Linux-Advocacy Digest #120, Volume #29 Fri, 15 Sep 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Computer and memory (Steve Mading)
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (Steve Mading)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Jon DeCamp)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) ("Simon
Cooke")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Jim Polaski)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OS choice
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Stuart Fox")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
("Ingemar Lundin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 04:46:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Yes, the lazy aren't being rewarded (BTW, if welfare finds you a job & you
: refuse you *WILL* loose welfare support, also, if you quit you're job
: without valid reasons you will loose welfare support, however, you'll still
: have a (very small) income to assure you're survival)
You have to try to prove you are looking for work to get
Unemployment benefits, but not for Welfare, at least as far as
I know.
I think you are mixing up Welfare with Unemployment compensation.
They aren't the same system. Unemployment benefits are only
for people that were previously employed but have lost their
jobs. That's where they have to prove they are looking for work,
and even if they do keep looking, it eventually runs out after
a period of time. Thankfully, I've never been on Unemployment or
known anyone who talked about it - so I don't know much more
about it than that. I've heard that it's pretty easy to fool
them into thinking you are looking for work when you really aren't,
but I don't know how much of that is truth and how much is urban
legend.
Welfare is something else entirely. With welfare, it's simply based
on income level. If you make less money than a certain amount,
then you get government checks to make up the difference. The
amount depends on the size of the family you have. The more
kids you have, the more money you get to support them. One common
criticism of this system is that it gives poor women an incentive to
bear more children, and that this means the poor population increases
faster than the rich population, which strains the system even more.
Again, I don't know if this criticism is based in fact or fiction,
having never seen that level of poverty firsthand. Another critism
of this system is that if a poor person gets a low-end job that
doesn't pay much, he doesn't make any more money - since he's still
below the poverty amount and still gets the difference paid to him
by the government, he brings home the same amount, but now he's having
to work to do it. Unless he expects to get promoted up to a better
paying job that breaks above the poverty line, he has absolutely no
incentive to keep working there. Again, I don't know how true this
is. I only hear about it through political posturing, and that's
not a good source of information.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: 15 Sep 2000 05:05:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: * Its creator, Linus, had lived right next to the then-USSR, and he could
: well have been recruited by the KGB to sabotage the Western software
: industry with deliberately underpriced software.
Didn't his dad work in radio in Moscow or something? Hmm...
------------------------------
From: Jon DeCamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:21:01 GMT
"GNU's Not Unix!"
Nitin Mule wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A lot of times I come across postings where some people use the term
> "Real Unix" and they argue that it is superior to Linux without giving
> any technical reasons to support that argument. I observed that often
> these people refer to the features of applications, device drivers etc.
> and not necessarily about the context switching, process management,
> etc. by the OS kernel. Their viewpoint then obviously doesn't make much
> sense to me.
>
> On the other hand, I have also seen some people (including notable
> authors of Unix sysadmin books) referring to Linux as "Modern Unix" when
> referring to the kernel architecture. I tend to believe that for obvious
> reasons but I'm not an expert on this topic and I am open to change my
> opinion! But for now, I think I will call the so called "Real Unix" as
> "Old Unix" and Linux as "Modern Unix". Is that fair?
>
> Thanks
> Nitin.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 go...?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:50:27 GMT
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
The point is that everyone but pedants celebrated the new millennium *this*
January 1. If you want to be really pedantic about this, it's not 2000 years
since the last one anyway because of the Gregorian/Julian date changeover.
Which makes the new millennium (depending on how you look at it) either:
1 January 2001
19 December 2000 (Julian calendar converted to Gregorian)
3 March 2000 (Julian calendar converted to Gregorian, Julian New Year)
... not to mention all the differing month lengths, the fact that if you're
jewish, the new millennium is on 17th September 2240 (Jewish New Year,
6001AM), or if you're islamic it's 28th December 2562.
