Linux-Advocacy Digest #875, Volume #25 Wed, 29 Mar 00 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Tim Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:35:34 -0700
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> : This argument has been resolved: if you really want safety, use Unix!
> : :-)
>
> *giggle*
>
> What this whole thing comes down to is perspective. Arguing it further is
> relatively pointless, as people's opinions cannot be proven or disproven.
Actually not, in this case. Since you can indeed lock root so that
nobody can get to it, while still granting minimal administrative
capability through suid and sudo, Unix really can be made safer (at
least, for the sake of this argument) than NT.
> : Nope. Not valid, since you can make your system *SAFER* running Unix,
> : than you can with NT.
>
> I disagree. I think a system is only as any good as its admin is.
Well, yes, that was my original point, but Erik seems to feel that
programs are more trustworthy than people, so as a semi-sarcastic
response, I showed him how to configure a Unix system so that the
programs had more control over the admin than the standard root account
did.
In the end, the "safety" argument really does boil down to "then don't
do that".
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:39:51 -0700
George Marengo wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> > Yet, the root account still exists on the system. You seem to have
> > overlooked that little fact.
>
> Do you agree that a *malicious* administrator can pretty much destroy
> any system, whether it be NT or Unix?
If that administrator has been granted absolute power, then yes, of
course.
> The issue was that NT makes it more difficult for the Administrator to
> accidentally delete users' files while root doesn't.
And, as I have already pointed out, if you feel you need those kind of
safe guards, then you can create them on Unix systems.
> The solution, as
> has been pointed out to you, is to create an Administrator account in
> Unix which doesn't allow the deletion of users' files. That solves the
> accidental deletion of user files, does it not?
Yes it does. However, not everybody is so careless that they need this
amount of system prompting to actually make 'em think (which, when you
get right down to it, is all that NT gives you: prompts to make you
think in case you aren't already thinking). Which is why most Unix
systems do not have "admin" accounts. Unix administrators are taught
(sometimes in classes, sometimes by making a mistake) to *ALWAYS* think
while using root.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:59:54 -0600
abraxas wrote:
>
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Be may be easier to get started in than linux, but it's
> > application availability problem is (by far) worse. Especially
> > the types of programs that should be running on it (audio, video,
> > etc.).
>
> Apparantly youve never actually used BeOS, or if you have, you werent paying
> attention. Exactly what sort of audio/video functionality is missing?
>
> Or is it that you simply want ports of your FAVORITE software for such
> applications? Cakewalk? Lightwave? What is it?
1. They are positioning themselves as the "media os" but with
apparently no drivers for the high end equipment
2. No, the major applications for manipulating video and audio
aren't there. The day may come when they are, but not until M$
has been beaten down quite a bit.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 29 Mar 2000 20:08:12 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:06:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Unless you su root, type rm * -rf and then realize you were in /home rather
>than /home/userx
Thats pretty hard to do if the current working directory is in your command
prompt.
>> >you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
>> >disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that if you run a buggy program in NT that it
>> cannot write to disk sectors or trash files it shouldn't be touching?
>
>Yes, if your permissions are set accordingly.
Even if the program is running as "system" ? By the way, are the "permissions
set accordingly" on a default NT install ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:11:00 GMT
LP writes:
>> George Marengo writes:
>>>>>> George Marengo writes [to Bob Germer]:
>>>>>>> You're absolutely correct -- but what does that have to do with the
>>>>>>> Judges opinion being just that, an opinion?
>>>>>> You called that opinion a fact.
>>>>> The Judge has opinions, just like I do.
>>>> Do you also call your opinions "facts"?
>>> Nope.
>> So why do you call the opinions of a judge "facts"?
>>
>> GM] The facts referred to are the legal opinion of a Judge
>>> Do you?
>> Irrelevant, given that you're the one who called a legal opinion
>> "facts".
> The US system of justice does not concern itself with empirical reality,
> only legal reality.
Incorrect, given that the US system of justice does what it can to
ascertain empirical reality, which shows that it does have some
concern.
> The "findings of fact" only refer to the legal findings.
Irrelevnat, given that George and I were discussing the difference
between facts and opinions.
> For example, one can be legally guilty of murder, yet in reality,
> have not conducted the murder.
