Linux-Advocacy Digest #43, Volume #27 Mon, 12 Jun 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (tinman)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Robert L.")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Mig Mig)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Mig Mig)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (Mig Mig)
Brand new (willy)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Tim")
Re: Linux & Winmodem (John & Susie)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Keith T Williams")
Re: Linux & Winmodem (John & Susie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 12 Jun 2000 07:54:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
<8ht408$pba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Right, Windows did *exactly* 1,000,000 per second. Given
>a variation of 10%, there's about one chance in 100,000 of
>that happening. How do these guys expect us to believe
>their phony, made-up numbers if they don't take the time
>to make them look real? He should have said that Windows
>did 1092647 dhrystones per second. You just poke your
>fingers randomly on the digit keys; that number looks much
>better!
Those were the numbers I got, despite your rantings.
>Doesn't Microsoft's PR department give these people any
>training? You'd think with all the money Gates has, he'd
>allocate enough to buy a smarter class of liar. Maybe he
>doesn't think Usenet is very important.
I don't work for Microsoft. Microsoft has no software engineers in the UK.
>>Linux 877,912 - 909,090 dhrystones per second.
>>
>>With Linux I used gcc -o dhrystone dhrystone.c -O3;
>
>Is that optimized for the pentium?
Is what optimised for the Pentium? The compiler? Is there a switch I
missed?
If you're asking is the code optimised for the Pentium, what difference
does that make? It's the same code on Windows and Linux.
>This is Goodwin's latest line of bullshit. Where does it
>say that Linux runs three times as fast as MS-Windows? The
>speeds are generally similar, except that Linux multitasks
>better. What GNU/Linux/OSS is famous for is reliability,
>scalability, and an abundance of software at no cost. Plus,
>you can see inside it, so if problems do arise, they're much
>easier to diagnose and fix.
People here in COLA have claimed Linux is two or three times faster than
Windows. There's even a reply here stating Linux is twice as fast as
Windows.
>As of a few years ago, at least, Microsoft's C compiler emit-
>ted horribly buggy code if you told it to optimize. Even
>if compute-bound programs do run 10% slower compiled by gcc
>than VC, who cares? I'd rather have them work correctly.
>Anyhow, the difference is imperceptible. If it matters, you
>can spend $25 more and get a 10% faster CPU.
I've been using Visual C++ for about six years or more. I've never seen any
problems with the optimised code it produced. Contrast that with Borland's
Delphi (my favourite RAD tool) I descovered a couple of optimisation
problems.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 12 Jun 2000 08:04:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>If your going to write a test, the test should run for at least 10
>minutes duration. The test should include File I/O both sequential and
>random writes and reads, which over 3 files of varying sizes where these
>three files are exercised at least 6 times. Then the test must include
>video diplays of some kind, simple text scrolls would be nice with
>colors. Then the test should compute the prime numbers between say
>1,000,000 and 3,000,000, just for a good math exercise and store the
>results into tables in memory. You could produce one of the 3 test files
>using the results of this math.
Just to keep you happy, I ran a scene called chess2.pov through POVray on
both Windows 98 SE. This ran for 22 minutes 51 seconds on Windows 98 SE and
32 minutes 42 seconds on Linux.
In both cases I chose an image size of 640x480 with antialiasing of 0.3.
Do you see the trend here? Linux is _still_ slower than Windows 98 SE.
Oh yeah, before I forget. I cheated. I biased the test in favour or Linux.
The Windows version is a full blown editor with a POVray engine. It
generated an image as it ran on Windows.
The Linux version I ran straight from the shell. No X-windows running, also
no image rendered as it ran.
Linux still came out slower than Windows 98 SE!
>You MUST give the machine an exercise in order to determine who has
>the best OS.
Is 30 minutes long enough for you?
>We had a comprehensive insurance industry standards test which lasted
>almost 4 days and that's why we've proven Linux is 2 times the speed of
>NT in handling 200 applications doing this kind of testing running
>simultaneously.
