Linux-Advocacy Digest #216, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sell Me On Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sell Me On Linux (mlw)
on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (test@myhome)
Re: Binary Thinking (mlw)
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (David Rolfe)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sell Me On Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Rob S. Wolfram)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:07:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon) writes:
>How can you possibly claim that Linux is superior when the solution
>for both OS'es (primarily) is to simply open a session on a remote machine?
Maybe he bases his opinion on real life facts --- like those published
in c't 8/2000? Just in case you haven't read it, it turns out that
the average *length* of a downtime on an NT web server is longer than
on a Unix web server, and that this discrepancy is even stronger outside
office hours. Now, c't suggests that this might be related to the differences
in remote administration availability --- meaning that the NT admin gets
paged, jumps into a cab and drives to the server, while the Unix admin
gets paged, jumps to the nearest computer, and logs into the server.
I certainly remember a friend of mine getting just such a page during
a games night at my house. Fortunately, he is administering UNIX machines,
so I showed him to the office, and 10 minutes later, he was back in the
fight for ore, wheat and wood. Telnet is ubiqitious; If you find a computer
with an internet connection, chances are it has telnet already installed,
and if not, it takes about one minute to download it. NT remote admin
tools aren't exactly widespread, and don't exactly run on very many
platforms.....
Bernie
--
Vote for the man who promises least; He will be the least disappointing
Bernard Baruch
American presidential adviser, 1870-1965
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:07:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon) writes:
>Oh boy. So it's illegal to give a DISCOUNT on software? What is going
>to happen to Linux? If it is illegal for Microsoft to give a discount
>of a few dollars, what are they going to do when they are giving away
>Linux for FREE??? Is Linus going to get the chair?
Well, Linus will just have to stop giving his software to the nice
customers for less than he charges the naughty ones. Oh, wait ---
he doesn't actually do that.
>And how is discounting software bad for the consumer?
Simple --- it's not the discounting that's bad, it's the blackmail
that can (and does) go along with it. Like "Hello, Vobis? Yeah, we
heard you were thinking about offering OS/2 as an option on your
machines. Is that correct? Oh, well, of course that is your choice.
But maybe you'd like to reconsider? No? Well, I am looking forward
to renegotiating your license deal next month, then.... Ah, I *knew*
you'd reconsider."
Bernie
--
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please
Mark Twain
American writer, 1835-1910
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:11:38 -0400
SeaDragon wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:50:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I find this interesting. One chooses x86/AMD/etc for cost. Once chooses
> >Alpha, Sun, etc. for performance. If you go to the seti@home page, and
> >look at statistics, the fastest damn machines are alphas. If I wanted to
> >deploy a solution using Alpha then I would not choose Microsoft. Period.
>
> You are extremely out of touch.
>
> The fastest shipping CPU in integer performance currently (by far)
> is the Pentium III. The I GHz model is a whopping 46.8 SPECint95.
> The second fastest is HP 8600, which is at 42.6. Alpha is way behind
> at 40.1 for the 667 MHz 21264 (which is not even shipping yet!). SPARC
> isn't even on the roadmap. It is at 18.3 for the UltraSPARC II, well
> less than half of Intel, HP, or Compaq.
No one in the world cares about integer arithmetic, it is a direct
function of the cpu clock. What matters is I/O and floating point. The
x86 hardware has some of the worst I/O in the industry. Right now they
have inched up to a 133 mhz front side bus. That is very slow when
compared to other systems. So, while the CPU may be clocked at 800 mhz,
it can only read data from ram at 133mhz. This means that unless all
your processing can take place in cache, your effective CPU clock is 133
mhz.
This problem affects all sorts of processing tasks for which one would
use a server. Ripping through a 5 meg buffer of floating point data will
be much slower on a PC than on an alpha. So for tasks like image
processing, crunching large floating point arrays, and tasks which use a
lot of memory, the x86 architecture is very slow.
The next thing is the PCI bus. Most x86 system are still only using 32
bit PCI at 33mhz. Suns have 64 bit PCI running at 66mhz. A Sun can get
4x more data from its PCI cards than can an x86. This means that a
ULTRA SPARC running at 450 MHZ using gigabit 64bit ethernet cards will
out perform a 800 mhz x86 using 32 bit ethernet cards because of the PCI
bus width and the I/O design of the system.
