Linux-Advocacy Digest #119, Volume #29 Fri, 15 Sep 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused (Steve Mading)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Gary Hallock)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they (lyttlec)
Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!! (Loren Petrich)
Re: Why NT is shite ("Rich C")
Re: Computer and memory (Steve Mading)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Computer and memory (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows+Linux=True (Tim Hanson)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Newbie question: Setting up RAID 1 and RAID5 (J Sloan)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
("sandrews")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: 15 Sep 2000 03:19:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : The numbers may or may not be accurate, but it is ridiculous to assume that
:> : ALL domain sqatters are using apache.
:>
:> It's also ridiculous to assume that each domain squatter has a website up
:> at all. You don't have to have use a name to reserve it. If I were
:> in the name squatting biz, why would I bother paying to have a computer
:> hooked up all the time to host the domain when it's much cheaper to
:> just pay the squatters penalty? (It costs more to get a domain name
:> when you don't actually use it, but not by enough to make it more than
:> the cost of running your own website.)
: Well, not a unique website anyway. There are numerous URL redirection
: services out there that will point your domain name to another URL. This
: is usually to a common site that the squatter is using to hawk his
: wares.
Well, I don't know how Netcraft's survey works, but presumably
it should be able to cull out duplicates that go to the same IP
address. Otherwise it will be counting "google.com" and
"www.google.com" as if they were two different sites.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 15 Sep 2000 03:16:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>
:>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
:>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
:>:>
:>:> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
:>:> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
:>:> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
:>:> >in later. :-)
:>:> >
:>:> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
:>:> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
:>
:>: That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line, in
:>: stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best fits your
:>: situation.
:>
:>I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
:>reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
:>an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
:>that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
: ???
: Even doing all of this stuff at the commandline is hardly
: tedious. There are a plethora of gui tools available for
: burning an Image to disc under Linux. Downloading those
: images is also not something that can be reasonably called
: tedious. It may take a long time. However, that's merely
: a matter of having a file transfer dialog open on your
: desktop for a few hours.
Errr - "few hours"? Ever try downloading a 650 Mb over
a modem when the phone lines in your area can only do
about 32kbps and random static tends to cut calls off
once an hour or so? I only have a CD burner at home,
and I only have a fast connection at work.
You seem to have this habit of assuming everyone's situation
is identical to yours, and then ripping in to people for
being too stupid to do things your way (where "your way" is
often based on false assumptions about the problem they are
solving that make it appear easier than it is.) This doesn't
help "advocacy" at all. Luckily I'm someone who's already
sold on the idea of using Linux, and have been for a while,
so your tone doesn't scare me away - but imagine how your
posts look to newbies. Ask yourself if you are really
helping advocate Linux or if you are bullying people away
from it.
[snip]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:22:48 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have not used Netscape enough to become familiar with the naming of the
> features that is offers. If you had said, 'Netscape has such a thing as
> "search in page", you know.', it would have been clear what you were
> referring to. By not mentioning Netscape, it appeared to just another
> typographical error to be compenstated for.
>
Oh. come on now! You mean IE has not such function.? Surely any browser worth
a damn has a search in page function.
Gary
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:42:46 GMT
Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:48:15 GMT,
> > Ingemar Lundin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >FUTILE....
> > >
> > >/IL
> > >
> > >
> > >> Better check the calendar again, it's still the 20th century for a few
> > >more
> > >> months.
> > >>
> > >> --
> >
> >
> > Futile to correct you? I know, but the post was for others more than you.
> > Exposing you're ignorance isn't work, it's just fun.
>
> Pedantic argument either way. Personally, I take it as an excuse to have as
> big a party this year as I had last year.
>
> Simon
I contend that the fact that so many "computer literate" people think we
are in the 21st century account for most "off by one" C/C++ programing
errors.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!!
Date: 15 Sep 2000 03:46:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >My theories have supporting evidence.
>> The absolute sum total of it is {}
>Of course, a dyed-in-the-wool commie like petrich will deny the
>existance of communist subterfuge.
I'm sure I must seem like a Communist to a card-carrying member
of the John Birch Society.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:49:54 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:03:26 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >All sysadmins should do this anyway. It is not *less* necessary on Linux.
I
> >have broken my Linux systems many times. But a) they were not my primary
> >machines for doing business, and b) I ALWAYS have boot disks and know how
to
> >repair the machine from single user console mode.
>
> Then there's this concept of running applications in user mode w/out
giving
> them any priveleges. Kind of hard in the mickysoft world where software
> invariably installs like a virius.
