Linux-Advocacy Digest #88, Volume #27            Wed, 14 Jun 00 21:13:05 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
  Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
  Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
  Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (JEDIDIAH)
  Re: BSOD in the airport ("Joseph T. Adams")
  Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
  Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
  Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
  Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
  Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:44:30 GMT

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:19:45 -0700, Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:42:10 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>>wrote:
>>>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:43:03 +1000, Christopher Smith 
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> "Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
>>>> [deletia]
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>>>> >
>>>> >Because you *thought* it was mounted.
>>>>
>>>>         In which case you should get a permissions error.
>>>
>>>Not in all cases. It just might copy.
>>
>>jedi@dementia  /tmp >cp *txt /cdrom
>>cp: cannot create regular file `/cdrom/LICENCE.txt': Permission denied
>
>
>There's that bravery again (or was it foolishness, I forget <G>) 
>claiming that because it doesn't happen for you it can't happen for 
>anybody.

        It's a pretty mundane configuration actually.

>
>On that basis, I now claim the Mac OS to be stable because my machine 
>hasn't crashed in the past 3 weeks. Or perhaps you begin to see the 
>fallacy in such thinking...
>

        Then find us an example of a distro or a commercial linux
        variant that sets it up such that what you would like to
        have happen does.

-- 

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \
    
                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:47:29 GMT

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:16:45 -0700, Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day" 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Into a place where they can no longer be found (as is the case once the
>>> mount point is reattached)?
>>>
>>
>>But you can get them back after unmounting.
>
>Sure, if you realize that that's where they'll be, but who's to say that 
>you will?
>
>Picture it:
>
>You save some files to /usr/yourfiles not even knowing that /usr is a 

        Then that's even easier. The shell would complain about the
        target directory not even existing. This would be universally
        the case rather than the permissions on /usr being fudged on
        the n+1 th odd Linux distro.

[deletia]

        Your artificial rant is for naught.

-- 

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \
    
                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:48:22 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.

Tim Palmer wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:12:58 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know the dates?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >According to www.x.org the first commercial version of Xwindows was released in 
>1986.
> >
> >Gary
>
> The first version of Windows was written in 1983.

You and Chad should get your stories straight.

Gary


------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:48:26 GMT

On 14 Jun 2000 20:36:32 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:58:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
>>>Typical jedi "linux is great" by omission statement....
>>>
>>>The Linonut loves leaving out those important details....
>>
>>      ...so then, what are we missing that you aren't?
>
>Surround sound.

        Got great surround sound on your VAXen do you?

-- 

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \
    
                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

------------------------------

From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: 15 Jun 2000 00:55:53 GMT

Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Come to think of it, i had the same thing a year ago. I was working a
: holiday job in a glass factory running an eight-section machine at the
: hot-end, where the process controlling computer was running NT. (the
: others were all still running a 20 year old version of Unix, which
: worked just fine, though)

I have seen very few examples of NT being used in mission-critical
applications of that particular kind.  (It is heavily used in some
others, where small amounts of downtime will not cause permanent
damage to persons or property, but I wouldn't use it even there given
that so many better alternatives are available and always have been.)

What really frightens me is this:


: I punched a few keys to get some info on timings, and [startle, gasp]
: BSOD. This is obviously not a good thing if hot glass will start to
: fly through the factory if you don't do something quick.

So an NT failure could have caused physical harm to people?  (That's
what I think when I think of hot glass flying everywhere.)

Not only is using NT in that situation a bad idea according to me, it
is a bad idea according to Microsoft itself, and, IIRC, a violation of
the NT license!!!!

I wouldn't even trust Linux in a life-critical application, and Linux
is vastly more reliable in most respects than NT.  An OS meant for
life-critical situations must be considerably simpler and redundant
and fault-tolerant - as must the hardware - than a general-purpose OS
or hardware possibly could be.


: I think this was the start of my dislike in Windows.  It was the night
: shift, so it took several HOURS to get the sysadmin out of bed.  
: Several hours of -manually- cranking levers and wheels and reading 
: oily gauges.  Yuck! 

There is a pretty good job market for IT people in most parts of the
world.  You don't have to put up with that kind of crap if you dont'
want to.


Joe

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:55:34 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>
> You can easily erase or move them unlike Linux....
>

More lies.  Or are you just too stupid to know how to use a mouse.

Gary


------------------------------

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 14 Jun 2000 23:24:47 GMT

"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:46:57 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Okay. So what is a vt100 emulator supposed to do about it?
>
> It would have been nice if they had done what virtually everyone else
> does and provide _vt102_ emulation.

