Linux-Advocacy Digest #61, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Gary Hallock)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Why Linux is great
Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Re: Should I use GNOME/KDE or Motif? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:14:21 GMT
"Chip Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Salvador Peralta) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> --snip--
> >This meant that he had to manipulate a month's worth of log data 30 text
> >files totalling about 600 megs on his new win2000 workstation. Like
> >most winAdmins, he opened up wordpad and tried to cut and past the files
> >into a single document. Due to memory limitations of the product, he
> >couldn't get more than 1/3rd of the data into any winDocument including
> >word.
> >
> --snip--
>
> The Admin was simply an idiot. He could have catenated the files using
> the copy command. Next he could have hacked out a QBASIC program to
> remove any unwanted lines. Make a batch file and run it once a month.
>
> The failing was in the Admin, not his tools.
Or, he could install perl and write a portable script that would not lock
him into Microsoft's vision of basic everywhere. Some admins have
their own toolkit.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 11:24:22 -0800
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Remember the time they proported that NT was as fast
> as Linux 2.2? How many independant company's have
> proven this notion false!
>
> On the same Hardware Linux 2.0 was beating NT.
In root breakins? I'll buy that.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:23:34 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u34ak$pkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, where does Windows fit in? It (in any of its incarnations) is not
> > as stable as Linux, and not as easy to use as the Mac, so what's the
> > point?
>
> The point is that there's already a huge amount of PC (non-Mac)
> hardware out there that will only run Windows or Linux/BSD. To have the
> Mac take over the user-friendliness portion so that Windows can no
> longer "fit in", you'd have to discount the huge number of non-Mac
> owners who also need user-friendliness.
So what we need is for Apple to port OS X to the x86? Hmmm...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:27:06 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kBgN5.123491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It gives 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.
> > >
> > > What error message?
> > > It warns you that the attachment (any type) may harm you, and ask you
> what
> > > you want to do with it.
> >
> > But, it does not tell you what is going to run if you choose 'open'.
>
> Actually, it does in most cases. A .doc file has a Word icon beside it, an
> XLS file has an Excel icon beside the attachment etc.
Neat - why don't they draw a picture of a bug when the attachment
has a virus?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:16:37 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Chad Myers wrote:
> Doesn't TUX run in the kernel? Weren't these benchmarks taken with Tux in the
> kernel?
>
Actually, Tux can run in either user or kernel space. I believe the benchmarks
were done with Tux running in user space.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:33:35 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u44ts$8ld$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > None of my Unix mailers will run a shell script at all, period. I have
> > to save it to a file and set the "x" bit. I count this as a good
> > thing, since I can't think of any _good_ reason why I'd want scripts to
> > run when I simply "open" them. This makes it a lot harder to fool
> > people.
>
> Probably, but it also make it troublesome for nonexperiance user to find
> them (I once had someone who couldn't find a *really* important file, why?
> because it wasn't on its desktop.)
> BTW, how hard would it be to make your unix mailer run a shell script? I
> mean, saving it to a temp dir and setting the x bit themselves.
The shell is happy to accept piped input, and most character based
unix mailers will let you pipe to anything you want (GUI versions
may or may not deal with pipes). The point is that it is the
recipient deciding how to process the message explicitly.
> By default, outlook would do the same, users are igoring this and getting
> fucked up, their sole fault.
No, outlook lets the sender decide how an attachment is processed
and the selection is hidden from the recipient as he guesses the right
answer for the yes/no answer to the only choice that hasn't been
taken away.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:35:31 -0000
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 17:51:12 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:09:29 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> |
>> |"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> |news:fD1N5.21327$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> |>
>> |> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> |> news:lCXM5.122690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> |> >
>> |> >
>> |> > I'm more than willing to look at some benchmarks. Do you have any?
>> |> >
>> |> > > 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
>> |> >
>> |>
>> |> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
>> |
>> |SpecWeb99 has nothing to do with serving up dynamic data from a database or
>> |doing ecommerce transactions. Thats where IIS and Win2K shine.
>>
>>
>> How time changes things. Now that Linux tops MS in serving up static pages,
>> it suddenly becones unimportant.
>
>Doesn't TUX run in the kernel? Weren't these benchmarks taken with Tux in the
>kernel?
>
>Guess what, I could write an OS that does only one thing: Server up static
...except for one thing: you would indeed have to write it yourself.
OTOH, if you have an OS with the sourcecode (even Solaris would do
here), then you could pull stupid tricks yourself rather than depending
on Microsoft to pull your stupid tricks for you.
