Linux-Advocacy Digest #6, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Mike Stump)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Mike Stump)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Loren Petrich)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Slipping away into time. ("Otto")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Slipping away into time. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux ap't vs. Micorosoft (was: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If
Micr (Osugi Sakae)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:00:53 GMT
In article <B31e5.3256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder - has ANY naval ship EVER had ANY malfuction of a computer
system
> that was running an OS other than Windows that caused it to have an
> equivelent type of failure (not necessarily "lost control of it's
propulsion
> system" but equal in criticality).
Yes and no. Predecessor systems were an abominable mix of
inhomogeneous, one-of-a-kind, sole-purpose, pork-barrel projects that
were so incompatible that they couldn't cooperate well enough to crash
each other. As for entire specialized shipboard subsystems going
out-of-service, it happened far too often, and the Navy's Smart Ship
program was conceived to address that deficiency, among others.
> Considering the US and Soviet militaries rely far more on the Unix
operating
> system than any other OS - does anyone suggest that Unix has NEVER
EVER
> failed not a single time to crash and take the system down around it?
Well... yes. And no. Because the systems didn't operate as an entity.
They could barely intercommunicate. Don't fool yourself that these were
predominantly UNIX systems either, as most of them were not even
commercial products. It would be an extreme stretch of the imagination
to even call some of these control programs "operating systems". One of
the prime goals of the Smart Ship program was to reduce the Navy's
reliance on custom software, and to utilize, to the greatest extent
possible, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software to control a vessel's
many electronic subsystems.
> Because this is one incident. True or not. It's one. Just one. Of a
version
> of NT that has since been patched and wholesale upgraded. We know the
navy
> continues to use NT and to date not a single other malfunction has
occured
> (and been reported as this one has so often been) related to NT or
Windows.
Well, it is true, but it really wasn't entirely an NT thing. The press
has, as usual, bungled this one completely. There's been a really
thorough analysis of the failure done, and I believe its unclassified if
you want to do a FOIA for it.
> So, does Unix share this success record? A SINGLE failure *during
testing*
Every OS or control program has had a similar track record. Each may be
better or worse, depending on how you analyze the statistics. Pilot
projects fail, some intentionally so. Much better to go adrift in sight
of Atlantic City than off the coast of Iraq.
> db
FWIW, I am a former employee of the prime contractor for the Smart Ship
program.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: 26 Jul 2000 22:46:54 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>lost+found is not the recycle bin Timmy. lost+found is a much better
>way of dealing with "lost" files compared to the Windows scandisk method
>of just creating a million files in the root directory. How many people
>have seen the root directory of a Windows machine with a huge number of
>files from scandisk checks?
Those files are often not the entire file they came from, but rather
fragments of those files. The files they came from are truncated.
Coincidentally, the files that get truncated this way the most are
usually binary files that can't be reassembled by hand.
--
Have you re-installed your operating system today?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:05:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Colin R. Day wrote:
>
>> And why does it require a specific packaging standard? Linux has at least
>> two package managers (dpkg and rpm), and one can also use tar.gz files.
>
>I've nothing against .tar.gz tar balls - but they're not what I'd call a
>package. For example, there's no easy way to uninstall a tar ball once it's
>been installed.
This is usually false in all the software I run/install. rm -rf does
a nice job. You may have not figured out that a --prefix is required
during the initial install.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:11:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As I said in another post, I have absolutely no problem was tar balls.
>But I wouldn't call them a proper "package" as such.
Doesn't change the fact they are a world wide defacto standard for
package distribution, both for source packages and for binary packages
that is one of the most popular packaging formats around and has been
around longer than almost all competing packaging formats, and will
outlive most other packaging formats. It is like claiming that zip
isn't a packaging format. Well, on my planet it is. Maybe not the
best format, maybe not as featureful as another format. Maybe not
blessed by ISO, but popular non-the-less.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:15:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> If the sticky bit is set on a regular file and no execute
> bits are set, the system's page cache will not be used to
> hold the file's data. This bit is normally set on swap
> files of diskless clients so that accesses to these files do
> not flush more valuable data from the system's cache. More-
> over, by default such files are treated as swap files, whose
> inode modification times may not necessarily be correctly
> recorded on permanent storage.
>
>The page says nothing about what happens if the execute bits are set.
*Ahem*.
AFAIK...