It would have been rather less second rate. But no doubt they'd
then be guilty of driving the terminal emulator developers out of
the market through bundling.

There is no reason for MS to spend effort on this kind of thing-
the people who are complaining are never, ever going to
be satisfied with NT- because it isn't Unix.

> In any case, all other Windows telnet programs that I have tried
> support the window resize.  Some of the more lame ones require that you
> select the size from a menu or some such, but many let you just drag
> the window ala xterm.  Some of these programs are freeware, so I would
> think that MS in all these years could have snagged the code if they
> couldn't figure it out on their own.

That would be illegal.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, when did that ever stop Microsoft...)

> It is plain that MS just doesn't want it to work right.  They've had
> years to fix it, free source code to illustrate how, and yet we still
> have the same old thing.

I prefer to think they are sticking to the open stadnards strictly- without
extensions. :D

Of course, the real reason is that is just doesn't matter.

> >Wasn't your original complaint that the vt100 emulation was
> >broken?
>
> That was only part of the complaint.  But yes, the vt100 emulation is
> also broken, plus it reports itself as "ansi" by default, which it
> is not.  ANSI and vt100 are similar in many ways, but they are not
> identical.

It seems to me the complaint keeps shifting around, almost
as if someone around here doesn't actually know what's
wrong with MS telnet...

> >Those may be better telnet programs, but so far what I've
> >heard from you is that MS's telnet's problem is that it
> >can't do anything better than a lousy vt100.
>
> It can't do what users expect a telnet program to do.

Okay. But I seem to recall that Leslie was complain about
how MS is forever implementing extensions to standards.

Apparently they are wrong even when they don't.

> >Well, what you call "annoying flaws" other people call "useful
> >features", for the most part. Things like frontpage extensions are
> >not comparable to the limitations in MS's telnet.
>
> They could have designed their protocol so as to not require patches to
> Apache for full functionality.  They could have made the Apache module
> coexist with others without requiring module kung-fu.  They could have
> included an FTP upload feature in the client rather than making the
> users download a "option pack".  They did add this in later versions,
> but by then they had already forced ISP's to install their pain in the
> ass server extensions, or an NT server running IIS, which was the whole
> point of leaving out FTP in the first place.

This is heading for more boring conspiracy ranting, I can see it now.

After all, we all know that no MS product can ever succeed because
the users *wanted* it. After all, no Linux product ever did... :P

> >I assume so. The idea of using POSIX on NT was very silly
> >to start with; intended, I think, to check a checkbox on somebody
> >list and no more.
>
> They went to a lot of trouble to provide the capability to host
> different API's.  According to the original version of "Inside Windows
> NT", this was a major design goal.  There is also a 16-bit OS/2
> subsystem.  They _could_ have made POSIX useful, in fact third parties
> did do that (at a certain added cost you understand).

They could have implemented enough of the Unix APIs to be
useful, yes, but there is no reason to do that- they aren't selling
a Unix.

If you write software to these APIs, you gain nothing from running
it on NT.

It's a solution in search of a problem.




------------------------------

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 14 Jun 2000 23:24:39 GMT

"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:46:57 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[snip]
> >> Unix has an elegant simplicity.
> >
> >That is not the same thing as being easy for you to use.
>
> MS versions of common tools and protocols don't end up being
> any easier to use either and quite often end up being rather
> more difficult.

I disagree; And I think my opinion in this matter is the conventional
wisdom, even among Unix users- Windows is easier to use, though
it has not got Unix's particular "elegant simplicity."

The usual argument is that the elegant simplicity makes Unix
more powerful, not easier.

[snip]
> >Those may be better telnet programs, but so far what I've
> >heard from you is that MS's telnet's problem is that it
> >can't do anything better than a lousy vt100.
>
> ms telnet doesn't even do a proper vt100.

So you say, but so far the only specific complaint I've
heard is that it understands only 80x25 displays, which
is consistant with the behavior of real VT100s.

[snip]
> >They do make non MS products look bad, and I think that is
> >the point.
> >
> >But failure to stick to the limitations of Unix is not 'incorrect'
> >in my book.
>
> What limitations, exactly?

A good example is the recent Kerberos activify. The Kerberos
protocol, as originally designed, does not provide enough information
for NT's security mechanisms to work.

Kerberos was designed to solve a narrower problem; strictly
authentication. Kerberos tells you who you are talking to,
but it does not concern itself with security issues per se. Each
program then handles any security limitations it wishes to
impose in its own way.

This is not how NT works. NT programs use NT's security
mechanisms to enforce security limitations, not just to
identify users. They do this by 'impersonating' the user, so
that the server can temporarily be subject to the same
restrictions the connected user is. But this requires
more information than a simple identification of the user.

