Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #26 Sat, 13 May 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Kevin Huber)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Kevin Huber)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Perry Pip)
Re: M$ and C2 (Christopher Browne)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Timberwoof)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Here is the solution (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 00:08:34 GMT
In article <8fi72b$u2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fh137$sem$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8fg3hj$cj3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> And opening a vbscript runs it, as I would expect.
Yes, it does. The question is should it.
[snip]
> > Launching unknown code is dangerous. What possible reason could
> > MS have for popping up a requester with two options that has only
> > one valid response?
>
> Huh ? One valid response ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who wrote,
"If you 'open' an attachment that can execute code, it's
very dangerous?" I've just received an 'I Love You' email.
I'm warned by MS that the attachment may be a virus (why else
would someone send me a .vbs attachment?). I'm given two
options: Save the attachment to disk or launch the potential
virus. It's as if MS is holding a gun they've found to my
temple and asking me if I want to pull the trigger. I'm sure
there are some people around who like to play that particular
game, but they are in the minority. Why should the rest of
us have to answer such a stupid question?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
From: Kevin Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 May 2000 18:35:02 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> For Linux, you rely on _customers_ testing the software.
That is false. The kernel has a development version and a stable
version. Most large projects have development versions and stable
versions.
With OSS you always have access to programs months before they
possibly would have been released commercially. You can choose to use
it or wait until it is stable. Not a lot different than beta testing
commercial apps (if the commercial app even offers a beta). Updates
are usually released frequently. This is a good thing.
Apache, BIND, and Sendmail are some of the most stable and widely
used software packages in the world. And they are open source.
The priority #1 of Linux is not stability. You should look into the
*BSDs if that is what you want. You simply cannot compare VMS and
Linux on stability - it is apples and oranges. Two totally different
markets. Yes, your semi trailer truck is more durable than my Honda,
but my Honda serves me better as a daily transportation vehicle.
> On reliable commercial environments such as VMS, a company can
> extensive testing _internally_. For Linux, the customers are guinea
> pigs. Moreover, customers do not have the expertise to do sophisticated
> testing. The customer's test will consist of: I can compile the kernel
> on it, so it must be OK.
False. S.u.S.E, RedHat, Mandrake, and others all do testing. There
are Linux consulting companies -- pay them to test your stuff. This
is not any different than a service contract with a commercial vendor.
If you want the work done, you have to do it yourself or pay for it.
What is so strange about that?
> The company who manufacturers an OS knows the
> corner cases which are interesting to test. To the Linux customer who
> is doing the test, it is strictly black box testing.
You have the code at your disposal. So it is not black box testing.
What do commercial vendors have to hide? Releasing OS source to
customers use to be commonplace.
> But how did you get the 2.0.36? You had to go through 36 patch-levels.
> When you go to a certain version, how do you know it will be the last
> in the series? What do you do when you add some piece of hardware which
> that kernel doesn't support? It's Linux so you have to patch,
> recompile, and reboot!
You can get kernel binaries. What do you do if you run *any* OS with
some piece of hardware that's not supported? You install a driver.
You should buy well-supported hardware if you're going to run Linux.
It's just common sense.
> But how does it survive testing? VALinux and Bug Hat are not big enough
> to have extensive testing programs. Especially Bug Hat, since they do
> not even sell the hardware which their software runs on, and it can run
> on any little three ring PC configuration.
You said earlier that "customers" did all the testing. Now you've
retracted and qualified vendor testing with "[not] extensive". You clearly
have some personal bias not grounded in reality.
-Kevin
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
From: Kevin Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 May 2000 18:45:05 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> What you need to understand is that the people making purchasing
> decisions do not have the technical expertise to judge systems, so they
> jump on the latest bandwagon, in this case Linux.
It is primarily technical people promoting Linux. It has been that
way for years. Only now are the "people making purchasing" decisions
catching on. What turnip truck did you just fall off?
> The pointy-haired
> managers read some feel-good fluff about Linux in the mass-cultural,
> mainstream media, and then decommision the VAXes and install Linux.
My first Internet account was on VMS. It was an interesting system,
but I prefer Unix.
> This does not mean that Linux is better than VMS.
They are not in the same market, any more than Mack trucks compete
with Honda cars. VMS probably has more competition with MVS. And
yes, I would rather use VMS :-).
> Most technically
> competent people believe that VMS is much better than Linux.
What reference do you have? On what basis can you make that unqualified
statement? Better for what?
> But the
> industry websites, mass popular press, and stock market believes that
> Linux is better than VMS, and constantly publish articles, FUD, and
> propaganda supporting this position. This is no reflection on technical
> reality.
I think what you are doing is spreading FUD. Fear Uncertainty and
Doubt is something vendors spread to inhibit competition.
