Linux-Advocacy Digest #991, Volume #29 Wed, 1 Nov 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why Linux is great (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: which distribution is best??? (Alan Shiers)
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (lyttlec)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:14:03 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Your point? I had two NT4 servers up longer than that between SP4 and
SP6.
> > They actually ended up at 370+ days and the down time was scheduled.
>
> Is that 370+ days without scheduled down time? Or 370+ days without an
> unscheduled outage? If you have a regularly scheduled down time to
reboot
> once a week then it doesn't count.
>
It was 374 days between scheduled down times for maintenance. No
unscheduled downtime, no reboots.
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:15:04 GMT
Chris Applegate wrote:
>
> There is a GUI available for Linux. I was running it (XFree86 4.0.1 and
> xfce, in my case) just the other night. It crashed and locked up the whole
> computer. I had to reboot.
No you didn't. Just Use the Ctrl-Alt-Backspace sequence. Then
you merely have to log on again to your GUI. Much faster than
a complete reboot!!!!
Chris
--
[ ] Click here to boot Microsoft
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:18:14 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Stability, reliability, flexibility and most of all -> SECURITY
> >
> > Stability: Stop changing the code-base so often. We hear that about 50%
> > of the code is new in Win 2000. It is empirical that code
> > takes quite a long time to become free of bugs, so we probably
> > have a few more years of bugginess, if the code-base isn't
> > majorly reworked once again.
>
> Hmm.. diff'd the 2.2 and 2.4 kernel's lately?
The kernel is not anywhere near 50% of the code-base. However,
I am interested in just how much difference there is between
2.2. and 2.4 kernels, in terms, of say, percentage of lines
changed. Do you know the answer?
It would help give a rough order-of-magnitude estimate of the
number of problems to be expected in systems using the new
kernel, perhaps, Mr. Funkengrooven <just teasing, no harm
meant here>.
Thanks in advance,
Chris
--
[ ] Click here to configure your NTKERNEL
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: 01 Nov 2000 16:37:05 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell) writes:
> >ls *.mp3 | sort | sed -e "$(cat -n tracks | sed -e's/\([0-9][0-9]*\)[
> >\ ]\(.*\)/\1s!\\(\.\*\\)!mv \\1 \"\2\.mp3\"!/')" | sh
> >
> >That's a small script I happen to use a lot. What's the easiest way of
> >doing it in a GUI?
>
> Get a better ripper - one that does CDDB lookups. Say ripenc for
> *unixen
Actually, I rip a lot of opera CDs, and they are often not found
by the CDDB server, so I can certainly understand the need for a
command such as this. It's certainly better than clicking on each
title in the file manager and changing the names one at a time,
wouldn't you agree?
(Don't get me wrong, I use Grip myself, which has a nice frontend
and can save each ripped mp3 in a directory specfied by artist and
title. It's a very nice frontend.)
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:24:13 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> If you've shitty code base, what would you do? Rewrite it, or just patching
> holes?
Well, at least you admit the Win code base was (is?) shitty.
>
> > Reliability: Learn from UNIX, and see "stability".
> >
> > Flexibility: Abjure the Registry. Stick with config files in protected
> > directories. Untangle the GUI from the rest of the OS.
> > Steal a command-line shell from Linux to replace that
> > crappy CMD.EXE window.
>
> Please check pre-win95 days, there wasn't a registery then, see how much fun
> they had those days.
Yeah, just as much fun as they have now. Moving INI file entries
to a hierarchical database is no real improvement that I can see.
> No-GUI, this I know that they are doing.
> Whistler is skinnable OS, one of the options is no GUI.
Whistler is now in beta, I hear.
> I don't know why CLI shell from *nix is better than CMD.EXE, except maybe
> the lack of applications to it.
So I sure hope the Whistler command-line interface is better than
CMD.EXE. To get an idea of the difference between a shell and CMD,
read the man pages for bash, then compare them to the help entries
for CMD.
