Linux-Advocacy Digest #798, Volume #26 Wed, 31 May 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Marty)
Linux User Counts, - time for an update (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Marty)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) (ZnU)
Re: The Linux Fortress (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:10:05 GMT
In <39358fd7$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>
><snip>
>>> > MS offers no choices with browsers and MS has a monopoly. Harm and a
>>> > foul.
>>>
>>> No. Microsoft been decreed to have Monopoly power, they do not hold a
>>> Monopoly. Holding a monopoly means that you have 100% government enforced
>>> market share. Those are two very different concepts.
>
>If you really think that a monopoly can only exist if it has a 100% government
>enforced market share --
I think the actual legal definition of "monopoly" sets a specific
percentage, and it certainly isn't 100%. Something on the order
of 90% I think, but it might be even less than that.
Karen
Where do I want to go today?
I want to go where *I* want to go,
Not where MS wants to send me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:06:31 GMT
On Wed, 31 May 2000 22:32:50 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Macros are horrible. And macros do not even compare to what you can
>do with templates.
I like to think of templates as macros on acid. If you think macros are
ugly and hard to maintain you ought to look at some serious template
abuse. I'd say the two are pretty comparable. Both are useful when used
in moderation.
>I do not think many real C compilers do this. I don't think gcc does it.
It turns out that gcc does often inline functions if you ask it to. But
then, often it doesn't. For the small stuff where inlining is truly a
benefit it does ok. Yes, I've looked at the assembler output.
>> Further, the speed benefits of inlining tend to be vastly overstated IMO.
>Oh, I think you underestimate it.
No, I don't think I do.
>And anyway, function calls are very expensive on most architectures. Much
>more so than arithmetic.
Well, sure, pushing a bunch of registers takes more cycles than adding to
the accumulator, but I really think you overestimate it. Barring dumb
design like putting a call to a two-line function in an inner loop,
function call overhead really isn't that big a deal for most programs,
particularly on Intel where you have hardly any registers to save.
>But life is full of tradeoffs like that. One advantage of C++ is that
>it lets you chose your poison; use the templates or don't, and
>get big-but-fast or small-but-not-quite-as-fast.
I can agree with this. C++ does give you a lot of options once you learn
it. Which can take a while 8->
>The 'lots of little functions' approach is widely considered the Right Way
This is not "the right way":
class myclass
{
public:
int get_a () {return a;};
int get_b () {return b};
int set_a (int x) {a = x;};
int set_b (int x) {b = x;};
private:
int a;
int b;
};
Any encapsulation here is purely an illusion. Yet I see this kind of
thing all the time. Various C++ books have rules like "don't make data
public" and lots of programmers take that far too literally.
But I digress. One can be a bad programmer in any language.
>> C++ advantages tend to revolve around structuring large projects rather
>> than performance relative to C.
>
>That is emphatically very true.
I'm glad we can agree on something 8->
>Nevertheless, C++ has no performance *disadvantages* over C- any C
>code can be converted straightforwardly into exactly equivalent C++.
Oh, sure, I can agree with that too.
>And sometimes its features can deliver a performance advantage if used;
>it's not free performance; basically you are trading size for speed:
>bigger, but faster, code.
But does it really matter? Usually not. If speed is that critical, use
assembler. Really. Said as someone who's working on DSP code right now.
>This can be a poor choice; it's not always wise to have large
>executables. But as I said, Microsoft seems unconcerned with that.
A large Microsoft contingent seems to belong to that group of micro-
optimizing programmers that bug the hell out of me, especially when I have
to maintain their code. It really is quite amazing how if you do a clean
design it will tend to be "fast enough" without having to do all kinds of
amazing speed hacks.
And if it isn't, well, then at least you have something reasonable to
start with rather than a big hairball.
>What benchmarks are you refering to? Certainly those I've have seen
>put C++ ahead.
I was specifically thinking of the series currently running in either Dr.
Dobb's or C++ User's Journal about converting an indexing program to C++.
>> If you are using C++ mainly to get "massive inlining" then I think you are
>> deceiving yourself about the benefit of such.
>
>I am not using C++ for that reason; C++ main benefits are structural- they
>give you better ways to organize your code. Or at least *more* ways. :D
Exactly. That's a perfectly valid reason for using C++, regardless of
whether it is faster or slower than C. If it is "real close" (and it is
if you avoid certain things like RTTI), then so much the better.
