Linux-Advocacy Digest #101, Volume #29 Wed, 13 Sep 00 20:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Commercial or "branded" Open Source SW ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Commercial or "branded" Open Source SW (David Dorward)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (Thomas Corriher)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Mark Johnson)
Re: Why NT is shite ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("David Sidlinger")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:46:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:47:51 GMT
<b1Bv5.167$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Nik Simpson wrote:
>> >
[snip for brevity]
>
>> Because I don't know you and I have seen too many script kiddies who
>> might use the code to do damage. If you can satisfy me that you are only
>> going to crash your own system, I will give you the name of the book
>> where the code has been published. It caused a big flap six or seven
>> years ago when it was first published. Nice to see nothing has been
>> fixed in all that time.
>
>
>n1/<, Ph33R h1Z l33Tn355. h3'Z 4 m4s3t3R H4x0R 4nD j0o B3tTa pH33R
>h1S l33t B10S h4x tH4t 0nLy m4g1c4llY w3rx 0n NT.
Uh...what he said.
>
>Remember, PCs running Linux don't have a BIOS, so they're not
>vulnerable to the types of BIOS problems that mere regular
>PCs have.
Say what??
All consumer-level ix86 equipment that is capable of running Windows
(and Linux) has a BIOS; without a BIOS, it can't load the bootsector!
Most other worstation equipment has the equivalent of a BIOS, too;
SPARCs have a FORTH-like control system, for example; HP PA RISC has
an Initial Program Loader.
I'm not quite sure about things such as Palm Pilots, though,
in their case, all code might be in ROM...?
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:53:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:33:16 GMT
<0ACv5.260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8pmn01$fmm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> > n1/<, Ph33R h1Z l33Tn355. h3'Z 4 m4s3t3R H4x0R 4nD j0o B3tTa pH33R
>> > h1S l33t B10S h4x tH4t 0nLy m4g1c4llY w3rx 0n NT.
>> >
>> > Remember, PCs running Linux don't have a BIOS, so they're not
>> > vulnerable to the types of BIOS problems that mere regular
>> > PCs have.
>>
>> Uh... yes they do. PCs running Linux use the BIOS to run LILO.
>
>Re-read the thread. You'll know what I'm talking about.
>
>lyttlec seemed to imply that he had some extraordinary hack that
>could bring down any NT box and then claimed it had something to
>do with nuking the BIOS. He said this so matter of factly so as
>to imply that NT was the only OS that fell prey to BIOSen being
>nuked.
My guess is what he meant is that it would nuke the CMOS settings.
Those aren't stored in ROM; they're stored in either CMOS RAM with a
battery backup, or an EEAPROM-type thing; I don't know anymore.
No doubt that could do some strange stuff to a computer; if the
shadow settings are off, for example, it just might not boot, or be
very unreliable. (I've had that happen to me.)
Or one can erase the disk definitions and disable the "auto-scan"
flag (however it determines the disk geometry); a compromised system
will have to have its BIOS reset. If it also sets the BIOS password
(many systems have them), one might have to resort to some interesting
measures -- the simplest one being removing the inboard battery -- to
try to get the system back.
Not a nice thing.
(As for trying to do this sort of thing on Linux -- I suspect it is
possible, but would require a program running as root and trying to
do something cute to /dev/kmem -- CMOS settings are usually stored
at 0040:00000 if memory serves. The usual disclaimers apply, of course.)
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Commercial or "branded" Open Source SW
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:46:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I am a researcher doing a project on the Open Source movement and
hope
> > that I can get some opinions from advocates -- unfiltered by the
> > business press:
> >
> > 1. Is commercial or "branded" open source software (e.g. linux,
> > apache) such as Red Hat a good idea? What are the advantages and
> > disadvantages?
>
> Well it is still open source, and anything based on GNU software has
to
> have the source code released. You also get the advantage of thins
such
> as manuals and support.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "it is still open source" --
what does this mean to you/why is it important to you. Yeah, I know
all of the standard reasons but I would like to hear from real people
instead of ghost writers.
>
> > 2. Would you buy "branded" open source software? Why or why not?
>
> Yes, to save download costs, have pressed CDs, to have mauals and to
> have support if I need it.
>
> > I've read a lot about this topic but it seems that every reporter
has
> > their own opinion so it's hard to tell what users really think.
>
> --
> David Dorward
> http://www.dorward.co.uk/
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:03:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:12:12 GMT
<M2Lv5.2752$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
[snip for brevity]
>> > Remember, PCs running Linux don't have a BIOS, so they're not
>> > vulnerable to the types of BIOS problems that mere regular
>> > PCs have.
>> >
>> > -Chad
>
><snip drivel about Linux's kernel being 1-200K and completely
>worthless>
Last I looked my in-memory footprint was 2.4K, although part of that
might be the A000:0000 - FFFF:FFFF conventional memory area.
