Linux-Advocacy Digest #148, Volume #29 Sat, 16 Sep 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (User &)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (Steve)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Otto")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Hartmann Schaffer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (User &)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:39:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
>>I'm sure you can show me the actions TT took against Harmony.
>
>Did I say they took actions? Did you say they took actions? Is there
>some reason you're trying to obfuscate?
You certainly seem to imply that they threatened - which would have been an
action.
>You're the one who posted the email showing Troll Tech threatening
>Harmony with a lawsuite, dude. I'd suggest you stop screwing around,
The one where Eirik said he could not promise that they would never sue,
since a) He can't predict the future & b) he's not a lawyer?
>unless your intent is to mess up any chance there might be that
>consumer's won't avoid KDE like the plague, for fear of getting stuck
>like we have with Microsoft.
Oh please, consumers will ever care what is said on cola?
Consumers have so far preferred KDE. I can see no reason why this will not
continue.
As for MS, they seem preferred by a great many people.
>GO AHEAD; pretend you can't understand what I'm saying; EXAGERATE the
>issue and try to make my position seem ridiculous; PRETEND to refute the
>facts by building a strong man; MAKE SURE we know how utterly clueless
>you are.
fyi - it is not Roberto who appears clueless about KDE in this thread.
It pays to reearch before you shoot your mouth off.
>Just in case you haven't realized it by now, Roberto: BULLSHIT DOESN'T
>WORK when your opponent is only concerned with straightforward
>discussion, honesty, and integrity, regardless of the positions or
>rhetoric presented.
Just apply that argument to your own specious utterances, and take yourself
off like a good little troll.
[snip]
>I'm not trying to bully you, Roberto. You'll recall that I wasn't the
>one in earlier exchanges to point out how your elitist attitude
i would consider it far from elitist to have tolerated your unwillingness
to learn, research, or god forbid, think, as far as has been done in this
thread.
>reflected badly on your attitude towards community supporters, though I
You a community supporter? Of what community? I don't recall your name anywhere
bar cola.
>did concur with that sentiment. I just want to make things clear;
>you're being an ass, and should shut up now.
Boy, some people need to look in the mirror.
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
You need all the help you can get.
George Russell
--
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:39:36 GMT
Thomas,
Thanks for the words of caution. Most people I have talked to tell
me it's greatly different in Corporate amaerica than in the military.
I heed you words of warning, but I feel that the navy has given me
all that it can (and vice versa). It's time for me to move on. 6 more
years of this narrow thinking - and NOT being allowed to fully execute
the job responsibilities that I have been trained to do - make it far to
painful (personnally and professionally) to continue in the Navy beyond
15 years (next JUN) I'll stay in the reserve program as my safety net.
Don't get me wrong - the Navy has done me right in so many ways and I do
not regret a single minute of my active duty time. But at 33 I need to
earn some real money that will keep me in the modest lifestyle I have
grown acustom to. Further, in as much as the Navy has changed (some
good, some bad) it can no longer provide me with the challenges,
resposibilities and interest that they used to. It's like a mutual
parting of ways that for most people takes 20 years to achieve. I'm
just a little ahead of the curve I guess. Oh yeah, and the money
aspect is just to good to pass up. Even if I end up working for a
complete moron - at least that moron will be paying me 3 (maybe 4) times
what I get now for the same abuse. Sounds mercenary - but money makes
the world go round - and I ain't getting any younger.
Cheers,
Steve
"That small difference between genious and insanity is the perspective
of one's own life in the world"
======================
Thomas Corriher wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:55:37 GMT,
> Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >So, part of what pac says is true - the DoD can buy just about
> >anything - unfortunately they view an OS, that imho, has better
> >network mapping, node management and traffic analysis, as
> >"radical and unstable" (yeah NOT!!)
> >
> >THIS is why I'm getting out in 6 months.
>
> Steve, I feel for you. I know what it is like to deal with
> idiots. All your skills and knowledge are useless when your
> managers decide that they will make all technical decisions
> based on marketing propaganda.
