Linux-Advocacy Digest #732, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 14:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (Bastian)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development (Craig
Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Jerry")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Jerry")
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Giving up on NT (Leon Hanson)
Re: Giving up on NT (Leon Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:15:05 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And chmod is useless against root. If you have root, you can do
whatever to
> > a file whether you intend to or not. You cannot protect a file from
> > accidental modification or delete from root without removing everyones
> > ability to do so.
>
> alias rm='rm -i'
rm -i is *NOT* a solution. It's a pain in the ass. I don't want to
manually say yes or no to file deletes, I want files that I, as root, do not
own but others do to not be effected by anything I do unless I specifically
tell it to.
> Erik, you're holding on to this lame argument by a strand of a
> thread. An NT Administrator is functionally equivalent to a UNIX root
> user; end of story.
It would be the end of the story if that were the argument. It's not.
> Nothing, short of a good backup system, will save you from disaster on
> either system.
Who's talking about disaster? I'm talking about simple typing mistakes.
> At least UNIX comes with sane file permissions in a default
> installation....
Depends on the distribution really.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: 21 Mar 2000 18:11:59 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:28:04 GMT, piddy wrote:
>1. It's buggy.
Nope.
>2. It's ugly.
Question of taste.
>3. It's slow.
Compared to what?
>4. Netscape is owned by AOL
Windoze is owned by M$.
>5. It has no useful GUI
You're blind.
>6. Programmers who work free are bad programmers.
Ever heard of the word "hobby"?
>7. Corel makes a version
Good point...
>8. No one has ever made money on it.
Even better point...
>9. No one will ever buy Linux apps.
Because they're for free.
>10. Greenspan wore a green tie on St paddies day
Nice for him.
>11. Apple is about to release OSX
So what?
>12. Beos is about to release 5
How much money do you have? (After you bought MacOS X, win2k...)
>13. Windows 2000 is.
Windows 2000 is... what?
>
>Hope this helps
Me too.
Bastian.
------------------------------
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: 21 Mar 2000 10:38:43 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net writes:
> IBM is supporting Linux only on their bottom of the line RS 6K
> products and not on any of their real power systems like SP/2.
> How would they even run the switch on a platform like that.
> For those ignorant of the switch that is the piece of hardware that
> couples all of the SP/2 nodes together and provides a high speed data
> path between them.
>
> IBM has advertised support for Linux, but i doubt you will see Linux
> replacing MVS/ESA on any CMOS in the near future. As a guest under VM
> sure, but as the main traffic cop I doubt it and IBM has not made ANY
> announcement of such intent.
>
> Aix and MVS blow Linux out of the water on all accounts except cost.
>
> Steve
http://www10.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/03/biztech/articles/20soft.html
"To combat Sun and Microsoft, the report recommended, IBM should
retool all its server operating systems, from the mainframe OS/390
to AIX, IBM's version of Unix, to run Linux smoothly. The same
should be true of all IBM's database, Web applications and messaging
software, the report said. And IBM, the Bowen team concluded, should
push Linux as the operating system of choice for the Internet --
more robust and reliable than Windows NT and eventually overtaking
Solaris, Sun's flavor of Unix, as the industry standard for Unix."
I agree that AIX blows Linux out of the water right now for corporate
use, and that MVS isn't even in the same league -- but we're talking
about the future.
--
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: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:22:21 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> rm -i is *NOT* a solution. It's a pain in the ass. I don't want to
> manually say yes or no to file deletes, I want files that I, as root, do not
> own but others do to not be effected by anything I do unless I specifically
> tell it to.
>
and rm -rf / * is /specifically/ telling rm that you want to unlink the
root directory.... where's the problem?????
maybe it was a typo on your part, but it's still specific.
and if you have fat fingers use "alias rm -i", you can still be
'specific' by doing rm -f (which will translate to rm -i -f, and the -f
takes precedence as it was specified last).
what is your problem? If you don't like rm, then go find something else.