> I have colleages that have no problems
> using open protocols to achieve the same end result as FrontPage
> without any thing being any "less easy" on them.

I am not familiar enough with FrontPage's extensions to comment
upon this; it is even possible MS has simply made a mistake, and
incorporated useless features. They have done this before; those
features, predictably, go largely unused and sometimes are
even removed later for lack of demand. Think channels.

But I just don't know too much about this product specifically.

[snip]
> >I assume so. The idea of using POSIX on NT was very silly
> >to start with; intended, I think, to check a checkbox on somebody
> >list and no more.
>
> What's so silly about it? NT is supposed to be a microkernel OS?

Only in MS's marketing. NT is, in fact, far more like VMS than
Mach. Not that that has anything to do with POSIX, which
is frequently implemented on monolithic, 'Unix style'
kernels as well as microkernels.

It is silly because it is pointless; it is not possible to gain any
benefit from using NT if you stick to the POSIX API; nor would
it become possible even if MS seriously tried to make a Unix
subsystem that really delivered Unix compatiblity, rather
than lame buzzword compliance and no more.

It's not like there is any shortage of Unix in the world, after all.




------------------------------

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 14 Jun 2000 23:24:40 GMT

"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > Hotmail is standard format or protocol?
>
> MS stuck with "decades old Unix technology without trying to make *some*
> improvements" in this case.

Well, that is true. But Leslie was specifically asking about
formats and protocols.

> > >  What they attempted with it was a far from an
> > > improvement, hence they stuck with BSD.
> >
> > They haven't attempted anything with it that I know
> > of.
>
> They attempted to change over to an NT based system.  [anybody still have
a
> link to that URL?]

They have denied that they ever tried this. I've yet to see anyone
come up with actual evidence that they did try it; it usually come down
to "of *course* they tried it- they said they didn't, and MS always lies."

Not convincing to me.

[snip]
> > That strikes me as very likely a fabrication. Even if it were true,
> > MS would never admit it. :D
>
> Then MS is the one who fabricated it...
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP
>
> "Disks are duplicated on a variety of industrial strength, quality
>  focused systems. Most of these systems are UNIX-based. The
>  UNIX-based duplication systems used in manufacturing are impervious
>  to MS-DOS-based, Windows- based, and Macintosh-based viruses."

I see. That isn't quite the same thing as what you said, but I'm
still surprised they said it; it's too easily to potray it as
"We won't use our own product 'cuz it is crap"

I suspect what they should have said is more like "if you get
a Unix virus on your Windows disk it won't hurt you" but
it didn't come out that way...

Just goes to show that MS marketing isn't all seeing and all
knowing after all. :D




------------------------------

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 14 Jun 2000 23:24:43 GMT

"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i89qm$17uu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <BRy15.468$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >Okay. So what is a vt100 emulator supposed to do about it?
>
> If the window is resized (MS-windows is windows-aware, right?) a
> telnet program should notify the other end of the new size
> via the telnet protocol.

I can't find anything about this in RFC 764, which seems to be
the most refect RFC on the telnet protocol, and purports
to define it. What am I missing?

> >> It has nothing to do with terminals or terminal emulation.
> >
> >Wasn't your original complaint that the vt100 emulation was
> >broken?
>
> That too, but I haven't really investigated the breakage so
> I'm willing to blame DEC for giving us a dozen different
> things call vt100's for this part,

No, no, there's only one VT100. But there's also the
more advanced VT102 and, in fact, many others.

> although these days
> everyone should just match up with what xterm does.

Why? Just because it is popular on Unix?

I could see that, actually, but that would also arguing
for adhering to extentions popular on Windows also,
surely.

> Fixing
> the terminal emulation can be done from the host side
> by using a matching termcap/terminfo description for the
> broken operations.

Well, except for things that aren't implemented at all- like
variable screen size.

> However, you can't fix a broken telnet
> protocol without source, so it is hopeless.  Interestingly,
> the win2k telnet looks new, and just as broken.

I hadn't checked it.

> >> >> It is not in Microsoft's interest to make it easy for you
> >> >> to use unix systems, and their telnet certainly doesn't.
> >> >
> >> >Make Unix easy to use a very difficult task. :D
> >>
> >> Unix has an elegant simplicity.
> >
> >That is not the same thing as being easy for you to use.
>
> Yes it is, because there is an underlying consistancy
> that is mostly possible to understand.

I'm afraid in practice it isn't. Most people find it very
difficult to deal with the level of abstraction Unix
asks for.