>
> >The argument about "vendors" and "architectures" is silly. How many x86
> >vendors does one need. That's like saying buy a yugo instead of a BMW
> >because there are 20 Yugo dealers in your state, as opposed to 1 BMW
> >dealer. The x86 vendors are largely selling the same hardware. Who cares
> >where one buys that crap?
>
> Sounds to me like Intel and Compaq are the BMW's and Sun is the Yugo.
> Do they have plans to change their pricing strategy accordingly?
I think you need to read up a bit about computer design.
>
> >OK, now what, "speedpaths" "textfile for large databases?" What are you
> >talking about? If you are referring to using small < 2k text files for
> >system configuration you are confused. The only reason one would use a
> >database for configuration over file system directories and text files
> >would be to save machine cycles and (if your file system were poorly
> >designed) disk space. You can't argue that efficiency is not important,
> >so the Windows GUI does not matter, and then say something else is bad
> >because it is inefficient. That is contradictory.
>
> You don't understand. The speedpath incurred by text file databases is
> _critical_ and greatly increases the overhead. In a text file database you
> have to scan every single byte to get to the record you want, in a real
> database, you just scan through index and go to the record you want in
> O(1) time. You can do a lookup of a key in a databse in O(log n) of the
> number of _keys_, but in a text file it will be O(n) of the number of
> _bytes_ (which for Unix is on average about 80x the number of keys).
> The overhead for a GUI is constant, and therefore is much more scalable.
I have no idea what you are ranting about. Configuration files are read
at startup, and are not typically read during operation. There are many
small configuration files, reading these files is not a sufficient
amount of CPU over head that it would be efficient to optimize. We are
talking about microseconds at the startup of a desktop. Get real. This
is not an issue with the GUI. Besides your example is more appropriate
for Windows' system.ini and win.ini which are still scanned and used.
Lastly your numbers assume one big file of all the settings in a system,
no such file exists in UNIX, there are many small files arranged in a
hierarchical manner which are easily found.
If you are talking about "real databases," something like SQL, you must
remember that UNIX had SQL way before the PC. Most of the efficient/high
speed database work is done on UNIX.
--
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: test@myhome
Subject: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 22 Apr 2000 04:29:12 -0700
lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
it is most certinaly is a broken system now.
a simple example. I wanted to install some rpm package
to try some application. ok, i do
rpm -Uhv foo.rpm
it tells me it needs 5 others packages that are missing or not
to the right level.
after searching in rpmfind web site, and finding one of those
5 other packages, and finding it in 3 different sites (one from
redhat, from from freshmeat, etc..) i pick one.
now this one tells me that i need 3 other packages.
i go look, i find the first one, again few copies of it, i pick one.
the ftp site had wrong URL, i try the other url, now it connects.
now this tells me i am missing 2 packages.
now i lost track of where i started and where i am heading. i bring
up a paper, and start drawing a directed acyclic graph to help me
chart my way through this madness.
after 2 hours, i end up with 20 arches and 50 nodes. then i thought,
the hell with this, i do not need to try this program. what a waste
of time.
is this really the modern way of installing sw?
we make fun of MS, yet, on windows, i never had to do this sort of thing.
double click on setup.exe and all is done.
if MS way is bad, then the linux way is sure is much worst. at least
for the end user it is.
there got to be a better way to install a program on linux without
having to spend hours chasing missing bits and pieces of software
from the net.
of course now the linux people will come and tell me i have no clue
and i need to go read 50 HOWTO and 20 man pages and download this
and that program to do this and that.
the whole point is that a end user do not have to do any of this. They
should simply have to issue one simple command or click on one
button, and have the application install automatically.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Binary Thinking
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:24:55 -0400
Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
> pick an animal of a size similar to humans. :)
why? Why should that make a difference? Elephants are much bigger than
humans, and there are much fewer. According to you, this would make
elephants better?
