Linux-Advocacy Digest #639, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Yannick")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Yannick")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Yannick")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Yannick")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Anthony W. Youngman")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Anthony W. Youngman")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Yannick")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (brian moore)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux fails - again ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (Ray)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Loren Petrich)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Mig Mig)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jack Troughton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:06 GMT
Yes, I have to get a closer look at those umask things.
Thanks for your contribution.
Yannick.
(BTW. I cannot trust the users. There are too many of them).
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
8g7m2c$19ju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <CuCV4.276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Okay, so I thought :
> >"I have a problem with the file access permissions on my linux webserver.
> >This, of course, come from the over-simplisitic permissions in linux, always
> >thought I'd eventually come to problems with them. Only I had not expected
> >so soon. Now, there's a lot of people here saying good of linux, and many
> >of them saying the access permissions of linux are sufficient. So surely
> >they know how to solve my problem..."
> >
> >So, here is the problem. I have one solution, which is a five-legged sheep.
> >I will not tell it to you so that you start from a clear view of the problem.
> >I want to know what would be your solution for the problem.
> >
> >* The files discussed here are part of a website. The server machine serves
> >several websites, so major changes to the configuration of httpd are not
> >a good idea. Httpd is running as "nobody/nobody".
> >
> >* The website uses PHP. The PHP scripts may need to create, next to each
> >html file in the website, a sort of "translated" version of it. This file
> >is regenerated when target is older or missing.
> >
> >* Several users have access to parts of the site as authors. They may want to update
> >the site, and possibly remove the translated files generated by the server,
> >using FTP, and, possibly, telnet. There is no restriction to how the
> >user accounts must be : they will only be used for that job.
> >
> >So there are files that the user must write and read and the server read,
> >and files that the server can create and read and the user remove.
> >
> >Who has got a solution for my problem ?
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any help.
> >
> >I still regret Windows NT's ACLs.
>
> If you trust the users not to mess with each other's files, just
> put everyone in group nobody and make all files and directories
> group writable. Use a umask of 002 and 'chgrp -R nobody /topdir'
> and 'chmod -R g+w /topdir' to get started. If you don't
> trust the users with write access to each other's files, leave
> the directories owned by the users but group nobody and group
> read/write. This will allow both the httpd server and the
> user to create and delete files and if you don't add users to
> group nobody they can't write in directories belonging to
> other users.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:06 GMT
Thanks for the URL.
Yannick.
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Maybe you may find useful this
>
> http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.2-Manual/ref-guide/
>
> and in particular this section:
>
>
>http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.2-Manual/ref-guide/s1-sysadmin-usr-grps.html
>
> which covers group management.
>
> --
> Ing. Giuliano Colla
> Direttore Tecnico
> Copeca srl
> Via del Fonditore 3/E
> 40139 Bologna (Italy)
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:07 GMT
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:22:58 GMT, "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Okay, so I thought :
> >"I have a problem with the file access permissions on my linux webserver.
> >This, of course, come from the over-simplisitic permissions in linux, always
> >thought I'd eventually come to problems with them. Only I had not expected
> >so soon. Now, there's a lot of people here saying good of linux, and many
> >of them saying the access permissions of linux are sufficient. So surely
> >they know how to solve my problem..."
> >
> >So, here is the problem. I have one solution, which is a five-legged sheep.
> >I will not tell it to you so that you start from a clear view of the problem.
> >I want to know what would be your solution for the problem.
> >
> >* The files discussed here are part of a website. The server machine serves
> >several websites, so major changes to the configuration of httpd are not
> >a good idea. Httpd is running as "nobody/nobody".
> >
> >* The website uses PHP. The PHP scripts may need to create, next to each
> >html file in the website, a sort of "translated" version of it. This file
> >is regenerated when target is older or missing.
> >
> >* Several users have access to parts of the site as authors. They may want to update
> >the site, and possibly remove the translated files generated by the server,
> >using FTP, and, possibly, telnet. There is no restriction to how the
> >user accounts must be : they will only be used for that job.
> >
> >So there are files that the user must write and read and the server read,
> >and files that the server can create and read and the user remove.
> >
> >Who has got a solution for my problem ?
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any help.
> >
> >I still regret Windows NT's ACLs.
> >
> >Yannick.
> >
>
> I'm not sure if this solves all of your problems, but try the
> following:
>
> 1. Create group (eg wwweditors) and place all the required users in
> this group.
