Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why do I need Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why do I need Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software ("badman")
Re: Why do I need Linux? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 17 May 2000 03:54:33 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article <8fslr3$ckg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Just because something is someone else's "experience" doesn't
: >automatically make it true. For example, in my experience, WindowsNT is a
: >very stable and reliable platform. So why isn't my experience true?
: Because you didn't do any of the many things that force you to
: reboot, or run any of the apps that make the OS crash.
I must ask, Leslie... exactly how do you know that I have never done any
of those things? Are you aware that I was an NT adminstrator for about
3-4 years? To make the assumptions you have is not only arrogant, it is
presumtuous, and plainly a completely fallible way to establish a point.
I know that WindowsNT v4.0 needs to be rebooted for many changes. I never
stated otherwise. Windows2000 does not have to be rebooted, so I'm told,
for as many changes as WindowsNT v4.0 does.
I have never run any applications that could crash WindowsNT. I've seen
many applications die under WindowsNT, including Internet Explorer,
Netscape, Lightwave, Adobe Photoshop, Lotus Approach, QuarkXPress, Rhino
3D, etc. In a few of those instances, the constant dying of applications
was due to problems with local directories using older versions of dynamic
libs in conjunction with newer dynamic libs in the C:\WINNT4\SYSTEM32
directory.
I have also ran into a number of BSODs in my time. In nearly every
instance, the problem was fixed by replacing cheaper hardware with more
reliable hardware (ie: replacing LinkSys network adapters with NetGear
adapters, replacing SIIG SCSI controllers with Adaptec, etc.), and as a
positive result, also using more proper drivers. In a few other
instances, the problem seemed to be linked with certain motherboards (I
don't recall the specific brand, unfortunately).
Leslie, you seem like a relatively sharp fellow... please, don't argue
in the same manner that Charlie does. :-)
: >Because it doesn't agree with your experience? So, why should I believe
: >that your experience is true, since it doesn't agree with mine? Do you
: >see where I'm getting at?
: Try something simple, like loading the IP address via DHCP. Change
: the netmask for the DHCP range on the server. DHCP should take care
: if it on the client side, right? The D is for dynamic, as in
: expecting changes...
Hmmm... I've done this quite a few times, with no problems. Could you
describe your problems in a little more detail? Are the machines you're
referring to COMPAQ boxen, by any chance?
: >What it boils down to, Perry, is that you cannot argue anecdotal evidence
: >as fact, because it can never be a fact. The only thing that can be a
: >fact is something which can be proven. I cannot prove that WindowsNT is
: >stable and reliable, just as neither you, nor Charlie can prove that it
: >isn't.
: How about if everyone who knows reproducable ways to make it
: crash posts them? Well, maybe we don't have time for that.
But if people would be willing to post scenarios (as you have done in your
post), I'd be more than happy to review them (though I must admit, there
are many who would be much more qualified to review such material than
I. After all, first and foremost, I'm a 3D graphics man. :-).
: >I think Paul's point is the same as mine. You cannot prove nor disprove
: >an _opinion_, and opinions are all that Charlie is offering. In other
: >words, what he's offering is useless blithering.
: If you have a pair of machines, try the DHCP setting business - a
: perfectly normal thing to expect for a changing network. Try
I have, as I stated, already done this several times. Could you perhaps
elaborate on how you approached it? I'd be interested to see if your
approach was different from mine (which is mostly by the book).
: upgrading IE, Netscape, or Office without rebooting and disrupting
: service to others.
I never denied that WindowsNT needs to be rebooted after making certain
changes. However, I will say that once all of the changes are in place,
there is no need to reboot anymore. That is, unless you are indecisive
about hardware, and keep changing things around.
: >Using anecdotal evidence, and opinionated statements is no way to prove
: >anything. The only thing it can be used for is to try to sway other
: >people's opinions.
: All you have to do is try some of the things and see for yourself.
Again, as I stated, I've already successfully implemented DHCP assigning
on other systems.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:58:11 -0500
On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:31:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <8fqekl$294r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
>> And the starting price for a VMS cluster would be???
>
>I doubt I've spent $1,000 on my home VMS cluster, which has about 5 or
>6 VAX nodes, and 1 Alpha node.
>
>The real problem is power. My MicroVAX 3900's have 3 kilowatt power
>supplies, and it is expensive to run them. Even a modern Alpha will eat
>up a lot of power as well. But the cost of the machines is minimal (and
>software of course is free), at least if you get something aside from
>the newest generation. Unlike Winux and Lindows, VMS runs perfectly
>well on hardware which is not the latest and greatest
Define "perfectly well". Can it play Q3? Run Photoshop or The Gimp?