The actual purpose of the sticky bit (I thought, for this was all I knew
of it) was for when the execute bits are set. An executable file with
the sticky bit set runs with the access permissions of the *owner* of
the file, rather than the account which executed it. It seems obvious
why this information seems to have been lost in the mists of time: its a
horrendous security problem if not watched extremely carefully. Common
modern methods, unfortunately, are to 'su', even within a script, rather
than set the sticky bit (flexibility is a force which won't be denied,
even by security). It was used (and still is in small, carefully hidden
cases, I think) by network management software, for one thing. It would
allow a NOC operator, for instance, to run a program which could execute
as "root", without having to give the NOC operator access to the root
password and account. Of course, it gave anyone else with permissions
equal to the NOC operator a back-door to root-level capabilities for
hacking. Or so was the belief. You know how security works; nobody
trusts physics, but company policy is supposed to be transcendent of
technical reality.
I presume that the use of the sticky bit for page swap controls as well
as execute permission "inheritance" were simply both implemented using
the same feature because they were exclusive functionality; if
executable, the bit indicates execute permission, if non-executable, the
bit controls page swap behavior, as documented. I do recall someone
once telling me that the sticky bit had some other purpose, but they
weren't clear on what it was. The only question that remains, I guess,
is:
Why do they call it a sticky bit? Is it because, as I first figured
when I learned about this feature, it is through some analogy of the
owners permissions "sticking" to the file, available to the person who
executes it? Or is there some even more bizarre part of this somewhat
idiosyncratic and certainly not widely implemented tidbit?
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:15:13 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > None of that is in question. The question was about WRITING an OS in
> BASIC,
> > > not using a BASIC interpreter written in another language AS the OS.
> That
> > > is the source of your confusion.
> >
> > Sure. You write your OS in BASIC, and never run it, you can always
> > claim that you did a great job on it and BASIC is the _ideal_ tool for
> > OSes!
>
> Yea, reminds me of a certain shop. They used a computer since the mid 50's.
> Every few years they replaced their computer with modern state of the art
> model. They still wanted to run software for theold computer so they would
> purchase an emulator for the new computer that would run the programs of the
> previous computer. By the time that I encounterd the shop in the late 70's,
> they were running their old programs through as many as five layers of
> emulation programs. Talk about slow!
Oh man!
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:26:15 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lo7ia$1i4t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8lo2s6$c9p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer without
> >> > irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
> >> >
> >>
> >> IE is far more then the browers. Removing IE will damage windows.
Removing
> >> the web browsers will effect nothing.
> >
> >Removing kfm will damage KDEs ability to act as KDE.
>
> But removing KDE still leaves a very usable system.
Unless your definition of "usable" requires KDE.
Removing IE also leaves a very usable system, as long as your definition of
"usable" doesn't include "anything that uses IE".
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:18:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Traditional behavior is that if the execute bits are set, then
>the text remains resident in core.
This seems related, but distinct, from the explanation I got, which was
that the sticky bit (with execute bits set) dealt with access
permissions. The easiest example to use would be "traceroute", or the
old "etherfind". These programs require root permissions to run. But
if you set the sticky bit with the owner of the file being root, then
anyone can execute them.
--
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] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 27 Jul 2000 03:13:56 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:52:31 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > There is no excuse for Win9x. It is poorly engineered, period.
>
> No, it's quite well engineered. You have to think about the design
> considerations and restrictions when making such a statement, not how well
> it might compare to a product which had an entirely *different* set of
> design restrictions and considerations.
I don't really see how Windows benefitted from lacking a sane shared
library system for so long, for example. Unless you want to spin
theories about DLL hell generating revenue through commercial tech
support, which is I guess a reasonable conjecture.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 27 Jul 2000 03:21:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Maybe I'm perfectly HAPPY with the current policies of those
>> >corporations.
>> And I'm sure you'd keep on being "happy" even if they tried to
>> get some money to Al Gore's Presidential campaign.
>Considering Algore's current beliefs viz a viz public policy, I
>would say that an executive of any corporation that doesn't have a
>direct AND SUBSTANTIAL interest in electric cars (regardless of
>efficiency) would be idiotic to contribute to Algore's campaign.
Dream on. A lot of big business leaders are willing to contribute
to the Democratic Party, if only to insure that both likely alternatives
are thoroughly bought.
>This INCLUDES both the print media and the electronic media.
But you right-wingers wail about what Commies they are.
>Since Algore's part of the "nations are obsolete" party, and will do
>everything in his power to undermine the constitution INCLUDING
>FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
Where did you get those ideas from? In a grove of birch trees?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:25:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RqNf5.82535$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8lnjae$ngh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:22:30 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Geek is American slang which means: 1. a freak in a carnival troupe
whose
> > act consists of eating live animals. 2. any freak or pervert. 3. a
> > degenerate.
> >
> Where did you find your definition?