>
> 2. Assuming the location of the files is say /wwwfiles use the
> following:
>
> chgrp wwweditors /wwwfiles
> chmod g+s /wwwfiles
>
> The s bit causes all files created in the directory to be in the
> wwweditors group.
>
> 3. Set the creation umask of all the users so that all files they
> create have rw group permissions.
>
> Problems like these highlight how antiquated Unix permissions are.
> When you combine this with Samba even more problems arise.
>
> The irony is that many of the advocates in this group do not know
> enough to understand this (if their posts are anything to go by).
>
Ouch , I should have read the man page better. I had not noticed
the implication of the "s" flag. Now that should do the trick.
Thanks a lot !
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:08 GMT
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 21 May 2000 05:50:19 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:22:58 GMT, "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | wrote:
>
> [snip problem]
> [snip solution]
> I don't follow. You just laid out a 3 step solution for the problem
> by using Unix file permissions. How does this highlight "how
> antiquated Unix permissions are"?
Mmmm, of course this is a 3 step solution. But the problem wasn't
very complex either. My problem with linux access permissions
(aside from the fact that I do not know them enough), is that I think,
with my limited knowledge of them, that we are more likely to reach the
limits when the problem gets more complex, compared to the provisions
of NT. (Which I know much better).
In particular, there is the possibility to set in a directory which the exact
permissions
of the new files should be, whatever the owner of the file is, and wether or not those
permissions should be inherited or not.
Also, is there a way to deny access on linux such as you do on NT (ie access denial
is prevalent on granted access) ? This can be useful. Imagine that you are in a school
and that there are lots of resources available for "students". Among them is a printer,
but there are lots of other resources. If you want to prevent one particular student
from using it because he does not respect the rules about the printer....
In NT, all you have to do is deny him access to the printer, without changing the
permissions of the students (for those that still want to use the printer), or
deny the particular student the data about graph theory, because he needs them to work.
Is there a way to do this on linux (this is just a question) ?
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:00:50 +0100
Reply-To: "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Horst von
Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Fri, 19 May 2000 20:20:25 +0100,
> Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Also, aiui, rpm is sadly broken compared to dpkg... If a package has a
>>"required" dependency registered with dpkg, you can be pretty sure that
>>trying to run the dependent package will fail if the required package
>>isn't installed. On the other hand it was a devil of a job to install
>>SuSE *without* installing OSS and ISDN4LINUX because rpm said these
>>packages were "required" - on a bare-bones system with no sound or isdn
>>card. And I gather it's rpm's fault, not SuSE - those packages may be
>>required, therefore they must be marked as required, therefore the
>>system tries to force you to install them :-(
>
>Sorry, no. Neither dpkg nor rpm can find out on their own which packages are
>required for others to work (at least not in the general case). If the
>package maintainer gives the wrong dependencies, it's his fault.
You misunderstand me ...
I am led to believe (in other words I may well be wrong...) that rpms
basically have a required/not-required status. If the system MAY require
a package, then either it is flagged as required and the system tries to
make you install it, or it's not flagged and gets ignored.
dpkg has far finer graining - required (ie it'll break without it), and
various other grainings. So in my example OSS and ISDN4LINUX should be
flagged optional. SuSE/rpm apparently has no way of marking something as
optional.
In other words, it's not the package maintainer's fault if the
maintenance package has no way of correctly marking-up the dependency.
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
------------------------------
From: "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:02:56 +0100
Reply-To: "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Maciej Golebiewski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
>> And as a result of SuSE predating RedHat, SuSE rpms are incompatible
>> with RedHat ones :-( I wish they'd switch to dpkg, but I bet there would
>
>Since when? I always install RedHat as the base system (SuSe's layout of init
>scripts etc. gives me a headache) and then install application rpms from SuSe.
>Everything is working seamlessly (mostly).
Every time I've tried to install an RH rpm on SuSE, it's given me
dependency nightmares. SuSE use a different rpm naming convention, and
apparently that's the cause :-(
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:10:06 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
8g9g1q$2r2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And perhaps they also don't understand the directory permissions
> control the ability to create and delete files, so a only slightly
> more complex scheme allows letting the httpd server create and
> delete files in all directories without letting the users
> do it outside their own directory. There is also a simple
> alternative - since PHP is available in source, modify it to
> keep its work files in a parallel tree instead of mucking
> around in the real directories anyway. It is generally considered
> to be a bad idea to let the web server have write access to
> the document tree so I am very surprised that this would be
> a requirement for php.