>
> Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Pedro Ballester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : All right, even more, when we talk about OS, let's talk about it,
> > : not about how many applications there are around. Then it comes
> > : clear that Linux is better for everything :-))
> >
> > There are far more insects than humans, so insects must be better,
> > huh? :)
--
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: David Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:46:27 +0000
No, I did not know that Frame was originally developed for Unix, but I
have used it on AIX in the past. And yes we need the filters and we need
the distiller to create PDF docs. From what I can see there are only a
couple of things that one cannot do on linux that one might want to do.
Create PDF's is one and the other is run a Notes client (please no flame
wars about how good or bad Bloats errr Notes might be).
Dave (still living in the Catskill Mountains after all these years)
Andy Newman wrote:
> David Rolfe wrote:
> > Well I think this is a very nice developmnet as FrameMaker is
> > used by some very serious document production houses.
>
> You do know that Frame was originally developed on Unix systems
> and later ported to Windows? The Linux version (which also runs
> quite nicely on FreeBSD BTW) is pretty much the same as the other
> Unix versions lacking only some the input/output filters (please
> Adobe, port, port, release, please, I'll pay!).
>
> --
> Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:11:45 -0400
>Cihl wrote:
> I think we, and i mean the entire Linux community, should
> try to eliminate redundancy in development as much as
> possible to be able to concentrate on creating an even more
> powerful OS for everyone. I think standardization is the key
> in this matter! Standardized GUI's and other API's would
> make it possible for commercial software companies to create
> powerful applications which run on *any* Linux-distribution,
> and not just KDE or Gnome!
Ol' Bill and all his buddies in Redmond couldn't have said it better!
Everyone for a common interface, say "Aye!!!"
Lets call it, hmmm, maybe something like, ummmm, gee, Windows 98 or
Windows 2000 sound nice. Are they taken?
--
We don't own this place, though we act as if we did,
It's a loan from the children of our children's kids.
The actual owners haven't even been born yet.
-- The Grateful Dead
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:24:01 -0400
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Allow me to now point out a few KEY things Jason which will be affecting
> your career as a Network Administrator.
Well, Charlie, I am not Jason, but I felt compelled to comment. I read
the entire post you wrote, and cannot agree more with what you are
saying.
A well done job and good luck in your transition. I just wish I could
get serious consideration by companies like yours in terms of finding
work in software configuration, help desk, and so on.
Anyway that's for another time and place. Again, good luck, your are
doing the right thing.
Terry
--
We don't own this place, though we act as if we did,
It's a loan from the children of our children's kids.
The actual owners haven't even been born yet.
-- The Grateful Dead
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble!
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:31:07 GMT
Linux was not convicted of being a monopoly and using it's monopoly
status to prevent competition. Preventing MS from discounting software
is part of the remedy, is applied to MS only and does not make
discounting software illegal
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From the Techweb article on proposed Microsoft remedies:
>
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000420S0016
>
> "Also, the software giant may have to open its APIs and stop
discounting
> Windows to PC makers."
>
> Oh boy. So it's illegal to give a DISCOUNT on software? What is going
> to happen to Linux? If it is illegal for Microsoft to give a discount
> of a few dollars, what are they going to do when they are giving away
> Linux for FREE??? Is Linus going to get the chair? And how is
> discounting software bad for the consumer? Should the government
impose
> a price floor on OS'es so PC's have to be more expensive? You all
better
> be careful about proclaiming that Linux is free, because that's
ILLEGAL!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 22 Apr 2000 13:36:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It most definately does not! Please point me to the word "distribution"
>> in that statement?
>
>What is Linux without a distribution? Since each distribution ships
>whatever version of the kernel they want to ship, it's entirely possible for
>a distribution to have a trojaned kernel (especially if it ships a binary).
>I've been told repeatedly on this newsgroup that hardly anyone ever
>recompiles a kernel anymore, thus you could very well have a backdoor
>without even knowing it, especially if the distribution is compromised on a
>mirror site.
`man md5sum`
>Fine. But again, the fact that they ship as binaries means that they could
>have backdoors in them without your knowledge, even if you've read the
>source since the binary may not match the source. Additionally, backdoors
>could exist in the source in ways that are difficult to pinpoint by casual
>observation.
