Linux-Advocacy Digest #987, Volume #26 Fri, 9 Jun 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: OpenBSD security Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Kent Paul
Dolan)
Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story" (Gary Hallock)
Re: BAD ENTRY IN /etc/ld.so.preload CAUSING ERROR IN LINUX BOOT UP (Gary Hallock)
Re: BAD ENTRY IN /etc/ld.so.preload CAUSING ERROR IN LINUX BOOT UP (Gary Hallock)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Games on Linux -- starting to look OK (Gary Hallock)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OpenBSD security Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 8 Jun 2000 21:41:44 -0500
In article <8hp6kn$flv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy J. Lee <see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome> wrote:
>|>But the system admin is expected to turn on just what s/he needs
>|>to use the computer for the intended purpose. So the computer
>|>isn't running imapd, named, "sendmail -bd", and all kinds of other
>|
>|But I do need those services and I need them most on the
>|machine that is most likely to contain data worth stealing.
>
>Does every computer you have exposed to the internet need to run
>imapd, named, "sendmail -bd", and other such programs? I wouldn't
>expect any non-mail server to need imapd or "sendmail -bd", for
>example.
No, but only the ports to the machines/services that I do
need are open to the internet. The others are used
internally only. Also the sendmail machine exposed to
the internet is strictly a relay, sending all local deliveries to
an internal machine.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kent Paul Dolan)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kent Paul Dolan)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:54:46 GMT
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isn't there a DOOM sysadmin tool, where the jobs are monsters, and to kill
>the job, you have to kill the monster?
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/
HTH.
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
[Requesting comments on a new "she-trolls" scrambled
shell sort proposal in comp.theory:]
Notions? Arguments? Shrieking epithets?
-- Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Kent Paul Dolan.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:04:39 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story"
Christopher Browne wrote:
> I thought that OS/390 passed the test. And it's decidedly not
> a traditional UNIX...
>
> --
It did. OS/390 is Unix-branded.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:10:48 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BAD ENTRY IN /etc/ld.so.preload CAUSING ERROR IN LINUX BOOT UP
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> Put in your' Windos 95, 98 or 2000 CD and tell it to deleate you're Linux partition,
>cause shitt
> like this is all Lixnu is ever going to give you. You think you halve it working,
>and next thing
> you know something else is fucking up. Tha'ts Pinnguine Power.
>
>
I have a bad entry in my Windows registry. How can I fix it? Nevermind, I know the
answer. I'll
just put in my Linux CD and tell it to delete my Windows partition. What an idiot!
Don't you
have anything better to do?
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:12:08 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BAD ENTRY IN /etc/ld.so.preload CAUSING ERROR IN LINUX BOOT UP
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Krithika Chidambaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have a bad entry in /etc/ld.so.preload which is causing the init
> >program at start up to fail saying
> ><bad entry>: error in loading shared library.
>
> >How can I fix this?
>
> Put in your' Windos 95, 98 or 2000 CD and tell it to deleate you're Linux partition,
>cause shitt
> like this is all Lixnu is ever going to give you. You think you halve it working,
>and next thing
> you know something else is fucking up. Tha'ts Pinnguine Power.
>
> >Thank You
> >
> >
>
> Your wealcome.
>
> >
> >
3 times an idiot.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:27:35 GMT
"John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote:
> >
> > In article <8h8jrn$a3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > : Microsoft already got its lucky break and had purchased from a
> > > : third party what basically amounted to a pirated copy of the source
> > > : of CPM/86 for $50k.
> > >
> > > "Pirated"? I hardly think so. Tim Patterson, QDOS's author stated
> > > that he had used a CP/M manual as a guide for coding QDOS.
> >
> > It was said that disassembly of QDOS revealed Digital Research copyright
> > strings. Not sure whether I believe that or not, but...it was said.
>
> IBM sure believed it. They paid DR millions to keep it out of court.
>
Paying a settlement, doesn't prove anything. IBM could have want to cut
legal fee or didn't what to look bad to the press, for all you know. Alot
of companies settle, even if the beleive they are right. Settling the case
now can be cheaper in the long run.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:31:56 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games on Linux -- starting to look OK
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Read my post again. KDE suddenly stopped working when I installed it.
> The result was that I needed to download all the KDE packages.
> But to do this, I needed to get myself an internet connection that
> didn't depend on GUI tools and had to futz around with minicom.
> Once I downloaded the new KDE packages, one of them had some problem,
> so I needed to rebuild from the source RPM.
>
> The bottom line is that while a "routine install" would have been easy,
> there were a lot of complications that made life quite difficult.
