Linux-Advocacy Digest #68, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Gnome or KDE (Oliver D. Bedford)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Some REAL fun before weekend (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:54:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "KLH" == KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> KLH> Sometimes I don't understand how anything as complex as UNIX
> KLH> can be as stable.
>
> KLH> It's complexity is one reason I think it should be killed. Not
> KLH> that I know of any suitable replacement for a general-purpose
> KLH> operating system, but I don't think it is the OS I want the
> KLH> future to use.
>
> Unix is complicated I have to agree.
>
> Part of this is for legacy reasons, part because of
>creeping featuritis.
Read it again. At best, Unix "complexity" is creeping featurism.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/The-Jargon-Lexicon-framed.html
> The main problem though is I think that what we are
>asking the OS to do is a fundamentally complex thing, and the OS
>reflects that.
>
> To me its much the same as the flavour of the month case
>tools that used to sprout out of every vendors catalogue. However much
>people have tried to decrease the complexity of coding a lot of it has
>remained.
"Programming is hard," said Barbie.
> Although I don't agree with what Churchill said, when he
>was talking about democracy, I think his statement can be applied
>nicely to unix, which is "its a worst possible operating system, but
>its better than all the others".
>
> It will be nice to see what OS's are like in 500 years time.
>Perhaps they will have advanced somewhat by then!
I think you'll be amazed what's going to happen in just the next ten, to
be honest. An open source de facto standard Unix-based operating system
is going to be a tremendous thing.
--
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:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:55:00 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >MH wrote:
>
> >> Another one of the new "compassionate conservatives".
> >Exactly how is it "compassionate" to steal from someone who is
> >productive to pay the lazy to sit around and do nothing?
>
> I don't see how welfare recipients are that much lazier than
> housewives. Especially housewives when their children are at school.
Who cares!?!?
The only person to make that determination is her husband.
> >> Which to honest, I
> >> can't figure out for the life of me. Same logic here says no abortion, no
> >> food stamps, no soup for you. But once the kid is born, the hell with 'em.
> >> Only the strong survive here. If you develop an illness and lose your job,
> >> you're SOL. If you're raped and become pregnant you're SOL. If you develop
> >> any sort of problem that impedes your ability to provide for yourself,
> >> that's right, you're SOL.
> >Ever hear of this concept called "personal responsibility"
>
> So if Mr. Kulkis becomes a crime victim, he will accept
> responsibility for allowing that crime to happen?
Using the thought processes of a 6 year old is not victory.
Criminals are always responsible for their crimes.
>
> >> This guy may truly believe what he says above, but all he is actually
> >> supporting is stripping money from these programs to line the pockets of
> >> others who already have their pockets full. This is the type of voter the
> >Oh, you mean the corporate welfare bullshit that the Democrats
> >have enacted for the last 50 years....
>
> With the full cooperation of your beloved Republicans?
Prove it.
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:58:14 GMT
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:48:04 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:05:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >
>> >> ...depends on what sort of network effects are involved.
>> >> KDE has been dragging their feet getting Xdnd support in,
>> >> so that is one network effect to deal with already.
>> >
>> >And you say *I* misrepresent stuff. Amazing.
>> >You know, Jedi, every time you say this kind of crap, I will
>> >post to correct you.
>> >
>> >* There are already three KDE beta releases that use Xdnd.
>> >
>> >* There has not been a release that used anything else for over a year.
>> >
>> >* There has been ongoing work on Xdnd and not on the other protocol
>> > for over a year.
>>
>> Then I should be able to grab a year old copy of Redhat or Suse
>> and use KDE and GNOME components as if they came from one desktop.
>
>What is the connection between that and what I said?
If it's there, and been there for a year, then why
can't someone use it. If it can be used, merely point
out how it can be accomplished.
IOW: cite an example.
>
>You should be able to get the version of KDE where development was being
>made a year ago, and drag and drop stuff from/to GNOME, modulo bugs.
>
>If that is enough for you to say "use KDE and GNOME components as if
>they
>came from one desktop", then sure.
>
>> Mind pointing out a few examples of how I might go about doing this?
>
>Well, you can use cvs, get the version from july 1999 (KDE2 branch),
>and compile it.
>
>> Those that actually use KDE around here seem to have a different
>> impression of the situation than you do.
>
>Who would "those" be, and where have they expressed that "impression"?
>Care to quote?
Try a search on dejanews for me, KDE and Xdnd.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oliver D. Bedford)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: 28 Jul 2000 23:03:35 +0200
"Pig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am a newbie of Linux and using the SUSE linux 6.3.
