Linux-Advocacy Digest #740, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Matt Gaia)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Andrew)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: US politics ("DGF")
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Andrew)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bob Germer)
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (abraxas)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 04:16:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8b8j40$75f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> The solaris implementation of 64 bit addressing and suchness is very
> useful
>> in very specific cases. If you run a solaris-based email system, it is
>> immediately obvious exactly what would be useful running as 64bit.
> Immediately obvious? So, you know exactly what the issues of running a 30
> million user email system is simply because you run one with a few hundred
> or thousand users?
Again, if you run a solaris-based email system, it is immediately obvious
exactly what would be useful running as 64 bit. That is, if you understand
the benefits AND drawbacks of a 64 bit system.
>> > How do you know they're running on Intel?
>>
>> Because FreeBSD is x86 only.
> Wrong. There is an Alpha version, and I believe they are working on a Sparc
> version.
>From freebsd.org:
2.3. Supported Hardware
FreeBSD currently runs on a wide variety of ISA, VLB, EISA, and PCI bus based
PCs, ranging from the 386SX to Pentium class machines (though the 386SX is
not recommended). Support for generic IDE or ESDI drive configurations,
various SCSI controllers, and network and serial cards is also provided.
==============================================================================
You are probably thinking of the recent port to Alpha hardware of
FreeBSD---the status of which has recently changed from "a work in
progress" to this:
"The alpha port status page has been removed now that the port has progressed
to the stage that anything not in proper working order can be treated as a bug
instead of work-in-progress."
You are quite correct, freebsd has indeed been ported to the Alpha platform.
There is very little documentation about this port on the FreeBSD site, and
very, very few people are actively using it. There are various and sundry
reasons for this, not the least of which is its exceedingly buggy nature,
hence its lack of mention in the above argument.
>> > Even if they were,
>>
>> They are.
>>
>> You need to do some research.
> Sure thing Mr. "FreeBSD is x86 only".
For all intents and purposes (sane), it is.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 04:18:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then dont make a mistake.
> Absolutely incredible. Rather than have tools to prevent mistakes, your
> attitude is "Don't make one".
Hence the proliferation of mediocrity in the computer world.
>> > Who's talking about disaster? I'm talking about simple typing mistakes.
>>
>> I see. UNIX is stupid because it allows carelessness to damage the
> system.
> No, Root is stupid. Unix is not.
Administrator is stupid, NT is not. It just doesnt work as well as quite
alot of other operating systems.
>> >> At least UNIX comes with sane file permissions in a default
>> >> installation....
>>
>> > Depends on the distribution really.
>>
>> There are no "distributions" of UNIX. And file permissions on the
> important
>> bits are all pretty much the same.
> I'd call DG/UX a distribution of System V. I'd say the same thing of
> Unixware.
You'd be wrong.
>> Demonstrate that they arent.
> Doesn't OpenBSD claim to come with much more secure permissions than other
> BSD's?
It sure does. It doesnt make them more "sane", it makes the more "secure".
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:22:46 -0500
>- Microsoft saw a need for standardization, where none existed (outside
> of POSIX).
(read: Microsoft saw a new way to try to corner a market, and write
half-ass code once they drive everyone else out of that market.)
>- People wanted an operating system that their employees could
> work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
> fat on coffee and twinkies.
*Looks at himself* Well, I have no beard, don't smoke pot, not fat on
coffee and twinkies. Guess I don't fit your mold, huh? Or is it called
the Microsoft Let's-bring-down-linvocates-to-make-us-look-better Mold 2000
and selling at Best Buy for $89.95 for the upgrade and $310 for the full
version? :)
>
>- Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
It's all relative. Windows might have more applications, but the actual
production (in work hours) is roughly about the same, if you count in time
lost to weird system crashes, BSOD's, etc...
>
>: http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
>
>: "Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise
>: would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
>: field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
>: technology. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
>: any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
>: Linux."
>
>So, by your logic, Kirch's viewpoints are immediately correct, without
>need for review? How "Dianetics" of you. You and Matt Templeton should
>seriously consider becoming bowling partners.
>--
>.-----.
>|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
>| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
>|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
>
>
--
Matt Gaia, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University Webmaster, Youngstown State University
Vice President, YSUWeb
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:24:25 -0500
mr_rupert wrote:
>
> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
> OS?
For the same reason we need yet another version of UNIX?
Andrew
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:48:17 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b9gui$o85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
> : OS?
>
> Why of course:
>
> - People were tired of having to acquire 90E10 different toolkits and
> C libs to compile and run the applications they needed for their
> businesses.
You don't need "90E10" different toolkits. You only need the ones that
support the apps you plan to use.
>
> - Microsoft saw a need for standardization, where none existed (outside
> of POSIX).
Microsoft didn't have one, you mean. They thought they could strong arm the
industry into using THEIR OS. Apparently it wasn't as easy as they thought.
>
> - People wanted an operating system that their employees could
> work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
> fat on coffee and twinkies.
Don't smoke pot (any more.) Only grow a beard in the winter. (Functionality
is more important than fitting the stereotype.) Getting fat; love coffee,
but hate twinkies. My junk foods of choice are nachos and Lindor truffles.