Running applications is totally different than installing them, which
usually requires root privileges for SOME portion of the install, such as
copying binaries or creating directories in common areas, and setting up
template configs. In the Linux world, however, these installs usually don't
write over libraries used by other programs, and certainly not those used by
the system. They also have their own config files, rather than trying to
mess with a central configuration "registry."
Running the application can certainly be done without fear of destroying
your system, as long as it is done as an ordinary user.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 15 Sep 2000 03:51:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Your instinct had proven to be correct. Chad killed this thread a few
: articles above by starting a debate on how the US proved their
: superiority over Europeans in WW2 by kicking you-know-whos ass.
: This thread can hence be officially considered dead according to the
: Godwin's Law and Chad is, ironically, the official winner.
It's a common misconception that Godwin's law is about any mention
of Hitler at all. This isn't true. It's specifically about comparing
a person to Hitler, as in, "You are like Hitler because....".
(Oh, and yes Chad is being a spoiled brat in this thread, but I
haven't seen him Godwin it yet...)
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:01:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> Christ folks. This is usenet. It's ***NOT*** real life. People do and say
> things here that are worlds different than what they would do
> face to face. The psychology of (perhaps only perceived) anonymity allows
> posters to free themselves of the bonds of reprisal and
> prejudice and speak their mind. Any talk of "danger" or impact to "real"
> life just shows that people are have gone far overboard and are
> sinking fast. If you don't like what someone has to say then add them to
> your killfile. If only it were that easy in real life.
>
> Oh it could, if one of those identities was his real name and his family,
> friend, co-workers read lies posted by him.
What? Why should they care? Was he saying his Mom was a hooker or something?
--
Mike Byrns
Programming Windows since there was Windows.
I still have the first beta of the Win32 API on a single 5 1/4" floppy disk.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 15 Sep 2000 04:08:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Ok, so? My point:
: Instead of whining about your connections and blaming it on everyone
: but yourselves, why don't you fix it?
He just said - its a link BETWEEN the US and the UK. How on earth is
it that you think it's possible to improve the link by just having the
UK work on it from their end only? It doesn't do a damn bit of
good for them to just drop some fiber-optic cables halfway across
the ocean and then stop when they reach US territorial waters.
Oh, man are you being thick. I'm not just ashamed to be in the
same country as you, I'm ashamed to be the same species as you.
Oh, and the satellite solution isn't any good - it's not as fast
as actual cables. It's adequete for when the infrastructure
isn't there, like on a ship at sea or a person off in the
wilderness, but it isn't as good as a permanent physical line.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:14:18 GMT
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> aaa...c'mon! command line interfaces is much harder to learn than a GUI
> based one...
> (altough i have to admit...i really like the Bash shell in Linux, specially
> the tab-completion)
>
> /IL
>
> > Which brings up the eternal question: who determines of a given interface
> > is easy to use or not? Why do people keep insisting that a graphical user
> > interface in the style of Windows or MacOS is easy to use and the command
> > line is not user friendly? There are so many things that are easy from
> the
> > command line but so difficult from the graphical user interface.
> >
> >
To this day my fastest writing, hour after hour, day-in day-out, was
using the Borland Sidekick editor on a DOS '286. I could steadily do
110 wpm because my fingers never had to leave the keyboard. After the
edit I would paste it into Wordperfect 5.1 for formatting.
--
THE LESSER-KNOWN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES #13: SLOBOL
SLOBOL is best known for the speed, or lack of it, of its compiler.
Although many compilers allow you to take a coffee break while they
compile, SLOBOL compilers allow you to travel to Bolivia to pick the
coffee. Forty-three programmers are known to have died of boredom
sitting at their terminals while waiting for a SLOBOL program to
compile. Weary SLOBOL programmers often turn to a related (but
infinitely faster) language, COCAINE.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:20:19 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ps7ce$hma$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Ok, so? My point:
>
> : Instead of whining about your connections and blaming it on everyone
> : but yourselves, why don't you fix it?
>
> He just said - its a link BETWEEN the US and the UK. How on earth is
> it that you think it's possible to improve the link by just having the
> UK work on it from their end only? It doesn't do a damn bit of
> good for them to just drop some fiber-optic cables halfway across
> the ocean and then stop when they reach US territorial waters.
Why is it the US's fault that there's a small link between here and
there?
American companies have no incentive to build one because the UK laws
are so restrictive that demand for Internet in the UK is low -- or rather
the availability and fesability of getting Internet access is low.
Besides, why is it completely America's responsibility to build a bigger
link. What have the brits done besides bitch that we don't spend all our
money and build them a bigger link to us?
