Linux-Advocacy Digest #761, Volume #29 Fri, 20 Oct 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Clearing things (Stuart Fox)
Re: Linux or Solaris ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Drestin Black")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Stephen Cornell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:46:50 -0700
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sp2ti$vnd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
> >
> >>
> >> #1. Microsoft has a competitive advantage over others in the
> applications
> >> market.
> >
> >Yes. For the most part their Office Applications are better.
>
> That's always a matter of opinion, of course. The point is that their
> monopoly position gives them a strong marketing and sales advantage
> regardless of any other pros and cons of MS software vs. other software
> (whether it be price, speed, reliability, functionality, ease-of-use, or
> whatever).
Microsoft is not a monopoly not matter how stupid some judges are. The
appeals court will rule that way.
Office is better product. People have chosen to use it and paid real money
for it.
>
> >
> >> #2. A Major security risk on the internet.
> >
> >Well ... the biggest hack on the Internet was the Unix worm.
>
> What is "the Unix worm" ?
It was a Sendmail worm that infected many, if not most, of the machines on
the internet.
http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/info/guide/The_Internet_Worm.html
>
> >And most people
> >spend their time trying to break into Linux boxes because they are
easiest
> >to get into out of the box.
>
>
> A poorly configured Linux machine is easier to break into than a
> well-configured NT server. However, a well confingured Linux box is far
> harder to hack than any NT/w2k box (other flavours of Windows cannot be
> well-configured from a security perspective).
Most Linux boxes are not well-configured.And Linux runs many of the programs
that are prime choices for hackers to go after like Sendmail etc.
And places like eBay do not run Win2k and WinNT if it is easy to hack into.
>
> >
> >In fact, if you read about most hacks they have to do with Perl shopping
> >cart applications.
>
> Perl is a language - Perl shopping cart applications are programs written
in
> that language. If these have security holes, then that is the fault of
the
> shopping cart programmers - the OS can do nothing to stop them. And
exactly
> the same situation will apply if the Perl scripts are running on a NT box
> (Perl is available for a wide range of systems - you cannot easily tell if
> the shopping cart is on Linux, NT, or anything else).
Maybe so. But most serious hacks seem to be against Unix/Linux boxes
>
> I think the original author was suggesting things along the lines of the
> fact that virtually every virus ever created has been for MS systems,
See the Internet Worm article.
But, since over 90% of desktop computers are running a form of Windows, of
course hackers will target Windows.
> and
> now the vast majority take advantage of the inherint lack of security in
MS
> office and IE. It is a simple matter to write a web page which asks the
> dancing paperclip on a visitor's machine to delete some critical files.
It seems to me, after reading the CERT bulletins, hacking into Unix and
Linux to get passwords and credit card numbers is easier than it is on
Windows NT.
>
> >
> >> #3. Closed Source.
> >
> >See #2. Open source means the source code is available for all hackers to
> >peruse. Scary.
>
> It has nothing to do with #2 - people cannot see the source of Perl
scripts
> unless the server is mis-configured or the scripts are badly flawed.
Wrong. Most open source shopping cart applications are open source. Their
source code is available to peruse.
>
> Open source means that people can find the flaws, and either fix them or
> tell people about them so that others fix the flaws. The majority of
> "security announcements" for open source products are fixes for potential
> holes that are found and patched long before anyone has found a way to
> exploit them.
Wrong. In fact CERT is changing it's announcement policy because people
aren't fixing the problems.
The script kiddies still love Linux and Unix.
> >
> >> #4. Non-GPL licensed code!
>
> GPL is only one of many suitable licences - lets not get obsessive about
the
> GPL. A large portion of the code on a typical Linux box is not GPL'ed -
> xfree86, apache, kde, and other packages have other open-source licences,
as
> do other systems like FreeBSD.
>
> >
> >Yes. They believe in free enterprise, not free software. It's amazing how
> >many people are short sighted enough to give away their time so Linus
> >Torvald can make money off of Transmeta Linux.
>
> Someone seems to have misunderstood things a little. First, Linus does
not
> make significant profits from Linux (maybe he has a few shares in Red Hat,
> or something). He does not sell Linux. Secondly, there is no Transmeta
> Linux (perhaps there should be, but that is another matter entirely).
Transmeta is calling it "Mobile Linux". It's a custom designed Linux for
Transmeta for their
embedded market.
http://www.transmeta.com/about/faq.html#Q19
> Transmeta's chips run x86 code, be in Linux or anything else. Linus makes
> money by doing his job at Transmeta, like most other employees around the
> world.
