Linux-Advocacy Digest #356, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: slashdot (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: OS's ... (OSguy)
Re: Processing data is bad!
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... ("Rich C")
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (abraxas)
Re: OS's ... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: OS's ... (OSguy)
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: LILO problems -- Any suggestions? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: stability of culture of helpfulness ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:43:17 -0400
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.libertarian Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Because you still have the same choices you did as
> >>if MS didn't exist: you can buy a Mac, you can search out a
> >>dealer that will sell you a machine with an unformatted drive,
> >>you can buy a Sun workstation, or you can go without a computer.
>
> > Why should you have to 'search out' a low volume dealer to
> > avoid paying for a software bundle?
>
> Are you going to claim that there is no other product that has a
> main product sold in the chains, and competitors sold in out of
> the way places? Shall they be prosecuted, too?
It's history.
IBM tried the EXACT same techniques in the 50's and 60's, and
were disciplined accordingly.
Given that this is 30-year old precedent, Billy Boy has no excuses--
or are you alleging that he can't afford decent legal counsel????
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:43:28 -0400
KLH wrote:
>
> Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
>
> I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that
> everything else I have used, at least for my needs.
>
> A true advocate would have to admit:
>
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
> interface
Then why does EVERY SINGLE AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY ON THE PLANET use
Unix-based CAD/CAM packages to design their products???
CAD/CAM systems are TOTALLY GUI driven.
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
> inconveniance to users for years.
SGI desktop doesn't conform to the CDE (Common Desktop Environment),
yet most Unix shops don't have any problem dealing with it.
> * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like languages
> that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks and
> core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
Yes.. Let's put everybody back to writing assembly code.
Are you INSANE?
> * that there are so many ways in which GNU/Linux can be improved that it
> would be useful to start over from scratch and design a new OS light years
> ahead of what we have now.
As opposed to the millions of REPAIRS that LoseDOS needs (nevermind
improvements--after 25 years, M$ still can't figure out basic
functionality yet)
>
> Either a true advocate will admit this or they know something I don't, which
> almost certain; so don't badger me about saying it this way.
>
> And for those of you who curiously read "Nt is better" between the lines of
> any "GNU/Linux isn't God" posts, please note that: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO
> WITH NT. Sorry for shouting.
>
> But if you look again at my last point you will see what I am suggesting. A
> new Operating System that takes what we have learned in watching this OS
> grow and uses that experience in creating a great OS.
>
> I guess as a disclaimer I am not much of a programmer (yet) so see this as a
> theoretical discussion. It is the kind of discussion that interests me
> greatly. I personally want an OS that will cater to all my needs. It would
> need to have all the necessary primitives ready to be scripted by something
> clean like scheme or python. It would need to have seamless networking and
> needs to be written in a language that increases productivity and never
> crashes. It will need be based on a GUI that is lightyears ahead of what we
> have now...something that provides functionality that both Mac Users and
> hard core command-lines users will find as useful as on their usual systems.
> It would have to be *that* configurable. But most importantly, it will need
> to have a focus and a design that makes the whole OS seem seamless,
> extremely powerful, and easy to use for the neophyte by default.
>
> I guess I am asking, do you really think GNU/Linux is a great OS or do you
> think there is enough room for improvement for work on a new, largely
> incompatible, OS be worthwhile? And if you are in the opinion of the latter,
> how would you build such an OS? What programming language would you prefer
> it be built on? What other technologies would you want it to use?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Kevin Holmes
> "extrasolar"
You really didn't think this one through, did you.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:43:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 26 Jun 2000 16:35:27 GMT <8j80of$2p84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>What are you smoking? Do you have any idea what 99.999% uptime is?
>>
>> More than Lie-nux will ever acheive.
>>
>
>Oh really?
>
> 11:17am up 410 days, 14:37, 26 users, load average: 0.72, 0.31, 0.21
>
>What do you call that?
>
>You lose, troll.
Just to drive the point even further into Tim Palmer's brain:
Assume that a Linux reboot takes about 1 minute -- this, for me, is
more or less typical (and I have 19 partitions). This means that
99.999% = 100,000 minutes = 1666.66 hours = 69 1/2 days or so.
The last crash of abraxs' system would have to take more than 5.8 minutes
in order for the uptime to be less than 99.999% -- and then there's the
issue of how long it was up prior to that crash.
