Linux-Advocacy Digest #145, Volume #29 Sat, 16 Sep 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Bob Hauck)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Bob Hauck)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (sfcybear)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) ("Simon
Cooke")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Gary Hallock)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Chad Myers")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:57:18 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:04:11 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >RedHat and Linus himself seemed to think it was. Somehow, the Linux
>> >slashdotters got it into their minds that the Mindcraft tests (both)
>> >were trumped up and false.
>>
>> The Mindcraft tests showed a real problem, but one that would only very
>> rarely be an issue in a production system. The test was carefully
>> designed to highlight a particular strength of NT relative to Linux.
>Um... so you think that multiple-NICs are never used in a production
>system? Multiple-NIC load-balancing, etc?
I don't think I said that. Perhaps you can point out where I did. I
am, however, real sure that non-SMP configurations are far more common,
even on servers.
Serving of static web pages with no dynamic content to 400 megabits of
bandwidth is pretty unusual in itself. Even in an intranet situation
where you might have that kind of bandwidth all to yourself there will
normally be a lot of dynamic content, databases or cgi's or what have
you. In that case the network performance ceases to be a bottleneck.
>Well, I supposed you'd never do this with linux because Linux simply
>can't do it.
That is a provably false statement. "Less efficient" is not the same
as "can't do it".
>> So you are correct that Mindcraft wasn't "false", although it was very
>> narrowly focused on one aspect of web serving performance (static web
>> pages, SMP machines, load-balanced network cards) and different results
>> are obtained if any of the conditions are changed.
>Um.. it showed that Linux had NO multi-NIC scalability.
No, it didn't show that Chad. It showed that Linux scaled poorly on
multi-NIC, multi-CPU machines where the traffic on the interfaces is
evenly balanced. Single NIC's on SMP weren't a problem, neither were
multiple NIC's on one CPU. You're trying to extrapolate the results to
ostensibly "similar" configurations and you can't do that because the
nature of the problem was very specific to one case.
Even the "problem" case would not be noticeable unless you have a lot
of bandwidth and are serving static files, as opposed to databases or
the like. That's why it, uh, wasn't noticed. If it had truly been a
huge show-stopping problem, it wouldn't have taken a very specific
benchmark to find it.
[Chad's usual overblown ramblings snipped]
But in any case, you'd better hurry up and make the most of it, since
later versions of 2.2 are much improved on Mindcraft-style tests, and
2.4 pretty much eliminates the problem. Your FUD window is closing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:43:52 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:46:43 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Only problem is that I don't use KDE, and *KDE* having file
>associations is not the same thing as Linux having them.
DOS doesn't have them either, but Win95 does. That must suck too.
I don't have an NT box here at home to try it but I've never noticed
that NT has associations in the command shell. I've always assumed
that they were an Explorer thing, which would be analagous to them
being a kfm thing on KDE systems. Same on OS/2, where the WPS handled
associations.
Seems like a lot of systems are making the same mistake, eh?
>I should be able to run a file in the shell without specifying any
>program
Never heard anybody ask for that before. Somehow I don't think that
the people who use the cli really care since that doesn't fit in well
with the way the existing utilities work.
In any case, while I can't see Linus putting that in the kernel, you
could probably build a shell to use the same association database that
KDE uses. There's quite a bit you'd have to define in terms of
semantics and how this new feature will interact with pipes and
redirection, tab completion (do we show associated files as if they are
programs), and other existing features.
Sounds like an interesting project.
>The only thing you're proving is that programmers do indeed
>hate users. You certainly seem to.
Programmers don't hate users. They are users. Both sides just get
frustrated due to ignorance of the other side's business. Users ask
for things that sound simple but are actually very difficult to do,
programmers think that users ask for things they don't need.
>Wrong. When you install applications, they inevitably try to
>associate themselves with certain file types.
KDE apps can do this too. Maybe you should make a law that all apps
must use the KDE toolkit.
This stuff is no more built into the kernel on Windows than it is on
Linux. It's just that you have only the one toolkit on the system,
effectively.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:45:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Cooke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:13:10 -0700
<8pue2f$9gf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Until you try to write a calendar and forget that there isn't a year
>> zero in any of the above. But I do agree that two parties are better
>> than one. I hope Rome does better with its millennium party than the US
>> and London did.
>
>Actually, the Islamic and Jewish millennium rollover dates took into account
>the lack of a year 1. As did the Julian dates.
>
>My point is that if we're going to get all precise about it, then let's have
>it be the exact number of years since 0AD (the only way I can describe that
>date); which means we should probably celebrate on the 3rd of March this
>year.
