Linux-Advocacy Digest #247, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming (EdWIN)
Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming (EdWIN)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Drestin Black")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Drestin Black")
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. (Terry Porter)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (C Sanjayan Rosenmund)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Terry Porter)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
("Bracy")
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Jimmy Navarro)
Re: Everything is so *quiet* (Jimmy Navarro)
Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows ("Bracy")
Re: Linux is awesome! (Terry Porter)
Re: slashdot is down -again- (Jimmy Navarro)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:07:38 -0500
James wrote:
> Ok, some examples :
So. You think you can list 8 items (that may or may not *really* be problems),
and judge an OS on that basis? If someone makes a list of 8 items pertaining
to W2K, will you concede that *it* is a tinkerer's toy? Turnabout is fair
play, and all that?
> 8) Speed
> X still feels sluggish, and programs load slower than in W2k (I only have a
> 200MHz machine), even though I have a TNT video card.
HaHaHaHaHaHa. You run W2K on a 200MHz machine. Sorry, Mr. Bond, but we're not
fools here.
> And the list goes on. I can cite many other examples - some small, others
> more substantial.
Please do. Put your entire list and one post, and we can settle this once and
for all.
Oh, I forgot. You'll use the Microsoft style of hiding a few in your
briefcase, in case your test defense doesn't fly with the court.
> In the end however the consumer will be ultimate judge -
> and that verdict is currently crystal clear.
Which goes a long way toward explaining the relative adoption rates of Linux
and W2K, I suppose.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:14:18 -0500
James wrote:
> ...need to do some usability/user studies. This is one of those soft
> issues that MS has addressed in their OS', which makes them a commercial
> success...
As in, "if we make it usable, they won't buy next year's version" ?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:10:08 -0500
James "Sock Puppet" Bondwrote:
> Don't take this as personal. Linux critics - even Steve (if you can believe
> that) - serve to point out shortcomings,
When you say "our", I presume mean you and the other WinTrolls that live here?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:11:20 -0500
James wrote:
> I must be a WinTroll and FUD-mongerer!
Yup. Except that it's "monger", not "mongerer".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:19:18 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:54:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:33:25 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>See my post above. Most importantly :
> >>
> >>a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
> >>just a desktop function).
> >
> > Actually, this has NOTHING to do with the desktop.
>
> It does. What's wrong with GUI based hardware detection?
As J said, hardware detection is not a desktop issue.
BTW, "GUI based hardware detection" is an oxymoron. Hardware detection is
hardware detection. If you want to display the results in a GUI, that's fine.
But it hardly makes it GUI based.
> >>b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
> >>appearance).
> >
> > This is just another generalization split into smaller generalizations.
>
> There are simply to many examples to list them all. Linux is a mess as
> a consumer level OS.
Well, list 300 or 400 then.
> Get this... you install Linux... It's ugly. The fonts are HORRILBE.
> End of story. I'm not interested in hearing how I can fix it. Fix it
> for me, I'm a CONSUMER after all. (assuming I was strictly a consumer)
Consumers don't like fixing Windows either. Fortunately for them -- and even more
fortunately for Bill -- they buy their systems with Windows preinstalled. When my
friends need something fixed under Windows, they come to me and say (can you
guess?) "Fix it for me!"
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:26:21 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:30:03 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>> The "classic" Unix scheduler in something like Version 7 is extremely
>> primitive and does nothing more than round robin scheduling, where a
>
>Describe how this is accomplished.
Are you trolling? If you have a clue about Unix, you'd ask something more
specialized, like how and when a TLB shootdown is done, or how bottom half
handlers are queued and executed.
The classic Unix scheduler interrupts the current process when it has
exceeded its time quantum, puts it at the end of the running queue, and
switches to the task at the head of the queue. The implementation in
Version 7 is five lines of code. Newer systems have multiple levels for
each priority, but still have the queue.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:20:16 -0700
"Asmodius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"tholenbot" <tholenbot@dhcp-hasbrouck-200-
125.resnet.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:tholenbot-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Open your eyes.
Unnecessary.
>Stupid bot.
Typical invective.
>Your algorithms need modification.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>
>
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:21:52 -0700
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Asmodius wrote:
>>
>> "tholenbot" <tholenbot@dhcp-hasbrouck-200-
125.resnet.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>> news:tholenbot-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > Open your eyes.
>>
>> Stupid bot.
>>
>> Your algorithms need modification.
>
>The algorithm is working quite well apparently, as it is
evoking the type of
>response usually aimed at the one whom it is emulating.
>
Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty? How typical.
Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be
seen!
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:37:43 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:40:31 -0600, John W. Stevens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>*EVERY* operating system does this! (For God's sake, no OS will
>schedule a process to run when it is sleeping on a resource!)
