. Programmers who work free are bad programmers.
7. Corel makes a version
8. No one has ever made money on it.
9. No one will ever buy Linux apps.
10. Greenspan wore a green tie on St paddies day
11. Apple is about to release OSX
12. Beos is about to release 5
13. Windows 2000 is.
Hope this helps
piddy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