As for your spacious arguments about NT Administrator and being able to
take away privileges, as people keep telling you (including one who
really really knows a lot about NT file security, etc..) these
privileges buy you nothing on NT...
sheeeesh...
-paul jakma.
(and if you're talking about proper capabilities, then yes linux has it,
and it's worth more than any capabilities on NT).
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:25:43 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, 64 bit NT will coincide with the release of Merced.
I'll believe that /if/ it happens. Note that Linux IA64 support has
already been included in stock linux. :)
> 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.
hotmail had done fine up till now with 32bit address space. Why would it
suddenly need more memory on NT/W2k?
> Different
> device drivers (for file store and TCP/IP), and plenty of other differences.
>
why would the applications that constitute hotmail need to worry about
device drivers?
> And how do you know what they've implemented in the kernel and what they
> haven't?
>
i don't follow solaris much, but it's public knowledge.. Sol 2.4 was
32bit kernel/32 bit userspace, 2.51 or perhaps was 2.6 was 64bit kernel
with only support for 32bit userspace. I believe the forthcoming Sol 8
will be fully 64bit.
> I don't know. Do you?
>
well it is commonly accepted that Hotmail uses FreeBSD for frontend web
serving, and solaris/usparc for the backend.
> Parts of it most certainly are. Certainly the I/O is.
>
On the solaris machines therefore. What about the FreeBSD web servers?
They're running on Intel, why couldn't they have moved the web servers
to NT?
> > 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.
>
god, you're good at misinterpreting people. I apologised for my mistake,
which i claim was an honest typo mistake, i would have corrected it
without your prompting had i noticed it.
the second part of what i said, meant "what i wrote would have given
others a dishonest impression of you, when this was not the case"..
sorry for my bad grammar..
> > you forgot to respond to this one....
>
> Microsoft has stated they use NT in hotmail.
references please...
------------------------------
From: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:19:25 -0000
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nQBB4.2226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > They have full access, yes. What administrator has that root does not
> is
> > > the ability to remove permissions. Yes, the administrator can reclaim
> those
> > > permissions but you have to deliberately do so.
> >
> > you can set things up on a unix machine so that root has to undo things
> > before they can modify something. So what's your point?
>
> Yes, but nobody else can modify that something either.
>
> > root on Unix = all-powerful
> > administrator on NT = all-powerful
> >
> > what's your point eric?
>
> What's your Pawl?
>
> Root has no restrictions, even when you want there to be restrictions from
> accidental modification without restricting everyone. That's the unix
> philosophy, all or nothing.
>
> > > I've been writing Win32 software for over 5 years.
> > >
> > > Were you not aware that you can remove the SE_RESTORE_NAME right from
> the
> > > administrator group?
> >
> > of course he knows that! (god damm it he probably knows more about NT
> > file permissions/domains/smb than MS). And he even said as much - ie you
> > can restrict administrator on NT, but administrator can undo those
> > restrictions at will.
>
> He seemed to be indicating otherwise.
>
> > > No, a user running as root need only type rm /* -rf to wipe out a
> system, no
> > > matter what the file system priveleges are set to.
> >
> > So? they are root, by definition they have full access to every bit and
> > byte on the system. That is root.
> >
> > And administrator can do the exact same thing.
>
> can, not must.
>
> > Only difference is that the Unix tools don't molly coddle you as much as
> > the tools on NT. But if you wanted rm to assume you're a fool then use
> > rm -i.
>
> Typical attitude. Blame the user. Nevermind that the tools don't give
you
> the ability prevent problems. rm -i is a pain in the ass. I would much
> rather remove access to files I don't want to accidentally touch. I don't
> know about you, but I make mistakes when I type. I'm glad you're perfect.
My advice to you - NEVER log in as root with an attitude like yours....
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:23:00 -0000
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fILB4.2295$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Yes, but nobody else can modify that something either.
> >
> > which is the point of it. (root is all-powerful, so if the all-powerful
> > can't do it, then no one else can either)
>
> 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.
>
> You can't see the difference here?