Well, the results I'm seeing from my perspective tells me Linux is not a
good solution for doing intensive floating point operations. If the ray
tracer takes longer to run on Linux, then any scene I create that takes,
say 22 hours on Windows might take 32 hours on Linux.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 12 Jun 2000 08:11:34 GMT
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I did say VC didn't I?
>
>You didn't make the same change on both. GCC does have time() so you
>could have. So the two programs weren't exactly the same. This is
>basic error #1 in benchmarketing.
Ah but I did. I used the same source code on both machines. They both used
time(); I didn't allow the Linux version to use times().
>I thought I saw six zeros in your number (meaning I read "five
>million", not seven. Sorry if I misread it. The fact that it came out
>to a nice round number and the Linux one didn't seemed suspicious too.
I'm not responsible for your suspicious. They're yours. You deal with them.
>>Your 68331 or 68hc11 are irrelevant to my Intel box.
>
>The fact that one compiler is very portable and can generate code for a
>huge number of platforms, and the other isn't and can't, _is_ relevant
>to a fair comparison. Especially since your test is cpu-bound and
>makes no system calls except to get the time. It is really testing the
>compiler rather then the OS.
I'm testing on Intel hardware. How is multiple platform support relevant to
that?
Yes, you're right, I'm testing the compiler. The same compiler that builds
the OS, right?
>It is very hard to show that one OS is "faster" than another,
>particularly since there are lots of ways to interpret that. Is it
>faster at task switching? Interrupt response? Interactive response?
>What? If some fanatic said that Linux is "3x faster" without any
>qualification as to _what_ is faster, well, nobody with a clue is going
>to pay any attention to that. It is just so much sales talk.
Somebody did say Linux is three times faster than Windows. Someone else
here in this thread has said they've demonstrated an industry standard
insurance test running twice as fast on Linux as on Windows.
I did my own tests based on my own interests, and I find Linux is slower
than Windows. Not one test, but three seperate ones. How many more do I
need to do before I can make the conclusion "Linux is NOT faster than
Windows"?
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:14:53 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tinman wrote:
>
> Hmmmm, given the half tracking and quarter tracking used as copy
> > protection back in the day, doesn't seem so wierd to me. At least not as
> > wierd as that "holographic" image used by Verbatim on the Apple ][ floppy
> > drive diagnostics disks....
>
> It wasn't copy protection, I have a copied version of the 80 track side.
> Simply, some of the customers had 80 track drives, some had 40 track
> dirves. They didn't want to fore everyone who had upgraded the computer
> to upgrade the disk drives as well.
>
No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that given what I saw back in the day
with Apple ][ copy protection schemes, which included half and quarter
tracking, and the verbatim thingie, a disk with 40 tracks and 80 tracks
doesn't really surprise me.....
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:22:21 GMT
For the 2 part you have buy, do this.
Put the cdrom on the cdrom tray.
mount it ( mount /dev/cdrom )
go to the good directory ( cd /mnt/cdrom/driver/linux )
install it ( ./install )
What? there's no Linux directory on the CD. Please verify corectly....
Ah, no you are right, there's no drivers for Linux on the CD.
Go to the manufacturer website. Send them an e-mail saying there's no driver
for Linux on the cdrom. They will send you an e-mail with a Linux driver.
If they don't do this, the companie have a really poor tech support. You
should simply stop buying they hardware. And by the same way, send an e-mail
here saying which companie didn't support their hardware so we won't buy
the product anymore.
"Tiberious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
> Installing a printer, scanner and Fax program on a Win98SE
> system.
>
> Specifics: Canon FB630P scanner. Parallel port version.
> Canon BJC 4400 Printer.
> Software including Winfax and what ever came with the
> scanner and printer.
>
> Install printer with CDROM supplied. Nice CanoCraft programs and
> Greeting Card Designer included. Add's all kinds of menu options to the
> standard print menu so that resolution, paper size, diagnostics and so
> forth are easily accessible to the user.
>
> Install scanner, including Adobe Photoshop (Home version, almost the
> same as pro version) and Canocraft software plus a large selection of
> other software.
>
> Install Winfax. Surprise, surprise, it recognizes the printer and
> scanner and adds a fax option to all menus.