>
> > Security: Forget about the fancy features. Don't use JavaScript or
> > ActiveX anymore. Provide client apps that the user must
> > install, and use tunnelled X-Windows instead of downloaded
> > code.
>
> Fancy features?
> What do you mean tunneled X-Windows instead of downloaded code?
I mean run an X-client on your end, and an X-server at the server's
end. Tunnelled through ssh so your X-session is difficult to hijack.
Get the code from a trusted source (which could include a download)
instead of having written to your machine automatically.
Anyway.........so much to think.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:20:49 -0800
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VO0M5.2742$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft was a johnny-come-lately to the internet. The net was already
> huge and everybody but Gates knew it was in the midst of an explosion,
when
> Gates finally abandoned the idea of having MSN actually compete with it.
MS made a bet on older tech that had a history of making money -- the
Compuserve model -- and they lost.
It's not that they didn't know about it; they just went for the private
net-with-a-gateway idea that Compuserve had proven. Unfortunately, they were
several years too late.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:19:17 -0800
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"Bruce Scott TOK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> hahahahaha
> >>
> >> To me the thing came of age in 1994. Before Win95.
> >
> >You mean, with HTML 1.0?
>
> No, later than that.
Hmmm... so that's after 1994 then.
> >Before most people knew what a URL was?
>
> Yes, long before most people knew what an URL was.
>
> >Before movie posters had URLs with them?
>
> A number of years before then, yes.
They first started to appear in early-mid 1996 in the UK. Which may mean
1995 in the US. Hey, guess what? That means 1995 is when it took off.
> >I know that this is probably hard for you to believe, but I'd say that
the
> >WWW didn't really mature until around early 1997, which is when magazines
> >*explaining* what the WWW actually was died out.
>
> In other words, when you knew about it, that's when its "really mature".
No; I happened to be *writing* those magazine articles explaining what it
was. I've known about the WWW since 1993.
> >From that point on, enough critical mass was there for it to be firmly
set
> >in the public's minds.
>
> Or perhaps the fact that it was now "in the public's mind" was a
> reflection of the fact that it had been around for several years, in
> essentially identical form, and it just takes the public's mind a while
> to catch on. Like the attribution of the success of the Internet to
> Win95 itself, the idea that some "critical mass" is what caused public
> awareness of the Internet is a loose subjective correlation, at best.
So what *is* your definition of a "mature" WWW then? Mine is when you've got
large numbers of people using it, when the content isn't just homepages,
when business has entered, and when most people know about it.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:29:26 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> I would say that you're a rare case. Practically everyone that I've talked
> to agrees that 2000 is (much) more stable than NT.
It is more stable, mainly because 2000 is better able to kill a crashed app.
>
> > I would challenge anyone to get Windows up and running, and Linux up and
> > running, use them for awhile, and then determine which feels more
> > pleasant to use. Personally, I find "waiting for Windows" to be much
> > more painful now that I've gotten used to Linux.
>
> Windows wins hands down.
Not in my book. It is so slow and unresponsive compared to Linux.
Start a file search on Windows, then try to edit a Notepad text file.
Start a file search on Linux, then edit using, e.g., vi.
Which feels more responsive. In my experience, Linux, by far.
> When you are talking about pleasent of use, windows GUI is by far superior
> to any thing that linux or unix produced so far.
I've not experienced that very much. Windows is sometimes less clumsy than
Gnome/X, but it reacts more slowly.
> If you are talking about other aspects of win vs *nix, then it's different
> answer for every aspect.
Very true. But I find myself becoming more and more comfortable with
Linux, and less and less comfortable with Windows. In feeling, mostly.
Functionality, well, it does depend on the quality of the app. Right
now, Windows and its apps have been pissing me off more than Linux
and its apps.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:30:30 GMT
MH wrote:
>
> > You had to reboot?? Why didn't you just kill the GUI and restart it?