>
> I was talking to a guy who is outside the technical community
> last night. He told me that he supported everything Microsoft
> does, because Microsoft is "an American company". Does this mean
> that everything done by Americans is always honorable and legal?
> This shows just how powerful a company's marketing machine can be.
> It is a sad situation. I wonder if the leaders in the U.S.
> military are dumb enough to believe that supporting Microsoft is
> actually patriotic. Would they purchase bombers that crashed
> frequently and unexpectedly simply because they were "made in
> America"? I would hope not, and would hope that the military
> would have higher standards.
>
> Again, I feel for you Steve. When someone states that Linux
> cannot be used because it would diminish the security and
> stability of a NT network... what can you say? How can one
> honestly reply to that without expressing the person has no
> comprehension of the subject and is "unfit for duty". I am
> certain that the statement: "You have no *(#$ clue what you
> are talking about, sir" would not be taken kindly in the
> Navy (even if you said "sir"). How can one even begin to
> reason with someone who is your manager, but has no
> comprehension of the subject matter; and has already decided
> "the right way" to do things? You can't do it. You have
> to play "whipping boy" since all the unavoidable problems
> are "your fault". Your problems are "your attitude" since
> you never learned about management's "right way" of doing
> things. This may sound like I am saying that you cannot
> win. That is because it is exactly what I am saying.
>
> Steve it gets worse.... :(
>
> If you think you can escape stupidity by enlisting (cute, eh?)
> in corporate America, then you should brace yourself for a
> big surprise. You will often see the same stupidity. Many
> times the biggest difference is that you will see your managers
> wearing ties instead of rank.
>
> I have heard of banks utilizing NT for the "enhanced security"
> (no shit!). No doesn't that scare the piss out of you? The
> problem of stupidity is pervasive, so you cannot escape it.
> The degree of it in governmental agencies may be significantly
> greater, but it still exists everywhere. I have heard that
> the greatest damage done on the world of IT by Microsoft is
> a pervasive lowering of standards. I agree with that statement.
> I think it applies to both technology and the overall
> competence of "technology professionals". That title is used
> very liberally nowadays. Ever hear of cases when MCSEs have to
> have IRQs explained to them? Should we laugh about it or cry
> about it? Many of the "A+" techs fall into the same category,
> because they learned everything from a book. For instance,
> they like to argue that BIOS stands for "Basic Input Output
> System". This comes from a mistake in the A+ study guides, and
> it is FAR from the only one. Certain companies would probably
> like to keep the myth alive because of the reference to "basic".
> For those that do not know: BIOS stands for BINARY Input Output
> System. A MCSE wanted to argue this point with me not long ago.
> Sad... My provider Bellsouth is now offering "secure PPP
> connections utilizing the security of a Windows NT network"
> (not VPN - PPP). Stop and think about that for a moment.
> Just try not to laugh. Can you do it?
>
> One a lighter note: The stupidity does help me feel better
> about myself. This stuff helps me to feel confident that
> my knowledge makes me much more qualified than the average
> technician. I love to read many of the security bulletins
> in the Net because they leave me feeling very special.
>
> Steve, it seems like you do not have long to wait before
> you receive your Navy career benefits. I strongly suggest
> waiting it out. There is no dishonor in waiting to receive
> the benefits that you have earned over your years of service.
> Running to corporate America will not guarantee that the
> stupidity situation will improve. Wait out your time, so
> that your benefits provide you an economic safety net.
>
> "Never test the depth of the water with both feet at
> the same time"
> -- Confucius
>
> --
> From the desk of Thomas Corriher
>
> The real email address is:
> corriher at bellsouth.
> net
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:53:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[...]
> >> >So what would be the alternative of either a) dynamically
> >> >assigned DNS settings, or b) fixed DNS settings? For
> >> >Windows based hosts, that is the entirety of your options
> >> >for setting DNS. I'm not restricting anything here, this
> >> > is How It Is.
