Linux-Advocacy Digest #837, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. ("Spud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:54:57 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> Greg Yantz escribió:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:10:13 GMT, MK
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Capitalism has problems of its own. Poverty is one of them.
> >
> > > > You wanna see poverty, and HUGE disparities between the rich and the
> > > > poor? Then go to a communist country and look around.
> >
> > > A communist country such as which one? Please notice that I am in no
> > > way defending communism, I am just curious where such a thing was.
> >
> > Sure. Think "USSR" and "nomenklatura", the elite that owned it.
> > Or at least had the use of all it's more luxurious features, as
> > theoretically everyone "owned" it. Heh.
>
> The USSR is not communist anymore, and it's way poorer than it used to
> be.
1. Communists hold 80% of the seats in the Duma.
2. They merely RESTRUCTURED Communism. Defectors in the late 1980's
advised that this would occur.
Perestroika. Pere ("re-") + Stroika ("stroit=to build").
There are no property rights laws
There are no civil rights laws
The place is just as much of a police state as 20 years ago,
except that families can travel outside the country without leaving
behind a family member as "hostage", and visitors are no longer under
24-hour control of Intourist "guides"/KGB agents.
Other than that, ALL of the communist legal and economic apparatus
is in place.
> And it's kinda hard to go to the USSR and look around since a few years
> ago ;-)
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:04:51 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Charles Razzell wrote:
> >
> > I received this in the mail today...
> >
> > MontaVista is proud to invite you to participate in a free
> > TechOnLine Seminar titled "Linux: The Internet Appliance Platform"
> > Register for the seminar now:
> > http://seminar.techonline.com/montavista1/
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > *****************************************************************
> > Prerequisites for Seminar include:
> > Internet Explorer 4.0 (or higher) or Netscape Communicator
> > MS Windows 3.1, 9x, or NT
> > Audio capabilities: (sound card + speakers + RealAudio 5.0 or
> > higher)
> > [snip]
> >
> > I am a happy user of Linux (as you can perhaps see
> > from the headers of this message) but the unintended
> > irony was probably noted by quite a few recipients
> > of the above bulk e-mail.
> >
> > Quite frankly, it should be possible to receive the seminar on
> > suitably equipped Linux boxes. RealAudio 5.0 is certainly available.
> >
> > Rgds,
> >
> > Charles.
>
> You think that's bad, I've actually seen Linux for sale in catalogs and
> on-line stores where the requirements for it are "Must have Windows 95
> or NT" and similary non-sense. And this was not for some of the Linux
> on Windows type of distributions, but for SuSE, Red Hat, Slackware,
> etc....
>
> I believe the entire of idea of any bit of software not requiring
> Windows in some form or another is completely foriegn to some people.
> And when the see Linux OS on a box, they just assume that means it's
> software and all software requires Windows. Unfortunately, this is the
> type of logic that reigns in the world about computers in general.
> Windows=computers and computers=Windows. Some people even have troubles
> believing that a Mac doesn't use Windows. I've heard a few stories of
> people being upset when the buy a Windows upgrade and then can't install
> it on their iMac.
>
> Cars require a bit of education to drive, but with a computer, everyone
> expects it to be a toaster. I just don't understand. (I realize I have
> opened myself up to the flammers that proclaim a computer should be a
> toaster. But why, oh why, should something this complicated be
> considered on the same level as any kitchen appliance?)
[unnamed] customer support: Hello?
Cluless Customer: Hello, my computer doesn't work.
Support: What doesn't work?
Customer: Nothing works.
S: What does the screen show
C: Nothing, it won't turn on
S: Is your system plugged in?
C: I don't know
S: Can you check to see if the system is plugged in
C: OK
[fumbling sounds]
C: Um, I can't tell, it's too dark
S: What's too dark?
C: The room, it's too dark. The power is out.
S: OK...here's what you do. Pack up all of the parts of your
computer in the boxes they came in.
C: OK
S:..and then, send the entire system back to [us], attention
[some name]
C: And you'll send me a new computer?
S: No sir, we will send you a refund.
C: Why won't you send me a new computer?
S: Because you're too stupid to figure out that a computer
doesnt work in the middle of a black out.
Reminds me one time when I was at my grandma's house, and the
TV went off when the power failed...and she went over to the
radio and said, "let's listen to the radio and find out what's
happening," forgetting that the radio also relied on wall-socket
current.