>That may be. This isn't entirely irrational; if you hamstring your
>performance it can be very hard to recover. Hamstringing your robustness
>means more debugging.
If you can get it debugged and running correctly it is much easier to
optimize *if necessary*. My experience is that excessive concern with
speed in the first go-round does not get you as much speed as you think it
will (since your guess of what's important will turn out to be wrong as
often as not) and it tends to make your code into a big hairball if you're
not real careful. I have seen this happen many, many times. Programmer
pulls all kinds of kung-fu to "make it fast", but it turns out to not be
all that fast and buggy too.
It almost always turns out for non-number-crunching programs that less
than 5% of the code is really critical to performance. Having that 5% be
a hairball is way better than having it all be so. Simply inlining the
world isn't the answer either as it makes for unnecessarily large programs
and may end up slowing things down if you go too far. Unless you have a
clean and robust design to start with you may never find the 5% and you've
wasted a lot of your time plus the time of every future maintainer.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:24:15 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39358fd7$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> No. Microsoft been decreed to have Monopoly power, they do not hold a
> >> Monopoly. Holding a monopoly means that you have 100% government
enforced
> >> market share. Those are two very different concepts.
>
> If you really think that a monopoly can only exist if it has a 100%
government
> enforced market share -- you are a jackass. Such monopolies do exist, but
> they are highly regulated. Microsoft is not such a monopoly, and could not
> survive such an environment because they have no capability to meet the
> service requirements or standards of performance that a regulated monopoly
> must comply with if they want to maintain their operating license.
Having a Monopoly is different from having Monopoly power. Even having 100%
of the market doesn't give you a monopoly, since a free (or relatively so)
market can always change those conditions. The only way to have a Monopoly
is if it's government enforced (such as power companies).
Having Monopoly power simply means that you have a great deal of control in
the market.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:17:46 GMT
Karl Knechtel wrote (for entertainment purposes again):
>
> Marty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Not familiar with the comic stylings of Dave Tholen, eh? No matter.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis of the lack of importance of his unfamiliarity with the comic
stylings of Dave Tholen.
> : Steve White wrote:
> : >
Dishonestly removing context again, eh Karl?
> : > whom you haven't met.
>
> : On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> It would seem the burden of proof is on you.
How it would seem is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
> : > You could be his doppelganger,
>
> : On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
>
> Incorrect.
Yet another example of your pontification.
> : > but that would require you to make sense,
>
> : That would not be adequate proof that I was his "doppelganger" (sic).
>
> Illogical. He claims it would be necessary, not that it would be sufficient.
Non sequitur, as I made no mention of sufficiency.
> : > and you don't.
>
> : Incorrect.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Unnecessary. Steve has made the claim, hence the burden of proof lies
squarely on his shoulders.
> : > Given your writing style, however, you might be the doppelganger of King
> : > Kong,
>
> : Do you claim familiarity with the writing style of King Kong? Impossible.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim.
Not at all, Karl. The basis for my claim is not "what".
> : > Can't do a better insult than that unless you give me more material.
>
> : You are erroneously presupposing that I desire a "better" insult.
>
> Balderdash.
Giving Eric Bennett and Chris Pott a hand in their Balderdash garden?
> The sort of insult you "desire" is irrelevant.
On the contrary, it is quite relevant to Steve's entertainment.
> What you can prove is relevant.
Incorrect. For example, I can prove that 2 + 2 is equal to 4, but that would
be of no relevance to this discussion.
> : > Fovell works wonders with single words at times,
>
> : How often is "at times"?
>
> Don't you know?
Irrelevant. Meanwhile, I see you have predictably failed to answer the
question.
> : > but I lack his panache.
>
> : Unfortunately, that's not all you lack, given your lack of a logical argument.
>
> How ironic.
Not at all, Karl.
> : > but I digress.
>
> : Why?
>
> Don't you know?
Irrelevant. Meanwhile, I see you have predictably failed to answer the
question.
> : > The Kong-ness of such a venture is evident to any regular here,
>
> : Incorrect, as "here" consists of CSMA, COOA, COLA, and COMS-WNA.
>
> Typical pontification.
Incorrect.
> : > Marty, clearly you're in the running for the ROOA
>
> : What I'm clearly in the running for is irrelevant.
>
> Incorrect.
Typical pontification.
> : > though you need to work on the obtuse-ness of your writing (as in, increase
> : > it).