>
>Oops. Too late :)
Don't forget the short month of September 1752. :-)
This probably moves your target date to late February...
(If you're running Linux, try 'cal 1752'. Believe it or not, it knows.)
>
>Si
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random day deletion here
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:04:38 GMT
In article <MNNw5.5044$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how?
Maybe you
> > : should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about
Linux and
> > : DDoS on Friday:
> > :
> > : http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
> >
> > Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches
available for
> > quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
> >
> > How about all of the Windoze users out there that have (and
continue) to
> > fall prey to Netbus|BO|SubSeven|remote access trojan du jour? My
firewall
> > and IDS logs here at home can attest to the widespread use of
those. My
> > machines get scanned ALL THE TIME.
>
> You're comparing users and supposedly supperiorly intelligent Unix
sysadmins?
>
> The patches exist, but has anyone used them? Apparently not as it's
becoming
> an issue now.
>
And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I doubt
that.
> -Chad
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:37:58 -0500
Apple was (and is) available the entire time, regardless of lesser
known (to the general public) alternatives.
And the reason that most stores carried primarily MS based systems
is because that's where the demand was. Sure, they could have
carried Amiga's and such instead, but the demand wasn't there.
On 15 Sep 2000 23:27:58 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmann
Schaffer) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RogerB) wrote:
>>
>>> Crap. For years Ms has been the only produce because
>>>the stores sell nothing else.
>>
>>Bull shit. There has *never* been a time when MS didn't have
>>any competition. Claiming "they only came out on top because
>
>that is debatable. true enough, there always was something available,
>but you had to know about it and be very persistent to get it.
>practically all stores and direct sellers offered ms and nothing else,
>didn't bother to inform potential customers that anything else was
>available. there was a period where dr-dos had a chance. just check
>the court documents about how ms took care of that problem
>
>>the stores sell nothing else" is as stupid as the crap Ray Lopez
>
>how many stores do you know who sold something else, or were even
>willing to look into it when you demanded it (which most newbies
>couldn't simply because nobody told them)
>
>> ...
>
>hs
--
Stephen Whitis
Email replies should go to...
scw120198 (at) whitis.com
The address in the header is not valid.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 21:37:27 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:46:43 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>The only thing you're proving is that programmers do indeed
>hate users. You certainly seem to.
While I shouldn't need to defend myself against personal attacks here,
I'm not going to let this kind of thing go unchallenged.
Consider this:
I was a "user" just like any other user when I started using Linux. I'd
done some programming before, but my skills would have compared with a
first/second year CS student, not an experienced professional.
Like many users, I had ideas about what I thought was the "right way"
to do something. Rather than sitting and whining about it like a spoilt
brat, I did something about it.
(*) I documented a lot of what I learned. I remembered being frustrated
by the absence of tutorials, so I wrote a lot of docs. See
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
FYI, I wrote the stuff on grep, sed, procmail et al shortly after
I learned it myself.
(*) Fonts under Linux were a pain and the docs were scattered everywhere.
After feeling a little disillusioned, I decided to get to the bottom
of things and understand fonts. My investigations resulted in the
font HOWTO http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/font_howto that
documented my findings. I'm getting thank you letters for this
almost constantly
(*) I joined and contributed projects, and wrote some software. Mostly
simple perl and shell scripts that solved a problem. I've only been
a "real programmer" for about a year or so.
(*) Like a lot of other Linux users, I answer questions on usenet. Not as
much as I used to, but I'm still there. I also try to answer all the
questions I get asked by email.
Anyway, your claim that I "hate users" is knocked dead by simple and
irrefutable facts. Not only have I experienced being a "frustrated user",
I've done what I can to help users avoid the frustration I experienced.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:39:43 GMT
In article <39c2f16a$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/16/2000 at 02:11 AM,
> "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Granted, it's difficult to predict precise weather changes over a short
> > time period, but predicting weather over longer time frames isn't as
> > difficult.
>
> Anyone who ever got a C or better in Earth Science in 7th Grade knows
> that
> weather is short range. Long range it is called climate.
Not even close.
Climate is the long term trends in weather.
If I predict, for example, what the conditions will be like in Montreal
next February, that's weather. If I want to predict overall changes in
weather over a time period, that's climate.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:46:41 GMT
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:31:06 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : > And now, a long time later, a similar benchmark shows a much better
> : > behaviour by the Linux network stack. It still sucks a bit, though.
> :
> : Please post a URL, I haven't read about this. I've been taking your
> : word for it, but I would like to read the specifics.
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
>
> : > And why is fixing a problem a joke?
> :
> : Because it's an inherent design problem in Linux.