I have 64M in this system and 'free' is teling me I have 63144;
2392K are missing. For what it's worth. (Side note: A000:0000
to FFFF:0000 is 384K, which means my kernel's using up 2008K.)
>
>
>> But about the BIOS. Linux only needs the BIOS to launch LILO. You will
>> admit that even NT uses BIOS at boot. If you can trick the OS into
>> jumping into BIOS on crash instead doing HALT, what a coup.
>
>"trick the OS into jumping into BIOS on crash instead of doing HLT"
>
>jumping into BIOS?
>
>Do YOU even know what the hell you're talking about?
Why not? Most BIOSes have some sort of waitloop in there, to service
the keyboard so that a casual user can reset things. It's not
totally inconceivable to be able to "jump into" that waitloop, or
an entry point, and leave the system in an interesting state.
Of course, this is probably not published anywhere as a standard, so
one might have a virus, trojan horse, or other malicious code be able
to compromise a system with, say, a Phoenix bios, but not AMI, and only
a certain version.
Nor is it clear that it buys the hacker much, unless the hacker can
figure out how to make the BIOS talk to the network card or the
modem for control isntructions. (Good luck on that score.)
>
>-Chad
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- that might be a neat hack, but very dangerous and
probably currently impossible
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Commercial or "branded" Open Source SW
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:05:06 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "it is still open source" --
> what does this mean to you/why is it important to you. Yeah, I know
> all of the standard reasons but I would like to hear from real people
> instead of ghost writers.
My main reason for using open source is that bugs generally get fixed
very quickly, becuase even if the origional author of the software won't
fix it (e.g. Microsoft already has your money and won't get more unless
they convince you an upgrade to a new version deserves to take a chunk
out of your bank balance) then somebody else can and usually does.
--
David Dorward
http://www.dorward.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Corriher)
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1]
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:14:02 GMT
Steve sounds like he knows his stuff. I was impressed.
Unfortunately, it appears that clueful people like Steve
are an exception in governmental work instead of the rule.
Scream bloody murder about all the gross stupidity, Steve.
Maybe some of your superiors will actually take notice.
--
From the desk of Thomas Corriher
The real email address is:
corriher at bellsouth.
net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:19:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:53:48 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>sandrews wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (Chris Kelly) wrote:
>> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:44:44 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>neJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:57:57 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Windows in any form could quite easily be replaced for client hosts
>> >>> >by any of a number of operating system, including unix.
>> >>>
>> >>> Then why hasn't it?
>> >>
>> >>Actually, EVERYTHING you now see on the internet was FIRST developed
>> >>on Unix.
>> >
>> > Yep, and it shows:
>> >
>> > http://www.tolstoy.com/web.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yep, that`s why the internet functions and works, If m$ developed
>> the internet I shutter to think of the hugh grotesque cluster fuck
>> it would have been. It defintly wouldn`t be alive and kicking now.
>
>You would have pull-down menus of every possible IP address in the
>world.
There wouldn't *be* IP addresses (it's not something the user
would need to know). Everything would use a modified variant
of IPX/SPX. I forget the addressing model used (MAC?), but I do
remember it being different from straight TCP/IP. No doubt
it would have looked like a gigantic version of "Network
Neighborhood", only hierarchical, from the final user's standpoint.
An interesting thought from a consumer's point of view, admittedly,
but it would probably be even buggier than it is now, and the
hackers would probably have a field day (even TCP/IP has problems;
consider the SYN attacks of a year or so back).
We'd also be using Visual Basic (much like ASP today) instead
of HTML, and signed ActiveX components instead of Java applets. I seem
to remember Microsoft desiring to do just that some years back, at
least as a rumor.
Of course, Unix more or less won out, to restore a bit of sanity to
the Internet; crazy as it is, it's not totally gone yet. :-)
(I do wonder if .NET is more of the same, though.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:22:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Cooke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:20:01 GMT
<5FHv5.75675$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:nVEv5.1237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Actually, EVERYTHING you now see on the internet was FIRST developed on
>> > Unix.
>>
>> It was? I wasn't aware that TCP/IP was first developed on Unix (hint: it
>> wasn't). I wasn't aware that routers were first developed on Unix (they
>> weren't).
>
>And I'm pretty damn sure that the first widely distributed porn was in print
>form...
French postcard form, maybe. :-) I do have some pictures of naked
ladies constructed entirely out of ASCII characters, though -- if I
can find them. (Yeah, like anyone would care anymore, what with
the plethora of naked ladies constructed from GIF and JPEG pixels,
and animated movies! :-) :-) )
>
>Simon
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Porn? :-) 8-) 8-)~~ What porn?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 Sep 2000 23:31:09 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:37:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No, I would not have. I reply to comments made. The only time I have
>questioned you for what you have not said is when the phrasing of your
>statement have directly or indirectly dismissed something that logic or
>evidence tends to cast doubt on the accuracy or completeness of your
>comments.