> That
> > way you wouldn't have to shut down everything else that was still running
> > and...
> > Oh wait, you weren't running Linux. You were running Windows 2000,
> Sorry.
> > Never mind. :)
>
> At least he has a GUI. Don't you?
> Oh wait, you aren't running windows or mac or os2 or beos.
> You're running linux.
> Sorry.
> Never mind.
Where have you had your head buried lately?
------------------------------
From: Alan Shiers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which distribution is best???
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:30:25 GMT
Hi:
Thanks everyone for your input. All of your suggestions and experience has
given me food for thought. I appreciate your candor.
Regards,
Alan
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:33:27 -0500
Tim Smith wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Laugh all you want. Microsoft have lost the server market. Linux is
> >making inroads on the desktop. Now that they have been hacked (and not
>
> The Linux inroads on the desktop are not very big. Linux is a better OS
> than any version of Windows, but Microsoft has a much better graphical
> shell than anything available for Linux.
>
> Linux graphical shells are improving, but Microsoft has an ace in the
> hole. If it ever gets to the point where Linux is a threat on the
> desktop, they could, without a lot of trouble, write a driver that loads
> as a Linux kernel module and can load and run Windows graphics drivers.
> They could then, again without too much effort, get the Windows graphics
> system running on Linux. They could then release a version of Win32
> that runs on top of that environment. It should be possible to make it
> binary compatible with Win32 running on Windows. That ends the Linux
> desktop threat...Linux becomes just another way for desktop users to run
> Windows.
But would it have the stability of Linux?
Colin Day
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:05:37 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/01/00
at 02:17 PM, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Jason you asshole
>Everyone can see who the a-hole here is, and it's you, letarded.
I'm sure all the wintrolls think that. It takes their little brains off the
hook for not thinking -- or being able to.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:15:51 -0500
In <8tp8g2$d86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/01/00
at 02:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <39ff6852$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Jason you asshole, either prove me wrong (prove there is a demostrateable and
>>severe enough-to-measure productivity hit for the user of OS2 because the
>>low-level cache can't access memory above 64K, when the user is running OS2
>>native multi-threaded programs, and the real-world work is/is not balanced
>>with the productivity gains of multi-tasking other work (programs) -- whether
>>used/not used in a worker-oriented (work-as-he-chooses or works-best) mode
>>that is not limited by the software design.
>>
>You obviously don't know jack, you just through out jargon. I did prove you
>wrong, the link showed what the topic at hand was and somebody else corrected
>you too. When you tried to claim that OS/2 overcame a hardware issue you
>obviously showed your ignorance and as they say, ignorance is bliss. Right
>here in this thread you claimed that you never said OS/2 overcame harware and
>I provided a link where you claim that it does because, and I quote
Jason you're an even bigger asshole then I first thought. In addition to not
being able to think clearly, you can't read carefully either. I never said it
physically overcame the hardware issue. I said it effectively overcame the
problem because its not only too minor to measure and therefore of no matter
in real world use -- but after all this time you still can't point to one
single study or report anywhere from anyone to support your whining. You keep
ignoring that little detail. -- That, plus the fact that you are still
whining about a year later and have continued to whine for all of this time,
does make you an asshole.
Go away little boy. I'm tired of your constant drivel. I suggest you find a
girl and do something besides play on the internet. You will be a happier
person and maybe you will find other things to do -- although I personally
hope you done breed anymore idiots like you.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> This is true, but it is limited to the value of the chip cache. OS2 does over
>> come it in the sense that it does keep track of files and other things, which
>> do increase the overall performance levels to something beyond what we see
>> from Winwhatever.
>>
>
>OSes have no bearing on this. This a hardware, chipset level
>limitation.