> I've tried different GUIs.
> I think the Gnome and KDE are the best.
If you're a newbie _and_ using SUSE I suggest KDE.
But to make things easier you should install both.
> So, which one is better? Pls. suggest.
Depends...
Oliver
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 28 Jul 2000 21:07:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said abraxas in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>Sorry, im used to 65,000 node + networks containing hundreds of subnets.
>>A couple of days to discover the entire thing, couple more days to get
>>enough stats to build a tweak-strategy (not my term), then 2 or 3 weeks
>>to implement that. And then an absolutely dedicated machine for management,
>>and an entirely separate one for compilation.
>>
>>And thats on a humungoid sparc w/ 4 hme's.
>>
>>You're obviously used to something smaller.
>>
>>-----yttrx
>
> You sound like you got a *right* fine job, dude. Where do I sign up?
>
System administration is never *right* fine, it always sucks...there are
merely different degrees of suckage...
But if you want a job just like mine, go work for a really huge cable
company. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:12:02 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > I agree BUT, ee may not need GUI config tools, but others do. It would
> > be a shame to keep others away from Linux just because there was no
> > concerted effort to improve things (and in fact there is now).
>
> Why do they have to be graphical user interface tools to be easy to use?
They don't. But cater for what people are "used" to and Linux will
become more popular.
> There are character mode programs can do the same kind of work. They can
> take advantage of the mouse via gpm. They can be colorful and have the
> appearence of haveing windows and buttons and the rest of the GUI controls
> or widgets. The login shell can be a menu program. Thanks to curses and/or
> termcaps these programs can work on just about any terminal in the
> databases. Multiple programs running for the user can be handled by
> switching VC's or using programs like screens and splitvt.
Yes all true. This is still unfamiliar to most people. In fact the
concept of switching views (any "view") is very confusing for the novice
(yes I know that to us it seems as easy as anything - but I am talking
about a different audience).
> The real problem with configurations tools as they exist is that they impose
> their restrictions on to the configuration of the host. Of those that I
> have encountered they don't generate very readable configuration files. If
> the sysadmin make ANY manual changes to the configuration files, they are
> lost the next time the easy to use configuration tool is used.
Yes. Like I said in answer to others who have put this point: don't
shoot the concept of EOU just because a program does not work well. If
we judged EOU by the standards of windows then we'd be setting our
sights rather low I'd suggest.
> A proper easy to use configuration tool would have to be able to parse all
> the configuration files of the system. Interpret and and handle any
> possible permutations of the system configuration files and would have to be
> able to accept and honor any manual configurations that have been performed.
Agreed. Config files should be respected by programs.
> A problem with such a tool is that it would be "obsolete" as soon as any of
> the packages that require any those configuration files is updated and adds
> a single new feature to its configuration file or has a internal behavorial
> modification that the configuration tool's view of the package does not take
> into account. Then again each time some new software has been developed,
> the configuration tool is obsolete until it is updated to know of that new
> package.
If the package is updated then the config tool should be at the same
time rendering this point invalid. It's all in the packaging: RPM it (or
deb-it).
> Not everyone will be running the same versions of the software packages
> either, which can also cause other problems for the easy to use
> configuration tools. If the configuration tool assumes that a system has a
> certain version of a certain software package, but in truth another version
> is actually installed it could generate invalid configuration files for that
> package.
Yes true. BUT, most novice users we may assume to be using a
distribution and it is this that can provide the conformity needed to
introduce coherent usage policies. If our config files are respected as
per your previous point, then we are free to use/abuse things as we wish
and are not effected or "dumbed down".
> Some of those problems could be solved by having the configuration tool use
> modules to handle each of the packages and it would be the responsibility of
> the user from the "great majority of people" to make certain that the
> correct configuration tool modules are installed for his hosts. Or the
> configuration tool would have to support all the different versions of every
> program in the could run in the unix and Linux environments that require
> configuration files. It would then be the responsibility of the user from
> the "great majority of people" to make certain the the configuration tool is
> configured to know which packages and which versions of those packages are
> installed.
>
> Can you say bloated software?
You don't need to solve every problem all of the time. Just the main
problems that come up time & time again.
> In whatever case, the easy to use configuration tool become the
> configuration and maintenance problem that will become the focus and excuse
> to avoid Linux.
No way! This doomsday will not come to pass. Come on, lets get positive.
It seems as if people are too scared of the Corels in this world to make
the tentative steps to make things easier to use.