And by ensuring their are people willing to code Linux apps and the kernel
for free so he can sell it as "Mobile Linux" along with lots of Transmeta
chips.
Quit being so naive.
>
> >
> >> Because it's copy-righted code,
>
> The original poster is a little mixed up here - GPL'ed code *is*
> copyrighted. Other than that, the comments are valid.
>
> >> companies like Hewlett Packard and IBM are not very likely
> >> to dump their brains into a Microsoft Kernel. The GPL
guarantees
> >> everybody equal and unrestricted access to the code.
> >> Microsoft has 37,000 paid employee's versus Linux's 200,000
> >> free lancing, free contributing programmer/analysts.
> >> By using Microsoft you will be guaranteed the HIND END
> >> of technology. You will always be running on obsolete hardware
> >> as they simply can't keep up with the needed coding changes.
> >> Microsoft can't compete with Linux - example in the IA64 project
> >> where HP donates code to GNU/LINUX IA64 to put it over a
> >> year ahead of Microsoft in getting a ready OS. Linux is ready
> >> for IA64 right now - see redhat ftp site! Microsoft will not
> >> be ready until late next year!
> >
>
> >Thats ok. Even HP has lately admitted IA-64 is a prototype and will never
> >actually be in production of any scale.
> >
> >Who wants a 750mhz box with 128k cache when they can buy 1500mhz SMP AMD
> >boxes by Christmas and Hammer boxes at 2ghz next year?
>
> It is interesting that you mention the AMD SledgeHammer - a chip that
Linux
> will fully support in all its 64-bit glory when it comes out (simulation
and
> testing is going on now), whereas MS has no plans to support it at all.
And
> as for SMP - going the Windows route, you have to buy the expensive w2k
> server to take advantage of two processors, whereas Linux supports SMP on
> every system.
Win2k Professional supports 2 processor SMP out of the box. To take
advantage of 4 or more processors you need Windows Server. Advanced Server
supports 8. Datacenter supports 32.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/choosing.asp
>
> For a long time, Linux has been following Windows in hardware support
> because manufacturers did not see it as a major market, and in user
> interfaces because there were few non-expert users. But things have
> changed. Which OS was the first to support IDE66 and IDE100, for example?
> Not Windoze, but Linux.
>Which UIs support advanced theming? Serveral wm's,
> and especially KDE and Gnome, have supported theming for a long time.
Win 95 did themes when Linux was doing a command line Unix imitation.
>
> >
> >> #5. The cost. At Microsoft's current rate of inflation, by 2005 the
> >> cost of the Microsoft operating system will be over $1,000 a
copy.
> >
> >Hmmm. Linux people have math problems.Besides, I see Red Hat plans to
sell
> >people Red Hat subscriptions that will make it more expense than Win2k.
>
> With Linux, you can pay for what you get (support, installation help,
> printed manuals, etc.), or you can get most of it free. Even if you buy a
> Linux distribution, you can still install it on as many machines as you
> want. You have zero cost for client access to a server, unlike MS.
>
> >
> >> And at that time, the US court system will break Microsoft into
> >> two separate companies, one the OS company and one the
> applications
> >> company. This will cause you to have to BUY your Microsoft
> >> Operating system rather than just have it handed to you on your
> new
> >PC.
> >
> >Well, I wouldn't bet real money a Microsoft breakup.
>
> It may fall apart by itself before that time comes.
>
> >
> >> #6. The upgrade problem. In not one instance, since the inception of
> the
> >> company has Microsoft recommended you stick with last OS's
> >> applications
> >> when you upgrade your OS.
> >
> >Everything ran pretty good on Win2K when I upgraded without changing any
> >applications at all.
>
> Experiances vary widly on that.
No they don't. Many devices needed new drivers. Some have been slow in
coming. Most applications run just fine.
>
> >
> >In fact, a lot of games that wouldn't work on NT now work just fine on
> >Win2k.
> >
> >I know you are just envious of the fact that Microsft plans to unfork
> >Windows with Whistler while people twiddle their thmbs waiting for the
2.4
> >kernel to come out knowing full wwll that forking in Samba and other
> >applications is inevitable.
>
> MS have planned to "unfork" Windows for 8 years, so don't hold your
breath.
It's already in beta and will ship next year. It might even beat 2.4 out the
door.
> The dozen versions of windows that are currently in common use have huge
> differences and compatibility problems.
>
> And as everyone says, 2.4 will be ready when it is ready, unlike MS
> releases.