>
>All OSes "keep track of files and other things" via buffers and OS-level
>caches. These buffers and caches are stored in main ram memory. This has
>nothing to do with the *hardware* CPU cache, which is what we are discussing
>here. The limitation is that the Intel 430TX Pentium motherboard chipset
>does *not* cache main ram above 64 megs. You can install as much ram as you
>want, and it all will be used by whatever OS you are running (well, all
>except plain old DOS I suppose!), it's just that the memory over 64 megs will
>not be cached by the hardware
>motherboard static ram cache.
>
>So more than one person was pointing out how wrong you were that, "OS/2
>overcame this in a sense". Instead of admitting this you tried to push the
>conversation towards another topic that had no real bearing on the one at
>hand and that I have already said would be different. Right here in this
>thread I gave an example already of software running on the same hardware.
>This is why you are an asshole. This and the fact that you yell about how
>much people are being paid cuz little Ed don't like them. The topic at hand
>was purely hardware and I still don't think you got it judging by what you
>write.
>>Simplified just for you: prove that your point matters in anyway, shape or
>>form in the real world of work by the OS2 user.
>>
>>Or you can finally shut up and go play with yourself! -- Which is probably
>>what you do best anyway. You have spent the past year boiling over bullshit --
>>instead of growing up an interacting with other people in real life. If you
>>did, perhaps you would learn to see the forest from the trees.
>>
>>
>LOL, what a joke you are. I just proved you a liar, you did claim that OS/2
>overcame a hardware issue. If you could prove a point and make real claims
>perhaps you wouldn't be so bitter. Making up things don't make them any more
>real Ed. Now Ed, why don't you get back to proving that people are being
>paid to assault you and other OS/2 users, that might be a more productive use
>of your time.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:31:10 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:39ff63ae$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >The APPLICATION (you know, a program) had an error in it. NT never
>crashed.
>> >There was nothing in the article that ever stated that the OS crashed
>(except
>> >some ignorant military guy they interviewed who said the whole thing
>crashed,
>> >but it was obvious he was speaking from ignorance).
>>
>> I don't know which vessel you are talking about, but the USS Yorktown was
>dead
>> in the water and towed into port -- and YES -- it was NT that crashed.
>Look, NT was as much at fault in the yorktown as the OS that was used in the
>Arianne 5 was responsible for it's crash.
REALLY! I'm sure this is going to be good --- And the reason the database
kept the crew from restarting NT and get underway was?
>> >Trust me, Linux/Unix applications have errors too.
>>
>> They haven't sunk and billion dollar vesselsand killed the crew -- which
>is
>> exactly what would have happened to the Yorktown in war time.
>The Yorktown is a non-combat vessel. But it's irrelevant since the fault was
>in the database software. The Database vendor even said that the problem
>would have never happened if the navy had not been running a beta version of
>their software.
If you had half a brain and just one not hotlinked to M$ bullshit, you would
how stupid this makes you look.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:46:00 -0500
Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:hQTL5.5426$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:39ff63ae$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I don't know which vessel you are talking about, but the USS Yorktown
>was
>> dead
>> > in the water and towed into port -- and YES -- it was NT that crashed.
>>
>> Look, NT was as much at fault in the yorktown as the OS that was used in
>the
>> Arianne 5 was responsible for it's crash.
>>
>> > >Trust me, Linux/Unix applications have errors too.
>> >
>> > They haven't sunk and billion dollar vesselsand killed the crew -- which
>> is
>> > exactly what would have happened to the Yorktown in war time.
>>
>> The Yorktown is a non-combat vessel. But it's irrelevant since the fault
>> was in the database software. The Database vendor even said that the
>> problem would have never happened if the navy had not been running a beta
>> version of their software.
>>
>I'm not familiar with the details of this case. Did NT crash or not? If so,
>then surely you're not blaming an application for it. If the OS crashes, it
>is the fault of the OS. A buggy application should have no effect on the OS,
>beyond perhaps keeping it busier than it should.
NT not only crashed, but Erik M$. Funkenbusch is such a complete nincompoop
that he thinks a guided missile cruiser is a "non-combat vessel."
