Linux-Advocacy Digest #967, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (T. Max Devlin)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:47:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Drestin Black in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
Uh-oh. Mr. "Drestin Black" wants to discuss HP OpenView. This is going
to be interesting...
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Haven't worked with either. I saw HP Openview a few years ago (1995)
>> when it was in 30-day demo mode on some new machines. It's ok, but
>> all the info is available from pre-existing commands like netstat.
>
>HAHAHHAHA - you didn't spend hardly any time with it at all then did you!
>"netstat" - hahahaah - dude, you owe HP a huge appology. NOT to mention, do
>you consider software that is used on the scale Openview is intended for to
>be unchanged since 95? In this field? is this how EDS handles things?
Its how the entire industry handles these things. HP OpenView has been
the dominant "network management platform" for at least five years. Its
core capabilities have remained essentially unchanged since 1995. It
has, of course, gone through several major revisions (from 3.x to 6.x,
in fact) and each one has added "features", none of which substantially
impact the use of the software in any typical programming environment.
They're essentially all sales tactics.
Mr. Kulkis's assessment of HP OpenView is extremely precise. Certainly
for managing Unix boxes themselves, there is nothing that HP OpenView
can do which cannot easily be achieved by telneting in and working
natively. The theory behind a management platform, and SNMP as a whole
which much of this functionality is based on, is, in fact, to simply
give alternate access to native instrumentation. This allows for a
single console-based GUI-enhanced method of, for instance, clicking on
the icon for the box and choosing the "Telnet" command, which most Unix
admins find far more efficient, given their years of experience, then
learning a new (and potentially much more efficient) way of doing
things.
OpenViews primary functionality, BTW, is to ping every IP address every
five minutes and turn an icon red if it fails. And it costs tens of
thousands of dollars, minimally.
It is HP, and the entire software industry, which owes its customers an
apology. As software marketers, they aren't remarkable in their
preference to extend their feature set rather than improve their
product. But that is no excuse for such rampant profiteering. I must
point out that I'm a huge fan, in fact, of HP OpenView. Those core
capabilities it has are unmatched, and quite valuable. The layout
algorithm and discovery system are often hammered for not matching
someone's expectations, but that's merely because they don't understand
the issues involved. None of the things that most customers would
consider "broken" in HP OpenView are design flaws. They are merely the
way the software works, and changing them will not improve them, but
merely make them work differently. If you understand the issues
sufficiently, you can generally figure out why such "different" would be
even more broken in the majority of cases, if not the particular one
which inspired your "wish list" suggestion.
I'm afraid anyone who knows much about OpenView would agree with Aaron;
it's OK, but all the info is available from pre-existing capabilities
already more easily accessible to those who know how to use them. For
the generalists (which you wouldn't be considered, Mr. 'Black', as being
a generalist requires selective, not complete, ignorance) it is an
irreplaceable tool, allowing me to check the routing table of any kind
of box, regardless of whether it is a host or a hub or a router. It
will also automatically munge through them and resolve the IP topology
of the network, displaying it with a hierarchical graphical map display.
You might have seen either Network Node Manager or Admin Center in your
environment, Aaron; both are "HP OpenView". Admin Center is designed
for Unix host management, though, and would probably have provided more
impressive capabilities for your environment. NNM is the more common
one, though; it is focused, to some extent, on SNMP management of
infrastructure devices (routers and switches and hubs, oh my.)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:47:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Drestin Black in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Um, Mr. Devlin - what are you on?
>Why direct this at me? Trolling? I was not trolling. Someone said I lied so
>I thought it appropriate that I reply with proof I wasn't. Wouldn't you feel
>the same obligation or do you just ignore such things?
I don't troll, and I don't lie, so I don't have problems explaining to
people that I'm not doing so when they accuse me of it. I certainly
don't troll even harder to try to obfuscate my inability to consider
reasoned argument, as you do.
>You've called me an insane astroturfer or neurotic and misguided
>individual - why? I mean, really - WHY?!
Because, purely and solely, of what I've read of your writing on Usenet.
Consider that.
>Are you so afraid of anything that
>does not mirror your own opinions that your only defense is to viciously
>attack the character of the messenger?
I do not attack the character of the messenger when I point out you're
trolling; I characterize your message when I point out you're trolling.