>
> : Liar. The degree of my obtuse-ness is more than adequate.
>
> Is is more or less than 135 degrees?
No. "Is" is a verb used to describe the state of being of a person or object.
> : > let alone csma.
>
> : CSMA is irrelevant.
>
> How ironic.
See what I mean?
> : > Indeed, proof is irrelevant
>
> : Evidence, please.
>
> Illogical.
How ironic.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux User Counts, - time for an update
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:12:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> still 60 million? but it said 60 million
> several weeks ago - what happened
> to the 1% per week, where are the 600,000
> weekly new users from weeks ago?
Yup, time to update the link :-)
> and how do you determine that these claimed 60 million are satisifed?
Let's see. Linux now has 33% of the server market.
35% of the PC user base would like to see Microsoft dismantled.
Internationally there are about 500 million computer users,
and today there are very few computer users who haven't at least
heard of Linux.
> What is your criteria for satisfied?
Users that, given the right circumstances
(OEM installed, Application availability, User support,...)
would use Linux if they could, as much as possible.
The U.S. is probably the smallest market percentage-wise.
Linux has been doing very well in Asia, Europe, Latin America,
and India. India has 1 billion people, China has 1.6 billion,
and South America has about 1/5 billion. The U.S. has about
1/4 billion, and had the highest saturation of PCs equipped to
run Windows 9x.
SuSE does very well in Europe. In Japan, Korea, and Taiwan,
Linux outsells Windows 98 upgrades.
I haven't reviewed the numbers recently. By now we should be
able to get a pretty good sense of the statistical sample
available.
It should be interesting to compare Microsoft's market share
in markets where it's strong-arm tactics have already been
curtailed, and the U.S., where it can pretty much ignore
federal judges, blackmail $400 billion corporations, and
cause damages on a spectacular scale (estimated at $40 billion).
Love-bug alone - which largely caused by a well-known security
hole in Outlook that Microsoft assured was plugged, was over
$10 billion in damages.
> Are they STILL statisfied or have they
> returned to using Windows (dual boot or entirely)
Satisfied (as I use it) means they'd like to come back.
They may use it once in a while, once a week, on weekends,
or during the day until they have to switch to Wine or
Windows, or they may be running VMWare. Hate to admit it,
but I'm still a dual-boot user myself. I just found out
yesterday, that people have been having pretty good luck
running Lotus Notes under Wine.
I haven't updated because I haven't been tracking as closely
as before.
Some indicators of Linux' growth.
In the latest IDC server survey (year ending December 1999, Linux
had over 35 percent of the server market. The "Open Source Family"
(Linux, *BSD) made up over half the market.
The year before that, Linux had about 28%.
The year before that, Linux had about 17%
Meanwhile, the Internet server market has grown from 2 million servers
to nearly 15 million servers. This means that Linux has grown
from (17% of 2 million) 340,000 servers to nearly (35% of 15 million)
5.25 million - not bad growth, that's about 240%/year, or about
7.5% growth per month. When you add the rest of the Open Source
familiy, the total growth jumps to about 10%/month.
The international Internet User base has grown to around 300 million
users, and if Linux had 30% of those users, this would put the
UNIX population at around 90 million. Adding in the rest of
the Open Source Family, you might even have 100 million Linux/UNIX
users world wide.
Unfortunately, this doesn't help Microsoft much because most of
these users were forced to purchase Microsoft Windows whether they
wanted to or not, have been forced to use applications which only
run on the Microsoft platform (thanks to good lobbying from the
Microsoft sales and marketing team - "The Goon Squad"). It wouldnt
suprise if someone discovered that Microsoft was using former hookers,
drug dealers, and "loan shark collection agents" (the guys who break
your kneecaps) to handle especially difficult cases. I'm not stating
this as a fact, only that the nature of the pressure seems to be
changing.
> when they couldn't find the applications,
Which is Microsoft's fault, which the courts are trying to fix,
and which is gradually shifting. Microsoft has many enemies
who would rather create a greased slide to Linux than try to
compete against Microsoft's lock-out strategies.
> driver support
Most of the OEMs are now using Linux compatible components. There
is even a driver for those Lucent Winmodem chips (just found out
about it last week). The judge will be unlocking USB and DVD,
along with many of Microsoft's other "NDA protected" APIs (assuming
that they implement the DOJ proposal).