Run at 1280x1024x24 bits without slowdown? Network at standard
100baseT? Easily dial via PPP with a normal modem? Include normal 16
bit sound?
A BookPC + Celeron 533 + 8G hard drive + 64M RAM does all this, and
for about $400.
So, who would bother with VMS? Why?
It's bizarre what some people will put themselves through...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:49:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As if drive NUMBERS are all that different...
>
> CAT,d1
>
> Gak, I hated that. Of course the Commodore64 was even worse; It
> started labeling at 8 (because of the biggest kludge in the universe:
> the 1541).
Drive numbers were a DOS 3.3 thing. ProDOS and GS/OS used volume names,
which were not drive letters/numbers/labels, or mount points, but
something entirely different. They were actually pretty useful,
especially for installations without a hard drive.
> It's pretty obvious why mount points are better. <g>
>
> But, we've had this discussion before and I respect your myopic
> vision. <GG>
Yes, we've had this discussion before. But some of the readers are new,
and I need to refresh them.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 17 May 2000 04:07:32 GMT
Roger <roger@.> writes:
: On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:35:03 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
: wrote:
: >It seems Microsoft has thrown in their hat with HOTMAIL, once again
: >attempting
: >to replace FreeBSD servers with W2K.
: Proof?
I'd like to see proof of this as well. Of course, considering Charlie's
precedent, I doubt if we'll see anything of the sort.
[SNIP]
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 16 May 2000 23:18:05 -0500
In article <6IlU4.89906$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The salient question would be of who paid for the first LAN Manager
>implementation.
>
><http://www.performancecomputing.com/unixintegration/9608/9608u1.htm>
>indicates:
>
>"... IBM and Microsoft developed a family of proprietary protocols to
>support networking on the PC. On top of the naming and transport
>functions of NetBEUI, IBM and Microsoft built a Server Message Block
>(SMB) protocol for networking. In the mid-1980s, IBM and Microsoft
>used SMBs to develop network software for the PC that provided file
>and printer sharing."
My first encounter with it was as the AT&T StarLan DOS server
running on the 3B2 unix box and later also the 3B1. It was sort-of
protocol independent from the beginning, running on AT&T's 1M
starlan and a proprietary protocol called URP at first. Then it
migrated to an OSI protocol, then later both OSI and TCP on either
the 1M or 10M Starlan in the LanMan server version.
>This implicates "joint blame" for SMB to IBM and Microsoft.
At the time I thought it was much better than anything Microsoft
could have done - but that was before all of the variations
for lanman/NT and all of the other cruft was hacked in. The
original version was small enough that a dos box could act
as a server, although of course it didn't work as well as
the unix server. When Windows-for-Workgroups came around,
AT&T (maybe NCR by then) had a driver for the OSI protocol
which then made it possible to use other network cards (the
10M starlan was actually 10BaseT compatible) and MS had
a TCP driver. Win95 worked with the TCP side out of the
box.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why do I need Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 04:11:10 GMT
In article <M11U4.86394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Furthermore, almost all the computer systems you likely encounter are,
> under the covers, becoming "more like UNIX" over time.
It appears that since Unix is perceived by non-technical people as
being a stable system, so most vendors use this as a marketing point
and want to put as many Unix features into their systems as possible
(as if adding fork() takes out all of the bugs in your OS).
In many systems this has dramatically hindered technical progress of
the OS. For example, until about 10 years ago or so, VMS could handle
dates through the year 9999. Since the introduction of Unix-like
concepts (particularly TCP/IP and DECwindows, which were ported from
Unix and written in C), VMS is now only certified through 2038 (or
2106, actually).
There has also been Unixification in other areas. Many VMS customers
were shocked last year when there were two new system services which
acctually accepted NUL-terminated strings as arguments. They were
promptly removed after Compaq was notified that customer reaction was
so intense against the creeping Unixism's. The POSIX package also
existed but was removed. But who knows what else has been Unixified?
Windows (which is already a primordial soup of other OS'es influence)
and MacOS (which is also about to be Unixified) will likely also have
disastrous results as the become more and more indistiguishable from
Unix.