It's no requirement. It's only to simplify my source code.
Maintaining two document trees would just be hell, and I don't
have time to implement something better.
That's why I want the user to be able to delete the files if they
want to have a clear look : they will be regenerated anyway.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:19:53 -0400
Just like W2K Datacenter...
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> > WindowsNT Datacenter Server can recognize up to 16 processors.
> >
> > Exactly how many can Linux handle? The most I've ever heard
> > of was 16, and that was with a major kernel renovation.
> >
>
> Linux for S/390 handles up to 32 processors. See Chapter 2 of:
>
> http://linux390.marist.edu/download/inst.pdf
>
> Gary
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 22 May 2000 21:27:57 GMT
On 22 May 2000 11:18:23 -0700,
steve@howdy <steve@howdy> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jhair says...
>
> >
> >Use the source, Luke.
> >
>
> huh?
>
> To enter a bug against linux, you use the source? what does
> that mean?
How do you think you find it?
> Have you ever heared of a bug tracking system?
>
> sending email messages to Linus is not what I call a software
> engineering way of reporting bugs.
>
> A bug tracking system allows others to examin it to see if
> such a bug has allready been reported, to examin the state
> of the bug, and other such activites.
Then subscribe to the linux-kernel mailing list. That's what it's there
for: describe the bug and how to reproduce it, let others see if it is
reproducable, and if so either you or someone else can suggest a patch.
> Check the Apache project for example, they have a bug tracking
> system. This is the kind of thing I was looking for for the
> linux kernel.
The linux-kernel mailing list.
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:43:45 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 13:13:52 -0700, D G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 20 May 2000 13:05:15 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On 18 May 2000 09:50:55 +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
>> >wrote:
[deletia]
>> Any little quirk in
>> your setup and any WinDOS, Solaris, BeOS or Linux install can
>> quickly become nasty.
>>
>> This is a side effect of the PC being a random collection of
>> spare parts. That adds a level of complexity to the whole
>> situation that is very difficult to just 'program around'.
>
>Any OS will give you problems if you're hardware is quirky. The ideal
"Random collection of spare parts" is about as quirky as one
can get...
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: 22 May 2000 21:49:46 GMT
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: When the power returned two machines failed to come back up without
: assistance. One was an NT workstation for which the BIOS reported a
: failed hard disk. The drive was making audible noises and we assumed
: the boot sector of the disk had failed sometime during the last few
: months since the user could not remember the last time her NT box had
: been re-booted.
You will find those of us with actual experience using (and in my case
developing for) NT to be somewhat skeptical.
: This is actually the second time we've observed the boot sector of a
: hard disk drive to fail during a single uptime of an NT machine. This
: is because our users never re-boot their NT boxes. NT has uptimes
: longer than the life of some hard disk drives :-)
When not used, sometimes. Normally, memory and other resource leaks
limit NT uptime to a few weeks to a few months at best (toward the
latter if running at most a single server process, and closer to the
former if running multiple services, development tools, etc.)
Much better than 95/98/etc., but still far short of what users of
Linux or Unix take for granted.
: The other machine to fail to come up was, of course, the Linux box.
Like all good propaganda this is based on a tiny kernel of truth,
namely, that a Linux filesystem that is abused will sometimes require
manual fsck and also may have lost changes to files that were open for
writing at the time of a power outage.
There are numerous clues elsewhere in your posting that clearly
indicate that either your sysadmins are incompetent in the extreme, or
you are making this story up (I'm guessing the latter, but will give
you the benefit of what little doubt there might be.)
For the sake of newbies I will take the liberty of pointing several of
these out.
: Since the NFS server part of Mandrake is broken
Here is your first problem (dubious claims about NT's reliability
aside).
Mandrake is the LAST distribution of Linux that I or any other
knowledgeable person would use for a production server. It is very
much desktop-oriented and very much bleeding-edge. It's fine for what
it's designed for, and in fact is the distribution I use on almost all
my boxes, but it is *not* designed for production server work. All
you'd need to learn this would be a simple visit to the Linux-Mandrake
Web site.
Any good vintage of Debian or Red Hat or Slackware would have been a
much better choice. All would need to be carefully administered, in
order to be production-capable (mostly for security reasons, and this
is true of ANY extant OS).