> or user friendlyness
[friendliness]? (Drestin, I'm suprised, a professional
PR guy like you :-)
These days, Linux is being packaged as "Appliances". The
Cobalt Qube ard Raq are managed using a web interface. You
don't have to know ANYTHING about Linux. Others are being
packaged as Game Consoles - You'd have a hard time telling
where the Web browser/server stops and where the X console
begins.
Some packaging doesn't even give the casual user an access
to the shell commands (they are ommitted from the command path
before starting XDM).
And Mac OS/X will be running BSD under the covers providing
optional access to the shell environment.
> they need to be productive.
Which is why the like Linux. Linux lets them create documents
that can easily be published, indexed, archived, and located,
without the joys of corrupted registries, DLL Hell, and
flavor-of-the-month APIs and infrastructure which is punished
within 2 to 4 years as "ill behaved" software.
Furthermore, since Linux follows well known and well published
standards, there's a pretty good chance that the documents will
be useful years later.
It's nice hearing from you again Drestin :-)
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:22:48 GMT
EdWIN wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > EdWIN wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >EdWIN wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Edwin wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >> > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >> > [snip]>
> > > >> >> > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially
> > > >> >> > dead. Move along folks. No thread to see here.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep
> > > >> >> posting to this thread?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Like all who oppose Microsoft, you will be send to a camp.
> > > >>
> > > >> Spelling Camp. ;)
> > > >
> > > >How ironic,
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> Incorrect.
Taking pontification lessons from Mike "Bullshit" Timbol?
> > Taking pontification lessons from Eric "Incorrect"
> > Bennett?
>
> How ironic coming from Marty "Master of Pontification."
Having attribution problems, Ho You?
> > > >coming from the person who recently wrote:
> > > >"Now it's time for Microsoft to puck blood."
> > >
> > > Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty
> >
> > Obviously not.
>
> Evidence, please.
Obviously not.
> > > (little boy)?
> >
> > Typical invective, the usual resort of one who lacks a logical
> > argument.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Self-evident.
> > > How typical.
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> Why?
Simple: because your pronunciation of how typical my statement was is quite
typical on your part.
> > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
> > > Network *
> >
> > Yet another example of your pontification.
>
> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.
How ironic, coming from the person who just foisted yet another pontification.
> > > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
> > > Free!
> >
> > Where is your evidence? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
> Open your eyes, Marty.
Unnecessary.
> Are you taking inappropriate posting lessons from Eric "Olga and
> Horatio" Bennett again?
Non sequitur.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:33:24 GMT
In article <8h4anc$n3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : In article <8gv4el$r9a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Piers B."
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : > You ignoramus,
> : >
> : > Who do you think helped IBM and Apple in the eighties ( re 80's for
> : > those who have literacy problems)???? IBM and Apple wouldn't have
> : > been the companies they were if it wasn't for Microsoft.
>
> : IBM could have found another company to provide DOS. Microsoft was but
> : one of many companies producing productivity software for the Mac.
>
> Who? What other operating systems could they had chosen from?
It has been discussed extensively in this thread. IBM even could have
written its own OS. Surely you don't think that was beyond its ability?
> : > Not to
> : > mention at how IBM treated the desktop user space when they and
> : > Microsoft split their co-designed OS efforts. OS2 desktop users have
> : > been consistantly shafted by IBM even if it was a superior product to
> : > Microsofts offerings of the day. MS has pushed personal computing
> : > further than Apple and IBM have anyday, sure they haven't been at the
> : > for-front like Amiga was but look at Amiga now, just dust. I also
> : > don't condone MS's market strongman tactics but I can tell you I'd
> : > take Win2K over any for of Unix for the desktop anyday. BeOS is the
> : > only real contender and they are a few years behind in features and
> : > applications. Mac OSX, please give me a break, Unix (FreeBSD) with a
> : > pretty Xwindow manager tacked on to try and hide it but with all the
> : > inherrent problems Unix has like their antiquated File naming system.
>
> : You evidently know nothing at all about Mac OS X. It isn't FreeBSD
> : (unless you'd like to tell me what FreeBSD distros are based on Mach?),
>
> _You_ evidently know nothing at all about MacOS X. The core of MacOS X,
> known as Darwin, is partially based on both Mach and FreeBSD v3.2.