>
> > > He seemed to be indicating otherwise.
> >
> > then you didn't read his read his point, or else deliberately
> > misinterpreted it.
>
> 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.
>
> > > Typical attitude. Blame the user.
> >
> > but the user is not root!!! root is not a normal user!!!
>
> Under Unix, your right. Under NT, Administrator *IS* a normal
Ahh.......that explains why all the NT systems I have used are not very
stable or reliable..........
> 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.
>
> > we are talking about root.. and it's a given on (standard) unix that
> > root is all-powerful, all-seeing.
>
> Which is simply not the case with NT. Adminstrator, can only be such if
you
> give them rights to every file on the system. They can take those rights,
> but it's not such by default.
>
> > > Nevermind that the tools don't give you
> > > the ability prevent problems.
> >
> > what problem? You're talking about how administrator on NT is/can be
> > hamstrung, and you therefore conclude root on unix has a problem?
> >
> > fsck off...
>
> Isn't that a little cliche' by now?
>
> 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.
>
> > > rm -i is a pain in the ass. I would much
> > > rather remove access to files I don't want to accidentally touch. I
> don't
> > > know about you, but I make mistakes when I type.
> >
> > then use rm -i... the i does stand for "interactive" and is designed
> > exactly for /interactive/ use of rm. I have rm aliased to -i when i log
> > in as root.
>
> I don't want interactive. I want the ability to not effect files which I
do
> not own unless I specifically take those rights.
>
> > 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?
>
> Your attitude is typical "We can't do it, so it's stupid to want to"
>
> > > I'm glad you're perfect.
> >
> > i'm glad i don't have to spout rubbish on newsgroups in other to justify
> > my pay packet.
>
> No, you seem to do just fine without being paid.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
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 18:36:30 GMT
Good article,but again IBM is talking 5 years down the road.
In order to make all the things I spoke about work, IBM is going to
have to be heavily involved in the direction of Linux development.
It's going to be interesting to say the least.
Steve
On 21 Mar 2000 10:38:43 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net writes:
>
>> IBM is supporting Linux only on their bottom of the line RS 6K
>> products and not on any of their real power systems like SP/2.
>> How would they even run the switch on a platform like that.
>> For those ignorant of the switch that is the piece of hardware that
>> couples all of the SP/2 nodes together and provides a high speed data
>> path between them.
>>
>> IBM has advertised support for Linux, but i doubt you will see Linux
>> replacing MVS/ESA on any CMOS in the near future. As a guest under VM
>> sure, but as the main traffic cop I doubt it and IBM has not made ANY
>> announcement of such intent.
>>
>> Aix and MVS blow Linux out of the water on all accounts except cost.
>>
>> Steve
>
>http://www10.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/03/biztech/articles/20soft.html
>
> "To combat Sun and Microsoft, the report recommended, IBM should
> retool all its server operating systems, from the mainframe OS/390
> to AIX, IBM's version of Unix, to run Linux smoothly. The same
> should be true of all IBM's database, Web applications and messaging
> software, the report said. And IBM, the Bowen team concluded, should
> push Linux as the operating system of choice for the Internet --
> more robust and reliable than Windows NT and eventually overtaking
> Solaris, Sun's flavor of Unix, as the industry standard for Unix."
>
>I agree that AIX blows Linux out of the water right now for corporate
>use, and that MVS isn't even in the same league -- but we're talking
>about the future.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:47:17 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yes, 64 bit NT will coincide with the release of Merced.
>
> I'll believe that /if/ it happens. Note that Linux IA64 support has
> already been included in stock linux. :)
And likely to change. IA64 only runs in simulation right now.
> > 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.
>
> hotmail had done fine up till now with 32bit address space. Why would it
> suddenly need more memory on NT/W2k?
And how do you know that it runs in 32 bit address space under Solaris?
> > Different
> > device drivers (for file store and TCP/IP), and plenty of other
differences.
>
> why would the applications that constitute hotmail need to worry about
> device drivers?