>web pages and beat the crap out of both MS and Tux. Would this prove anything?
>Not really because no one would use such an OS. Likewise, no one is going to
>use Tux in the kernel for anything useful (like ecommerce or high-traffic web
>service) so Tux's victory is irrelevant.
Why not? If they're going to touch NT with a ten foot pole then
considering Tux wouldn't be a very extreme thing actually. You
can't then hark about one particular criteria when it suits you
and then backpeddle and claim that such a thing really isn't
the most critical when your FUD agenda needs change.
[deletia]
--
"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do: Pour a little
Lavoris in the toilet."
-- Comedian Jay Leno
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:37:30 -0000
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:16:37 -0500, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> Doesn't TUX run in the kernel? Weren't these benchmarks taken with Tux in the
>> kernel?
>>
>
>Actually, Tux can run in either user or kernel space. I believe the benchmarks
>were done with Tux running in user space.
Either way, it does not matter.
You can not definitively state how IIS achieves it's performance,
so any claims to discount Tux, merely because we can know that it
runs in kernel space, are assinine.
[deletia]
Also, those other (previously less relevant) attributes can be
objectively tested as well should any shill decide to do so.
--
Delta: We're Amtrak with wings. -- David Letterman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:43:29 -0000
On 5 Nov 2000 19:04:46 +0100, Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>Of course we should blame the OS and people do blame the OS.
>>>There are disciplines in computer science dedicated to human centered
>>>computing
>>>and ways to reduce errors and reliance on humans for safety and security.
>>
>>Outlook *asks* you what you want to do when you click on an attachment, it
>>*warns* you that it may be a virus. The default action is *saving* it, not
>>running it.
>>What else do you want Outlook to do? Refuse to accept attachments? This
>>seems to be the only way to be more secured.
>>
>It should do one of two things; 1) Not run them at all unless it is
>specifically enabled, or 2) Run them in a sandbox.
Quite right. These MS shills will remind us that the users
in question don't want to use their brains to use their tools.
So, forcing them to make a value judgement everytime they open
an attachement really isn't consistent.
Besides, even power users here don't want an email client
enviroment where you have to assume by default that every
package is a letterbomb.
[deletia]
--
Life is like a diaper -- short and loaded.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:45:03 -0000
On 5 Nov 2000 19:26:26 +0100, Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>But, it does not tell you what is going to run if you choose 'open'.
[deletia]
>>
>Looking at all the damage that has been caused by malicious scripts, it's
>not clear enough. Or, it's just ineffective. That's why I think that all
>running of scripts should be completely disabled per default.
>
>>>Opening mail is a typical thing to do and
>>>there is no way of knowing what will happen if you do.
>>Sure there is. Opening the mail does nothing. Opening the _attachment_ wil
>>launch another program.
...and typically, those problem applications are from MICROSOFT!
>>
>Wasn't there something about a preview box in Outlook that opened the
>attachment as soon as the mail was opened?
[deletia]
--
Your boss is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:47:25 -0000
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:55:02 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>But, it does not tell you what is going to run if you choose 'open'.
>> >If people are dumb enough to open attachments they know nothing about, do
>> >you really think knowing what program was going to open it would help ?
>> >
>> Excuse me for answering a question not directed at me, but this is news
>> after all :)
>>
>> It would probably not help the average user. People who know what the
>program
>> is will know not to go through with it though. On the other hand, those
>people
>> won't execute an attachment anyway.
>>
>> Now, it has happened more than once that worms/viruses/whatever has spread
>> through this _flaw_ in Outlook.
>
>It is not a flaw by any definition of the word flaw I am aware of. Outlook
>does nothing without asking. Outlook does nothing you do not tell it to.
>Outlook does nothing that many other mailers (yes, even Unix ones) also do.
No, other mailers are typically configured by default to be more
paranoid. Furthermore, within Unix applications there is not this
tendency to confuse a resume with a system level script.
>
>> Clearly, its negative sides outweigh the
>> positive sides as demonstrated by the ILOVEYOU.txt.vbs thing.
>
>The negative sides are stupid people will lose their data. This particular
>afflication also applies to programs like "rm". Should we remove "rm"
>because stupid people might delete their files ?
>
>> Unix companies have alreadly learned this lesson and has this feature
>> disabled.
>
>Bullshit. I can pipe a script attachment containing "rm -rf /*" to /bin/sh
>from Pine 4.21. If I'm not mistaken that's a fairly recent version.
That requires a considerable amount of intent. You have to
really want to shoot yourself in the foot to accomplish this.
It is in no way comparable to what M$ security and interface
policies do.