>
> http://www.m-w.com/home.htm Merriam-Webster website
>
> Main Entry: geek
> Pronunciation: 'gEk
> Function: noun
> Etymology: probably from English dialect geek, geck fool, from Low German
> geck, from Middle Low German
> Date: 1914
> 1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually
> includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
> 2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of
> - geeky /'gE-kE/ adjective
The definition I posted came from the "The New World Dictionary"
Dictionary of the American Language has this definition:
geek: 1. a carnival performer who devours living creature to shock or
disgust the audience 2. a disgusting person 3 a sociopath or psychopath
4. a degenerate or pervert
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:31:33 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been making some more observations and learning yet another Linux
> OS.
Who cares?
> The problem with Microsoft OS is the cost, the poor performance, poor
> reliability, the fact the
> government will break them up,,,, it goes on,,, total lack of security
> in design,,, on and on and on....
On the other hand, there is another four letter OS which hasn't changed
much. Life advances by technologies getting simple to use. There is no time
to spend on an obscure OS in year 2000, get with the program.
> In the last month, I've switched to Debian 2.2 [Potato]. Potato isn't
> out yet. It's still a beta.
You should've tried tomato, it passed the beta stage and it's ready for
consumption...
> It's rumored to be out sometime in mid August.
Sounds about right for potato..
> Truly, RED HAT, MANDRAKE, SUSE, CALDERA, while they won't go bankrupt,
> even if they did, Linux would continue on.
Yeah, as they say: "There is a sucker born every minute".
> Debian is proof of that
Sure is....
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: 26 Jul 2000 22:31:56 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Courageous wrote:
>
>> > Tell that to the poor fool who installs Linux out
>> > of the box and selects medium security and ends up
>> > with a wide open system.
>>
>> Out of the box, even on low security, having those
>> ports accessible is not a security problem. Out
>> of curiousity, does your windblows box run with
>> a well-known IP? Care to post it?
>>
>> *smile*
>>
>
>24.121.14.222... system is windows 2k server, running proxy server,
>http port 80. no rpc, netbios or other shit running...i would love to
>see you get in....haha
Huh? That address isn't accessable at all. What kind of
service is it supposed to be providing to the outside?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:35:25 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> This is usually false in all the software I run/install. rm -rf does
> a nice job. You may have not figured out that a --prefix is required
> during the initial install.
That's all very well if the software goes under one neat hierarchy - but
not all software does.
You do your make install --prefix=/usr/local; so files get put into
/usr/local/etc, /usr/local/bin, and various /usr/local/man directories.
How will a simple rm -fr help in this case?
Admittedly, the directory tree that gets created when you un-tar the
source code can easily be deleted, but that's besides the point.
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:34:48 GMT
Microsoft wins on human factors. Users are comfortable with what they
know, even if the technology they are using is flawed. They've become
accustomed to it. Not losing documents, not crashing, not rebooting
regularly, that's weird. Its uncomfortable for them. Its alien. It
may take a generation to bury the attitudes of the current crop of
consumers before Linux and other alternative OSen can gain significant
ground.
Exhort all you want, but promising a system that works as advertised
doesn't carry any weight with this generation. Bill Gates is their
hero, the DOJ is evil, and blue screens and CTRL-ALT-DELETE are as
common to them as the mouse.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux ap't vs. Micorosoft (was: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts
(was: If Micr
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:38:01 -0700
Tim Palmer,
I doubt that you care (hope you don't in fact) but
your spelling is so bad that you make me want to switch to a
real newsreader just so I could kill file you. It is actually
painful to read your stuff. Pity too, since the Liux Apt. piece
was fairly interesting.
Is there a reason for your horrible spelling? Are you 7 years
old? Is (despite your name) English not your native language? Do
you hand write your stuff, scan it in using really bad ocr
software, and post it without checking it?
I hate to ignore someone just because they cannot spell well,
but you are really exceptionally bad at it.
Have whatever sort of day you want.
--
Osugi Sakae
despite my name, Japanese is not my native language
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: 26 Jul 2000 22:41:38 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Squid is a shitty proxy server. It's fat, slow and takes way too much
>> ram to do the most simple routing. I prefer MS Proxy server a hell of
>> lot better than Squid. I only need 64 meg of ram max us NT and MS
>> Proxy, and 10 people on a cable modem don't notice the difference
>> between direct connect and proxy connect.
>
>Well that's because squid is really intended for big operations like a local
>ISP that uses a machine with 768M RAM and 50G of disk. Use tinyproxy for an
>example of a little, little, fast proxy.
Or just use something like the Linksys NAT router with the built in
4-port 10/100 switch. You can find it for less than $200. How
much did your PC, NT, and MS-proxy server cost?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