Because the device drivers are part of the entire application. Hotmail
could not function as efficiently as it does without Hotmails custom
drivers.
> > And how do you know what they've implemented in the kernel and what they
> > haven't?
>
> i don't follow solaris much, but it's public knowledge.. Sol 2.4 was
> 32bit kernel/32 bit userspace, 2.51 or perhaps was 2.6 was 64bit kernel
> with only support for 32bit userspace. I believe the forthcoming Sol 8
> will be fully 64bit.
You didn't answer the question. Hotmail runs on highly customized Solaris.
You have no idea what they've implemented in user or kernel and what they've
implemented in 64 bit.
> > I don't know. Do you?
>
> well it is commonly accepted that Hotmail uses FreeBSD for frontend web
> serving, and solaris/usparc for the backend.
And?
> > Parts of it most certainly are. Certainly the I/O is.
>
> On the solaris machines therefore. What about the FreeBSD web servers?
> They're running on Intel, why couldn't they have moved the web servers
> to NT?
How do you know they're running on Intel? Even if they were, they can do
load balancing and add new servers. The backend processing isn't quite the
same.
> > > you forgot to respond to this one....
> >
> > Microsoft has stated they use NT in hotmail.
>
> references please...
http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
"Solaris is one of several operating systems in use. So is Windows NT
Server"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:52:53 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > rm -i is *NOT* a solution. It's a pain in the ass. I don't want to
> > manually say yes or no to file deletes, I want files that I, as root, do
not
> > own but others do to not be effected by anything I do unless I
specifically
> > tell it to.
>
> and rm -rf / * is /specifically/ telling rm that you want to unlink the
> root directory.... where's the problem?????
>
> maybe it was a typo on your part, but it's still specific.
No, that's accidental.
> and if you have fat fingers use "alias rm -i", you can still be
> 'specific' by doing rm -f (which will translate to rm -i -f, and the -f
> takes precedence as it was specified last).
No. What I mean is, I want to force the administrator to go out of his way
to delete files he doesn't own, not just issue a callous command line. Much
like having a keylock on the self-destruct switch of you bomb.
rm -i isn't all that great anyways, since if you do it on lots of files, you
have to acknowledge each one. You can sit there typing yes repeatedly and
accidently hit yes when you didn't mean to because you've had to say yes to
50 other files before it.
> what is your problem? If you don't like rm, then go find something else.
I have, it's called NT.
> As for your spacious arguments about NT Administrator and being able to
> take away privileges, as people keep telling you (including one who
> really really knows a lot about NT file security, etc..) these
> privileges buy you nothing on NT...
They buy you protection from accidental mistakes. That's a big "something".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:54:16 -0600
Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b8eqk$72u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Under Unix, your right. Under NT, Administrator *IS* a normal
>
> Ahh.......that explains why all the NT systems I have used are not very
> stable or reliable..........
No, it doesn't explain that.
What does the user status have to do with the OS's reliability?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:03:52 GMT
On 16 Mar 2000 23:43:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>> I could write a "Hello World!" app that runs on just about every platform,
>> so is my program more functional than another application?
>
>Please do so. I'd like to see it on a dreamcast, a palm pilot and
>a couple of other palmtops, well, not on the washing machine (no
>display usually), a mac, a cray, a carry-around mp3-player
>w/display, a MD-player w/display, a LISP-machine, maybe something
>running under ITS, an Amiga, a VC-20, a C128, a Commodore PET and
>a couple of others. Oh, and all the usual platforms, too.
>
>It would be a cool program to do that. I bet you can't pull
>that one off.
<sarcasm>
Is performance an issue? Cuz if it's not, he can use Java, right?
</sarcasm>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:09:39 GMT
On 16 Mar 2000 22:34:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>Those who give up functionality for experienced users in exchange
>for a shorter, shallower learning curve neither deserve the
>functionality nor the shallow learning curve. And they have have
>to relearn each time they need to upgrade to something more
>powerful.
As in....Microsoft Word? ;-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