If you are doing non-blocking I/O on Linux, the process will not go to
sleep even if the resource it needs is not available. Other systems have
more sophisticated means of dealing with this (such as asynch), but Linux
is so primitive that it likes to hog the CPU excessively. Does Linux
support non-busywaiting barriers yet or is it still playing catchup?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:45:33 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:13:51 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Soon that best deal with be HP Linux or Gateway Linux. Just think, take
>away M$ software and you can sell the computer for, at least, $100 less.
Proof please? Provide a component-by-compenent breakdown of the parts
(including Windows) in both Gateway's and HP's cheapest Windows PC's, and
demonstrate that Windows adds "at least" $100 to the cost of production.
If you cannot do this, then retract your statement.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 22 Jun 2000 01:07:48 -0500
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:7t625.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking
over??!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > oh my god, that was hilarious!! I loved it. Posted it on a BB here
at
> > work
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > >
> > > Proving that you are an idiot.
> > >
> > >
> > and you have no sense of humor
> >
> > and that extended silliness below your signature proves what to us?? <;)
>
>
> I post in other newgroups.
>
> The signature is pre-emptive strikes against idiots.
>
> Bucking for your own entry?
learn to reply and NOT repeat that rediculous sig again.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 22 Jun 2000 01:08:17 -0500
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux
has
> > > > > achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact
taking
> > over.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > really? how does being in the minority indate "in fact taking
> > over."?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And what if the portion of the marketshare that Linux "takes over"
is
> > that
> > > > share that once belonged to other Unixes and the Mac and "Others" -
it's
> > > > definately not taking over any of the NT share.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then how come it has been stealing marketshare from NT in the
webserver
> > > department?
> > >
> > > Hmmmmmmmmm?
> >
> > can you prove that? I do not think that it has.
>
> you're not paying attention, are you
oh but I am and I see that you have not provided any proof that linux has
been stealing marketshare from NT specifically.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:15:56 +0800
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:54:26 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:51 +0400, "Ferdinand V. Mendoza"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Installed Mandrake 7.1 recently. I got all the
>>partitions for reiserfs.
>
>
>On the flip side Mandrake 7.1 locks up for me on a system with a 5
>year old video card while trying to probe for SCSI cards.
>
>
If only Szarka had any credibility, we would listen. As it is hes just a long
term Wintroll.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 1 day 19 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 01:17:32 -0500
I remember hearing the same thing about the Amiga, OS/2 and Apples...
"PowerUser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Looks like it's the usual "We troll the internet because high school
> is out and we don't have a girlfriends" group is back for the
> summer...
>
> Now instead of a little msg. here and there, these jerk-offs have time
> to post a lot of shit under different names, that is, when they are
> not jerking off...
>
> LINUX IS HERE TO STAY, AND AT THE RATE THAT IT IS GROWING/DEVELOPING,
> IT WILL BE THE MAJOR OS OF THE FUTURE.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jun 2000 00:14:22 +0500
>>>>> "Gary" == Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> You are whining about KDE, not about linux. The fact that you
>> do not know the difference between the tough betrays your lack
>> of credibility in the first place.
> Not that I care to defend him for Trolling, but Linux without a
> GUI is even harder to use that Linux with KDE. Second, Linux
> may be a kernel, but it is most often distributed for use at
> home with a GUI and most people refer to this hybrid as still
> being Linux.
But the GUI doesn't have to be KDE though.
Charles
------------------------------
From: C Sanjayan Rosenmund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:22:37 -0700
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> Although, I'm not going to dispute you that Debian and Slack have a lot
> of merit on an older/smaller machine. I'm planning on doing a Debian
> install on one of the aforementioned machines when the next version is
> "stable" released. Hopefully soon.
>
Debian (Potato) is available as a downloadable iso image (used to burn
CDs) for testing. Potato is *quite* stable and the CDs should work
fine. Otherwise, you can download the floppies (9 of them) and do a
network install. Why wait, upgrade to Debian *now*
<grin>
--
Sanjay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Windows has detected that a gnat has farted near your computer.
Press any key to reboot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:23:25 +0800
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:31:34 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> No-Spam wrote:
>
>> How can a Wintroll, with a fake name, who never gives sources himself,
>> and quotes the same lame Wintroll lies year after year, question
>> Charlie ?
>
>Isn't Charlie the fellow who swears Windows has no disk cache?
>As most full featured OS's (hardware allowing of course) do
>caching, I'd like to see something a little more convincing than
>Charlie saying so, as the windows I have here seem to be caching
>something. Is there some new spec on what caching is that I've missed?
I havent seen Charlie claim anything of the sort.
>
>Anyways, who cares who posts what? I look at the post more than
>the poster anyways.
Steves posts are always the same old stuff, regardless of which fake
name hes using today.
>
>> To all concerned, "Steve/Amy/Keys88/Heather/Simon" etc, is a
>unbalanced,
>> or paid Microsoft Wintroll, do yourself a favor, and save some
>valuable time.
>>
>> kill file him
>
>Or better yet, pick an incarnation of his and prove him erroneous.
We have again and again, it gets tedious after a couple of years.
