Linux-Advocacy Digest #929, Volume #25 Mon, 3 Apr 00 23:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Setting User Limits in Linux (was: Linux bugs!!! (Mark S. Bilk)
Ding Dong! (Don Clayton)
Re: Win2000 kicks ass (Don Clayton)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Jim Richardson)
Re: Misleading advertisement about linux and redhat !!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Ding Dong!
Re: it is OUT, MS is GUILTY ! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Ted")
Re: Rumors ... (Jianmang Li)
So where are the MS supporters. (mlw)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Setting User Limits in Linux (was: Linux bugs!!!
Date: 4 Apr 2000 01:11:51 GMT
In article <JO0G4.139$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Conrad Doyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have you hear about petalo.c ? It can freeze the whole system under
>2.0.xx and 2.2.xx; while 2.3.xx just can reboot using magic keys, the
>system is been left unusable.
I did a search at http://www.google.com/linux (an excellent
Linux-specific search engine) for petalo.c, and another for
limits.conf when the first search indicated that that file
is the key for setting user limits. Here's what I found:
petalo.c is a very simple program that attempts to allocate
all available memory (or at least 6 GB of it); it can be
found here:
http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999week39/1174.html
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9909.3/0253.html
There are ways to set a variety of limits on Linux users,
which will guard the OS (and other users) against programs
that use too much memory, or too many files, processes, etc.
This will protect against memory munchers, file fiends,
stack stretchers, login loopers, process procreators... 8^)
search for "limits" on this page:
http://www.math.muni.cz/linux/Linux-PAM/html/pam-6.html
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Security-HOWTO-5.html
http://www.premierweb.com/linux/LDP/LDP/lasg/lasg-www/users/
Here's an excerpt from the PAM page, which describes the
limits that can be set:
Each line of the configuration file describes a limit for
a user in the form:
<domain> <type> <item> <value>
The fields listed above can be filled with the following:
<domain> can be:
+ a username
+ a groupname, with @group syntax
+ the wildcard *, for default entry
<type> can have the two values:
+ soft for enforcing soft limits
+ hard for enforcing hard limits
<item> can be one of the following:
+ core - limits the core file size (KB)
+ data - max data size (KB)
+ fsize - maximum filesize (KB)
+ memlock - max locked-in-memory address space (KB)
+ nofile - max number of open files
+ rss - max resident set size (KB)
+ stack - max stack size (KB)
+ cpu - max CPU time (MIN)
+ nproc - max number of processes
+ as - address space limit
+ maxlogins - max number of logins for this user.
------------------------------
From: Don Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ding Dong!
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:14:31 GMT
The witch is dead!
Burn in hell Microsoft!
DC
------------------------------
From: Don Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:16:04 GMT
Can you tell me how to get mine to stop rebooting every few hours?
On the upside LILO boots me back into Linux, which never crashes.
DC
chewing_gum wrote:
>
> Hi there
>
> Had this installed for a month now. Superb, no hangs, no crashes..
> ....beautiful piece of software. Well done Bill.
> Linux for the desktop? Never.
>
> cheers
> bob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:16:35 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:34:31 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
>I'm stunned at how much is changed, but i'm beginning to miss the
>things which caused me to return to windows in the first place.
>I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
>automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules. A contact
>list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to maintain
>one list of contacts/email addresses. Netscape mail really sucks. It
>has corrupted my archives several times.
For an "all-in-one" type email app, that will do the folder sorting
for you, try XFMail. I prefer the "traditional" mutt+fetchmail+procmail
and mta, but that's me, the flexibility is definately worth the small
amount of skull-sweat needed to do the configs.
I don't know from contact lists, the closest thing I have is gnome-pim and
the palm pilot, but a quick poke at the search engine on freshmeat.net
brought out over 350 hits, some undoubtably old and or repeats, but many
to wander through.
>The news reading programs are very weak. I simply want the ability to
>select what articles I want to download, tell it to download, and have
>it happen. I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
>and decode messages. Several windows programs, (outlook, agent, etc)
>have these abilities. I'm surprised Linux still doesn't.
>Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
>needs? Everytime I tried to search for an answer to this question, I
>found a lot of advice saying to use mail, trn, etc. Yeah, I used those
>programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
>text based programs I used 10 years ago.
>Thanks,
>CG
Personally, I judge an application on how well it works, not if it's old,
or if it's text or gui. How well does it do what I want to do.
For the newsreading criteria you have mentioned, try pan, it's part of the
gnome project, (well, it uses the gnome libs and framework) and it does
offline/online browsing, will collect all the message bits of a multi-post
message (provided of course that the server has all the bits) It will
auto-magically decode binaries, pretty much everything you are asking for.
Me? I use slrn, and a couple of shell or python scripts for decodeing,
but if click and point is your thing, Pan is worth a look. (I use it
occasionally, I like eye candy sometimes, but anything other than slrn
is clunky in comparison. IMHO of course.)
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Misleading advertisement about linux and redhat !!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:32:25 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:24:54 +0500,
Syed Farhan Ali, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>OK guys
>
>thanks for all the response. now, since i live in the city from where
>this advert. has originated, i would like to do something about it.
>
>the majority of the folks here in my city are completely unaware of the
>fact that there are other nicer thing in the computer world other than
>mswidoz and NT.
>
>so this kind of adverts are not doing good to anybody.
>
>would somebody plz suggest how should i deal with it and if i should do
>something about it at all. i am willing to meet the management of the
>firm and politely point out thier mistake.
>
>Farhan Ali
You could always download the Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian et-al distros
and burn 'em to CD, and then undercut the fellows you mention...
I suspect that anyone calling themselves the only authorised RH distributor
in Pakistan, is not going to listen to you politely pointing out their
mistake. But hey! I could be wrong.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Ding Dong!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:37:14 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:14:31 GMT, Don Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The witch is dead!
>
>Burn in hell Microsoft!
Split MS up!
part 1) the OS
part 2) applications
part 3) all the other crap like msnbc.
It's worked w/ the phone company for years, it'll work just fine w/ MS.
No longer will they be able to give their apps an unfair advantage by using
hundreds of undocumented APIs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: it is OUT, MS is GUILTY !
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:39:29 GMT
In article <8cb7v9$d0e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bob@nospam wrote:
> : Judge Rules Against Microsoft
>
> I managed to download the decision (in pieces - the server was
> obviously very heavily loaded) and am rather impressed at the efforts
> Judge Jackson and his staff made to understand the issues involved.
> The findings look fairly airtight from both a factual and legal
> standpoint, and should largely survive the appeals process.
.
Agreed, Like the finding of fact, very well writen.
.
>
> The ruling will have little *direct* impact. It may be years before
> the appeals process is exhausted, and meaningful settlement on terms
> that are fair to the industry is extremely unlikely. What should and
> hopefully will happen, though, is that now that evidence of
> Microsoft's tortious and criminal actions is a matter of public
> record, those who have been most heinously damaged by these actions
> will now be in an excellent position to recover much of what has been
> stolen from them.
.
I understand that some action has aready been taken to recover $20.00 US
for every copy of 95 & 98 sold. I have 5 licenses here, can't wait for
my $120.00 bucks!
>
> In spite of Microsoft's best efforts, Linux, Java, and Netscape (or
> possibly Mozilla) are still alive, as are other powerful technologies
> that threaten to destroy the "applications barrier to entry" far more
> effectively than any court could. Monopolies are inherently evil, but
> also inherently unsustainable.
>
> Future developments should be very interesting indeed.
.
Very, I was networking at the time of the Ma Bell breakup, Very
interesting time and a LOT of new inovative compitition came shortly
after the breakup!
.
>
> Joe
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 02:00:12 GMT
It's a free market dude. If Microsoft wants to charge $1000.00/copy, it's
their business. If you don't care to pay the price, load LINUX, or FreeBSD.
Get the BeOS, get OS/2. Get a MAC. If a company has a product to sell, the
goal is to maximize profit.
"Ultar Dragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c74qc$nui$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > There should be a law that a customer must have a right to buy any PC
> > without any operating system installed.
