Linux-Advocacy Digest #949, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) ("Rob Hughes")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (abraxas)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:08:24 +0200
> That is NOT a problem with linux,
you see, linux is perfect.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:23:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 25 Jul 2000 04:10:41 GMT
<8lj401$jtm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
[snip]
>: Vote LIBERTARION.... the political equivalent of Linux.
(pedant point: "Libertarian").
>
>Wrong. The political equivalent of Linux is communism.
Yeah, you're right. Linux is bad, Linux is Commie Red,
Linux is eeeeeeeeeeevil, Linux is Nikita Kruschev.
<MODE Emulation=S>
BUY MSFT!!!!
</MODE>
:-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 100% recycled sarcasm
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:37:23 -0500
Actually, I should have been more specific and said "Logitech Trackman
Marble +", but it was about mice. I still like the Logitech mice better as
well. I really like whooping up on someone in some FPS, and when they ask
what I use, the average response is "ugh!".
"Jacques Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rob Hughes wrote, rooting for mice:
>
> > Logitech.
>
> In my (painful) experience, a trackball is much,
> much easier on... what's it called again, that nerve?
> The one that goes through the centre of your wrist.
> At first, it's difficult to adapt to a track ball,
> sure. But since I replace my mouse with a track
> ball, I never have my arm lock up in pain. I admit
> that a mouse is somehow easier to use, but it is
> not worth the pain. How long have I been using
> a track ball? More than a year now. No regrets.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:51:45 GMT
Allow me to introduce you to my 1996 Impala
SS..............
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:58:11 -0700, dakota
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>about that car comment, I own a 1995 BMW 850Ci and a 1995
>Thunderbird SC so you tell me.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: 25 Jul 2000 15:59:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus Sprake Steve:
>
>> Thank you for supporting my findings with the
>> technical knowledge that you have and I don't.
>>
>> I was merely pointing out, at a very basic level
>> that a default Linux install leaves the end user
>> wide open to attacks.
>
> If you're so worried about attacks, then SELECT HIGH SECURITY for your
> box, especially if you've got a cable modem or DSL. If you select
> "medium security" on a constant connection, then you probably deserve
> the reaming you might get. Try the high security setting and ask around
> on how to secure your box instead of bitching because the setup program
> doesn't hold wipe your butt for you. That's a mom's job. :)
>
High security under mandrake (which isnt even actually linux) is a very
bad idea if you ever plan on using it for anthing more than an extremely
secure router/service machine.
Instead, RTFM and make it secure yourself. Again, this is not windows we're
talking about here; you do need a functional brain in order to use linux.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 25 Jul 2000 11:02:43 -0500
In article <NLJe5.5134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I dunno, telling Leslie to prove his claims might be considered
>"shifting the burden of proof", but I think it's a little bit of a stretch,
>don't you?
I told you exactly what happened to me with the Gandalf terminal
server I was using at the time. What kind of proof beyond
an eyewitness account were you expecting?
>I mean, he was the one who impugned MS for breaking other
>companies' dialers; he's yet to provide a shred of evidence
>or argument to uphold that. I'm betting that he doesn't believe
>it himself; I think it was a throw-away line, meant only to
>ensnare the gullible.
Huh? Ask your ISP to dig up a a pre-1995 firmware image and
load it into your dial-up hardware, regardless of what it
was. I didn't say it broke other companies dialers - of
course the dialers that followed standards continued to work.
What I said was that putting a non-standard dialer on everyone's
desktop broke the equipment on the other end and forced
every ISP to either upgrade their hardware or switch to
NT-RAS servers which just happened to be broken in the same
way already.
>The reason I think this is that he switched from arguing that
>MS *broke* other people's dialers to arguing that MS didn't
>*support* those dialers, which is an entirely different thing.
No - I meant, and still mean, that embedding a non-standard
dialer in a product that comes pre-loaded on virtually every
PC is an evil practice intended to harm the competing ISPs
and dial-up hardware server manufactures and promote their
replacement with NT RAS servers. And this practice is a
recurring theme for every MS product that has to work with
anything else.
>Unless you redefine "broke" creatively, of course. :D
Not correctly interoperating is a normal definition of broken,
especially given that (a) there were pre-existing cross-platform
standards and (b) ms-chap was so bad that it has been replaced
by version 2 already.
>> >Still, I stand by my statement: If Leslie is going to do it, he should
>> >do it better. Doing it clumsily hardly makes him look good.
>>
>> Your constant horse-crap makes you look like a fool.
>
>I'm wounded to the core!
>
>I'd hoped you'd at least consider me a troll, but I guess
>it is not to be.
What kind of proof do you want? All you really have to do
is read the standards - or dig out some old equipment and
try it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:06:03 GMT
On 25 Jul 2000 08:19:27 -0500, Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:36:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:46:44 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>You go ahead and plug every PnP card and peripheral into your BSD box that
>>>Windows 2000 supports and have it work as well. Then you can talk about PnP
>>>support.