Does that suddenly change a fact into an opinion or vice versa?
> The "fact" is that you have been found guilty of murder.
But do you really consider it an opinion?
> This "fact" has nothing to do with whether or not you actually
> have done it.
But do you really consider it an opinion?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:12:33 GMT
You're slipping Mark, it's not me. I've never tried BEOS.
Steve
On 29 Mar 2000 17:44:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>One thing for sure: if BeOS ever gets popular enough to
>take significant market share away from Microsoft, then
>a bunch of pro-Microsoft Usenet spammers using fake names
>will mysteriously appear and start posting hundreds of
>lying propaganda articles against BeOS every day, just as
>they do now against Linux. (For example, the poster of
>this article, who sounds exactly like Steve/Mike/Heather/
>teknite/sarek/S/sponge/etc.)
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>BEOS 5 is ready for downloading, but the site is too busy.
>>
>>Fortunately you can download BEOS at other places. Check the Beos
>>newsgroup.
>>Here's a fast site:
>>http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10108-100-1594977.html?tag=st.dl.10000_
>>103_1.lst.td
>>
>>Btw, it's well worth taking a look at. It's fast, looks great, is as
>>easy as the Mac. Just click around and you can figure things out.
>>Don't count on it working with Win-modems and the off brand sound
>>cards though.
>>
>>It defaulted to 640x480 on my computer, but in less than 5 minutes I
>>found a way to adjust it to 800x600 and changed the refresh rate from
>>56 to 72 to cut down on flicker. Try that with Linux! My wheel mouse
>>worked and scrolled most windows. I'm seriously thinking of getting a
>>different modem and sound card and using this for web browsing, file
>>downloading, and fun stuff.
>>
>>If it had apps, I'd say it had an excellent chance to make it big.
>>
>>piddy -- Linux now sucks more!
>>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Mar 2000 13:14:55 -0700
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : >
> : > : Oh, just like the SYSTEM account still exists under NT.
> : >
> : > Yes, but you cannot log in as System. So your point is moot.
>
> : You don't know much about NT. It only takes a small program to get a
> : command.com up and running as the sysetm user.
>
> Please explain how this is possible.
There are several ways, but the last time I did it was by making a
service which ran using the SYSTEM privileges; allow it to interact
with the desktop and then have it fire off a command console. The
resource kit has a nifty program called srvany.exe (trying to
remember, it's been a while since I used NT) which can make this
pretty easy.
I wonder if NT5 allows you to do something like this:
runas /user:local\system cmd.exe
while you're the Administrator. Anyone?
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:11:26 -0700
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:28:00, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >George Richard Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> And yet is more powerful and fully featured.
> >
> >Is it? How powerful is a crashed program, after all?
>
> So you recommend the use of alpha software ala Gnumeric then?
No. Where did I recommend Gnumeric?
> >What good is power you don't use?
>
> Needs grow.
So when that happens, change programs.
If you haven't trapped yourself by buying a program that encrypts your
data in a closed, proprietary format, then the cost of change is very
small.
> >Hey, if you need functionality that Gnumeric doesn't have . . . get
> >something else. Xess, SO, Applixware, Wingz, what have you. . .
>
> Are they free as in the GNU sense? Thought not...
No, they're not. So, what free spread sheet that runs on Windows were
you attempting to compare to Gnumeric. . . Excel, was it? Hey, I hate
to burst your bubble but Excel isn't free.
You want to make a point? Stick to comparing Apples with Apples.
> >In other words, since nobody needs it, it is a huge waste of processor
> >time, disk space and RAM.
>
> since you don't need it, anyone who does is obviously wrong. Lovely rhetoric.
I never said that. I said *NOBODY* needs it. Because nobody does.
> >The days of being required to tweak every tiny bit of your documents are
> >long past. The modern user knows that presentation is the job of the
> >system, not the user.
>
> Indeed, so I refuse to learn another bizarre typesetting language, and just
> do the content.
If all you are doing is content, then you don't need WYSIWYG. Point
proven, case closed.
So, since you refuse to learn a bizarre typesetting language, I assume
you didn't bother to learn to use Word. . . so what system *DID* you
learn?
> >Because if you *DO* attempt to control the layout, you're doing
> >something stupid. Layout is, after all, typesetting.