Not only is there a personal argument against all OS'es being the same
(such that there is nothing more to learn, and no more creative choices
to be made), but there is a very serious security argument against
going to one OS. Despite having different sources, many different Unix
systems are plagued by the same bugs because they have similar design
decisions. For example, in 1994 there was a bug which affected both AIX
and Linux systems, whereby logging in as the user "-froot" would give
root access to any user. Although AIX and Linux had no code in common,
they had similar implementations due to similar requirements, and both
feel victim to the same bug. The more widespread Unix is, the more
vulernable world security is.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Why do I need Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 04:10:50 GMT
In article <M11U4.86394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Furthermore, almost all the computer systems you likely encounter are,
> under the covers, becoming "more like UNIX" over time.
It appears that since Unix is perceived by non-technical people as
being a stable system, so most vendors use this as a marketing point
and want to put as many Unix features into their systems as possible
(as if adding fork() takes out all of the bugs in your OS).
In many systems this has dramatically hindered technical progress of
the OS. For example, until about 10 years ago or so, VMS could handle
dates through the year 9999. Since the introduction of Unix-like
concepts (particularly TCP/IP and DECwindows, which were ported from
Unix and written in C), VMS is now only certified through 2038 (or
2106, actually).
There has also been Unixification in other areas. Many VMS customers
were shocked last year when there were two new system services which
acctually accepted NUL-terminated strings as arguments. They were
promptly removed after Compaq was notified that customer reaction was
so intense against the creeping Unixism's. The POSIX package also
existed but was removed. But who knows what else has been Unixified?
Windows (which is already a primordial soup of other OS'es influence)
and MacOS (which is also about to be Unixified) will likely also have
disastrous results as the become more and more indistiguishable from
Unix.
Not only is there a personal argument against all OS'es being the same
(such that there is nothing more to learn, and no more creative choices
to be made), but there is a very serious security argument against
going to one OS. Despite having different sources, many different Unix
systems are plagued by the same bugs because they have similar design
decisions. For example, in 1994 there was a bug which affected both AIX
and Linux systems, whereby logging in as the user "-froot" would give
root access to any user. Although AIX and Linux had no code in common,
they had similar implementations due to similar requirements, and both
feel victim to the same bug. The more widespread Unix is, the more
vulernable world security is.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 04:34:15 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:06:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 1. Within the filesystems of OS's such as dos or windows drive
>> letters break the abstraction of the OS and are artifacts of
>> physical devices present in the system.
>
>Your fallacy is that you are thinking in the Windows paradigm. Drive
>labels have been done successfully in many systems, and Windows is not
>one of them. You have to think about it in other ways than the Windows
>way.
How are the 'other ways' significantly different? How do they
address his primary objection?
>
>> This is bad for
>> aesthetic reasons: it doesn't make any sense. With mount points
>> everything is subordinate to "/"; the abstraction of the
>> directory/file metaphor is unbroken. This is not nitpicking, I
>> think the idea of using filesystems according to some label is
>> inherently stupid because there is nothing intrinsic to a file
>> system that makes it the organizing principle of a heirarchy of
>> directories.
>
>But why should removable media be part of the filesystem? If I want to
>mount a tape, or a ZIP drive, why should it be part of the system's
>filesystem?
>
>> If you have a heirarchy of directories it makes
>> sense to have one top level directory, not several top level
>> directories scattered about the system willy nilly according to
>> what physical devices you have in the system. It is bad design
>> in my view and there isn't any good reason for it that I can
>> determine.
>
>There are several advantages of drive letters -
>
>a) It calls to attention the fact that it is a separate device. Often
>times you want to insure you are not using a network drive and are
>using a local drive. With mount points, it is not at all obvious what
>physical device a path maps to it without resorting to DF (an
Drive letters create the same effect. At best they clue the user
into the fact that the total conceptual filesystem is broken
into N pieces.Any cues to the contrary are strictly a matter of
how the user shell handles things.
>additional, inefficient step).
>
>b) Instant error feedback. The mount point exists whether or not the
>device is mounted. If you forget to mount the device, you copy files to
>some directory, because the system is too stupid to know that you
>wanted to copy to a device, not a directory.
You aren't likely to have permission to write to part of the
filesystem where removable media is mounted. In some instances,
those mountpoints don't even exist until the media is actually
accessable.
>
>c) Mounting a device covers the contents of the directory it was
>mounted in. Whoever implemented this needs to be beaten with a clue-by-
>4.
>
>> Try explaining what "drive c" and "drive d" are to someone who
>> knows nothing of computers and you will see how stupid it is.
>
>And this is less intuitive than /mnt because ...?