Comprehensible, but still wrong. I suggest you take Roberto's good advice
and stick to short sentences.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 Sep 2000 23:33:09 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:06:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> I knew what is in the page. You didn't. If you want to know what's
>> in the page, you go there and read it. I am not here to do things
>> for you. If you want the data, be a man and work for it.
>
>Becareful, Roberto, that comment is a sword that can cut both ways.
Dunno about Roberto, but I see it more as a two-sided coin, and a perfectly
fair one. A willingness to do ones homework is a prerequisite to entering
a sensible discussion, and no reasonable person would object to being held
to this standard.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:27:58 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> YES!
You're an idiot.
>
> Next Q?
>
> /IL
>
> > Do you honestly believe that Windows could replace all the internet
> servers
> > and routers and firewalls and backbones as easily?
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:33:12 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: My guess is what he meant is that it would nuke the CMOS settings. Those
: aren't stored in ROM; they're stored in either CMOS RAM with a battery
: backup, or an EEAPROM-type thing; I don't know anymore.
Actually, nearly all modern systems store the BIOS code itself (not
just the settings) in a EEPROM or similar flash ROM which enables
the user to be able to upgrade their BIOS software without needing
to actually change EPROM chips as was the case before.
There have been viruses that store themselfs within the BIOS this
way, although AFAIK one can't update the BIOS except in real mode
(ie, you have to boot into read mode DOS or similar). Installing
such code while in protected mode (eg, running NT or unix) I don't
think is possible.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
Subject: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Johnson)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:39:24 GMT
Why are linux UIs so crappy? It's just little trivial things you'd think would
be available. Like: (note: this is from my experience with KDE)
* how come an application doesn't remember the last directory I opened a file
from? I have to keep re-navigating to the directory.
* how come I have to keep selecting what application I want to use with "Open
With"?
* how come I can't configure that I want to double click to open or start an
application or file? Sometimes I'll accidently "click" on an icon and it opens
up on me. This is a real pain.
* how come there are no descent web browsers for linux. Netscape and Mozilla
keep crashing on me. Mozilla would be pretty cool if it'd stay up and was a
lot quicker? Netscape is just pure 'D crap.
* how come copy and paste keystrokes aren't consistent accross apps?
* how come font size isn't consistent among apps? One app will have teeny-
weeny font while another will have big-chief tablet font.
* how come Window Managers are so slow?
Don't get me wrong - I understand it's hard and envovled to write these
programs in general, but these seem like just little things that the developers
themselves would put in just for their own sanity. It's been almost 10 years
and the Linux UI while definitely better, just doesn't feel very mature. Even
BeOS has a nice, refined, intuitive interface and I don't think it's been
around a long as linux?
I always have this subconscious feeling that Linux developers couldn't care
less about the actual user. I just hear in the back of my mind a phantom Linux
developer saying "Why would you ever want to do that!" Perhaps I'm paranoid.
I feel so unproductive - I spend so much time re-clicking and re-typing and re-
tinkering. I just want to get something done but the apps actually get in the
way.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
Date: 13 Sep 2000 23:49:08 GMT
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This application only runs on NT server (4.0 or above) so one of my bosses
: decided
: that there would be no harm in installing it on our main NT4 server.
I hope he or she will not repeat that mistake.
Software installs *often* break things under NT, although not always
as dramatically as what you experienced. They need to be tested
before rolling them out onto a production box.
In theory the same thing could happen under Linux, or any other OS
that uses shared libraries, but generally, user-space programs do not
attempt to replace system libraries - at most, as you indicated, they
will write new versions that can co-exist with the old ones. Linux
installs that break unrelated programs are very rare, and I don't know
of any instance where a botched upgrade of user-space software
rendered an entire Linux system unbootable.
W2K attempts to protect critical system files from software
"upgrades." It may be worth a look if you can't get a Unix or Linux
port of your app.
: We then wasted half the afternoon trying to create a recovery boot disk
: (under linux it would
: be easy as the original bootable CD would have worked). First, try all
: available NT4 CD's to
: try to CD boot - Result, CD is unbootable. Then Create Recovery disk on
: another machine,
: result - Recovery disks only work on PC created on. Then Try to create
: disk-set from original
: NT install disks (Small business server 4.5 version), Result - only allows
: full install, no recovery
: option. Same result with SBS version 4.0. Then create bootdisks (all 3 of
: them) with NT4 Server
: install CD's, Result - unable to find SCSI controller without hunting for
: Original Drivers CD to create
: SCSI Driver floppy disk (linux bootdisk would have included correct scsi
: driver - adaptec 7890 wide).