>
> The options offered in LyX are limited.
Yes indeed. As they should be.
> >Chose the appropriate document style, then forget about it. That's the
> >*RIGHT* way to do it, as that means that your documents are typeset in a
> >professional manner.
>
> Then supply some more styles, huh?
"Styles"? What "styles" are you looking for? Please refer to them
using the professionally correct terminology, so I'll know that you know
what you are talking about . . . and if you can't, then perhaps you
should rethink your request.
> >And a really, really dumb idea. Never, Never, Never violate the core
> >design concept of a system. Doing so is the most damaging root cause of
> >defects.
>
> By templates, I mean styled documents - like you wanted above.
I didn't say "styled" documents. I said, in short, that typesetting is
a job for a profesional. Input your content and structure, then let the
presentation system do the typesetting.
> >Where did you look? Have you queried VA Linux, or one of the big
> >companies that sell PC's?
>
> Hint - only recently have they started selling linux servers....
Hint: I have a friend who bought a pre-installed Linux box from them
quite some time ago. Just what did you mean by: "recently"?
> More for MacOS as well and probably Solaris.
Solaris is doubtful. After all, Linux can run more than just Linux
binaries . . . the first copy of Informix I ran on Linux was actually a
Unixware version.
> >Windows needs 'em. Linux has hand holding books ("Linux For Dummies"),
> >but in general you'll not find as many because in most cases, hand
> >holding documentation for Linux is already freely available.
>
> And frankly, disorganised and inferior.
That's opinion. In my experience, the opposite is true.
> Which docs can tell me how to add users across all Linux systems?
>
> adduser or useradd or a GUI frontend....
Yes.
Are you objecting to choice?
> >> d) The ability to do everything by point and click
> >
> >This cannot be done under Windows. Nor can it be done under Linux.
> >Your point?
>
> You can do more in Windows with the mouse.
You've proved this?
How?
> >With the ability to connect your PC to a high speed, "always on" network
> >connection like DSL or a cable modem, the ability to access your files
> >from anywhere in the networked world will very quickly become a "desktop
> >capability".
>
> If and when Europe gets this cheaply, we'll be running NT anyway.
Want to bet? When Europe gets this cheaply, you'll be running NT,
Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS and just about every other OS in existence.
> >Linux already has this. Windows NT and Windows 2000 do, as well . . .
> >which proves my point. The capabilities that Linux already has are
> >being added to the "next generation home OS" that MS is just now
> >starting to push . . . NT (Win2K).
>
> Business OS, if you read the press releases
MS roadmap calls for replacing the 9X kernel series with the NT kernel.
Or are you suggesting that MS is going to abandon the home computer
market?
> >> >Should a good Desktop, be able to run remote GUI or cli apps on another
> >> >box, easily ?
> >>
> >> Remote GUI - why ?
>
> Its not needed when most people only have one computer - and its only
> networking is via modem.
Really? So a single computer that only has a modem to connect it to the
network doesn't need a web browser?
> >Which is like asking: Web access? Why?
>
> Information retrieval. Obviously.
Ah. So you never run Java, or ActiveX, or fill in a form and send it
back to the Web server . . . in which case it might surprise you to know
that a lot of people do.
> Remote GUI apps are just slower than local
> ones.
Of course they are. That's why it's called the World Wide Wait.
> >As above: You need to understand that "typical desktop needs" simply
> >reflects what capabilities that the general public was given by the
> >dominant supplier. As "unusual" capabilities become more and more
> >prevalent (with the rise of desktop Unix), you will see more and more
> >"desktop users" using these technologies.
>
> As the population using PC's grows, desktop user will increasingly become
> even more equal to Windows user, or in trendy cases, iMac user.
No. As the population using computing appliances grows, the desktop
user will decrease, and in some cases be replaced by the "WebTV" type
user.
> >Remember, just a few short years ago, networking was not a "desktop user
> >need". Now, it is.
>
> Its still not exactly delivered to each and every home, fast and cheap.
Fast and Cheap are subjective and relative terms.
It's clear that, in fact, fast, cheap networking has been delivered to
most homes (compare your 56K modem to how fast things worked back in the
110 BAUD days!)
> >Which totally side steps the question. Initial consistency is available
> >on any system. But, after you stop being a total newbie, how do you
> >gain the power of choice on a Windows system?