If you mean "propaganda", then I would have to agree. Linux gets
promoted too often as the solution to every problem. I think you and
I would agree that Linux does not compete with VMS for the types of
applications VMS typically runs. I think you would agree that VMS
does not have some of the flexibility for desktop applications that
Linux has (in terms of vendor hardware and software support and
emphasis on the desktop).
> Excuse me, I thought that this was a technical forum, not a business
> forum. There are separate forums for discussing commercial viability,
> but as a professional engineer, I am not interested in such fluff, but
> only which system is best (and in this case I choose VMS).
Nail? Hammer. Screw? Hammer. Yes, your "professional" attitude
sounds like that of many other professionals I have known - grounded
in fear and reluctance to accept change. As I have mentioned earlier,
VMS and Linux do not compete for the same market.
-Kevin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 00:36:14 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 00:08:34 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8fi72b$u2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8fh137$sem$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <8fg3hj$cj3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> And opening a vbscript runs it, as I would expect.
>
>Yes, it does. The question is should it.
>
>[snip]
>
>> > Launching unknown code is dangerous. What possible reason could
>> > MS have for popping up a requester with two options that has only
>> > one valid response?
>>
>> Huh ? One valid response ?
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who wrote,
>"If you 'open' an attachment that can execute code, it's
>very dangerous?" I've just received an 'I Love You' email.
>I'm warned by MS that the attachment may be a virus (why else
>would someone send me a .vbs attachment?). I'm given two
>options: Save the attachment to disk or launch the potential
>virus. It's as if MS is holding a gun they've found to my
>temple and asking me if I want to pull the trigger. I'm sure
>there are some people around who like to play that particular
>game, but they are in the minority. Why should the rest of
>us have to answer such a stupid question?
>
And why do they ask the same exact question for a .jpg attachment??
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: M$ and C2
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 01:09:47 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Nico Coetzee would say:
>Apparently M$ has some C2 demonstration on Command and Control Systems.
>
>Question : Can Linux match this demonstration? Is there currently these
>kind of software available (Command and Control)?
>
>Just wondering....
>
>I saved the original msg at : http://nicc777.tripod.com/luc/news (news
>is the file name - no extension )
I think you're mistaking:
a) C2, a particular security rating in the Trusted Product Evaluation
Program, and
b) C^3, which stands for Command, Communications, and Control.
Linux is not a rated system in TPEP, which means that claims that it
either _has_ a particular level, or does _not_ have a particular level
of security are not based on any truthful grounds.
As for C^3 applications, those tend to reflect embedded systems, and Linux
is very probably not in widespread military use in such applications.
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #206. "When my Legions of Terror park their
vehicle to do reconnaissance on foot, they will be instructed to
employ The Club." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 21:24:44 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
This is the second time you've claimed this. This computer is certainly
"working," and it's running Windows 2000. How is it "lacking?"
-Evan
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 18:49:25 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a story that goes to show.
>
> The NATO Inteligence Center in Luxembourg uses Windows NT
> exclusively, but the only reason they do is because Microsoft gave it
> to them for free _AND_ paid for a Microsoft employee to work there
> full time for the sole purpose of keeping it running. They're not
> doing too bad, they only have to reboot once a month.
Boy, that's brill... If I were in charge of that facility, I'd change
that MS employee's job description to include writing training manuals
and training his replacements, who will be enlisted soldiers. If things
get bad, who do you think will be on the first plane back to Redmund,
leaving the "intelligemnce" center dead in the water?
--
Timberwoof
Chief Perpetrator, Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
(timberwoof at infernosoft dot com -- www dot infernosoft dot com)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: 13 May 2000 21:44:48 -0500
In article <8fkiip$ki1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yet there is nothing about Linux that precludes high uptimes.
>
>... Only all of the bugs.
All large software packages have bugs. The difference with
Linux is only that you are allowed to know what they are.
>> This is a 'big picture' observation and only partly correct. These
>> releases are equivalent to what a commercial company would internally
>> give to a quality assurance department before public release.
>> However no company can afford to test to the extent that a Linux
>> kernel is tested in a few weeks of public use.
>
>Sure they can, and this is indeed done for VMS. Digital releases field
>test versions which employees run on their machines. Digital is a large
>organization, and most configurations of VAXes and Alpha's are present
>at the company, so it is a good test.
Do you have some numbers to back this up? Even estimates of number
of hours on numbers of machines compared to Linux users?
>For Linux, you rely on _customers_ testing the software. That is the
>flaw.
On the contrary, that is the best part.
>On reliable commercial environments such as VMS, a company can
>extensive testing _internally_. For Linux, the customers are guinea
>pigs. Moreover, customers do not have the expertise to do sophisticated
>testing. The customer's test will consist of: I can compile the kernel
>on it, so it must be OK. The company who manufacturers an OS knows the
>corner cases which are interesting to test. To the Linux customer who
>is doing the test, it is strictly black box testing.