Hey, anybody still think this M$ mouth-piece is a non-paid party just dropping
in here for fun?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:53:33 GMT
Marty wrote:
>
> lyttlec wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Wenham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> "Ayende" == Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:YLxL5.508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >> That's quite a bit of trouble to go to, but it is not an impossible
> > > > >> scenario. Here's the same scenario for Windows:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1) Write a back door in any piece of software you want to.
> > > > >> 2) Upload it to shareware sites.
> > > >
> > > > > Why can't I do the same for OSS product?
> > > >
> > > > You can do the same, so in theory the potential for payoff (the
> > > > number of clients you compromise) is the same for either model.
> > > >
> > > > The only difference is that the user of the Free software HAS THE
> > > > OPTION of re-compiling the source code that he might also audit or
> > > > have audited.
> > > >
> > > > The user of the closed software does not have that option.
> > >
> > > But what does this option buy you? Is a user of a given piece of open source
> > > software generally paranoid enough to scrutinize the source code before
> > > deploying the application? More than likely, the answer is no. So the
> > > detection of any security holes usually occurs after the first act of
> > > violation (same as a closed-source scenario). At this point, the open source
> > > software user can either work on a fix themselves, locate the original author
> > > and notify them of the problem, or both. The closed source software user has
> > > to notify the author and wait for a fix. So, in essence, the only difference
> > > would be turnaround time to fix the defect, and that's only the case if you
> > > happen to be a skilled coder.
> >
> > But someone will check and notify everyone if a backdoor is found.
> > Paranoia is becoming very common. The advantage of open source is you
> > can't hide anything.
>
> If there's a backdoor buried in 100,000 lines of code, how likely is it
> to be found by someone who is unfamiliar with the application? Throwing
> a needle into a haystack is an effective way to hide the needle.
Less likely than that it will be found by someone who is familiar with
the application. Which is the point. I probably wouldn't find a back
door in a Pine distribution because I don't use it or work on it. My
friend who is a SysAdmin at a university might as he works with it every
day. LOTS of people will be looking at the code. Some will be familiar
with it, some won't. Everyone can do a diff between versions and end up
looking at only a few hundred lines of code. I can compare code from
the last SusE or Redhat distribution with the new untrested code and see
what changed. No problem.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 01:02:48 GMT
Weevil wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:hQTL5.5426$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:39ff63ae$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I don't know which vessel you are talking about, but the USS Yorktown
> was
> > dead
> > > in the water and towed into port -- and YES -- it was NT that crashed.
> >
> > Look, NT was as much at fault in the yorktown as the OS that was used in
> the
> > Arianne 5 was responsible for it's crash.
> >
> > > >Trust me, Linux/Unix applications have errors too.
> > >
> > > They haven't sunk and billion dollar vesselsand killed the crew -- which
> > is
> > > exactly what would have happened to the Yorktown in war time.
> >
> > The Yorktown is a non-combat vessel. But it's irrelevant since the fault
> > was in the database software. The Database vendor even said that the
> > problem would have never happened if the navy had not been running a beta
> > version of their software.
> >
>
> I'm not familiar with the details of this case. Did NT crash or not? If
> so, then surely you're not blaming an application for it. If the OS
> crashes, it is the fault of the OS. A buggy application should have no
> effect on the OS, beyond perhaps keeping it busier than it should.
>
> jwb
The application caused the OS to crash stopping all systems on the ship.
The ship was towed to port as the crew couldn't get the OS back up to
restart the engines. The ship was a test bed and not a combat ship. But
it was proving systems to be deployed onto combat ships. Both the Navy
contracting officer and the contractor blamed the problem on the data
base application. Several versions of what caused the crash were
circulated. The one I liked was the one that said the crash was caused
by a rating in the galley trying to enter too many items into the lunch
menu.
Whether it was the OS or the application, it just showes that in combat
you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