> > This will give a customer choice of any OS, or if someone aleady have
> > Win on desktop, why he/she have to pay to M$ an additional fee for OS
> > on laptop?
> >
> > Zalek
> >
>
> That's a great idea. I wonder what that would do to the price of
> Windows. I just noticed that the Winows 98 full version (not an
> upgrade) cost just short of $200 at Compusa. That is quite ridiculous.
>
> Just imagine how many copies of Windows 98 that MS is selling. They are
> selling it on a new computer for roughly one quarter of that or less.
> The true price of Windows 98 to a buyer of a new computer is probably
> about 30-50$. Why should I pay $200 for the full program or $90 for the
> upgrade when someone who buys a new computer gets it for next to
> nothing.
>
> The way I see it, a $200 retail price for Win98 is a prime example of
> profiterring by Microsoft. It's not worth it and if people actually
> boutght it at that price, they would make nothing short of a killing.
>
> BB
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Jianmang Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 04:02:46 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I'd disagree with you both.
> >
> > The barriers are there, they are real (not at all intangible or
> > abstract) and have nothing to do with market share or financial power.
> >
> > The barrier here is closed, proprietary data file
> > formats/protcols/API's/encodings . . . in short, the barrier here is
> > "secret information".
> >
> > Imagine, if you will, that AT&T had implemented the telephone system
> > using "secret information" (protocols, specifications, signaling
> > profiles, etc.). Just making the bare "wires" available to the
> > competition would then have done *NOTHING* to solve the monopoly
> > problem.
>
> The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
> MSFT controls it's own OS. There's NOTHING preventing someone from writing
> their own OS and applications/APIs, etc for their own OS, as evidenced with
> *BSD, BeOS, Linux, CP/M, DrDOS, and every other x86-based OS.
>
> MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
> it a monopoly in the OS market. For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's
> own gas pumps, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.
>
> - There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software for
> other platforms.
>
> - There is nothing preventing OEMs from selling other software than Microsoft's
> (MSFT discourages it, and did some bad things, for which it should be punished,
> but at no time were the OEMs FORCED to go with MSFT, they could've used a
> different
> OS at any time, i.e., MS wasn't the only OS that could be run on PCs. Likewise,
> it wasn't like PC hardware was developed to ONLY be run with MS Windows)
>
> - There is nothing preventing consumers from buying a different OS, or buying
> from an OEM that doesn't preinstall Windows.
>
> The problem with the AT&T analogy, was that AT&T had the only phone cable
> network.
- There is nothing to prevent another company build another phone cable
network.
> They also had the monopoly on long distance (i.e. no one else could provide
> long distance).
- there is nothing to prevent another company to build your own a long
haul cable then
provide long distant services.
So you arguing on both sides of the wall. The common point of AT &T and
MS is that
they make it economically infeasible for others to do differently. So
they both
had the monopoly power.
>
> If MSFT control both the hardware (the phone cabling) AND the software (long
> distance
> server) and wouldn't let anyone else tap into their cables or service
> (proprietary
> APIs) then that analogy would be relevant, but it's not, so it isn't.
>
> A more relevant analogy would be that there were many different phone cabling
> that long distance providers could use, and consumers could choose from.
>
> MS happened to own one of the cabling infrastructures and would only allow long
> distance
> providers that it wanted to onto the wire and would disallow others.
>
> MS happened to have the best cabling infrastructure, so others wanted on, but
> MSFT wouldn't
> allow it.
>
> The LD providers had many other cables to choose from, but they wanted MSFT's,
> since it
> was the best.
>
> MSFT is not a monopoly, it just owns the best cables. It's call "competition"
> and
> "capitalism".
There are ethical standard on competition. That is why we need a
law.(including anti-trust)
Otherwise the companies can go to mafia and hire the killers to kill all
their competetors
In communist country everyone try to become a member of communist. It is
not
because communist is the best, it simply because doing so will pretect
youself from
being killed by comminust rulers.
>
> > The same thing is true here . . . until such time as MS is forced to
> > release all interface information as both open, *AND* standardized . . .
> > they can and will retain their monopoly.
>
> They're not a monopoly. There are other OSes that open source, even.