>
> Super easy.
>
> Try out all options and there are wizards to guide the user through all
> the operations of scanning/printing and faxing and most importantly ALL
> FUNCTIONS WORK TOGETHER, meaning you don't have to scan a printed
> document in order to fax it. You can just do it from the scanner menu.
>
> Linux on the other hand?
>
> 1. Doesn't support the scanner.
> 2. Barely supports the printer.
> 3.Gimp vs Adobe? Need I say more?
> 4. You are on your own trying to figure out how to make things work.
> Assuming of course you CAN make things work.
> Integration between programs like in the Windows world? You'll be
> lucky if the programs put an icon in the menus let alone work together.
>
> This person walked into Staples, presented a problem and walked away
> with a solution for $225.00 that was a breeze to install and worked from
> the getgo.
>
> Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
>
> Why should someone take a step back in time to a half supported system?
>
> What advantage does the person above gain running Linux?
>
> I have yet to se a valid reason to do so except for cost, and running a
> desktop system kills that reason.
>
> Sorry but Linux loses again.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:32:11 +0200
Darren Winsper wrote:
> So, Linux has a toy compiler? Then explain the results at
> http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read.php?article_id=153
>
> Of course, VC does beat GCC in some cases, but I don't go around
> calling VC a toy compiler.
Actually as late as 1995 i had to use GCC in order to do some reasonable
OO programming as neither Borlands nor Micros~1 stuff couldnt even
handle templates. I have not touched C++ since to i dont know the status
now but i suspect GCC is still in the "front-line"
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:35:40 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <960739512.375557603@news-
> server.mmcable.com>:
>
> >HA! That's where I get Linux is 200% faster.
> >
> >Try it!
>
> That's interesting...
>
> It strikes me as odd that in my own limited testing I am not seeing a 200%
> speed increase on Linux. I would have thought ANY testing, be it simplistic
> or complex would show SOME kind of speed increase if Linux was 200% faster.
>
> However it does not.
Thats amazing. Im sitting here on a P120 and have dumped Win98 because
amont other things it was so slow on this machine. The experience using
Linux and KDE on top is just so much faster that the 200 % cant do it.. the
responisvness is amazing compared with the previous win98 installation and
the feeling is still faster than on a PII 350 wiht double the RAM.
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:40:13 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tiberious wrote:
> [CUT the entire crap]
>
>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
...not just "home devices" but the lowest end dregs of "home devices".
These are the things that will likely have quality, performance and
compatibility problems of their own even under an MS OS.
>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>
>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>are supported by Linux.. I do not have any problems for my usage.. and i
>guess 90% og users wont either.
[deletia]
Their argument is the same argument you could level against
Macintosh and in some instances even Windows NT and the same
tripe used to advocate DOS when it was the only competitor
without a GUI.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:44:26 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:02:42 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Secretly Cruel wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:58 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >This is how people get pissed off about Linux. The modem thing is easy
>> >to solve, but what about the 'win-printer', 'win-scanner', 'win-camera',
>> >et al?
>>
>> People need to be pissed at the cheap bastards that manufacture the
>> Windows-only stuff, not pissed at Linux.
>
>
>While I agree with this statement completely, what people "should" do
>and what people actually do are usually two completely different
>things. People will look at the situation this way.
>
>My hardware works under Windows, it doesn't work under Linux. Therefore
>there has to be something wrong with Linux.
No, that's simply infantile.
The vendor supports the OS, not the other way around.
>
>I can't tell you the number of times I have had to explain to a couple
>of my computer illiterate friends that you can't expect to load the
>Windows drivers for new hardware under Linux. They have dual boot
Your computer literate friends would not likely be able to deal
with loading Windows drivers off of external media. So, the rest
of anything you have to say on the matter is rather suspect.
>machines, they go buy a new piece of hardware without even thinking
>about compatibility, and it works under Windows. Then they try loading
You simply can't get away with being an ingorant consumer. This
is true in general as much as it is true for computing devices.
[deletia]
Not even the relative ease of a Macintosh will allow you to
forego the 'burden' of being an informed consumer. Otherwise
you end up with crap and you end up perpetuating crap.