Abraxs' system may not have been up 99.999% of the time (I suspect that a
crash would result in a multi-volume fsck; for me, that takes the
better part of an hour!) but it's a lot closer than Windows.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Reliability. n 1. What one gets when switching to Linux.
2. What one gets when switching from Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: 26 Jun 2000 17:44:40 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
>>> enjoy.
>>
>>Unfortunately, there's not much irony to enjoy until you know that it was
>>not a power problem, communications problem, hardware problem, application
>>problem, load problem, sabotage, etc.
>
>Like I said... it doesn't matter why it was down. I thought Linux was
>great at clustering? If you believe Linux is as great as every says
>slashdot.org should be run on a p233 with 32MB of ram and never fail.
You didn't really establish that it was down - you just couldn't
resolve it's name which is just as likely a problem with your
DNS or your ISP. Did you try a traceroute to their nameserver
to see why you weren't getting a response to your DNS query?
Only a small site would run DNS on the web server and there
are always at least two DNS servers. If you can't reach one of
them it may not be their fault.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 26 Jun 2000 17:49:06 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The previous poster did qualify with "limits properly set". Try
>>"ulimit -u 32" first and see what happens. On this machine (a P-120
>>laptop with 48 MB), the fork program causes the system to slow down a
>>bit but I can easily get in to kill it with "killall".
>
>That works in this synthesized cause, but my point was that any OS can be
>brought down by a badly behaved app. And you can't always predict how a
>badly behaved app will act.
On the other hand, a system administrator can usually predict how
to limit resource usage so a badly behaved app won't swamp
any particular machine. Perhaps the OS should do percentage
estimates to keep a single user from using it all as a default,
but you probably wouldn't be happy with that either.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:58:20 -0500
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> I was just trying to share some thoughts, if you do not like them, do not
> answer them
> and if you do, at least be a little polite. I am probably working with
> computers before
> you were born ...
Oooh, let's pull the "I'm older and more experienced so I automatically deserve
respect". OK - I'll call your bluff. When was the last time you programmed a
Burroughs L2000 minicomputer? You know, the one where you changed oil every 6
months in the Hard Disk Transmission? Or when was the last time you put your
program on Punch Cards and Paper tape (remember Teletype Terminals)? I'll even
bet you think Bill G. Invented Basic, or do you remember Dartmouth Basic back
in the days when it was purely a teaching language only? Do you know that
Scott Adams, Dilbert's creator, also sold Adventure for the TRS-80s and DOS
back when 8088s even came out? When's the last time you manually keyed a
program into an Imsai 8080 system?
I might have a tiny measure respect for you if you know or done all of this,
but somehow I doubt it. I, on the other hand, have done this and more.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 26 Jun 2000 18:51:15 -0400
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:26:10 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:21:46 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>What, a text file whose name doesn't end in "*.txt"? You'll
>>confuse him, Jedi.
>
>Make a little list of all your favorite file extensions.
Some text files don't have any extensions at all.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:59:55 -0400
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KtL55.238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> ... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care about compiling
> sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source is useful to
?
> If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the Hell
> should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling correctly ?
>
a) You don't always get binaries
b) doing a ./configure; make; make install can work on your system (if you
meet the requirements of the configure script) when a pre-compiled binary
might not
c) It exposes your kids to the guts of what makes software work
d) It exposes YOU to the guts of what makes software work
e) You can help the author beta test his program, and debug his scripts. You
can also help with documentation. In short, you become part of the solution.
And the theory is if you're part of the solution, then you CAN'T be part of
the problem.
-- Rich C.
"Someday I'll get Wimp-dows free on this machine too."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 26 Jun 2000 22:59:46 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 26 Jun 2000 16:35:27 GMT <8j80of$2p84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>What are you smoking? Do you have any idea what 99.999% uptime is?
>>>
>>> More than Lie-nux will ever acheive.
>>>
>>
>>Oh really?
>>
>> 11:17am up 410 days, 14:37, 26 users, load average: 0.72, 0.31, 0.21
>>
>>What do you call that?
>>
>>You lose, troll.
>
> Just to drive the point even further into Tim Palmer's brain:
>
> Assume that a Linux reboot takes about 1 minute -- this, for me, is
> more or less typical (and I have 19 partitions). This means that
> 99.999% = 100,000 minutes = 1666.66 hours = 69 1/2 days or so.