If Linux can spring up from nothing to a OS comparable with a billion
dollar corporation's flagship product within a few short years then I
would just suggest that the next step would be to examine the issues
needed to bring the enjoyment of a reliable OS to even more people than
it has reached already. I'd suggest that we avoid negativity towards
people's views on EOU. Otherwise Linux is condemned to be used by us
only and that would be a shame. You want to beat M$ at their own game?
Do you think that Linux "has the right stuff"? Then the next battle is
for the desktop and without changing some attitudes in the Linux
community then I'll tell you now that it's doomed to fail.
There is no compulsion to make Linux ready for novice users. It just
seems the correct thing to do at THIS time. Linux is not competing with
M$, it's just about choice. If choice is still respected with regard to
the EUO solutions that are proposed then I see no ill effects to those
who enjoy the hack value. Hard to achieve? Yes, most things of
importance are. As a programmer I'll tell you that it's far easier to
get users to type in cryptic commands than it is for me to think about
the user - not just the functionality. Linus once said that a real man
writes his own drivers. I'd suggest that the modern man thinks about the
end user (without excluding driver writing of course).
Just my 1$Worth
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:11:45 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> However, given that he believes that the loss of the Soviet
> >> Union's Eastern European empire was some devious plot, I suspect that he
> >> will continue to be ideologically dogmatic on this issue.
> >Considering that SEVERAL Soviet defectors in the MID-1980's
> >all said the same thing, what does that tell you...
>
> Which ones? And did they have direct access to the Protocols of
> the Elders of the Kremlin?
>
> Moscow's sovereignty has retreated to the Brest-Litovsk line and
> it's supposed to be one big deception? Complete with totally *losing*
> Germany? And with NATO creeping toward their borders?
The purpose is obvious:
US ICBM's: 30% reduction since 1990
Average age of US ICBM: 10 years older than in 1990
US Tank fleet, 1990: 2,000 M1 series
US tank fleet, 2000: 2,000 M1 series
US Aircraft Carriers retired: 1990-2000: 4
US Aircraft Carriers launched: 1990-200: 1
US Navy vessels retired 1990-200: 30%
US combat battalions, Percent change: 1990-2000: 50% reduction.
==================================================================
Number of ICBM's in Russia:
No change since 1990
Average age of a Russian ICBM:
aging fleet of 20+ year old missiles has been replaced.
Russian Tank fleet in 1990 2,500 T-70's
Russian Tank fleet in 2000 4,000 T-88's and growing
Russian Aircraft Carriers retired 1990-2000: 0
Russian Aircraft Carriers launched 1990-200: 2
Russian Navy vessels retired 1990-200: very few.
Number of Russian combat battalions, Percent change, 1990-200:
Less than 5%
--
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.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:14:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rich> On 19 Jul 2000, Phillip Lord wrote:
> >> I think that its unlikely that a standard scripting language will
> >> ever happen. Look at how many people still use sh.
> Rich> Err, that's because sh *is* the standard UNIX scripting
> Rich> language!
> Sorry that came out backwards.
>
> The original post was about potential improvements to
>unix in the future. The suggestion was to have python (or similar) as
>the scripting language. It would be nice to replace sh scripts with
>some better language. But this has never happened. There are many
>better scripting languages around, but the none of the has replaced
>sh, rather there are just lots of them around. Python appears to be
>a nice one from what I know of it, but it will never become a
>standard. Even sh which is no longer a standard, as it exists in many
>different forms, with slight incompatibilities.
>
> Now of course this is not in the slightest what I wrote, but
>it was what I had in mind. Believe it or not.
It dovetails with my thinking, actually. In studying various types of
standards, specifications, protocols, and technologies during the
Internet boom, I've noticed that whether something is even a very good
solution, let alone the 'best' solution, is entirely non-related to
whether it is a standard. The criterion for a standard spec don't seem
based on engineering so much as happenstance. There's just too many
things going on, and the efficiencies inherent in adopting a standard
are overwhelmingly greater than any benefit of one particular solution
over another. The best solution is the one that fits enough of the
reasons most *easily*, not whether it fits the greatest number of them
the best.
ALL of the really enduring standards (if there is such a thing) which
are successful have some magical nuance or key mechanism which allows it
to be most easily adopted as the standard. From then on, its value is
as a standard for interoperability, not a specification for
compatibility. The Bourne shell interpreter was simply the most
eloquent at a time when eloquence was an extremely important part of its
chance of adoption. Since then, its almost as if (though I realize this
isn't really the case) sh is a "superset" of the C and Korne shells and
such.
My perspective is, of course, a bizarre one, as usual, I guess. I
learned Unix and shells on workstations used for network management.