>
> Oh, and can we assume you've read through all of the networking code in
> the Linux kernel to verify this? What credentials do you have that make
> you an authority on this subject? I'd be very interested in seeing
> those credentials. They must be pretty impressive, after all, you speak
> in such absolutes.
C'MON....several tests have shown weaknesses in that area of linux...thats
was his damn point
/IL
>
> --
> Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
> jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:51:46 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> However you want to interpret the Mindcraft tests, it is old news. Linux
beats
> W2K hands down now.
simply put?...NO IT DOESNT!
/IL
>
> Gary
>
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:51:16 -0700
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Cooke
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:13:10 -0700
> <8pue2f$9gf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Until you try to write a calendar and forget that there isn't a year
> >> zero in any of the above. But I do agree that two parties are better
> >> than one. I hope Rome does better with its millennium party than the US
> >> and London did.
> >
> >Actually, the Islamic and Jewish millennium rollover dates took into
account
> >the lack of a year 1. As did the Julian dates.
> >
> >My point is that if we're going to get all precise about it, then let's
have
> >it be the exact number of years since 0AD (the only way I can describe
that
> >date); which means we should probably celebrate on the 3rd of March this
> >year.
> >
> >Oops. Too late :)
>
> Don't forget the short month of September 1752. :-)
> This probably moves your target date to late February...
>
> (If you're running Linux, try 'cal 1752'. Believe it or not, it knows.)
Actually, I took that into account with the 3rd of march; 12 days were
'lost', pushing the actual date from 15th March 2000 to 3rd of March 2000 :)
Si
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:17:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > However you want to interpret the Mindcraft tests, it is old news. Linux
> beats
> > W2K hands down now.
>
> simply put?...NO IT DOESNT!
>
> /IL
>
> >
> > Gary
> >
I repeat:
www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000501-00028.html
www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000626-00054.html
W2K - SPECweb99 = 1598
Linux - SPECweb99 = 4200
Windows advocates should stop living in the past. The Mindcraft test are
obsolete.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:51:12 GMT
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5TRw5.1656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:31:06 GMT,
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :
> > : > And now, a long time later, a similar benchmark shows a much better
> > : > behaviour by the Linux network stack. It still sucks a bit, though.
> > :
> > : Please post a URL, I haven't read about this. I've been taking your
> > : word for it, but I would like to read the specifics.
> >
> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
> >
> > : > And why is fixing a problem a joke?
> > :
> > : Because it's an inherent design problem in Linux.
> >
> > Oh, and can we assume you've read through all of the networking code in
> > the Linux kernel to verify this? What credentials do you have that make
> > you an authority on this subject? I'd be very interested in seeing
> > those credentials. They must be pretty impressive, after all, you speak
> > in such absolutes.
>
> C'MON....several tests have shown weaknesses in that area of linux...thats
> was his damn point
The Penguinistas have their head burried so far in the sand they can't
even realize their own beloved OS' weakness.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:01:16 GMT
Both Unix and NT will be open to attacks via root or administrator. But
this is about being able to do it without being administrator. It is
about not having to reboot to do it. It is also about System being more
powerful than either administrator or root. My code and the code posted
on the internet both let anyone, even a MSWord document, get System
privileges. The design flaw in NT is that some System functions bypass
the HAL and go directly to the hardware. The problem in Unix is that
some sys admins are stupid.
Linux solves the problem on Intel by having users run at hardware ring3,
which disallows many machine instructions, even to root. Any Unix only
permits root to change drivers NT however is always running at a
(hardware) privileged ring so all you have to do is trick it into
running a privileged instruction. It seems the only thing preventing NT
from running privileged instructions is that the normal Windows
compilers do not generate those instructions. So you just need to hand
code them into an obj or .exe file ( or just POKE them into memory).
That is the theory. I've tried it with 3.1/95/98. Hackers on the
internet claim it works also with NT/2K and Me. A variant will attack
Linux via root.
I think the NT structure was a compromise by MS to make installation of
new software easy. Self booting CDs running under Install Shield and
changing System files are certainly more convenient than rebuilding the
kernel or going through the trouble to administer variant libraries. Too
bad it means surrendering control of your system to anyone who pays MS
enough money.
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ermine Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > The device driver software development kit (DDK) is available for NT. When
> > > you've actually managed to write a kernel level driver and have it installed
> > > in the system then you potentially be worth listening to.
> > >
> > > --ET--
> > >
> > You miss the point. The point is to *bypass* the OS and therefore the
> > DDK. I did a short Google search and came up with dozens of hits of
> > people doing just that! Some were even commercial products (things that
> > wanted to do fast DMA for video, games, large data base copies, etc.).