>
> The last crash of abraxs' system would have to take more than 5.8 minutes
> in order for the uptime to be less than 99.999% -- and then there's the
> issue of how long it was up prior to that crash.
>
That particular system was rebooted last during a power outage; the reboot
was less than 2 minutes, as per norm.
> Abraxs' system may not have been up 99.999% of the time (I suspect that a
> crash would result in a multi-volume fsck; for me, that takes the
> better part of an hour!) but it's a lot closer than Windows.
>
That machine contains 2 4.2 gig disks and 1 2.1 gig disk; all SCSI,
an fsck usually takes somewhere around 15 minutes total. Luckilly its
last reboot wasnt a crash, but a timed outage whilst changing battery
backup devices. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: 26 Jun 2000 18:15:21 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:24:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>> Take it to MS advocacy. The 1995 Unixes could still beat w2k and
>>>> millenium.
>>
>> Actually, in '95 any of the Unix could go toe to toe with NT5
>> on the desktop. The only problems on the Unix side would be
>> lack of graphics design or "running everything".
>
>
>Which office packages existed for UNIX in 1995?
If you are going to look at ancient history (for this business),
go back a few more years. There were multiuser office
packages on unix before anyone dreamed of MS-windows.
>Which games existed for UNIX in 1995?
OK, those were so-so.
>How was the hardware support for UNIX in 1995?
As always, ported to just about every processor type around.
>How good were the GUI's? CDE? Please.
How about OpenLook?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:31:35 -0500
OSguy wrote:
> Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>
> > I was just trying to share some thoughts, if you do not like them, do not
> > answer them
> > and if you do, at least be a little polite. I am probably working with
> > computers before
> > you were born ...
>
> Oooh, let's pull the "I'm older and more experienced so I automatically deserve
> respect". OK - I'll call your bluff. When was the last time you programmed a
> Burroughs L2000 minicomputer? You know, the one where you changed oil every 6
> months in the Hard Disk Transmission? Or when was the last time you put your
> program on Punch Cards and Paper tape (remember Teletype Terminals)? I'll even
> bet you think Bill G. Invented Basic, or do you remember Dartmouth Basic back
> in the days when it was purely a teaching language only? Do you know that
> Scott Adams, Dilbert's creator, also sold Adventure for the TRS-80s and DOS
> back when 8088s even came out? When's the last time you manually keyed a
> program into an Imsai 8080 system?
>
> I might have a tiny measure respect for you if you know or done all of this,
> but somehow I doubt it. I, on the other hand, have done this and more.
BTW: I put in some distortions just to see if you catch them. I'll give you one
of them which is the TRS80 used a Z80 micro, not an 8088. What other
discrepencies do you see?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:28:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:10:29 +0100 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Linux=Odd...
>>
>>Linux sucks Pete, the sooner you figure it out for yourself the better.
>
>But not as often as Bill sucks the lawyers, right?
Not to mention the engineers developing on his software, and the users
who are using it.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Windows: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: LILO problems -- Any suggestions?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:24:19 GMT
In article <8j66u7$9ps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have recently wasted a weekend trying to grapple with a problem
> caused by:
>
> 1. Microsoft WindowsNT and a multi-os environment. I'll never do this
> again. Fucking pain in the ass.
>
> 2. LILO (RedHat installer).
>
> 3. A bad hard drive.
>
> Disk #1 is on SCSI ID 0. On that disk, I had installed WindowsNT 4.0 /
> SP6. Disk #2 is on SCSI ID 1 (on channel B). There I had installed
> Linux (RedHat 6.1). I **SWEAR** the RedHat installer DID NOT ASK ME if
> I wanted LILO installed. I really didn't want it installed. But it's
> there....
>
> LILO, of course, appears to be installed on disk #1 (SCSI 0).
>
> However, disk #2 is going bad. I first noticed it when in WindowsNT
> with it failing to write to the master file table on the drive.
Check VERY CAREFULLY to make sure everything is properly terminated.
Often a SCSI drive will appear to go south when the terminators are
either enabled on the wrong drive, enabled on the card, or enabled on
too many devices.
The bad news is that SCSI thinks the sector is bad, marks it as a bad
sector and you think your hard drive has gone south for the winter.
> On reboot, the bios sometimes could not see disk #2. When this would
> happen, and when disk #1 would attempt to boot, LILO would load part
> way and then freeze. It literally would print to the screen:
>
> LI
Same problem.