Actually, whats going to happen is that Linus is going to go back and read
Windows press releases about why they are late and regurgitate them.
It's amazing how similar the problems are when you move from a hobby to a
big business with lots of users.
And now that Microsoft has a super stable OS we Win2k users will be laughing
at the Linux users waiting for the next kernel release and trying to compile
drivers for hardware Linux doesn't support.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 10:49:05 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > It was enough of a pain in the ass getting it to see
> > > > the modem and work the video card, which Windows manages to do all
by
> > it's
> > > > self.
> > >
> > > That's utter bullshit and you know it. Windows does not see anything
> > > more than a VGA card by itself. You give it drivers and tell it
> > > explicitly what card you have. So you had to do the same thing under
> > > linux? So fucking what? How does this now make linux worse?
> >
> > Um. No. Windows PnP sees EXACTLY what card you have and ONLY if it
doesn't
> > already have drivers for it does it ask you for drivers. And you can
change
> > the drivers effortlessly. AND manufacturers make the *best* drivers
_first_
> > for Windows +quickest+
>
> Result's the same, windows can't do anything with the card. It's not as
> if you don't know the cards name anyway: it's written on the box it came
> in and on the driver disc.
Sometimes you don't have the box or even the drivers. It's rare indeed when
PnP see's a card as just a VGA card. I suspect we're talking a real piece of
crap old card...
>
>
> The best (graphics) cards have the drivers written for IRIX first.
I think that depends on what you mean by best and in what context. If you
mean, "the card that can do THE most amazing stuff fastest with no
restrictions on cost, availablity, OS compatibility or application" then
there might be many that we could consider. I believe in this context we're
talking about PC video cards. PC Video cards have their best drivers written
for Windows first and the card simply does not get built without them -
linux support is an afterthought.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Clearing things
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:42:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook) wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:57:49 GMT, Idoia Sainz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Outlook Express, Outlook <--- free
>
> Of course it's "free", the intent is to lock sites into Exchange.
Of course it is. That's why you can access Exchange with:
a) MAPI Client
b) Web browser
c) POP3 Client
d) IMAP Client
So much for vendor lock when you can use just about any
standard "Internet" mail reader to check your Outlook mail. But don't
let the facts get in the way of a good story.
>
> Of course the cost of Outlook is folded back into the cost of the
OS.
In actual fact, Outlook isn't free. Outlook express is.
>I
> don't know about how Qualcomm pays for Eudora, but are they still
putting
> any work into it?
>
> > kmail ? xfmail ? pine ? netscape ? mutt ? sendmail ?
> > fetchmail ? procmail ? qmail ? Combine like you want
> > to get the same that at Windows programs.
>
> Why would anyone combine *all* those?
>
> > Internet Explorer <--- free
>
> Of course it's "free", the intent is to lock you into MS proprietary
web
> extensions.
As opposed to Netscape, who want you to use *their* proprietary web
extensions.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:54:10 GMT
Here's a little article on what Compaq thinks of Oracle for Linux:
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
Notice the last paragraph, and I quote:
***************************************************************************
But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database servers or online transaction processing. The independent
software vendor support [is not there]: Oracle has to do the next
version of its database [for Linux] because the current one is
horrible."
**********************************************************************
claire
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:43:45 +0200, Malte Ubl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>we are currently developing a business a plan for a rather
>large e-commerce site.
>
>I am trying to figure out which is the best direction to
>go concerning server and database technology. One possibility,
>of course would be to walk the SUN/Oracle path. But you can buy
>20 Linux boxes for the price of one sun server. So Linux might
>be the way to go. On the other hand, I heard the Oracle for
>Linuy is supposed to suck. So if we go with Linux which database
>would you recommend and how well do they compared to Oracle.
>
>I appreciate you comments,
>
>Malte Ubl
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: 20 Oct 2000 17:48:01 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's because on the production side of Linux, the usual issues
>of budget wars, fiefdom building, etc. are gone. There's no
>prestigious corner offices to be garnered, etc. Nope...the only
>way to make one's way in the world of Linux development is to
>PRODUCE....(the pay-off coming in the prestige which helps you get
>better jobs in other work, say, with mainline Unix vendors).
>
>Also, the other clutter, like Human Resources, Compliance, Accounting,
>and other dead-weight departments are gone...so that the various
>tiers of Linux development can focus SOLELY upon Linux development,
>rather than worrying about Affirmative Action meetings, the
>ubiquitous United Way drive, and other meaningless distractions.