> > For an example of the type (not specific) virus look at
> > <http://lunateks.com/lunateks/963717948/>.
> > (The 95/98 code I wrote turns out to be an improvement on the Chernobyl
> > virus. Oh Well. )
> > (
> >
> >
> > Later : I found the basic code for the NT stuff I was writing at a site
> > on the web. Real cute. Someone has lots more time than I do. How to
> > steal NT Ring0 from NT Ring3. How to use NT Ring0 to jump out of NT and
> > run your virus and then jump back into NT. How to wipe the CMOS on the
> > fly ( Your system is dead ... period). How to get an infected file pass
> > the basic security checks. The level of technical knowledge required to
> > do anything with this code is way beyond the normal script kiddy. You
> > need to know how to use a hex editor, calculate complex checksums, speak
> > Russian (or Ukranian).
>
> lyttlec, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but thinking that, by installing
> a driver and having that driver bust into NT's kernel and do mean things
> is a design flaw in NT simply makes you look like more of an idiot than
> you already do.
>
> Anything running in kernel-mode is trusted on just about any system you
> look at (include most Unixes). Once you're in the kernel space you
> can pretty much usurp control from the kernel and have free range of
> the system. There are kernel "root kits" for Unix, NT, and just about
> every other server-class OS. I don't think Windows 2000 yet, but there's
> nothing stopping anyone from doing it.
>
> On trusted-class systems that have something equivalent to B or A class
> ratings on the TSEC scale will have trusted kernels that check and
> prevent root kits and kernel kits from taking control and replacing normal
> kernel operation.
>
> Writing something like this (taking over the system, flashing the BIOS with
> meaningless junk and jumping back into the kernel) on any non-trusted-class
> OS wouldn't be particularily difficult for someone who has ever written
> a device driver. NT is not alone in this vuleneratbility. OSes in the
> same class as NT (non-trusted, such as all windows, dos, Linux, Solaris,
> BSD, Tru64 Unix and just about every non-Trusted unix and every other OS,
> MacOS, etc) allows you to install drivers that could potentially usurp
> control of the kernel.
>
> However, on just about every worth-while system (NT/2K, Unix) that has
> any type of security infrastructure doesn't allow anyone but an administrative
> or root-type user to install devices or their drivers, so this whole discussion
> is irrelevent.
>
> Once you get root or admin on a Unix or NT box, you pretty much have free reign
> to wreak all sorts of havoc, everyone in this group agrees.
>
> So just give it up, this isn't some "l33t NT hax0r" or anything.
>
> -Chad
>
> >
> > > "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]...
> > > > > > > > Ermine Todd III wrote:
> > > > > > > > In otherwords SuperRoot held by MS and its "trusted" partners.
> > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > > you couldn't apply service packs which, on occasion, do replace
> > > SYSTEM
> > > > > > > > functionality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bullshit. If something cannot be loaded/unloaded through the normal
> > > > > > > mechanisms then you have to reboot for the change to take effect. In
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > words if foo.sys is soemthing that can't be stopped and started on a
> > > > > running
> > > > > > > system, the SP install renames foo.sys to foo.sys.old and puts a new
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > of foo.sys on the disk which is loaded during a reboot. No need for
> > > any
> > > > > > > magin "SuperRoot" except in your limited imagination.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > BZZZT Wrong. If you have full system priveleges (Ring0 on the Pentium)
> > > > > > you can do anything, including modifying running programs, and have
> > > the
> > > > > > changes take effect immediately. Pentium Ring 0 Changes do not require
> > > a
> > > > > > reboot. Root and Administrator are demigods. Kernel is GOD. Kernel can
> > > > > > change your program while it is running. Kernel can make Administrator
> > > > > > cease to exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sigh, have you ever installed a Service Pack on NT, if you had, you'd
> > > know
> > > > > just how wrong you are about the installation process and what Microsoft
> > > > > does. But of course you clearly not one to let a few facts get in the
> > > way of
> > > > > an arguement.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, at least you make a distinction between Nt and operating
> > > systems.
> > > > > > Personaly I have built a half dozen or so operating systems. How many
> > > > > > have you built?
> > > > >
> > > > > As an RV at Bell Labs in the 80s I worked on early System V and have
> > > quite a
> > > > > lot of experience, just what experience do you have.
> > > > >
> > > > So why don't you know the differnce between "root" and "System"? I do
> > > > agree that System V, Linux, and other Unix variants do make it difficult
> > > > for any mere mortal to get System privileges. NT, OTH, does not. Unless
> > > > you show that the code in ring0.exe published by MS in its code base
> > > > doesn't work.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Nik Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