>Don't agree with me? Fine, say so,
>explain yourself, that's what these forums are for.
The 'purpose' of newsgroups is of some debate. I'm of the opinion that
they are for reasoned discussion, which is why I abhor trolls like
yourself. You're so caught up in some fantasy that you're being
persecuted that you can't face up to the fact that you are trolling;
inhibiting discussion purposefully and repeatedly in an effort to
pretend that your position is valid without fairly addressing any
criticism. As Hubert Humphrey said (thanks to Bernie Meyer's sig) "The
right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken
seriously." And you don't give much reason to take you seriously.
And I say that as someone who's been accused of being one of the most
clueless bastards on Usenet, and is still posting, but isn't considered
a troll, AFAIK. An annoying personality, maybe, but not a troll.
>To attack me personally
>with insults is ignorance on maximum.
I think you're confusing insults with ad hominem attack. They aren't
quite the same thing, in my opinion. Ad hominem is far more false a
line of reasoning, in fact, than insults are a form of communication.
>It's entirely counterproductive and
>demonstrates that you've obviously nothing factual to refute with and only
>venomous disregard for how things are done and no consideration for others
>feelings or even for the consideration of fellow readers who would like to
>find the answers instead of reading unsolicited spueing of unappropriate
>insults.
It indicates that you've already been as factually refuted and generally
disregarded as you're ever going to get. Your stubborn insistence alone
that you have not be refuted or that your argument is unfairly
disregarded does not constitute a position, nor a considered opinion,
nor anything but trolling.
>Max Devlin - you have offended me without any justification and if I could,
>I would remove you ... first. I wonder if you handle your real life in the
>same fashion... scary thought....
Now that, you see, is an ad hominem attack, not merely an insult.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm
The fact that someone with no familiarity with any previous posts by you
or those who attack you would not find any specific information to doubt
your claims within your response does not mean I am being inordinately
biased or even insulting in my characterization of you as a troll. They
would not have anything but this message to go on, however, and I've
already pointed out that while you are trolling, here, you aren't
actually supporting an argument, but only putatively trying to make a
case for an argument. It is for this reason that you find yourself
consistently and repeatedly denounced for what you might want to insist
are reasonable statements; honest and conscientious posters find it
intolerable to think that some new lurker may not be aware of the
consistent inability you've shown to support anything resembling a
reasoned and reasonable inquiry. We are not bound to consider each of
your statements in isolation, and are more than capable of ascertaining
your overall line of reasoning, which is encouragement of cluelessness
and intentional ignorance. Because anyone who has read your previous
messages would recognize the very trivial level of your integrity and
accuracy, and that would provide vital and important context to anyone
who would want to accurately understand your words and your intent.
Your ability to exploit the ignorance of those unfamiliar with the
context of the discussion does not demand intentional ignorance on
anybody else's part in dealing with your message.
If I've mischaracterized you, then a simple review of the charges
themselves should convince you that you haven't been as conscientious as
you're pretending to be. If it doesn't, then I haven't mischaracterized
you to begin with.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:43:47 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:58:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Jul 2000 13:19:51 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Install RedHat 6.2, Suse 6.4, Slackware 7, Mandrake 7.1, or any number
>>of others, running the default FTP server and your box will be rooted
>>as soon as a kiddie sees it. (ie, read up on wu-ftpd "Providing Root
> If I've been rooted due to my ftpd configuration, then the script
> kiddies in question have been rather discrete.
There have been numerous wu-ftpd exploits over the years, the most
recent one(s) just within the last couple of weeks. The fact that you
have not been rooted this way is due several possibilities including
nobody noticed you, you use some other ftpd, you keep up with updates,
or you've just been lucky.
> Telnet, OTOH is a cracker magnet.
Whatever. There haven't been any telnet exploits in a while afaik. It
is mainly a problem for sending passwords in the clear, which is bad if
some other box on your network is rooted (speaking with the voice of
experience here). Telnet is not the only protocol that's bad that way
of course.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:43:55 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:11:26 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've really been getting nauseated with Linux ever since I first laid
>eyes on fvwm95. I ran Slackware a while back and I thought it was
>pretty keen.
Slackware is still around, and is still Slackware.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:38:52 GMT
In article <8ljqmg$ela$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> In article <8limlb$ibv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <8lbipl$pha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
> >> I have two internal and three
> >> external SCSI drives attached to my Macintosh clone.