[deletia]
--
Check me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers...
they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:49:52 -0000
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:23:34 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8u34ak$pkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > So, where does Windows fit in? It (in any of its incarnations) is not
>> > as stable as Linux, and not as easy to use as the Mac, so what's the
>> > point?
>>
>> The point is that there's already a huge amount of PC (non-Mac)
>> hardware out there that will only run Windows or Linux/BSD. To have the
>> Mac take over the user-friendliness portion so that Windows can no
>> longer "fit in", you'd have to discount the huge number of non-Mac
>> owners who also need user-friendliness.
>
>So what we need is for Apple to port OS X to the x86? Hmmm...
GNU is already porting OpenStep.
--
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 11:53:22 -0800
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >>>Nope. All Unix/Linux systems have vulnerabilities.
> >>>Especially buffer overflow vulnerabilities that Aaron claims were taken
> >>>out of Unix 12 years ago.
> >>Potenitally, yes. But provided you run an up to date system, those are
> >>most likely plugged.
> >Ditto for Win2K.
> >
> Of what I heard I doubt that the holes get fixed as fast as for Linux.
> Especially Debian is very quick acknowledging and fixing bugs judging by
the
> ones I have followed and/or reported myself.
>
> >>Especially with Linux and even more so OpenBSD
> >>plugging of holes like that is very fast.
> >OpenBSD says they are 6 months ahead of other open source systems.
> >That sounds like Linux is slow in responding.
> >
> Whatever it sounds like, it does not mean that bugs get fixed in OpenBSD
> 6 months before they get fixed in Linux.
I'm just going by the OpenBSD website.
The clear implication is that OpenBSD fixes the holes6 months before Linux
notices there are holes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:53:48 -0000
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:02:35 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a05882a$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> More FUD:
>>
>> Fact:
>> CDRW software for Win2k: Installing Adaptec Get latest Adaptec software
>and
>> run setup.exe. No problemo.
>>
>> Now to get my usb scanner working I will probably have to fiddle with an
>> beta quality Linux kernel (2.4) and obscure, if non-existent, drivers.
>> Hardly non-trivial.
>>
>
>Or update to Mandrake 7.2. Time-consuming but trivial and worth it.
Alternately, he could have merely put some forethought into
his consumer decisions. Since he was unware that at least 2
Linux distros have supported USB out of the box for at least
2 minor revisions so far, forethought is perhaps something
he's not capable of.
[deletia]
--
The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up
in the morning, and does not stop until you get to school.
------------------------------
From: [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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:58:49 -0000
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 15:40:35 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8u3unv$6c4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >
>> > It gives 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.
>>
>> What error message?
>> It warns you that the attachment (any type) may harm you, and ask you what
>> you want to do with it.
>
>But, it does not tell you what is going to run if you choose 'open'.
>
>> YOU choose whatever to ignore it or not.
>
>How can you make a reasonable choice with no relevant
>information?
>
>> People ignoring warnings it is by no means the OS fault, right?
>> The OS has *no way* of knowning whatever this code is dangerous or not.
Sure it is.
You must take your users into account when you are designing
any system. You can't merely disregard them and then crassly
blame them for your pisspoor foresight as a PROFESSIONAL when
mere novices cause havok with your system.
You exhibit the attitude many lemmings like to attribute to
Unix users in general.
Now, a good deal of the reason that Unix tends to do what it
does (including being more paranoid about security) is the
assumption that users are infact likely to cause havok.
In the end it works out better.
>
>And that is exactly the problem. There is a clear difference between
>a program that will process the contents of the attachments as data
>without allowing it to take control - like a GIF viewer - and one
>that executes commands like a script interpreter. It is normal
[deletia]
A Windows app should pass the "mother-in-law" test. If it
can't do that then it simply needs to be re-engineered
rather than manufacturing excuses.
--
This system will self-destruct in five minutes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Should I use GNOME/KDE or Motif?
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:45:22 GMT
In article <jeff_jeffries-0511001214440001@sdn-ar-
001nyprinp007.dialsprint.net>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Jeffries) wrote:
> I need to develop an app for analyzing data and graphically (3D)
> displaying results, preferrably with C++, X Windows, and OpenGL.
If you can stomach programming in C instead of C++ (or know how to make
various wrapper workarounds), and if you want the benefit of being
cross-platform even to Windows, and speed isn't a concern, then
consider using glut to handle all your windowing needs (instead of
GTK+, QT, or Motif). The added benefit of using glut is that, if you
don't know all that much about OpenGL, there are a few books in the
bookstore you can buy that'll teach you what you need to know about it.