Who's stopping the Brits? Like I said, quit whining about us and just do
it.
> Oh, man are you being thick. I'm not just ashamed to be in the
> same country as you, I'm ashamed to be the same species as you.
I'm being thick because I can't understand why the Brits want to
sit back and make us do all the work, spend all the money and take
all the risk just so they can charge more for Internet access and
screw us over?
Here's a hint: I'm not being the thick one.
> Oh, and the satellite solution isn't any good - it's not as fast
> as actual cables. It's adequete for when the infrastructure
> isn't there, like on a ship at sea or a person off in the
> wilderness, but it isn't as good as a permanent physical line.
THEN BUILD A BETTER CABLE INFRASTRUCTURE! QUIT SITTING AROUND
WAITING FOR US TO DO IT!
Jesus, it's not that hard to comprehend folks! I've only been
saying the exact same thing for the 3rd week in a row now.
But, as I predicted, you're prefectly happy to sit back, blame
us for everything and call us stupid and do absolutely nothing
to solve the problem you yourself have created.
I'm still not understanding why you seem to think that American
companies should do everything for you so YOU can make all the money
and tax it to death.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: Newbie question: Setting up RAID 1 and RAID5
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:24:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, Linux Gurus!!
>
> I am a Linux newbie. I am trying to learn the concept of
> RAID system. Can someone tell me the step-by-step procedure
> on setting up a RAID 1 and RAID 5 system, please.
>
> Once I have installed another diskdrive, formatted and
> partitioned it, I don't know what to do next!
> Maybe, you can tell me the URL of the site or share what
> you did when you setup your RAID system.
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO.html
told me all I needed to set up raid on Red Hat 6.2 servers
(This may even be on your Linux system in /usr/doc/HOWTO)
jjs
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:27:39 GMT
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > "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.
> > I just posted a responce to another message about using CPL. See it. If
> > your bonifieds are valid, you should understand it. If not, oh well.
>
> I understand what you think you understand, I also understand that you've
> been offered the opportunity to put "theory" to the test in response to your
> complaint that nobody running NT would let you try your program. My offer
> still stands, you are still backing away from accepting.
>
> --
> Nik Simpson
If you are who you say you are, you can write your own easy enough.
Linux runs its kernel at ring 0 and users at ring 3. NT appears to run
everything at ring 2. Root under Linux on a x86 runs at ring 3 but has
universal privileges for files. If you can steal ring 2, 1, or 0
privileges under linux, you have "SuperRoot" power. There is one big
difference between ring 0 and root. Root changes take effect on reboot,
while ring 0 changes can take effect immediately.
NT runs, it seems to me, both kernel and users at ring 2. It has to be
at least ring 2 or the OS could not access I/O. But I have never found
the code where NT switches to ring 0. If you can point me to it, I thank
you. So if NT runs at ring 2 or 1, all I have to do is hi-jack a driver
to be change to ring 0. Then I have free run of your system. No one has
more power. I am equaled only by MS which seems to use ring 0 for its
own nefarious purposes.
This presents several moral and ethical problems for me. I know I can
hi-jack DOS, Win3.1, Win95, and Win98. I would like to know if I could
hi-jack NT or Win2K. I'm 99.99% certain I can. I also know that if I
can, there are lots of other people who can also. So what should I do?
Suppose I post the code and it works. Then some script kiddy uses the
code to empty your bank account. Am I responsible? "Gee, Officer, I
just taught him how to pick the lock. I didn't tell him to pick that
lock".
I've come to the conclusion that it is ok to publish general details. If
a skilled practitioner can duplicate them, great. But I haven't put a
temptation before a script kiddy.
There is a second problem. One feature of the IBM vs MS law suite over
OS/2-Windows3.1 was that IBM had patented the method of switching the
x286 to protected mode after boot. Also Linus Thorvalds contributed
(under GNU) a method of switching x386-Pentium class between ring 0 and
3. So my method is different, but similar to both. I've been told it
might be patentable. I think patenting software is an abomination, but
there is lots of money possible.
Questions for the group :
1. Should I publish the code and give every one power to crash every MS
OS on the net? (Hint: MS can't fix this without completely re-writing it
operating systems)
2. Should I patent the 16 lines of code, take the money and run?
3. Should I just say, "To hell with it. Any one running such a dumb OS
deserves it." and take what I can get?
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:32:20 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:g28w5.1631$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > As a result, we're left with the irony that, for the GPL to guarantee
> > freedom, it had to take away some rights.
> If someone else re-uses my code in their closed source application, that
> doesn't change the fact that *I* still offer that code for free, and that
> *I* still offer that code in any way I see fit.