>
> Using freely available 3rd party software.... Just like Linux, except its not
> bundled on the CD.
And is incredibly buggy, hard to use, and still not as flexible as what
you get on Linux.
> [snip crap about how Linux == good server, as irrelevant to desktop use]
Ah. Proof positive that you don't know what you are talking about. . .
('Cause if you did, you'd be thinking: "What about that service that
gives you access to your files from anywhere. . . since that's a server
capability, how the heck do they expect to make money?", and after a
while you might even realize that that "crap about Linux == good server
DEFINES the desktop of the near future!)
and that you aren't familiar with history.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:13:06 -0700
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:44:32 -0700, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >See above. Xess is pretty good.
>
> Xess is actually quite pathetic. A pox on you for recommending it.
How so? Are you saying that nobody should use Xess?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:23:46 GMT
Just ignorant of BE, is it GPL ?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:27:46 -0600
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Completely obliterating the effects of having a non-root account in the
> > first place.
>
> Then use sudo, instead.
>
> As I said, Unix is *SAFER* than NT, if you wish to set it up that way.
Not really, but if you wish to believe that. Where is *nux's discretionary
access control, anyhow? What about auditing capabilities. Certinaly some
variants have auditing, but Linux's is pitiful compared to NT's.
> > As i said. Saying "don't do that" is a bandaid. Not a solution.
>
> Yes, you did say that. But you are wrong.
>
> How does NT protect me from accidentally taking control over the wrong
> bunch of files, then permanently deleting them?
>
> Answer: "Don't do that".
> If you have a valid point, and I'm not sure that you really do, then NT
> doesn't fit your requirements, either.
Not necessarily, since in NT, there are a set of complex deliberate
actions you must take. There is no "accidentally" deleting user files,
where with root, you can have a hay-day without anything stopping you.
In NT, you would have to first give yourself permissions, or take ownership
if you didn't have the "Change Permissions" right on a file/directory.
It's hard to accidentally do those things in the order required.
Granted, a malicious user could do it, but an accidentaly mishap is much
more unlikely.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:26:20 -0700
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> On 25 Mar 2000 12:07:53 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I think Miles post sums up Linux and Windows perfectly.
> >
> >Miles I couldn't have put this better myself :)
>
> Any competent Windows image software allows for batch manipulation and
> conversion of images - without the need to learn to program.
Sorry, but wrong again. Every interaction with a computer is
"programming".
The difference here is, having learned a little basic shell scripting,
Miles can leverage that knowledge in other areas.
Just how does learning to program your Paint Shop (or what ever
application you are thinking of that does batch image processing) to
process a batch of files, teach you anything that can be used to solve
other problems of a similiar class?
Miles knowledge can be used to construct simple solutions for problems
that your GUI program designer didn't think of.
> The need and ability to program are what seperates Linux and Windows.
Yep. Every system needs to support "user level programming". Linux
does. Windows doesn't.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Mar 2000 13:35:19 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JOOC, (off topic somewhat), how does apache handle anonymous users and
> authenticated users?
Through the AUTH phase, which can do anything from a simple plaintext
password to a secured authentication against an NT primary domain
controller. With suexec, you can have the process itself change
security contexts to the target users.
[snip]
> It's frightening to know that someone could just walk up with a boot disk
> in *nix and set the root and have their way with the system...
>
> I suppose you could PGP the important stuff, though...
Or, use an encrypted filesystem; they've been around for years
already.
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 29 Mar 2000 20:41:55 GMT
In article <8bte4c$3fa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
> Was this Win2K Pro or Server? Both Pro and Server have extensive remote
>management capabilities through WMI.
This is the Pro version.
> If you need to "console in", you can use the Terminal Services in Win2K
>Server in remote administration mode (I believe it comes with 2 free licenses for
>Remote admin purposes only).
>
> Both Win2K Pro and Server have telnet services as well.
>
> But, there would be very few reasons you would ever need to console into a
>Win2K box, as you could use WMI to do everything remotely, but for some reason, you
>guys
>can't seem to get it through your head that simply because you can't telnet in and
>get a
>*nix shell, doesn't mean it can't be managed remotely.