/mnt wouldn't be exposed to such a user for something like
C: or D:. Also, /mnt is arbitrary and can be changed to suit
the target user.
I tend to go for /cdrom, /cdworm and /floppy myself.
Although, for removable media, the Mac/Solaris way of handling
things is more sensible. The disk itself is uniquely identified
rather than merely the device.
>
>> 2. Mount points, where any filesystem on any device is mounted
>> anywhere you want within "/", are more flexible, I think this is
>> obvious.
>
>Again, you continue to think in Windows terms, not in general terms. In
>VMS, I can set up logicals which (a) can be set to a device (so if I
>change the device, I change the logical), and (b) can be set to a path
IOW, just another Unixism.
>of directories, so I can spread out files arbitrarily over disks and
>filesystems and have search paths to it. Lindows and Winux do not have
>this capability, and this is an example of something far more flexible
>done with drive labels than what can nbe achieved with mount points.
Sounds suspicously like what Unix has been doing with filesystems
for decades, actually. This could even describe what Windows is
capable of these days.
>
>In general I think you will find that the ability to mount different
>filesystems in the hierarchy is only useful for different system-
>related filesystems (i.e. not removable media), and the paradigm breaks
>down for removable media. Again, as I described above, VMS (a system
No, you've just shown your ignorance of the state of Unix.
Dynamically dealing with wayward devices in the filesystem
is no morea problem than dealing with them on the desktop.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "badman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "badman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:37:15 -0400
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
"John Unekis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> CNN is reporting that javascripts opened with Internet Expl*rer can read
> "cookie" files stored on your
> workstation and supply your passwords and credit card information to
> hackers.
you mean CRackers and script kiddies. It is because of Hackers you are able
to post on the usenet right now, and "surf the web".
P.S. People's ignorance just gets to me
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why do I need Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 04:58:47 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 04:11:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <M11U4.86394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, almost all the computer systems you likely encounter are,
>> under the covers, becoming "more like UNIX" over time.
>
>It appears that since Unix is perceived by non-technical people as
>being a stable system, so most vendors use this as a marketing point
>and want to put as many Unix features into their systems as possible
>(as if adding fork() takes out all of the bugs in your OS).
>
>In many systems this has dramatically hindered technical progress of
>the OS. For example, until about 10 years ago or so, VMS could handle
>dates through the year 9999. Since the introduction of Unix-like
>concepts (particularly TCP/IP and DECwindows, which were ported from
>Unix and written in C), VMS is now only certified through 2038 (or
>2106, actually).
If VMS is genuinely suffering from 'Unixims' then it's
time representations should certainly be certifiable for
far beyond 9999 actually.
VAXen and Alphas are supposed to be 64bit machines afterall.
[deletia]
If DEC or Compaq have gotten sloppy as of late, that's another
matter entirely.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:11:28 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Todd wrote:
>
> josco wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 17 May 2000, Todd wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Joseph wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>
> >> Again, most Win32 API functions have been around unchanged for years.
> >
> >Again, NO ONE cares. MS even says they innovate by changing/adding to the
> >APIs so your comments are pointless and contradict MS and its detractors.
>
> No. Point me to where MS says this.
http://www.microsoft.com
> Also, give me some API calls that have *changed*.
Why bother -- How can MS innovate with new OS features without adding
and deleting APIs?
> As for additions, developers had the entire set of new APIs for W2k more
> than a year before those APIs became standard.
External developers are at a disadvantage: MS's applications division
authored some of these API services. If they are relased later to the
external community the damage was already done. MS says they do this
and it is called innovation.
> Adding APIs is just exposing functionality that they added to the OS. MS
> has every right to expand their OS, just as IBM has a write to develop an
> addition to OS/2 and expose its functionality.
No one says MS cannot add new APis so why not talk about HOW they add
APIs and explain why it is okay for the Applications division to have
first access and even design to these APIs?
> This is how OSes or other software get upgraded.
No it is not how other OSs get upgraded.
> A normal part of the development/upgrade cycle.
No -- it is not normal at all.
> I welcome the new functionality.
Who doesn't?
> >You're behind the PR spin: What we have here is a lag between a
> >significant change in MS's defense and the time an advocate clues into
> >MS's new defense.
>
> I don't follow what MS says,
Obviously not which makes one wonder why you choose to argue. You're
denying something they admit they do and defend as innovation.
If you want to argue how MS devleops windows APIs the best place to
start with your fact base is with MS's response to the DOJ.
http://www.microsoft.com (look under the category "legal").
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