>
> --
> Donovan
That's why I always keep a test partition around. I've been tempted to
try XFree86 4.0. When I do, I'll first try it on my test copy of Linux.
If anything goes wrong, I still have full GUI internet access from my
production copy.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:27:49 GMT
10. You're a masochist.
9. You're a masochist.
8. You're a masochist.
7. You're a masochist.
6. You're a masochist.
5. You're a masochist.
4. You're a masochist.
3. You're a masochist.
2. You're a masochist.
And the number 1 reason....
1. You're a masochist.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:26:46 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:53:00 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:36:56 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:32:28 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >> >interoperability.
> >> >>
> >> >> ...after you've bought it.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Being able to run Product X" to decode proprietary data
> >> >> does NOT consitute interoperability.
> >> >
> >> >I'd rather have to buy product Y and still be able to embed a spreadsheet into
> >> >a word processing document, than have my product X's format recognized by some
> >> >other machine that I'm not using. I'm a home user, remember?
> >>
> >> Yup... someone who likely has better things to do with their
> >> money than throw money at vendorlock when one's data may not
> >> have any particular need for a particular vendor's format.
> >
> >Is it any less expensive or more convenient to have a second box do some work
> >for me? We're discussing the tradeoffs between app interoperability and
> >system interoperability, remember?
>
> "interoperability" as you define it is somewhat meaningless.
> Passing off some imbedded binary data to another application
> and making it look like it's all integrated is slight of hand
> not "interoperability".
You just don't get it, do you? There are no streams of data flying around
under the hood to make this happen. Not a single part of the app is even
aware that anything is happening. I guess you're just not going to understand
it clearly until you've used the workplace shell of OS/2. There's no slight
of hand involved. It's an extremely elegant and OO solution, which guarantees
future interoperability. You just can't find solutions like that on Unix
based platforms.
> This is doubly so given the WinDOS cultural bias against
> the individual choice when it comes to such tools.
You seem to think I'm in favor of Windows and monopolies. I'm absolutely
not. I'll say it again: given the choice between interoperability between
systems and interoperability between applications on a given system, it is far
more beneficial for a home user to have the latter. Would I like to have both
kinds of interoperability? Sure! Does such a solution exist today? Not that
I know of. OS/2 is about as close as I've found to a useful balance between
the two.
> [deletia]
> >> >> There are already versions to handle the 3 most widely used
> >> >> toolkits. So, in the worst case you would need a deamon for
> >> >> each toolkit you're running.
> >> >
> >> >Yuck. How does the user know which toolkit is deployed for which app? And
> >>
> >> Just check what it's linked against. This is also handy for
> >> automagically distinguishing between console and X apps.
> >
> >That's just what a home user wants to be bothered doing.
>
> ...and just what makes you think the end user would have to be
> bothered with the mechanics of this? The tools are there, the
> automation facilities are there, the programers are there.
>
> However, these facilities are stil available to "those that
> don't want them" should they prove useful to them or someone
> else who may be providing "free tech support" for them.
So I suppose this software will just install itself on all the boxes that need
it, and fire off the daemons where needed, and modify the startup scripts
where needed? I highly doubt it. That also assumes the user performing the
installation has sufficient priviledge to accomplish said tasks. And this
solution still fails to work with all applications. It will not work with
statically linked apps which were linked with older versions of the widget
library without the needed hooks, and it will not work with apps the use
unsupported widget libraries. That's very poor interoperability.
> >> >when a new whiz-bang widget library comes along, you no longer have voice
> >> >control support with the apps that use it.
> >>
> >> What makes you think that would be the most relevant compatibility
> >> issue? Although, as long as there are common protocols that can be
> >> conformed to it should never be a problem.
> >
> >It breaks and needs to be fixed with each update. That's not interoperability
>
> That sounds more like a damnation of MS Office style applications
> and OLE rather than anything Linux/Unix related.
That's a gaping hole in your proposed solution.
> >in my book. VoiceType works with any OS/2 PM application. Period.
> >
> >On a side issue, where are these magical daemons going to be run? If they're
> >run on your box, they can affect your X session. But in order to affect the X
>
> That's rather the point now isn't it? (much like something such
> as Plugin or efx).
Your aim was to point out how this could be used to show system
interoperability, was it not? I stated that a solution such as VoiceType
could only be implemented effectively on one box, showing the value of
application interoperability, and you challenged that statement.
