Linux-Advocacy Digest #41, Volume #30 Sat, 4 Nov 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I think I'm in love..... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I think I'm in love..... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Linux is great ("James")
Itanium-based Linux cluster deployed ("ne...")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jim
Richardson)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:05:57 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6qZM5.13022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:lCXM5.122690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Of course you can. The question is how it performs compared to
> > > apache/mod_perl
> >
> > I'm more than willing to look at some benchmarks. Do you have any?
>
> I'll be happy to do some timing if someone can show me how
> to make IIS run my perl code. Is perl included in win2k or
> do you have to use third party code? Does it run in-process
> or separately. Does it all have to be thread-safe?
www.activeperl.com should be able to answer your questions.
MS ship it as part of Win2k resource kit, btw.
> > > and whether you have to write thread-safe
> > > code in a thread-safe language (which in my experience takes
> > > about 15 years longer than when you don't) to make it work.
> >
> > IIS works just fine. And fast too. Kicks Linux and Solaris ass
> >
> Only when you don't use apache modules as they are designed.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:08:30 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yXYM5.13004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Broken root. Nope.
>
> Everybody is root on Windows. and the vbs has complete control,
> moves files, deletes files, sends copies to everyone in sight, etc.
> Who needs root?
Windows != Win9x
Try to do the same on NT/2000 see how successful you are.s
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:10:52 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:58:44 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Anyone who reads the security advisories knows that Linux distros are
> >unsecure and open by default.
>
> I do read the security advisories. There are about the same number for
> MS products as for Linux.
>
> I agree that many Linux distributions run more services by default than
> they should. This, however, does not mean that they are necessarily
> "unsecure". They may become insecure down the road when people don't
> update their systems.
>
> MS products, on the other hand, don't run many network services by
> default. This doesn't mean they are secure though, as
ILOVEYOU
Need user confirmation in order to active itself. You can do the same for
any other OS.
teardrop
Don't know this one, what is this?
Back Orifice
Trojan, can write the same on any OS.
Word macro attacks
Require user confirmation in order to be activated.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:13:53 GMT
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:15:11 -0800,
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nope. All Unix/Linux systems have vulnerabilities.
> >
>
> So does NT:
>
> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#SPECIAL
And I'm amazed that they haven't fixed this:
[les@crown les]$ whois microsoft.com
[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
MICROSOFT.COM.SE.FAIT.HAX0RIZER.PAR.TOUT.LE.ZOY.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.OWNED.BY.MAT.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.N-AIME.BILL.QUE.QUAND.IL.N-EST.PAS.NU
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TERRORISTS.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOTHING.BUT.A.MONSTER.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.AT.THE.MERCY.OF.DETRIMENT.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.INSPIRES.COPYCAT.WANNABE.SUBVERSIVES.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.NO.LINUXCLUE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.FAIT.VRAIMENT.DES.LOGICIELS.A.TROIS.FRANCS.DOUZE.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM
To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:45:13 EST <<<
The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.
============
Of course this isn't specifically a Microsoft code flaw but it has been
there for a while now.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 15:23:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Kenneth Chiu in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>A socket does not need another socket, or even a network, to exist. It is
>>>just a data structure. A local one, at that.
>>
>>Spoken like a programmer, who thinks that being "just a data structure"
>>prevents a socket from existing outside a local host. It isn't "another
>>socket" on the other side, using the concise and comprehensive term
>>socket. To your perspective, I am sure you'd argue the opposite.
>
>Much of this debate seems to be driven by the fact that 'socket' is
>being used to refer to two different, but closely related concepts.
>There is the 'socket' of the Berkely sockets API, which is purely a
>programming construct. These sockets can exit just by calling
>socket(), by definition.
The debate, from my perspective at least, is that these aren't two
different, but closely related concepts. They are two uses of a word,
one which identifies the concept, and one which identifies a particular
mechanism related to the concept. The "socket" of the Berkeley sockets
API might seem to programmers to be "purely" a programming construct,
and definitive. But the reason, AFAIK, that the programming construct
uses the word it does is because it is used to create a socket (from the
perspective of the software client or server). Such sockets "exist"
when they are considered to exist, and since their purpose is to provide
a virtual connection between software clients and servers, they don't
truly exist, whether the programmer, client, or server thinks they do or
not, unless they provide such a virtual connection. Whether any
protocol exchange (session/presentation/application protocols) or data
"flows through" the abstract socket is irrelevant. Programmers learned
the word without being aware that it references a larger concept, and
therefor assumed it defined a programming construct, rather than the
abstract connection which the programming construct related to.
In the end, sockets can't exist "just by calling socket()", though
obviously enough, that is a prerequisite at some point or other, and
there isn't much more to it in terms of mechanics.
>>But
>>"the socket", in the abstraction of internetworking, is the virtual
>>transport-layer connection established between two ports on ostensibly
>>(but not necessarily) two hosts.