>>
>> Keep your red herrings to yourself.
>>
>> The issue is PnP, not whether or not there is vendor
>> support for a particular bit of hardware under a
>> particular OS.
>>
>> Linux did ISA pnp (for non-isapnp hardware) before Win95
>> was around to do so. Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD have all done
>> PCI & SCSI pnp for years and now handle USB.
>
>Are you saying that you can plug ANY ISO PnP device into Linux and it
>will work?
>
The PnP aspect of it will.
That's rather the point of genuine PnP.
The same goes for DEC Unix, Solaris, Irix, BeOS and SCO.
Although PCI ID's still have the weakness of only uniquely identifying
the onboard PCI bus controller and not the daughtercard itself.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:07:05 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:12:56 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Jenny-poo wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:36:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:46:44 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>You go ahead and plug every PnP card and peripheral into your BSD box that
>> >>Windows 2000 supports and have it work as well. Then you can talk about PnP
>> >>support.
>> >
>> > Keep your red herrings to yourself.
>> >
>> > The issue is PnP, not whether or not there is vendor
>> > support for a particular bit of hardware under a
>> > particular OS.
>> >
>> > Linux did ISA pnp (for non-isapnp hardware) before Win95
>> > was around to do so. Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD have all done
>> > PCI & SCSI pnp for years and now handle USB.
>>
>> Are you saying that you can plug ANY ISO PnP device into Linux and it
>> will work?
>
>Check the supported devices list. It's quite substantial.
...a good clue for compatibility for a particular kernel version
will be the Vendor and Product ID's decoded into actual names.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:09:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 24 Jul 2000 16:40:19 -0500
<YH2f5.15960$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 22 Jul 2000 19:50:04 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> >Anyway, yes, string for math - lame to be sure, but, I never do endian
>> >operations, ever.
>>
>> You need endian operations when (a) you write code that's portable across
>> hardware architectures which means that (b) networking code tends to
>> require endian operations. You should get out more.
>
>Donovan - shame on you.
>
>I write for the Windows OS - I have no need to be concerned with Endian
>operations.
You will have to be concerned with endianity if you communicate
with anything other than Microsoft, as Aaron points out in
another post.
Granted, it's far from clear at this point whether it will
be much of an issue; XML, in particular, can be either binary
or text (if binary, I have no idea how it formats its data);
SOAP may or may not have a specific endianity, I haven't looked.
But, if you don't do endianity conversion, somebody will have to.
However, the operation might in fact be completely transparent.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:10:03 GMT
On 25 Jul 2000 15:59:33 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thus Sprake Steve:
>>
>>> Thank you for supporting my findings with the
>>> technical knowledge that you have and I don't.
>>>
>>> I was merely pointing out, at a very basic level
>>> that a default Linux install leaves the end user
>>> wide open to attacks.
>>
>> If you're so worried about attacks, then SELECT HIGH SECURITY for your
>> box, especially if you've got a cable modem or DSL. If you select
>> "medium security" on a constant connection, then you probably deserve
>> the reaming you might get. Try the high security setting and ask around
>> on how to secure your box instead of bitching because the setup program
>> doesn't hold wipe your butt for you. That's a mom's job. :)
>>
>
>High security under mandrake (which isnt even actually linux) is a very
>bad idea if you ever plan on using it for anthing more than an extremely
>secure router/service machine.
>
>Instead, RTFM and make it secure yourself. Again, this is not windows we're
>talking about here; you do need a functional brain in order to use linux.
Your options are far too numerous and you will actually need an
awareness of what you want to do in order to effectively use it
(Linux). WinDOS only manages to 'win out' over Linux in this
instance by turning itself into a console of sorts.
That's fine if 'DreamCast' or 'PSX/2' happen to fit your needs.
Otherwise, it's just plain lame.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:19:07 GMT
>Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>It was a Philip Glass joke
Using the newsgroups for "entertainment purposes" again, I see
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:35:41 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Wrong again. Ever heard of Xenix? Written by Microsoft in the early
80's?
>
> I believe Xenix was writen by SCO, but, what the hell, I'll assume
> that your info is accurate.
No, Microsoft sold it to SCO later.
> IF that is true...then why did Microsoft take nearly 20 years
> to develop even crippled versions of the same data processing
> techniques (like TCP/IP networking) which they *supposedly*
> developed in the early 80's on the Xenix project?
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
They didn't. They had TCP/IP for Windows 3.0 in 1991. There was no
percieved need for it prior to that, as the internet was not a common tool
and most businesses ran IPX, which was handled by a DOS redirector.
> > Ever heard of OS/2, written by Microsoft in the late 80's?
>
> IBM, you moron. Some of my classmates WORKED on OS/2 during
> their co-op semesters.
Microsoft, you moron. There were IBM people also working on it, but it was
mostly a Microsoft development.
> > Ever heard of Windows NT, released by MS in 1993 (which did both
> > multi-processors and multitasking)?
>
> Crash early and crash often, they always say.