> Windows seems
> to take the approach that the system is impossible to
> understand and must be hidden from the operator.

Oh, I don't know. I don't find it impossible to understand.

>  This
> is fine when everything works and they have anticipated
> what you want to do.  It is not so fine when you try to
> combine things in an unanticipated way or you have to
> try to troubleshoot anything.

I think that it is still preferable to the Unix 'elegant simplicitly'
approach for most users, because most users couldn't trouble
shoot Unix at all. They can at least do a little troubleshooting
in Windows with those troubleshooter thingies, such as they are.

Combining things is a great use of the 'elegant simplicity' idea, but
it's beyond most of the users out there. Or at least the Unix way
of doing it is.

> >> No, it is not a complete  telnet implementation.  Try running CRT
> >> or netterm, or several others that get it right.  It isn't just
> >> the terminal emulation that makes the difference.
> >
> >Those may be better telnet programs, but so far what I've
> >heard from you is that MS's telnet's problem is that it
> >can't do anything better than a lousy vt100.
>
> You could work around that, but there is no excuse for a
> windows program not doing the correct thing when resized.

Perhaps it's just being *strictly* standards compliant, with no
extensions. That *is* what you want, right?

[snip]
> >Well, what you call "annoying flaws" other people call "useful
> >features", for the most part. Things like frontpage extensions are
> >not comparable to the limitations in MS's telnet.
>
> Yes they are.  Anything that intentionally locks you into
> running only MS products or makes you put up with problems
> when something else is on the other end is all the same.

Is not. :P

[snip]
> >They do make non MS products look bad, and I think that is
> >the point.
>
> Of course it is the point: you don't really think that it
> is impossible or even difficult to transfer files to
> a remote machine without Frontpage's extensions, do you?

No, of course not.

> The 'problems' they claim are solved by their non-standard
> extensions don't really exist until you bring in the
> MS program that creates them.

Oh, I don't know. I certainly won't take *your* word for it.

>  The standards bodies aren't
> dead - if the problems were real they would have been
> addressed years ago.

You have great faith in standards bodies; I think they are
very slow to do anything, and are usually way behind the
curve.

> >But failure to stick to the limitations of Unix is not 'incorrect'
> >in my book.
>
> OK then, how about annoying your customers unless they give
> up using any other vendors products?

I think the people who are annoyed with MS are going to be
annoyed no matter what- it is MS's success that irritates
them primarily.

[snip]
> >I assume so. The idea of using POSIX on NT was very silly
> >to start with; intended, I think, to check a checkbox on somebody
> >list and no more.
>
> It wasn't silly at all, it was a brilliant marketing ploy.  Making
> it unusable was equally brilliant.

Oh, I don't it was in *any* way effective as a marketing tool-
no-one was fooled into thinking NT was even a passable
Unix.

> And evil.

Certainly not evil; you're giving far to much weight to these things.
It's harmless to provide a POSIX personality, even though it is
of little practical value. I don't think harmless things should be
seen as Evil (tm).

> >But I think it is a good example of the limitations of Office Standards;

(I kind of meant Open Standards here.. :( )

> >MS has adhered to the letter of the (basic) POSIX API, well, you
> >know what came out.
> >
> >POSIX is just the minimum that the Unix vendors could agree
> >to, and as such it is almost completely useless by itself.
>
> That's not true at all.  Many programs could be done using
> only ansi-C standard functions and posix specified routines.

Well, more than a bakers dozen. But POSIX by itself does not
even give you X-Windows.

> The ones that can't can generally have the system/device-specific
> operations encapsulated in a library so it can be ported to
> anything with equivalent functionality without touching the
> bulk of the code.

Sure; but you should realize that POSIX is a small part of the
"system specific operations" that you need to encapsulate. There's
typicaly more.

> >To make it useful what you need to a Unix clone, pretty much all the
> >way- and not just POSIX.
>
> No, the usability of the posix subsystem is broken in a very
> specific way.  I have enough faith in the MS engineers to
> think it could have been usable if they had wanted it to be.

What specific way is that?

Bear in mind, it's *fundamentally* unusable because it's
just POSIX, and isn't enough for most real tasks done with
NT. Even if it were a sterling implementation that would still
be true. POSIX just ain't Unix.

> >Fortunately, MS has declined to go that route.
>
> There is nothing fortunate about it.  They are just manipulating
> their customers.

Sure; offering them better technology in a brazen attempt to
separate them from their money.

Of course, I happen to see this as a good thing.. :D




------------------------------


** 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
******************************

Reply via email to