: By this time it was time to pack up and go home so we still have who knows
: how many hours of fun
: tomorrow.
I'd strongly suggest getting either Norton Ghost, and/or a good tape
backup system.
Reinstalling Win 95 or 98 is tolerable, once you get used to it, but
NT recovery or reinstallation, especially in a networked environment,
is hellish. And it doesn't get any better.
: How can an oerating system be so piss-poor that any application install can
: kill it (under linux it would
: have added libraries with different versions without overwriting originals)
: and not be able to handle
: updated bootdisks with support for current SCSI cards (why arent these
: included in service pack CD's), need 3 disks (plus driver disk)to boot far
: enough to access the CD and not include a recovery option in 2 out of 3
: versions we made bootdisks from, and also not be available in Bootable CD
: Format.
I can only guess that this was poor design and planning on Microsoft's
part. (Even by its usual shoddy standards.)
It was never in anyone's interests, even Microsoft's, to make an
"enterprise-ready" operating system so difficult to maintain or
repair.
: Sadly, even after all of this crap, 2 of our 4 programmers at work still
: think windoze is better than Linux and will not be convinced otherwise
Don't worry about them. They'll be stuck maintaining legacy 'Doze
apps for paltry wages long after you and most of the rest of us in IT
have escaped to greener pastures.
: (the
: other 2 have not tried linux so made no comments when I said it wouldn't
: have happened under linux). One of them even had the cheek to claim it would
: have taken a whole day to recover a linux system - I doubt it as my average
: install is under half an hour and it would be even quicker to just
: re-install a kernel and a few libraries as a recovery process.
Linux has gotten almost frighteningly simple to install these days!
And it's been a really long time since I ever needed to (translation:
I've learned not to rm -Rf / as root). :)
But even for those of us stuck in the NT world, there are often better
options than rebuilding or recovering the machine. Backups (using
software specifically designed for NT) are a definite must. You dont'
have to back up the entire system very often, just the data, but if
you don't have at least some kind of system backup, then you get to
spend hours or days doing exactly what you described. A little
prevention will go a long way when the dreaded bluescreen or bitrot
appears.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:44:48 -0500
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pnu7q$1km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> merge the lines (i.e., it will run newer versions of DirectX and modern
> games - that is the only thing there is really a problem with).
Win2K *does* support DirectX. I have an odd habit of buying games when I'll
never actually have time to play them. I have never had a problem
installing or running them on 2K. I don't think that it's nearly as
simplistic as you make it out to be. For example, Joe installs 2000 on his
home computer. Joe chooses NTFS. Joe forgets admin password. Joe is out
of luck. There are definitely some issues that need to be resolved. I will
admit though, that it seems MSFT started to address this stuff, but pulled
back until later. This is made apparent by the fact that you can change a
setting and never get prompted for a login again.
- David
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:55:04 -0400
"Nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8poi4d$qrt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Nik Simpson wrote:
> >>
> >> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > There isn't anything special about flashing the bios other than it
> >> > provides a means to hide a program on a system such that it can't be
> >> > detected by normal means. For general mayhem on an NT system, any old
> >> > driver will do and is much easier.
> >>
> >> If you give someobdy permission to install device drivers, it doesn't
matter
> >> whether you are running NT, UNIX or Joe's custom OS you are giving away
the
> >> keys to kingdom. If you really think that NT is any different to any
other
> >> OS in this respect then you are obviously more clueless than people are
> >> already suspecting. At least on W2K if I installed you driver, the OS
would
> >> warn me that it came from a non-trusted source and warn me not to do
it.
> >>
> <SARCASM>
> And this is a good thing? Personally I prefer an OS that doesn't feel
> the need to hold my hand (Kind of like those cutesy little happy face
> things that MS insists on including with their apps). On most *nix
> systems, you have to at least have a clue before you can install drivers
> and such, so the chances of doing it by mistake are *much* smaller. Give
> me command lines and config files over point-and-click any day :-)
> </SARCASM>
Trouble is, there are for more people running systems who don't have a clue
these days, And the clueless will continue to outnumber the clueful in
larger and larger numbers. Of course if you have clue, then you don't
install drivers from unknown sources, but if you don't have a clue, it's
nice if the OS gives you one.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:58:09 -0400
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Because I don't know you and I have seen too many script kiddies who
> might use the code to do damage. If you can satisfy me that you are only
I'm a 39 year old professional who's been running NT and UNIX on systems
since about 1981 (for UNIX, '92 for NT) I've participated in every beta for
NT since 3.1 at Microsoft's request. I don't think I qualify as a "script
kiddy" what are your credentials?
> going to crash your own system, I will give you the name of the book
> where the code has been published. It caused a big flap six or seven
> years ago when it was first published. Nice to see nothing has been
> fixed in all that time.
Put up or shut up.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