This sort of consumerism is simply assinine.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:58:51 +0200
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> In article <8hp4k7$la6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > A quick question: I'm thinking of trying
> > out Linux (probably SuSE), but
> > I have a US Robotics Winmodem.
>
> I'm not sure if US Robotics is, but many of the Lucent Technologies
> based "Win"Modems are now supported by Linux.
But the LT winmodem does not work very well at the moment
> The good news, you don't have to buy a new modem.
Not thats the bad news. You really do not want a softmodem since it makes
your PC slow - the LT is actually a good one. But keep off internal
modems.. they suck badly.. The problem is actually that you cant turn the
damm thing off without shutting down the PC -This is actually a time
consuming problem when - especially Windows 9x - locks the COM port for
reasons unknown to mankind
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (willy)
Crossposted-To:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.scheherazade,nl.media.tv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim,rec.games.computer.ultima.online,alt.music.smash-pumpkins,alt.music.mylene-farmer,alt.activism,ukr.commerce.price-lists
Subject: Brand new
Date: 12 Jun 2000 21:57:58 GMT
Brand new get paid to surf program, you can sign up anybody in the world
with this one aslo has unlimted hours , and has 8 levels deep Referral
system go here sign up now make heaps of cash :)
https://secure.clickdough.com/servlets/cr/CRSignup.po?referral_id=steve5t9
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 12 Jun 2000 17:03:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Want to see slow?
>
>Try copying some files to a Mandrake NFS server. We finally patched
>the kernel so NFS appeared to work. We later found it still pauses
>inexplicably after a few minutes of copying.
What are you using on the other end? I prefer VALinux for NFS
because it comes with the patches installed, but I don't
see a problem speed-wise with Mandrake. Running bonnie on the
local disk (P200/IDE) gives:
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
100 2161 99.4 10341 35.2 4313 33.4 2005 89.2 11486 34.4 178.1 4.4
Where running over NFS from a VALinux box gives:
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
100 4334 73.3 4829 11.3 3638 8.8 7681 100.1 236401 97.0 5377.5 32
Around 5M/sec sequential write may not be great, but it isn't a showstopper
either.
>Advocating a variant of a Unix operating system which cannot properly
>function as an NFS server is at best unprofessional and at worst
>criminal.
I advocate VALinux, but RedHat may be adding the same patches these
days. Regardless, I think you have some other problem if your
performance is much worse. This is a 100M half duplex (with hub)
network. One common source of problems these days is a mismatch
between full and half duplex where one end or the other does
not negotiate correctly. Ifconfig will normally show errors
in that condition.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:52:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:26:48 GMT...
...and Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject:
> Installing a printer, scanner and Fax program on a Win98SE
> system.
Huh, great. So there's a printer that ships with Windows drivers and
software, but without any Linux drivers and software.
How does this give anyone any information about whether Windows is
superior to Linux or not?
mawa
--
The day-to-day travails of the Windows programmer are so amusing to
most of us who are fortunate enough never to have been one -- like
watching Charlie Chaplin trying to cook a shoe.
------------------------------
From: "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:29:28 GMT
Boy, Tiberious, you sure have a penchant for stating the obvious.
Still mad at yourself for being a dumbass and not realizing that Linux
isn't as user-friendly as Windows and wasting 10 months of your(and
other people's) time because you're a complete moron?
I think the usability gap between Windows and Linux will continue to
get smaller, but that's OK. No one will hurt you if you don't switch
from Windows to Linux! :)
TimL
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tiberious
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject:
> Installing a printer, scanner and Fax program on a Win98SE
> system.
>
> Specifics: Canon FB630P scanner. Parallel port version.
> Canon BJC 4400 Printer. Software including Winfax and what ever came
> with the
> scanner and printer.
>
> Install printer with CDROM supplied. Nice CanoCraft programs and
> Greeting Card Designer included. Add's all kinds of menu options to the
> standard print menu so that resolution, paper size, diagnostics and so
> forth are easily accessible to the user.