I think that about sums it up.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:20:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:32 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 18 Jul 2000 22:31:40 -0400
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >
>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:44:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> >I can do the exact same thing on any modern flavor of unix, so, like
>> >> >do you have a point?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> "Moddern UNIX", now thear's an oxymorron.
>> >
>> >
>> > Unix Microsoft products
>> >
>> >First Multi-processing kernal 1970 1995
>> >
>> >tape backup utilities 1970 1998
>> >
>> >First GUI 1984 1990
>> >
>> >Cut and Past support in GUI 1984 1993
>> >
>> >Full networking support 1984 1995
>> >
>> >No differentiation between remote 1984 never implemented
>> > users and console users
>> >First Multi-user kernal 1970 never implemented
>> >
>> >Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
>>
>> 1998 or 1999; NT 4 no longer requires a reboot for simple
>> TCP/IP configuration changes. For what it's worth.
>>
>> >
>> >First non-fragmenting filesystem 1983 never implemented
>>
>> Note that 'fsdext2' allows readonly access to an ext2 volume
>> from a Win95 box. If Microsoft really cared, they probably
>> could hook in a replacement to NTFS or FAT.
>>
>> I don't know how much a bugaboo fragmentation is at this time
>> (it's clearly better for single files to be non-fragmented, but
>> how about file sets?) and I'd say a lot of the problem may be
>> related to usage patterns in some fashion.
>>
>> It gets complicated if one throws "lying" disks and "lying" boards
>> into the mix -- the CPU thinks most modern disks have 255 heads.
>> (Uh huh. Pull the other one. :-) ) And most disks are
>> variable-geometry anyway; more sectors on the outer cylinder.
>>
>> >
>> >RAID support (Redundant Array 1991 never implemented
>> > of Inexpensive Disks)
>> >full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
>> > including O/S install
>>
>> Hm...how did Unix have remote administration prior to Woolongong?
>
>Simple... dialin to a modem on a serial port.
Oh...duh! I should have thought of that. Shows how spoiled
I'm getting. :-)
>
>> Still, that only pushes it forward to the early 80's. (I have
>> an AT&T 7300 with Woolongong sockets, manufactured circa 1984 or
>> so, still operational AFAIK although I haven't fired it up lately,
>> with a whole 80 megs of disk space. Woohoo!)
>
>Nope... modems on serial ports were available LONG before the
>advent of Unix.
Noted, although I'm now curious as to the advent of the first
"modem" that was hooked up to a phone line. (My mind is giving
me a vision of a mad scientist with a bad hairdo and some sort
of microphone and speaker device, a crude prototype of the early
cradle modems. :-) )
>
>>
>> >
>> >GUI's available 10 1
>>
>> Shared library support ? since Win 3.1
> 1988(?)
>
>>
>> Loadable driver modules ? unknown
> early 1990's.
>>
>> Virtual memory <-> file association ? 1995?
>> (mmap(), CreateFileMapping()) [*]
>
> 1970
> /dev/kmem
Hm...I was thinking rather the reverse; instead of viewing memory
as a file (open/read/write/seek/close), I was thinking viewing a
file as virtual memory (read/write done transparently as machine
instructions; MOV A -> [B] dirties a virtual page which eventually
gets written back to the file).
I know VAX had this capability in VMS 3.7, although I don't
know how much it was used. (Probably not much.) Apollo
DOMAIN Aegis -- a big player in the embedded CAD system market
prior to Sun, in the mid 80's -- had a similar call, too,
although I don't remember the name.
Still, you've got a point. One nice thing about Unix was
that it was OO before anyone realized there was such a concept.
open("filename.dat") = open("symlink.dat") = open("/dev/tty")
= open("/dev/ttySn") = open("namedpipe") = open("/dev/tape").
Early Unices could even open directories read-only.
If that's not OO, I'm not sure what is...
>
>>
>> SSH-type remote login capability ? ?
>> (i.e., zero-knowledge session
>> encryption coupled with some
>> sort of login program or widget)
>
> over-the-network remote login 1984 Still not implemented
> encrypted " -" - " " " mid 1990's Still not implemented
>
>>
>> Remote GUI 1984? 1998?
> 1984 ^
> Pass that crack pipe
> you're smokin'
I was thinking pcAnywhere, but I'll admit the issue may be
whether such capability is available without 3rd party add-ons.