I'll give you a closed source backdoor from your favorite company right
now: Active setup does not ask the user for confirmation when the
package has been signed by Microsoft. See the latest Cryptogram for
details.
Please point me to 1 backdoor in the Linux kernel or one of the commonly
used open source applications?
>> By restricting it to Debian (main), I just ruled out non-open source
>> software. By including the whole Debian main / stable tree, I *EXPANDED*
>> my statement above, *NOT* limited it. If you can't figure out what I'm
>> talking about, you know less of what you're talking about than even I
>> considered likely.
>
>No. Each distribution of Linux gives different opportunities for breaches
>in security.
>
>If you're so sure about open source software, why not include every
>distribution and it's open source portions (even if there are closed source
>portions)?
Because I am not letting you fill in the blancs.
>> This is entirely possible. But was it commonly used open source
>> software? Please post the URL so I can verify your point or don't bring
>> it up at all. It makes no sense like this.
>
>http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-99-01-Trojan-TCP-Wrappers.html
Reread news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and come back when you
have. And no, it was never part of any distribution.
>> OK, last rehash on this one. Bugs are possible by LEAVING OUT some code
>> (i.e., code that should do some sanity checking).
>
>Are you claiming that this is the only type of bug in open source code?
>That's what it sounds like.
No, I'm not.
>> Backdoors are only
>> possible by *INCLUDING EXTRA CODE* (i.e. code that should check the
>> constrains for allowing an action that would not be allowed, or code
>> that will take some action that would otherwise not have been taken).
>
>Not true. A back door might be to remove security code that would otherwise
>exist, but in an area where it may not be normally tested. Or perhaps you
>intentionally introduce a bug that would allow you to gain access.
Wrt the first case, could you give an example in pseudo-code of a case
that works normally in general but abnormally given some constrains
*without extra code to check the constrains*? The second case I would
not be calling a backdoor. I call that a bug even if it is done
intensionally.
>> Because this is *EXTRA* code, it stands out, *especially* when it's been
>> obfuscated.
>
>especially? It would be pretty easy to create some code that intentionally
>trashed the call stack without it being obvious. And if you could predict
>the way that the call stack was trashed, it could create a back door.
See above. A backdoor is something predictable. A buffer overflow is
not. It depends among others on the compiler being used to generate
object code.
>> I accepted a challenge that has been brought up by YOU (Message ID:
>> 3yBK4.2492$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) but I'm not letting you fill in all
>> the blancs and I will only accept if their's something to gain, hence
>> the counterchallenge. But you've clearly chickened out.
>
>It's not a challenge. You stated specifically that the software is
>guaranteed. Nobody in the world is guaranteeing Linux software as being
>back door free, thus the only way you could make such a statement is if YOU
>are the one guaranteeing it. I'm merely holding you to your word, not
>issuing a challeng.
Are you a client of mine? What exactly have you purchased from me to
expect me to "hold up to my word"? Nada. Zip. THAT's why I consider it a
challenge.
If you want it otherwise, here's a deal for you. I sell you the latest
release of Debian Slink (2.1r5) in binary and in source format (2 binary
CD's, 2 source CD's, the same that are downloadable at
http://cdimage.debian.org) for US$5000,- including VAT and shipping. I
also guarantee that these are not backdoored (money back + liability to
damages). Will you buy it? BTW, this action would be perfectly legal,
there's no need to rehash that topic.
>> So let's cut down to the main point of this thread. My statement is that
>> open source software is by its very nature inherently more secure that
>> closed source software when it concerns back doors. Do you or do you not
>> agree with this statement, and please elaborate as to why you hold your
>> opinion or why you consider my statement incorrect.
>
>Neither is inherantly more or less secure. If we take your statement at
>face value, you can take the same identical code, make one copy open source
>and the other closed. Why would one copy be "inherently less secure" when
>the code is identical?
Neither is more secure because the peer review has not taken place yet.
It time the Open Source version *will* grow to be more secure as bugs
are fixed, unless these are back-ported to the closed source version
(like BSD/OS).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
NT and security should not be mentioned in the same
sentence without negation.
-- Joe Zeff in a.s.r.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