So... take your pick. Claiming that it's "Jan 1 2001" is about as good a
guess as anyone's, I guess.
To be honest, either way it doesn't matter -- both are party dates.
Simon
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 05:57:00 GMT
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
NT uses ring 0 for the kernel.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/periodic/period96/S413.htm
"
At this point, it's helpful to dig into some details. Note that I'm using
Intel-specific terminology in the following discussion. For example, when I
say Ring 0, I mean "kernel mode" as defined by Windows NT. Let's see how a
KERNEL32 call such as PulseEvent works without using any client-server
calls. In KERNEL32.DLL, the code for PulseEvent begins like this:
PulseEvent proc
PUSH 00
PUSH DWORD PTR [ESP+08]
CALL DWORD PTR [NtPulseEvent]
All KERNEL32.DLL does is grab the single parameter off the stack and pass it
as a parameter to an NTDLL.DLL function. In NTDLL.DLL, the code for
NtPulseEvent looks like this:
NtPulseEvent proc
MOV EAX,0000005C
LEA EDX,[ESP+04]
INT 2E
RET 0008
All that NTDLL.DLL does is load EAX with a dispatch number (0x5C in this
case) and EDX with a pointer to the parameters on the stack, then invoke an
INT 2Eh. Keep in mind that everything I've described so far happened at Ring
3. On Intel 80x86 processors, any INT instruction causes the CPU to
transition to Ring 0 before jumping to the address corresponding to the
interrupt number in the Interrupt Descriptor Table (IDT). It's also worth
noting here that in the transition from Ring 3 to Ring 0, the CPU also
switches the stack to whatever Ring 0 stack is specified in the TSS.
Now, let's take a look at Ring 0, or kernel mode. At Ring 0, the INT 2Eh
handler is called _KiSystemService, which is located in NTOSKRNL.EXE.
_KiSystemService takes the dispatch number (placed in EAX by NTDLL.DLL) and
uses it as an index into a dispatch table that each thread has a pointer to.
Just before jumping to the designated handling code, _KiSystemService copies
the parameters from the Ring 3 stack (which EDX points to) onto the Ring 0
stack. Altogether, this takes about 60 instructions to accomplish, which is
significantly less than the overhead imposed by the two thread context
switches that USER and GDI go through with the Win32 subsystem process.
In Windows NT 4.0, the mechanism for getting from Ring 3 to Ring 0 for
NTDLL.DLL functions was extended to include USER and GDI functions. Windows
NT 4.0 essentially dispenses with the original vision for a client-server
architecture in exchange for increased performance.
The new method for USER and GDI to transition to Ring 0 is nearly identical
to what NTDLL.DLL does. That is, the code sets up EAX and EDX appropriately
before invoking an INT 2Eh. The only difference is that the bit value
0x00001000 is set in the dispatch code for USER and GDI functions. Put
another way, dispatch codes less than 0x1000 come from Ring 3 kernel-type
code like that provided by NTDLL.DLL. Dispatch codes greater than 0x1000 are
for the Win32 subsystem (USER and GDI). "
------------------------------
From: <[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: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:29:42 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pr027$cht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
Yikes! The first paragraph was Mike Byrn's the second was mine
>
> 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.
>
>
------------------------------
From: <[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 go...?)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:14:50 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rt0w5.859$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> that was in the 70:s Aaron...wake up! were in the 21:st century now...
I don't know where or when you *think* you are but in the real world, this
is still the 20th until the end of this year.
------------------------------
From: Jim Polaski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:54:24 -0500
In article <8pqp9r$rt4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jim Polaski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <8pqk4p$l71$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, the numbers are up to two! Still, it is hardly headline news
> that
> > > *a* developer likes mac software. It proves NOTHING. I'm not saying
> that
> > > Mac OS is bad, I am saying that one, now 2, developers opinion are
> > > hardly proof of ANYTHING.
> > ======
> > Well, I seem to remember that in the news a week or so ago, it was
> > mentioned that some 10,000 were on board for OS X.