Finally, it is not a secret that NFS support in Linux 2.2.x is
somewhat broken. It's been broken for some time, and this has been
known for some time as well. It will be fixed soon, but meanwhile, if
serving NFS is important to you, that should obviously be a factor in
your selection of an NFS server. In the meantime, you do have the
option of using Samba; while maybe slightly less efficient in some
respects, it's much more stable and well supported at this time than
NFS.
: we used it as an NFS
: client to mount the file system of the Ultra with the DAT drive. We
: tar up the user's files from the Mandrake box to the NFS system. They
: are later transferred to tape.
: This wastes valuable (and expensive) disk space on the Ultra but, hey,
: Linux is free - NOT!!!
It is free in the sense of freedom.
It is not free in the sense of not having to learn what the fsck
you're doing in order to use it.
But then no one ever claimed that it was free in that sense.
I'm not surprised that folks as clueless as you appear to be are
having problems with Linux. If anything, I'm surprised you managed to
get it to work as well as you did.
: Anyway the Mandrake box paused while it waited for the Ultra to start
: its NFS server daemon. After about 10 minutes we realised it was not
: going to continue with the boot sequence. We hit the reset button to
: put the pile of crap out of its misery. It then came up OK since the
: Ultra was at that stage fully functional.
: It appears as though the client side of Mandrake NFS is also broken.
Might be. I don't know since I don't do NFS. I don't think you know
either. I don't see any evidence that you understand how to select,
use, *or* maintain Linux. But that isn't the problem. The problem is
that you claim to be competent to pronounce judgment upon the merits
or lack thereof of Linux, in spite of this lack of understanding.
: The odd thing is that the SCO box also NFS mounts a file system from
: the Ultra. It paused as well. However it continued on it's merry way
: once the Ultra got going.
: It appears as though a SCO box that is pushing 10 years old is more
: reliable than the latest Linux offering.
Some of us have used ten year old versions of SCO too. So we know
better than this as well.
: The Ultra with the tape drive also NFS mounts a file system from the
: second Ultra (for backup purposes). It came up without any problems.
: The two NT BDC's did not miss a beat. The only evidence of the power
: outage was an entry in the event log indicating the last system
: shutdown was unexpected.
: Linux - you get what you pay for.
You didn't invest the time or effort to learn it, so yes, you
apparently did get exactly what you paid for, and deserved.
NT might be better for someone like you, and if so, by all means stick
with it. But don't claim that this choice is evidence of the failure
of Linux. It is evidence only of your own.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:49:46 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:56:55 +0200, Davorin Mestric
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial unix
>vendors more than microsoft.
>
>from http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
I think you (and netcraft) are oversimplifying the situation. Just a few
years ago the conventional wisdom said that Unix=legacy and that everyone
was or soon would "standardize on NT". The real questions are:
1. How many of those legacy Unix boxes that have been replaced by Linux
would have become NT if Linux hadn't existed?
2. How many of the remaining Unix boxes would have become NT if it hadn't
been for Linux? Remember one of the main marketing points of NT is that
when/if you eventually migrate every last server over to NT you can then
save the cost of supporting two different platforms. In contrast one of the
major advantages of Linux is that it integrates easily into an existing Unix
network while still allowing the "real Unix" machines to be used for those
things that they are best at.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 22 May 2000 21:57:44 GMT
In article <8gbv1p$h4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or they could just tough out this DOJ PR railroad case and win with
>real justice in the appealate courts and forget about this whole thing
>and watch their stock rise higher than before this whole BS?
Real justice?
>The DOJ wants/needs a victory over big-business. They've been marginally
>successful with big-tobacco and with big-firearms.
Pure conspiracy theory.
>They need a BIG victory. MS was an easy target as there is no real
>precedence set in software industry trials or dealing with intellectual
>property and rights of innovation.
Swallowing M$ propaganda whole. M$ is *not* what anyone would
call an innovative company -- I've yet to see Bill Gates make a list of
his company's supposed innovations.
>So, they set up a talking head half-dead judge that will do whatever they
>say and railroad the whole trial and get their win.
Judge Jackson is hardly a judicial nobody or a judicial left-winger.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:01:25 +0200
Drestin Black wrote:
> Just like W2K Datacenter...
That does not exist at this point in time
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:01:41 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:08:19, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) writes:
>
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
>> >
>> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
>> >
>>
>> I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
>
> Please tell me you know about the DOS VDM that Windows 3.1 runs atop
> of in OS/2?
A DOS VDM isn't MS-DOS, that's for sure.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.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
******************************