These are always "bastard step-children", and tend to illustrate both
the best and the worst in different aspects. I'm not just thinking of
my personal experience, though, but my observations of the typical users
in several hundred different companies.
Its a divergent topic, but I was thinking about something I'd noticed,
which seems pretty obvious, but is one of those things you might not
want to believe isn't just selection bias. And that is, that people
think the first shell they learned how to use is "right", and is
"better" than all others.
I've observed, in my work, that the chance of your favorite shell being
the one you first learned are about 100% *if that was the first computer
system you ever used regularly*. It drops very quickly to about 75% if
it was your second or third shell of any kind, but it is still more
likely that the first Unix shell you learned is the "best", in your
opinion. It doesn't sink below statistical relevance, I'd guess, unless
you'd already learned at least three different computer interfaces
before using your first Unix shell.
Having provided such 'pseudo-research', and recognizing the dangers,
I'll point out that this wasn't a grant study, and Usenet posters are
unquestionably an atypical sample of any real population. ;-)
--
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: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:15:35 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > > and remove the trailing ")" after the "S" and ";" does work as a
> remark code
> > ^
> >
> > Ooooooooooh, a fucking typo at 3:00 in the morning.
> > Spare me, loser.
>
> Computers don't forgive typos. Why should *he* forgive you, then?
I don't have a machine to even test any BASIC code with....
>
> BTW... aren't you the one who programs in 15 languages? This puts me
> in mind of a musician I knew, who, when someone else said "I can play
> 10 instruments" responded "Fine, but which one can you play?"
I play whatever is needed.
>
> Do you consider C among those? Try documenting the errors,
> portability issues and poor coding practices in this... without
> resorting to a compiler, lint tool or similar. For sake of
> discussion, C89/90 applies, rather than C99, if only because C99
> conformant compilers are hard to come by.
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> void main()
^^^^
/* main is always of type int ...AND you return 1 below*/
> {
> double *ptr;
> int i;
> ptr = (double *)malloc(100 * sizeof(double) );
^^^^
/* used a literal instead of a programmer-defined symbol */
>
> if ( ptr = NULL )
/* this is an ASSIGNMENT, not a test; should be ptr == NULL */
> {
> printf( "Can't allocate memory!" );
> return 1;
> }
>
> for ( i = 0; i <= 500; i++ )
^^^^
/* didn't use literal..... only made space for 100 above */
> *ptr++ = 100.0;
/* pointless code block ... data is assigned, and then never used */
/* optimizing compilers might remove the code entirely -- depending
/* on understanding of free() */
>
> printf( "Press any key to continue." );
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
/* 1. Getchar won't work until the user presses return.
*/
/* 2. sloppy output: you didn't print a newline. \n */
> getchar();
>
> free( ptr );
> printf( "Done!" );
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
/* Very sloppy output: no newline before terminating. */
> }
--
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: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some REAL fun before weekend
Date: 28 Jul 2000 21:19:06 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: Like this one:
: Microsoft is creating an advanced new generation of software that
: melds computing and communications in a revolutionary new way,
: offering every developer the tools they need to transform the Web and
: every other aspect of the computing experience.
I wonder what they mean by "the computing experience"? If I dropped
a Sun Enterprise 4500 on some unsuspecting passerby, would I be giving
him a "Sparc experience"?
If Microsoft really wants to give me an "experience", they should
expenses-paid trips to Hawaii with their software.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:21:43 -0400
Nevin Liber wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Close. That's the "Set User ID" bit
>
> >> why this information seems to have been lost in the mists of time: its a
> >> horrendous security problem if not watched extremely carefully. Common
>
> >It's still in VERY heavy use in Unix.
>
> >Example: you can't PROPERLY implement mkdir without it.
>
> You can't properly implement mkdir (as in /bin/mkdir) with it either, which
> is why most versions of Unix implement it as a system call these days.
> The last time I heard of this being attempted was back in AT&T System
> V Release 2, circa late 80s. Is there someone in the modern world still
> doing this?
Whoops, made a mistake. The change of UID is done inside the kernal.
>
> It isn't sufficent to just have permission to "edit" directory files that
> you don't have write permission for; you also need to guarantee that
> mkdir is an atomic operation, or you risk corrupting your filesystem.
> The way that one makes operations atomic under Unix is to make them a
> system call.
>
> ><confusion snippped>
>
> If you have a counterexample, I'd be more than interested in seeing it.
> There are uses for the setuid bit, but this isn't one of them.
> --
> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (773) 961-1620
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