>Then you can claim spank at any time given commonly accepted usenet
>practices.
Hes a Wintroll, its proven, end of story.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 1 day 19 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:34:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:56:14 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 21 Jun 2000 21:52:20 GMT, Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>:>Advandage of TS:
>>:>
>>:>-It's faster on slower networks.
>>:>-It has some default encryption.
>>:>
>>
>>: X can be piped through an ssh session.
>>
>>That's exactly what I said in my posting.
>>Any other in put that might be usefull 8-)
>
> The standard ssh client in Unix sets this up by default.
Indeed. It's a little slow on a 56k line, but it's fun to play
with on occasion. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- try *that* with PCAnywhere :-)
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:41:15 GMT
In article <cai45.14699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember hearing the same thing about the Amiga, OS/2 and Apples...
So... you were trolling those newsgroups during your summers too?
Bracy
------------------------------
From: Jimmy Navarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:39:05 -0700
Bummer, a newbie would be confused with all their distro preferences.
I'll vote for Turbo Linux server 6.0 or workstation 6.0.2 because it has
2.2.14 kernel and all GUI install.
Richard Petty wrote:
> Any of them, really.
>
> I just installed TurboLinux (CD came free with a NIC) on a 486 that I'm
> going to route and web serve with, too, and the "server" style install
> took 170-megabytes.
>
> --Richard
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, peter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
> >firewall, and ip masq.
> >
> >The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
> >
> >I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
> >is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
> >???
>
> --
> Spam deterent: Remove the "BOGUS" part for a correct address.
------------------------------
From: Jimmy Navarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Everything is so *quiet*
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:35:33 -0700
Flacco wrote:
> I installed Linux onto my system with Win2K and have noticed how much
> quieter the system is under Linux without the constant disk thrashing.
>
> Just thought I would share that.
I agree. I run TurboLinux workstation 6.0.2 in a IBM Thinkpad 390X with
64MB RAM plus 2MB vRAM, Windows 98 boot to almost a minute too redundant
autoprobing while Linux at runlevel 5 boots in less than 20 seconds.
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:47:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie root
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most Windows troubleshooting sessions go like this.
Actually, most Windows troubleshooting goes like this:
Call Tech Support.
And that's pretty much it.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:54:45 +0800
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:53:04 -0400,
Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Sometimes the truth hurts Nathaniel.
>>
>>Linux in terms of market share is less than a hangnail on Microsoft or
>>Apples foot.
>>
>>Things may change in time, I have no crystal ball, but for now
>>learn to deal with it. You'll feel a whole lot better about
>
>I've been reading your posts with interest. Is someone paying you to
>post your anti-Linux messages to Usenet?
Probably, as this Winshill spammer, has been posting to COLA under many false
names including (but not limited to) "Heather/Steve/Amy/Keys88/Simon" for over
the last 2 years.
Many of his posts are the same ones I've seen a couple of years ago from him.
Dont waste your valuable time answering him, kill file the troll.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 1 day 19 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Jimmy Navarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot is down -again-
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:45:10 -0700
And you big M$ fan, Earthlink is using BSD's, Sun's and may be some Linux boxes,
absolutely no bloated NOS like NT or W2K. You should pick NT domain ISP not Unix
based ISP.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It runs Linsux or some deviant version of such (FreeBSD)
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:46:53 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Of all the sites I frequent, Slashdot is the only one that is regularly down.
> >
> >Why is that?
> >
> >Francis.
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:48:19 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:56:38 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:48:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:37:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 21 Jun 2000 18:51:43 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What other security is there besides XHost +hostname for limiting who
>>>>>>> can redirect your X server or plug into your X server?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are three direct authentication systems: xhost, cookies, and
>>>>>>Kerberos.
>>>>>>Indirect protection could be developed through the use of a VPN, or for
>>>>>>those on a budget, SSL.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wouldn't it be wonderful if this was easier to set up? Terminal
>>>>>Server is a breeze - just install it, and you're then done. Why can't
>>>>>Linux be this easy?
>>>>
>>>>Errr, it is. You just install ssh if you don't already have it
>>>>installed and it takes care of the xauthority setup and X
>>>>redirection for you when you use it for remote connection. And
>>>>of course if you are doing something remotely over a
>>>>low bandwidth connection that can be done in character mode
>>>>you don't need to bother with the GUI at all.
>>>
>>>There's nothing easy about it.
>>
>> Bullshit. It's the default configuration of ssh. What takes
>> a clue is figuring how NOT to have that X redirection pipe
>> active.
>
>Sorry; here we're defining easy as Windows Terminal Server setup,
>where you install it, then install the client, then put in the machine
>name of the server on the client, all via the GUI. Compared to that,
>I just don't think it's easy.
That's all you do with ssh. Install the client and it takes
care of the rest, by default. Installing X itself is also
not the nightmare it is made out to be. It never was, even
before the shiny happy GUI tools and PCI.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
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
******************************