You said Mac OS X was FreeBSD. I'm well aware of the fact that OS X has
a BSD layer (based on FreeBSD 4.4 lite). Apple has even done its part
and contributed many changes back to the open source community. That
doesn't mean it's BSD. It's architecture is very different. It has a
different kernel, a different driver architecture, a differently
organized filesystem, it uses XML configuration files, it roots from
HFS+.... The list goes on.
[snip quoted material from Apple's web site that I'm very familiar with]
> ---
> When applications are isolated in their own memory space, they can't
> interfere with each other if one goes bad. And, perhaps best of all,
> you don't need to restart your computer. The computer simply shuts
> down the offending application and its memory space, letting you
> continue on your merry way without interruption.
> ---
>
> Gee... WindowsNT has been doing this since, oh, v3.1. *sigh* Come on
> Apple... you people should have been first in line with this one.
There was no product called Windows NT 3.1. Perhaps you are thinking of
Windows For Workgroups which later became Windows NT 3.51.
> [SNIP]
This must have been a mistake. You snipped most of the body of my post.
I've taken the liberty of replacing it:
You evidently know nothing at all about Mac OS X. It isn't FreeBSD
(unless you'd like to tell me what FreeBSD distros are based on Mach?),
it doesn't run X11 at all, so it would be difficult for it to run an X
window manager, and if by "antiquated File naming system" you refer to
the normal somewhat cryptic Unix directory structure, you'll be happy to
hear that OS X's directory structure is almost totally different.
Perhaps you'd like to reply this time?
> : OS X's architecture is far beyond anything that will likely be
> : available
> : from Microsoft any time soon.
>
> And exactly what is in MacOS X that isn't in WindowsNT? Please do
> enlighten us. If your answer is going to be UNIX interoperability,
> please save your breath.
You might really consider reading up on the OS before bashing it. Pay
special attention to anything on the Cocoa API, the Quartz graphics
engine, packages (bundles), filesystem organization, configuration file
formats, the driver model and Aqua.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:33:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in
<8h3bee$c5c$1
> @nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >If you are using a Cable modem or shared DSL, you need more security.
> >Otherwise, all shares become public to anyone on your loop. The
> >same is true for laptop users sharing ethernet strings in hotels.
>
> Cable modems or shared DSL still aren't here in the UK as yet.
True, I guess you guys are ahead in the wireless arena. Still,
the likelihood of sharing a common media, ethernet, or other
unprotected media access is getting much higher as high-bandwidth
becomes available and sharable.
> >At work, your system is configured by an administrator. If you
> >use Windows 98, you still punch a huge security hole in the network,
> >but it takes a melissa/bubbleboy/love-bug style virus to exploit it.
>
> Not where I work.
Where do you work? How many people are there? Does everybody
share Windows 98 directories with each other willy-nilly?
That isn't too bad if you are only in a trusted group of 3-5
people and isolated from the rest of the world. On the other
hand, would you like your boss putting your pay rate and your
personel records into a Windows 9x share so his secretary can
get at it? Remember, with Windows 98, there are no groups, user
level access, and no high-level auditing.
If on the other hand, if you are part of a larger organization
and you are sharing a number of NT servers, somebody had to set
up the domains, the user id's, the groups, and the permissioning
on the shares.
If you are part of a really large organization, you may have
split into multiple domains, which means you have to set up
trust relationships between the various domains. Unfortunately
this makes corporate reorganizations really traumatic for everyone
using a computer. I've seen organizations of 100,000 users moved
into a single domain rather than deal with the trauma of domain
reorganization.
> In fact, nowhere has anyone configured a machine for me.
You mean you purchased all the parts from different manufacturers
and put all of the machines together from scratch! I solute you.
I hope you work incredibly cheap!
If you purchased the machine from an OEM, you probably got one or more
CD-ROMs custom tailored to make your system configuration as simple
as possible. Furthermore, the software was probably preinstalled
and the drivers preconfigured when you first purchased the machine.
Personally, I DO buy bare-bones machines. I move the Windows software
to the biggest and fastest machine and put Linux on what used to be
the Windows machine. I usually HAVE to buy a bigger machine to
accomodate the newest version of Windows. I just had to slog together
a new Windows 2000 machine because the NT 4.0 machine bailed the
upgrade.
> >Have you ever used regedit to resolve any configuration problems?
>
> Yes. Piece of piss.
Does this mean you like doing it :-)
I'm just not familiar with this specific British phrase
(I'm an uncultured 'merican :-).
> Pete
Thanks for your reply Pete.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