>
> >> Dynamic [or] fixed DNS settings using some other mechanism that gets
> >> screwed up by Microsoft crapware. There is no "How It Is"; this is
> >> the real world. Standards are defined by consensus, not monopolization.
>
>> >So you admit that you are arguing from a point of absolutely no idea?
>>
>> Ummmm.... no. Why do you ask? Could it be you're as incapable of
>> understanding interoperability, and why I say that it is not within
>> either your or Microsoft's power to declare "this is How It Is?"
>
>On a Windows based host, this is how it is. My solution applied to
>Windows based hosts. There's no third option. Sorry, thanks for
>playing though.
>Your attempt to divert the argument from your lack of facts is as
>feeble as your lack of facts.
It seems obvious that you've failed to understand the issue, and that
doesn't really surprise me.
You apparently misunderstand the purpose and import of 'dynamic DNS'.
In point of fact, to the systems doing DNS resolution, there is no
difference. Which is to say to the DNS server, there is no difference.
The DNS server may, in addition to that task, be a DDNS client, but it
may well also be some hybrid, one of the pre-standard dynamic DNS
systems, or, in fact, some other method that you haven't even thought of
yet. Interoperability involves not making assumptions, let alone
dictating presumptions, as One Microsoft Way requires, about how the
server gets its information, or how the client uses the information. In
terms of networking, 'DDNS' has nothing to do with DNS. Its just a
fancy way of updating data more quickly than text file editing, is all.
Perhaps someone less steeped in Microsoft bullshit might find this a
valuable lesson. A server or a client which makes assumptions about how
the other works, in excess of the protocol standards, is broken by
design.
>> >If there's some hidden button that I'm missing in my network
>> >configuration, that lets me use some other option, I'd be glad if you
>> >can point it out.
>>
>> Well, its there in everybody else's network configuration; perhaps
>> Microsoft left it out, so as not to confuse your tiny little brain.
>> Here; have a piece of cheese.
>>
>Yes, very witty, still very wrong.
Well, at least you were smart enough to recognize the wit. Perhaps some
day you might understand the real lesson involved. I find it
unsurprising, but still astonishing, how badly the concept of
'interoperability' has been mangled by people who learned how computers
and networks work from Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 17 Sep 2000 02:02:41 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:36:53 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:11:53 GMT, Richard wrote:
>> No no no ... you're just not getting it. I mean that there is a lack of
>> interest among both users and developers. If there was a lot of interest
>> in this from users, someone would implement it.
>
>Not necessarily. The two biggest reasons probably are that 1) nobody's
>thought of how useful it would be
Well, this is pretty similar to what I said. I mean, someone has to think
of it before users can get interested.
> (as you point out, no other OS shell
>does this), and 2) whenever someone asks for it they get intimidated
>into silence (as you were trying to do to me)
I'm not trying to "intimidate" anyone. I'm sorry if I sound overly
combative. But I'll also remind you that you were combative first (-;
While we're on the subject of manners, please don't crosspost to
my inbox. I post here, therefore I read here.
>It also doesn't help that programmers never act, they *react*. If they
Gross overgeneralisation.
>are told that guessing a command based on file extension would be useful,
We don't know what they'd do precisely, because you're the first to
suggest it. Speaking for myself, my first reaction was a little
reactionary, not because of the suggestion, but because of the fact
that it was accompanied by a lot of nasty rhetoric.
When I calmed down, my conclusion was that it is quite an interesting idea.
Unfortunately, I have neither the technical skills, the time, or interest
to implement it.
>they're going to point out that extensions aren't used in Unix.
If they pointed this out, they'd be wrong. There are several precedents
even in UNIX for deciding filetypes based on extension. But there's more.
The files can be identified based on other things.
>Further, what I'm asking for is command-guessing and command-completion
>in the shell, not through some openfile command.
