Linux-Advocacy Digest #366, Volume #28 Sat, 12 Aug 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
on MS .NET vaporware (s@nowhere)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform (A transfinite number of
monkeys)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform (A transfinite number of
monkeys)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (Pan)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
I do not understand the sudden issue of "the GUI in the Linux kernel" bit... (was
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: s@nowhere
Subject: on MS .NET vaporware
Date: 12 Aug 2000 15:26:32 -0700
http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$133
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 12 Aug 2000 23:57:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:23:48 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>Mike Marion wrote:
>
>>Too bad more people aren't looking at it that way. I see the 'must
>>clone Windows' crowd speaking up more and more and it's pretty silly.
>
>It's hardly surprising ( perhaps obvious ) but I'll point out that these
>people make a lot of noise and don't write any code. And if they don't
>code, then they can spout all the BS they like and it won't make any
>difference.
>
Ah, but I think it will, actually. Many of these people
are putting their suggestions to companies such as RedHat,
and SuSE. And if enough people make enough noise, they
can usually convince a company to make their suggestions
into product.
Understand, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a
_good_ thing.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| -| And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:06:02 GMT
On 11 Aug 2000 05:56:36 GMT, Mr Jama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Greetings. This is not a troll. I am looking for serious help here.
:
: I am responsible for the technical architecture for the Internet site of a
: relatively major company (billions in income). It is my opinion that NT
: provides the most cost-effective solution for our requirements. First off, I
: think NT is as scalable as Unix. And even if it weren't, out user base is
: relatively small. We're not launching Amazon.com here. We have a small
: number
: of clients (thousands) that spend lots (millions).
Sorry for the condescending tone, but you've never seen large scale Unix
systems, have you? NT just doesn't scale to that size. At least, not
without constructing a *LARGE* "RAIC" (Redundant Array of Inexpensive
Computers) and using rather expensive clustering solutions. Example?
Oracle's "data challenge". They will pay $1 Million to a company that
can (using a competitor's database) run specific, pre-defined tests
on a 1-Terabyte database at 1% (yes, that's one percent) of the speed as
Oracle's test system did. Their test system ran on Sun, using Oracle 8i.
Nobody has claimed the prize yet.
Consider that statement. Nobody has claimed the prize yet. People have
tried using NT and SQL Server, only to fail miserably. Now granted, you're
probably not going to be running with a terabyte of data, but isn't it
good to know that you've got lots of room to grow beyond the few gigs
you've already got?
: Hey, I'm happy to be wrong. But I want some facts to prove it. He claims
: that
: Unix has about 2 security problems identified per month, whereas NT averages
: about 12. He also claims that NT takes 2+ weeks to post patches whereas Unix
: vendors typically take 2 days after a problem is identified.
2 per month? Frankly I'd be surprised if you were affected by two per
quarter. If you are affected by more, you need to re-think your security
policy, and consider adding/fixing your firewalls and intrusion detection
systems. Let's be serious, who in their right mind exposes services like
NFS to the public? Or how about database listeners? Or how about X?
If you've got a web server that faces the world, why are you showing the
world anything BUT http/https?
Even with this line of thinking, NT still has far more vulnerabilities than
*nix systems do. Witness the absolute dearth of IIS vulnerabilities.
Witness the fact that on NT 4.0, with IIS 4.0 in a default configuration,
I can read *ANY* file from your web server's hard drive, using nothing
more than my web browser.
Any system needs to be locked down before exposing it to the public, even
Unix systems. However, the lockdown on Unix is much more straight-forward
than it is on NT. How about, for example the default NT filesystem
permissions, "Everyone - Full Control"? Wow, if a unix vendor shipped
a system that had every file/directory on the filesystem mode 777, they'd
be laughed out of business in a heartbeat.
: What about browsers? Is this guy just a Unix weenie, or does he have a
: point?
He's a weenie with a point.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 13 Aug 2000 00:07:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>> There was an interesting email on the kernel mailing list the other
>> day concerning an extra filesystem "accidentally" slipping in during
>> the 2.4 freeze that could lead one to believe that there's a fair
>> bit of politicking... (The language was _quite_ profane, and one
>> of the more dramatic harangues that I've ever read...)
>
>Then do you understand my concern? I know at times I come across like a
>radical on this subject, but I'm really saying, "Don't let this happen
>in the base system!" I personally don't give a rat's ass about Corel,
>but if they somehow give enough other distributions, which somehow give
>the base developers, the idea that they are 'kewl' and picking up steam
>because of their 3l33tn35s, then I would assume a feature that would
>overall be detrimental to the group effort could just 'slip in' and
>eventually become *important*.