By using the GPL you are saying that you only want your code to
be used in other GPL programs.
> > > And how is that freedom? Freedom to "do anything you want as long as
> you
> > > don't do it here and with my stuff" is not freedom.
> >
> > "Do anything you want, as long as you don't stop others from doing what
> > they want too."
> And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from
distributing
> theirs?
Here is what is meant by "freedom" wrt GPL:
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study,
change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds
of
freedom, for the users of the software:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
"Freedom" does not mean "freedom to do whatever you want".
> > > I have no problem with the fact that the GPL has conditions for it's
> use.
> > > What I have a problem with, is the claim that this is somehow more
> "free"
> > > than something like the BSD or X liscenses.
Given what its goals are - yes it is more "free". It means that it
is not possible for people to make modifications to the code without
giving them back. It means that people are not free to benefit from
the GPL work without giving that work to the community.
The "freedom" is freedom for the GPL community - not freedom
for people who want to keep their code private.
> > I wouldn't agree with claims that the GPL offers more personal freedom
> > than BSD licensing. It does, however, *guarantee* certain freedoms to
> > *all* users.
> No, It doesn't. It says it does, but those freedoms are still guaranteed
> without the GPL.
No they are not. With BSD (for example) you can take the code,
modify it, and keep the changes to yourself. You have gist infringed
on my freedom to access and change the code.
Your talking about YOUR freedom not MY freedom. The GPL
refers to MY freedom.
> I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away someone
> elses rights.
Take a look at the "rights" GPL is trying to guarantee.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:34:01 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3yew5.1691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Enforcing your own personal politics on someone elses IP.
If that entity ***CHOOSES*** to use GPL code.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:31:20 -0500
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Jim Richardson) wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:48:15 GMT,
> Ingemar Lundin, in the persona of
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, brought forth the following
> words...:
>
>>FUTILE....
>>
>>/IL
>>
>>
>>> Better check the calendar again, it's still the 20th century for a
>>> few
>>more
>>> months.
>>>
>>> --
>
>
> Futile to correct you? I know, but the post was for others more than
> you.
> Exposing you're ignorance isn't work, it's just fun.
>
>
Jim,
It`s the same as how windows works. If it`s close enough then it works.
They can`t be bothered by wether or not it is correct. Just a reboot will
solve your problems. But Hey they will buy windos anyway.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:43:45 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > It seems that there are files that administrator is not premitted to
> > change.
>
> Which files would those be?
>
> The only files that the administrator doesn't have access to are open ones.
>
> The registry files and the kernel DLLs are pretty much the only ones
> that fit that category. You would never want nor need to mess with the
> registry files, so that doesn't matter and the kernel DLLs shouldn't
> be tampered with while the system is running. If you want to replace
> these files, like I said before, you can make registry changes to
> cause them to be replaced on next reboot.
>
> > I have looked for the code in NT that switches to privelege level 0 and
> > have not found it. Windows 3.1, Windows95, and Windows98 most certainly do
> > not switch to privelege level 0. I can get control of DOS through Windows98
> > by setting the CPL register to 0x0. That gets me control even Linux Root
> > doesn't have. That is I can make system changes that take effect without a
> > reboot.
>
> You can't directly access the hardware in NT. This is because of the
> hardware-abstraction-layer (HAL). You can't issue commands directly, you must
> make Win32 API or Kernel API calls and the Win32 API or Kernel does them for
> you.
>
I just looked up *two* independent block diagrams of NT, on on an MS
site. They both show that the HAL, the I/O MANAGER, and the MicroKernel
can all access the hardware directly. According to the block diagrams,
the Security Reference Manager rests on top of the Micro Kernel and
access' the Micro Kernel in parallel with the Object Manager, Process
Manager, LPC, VMM, and GDI (Some of the TLA's differed, but I have that
one in front of me). So lots of things can get to the Hardware without
going through any security management. I'm talking about going through
the "Win32 Subsystem" directly to the I/O mangager, bypassing the
MicroKernel and HAL, and taking control of the Hardware.
> No process in the executive layer can make direct system calls. Only kernel
> mode processes. Even drivers are somewhat restricted in the amount of hardware
> access they have.
According to the MS block diagram Win32 Subsystem can even bypass the
Executive Subsystem layer and talk directly to the I/O manager and
hence to the Hardware. Otherwise DVDs and games wouldn't run for crap on
NT (and they do run better on Nt than Linux). Drivers for Video, Sound,
and HD access seem to do this, if the Mfg. paid MS enough money.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