> >sessions of remote machines, it'd have to be running there as well (because
> >the application itself is executing remotely and it's pulling from the widget
> >libraries on the remote box). Not only that, but the two daemons would have
> >to know about each other and be able to communicate so that your remote
> >sessions can be controlled by you and you only. And both your box and these
> >remote servers would have to have one of these magical daemons for every
>
> True. However X clients have been doing this sort of thing for
> nearly 20 years and Unix is quite capable of handling many small
> process communicating with each other. The challeges aren't quite
> as impressive as they might sound from a less client-server oriented
> perspective.
>
> >widget library used by the apps you're running (each of which communicate with
> >one another). As is often the case, you may not even have administrative
> >privileges on one of the boxes in question, and hence could not install or
> >start such a daemon yourself as a lowly user.
> >
> >Application interoperability is much more important than system
> >interoperability for such an application, as is the case for nearly any task
> >that a home user will want to do. That's my point.
>
> That's what OEMs, VARs and Distributions are for.
But you were attempting to tell me about the wonder of system interoperability
for home users. How can you claim any reasonable amount of interoperability
if you have to rely on a specific installation of an OS? Are you going to
convince Sun to install these daemons? How about HP? IBM for their AIX
platforms? They all support the X protocol, so you should have
interoperability with all of these systems, right? I'll stick to VoiceType,
DDE, and my proprietary but cozy Workplace Shell, thanks just the same.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:41:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:44:47 +0100 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:14:51 GMT, Robert L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >It's an advocacy NG, people that need help don't go here. People here
>> > should ) talk about things that are good and bad about Linux.
>>
>> There are very few people HERE that haven't already made up
>> their mind and have an extreme point of view in that respect.
>
>Exactly true. This must be one of the biggest flame grops on usenet.
>people come here with bigoted views ready to enjoy a good fight,
>although I have had some problems solved.
One is reminded of old gold-miners, sifting through the creek bottom
for that nugget. :-)
(In this ng's case, though, I'll note that the creek bottom is a
euphemism for a certain bovine waste product... :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Judgement day?
Is the Miss America pageant upon us already? :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:43:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Heston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:24:16 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>According to EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> herodotus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> Putting my head up my own ass is the only thing that takes my
>>> mind
>>> off my pain when I have to use Windows.
>
>>Thanks for admitting where you keep your head. So what is so "painful"
>>about Windows?
>
>1) Administering it;
>
>2) Using it.
3) Programming in it.
[rest snipped]
Followups.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Event loop? What event loop?"
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:38:43 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As I recall, back during the days of Dos 4.x the joke going around was that
the only QC test that Microsoft has was the grin and giggle test. If they
show it to Bill and tried it and he sarted to grin and giggle, it passed ans
was shipped.
During a developer's confrence for Windows applications we were told to
never underestimate the stupidity of the users. If a program is not quite
shippable by the deadline we should ship it anyway. Someone asked about
customer dissatisfaction with the remaining bugs. We were told the users
are stupid enough to be convinced that any problem from bug in the program
were caused by their own errors.
Jeepster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My god, Windows is so unstable it amzes me how the hell it ever got past
> the Quality control...unless the quality control itself it substandard,
> then that woul open up a new can of worms...
>
> --
> SYSTEM: Celeron 525 mhz, Linux 2.2.14 ,128MB Ram,
> 20 gig HD and Netscape 4.7 / StarOffice 5.1a.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:24:23 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Let's redefine SUX to mean "has Super Useful eXecutables". This way when
the say Linux SUX they are saying : Linux has super useful executables.
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I have a windoze box setup just for printing. Hit print, in star office
> > (document composed on my linux box) and discovered that it was going to
> > print before I had a chance to tell it to print @ 1200dpi w/ photo
paper.
> >
> > Removed the paper from the printer and selected 'delete' on the printer
> > control folder.
> >
> > The the computer ground down to a halt. Selecting the lexmark control
> > program from the start menu took a full two minutes.
> >
> > I ended up having to shut the computer off and reboot.
> >
> > Just because I canceled a print job.
> >
> > I have a keyboard/mouse/video switch just because the box is too fucking
> > unreliable to have it installed w/out keyboard and video.
>
> Yeah, many people, myself included, do have these kinds of problems.
> That's probably why many people are searching for a new OS to run
> their computers. That in turn is why we have seen so many newbies
> lately, and the loads of "Linux SUX"-stuff that naturally accompanies
> them.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 9 Jun 2000 00:00:25 -0500
"Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8hgqbg$sm8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Um, no. I just believe that if you read the document and accompanying
PDF
> > you'll note that no hardware changes are requird and if you read the
specs
> > on the hardware you will find nothing special about them. I am able to
> Umm, you're claiming that a system might be C2-secure if it's running
> on a PC with known bugging devices attached?
>
are you on drugs? where did you come up with that crap?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