>
>Then there is the 'socket' of the TCP/IP protocol definition. That
>socket is simply the pair formed by combining the port number with the
>IP address. Quoting from RFC 793:
>
> To allow for many processes within a single Host to use TCP
> communication facilities simultaneously, the TCP provides a set of
> addresses or ports within each host. Concatenated with the network
> and host addresses from the internet communication layer, this forms
> a socket. A pair of sockets uniquely identifies each connection.
> That is, a socket may be simultaneously used in multiple
> connections.
>
> ...
>
> socket
> An address which specifically includes a port identifier, that
> is, the concatenation of an Internet Address with a TCP port.
>
>Now, if you wish to redefine 'socket' to mean something else, that's
>fine. But I think you'll get more mileage if you make clear that the
>definition you are using is neither that of Berkeley sockets nor that
>of RFC 793.
I do not ever redefine words to mean "something else", though I can see
why you think I am doing that. What I do is observe the way the words
are used. This would make it seem as if I'm trying to unilaterally
re-define a word, because I insist on being able to use the same concept
in multiple contexts. Since all uses of the word "socket" from the
perspective of programmers considering RFC 793 would be "something
else", definitions outside the exclusive one provided in that context.
They would naturally be presumed to be "wrong", if it is assumed that
words can be defined exclusively, so that all other definitions beside
the one presented would therefore be incorrect.
The fact is, though, that even if it is a bit more exacting and rigorous
than casual speech, technical terminology is part of natural language,
and words in natural language are not defined exclusively, but
inclusively. All definitions ever provided are valid, and if they are
similar contexts, then two definitions might even be contradictory,
without either of them being incorrect. So what I've done in
formulating this "network model" which I refer to is to define words in
whatever way is most accurate, consistent, and practical across all
technical contexts. The fact that a socket in programming is similar to
a socket in networking is not mere coincidence, nor even just a
historical artifact. They are the same word because they are the same
concept, even if they aren't normally considered to be the same term. I
am constantly trying to work with people from different specialties,
semi-convergent technologies, and multiple contexts. I would be more
than happy to agree with every usage of every term anyone else uses, if
all such words could support a single accurate, consistent, and
practical definition. But they can't. Sometimes, they are general
terms used specifically (network, interface, and possible socket).
Sometimes, they are specific terms used generally (circuit, virtual,
connection). Usually they are a mixture of both. I have no alternative
but to try to impress a valid conceptual model, and attempt to derive a
correct vocabulary which does not resolve to exclusive definitions,
because that is the only way to avoid contradictions across multiple
contexts.
While certainly providing a great deal of authority, the fact that the
terminology "socket" is defined in RFC 793 does not make it an exclusive
and unilateral definition. You are correct, though, that I've been
over-stressing the "network connectivity" context, rather than the
"IP:port" definition. Certainly much more than most programmers would
consider correct, and potentially more of a casual usage than a rigorous
instance of the word. Frankly, I needed something to differentiate
"IP:port" from the network connectivity which such a mechanism allows,
and so I adopted the broadened concept of a socket as "one instance of
the multiplexed virtual connections which can be maintained between any
two sockets on the transport level of the OSI model in a complex
network". Pardon the confusion; I'll try to remember that this isn't as
accurate, consistent, or practical as I'd prefer. But I still think it
is probably worth pointing out that, however local and trivial opening a
socket might seem to be in the course of writing program code, there is
a fundamental and un-assuagable consideration which such an approach
tries to deny. If nothing else, this may be why the special case
necessary to open a socket was not corrected long ago, or why it was
considered, at the time, to be preferable to use a different syntax than
opening a file, despite the fact that this is counter to the typical
Unix method.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:23:23 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CNZM5.1116$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > What sound card?
> >
> > If you go into a CompUSA, all you will see is products by Creative
> > Labs and Aureal. Except for a few embedded chipsets, there really
> > isn't that much diversity in consumer level PC sound to confound one.
>
> There are alternatives.
>
> ESS make sound chips. They replaced Aureal in the MX series, the MX400 is
> an ESS chip.
>
> Crystal/Cirrus make sound chips. Take a look a Turtle Beach/Voyetra
Montego.
>
> Analog Devices make AC'97 codecs (as do ESS and Crystal for that matter).
> They're already on a number of 815 mobo's. It's a product called SoundMAX.
>
> Yamaha make sound cards.
>
> Aureal have disappeared in all but name. They're being bought by Creative
> (something I believe shareholders weren't happy with).
Is someone forcing you to buy hardware that locks you into a single
OS? (We know someone tries, but you should be smart enough
to make your own decisions....). If you make the wrong choice,
why complain like it is someone else's fault?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:26:55 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6KZM5.1201$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > "Works" is a interesting phrase when used by our Wintroll comunity.
>
> Well, "works" according to the Linux community is stuck with one font?
You seem unique in your ability to misconfigure a system. What
does DrakFont say about the fonts you have available, and since
you have a dual-boot system, did you ask it to use the windows
fonts yet?
> So KDE 2.0 has been released and as usual the users are Beta testing it.
> Just like commercial software.