The only other book in the bookstore that'll teach you OpenGL for
XWindows is as far as I know that one which uses Motif.
The main drawback with glut so far is that I've found it slow. This
might have something to do with the fact that I don't have the greatest
3D drivers for Linux for my card (voodoo3 3000), so that might change
depending on whether or not you have a card well-supported for Linux 3d
(nVidia has been very popular for this).
-andrew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 20:01:53 -0000
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:02:54 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:TbfN5.13183$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8u3unv$6c4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > It gives 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.
>> >
>> > What error message?
>> > It warns you that the attachment (any type) may harm you, and ask you
>what
>> > you want to do with it.
>>
>> But, it does not tell you what is going to run if you choose 'open'.
>
>If people are dumb enough to open attachments they know nothing about, do
>you really think knowing what program was going to open it would help ?
This is why default security policies should be able to
successfully manage the actions of the grossly ignorant,
the excessively lazy, or the just plain malicious.
[deletia]
>>
>> No other OS processes mail the way Outlook does.
>
>Bullshit. Any mailer that allows an attachment to be handed off to a shell
>to be delt with does _exactly the same thing_.
>
>Pine in Unix, for example.
>KMail in KDE, for another.
What distribution or commercial variant of Unix comes with
a default security configuration that allows such a thing
without the user excercising considerable intent and be
familiar with considerable arcana?
[deletia]
--
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill.
-- R. Clopton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 20:05:01 -0000
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 08:18:14 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8u2rou$k77$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <6z5N5.123198$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8u2m4o$g5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <8c1N5.123098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > >
>> > >
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:51:22 GMT,
>> > > > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > >> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:33:10 GMT,
>> > > > > >> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and
[deletia]
>> >
>> > If it lets you break root so easily -- and I can't believe how many
>> such
>> > exploits are possible on Linux -- it is a trojan.
>> >
>> > Now, if it propagated itself, it would be a worm.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Buzzz wrong! Judging from the other things you have said I did not think
>> you would know!
>>
>> Ever hear about the "trojan horse"? It was a gift with an unplesant
>> surprise in it. The same can be said for trojan code! The code is
>> designed to look good on the inside but it has an unplesant suprise
>> inside.
>
>So far that sounds like Linux and all the exploits.
What exploits?
Where is all the damage?
With the current Linux hype, and the tendency of the Media
to build things up just so they can tear it down again, one
would think that CNN, MSNBC and friends would be all over
this if were really a problem.
Instead, all we ever hear about are macro viruses that allow
Microsoft's source code to be stolen.
[deletia]
Bug reports aren't quite as relevant as actual occurences.
--
The moss on the tree does not fear the talons of the hawk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 20:06:49 -0000
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 11:39:19 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>James wrote:
>>
>> mlw,
>>
>> You don't even of Novel GroupWise, Visio, or SAP, yet you advocate Linux for
>> all occasions. Spend some time in a Corporate environment - where Win2k is
>> useful and Linux is not ... and then do some real advocacy.
>
>I did not know of GroupWise, but have used products like Lotus Notes.
>I have used Visio, but am not too impressed with it.
Yeah, Visio doesn't look particularly spectacular.
With the possible exception of some proprietary format
it looks rather generic and rediculously easy to replace.
>SAP, who care?
>
>These are all simply products for which there is competition or other
>solutions. Knowing or not knowing any particular product is not
>important. That's like saying a person can't be a mechanic if they have
>never worked on Jaguar. (While, although Jaguars historically have
>required a disproportionately larger amount of work, it is still
>unlikely that any single, randomly chosen, mechanic had actually worked
>on one.)
[deletia]
--
Q: What do you call the money you pay to the government when
you ride into the country on the back of an elephant?
A: A howdah duty.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 20:07:01 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pm7N5.13148$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:uR3N5.123123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > I never argued Access is a replacment for a full blown RDBMS. But it is
> a
> > > great tool for developing small to medium systems and a great tool for
> > > learning an RDBMS for very little money.
> >
> > Learning? Or vendor lock? In what way does it teach or encourage
> > you to write standard DBMS code?
>
> SQL, stored procedures, triggers , table creates etc etc.
>
> You learn more if you use MSDE as the backed. MSDE is SQL Server 7.0 and it
> does come with Access 2000.
>
> If you but the Developers edition, you can distribute all of the above for
> free -- no client licenses, no need to buy Access for your client.
Access is a total peice of shit!
Everybody in the industry knows about this!
That's why they run Oracle!
Access is the dumbass's database!
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