> >
> > Perhaps the numbers are far larger than your limited imagination
> allows
> > for.
>
> Fool, I was making a joke that someone thought that the fact *a*
> developer liked the system was *big news*! Of course there are more that
> like it, Hey, there are probably some developers that like win9*. You
> guys are great! Get some hummor in your life!
>
>
> To spell it out: The joke was about what the person who posted the first
> post thought was big news, Not the OS it's self. I personaly would like
> to see Apple more successful but claiming that *a* developer likes it
> better is NOT going to win me over!
============
>Snippage
True. But the fact remains that far, far greater than "a" developer has
jumped on baord the OS X train.
--
Regards,
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do knowing he will get nothing in return."
COMPLETE MAC is at http://people.ce.mediaone.net/jpolaski/index.html
------------------------------
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: 15 Sep 2000 07:06:28 GMT
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:22:48 -0400, Gary Hallock wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Oh. come on now! You mean IE has not such function.? Surely any browser worth
>a damn has a search in page function.
Oooohhhhh ... mcjr seems to be using Outlook Express. Now there's
a scandal (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS choice
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:11:31 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Greenwood Packing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8po5fc$ibm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why is it necessary for people who favor Linux or any UNIX like OS to
> fight with those who use Windows? More over why is it necessary to warp
> Linux into something that everyone can use? Wouldn't it be better for both
> to exist and for those who want more from their computer to use *NIX?
Much of it because most of us have had to use Windows and Dos in that past
or in the present. But in Linux we have just to OS that fist our needs,
most of us *would* leave the Winvocates alone *if* they would not keep
comming into COLA dump on Linux. Most of those threads started COLA by
winvocates in are crossposted into their own newsgroups so that they can
claim we invade their newsgroups. There are valid reasons for crossposting
but they really abuse it.
> I
> happen to feel that Linux isn't for everyone. I would like to see maybe
one
> or two distributions that allow for a nice easy install, this will give
> people who honestly want to try it out a chance. But I don't like the idea
> of dummbing the system down so everyone can use it. Shouldn't Linux people
> be promoting awareness not only of the OS they use but for the computer it
> runs on? Isn't separating the user from the computer with a GUI and doing
> all the configuration work for him/her a bad idea for *NIX? I was once a
> newbie although I didn't have a nice fancy GUI install, and everyone needs
> to start somewhere but if you start and have everything spoon fed to you
do
> you get anywhere? Any input on these subjects would be greatly appreciated
> but please post your replies to this NG.
I believe that the Linux community should welcome in anyone who wants to
give Linux a try. I am infavor of providing user interfaces designed to
make anyone feel at home reguardless of which OS they come from. I would
welcome making everyone happy and the of course includes those who are happy
with Linux being a unix and not a Windows clone.
That said, I am a long time Linux user I have been with it since the time of
Slackware 1. I like many others like Linux as it is and don't what make
Linux what it is to be lost in the rush for acceptance by what someone has
in another thread on this subject called "the great masses of people".
In such a discussion where we long time users were more or less told that
our opinions don't count anymore, there was even talk of forking Linux if
things started to get too out of hand. One for thine of the fork for the
intelligent users and the experienced unix people, the other thine for the
people who want Linux dumbed down.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[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 08:40:58 +0100
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 at either Ring 0 or Ring 3, nowhere else. Check out Inside
Microsoft Windows 2000 - 3rd ed.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:44:28 +0100
"D G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'll give you the variety part, but not the quality part. The majority
> of *nix software is of far higher quality, IMO. (Unless you equate eye
> candy with quality.)
>
Personally, I'd class look and feel part of quality. In my book, quality
isn't just stability...
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[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 go...?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:59:35 GMT
<GASP> and it gets even more FUTILE.....
/IL
<> I don't know where or when you *think* you are but in the real world,
this
> is still the 20th until the end of this year.
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