> and then I could not boot either LInux (drive is unavailable, of
> course) nor NT since I couldn't tell LILO to continue with the default
> disk and partition, even though that disk (SCSI 0, if you recall) is
> okay.
Boot NT using the emergency boot disk, and set up a boot alternative
that lets you boot the second drive. You'll still be calling LILO,
but you won't care.
> How does one get around this? I know, I know, I know: format /mbr or
> uninstall LILO with dd if=/boot/boot.0300 (or whatever) when I am in
> Linux. Problem: Can't run an OS to do that!! I'm forced to reinstall
an
> OS on another partition on another drive, even though my boot drive is
> fine. When drive #2 DOES appear on the SCSI chain (yes, it's flaky), I
> can't boot Linux. Kernel pannic trying to read past end of device...
You might want to consider setting up a boot partition on the
first drive. Typically, you can set up / on the main drive, then
create partitions for /usr, /var and /home on the second drive.
putting the swap on the first drive will also improve overall
performance.
> If I were to succeed in installing LInux yet again on another drive,
it
> would backup the master boot record, but that backup would be the
> *current* MBR -- not the one I want (archived to my existing but
> damaged install on disk #2).
>
> Most of my headaches this weekend were caused by trying to get
> WindowsNT to boot, and then trying to get Windows2000 to run, and then
> trying to reboot into my original environment. I'm not complaining
> about RedHat Linux (except that I didn't like LILO being installed).
> I'm complaining mostly about LILO.
Mandrake, SuSE, and Corel have alternatives to LILO. Unfortunately,
you do need some program on your Linux partition that tells you where
to find the Linux kernel. Windows assumes that it has the entire
boot program in a known place (the First Cylinder).
> It seems to me that if LILO needs to
> read from another hard disk drive other
> than the one it is installed
> on, and that drive is bad or has been
> removed, you're completely fucked.
Normally, if you can boot from a floppy (either MS-DOS, NT, or Linux)
you can use FDISK to switch the boot partition to the C: drive.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: 26 Jun 2000 23:31:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 1.2 billion people live in China, about a billion live in India. What is the
: US supposed to do, just let them all in ? ( OK, not all of them want to
: immigrate. But at least the majority of Chinese University grads want to
: immigrate, and also would bring their families if they could. Ditto with
: some of the schools in India. )
Why was it OK for us (and/or our ancestors) to come here and work, yet
it is not OK for them?
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:37:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Goofy root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:01:24 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I haven't had any Linux crash lately. What is then 'gdb'?
GNU debugger.
It's designed to delve into applications and their core dumps.
I don't know if the kernel can core dump, or be debugged while
running. (It might be possible.)
>
>"Sam E. Trenholme" wrote:
>
>> As for Linux, it does not even have kernel crash support that is ready to
>> be integrated in to the mainline kernel:
>>
>> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/lkcd/faq.html
>>
>> This will hopefully change soon.
>>
>> - Sam
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: stability of culture of helpfulness
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:39:06 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006252222390.4371-
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
+ "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ > You are a real piece of work. Learn to spell, get an idea of what
+ > you are talking about, then maybe post if you have something useful
+ > to contribute, troll.
+
+ I believe that would make you the troll-ee. Nice spelling flame too!
Not the 'troll-ee', but the *plonker*. :-) Big difference.
anm
--
/*-------------------------------------------------------.
| Andrew N. McGuire |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`-------------------------------------------------------*/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:45:12 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >The previous poster did qualify with "limits properly set". Try
> >"ulimit -u 32" first and see what happens. On this machine (a P-120
> >laptop with 48 MB), the fork program causes the system to slow down a
> >bit but I can easily get in to kill it with "killall".
>
> That works in this synthesized cause, but my point was that any OS can be
> brought down by a badly behaved app. And you can't always predict how a
> badly behaved app will act.
>
> --
> ------------
> Pete Goodwin
Not really. There are only two ways that I know of to bring Linux down.
One would be a bad driver. The other would be exhausting system
resources. Using limits properly (at the system level, not in user space)
prevents the second case. By the way I did try your fork bomb with no
limits set. It indeed did look like Linux was hung, but I found that after
a few minutes it did finally respond to my hitting Ctrl-C so I did not need
to reboot.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