>
>Not to sound alarmist, but we should at least pay attention to the
>*possibility* that it could be a problem. Always keep your eyes open
>for what *may* happen. Cause if you ain't watchin', they'll 'slip'
>something thru on you.
To be honest with you, Nathaniel, I think you're beginning to
make a mountain out of a molehill here. :-)
I think you're forgetting one of the most obvious boons to
OpenSource software... you can modify it to your liking.
If the base code of Linux gets polluted with crap that you
don't want, why not simply modify it to your liking, or if
you are not a programmer, suggest it to someone?
Heck, WindowsNT is anything but OpenSource, and I've
managed to keep a lot of the crap from newer versions
of IE, and such from polluting my system. In fact,
I've totally discontinued use of IE, and I've recently
gone back to using PC-Pine (Win32), Netscape Navigator
standalone (v4.08 has always worked well for me), and
now I'm using XNews for USENET access. Believe me, I
understand your vehement dislike of the whole "extra
fat to fill the package" mentality. But there are ways
around it, and with OpenSource, there are ways to avoid
it completely.
There are choices, even if the crowd is doing things
that you don't agree with. If I can avoid the "fat"
with WindowsNT, anyone can do so with Linux.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:09:58 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:35:37 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Actually, the phenom is "No one ever got fired for choosing Solaris for
: Internet platforms". IMHO, one may get fired for using NT because NT
: is simply not stable enough to run an Internet service. A friend of
: mine runs his web site on NT and has to reboot the machine every two
: weeks or so because the bloody MTS knocks IIS down.
I'm not going to talk about "friends" that "told me". I've seen it first
hand. I've been onsite at a large, national insurance company that has
a large office in the Philadelphia area. Standard operating procedure
there is to reboot everything that is NT Sunday night at 7:00PM EST.
I asked about this policy, and they told me that their NT crashes have
decreased by 25% since instituting the weekly reboot.
Their Solaris and HP-UX machines only reboot for patches that require
a system restart, and stay up typically, for months at a time.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:12:10 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Once again, you start out talking about something relatively
interesting... whether or not communism is currently practised in russia
( In my opinion, it has only ever been practised in name only ) and then
descend into nothing more than a litany centered on you bashing someone.
I'd be happy to take issue with your notion of what does and does not
constitute communism. More to the point, why soviet russia was not
communist in any true sense of the term, why communism ~= human slavery,
and why americans, esp. those educated during the cold war, often have
trouble grasping that point.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Communism is the opposite of Libertarianism.
Depends on how one defines communism, I suppose. If one equates
communism with totalitarianism, then perhaps you have a case. IMO,
communism is a historical stage that has nothing to with totalitarian
rule.
FWIW, I see libertarianism as not much more than idealistic world view
dreamed up by people who are reaping the fruits of a mixed economy but
who don't like paying taxes and who have forgotten how much of their tax
money has actually gone to creating an infrastructure that makes
possible an environment of economic prosperity through social and
political stablity.
If anything has been proved conclusively in our grand public experiment
it is that neither corporations nor individuals can be relied upon to
voluntarily pay for public goods such as roads and other public
infrastructure, they cannot be relied upon to look out for the general
welfare. There is a reason that without exception, every one of the
strongest economies in the world has a welfare state.
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
> > each other, perhaps it's time for the 2 of you to consider switching to
> > email or at least to alt.we.can't.keep.our disagreements.civil
>
> ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Sure, why bother with civility?
personal attack snipped...
personal attack snipped...
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 13 Aug 2000 00:18:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Jacques Guy wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > I have recently seen one of those threads quoted in one of those
>> > free computer rags that you find at the newspaper stands. The rag
>> > was in favour of the merging the kernel with the GUI and having all
>> > the Linux software "run like Windows software".
>>
>> That is advocating reverting to "spaghetti code". I had never
>> realized
>> until now that MS-Windows was like that. I thought -- it seemed the
>> only sensible way of going about it -- that the graphics interface was
>> functionally separate from the underlying operating system, i.e. I
>> thought
>> it was on built on DOS, and the rest, the GUI, was "tinsel on the
>> Christmas
>> tree", to borrow a German expression. I still find it difficult to
>> believe that the Windows GUI is not completely independent. It does
>> not
>> make sense. No wonder the thing is full of bugs, then. No, it really
>> does
>> not make sense. It is like going back to global variables only, GOSUBs
>> and
>> GOTOs -- and I don't think I am overstating the analogy at all.