You are forgetting the fact that "human resources" in Open Source are
often volunteers, and hence the ultimate form of cheap labor. They have
to have jobs elsewhere... or be paid students which under your cheap
fantasies would not exist.
>Much like...the US income tax. The *TOP* rate was 6% in 1914.
And the rich/poor split in the US was murderous, not to mention an
infant mortality rate well into the poorest 3rd World of today.
>When was the last time that any US Federal income tax bracket was
>that low?
Students don't pay anything.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: 20 Oct 2000 17:49:40 +0200
In article <8sn132$3tg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8sjp8n$crd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kobus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your sig should be about 5 lines long, not 36........
>
>No, .sigs should be a *maximum* of four lines long.
And like most childish libertarian ranters who don't want to give
anything back to the society which produced them, he is unwilling to
respect the common culture.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:57:45 -0700
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> David Brown wrote:
>
> > Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Well ... the biggest hack on the Internet was the Unix worm.
> >
> > What is "the Unix worm" ?
>
> On 2 November 1988, a self-replicating program called a "worm" attacked
the
> Internet and spread within hours to between 2,000 and 6,000 VAX and Sun 3
> computer systems running UNIX (BSD 4). The worm program did not steal,
corrupt
> or destroy data, nor did it alter the systems; but its rapid proliferation
and
> the ensuing confusion disrupted service and shut down some systems and
network
> connections throughout the Internet for two or three days.
>
> Melissa (April 1999) on the other hand, hit more than 300 companies and at
least
> 100,000 PCs. It was variously described as "the fastest proliferation of a
virus
> ever" (CERT) and a "record setting Internet rampage" (ZDNet).
>
> The Unix Worm is now the stuff of legend and was undoubtedly very serious,
> anyone who calls it "the biggest hack on the Internet" is clearly talking
out of
> his backside.
Knowledgeable people disagree.
6200 servers infected. Most other systems that weren't infected shut off the
interent.
http://rhet.agoff.umn.edu/Rhetoric/misc/dfrank/worminfo.html
As a percentage of machines running on the internet, it is by far the
biggest.
100,000 PC's is less than 1/10 of 1 percent.
>Additionally the Internet Worm led to the Unix security hole being
> closed and lessons being learned (the incident has never been repeated).
Sendmail has had a ton of holes. Go search CERT.
> Microsoft refused to admit there even was a security hole and Melissa
variants
> continue to multiply.
People do like to try and hack the most popular desktop operating system.
But ... if you go to www.cert.org and search for Linux vulnerabilities you
will find things like:
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-13.html
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 11:00:04 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > It was enough of a pain in the ass getting it to see
> > > > the modem and work the video card, which Windows manages to do all
by
> > it's
> > > > self.
> > >
> > > That's utter bullshit and you know it. Windows does not see anything
> > > more than a VGA card by itself. You give it drivers and tell it
> > > explicitly what card you have. So you had to do the same thing under
> > > linux? So fucking what? How does this now make linux worse?
> >
> > Um. No. Windows PnP sees EXACTLY what card you have and ONLY if it
doesn't
> > already have drivers for it does it ask you for drivers. And you can
change
> > the drivers effortlessly. AND manufacturers make the *best* drivers
_first_
> > for Windows +quickest+
>
> Yeah, but Linux had this in 1995.
>
> M$, playing catch-up with the rest of the industry....AS USUAL!
HARDLY! PnP was NOT developed on or for Linux, it was created for Windows
95. Linux caught up later...
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 17:05:49 +0100
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Of course, your
> > > "prediction" that linux will support it is as likely as MS supporting
> > > it. In
> > > other words, it's pure speculation and has NO facts supporting it - pure
> > > BS.
> >
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sndt0$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Actually, youre wrong again, dresden.
> >
> > Linux will run on the power4, because the power4 is going into the next
> generation
> > S/* mainframes, under which linux is *officially* supported.
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tell me what part of this I've said is inaccurate or wrong? Hmmm? Unless you
> actually have a copy of Linux running on a Power4 - your shouting "it will!
> it will!" are meaningless.
Take a minute to re-read what you wrote. If IBM have *officially*
stated that Linux will be supported on this hardware, then saying that
it will run is more than `pure speculation and has NO facts supporting
it - pure BS'. Agreed, it's not 100% certain (as you point out,
nothing in the future is certain), but `pure speculation' is quite
different - if I said that it was `pure speculation' that Hotmail will
ever run entirely on Windows 2000, I think you'd quite rightly
disagree (though others in this group may not).
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