You were still wrong, again.
> > > Microsoft bailed on "spirit of the contract" support for OS/2 the
moment
> > > they released windows.
> >
> > Funny how Windows was released 2 years before the contract was signed.
> >
> > But then, that's just your ignorance again.
Note, no response.
> > No, it's taught by the real world. Pay attention to your industry and
do
> > not live in a vacuum.
>
> The pathetic scribblings of Microsoft's poor excuse for an operating
> system are not important, other than figuring out how to eradicate
> their products, and their leadership, ESPECIALLY bill gates, from
> the face of the earth.
>
> The guy is a power-hungry nut who should be rotting in prison right now.
My, you like to change the subject to avoid the topic.
> > > > consider Multitasking to be Multiprocessing (though I will admit
that
> > the
> > > > term Multiprocessing was used synonymously with Multitasking in the
old
> > IBM
> > > > mainframe days, before multiprocessor machines were invented)
> > >
> > > If that is true, how come OS/2 is much more crash resistant than M$'s
> > > own products?
> >
> > ????????? What exactly does OS/2 being more crash resistant have to do
with
> > IBM mainframes?
Note, no response.
> > I think it was pretty obvious what I meant.
>
> What you wrote and what you meant were two different things.
>
> By the way, why did you chastise me for correctly figuring out
> "what you meant" even though it differed rather significantly
> from what you wrote?
Ask just about any unix person where the number of processes are defined and
they'll know exatly what it means.
> > > > And you do this without stopping the kernel process? Yeah right.
> > >
> > > Yes, you can.
> >
> > Please explain to me how you can copy the process table without stopping
the
> > scheduler.
>
> You asked "And you can do this without stopping the kernal process?"
>
> Since the Unix kernal is NOT a process, there is no way to "stop the
> kernal process" as such a process does not exist.
In effect, it does.
> Now...how do you copy the process table? Simple: From root, you
> signal each prosses with SIGSTOP, which puts ALL of them to sleep.
> Then, you copy the process table from with whatever debugger program
> you are using, and then re-awaken with SIGCONT (which means "continue
> if stopped").
Funny how it doesn't put the debugger to sleep, now does it?
And again, you can't just go stopping processes on a production machines.
Many machines depend on continued access in order to function properly. For
example, machine control software. Oh, but not living in the real world you
wouldn't understand about production needs.
> In other words, it's quite simple. The only difficulty is finding
> the memory location which holds the address of the process table.
>
> I've never done this thing, but I know it can be done, as I have
> seen George Goble do this sort of thing in under 120 seconds on
> a system which was performing slowly (and I'm talking about a
> 30 MHz, 16 Mbyte system with 100 users logged in performing even
> slower than it normally would!).
Oooh.. 2 minutes of a stopped machine. Why not just reboot? Don't you
think the users are going to notice that their systems aren't responding for
2 minutes and start issuing breaks, or simply turinging off their terminals
and trying to relog in?
> (This was in 1985).
So?
> > between the time you start the copy and when you change the pointer,
totally
> > corrupting your system, not to mention that there is more to increasing
the
>
> Not a problem, see above.
This wasn't what you were saying before, but even so. It's still not
useable on a production machine.
> > table size than just allocating new memory. You also need to modify
> > constants that define the size in numerous places in the kernel image
> > (something that you can't do without the debugger stopping the process).
>
> processes don't give a hoot.
Why should they?
> > Then, considering that constants are usually stored in MMU protected
> > read-only segments, you have to screw with your descriptors as well.
>
> The location of the process table doesn't screw with any file
> descriptors
> or anything like that. The ONLY thing that knows about the location of
> the process table is the process scheduler and the process scheduler
> is NOT a process...it's an interrupt service routine in the kernal.
I suppose commands like PS and top don't need to know how BIG the table is.
If you increase it's size, you have to change the constants which tell
everything how big it is... Idiot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:22:12 GMT
On 25 Jul 2000 08:20:21 -0500, Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Jul 2000 10:14:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>>
>> Back to the main subject, some news stories have considered it odd
>>that Sun has been so successful while bucking the trend to
>>Microsoftization of the last few years. However, the rise of Linux may be
>>a vindication of Sun's strategy; I suspect that Linux is much more
>>helpful to Sun than Windows is, because Linux is much more
>>Solaris-compatible than Windows is. Is that a reasonable assessment?
>
>It also poses a large threat. Why do you think Sun gives away Solaris
>now? hint: it's not cuz of Windows!
Sun is the first name that comes up when you need SERIOUS
and RELIABLE computing power. It is the first Unix that
people with real budgets tend to come to when avoiding NT.
When you can afford an E450, or even an 8-way Xeon: OS licencing
becomes remarkably less of an issue.
...as far as giving away Solaris goes: Solaris x86 has always been
somewhat of a dog, not quite supported like the sparc version driving
people either Sparc Solaris or something else like Linux. Sun still
has to overcome the results of their previous neglect of x86.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