>There was a time when NT was criticized heavily for 'integrating' the
The GDI was not integrated into the kernel. It just runs in the
same address space.
>GUI into the kernel itself because of the possibility that it would
>de-stabilize the system. Unfortunately, the same people that criticized
It was very unlikely for such a thing to destabilize anything.
For one, even when the GDI was a separate module, a driver
or hardware fault would still bring the system to its knees.
>it then are now clamouring for Linux to do the same thing because of
>'how well it works on Windows'. Frankly, if that's their idea of
>something working *well*, I'd just as soon they used what they consider
>to work well and leave Linux alone.
I agree with your opinion here, mostly because I don't think
that X belongs in the kernel's address space. One of the
strengths of UNIX is being able to be used on hardware that
needs zero direct interaction from the administrator.
Microsoft's logic for having the GDI implemented on the server,
is that it would make the system easier to administer. Well,
it does, if you understand WindowsNT well, and know what your
choices are (UNIX administration is quite different from
WindowsNT administration, and the two require different
approaches).
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:27:44 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > The only valid point there is weather prediction. Space probes? I don't give
> > a shit.
>
> That's the same thing many medievel people said about seafaring
> expeditions across the Atlantic.
In 500 years time the human species will be extinct. We were talking about
innovations, so I would think that usefulness to humanity was a primary
consideration. If space probes have been of any use, this is completely
inaccessible to the public in a way that, say, the Hubble Space Telescope
is not.
> Has anybody ever told you how small-minded you are?
Yes; Libertarians, Fascists and Americans. But that's like a Klan member
accusing me of intolerance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: I do not understand the sudden issue of "the GUI in the Linux kernel" bit...
(was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: 13 Aug 2000 00:28:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I have recently seen one of those threads quoted in one of those free
>> computer rags that you find at the newspaper stands. The rag was in
>> favour of the merging the kernel with the GUI and having all the Linux
>> software "run like Windows software".
>
>Ah, let the people be heard!
>
>This is the stuff I find scary. I don't mind the idea of 'modularizing'
>the graphical interface into the kernel (as I believe some of the early
>efforts are underway to do so), just don't make it something that is
>*forced* on me.
Again, I think that you are making a mountain out of a
molehill here. How is OpenSource software, or any
changes in it _forced_ on anyone?
For the longest time, Linux adovcates have been crowing on about
how the main advantage of OSS, is that you can take the source,
modify it, and redistribute it. Why has the situation changed?
I don't understand... what's the big deal here? So some people
want the X protocol in kernel address space... so what? How can
that possibly affect you, and how can they possibly sit there in
your office, hold a gun to your head, and say "use this, dammit!"?
If Linux gets munged to the point where you no longer like it,
and you don't want to, or cannot make the changes you want to
the base system, then simply leave it for something else. After
all, isn't another touted strength of UNIX environments the
interoperability factor? Go to Free/Open/NetBSD, or even a
commercial UNIX variant, if you have the means.
8<SNIP>8
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:26:43 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3995d18f$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> Yes Perry Mason. You do not understand - we are not in a court room.
> >> The burden of proof lies with the vendor. In the case of MS they are
not
> >lying
> >> about Windows2000 - They admited W2K DC is more stable than the PC OSs
you
> >> advocate.
>
> >Can you post a link, or a scan where MS specifically says we are selling
> >Datacenter Server because our Advanced Server isn't reliable enough. I'm
> >nearly through wasting time on you
>
> Yes. Go. You have told us nothing worth knowing --
I do realize that when reality doesn't match your accepted myths, it is very
hard to take, your a living example of that.
>The fact is there are OS2
> and Unix servers out there that have been running longer then this M$
stuff
> have been available as an idea. When it has that degree of proven
> reliability, someone might notice.
Apache AND Microsoft have vitually taken over as webservers since 1996 with
62% and 20% respectively.
> I implore you to clue in on the fact
> >that it's just another offering, it isn't making up for anything. It's
just
> >an OS for HUGE networks. Advanced Server is still as rock solid as ever.
The
> >average person cannott even lay hands on it (Datacenter Server) without
> >purchasing the matching hardware.
>
> You have no idea how companies with mission critical systems conduct their
> work. Shutup while you're ahead.
I forgot to include this link in the first reply:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/overview/default.asp
I'm still waiting for Joseph to back up his foolish claim that by
introducing Datacenter Server, MS is somehow "admitting" any smaller
packages of server are unreliable.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