>
> Also, there is no barrier to entry, as anyone even a foreign college
> student (Linus) could cook one up in his dorm room.
Linux is developed by hundreds of thansands developers in almost ten
years time.
If you have to pay this then you probably won't say there is no barrier.
>
> MSFT does not control both the hardware AND the software, and is therefore
> not a monopoly, any more than Exxon is not a monopoly over it's own pumps.
>
> > For examples, look at Samba. The biggest problem with developing Samba
> > is aquiring the neccessary information to be MS compatible.
>
> What's wrong with using one of the other billion file systems or networking
> file systems? Why do you HAVE to use samba?
>
> Simply because MSFT doesn't allow 3rd parties to integrate with SMB, does not
> make it a monopoly.
You right! But it is a barrier. So you nullified your "no barrier"
argument above.
>
> Use *nix and NFS if you don't want to use MSFT. Use Novell and IPX, use
> MacOS and AppleShare. You have many choices. MSFT != Monopoly.
What you say == If you don't like mafia then get out Italy. There are
so many countries in the world you can live. This kind of argument is
unintelligent
and irratating.
>
> > > However much I dislike regulation... the invisible hand has been
> > > battered into unconsciousness in the computer industry.
> >
> > I despise regulation. I would suggest breaking the company up (Ala Ma
> > Bell), and forcing them to make *ALL* the code for *ALL* versions of
> > Windows open, and to *KEEP* it open for a minimum of seven years, with
> > *NO* use restrictions.
>
> Then we would have to do so for NetWare, Solaris, MacOS and many other
> OSes, because they do the same thing as MSFT.
When they got to the market power as MS now has, they will certainly
facing
the same problem.
>
> > That allows for the creation of competition, only impacts one of their
> > products (they can keep everything else that they have never described
> > as "part of the OS" private), and gives the most bang for the least
> > buck. Since a huge part of their revenue comes from Office, this won't
> > impact their bottom line negatively.
>
> There already is much competition, it's just that MSFT's competitors
> are incompetent and can't seem to succeed when success slaps them in the
> face (Novell was the kind of NOS for quite awhile, but got beligerant and
> lost the throne, now they cry to the DOJ because of their lack of competency).
MSFT is a very competent company. I do not argue on this point. But the
way they
kill off Netscape is a Mafia style to me. MSFT had used what themselve
called
"cutting their air supply" tactics to kill a company that resposible for
the
early booming of the Internet you and me enjoying now. It is
unacceptable
Mafia style behaviour.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:25:58 -0400
I just check on at, 10:25 PM EST to see what the MS supporters had to
say about the court ruling, and low and behold, nothing.
Hmmm, I am left to wonder.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 02:29:03 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Ted would say:
>It's a free market dude. If Microsoft wants to charge $1000.00/copy, it's
>their business. If you don't care to pay the price, load LINUX, or FreeBSD.
>Get the BeOS, get OS/2. Get a MAC. If a company has a product to sell, the
>goal is to maximize profit.
a) No, it's *not* a "free market."
It's a market that has quite a number of rules.
--> Taxes payable.
--> Rejection of *various* forms of discrimination.
For instance, if Microsoft decided to charge people with white
skin $100 for a license, and charged people with black skin $200
for that license, this would be considered Rather Improper, and
charges *would* be laid.
b) The goal is *not* necessarily to "maximize profit."
People don't run for US President because of the high salary; they
do so for a variety of motivations that likely include:
- Desire for power
- Desire for prestige
- Desire for fame
- Unlikely, but possibly even *to help people.*
Microsoft's actions over the last number of years are consistent with
the primary goal being a *desire for power* rather than simply to
"maximize profit."
The fact that they spent money on "giving away" Internet Exploder is a
good example of this.
The fact that Bill Gates has been spending millions of dollars
establishing charitable foundations is consistent with a desire for
prestige far moreso than to "maximize profit." The interesting
conjunction of the timing of the charitable activities with the DOJ
proceedings is consistent with "desire for power" moreso than "to help
people."
--
Let me control a planet's oxygen supply and I don't care who makes the
laws.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