>
> Install scanner, including Adobe Photoshop (Home version, almost the
> same as pro version) and Canocraft software plus a large selection of
> other software.
>
> Install Winfax. Surprise, surprise, it recognizes the printer and
> scanner and adds a fax option to all menus.
>
> Super easy.
>
> Try out all options and there are wizards to guide the user through all
> the operations of scanning/printing and faxing and most importantly ALL
> FUNCTIONS WORK TOGETHER, meaning you don't have to scan a printed
> document in order to fax it. You can just do it from the scanner menu.
>
> Linux on the other hand?
>
> 1. Doesn't support the scanner.
> 2. Barely supports the printer.
> 3.Gimp vs Adobe? Need I say more?
> 4. You are on your own trying to figure out how to make things work.
> Assuming of course you CAN make things work. Integration between
> programs like in the Windows world? You'll be
> lucky if the programs put an icon in the menus let alone work together.
>
> This person walked into Staples, presented a problem and walked away
> with a solution for $225.00 that was a breeze to install and worked from
> the getgo.
>
> Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
>
> Why should someone take a step back in time to a half supported system?
>
> What advantage does the person above gain running Linux?
>
> I have yet to se a valid reason to do so except for cost, and running a
> desktop system kills that reason.
>
> Sorry but Linux loses again.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:41:03 -0400
I used to read your postings with a 'this guy knows what he's doing'
attitude, of late I'm not so sure? What are you trying to say?
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:02:42 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Secretly Cruel wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:58 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This is how people get pissed off about Linux. The modem thing is easy
> >> >to solve, but what about the 'win-printer', 'win-scanner', 'win-camera',
> >> >et al?
> >>
> >> People need to be pissed at the cheap bastards that manufacture the
> >> Windows-only stuff, not pissed at Linux.
> >
> >
> >While I agree with this statement completely, what people "should" do
> >and what people actually do are usually two completely different
> >things. People will look at the situation this way.
> >
> >My hardware works under Windows, it doesn't work under Linux. Therefore
> >there has to be something wrong with Linux.
>
> No, that's simply infantile.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>From your lofty purchase perhaps - but the rest of us must deal with
reality.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:56:41 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:41:03 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I used to read your postings with a 'this guy knows what he's doing'
>attitude, of late I'm not so sure? What are you trying to say?
Would you ever go into a car dealership giving the salesmen
the impression that you have no clue about cars or negotiation?
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Keith T Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:58:23 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Keith T Williams from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 12 Jun 2000
> [...]
> >> Having the operating system attempt to implement a security model based
> >> on the notion of who "is responsible to the company" is relatively
> >> ludicrous, given the typical implementation of software in a modern
> >> company. Note 1: the sysadmin is responsible to the company for all
> >> files on a system, as that is what a sysadmin is; no-one but the
> >> sysadmin is responsible for any files but end-user generated documents.
> >> Note 2: application of this Silly Idea, on the rare occasion it is
> >> feasible in real life, is not hampered by not gratuitously bolting it
on
> >> to the bog-standard OS.
> >>
> >Sorry Max, but you have me confused on this one.
>
> Not surprising, considering how badly put my idea was. Sorry.
>
> I just don't understand why someone who isn't a sysadmin would require a
> sysadmin level of control of a system, or why someone who requires
> sysadmin level control of a system wouldn't be a sysadmin. IMHO, Yannik
> is trying to explain ACLs in a light which makes their use seem trivial,
> when in reality such mechanisms (just like permissions in Unix, in this
> regard) are worthless in the highly flexible environment he is dealing
> with, and can only be adequately implemented in a highly structured
> environment using massive organized and procedural administrative
> efforts.
>
> I doubt it made much more sense this time, so I'll just drop it, OK?
Ok.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:04:57 -0400
Uhm... cars and computers, quite a price difference. Again - what is
your point?
Please enlighten this poor stupid soul.
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:41:03 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I used to read your postings with a 'this guy knows what he's doing'
> >attitude, of late I'm not so sure? What are you trying to say?
>
> Would you ever go into a car dealership giving the salesmen
> the impression that you have no clue about cars or negotiation?
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