Did you report your problem to the people who will fix it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:26:37 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:56:52 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >... and is almost entirely useless as a corporate desktop.
> >
> >I :
>
> 9: wish I could have lockups long enough for a coffee break
> 10: want to lose data randomly. I don't want my files intact. I want to
see
> lots of FILExxxx.chk files so that I know that the operating system is
working.
> 11: want weird junk randomly embedded in files. I want documents with one
page
> of text to grow to megabytes in size so that I know I'm being productive.
> 12: I can't do two things at once. I don't want my computer to be able to
do
> so either
> 13: want web browsers that popup advertisements in the foreground at timed
> intervals. I don't want to be able to watch the page I'm browsing. I
love
> advertisements.
> 14: I want downloads that simply hang for 15 minutes and then only
download 1%
> with no error message at all. I want to have to download a different
> downloading tool for every page I visit.
Use a download manager like GetRight 4.3. Unfortunately there is no Linux
equivalent. :-(
> 15: want animated chickens dancing around the help pages with advice as
helpful
> as reading the title of the help page.
> 16: I want my editor to do lots of things against my will automatically
and
> I want it so that I can't under what it thinks is best. Multiletter
> abbreviations should always have the first letter capitalized and the rest
in
> lower case!
> 17: I want my applications to keep working like shit no matter how often I
> upgrade my operating system. I really like having to replace all my
software
> to take advantage of a new OS working a little less crappy.
> 18: and I don't ever want to be able to use my data on another system or
on a
> future version of my software
>
> Yeah. Linux sure sucks. Give me windows! Give me a frontal lobotomy.
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Itanium-based Linux cluster deployed
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:29:45 GMT
Extra, extra read all about it
http://eltoday.com/article.php3?ltsn=2000-11-04-001-13-PS
--
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
Sattinger's Law:
It works better if you plug it in.
3:25pm up 13 days, 23:16, 8 users, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:38:07 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u1tfm$2nh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ...assuming you aren't accepting email attachements from anyone.
>
> Only if:
> You are stupid enough to run as administrator
It can still delete all of your own files or send anything you
can read elsewhere.
> You are stupid enough to ignore the very clear warning message that
Outlook
> gives you *by default*.
It give the same error message whether the program that might
view it is allowed to execute insecure commands from the
attachment itself or not. When the warning is given all
the time with no way to tell if there is a problem or not
people will just ignore it.
> The OS cannot be blamed for the user incomacity.
Since Outlook comes from the same vendor as
the OS (and they insist that they shouldn't be
separated) it doesn't make any difference in
this case.
We'll see if things change now that it has happened
inside of Microsoft itself. There is a saying that
experience is a fine teacher but only a fool needs
to learn from it. I think that says all we need to
say about Microsoft.
> The same can happen on any system, with any email program that support
> attachments
No, only email programs that don't distinguish between launching
programs that allow the attachment to control execution
from ones that don't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:48:39 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:00:23 GMT,
Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Richardson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:16:42 GMT,
>> Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Richardson
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> I am a little confused as to what your response has to do wrt Mr "Earth in
>> >> the Balance, but zinc mining profits in my checkbook balance" Gore.
>> >
>> > Typical yellow-dog Republicanism. Compared to Gore's zinc mine,
>> >Bush's Texas air is far worse.
>
>> Why is it you assume that anyone who is not pro-gore must be pro-bush?
>
>> Gore owns a zinv mine, in tennessee, that has twice been cited by the state
>> for groundwater pollution. The state is considering legal action, to force
>> Gore
>> to clean up the tailings. What does that have to do with the governor of Texas?
>
> Because that's what his opponent is, and I don't see any complaining
>from you about how Bush is Gore in disguise or whatever.
>>
>>
The differences between the left socialists, and the right socialists are
minor, neither Gore nor Bush is my choice. You simply assumed that anti-gore
meant pro-bush.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:44:01 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u1u5t$a81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yXYM5.13004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Broken root. Nope.
> >
> > Everybody is root on Windows. and the vbs has complete control,
> > moves files, deletes files, sends copies to everyone in sight, etc.
> > Who needs root?
>
>
> Windows != Win9x
>
> Try to do the same on NT/2000 see how successful you are.s
Is there something in win2k that would stop a trojan attachment
from, say, emailing all the confidential sources you can read
to someone outside the company - perhaps compressing and
renaming them on the way to disguise the fact?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:18 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qtZM5.13023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fFXM5.122692$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > And by then it was, and everyone trying to use NT still had farms of
> > > dozens of machines behind load balancers hoping that a few would
> > > keep working.
> >
> > Are you suggesting the companies below only have one machine and don't
use
> > load balancers?
>
> I'm suggesting that they don't have dozens of spares expecting them
> to be down.
I'd suggest that they do.
>
> > > Do you consider google, deja, or sourceforge to be
> > > real servers?
> >
> > Sort of. There isn't much dynamic content involved. Just a lot of text
> > searching. No transactions.
>
> What part of 'dynamic' don't you understand?
Transactions. Writing to a database. I understand those concepts. Do you?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