>
> - Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
>
Agreed; that's why I'm posting from Win9x. But we're not talking about the
desktop, are we??? RTFP.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:16:37 +0100
Bastian wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:21:43 GMT, Leon Hanson wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:08:43 GMT, "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> 12. Beos is about to release 5
> >
> >> I do not know that OS, is it free ?
> >
> >Beginning with version 5.0, yes.
>
> Just free or open source?
>
> Bastian
It's just free. It'll be out on the 28th of march. Though I do love
linux, I'm aways in the mood to try something new.
------------------------------
From: "DGF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:56:19 -0500
> Again, this is a straw man. Not all "liberals" want to do this.
I do not refer to all liberals, I refer to liberalism in general as a whole.
There are exceptions to every rule including this one.
> Again, this is a straw man. Not all "liberals" want to do this.
Not liberals as individuals. The liberal movement as whole does not AT THE
MOMENT. It is irrelevant to me what they want at the moment. My point is
that liberalism as a movement, when it gets what it wants will move on to
some other cause and then another and then another for all eternity. That's
because of a psychological need to feel they are "helping people" and to be
loved by those people as well as to make themselves feel superior by
condemning others as evil(conservatives, libertarians,capitalists, racists,
sexists, homophobes, bigots,fascists, any non-leftist, anyone who disagrees
with them, etc.) You will deny this as a liberal and so will all liberals.
But the evidence shows that it is true. Liberals cannot see it because the
human mind cannot self-diagnose its own psychology.
Many individual liberals are very tolerant and decent people. You strike me
as one of these. But it is the radical liberals that run the liberal
movement because it is these that are the most power-hungry, thus the
"decent" liberals don't get their way when liberals are in charge. It is
the extremists that end up running the show while the "decent" ones just sit
by and watch idly by. An example of this is the suppression of freedom of
speech in universities called "politcal correctness". You may now think "I
disagree with that". Maybe so and probably many self-described liberals do
too. But when it comes down to it and the extremist liberals want to
eliminiate freedom of speech the "decent" liberals sit idly by and do
nothing while libertarians, conservatives and other non-leftists have their
mouths shut by the liberal GESTAPO in American universities.
I never said "ALL liberals".
> If I recall correctly, it's the conservatives who want to use force when
> it comes to birth control.
Really? I did not know that. News to me. As far as I know the strongest
advocates of birth control are communists(as in China) or liberals in the US
who for example want to give condoms for free in public schools. I do not
recall any "conservative" wanting to use force to implement birth control.
I don't care what conservatives think. Not all non-liberals are
conservative, there are libertarians for example. This has nothing to do
with conservatives, it has everything to do with the liberal quest to solve
everyone's problems to feel good about themselves.
Again I am not arguing for or against birth control. I'm just pointing out
the psychology of liberalism and used birth control as an example.
> Suffice it to say that the air is not private property, and it's
everyone's
business what you do with it.
I agree. I am not arguing for or against any environmental policy. This is
about the liberal obsession and tendency to move from one cause to another.
It is irrelevant for my argument whether those causes are right or wrong.
Usually they are wrong but occasionally right. The point is that they will
move from one cause to another. If I give the liberal movement a wish list
of what they want and implement it all, in a few years they will start to
whine of something else. If there were no social problems they would make
up a problem to whine about. Again this is about Liberalism as a movement
not individual liberals. Mass movements usually have a very different
character than just the sum of their constituents.
Hell I wasn't even so much arguing against immigration in that last
paragraph, I was trying to illustrate the truth about liberalism, that it
isn't about helping people or really solving problems, that it is about
making the liberal feel good about himself. Again this is a generalization
and does not necessarily apply to every self-described liberal.
I do not argue with liberals any more. Here I am simply trying to clarify
apparent misconceptions on what I wrote. I wasn't arguing for or against
birth control, environmentalism, etc. I was illustrating a point about
liberalism.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:57:50 -0500, DGF wrote:
> >India and Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall reading that to
> >immigrate to Japan and be a Japanese citizen you need a Japanese surname.
>
> Basically true. Women can get citizenship if they marry a Japanese, men
can't.
> ( though they can get working permission ). Here's the kicker -- being
born
> in Japan doesn't get you citizenship iirc.
>
> >I find it interesting how you liberals condemn the
>
> Hey, I'm one of "you liberals" and I condemned no such thing. I agree that
> America is one of the worlds most generous countries wrt immigration ( the
> only developed countries that come close are Australia and Canada )
>
> You are arguing with straw men.
>
> >billion new immigrants. You would want the government to raise taxes
to
> >95% to redistribute wealth
>
> Again, this is a straw man. Not all "liberals" want to do this.
>
> >of 1.3billion and growing. You would insist we needed mandatory birth
> >control and mandatory abortions
>
> If I recall correctly, it's the conservatives who want to use force when
> it comes to birth control.
>
> > as well as draconian environmental >regulations.
>
> If I recall correctly, it's the conservatives who want to use force when
> it comes to birth control.
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:41:48 -0500
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> The notion that a GUI
> must be big and bloated is a Microsoft phenomenon.