Yeah, I finally worked it out. It wasn't obvious what you wanted from
what you said in the other post.
>> It would not be that hard, since the infrastructure to do it already exists.
>>
>> >And writing an "openfile" command would not be sufficient for
>> >consistency. The shell would still treat "executable" and "non-
>> >executable" files in completely different ways for no justifiable
>> >reason whatsoever.
>>
>> There is a perfectly good reason -- one type is meant to be executed
>> and one type isn't.
>
>"execution" is a special case of processing an object. Same with opening
>a file.
In the context of your hypothetical shell, "executable file" is indeed
simply one of many possible types. Outside of that, there is good reason
for such a distinction.
>> You don't want the shell "handling" file types unless it is explicitly
>> told to do so. THis would lead to shell scripts breaking in a million
>> places.
>
>Easy; use [tab] to force the shell to guess the command in a command line.
My point was that your shell is not going to be terribly scriptable. IOW,
I wouldn't want to see these features added to bash. You'd want to make
this into a specialised interactive shell.
>Only in the Unix paradigm. In a persistent system, there is no difference
>between permanent storage and resident memory (at least conceptually) so
>you can cache out processes that aren't doing anything. And if you use
>(fake) thread migration then you just assign zero ressources to server
>processes. And finally, security is only a problem in Unix because it is
>based on Access Control Lists (instead of capabilities) and there is no
>scheme for protected sharing of objects.
I see what you mean. Your proposed OS design is certainly interesting. If
you're trying to tell us that UNIX isn't an example of perfect design, well
I'm not going to disagree.
My main disagreement is that I don't share your belief that UNIX is
imperfect because of "nasty programmers". I think the main issue is
that there's a compromise between "good design" and "compatibility".
And it's often the users that demand the latter at the expense of
the former.
>> Let's try to zero in on what you're talking about here though -- I
>> take it that you want a shell that handles ./file by opening it with
>> the right program ? You'd need to design a new shell if you wanted
>> to do this.
>
>Or just extend the readline library.
Well you could use the readline library, but you'd need to do more than
that.
>I've only got X Window on my machine last year so I still think
>of Xterms as part of the GUI, and I use them frequently.
Xterms certainly aren't "part of the GUI". They are a CLI within a
GUI environment.
[ snip ]
Well yes, it'd be nice to have a perfectly designed OS, but without
compatibility, and the applications that come with it, it'll have a
hard time catching on.
Linux, despite it's warts, did fairly well because there was a bunch
of software that worked on it the moment the kernel worked. Noone had
to write a compiler, or a libc/libstdc++ implementation, or shells.
In short, what's good and bad about Linux is compatibility.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:06:23 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: >http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
: >
: >You are not the only one who is laughing, hundreds of other hackers do
the
: >same.
:
: Yeah, they're laughing at CERT.
Most likely at CERT's effort they are laughing at. It seems useless to
release security warnings, much less fixes for the exploits.
:
: The vunlerabilities noted at this URL are months old. Patches have
: been available for months as well. If you get hacked via these, you
: haven't been paying attention. Which isn't to say that lots of folks
: don't pay attention...how many sites still run versions of IIS that are
: vulnerable to the ".." path bug, which was fixed long ago?
I see.... As long as one can find an IIS server with old exploits, then it's
ok to have exploits for Linux however old they might be. The availability of
the patches means nothing as time and time again the same exploits are used
to compromise a system. Once again it proves, it isn't the OS or the
application which can secure a computer. It is the administrator/user of the
system in question.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmann Schaffer)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: 16 Sep 2000 19:46:21 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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.
many people who needed a computer needed a pc (to be compatible with
the machine at work etc). i was talking about alternate software for
pcs. even in the dos / windows world there are numerous examples of
software that was superior to ms offerings that simply fell into
disuse because due to ms pricing practices it was more profitable for
software sellers to package the ms product. the end user never had a
choice, esp if s/he was a first time buyer who had to rely on the
seller's advice
hs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