> >Yes, this is the great thing about SCSI. You can hang 7 drives
> >off a single controller. With IDE, you get 2 devices per ribbon
> >cable.
>
> Actually, those are just the standard hard drives. My Mac clone
> has two SCSI buses that have the following:
>
> Internal: 2 hard disks, 1 Zip, 1 Jaz, 1 CD-ROM
> External: 3 hard disks, 1 CD-ROM
I forgot that SCSI-II busses can support 32 drives,
of course, the servers that need that many drivers also need
the bandwidth so they don't overload the ribbon.
> And all the hard disks were immediately recognized by the OS when I
> rebooted after installing those that I installed (all but one internal
one).
Exactly as it should be. The SCSI device itself has no knowledge
of sectors, tracks, cylinders, or heads (all delegated to the
controller), only blocks. This means that faster SCSI drives can
have multple arms - as many as 1 per quadrant, and can have
multiple heads on each arm - as many as 4 per arm. This reduces
seek time and latency, but raises the price. Many CD-ROM
drives offer some of these features. These features were very
popular on 5 inch and 8 inch drives (which had slower rotational
speeds).
The only thing left for the operating system to determine is which
file format to lay on the blocks.
> >IDE his "hit the wall" a number of times. First with 512 meg, then
> >with 4 gig, then with 8 gig, and then with 40 gig.
> > Each time, Microsoft
> >has come up with a last minute "suprise" to perpetuate IDE ove SCSI.
>
> Microsoft? Is M$ the main designer of these disks, or the main
> driver writer?
Yes. Microsoft establishes the standards used in the BIOS ROM, which
determines the capacity of the drive. Microsoft has held back high
capacity drives because they won't design a standard that supports
some rediculously large number. SCSI drives can support 4 billion
blocks, and blocks can range in size from 512 bytes to 4 kilobytes,
meaning a single SCSI device could theoretically support 16 terabytes.
Microsoft started out with Fat12 which limited drives to about 32 meg.
Then they introduced Fat 16, which allowed 65,535 clusters, and the
clusters were eventually increased to 32k. When the BIOS limit of
1024 cylinders was reached, Microsoft introduced support for Logical
Block Addressing (LBA). Eventually, NTFS it a 4 gig limit, and
the BIOS still has an 8 gig "line" which prevents the booting of
any system over the 8 gig line. And now they're doctoring FAT 32
and NTFS to get 32 gig partitions. Mind you, the actual innovations
were provided by the manufacturers far in advance of their introduction
into "Microsoft Standard" architecture. Connor, Seagate, and Maxstore
each had some severe financial problems as a direct result of
Microsoft's refusal to endorse ANY standards that would increase
capacity - prior to major OS upgrades. That year delay on Windows 95,
waiting for Fat 32 almost wiped out several drive makers.
Some very interesting software popped up to overcome the limitations
imposed by Microsoft. Because 32k mimumum allocations for files
was not very practical for storing flat-text e-mails of under 1k,
Lotus Notes created a very sophisticated database to manage the
storage. Methods of managing large archives and bundling of huge
files into a single source file were very common. Even to this day,
Microsoft uses ASP to overcome limitations related to managing
smaller files on Fat16.
NTFS has finer granularity, but still requires multiple redundant
mapping tables to prevent hard drive corruption. For performance
reasons, most administrators choose larger allocation sizes as much
as possible.
UNIX with SCSI has support for 8 terrabyte drives and 8 gigabyte
seekable files.
> >Apple is putting an IDE in the internal drive and using USB for
> >expansion storage. I'm suprised Apple didn't opt for fire-wire,
> >which would have given them about 40 times the bandwidth (400
> >megabits/second vs 15 megabits/second - which is really only 1.5
> >megabits/second).
>
> Actually, Apple does support FireWire; all of Apple's current
> Macs support it except for the cheaper iMacs.
That's good. Too bad Microsoft is trying so hard to kill it.
Maybe if Linux, Mac, and some of the OEM PC makers get behind it
(in spite of Microsoft) it will pick up some steam.
Unfortunately, getting every member of the IEEE (over 1 million)
to sign "crazy papers" is something that just isn't going to happen.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