And this from a guy that runs X on his Linux box? Care to compare the relative
bloat of X and say, Windows 3.1 (a Microsoft product) on a 386 with 4 MB RAM?
The relative rendering speed of X vs Windows NT 4.0 (w/o IE4)? Granted, Windows
isn't the slimmest GUI on the planet, but just about every modern GUI has its
fair share of "bloat".
> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
This is a very bizzare statement no matter how you look at it.
Andrew
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 05:22:26 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 20:26:50 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>Put the ulimit in /etc/profile if you want it to be global.
Better -- if you're smart enough to use Redhat (-; you can use
PAM to do this.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:25:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
On 03/21/2000 at 03:53 PM,
George Marengo, a liar of the first order in the grasp of the RICO
named Microsoft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> 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?
It is FUD because IBM had no more choice than a restaurant owner who was
told by the local Mafiosi that he would install a cigarette machine, use
XYZ garbage collection company, and pay $100 a week "insurance". And you
know damn well that is the case.
> <incredible amounts of babbling snipped>
Only because you cannot argue with the facts that I posted.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:34:54 GMT
On 7 Mar 2000 03:49:29 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:51:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>????
>>
>>Linux sucks. It needs to be told...We tell it like it is..
>
>What do you mean "we", Steve ? Is that multiple personality disorder
>of yours kicking in?
>
>Get a shrink.
>
>> Sorry if you are outnumbered 10 to 1.....
>
>Look, I can make a perl script to post the same thing under a hundred
>different names and "outnumber" you 10 to 1. But what would that prove ?
>
That you are a better perl coder than steve/aimee/itchy :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Mar 2000 22:37:00 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > That's not what I want.
> >
> > When a user leaves the system, I'd rather just rm -rf their $HOME and
> > be done with it...
>
> Great. Same thing on NT, just click the "Take ownership" button and then
> hit delete.
There you go.
If it's so easy, then why all the fuss? In fact, I don't even erase
(invoke rm) their $HOME when they leave the system; the usrdel script
takes care of doing that; along with removing their inbox, mail
account, mailing list subscriptions, database access and their roaming
profile.
Of course, I have to deal with creating and deleting hundreds of users
at a time; no spare time to click on "Take ownership" on every one...
> > > Who's talking about disaster? I'm talking about simple typing mistakes.
> >
> > rm /* is the specific disaster I was commenting on. If you'd care to
> > name another situation... Backups are the only way you can protect
> > against these "typing errors" (lest I call them disasters).
>
> rm * .whatever (with an accidental space) is the most common one. And this
> can be done anywhere.
Yes, but when I do that it asks:
rm: remove `filename'?
And, the worst case scenario is that I restore the file from the
previous night's tape; just like NT.
I *rarely* run as root on any of my servers. I simply have no need to
do so, unless I'm managing user accounts or server software. I almost
never type `rm` at any point anyway, so the -i alias serves me well.
> > > > At least UNIX comes with sane file permissions in a default
> > > > installation....
> > >
> > > Depends on the distribution really.
> >
> > Name *one* that comes with bad permissions.
>
> Depends on what you call "bad". If you consider anything less than optimal
> security, then most distributions come with "bad" permissions. Isn't that
> one of the reasons OpenBSD exists?
OpenBSD focuses more on good kernel/daemon security (ie, buffer
overflows -- one of the hazards of using crappy languages like C).
I haven't seen a Linux or UNIX distribution which comes with
permissions even CLOSE to that of a virgin NT install. The most you
can usually hope for is a race in /tmp.
--
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] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 05:39:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - People wanted an operating system that their employees could
> work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
> fat on coffee and twinkies.
And now we see exactly where Mr. Edwards's problem with UNIX is:
Simple intellectual jealousy.
While I understand that it can be quite frustrating to consider that
pimple-faced potheads can understand something that you cannot, Mr.
Edwards, it is hardly in anyone's best interest that you continue
to highlight your own shortcomings.
> So, by your logic, Kirch's viewpoints are immediately correct, without
> need for review? How "Dianetics" of you.
It may be interesting to note that every last granule of the Church of
Scientology's network in their headquarters in Los Angeles is rooted
firmly in NT 4.0.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:28:27 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 04:07:46 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
>: OS?
>
>Why of course:
>
>- People were tired of having to acquire 90E10 different toolkits and
> C libs to compile and run the applications they needed for their
> businesses.
This has never been a requirement for commercial software.
This might be a problem if you are building some GNU tool
from source, assuming you weren't bright enough to install
a nice set of binary packages.
>
>- Microsoft saw a need for standardization, where none existed (outside
> of POSIX).
>
Actually, no need was present here. Server code was already
quite portable between a wide variety of Unixen and even
VMS if you did your engineering right.
>- People wanted an operating system that their employees could
> work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
> fat on coffee and twinkies.
>
>- Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
This is irrelevant to the point under discussion. This however
brings up another relevant point. Another 'Windows' was needed
because Win9x stinks so badly. NT makes a great 'robust' client
OS.
[deletia]
Although, even as a client OS less pathetic than Win9x, it
still has it's problems.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