>
> Also, JOOC, what's the point of having 23 servers + 6 workstations? Am I to
>assume that for
> Linux you need to have 23 servers for every 6 clients? Wow... how's that for
>TCO!
You see the servers are both workstation & have server components on them :
Excure me but my servers are required for applications ( I have 3 servers
for a database on Oracle) one for developing code on, one for working with,
and one as backup so that in the event the server dies I can hotswap the
database. the other 20 run services & also are used as terminals. You know
that thing that is called load balancing.e.i. making shure your users can
do their work properly from every console in the building.
1) mail server ( 1 machine )
2) dns ( 2 machines )
primary & secondary nameservers
3) web ( 3 machines )
(one for be.gnu.org, one for a company, one for my company )
This is due a contractual agreement with the FSF that the GNU servers can
only host gnu software. The one for a company is also the same e.i. can
not have x,y,z on machine)
4) Print spool (1 machine) 4 printers attached.
( 1 Postscript, 1 deskjet color, 1 HP lazer IIP used for labels, 1 HP
used for envelopes)
5) ftp server (1 machine)
75 Gigabyte discspace full with code & stuff.
6) development server ( 1 machine)
( c compiler, case tools, jdk, cvs server, etc)
7) backup server ( 1 Machine )
backs up aprox 1 TB of data a day.
8) Sun documentation server.( 1 machine ).
( documentation for sun tools and the Oracle documentation)
9) proxy server.( 1 machine)
10) gateway to internet ( Leased Line).
( 1 machine )
12) $HOME directory server. ( 1 machine )
used so users can work nomadicaly and still have all their personal
stuff.
13) Manual pages server. ( 1 Machine )
hosts all the man pages for my SunOS, Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD systems
14) Fax server ( 1 Machine )
3 modems attached one for faxes, one for me dialing in to server, 1 for
users if not on site.
15) one backup gateway to internet. ( via normal ISDN)
16) app server ( Latex, WP Unix, Wingz spreadsheet, Netscape, front-ends to
databases, Star Office ).
17) firewall (1 machine) to seperata internal & external network.
18) firewall ( 1 machine) to protect the databases from internal abuse plus
if they get thrue firewall 1 the databases are protected from external abuse.
Mostly those machines are all second hand boxes whose cost was less
then 800 USD each. So for 23000 USD I have a nice network. If I built
this all with new intel hardware at 1500 USD each = 44000 USD total. My
cost dousn't include software. but most software I use has no cost. I only
WP for Unix, Wingz, Oracle & Rational Rose that are commercial software the
rest are GPL tools witch costed me no money besides the donations I made
voluntary.
Michael
---
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: 29 Mar 2000 17:01:44 GMT
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:58:33 GMT, piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fortunately you can download BEOS at other places. Check the Beos
> newsgroup.
> Here's a fast site:
> http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10108-100-1594977.html?tag=st.dl.10000_
> 103_1.lst.td
Ah, cheers, I was looking for somewhere that wasn't /.ed.
> Btw, it's well worth taking a look at. It's fast, looks great, is as
> easy as the Mac.
Looking at the screenshots, I'd disagree. I strongly dislike those
tags and it looks too cartoony for me.
> Just click around and you can figure things out.
Sounds like RISC OS, MacOS, Windows and Corel Linux to me.
> Don't count on it working with Win-modems and the off brand sound
> cards though.
I wonder if my shiny new SB Live is supported (Take it away Steve)...
> It defaulted to 640x480 on my computer, but in less than 5 minutes I
> found a way to adjust it to 800x600 and changed the refresh rate from
> 56 to 72 to cut down on flicker. Try that with Linux!
Hmm...
/me fires up Corel Linux and fires up somebody's f***ed with the
partition table.
Hmm...I'm fairly sure it's in the control panel but I can't be bothered
to fix it to check right now.
> My wheel mouse worked and scrolled most windows.
Sounds familiar...Every GNOME/Gtk and Qt/KDE based app I have works
with my wheel moust.
> I'm seriously thinking of getting a
> different modem and sound card and using this for web browsing, file
> downloading, and fun stuff.
You have a Winmodem?! Poor you.
> If it had apps, I'd say it had an excellent chance to make it big.
>
> piddy -- Linux now sucks more!
I seriously doubt that.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