Obivously, one can't do it within NT itself -- why, I don't
really know; perhaps it's a marketing issue?
>
>>
>> Remote login w/o password ? ?
>> from a trusted local site
> 1984 Still not implemented
> /etc/hosts.equiv
> $HOME/.rhosts
>
>> (i.e., using Kerberos)
>
>Kerberos is not necessary, it
>is merely a refinement of the idea.
Indeed. However, there are some nasty issues nowadays regarding
$HOME/.rhosts -- probably because of DHCP, or perhaps it's because
people are more aware of (and more likely to use!) "sniffing" technology.
Still, you're right; Unix had this capability, even without encryption.
>
>
>>
>> First multi-processOR kernel ? ?
>> (note that VMS had this ca 1986 or so;
>> presumably, Unix did, too)
>
> 1981.
> Local modifications to 4.2BSD
>
> George Goble, Electrical Engineering,
> Engineering Computer Network
> Purdue University.
> Host ec.ecn.purdue.edu
>
> First wide distribution outside of Purdue and
> Berkely campuses: 4.3BSD (1983)
>
>
> There used to be a file in /usr/jokes on ec machine
> "The VAX had a blow-out" to the tune of London
> Bridge is Falling Down, describing the atmosphere
> in the terminal rooms when George was debugging the
> 4.2BS
>>
>> First full journaling filesystem ? NTFS has meta only
>> (AIX claims its file system journals;
>> I don't know the details. Reiserfs
>> is available now for Linux.)
>
> First I saw on commercial Unix systems
> was in the mid 1990's. But these weren't
> cutting-edge installations, so I don't know.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Notice a pattern yet, spell-check boy?
>> >
>>
>> *smirk*
>>
>> Mind you, we have to be careful, as it is possible the Winvocates
>> will claim that "we did it better because we did it second".
>> (This is very debatable in its own right.)
>
>Usually the IEEE or equivalent standards are VERY well thought out
>(because of the nature by which these standards are developed).
>
>Microsoft tends to glance at these standards, then crumple them
>up and throw them into the fireplace, then claim that their
>high-school programmers' half-assed attempts at re-implementation
>constitute a "superior" solution.
Either that, or not test them sufficiently ("never attribute to
malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity" :-) ).
I think this would be one explanation for the 0.0.0.0/255.255.255.255
DHCP broadcast mixup, for example (I forget which is which, though,
but it means the stock "pump" originally distributed with RedHat
6.2 is a bit flaky).
Mind you, I'm a little surprised Win9x is still using FAT of any
sort; surely, they could do something like MD5 hash or ECC the
directory, file inodes, and possibly even data blocks (Amiga used to
do that, but it reduced storage efficiency).
I don't know how good NT's NTFS is; judging from fragmentation
patterns I've observed from a third party tool (Diskeeper Lite) and
documentation therewith which states outright that a defragger can't
move directories (to be fair, it's nice it can move anything at all
while the disk is actually mounted!), and comments regarding the
metadata-only journaling, it's not all that hot.
>
>>
>> [.sigsnip]
>>
>> [*] this is a neat hack, but has to be applied with some care;
>> mmap() can put a region anywhere in the address space if
>> one is not careful, and that invalidates every pointer!
>>
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT. New Technology. (In 1970, maybe it was.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:22:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:47:44 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>
>> Or, you can blindly delete them:
>>
>> find . -name core -type f -size +0 -print0 | xargs -0 rm
>
> find . -name core -type f -size +0 -print0 -exec rm \{\} \;
That'll work too, although I'm not quite as fond of subspawned
processes (each rm in the second find will have exactly one
argument).
I probably should have appended '--' to my command line. :-)
That way, rm -- -foo will remove the file '-foo'. Sometimes
that's an issue.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:22:58 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What a bunch of brown-nosed idiots! I don't see why they don't just
> try running Linux on any system and seeing how reliable it is.
Because some of us "brown-nosed idiots" *have* run Linux. Some of us
even *continue* to run Linux. Some of us just realize that Win9x, ME
and 2K have certain advantages over Linux - such as allowing us to run
our games programs and the like.
Is it perfect? Not hardly. Is it stable? Depends which flavour,
what you do with it, and how it's configured. Is it *useful*?
Absolutely, to a lot of people.
Oh, but only "brown-nosed idiots" would use something they find
useful, right?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