Backwards again. The users will perform exactly the correct testing
where the company testers can only simulate real-world use.
>> This is exactly backwards. For a stable Linux system you pick a
>> well-tested version and leave it alone until another version
>> has proven itself to be better. There are still plenty of systems
>> chugging along on 2.0.36.
>
>But how did you get the 2.0.36? You had to go through 36 patch-levels.
No more so than you have to alpha-test every pre-release from
a commercial company. A lot of people probably went from
a 1.x kernel directly to 2.0.36. But, if enjoy trying the
latest/greatest or have hardware that takes advantage of the
improvements you may want to try the updates as they are
available.
>When you go to a certain version, how do you know it will be the last
>in the series?
If it has been two weeks since the last release there are probably
no showstopper bugs.
>What do you do when you add some piece of hardware which
>that kernel doesn't support? It's Linux so you have to patch,
>recompile, and reboot!
What an odd question in the context of a preference for VMS!
What do you do when you add a piece of hardware that VMS doesn't
support? And why would you consider doing that on a production
machine where you don't have time to reboot?
>> You get the best of both situations. For home/desktop use it is
>> nice to have access to the cutting-edge code, latest device drivers,
>> etc. This obviously won't be heavily tested but having to do
>> an update/reboot on a personal machine isn't a disaster either.
>> For servers and other critical machines you just use something
>> that has survived testing or that has been put together by
>> other people with reliability in mind - like the VALinux distribution.
>
>But how does it survive testing?
Very well, thank you.
>VALinux and Bug Hat are not big enough
>to have extensive testing programs. Especially Bug Hat, since they do
>not even sell the hardware which their software runs on, and it can run
>on any little three ring PC configuration.
This is the point of the Cathedral/Bazaar, release early/often, and
all that. Massively parallel testing just happens to work, and the
testers don't even need to understand the problem, just how to
report the reproducable ones. The difference from the user's
viewpoint is just the lack of glossy PR fluff when the highly
stable versions appear so you have to pay attention. However,
once you get started with 2.0.36 or 2.1.12 or any other solid
version it is easy to ignore the machine until something else
well-tested comes along.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 03:02:17 GMT
Evan DiBiase wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
>
> This is the second time you've claimed this. This computer is certainly
> "working," and it's running Windows 2000. How is it "lacking?"
>
> -Evan
Oh extremely simple.
When I worked for HBOC it was a blue screening mess.
When I quit HBOC to work for several life insurance concerns
it was still a blue screening mess.
Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
triumphantly that NT is working.
Well, W2K ain't working either as it seemingly can't even handle
the simple job of running LAME terminal emulation software.
I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
I used to be a BIG microsoft supporter.
I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Now I'd like to read some about your background?
Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
In every job which has involved Microsoft products, EVERY COMMERCIAL
SOFTWARE MANUAL I've had to write to support MY software, I've HAD
to
put in a paragraph explaining why it's a good idea to turn your servers
around every work day and to turn your desktops around every 3-4 days.
Because if you use Microsoft OS's for anything SERIOUS, you'll have to.
YOU'LL HAVE TO OR IT WILL BLUE SCREEN.
That's why I appreciate Linux now.
Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
the
world and then HOPE it works.
They don't have the manpower nor technical knowledge to accomplish their
OS goals and I'm using 95, 98, NT and W2K as support for that argument!
If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
We have another company who's had some Linux boxes in continuous
scientific
research now for 1 year and 4 months running. I've got some other
business
contacts who've had Linux servers up for almost 3 years running.
I have been recognized in several magazines for my efforts in converting
software for the life insurance companies of America and I'm on the
front
cover of one of America's most popular compilers.
Unless you've written software and have some expertise in the OS's you
work
with, you have positively NO business giving out recommendations to
inferior products.
And let me just add this. If Microsoft had it's head pulled out of it's
butt,
the world would NOT have had to endure this ILOVEYOU VB script.
This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
prime time.
Why do I work with it? People pay me! Go figure!
And they still want me to work with it! Go figure!
And YES, they know I write to newsgroups. They tell me so! Go figure!
People think Microsoft is the only way to empower them at the office.
That's the real reason Microsoft is alive today. But that's the ONLY
reason
they are alive today. It isn't because of programming excellence.
And that's the way I will leave it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 02:59:31 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 22:20:04 GMT, Forrest Gehrke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This must have some meaning about the long term for OS/2. Like Lazarus,
>OS/2 is showing renewed signs of life and the MS pitchers have to be
>recalled from the bullpen.
Uh, yeah, whatever you say. I used OS/2, liked it too, but I have a hard
time thinking up ways that being end-of-lifed by IBM can be considered
"renewed signs of life".
It is time to move on.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
