Linux-Advocacy Digest #64, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Certification ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I think I'm in love.....
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. (mlw)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Re: Why Linux is great
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. (mlw)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:11:39 GMT
On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:12:06 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I had a conversation with a woman at a Verizon store today. To make the
>details concise, suffice to say, she had just bought a Compaq (Windows)
>and is having no end of problems.
I have heard similar tales of woe, and have found that more often than
not, a "cover all possibilities" version of the OS is installed. This
can result in all sorts of crap hanging around for devices that are
not even on that particular configuration but may be on a different
model.
I can't comment on Compaq, but I have seen this on HP computers.
>I am thinking to myself, that if she is having problems, out of the box,
>with a pre configured computer, then she will have problems using any
>sort of computer. She asked me what she should have bought. I thought
>about it, and it was obvious. She should have bought a Mac.
I bought one for my "computer hating 14 year old daughter who wants to
move to the mountains and live off the land". She should have grown up
in the 1960's instead of the 1990's.
Anyway, we all love the Mac. It just works without the flash and bells
of the PC.
Software, while a little more difficult to find, is of a much higher
quality than the Windows versions and all the basic stuff is there
anyhow.
I should have bought a Mac years ago.
>Now, I know a lot of people that would simply not be able to deal with
>the straight jacket that a Mac represents (I am one), but, I think it is
>appropriate for some users.
People who just want to get work done will love the Mac. People who
like to tinker and live on the hardware/software upgrade mill will
hate it.
>So, if you want the hand-holding of an "idiot-box" (Idiot, as in the
>slang name for indicator lights in a car.) then, I think Mac is the way
>to go. If you want to do serious work, where things like data integrity
>and "uptime" are important, then use Linux for FreeBSD.
Every system has it's strengths and weaknesses and for all of the
verbiage written about the technical weaknesses of the Mac
architecture, the machine has not crashed once since June 2000 and is
on virtually 24 hours a day with absolutely no system admin at all.
>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?
Market share and programs.
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:13:22 GMT
Where is the compettion for Lotus Notes on Linux? Client version that
is not some Domino server.
In fact where is ANY groupware for Linux?
claire
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 11:39:19 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I did not know of GroupWise, but have used products like Lotus Notes.
>I have used Visio, but am not too impressed with it.
>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
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Certification
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:16:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:qe64u8.16s.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <LG7N5.13155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> > I don't think that is unusual at all. There seems to be some elusive
> > connection between software, music and motorcycles that no one
> > can precisely pin down.
>
> Very true. The music of the spheres and all that.
>
> I still don't know why those who study computer science at univesity
> tend not to be good software engineers in the real world.
My impression, based on nothing at all, is that people who
study exactly the field of their work tend to just accept the
way they have been taught to do things where people
who are at least partly self-taught are more prepared to
try new and different approaches. How well this works
out in practice probably depends on the maturity of the
field in question.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:18:34 -0000
On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:23:23 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:CNZM5.1116$[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.
Linux also supports several of these.
However, they all break down into "cheap ass bottom of the barrel",
"relatively esoteric niche consumer cards", or just plain pro grade
cards.
Anything besides the "bitter dregs" are something that you rather
have to go out of your way to get saddled with.
>>
>> 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).
[deletia]
--
What kind of sordid business are you on now? I mean, man, whither
goest thou? Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night?
-- Jack Kerouac
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:20:31 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Where is the compettion for Lotus Notes on Linux? Client version that
> is not some Domino server.
>
> In fact where is ANY groupware for Linux?
I did some testing on the Linux Domino server, the Web interface is
pretty good, and periodically, I hear that the Notes client runs on some
version of Wine. (I'll beleive it when I see it, but it would be cool.)
But, yes, a Domino server does run under linux, and the web client is
usable.
>
> claire
>
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 11:39:19 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I did not know of GroupWise, but have used products like Lotus Notes.
> >I have used Visio, but am not too impressed with it.
> >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
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:23:04 -0000
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:57:16 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 08:09:36 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Bruce Schuck wrote:
>> >
>> [deletia]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > When Linux starts supplying drivers for even 1/100th of the
>hardware
>> >> windows
>> >> > > supports I'll be amazed.
>>
>> In what area exactly does Linux support only one device out of
>> 100 when compared to WinDOS. Please provide actual details.
>
>You are right. I may have overestimated.
On the wall over there there is a nice printout of a page
from anandtech where they do benchmark comparisons between
WinDOS and Linux in terms of 3D acceleration.
Mind you, the question here isn't anymore of whether or not
a card even has a driver but of how fast it is.
The vendors included are Nvidia,Matrox,3dfx,ATI & Intel.
The Geforce2 numbers are rather respectable.
--
"The Schizophrenic: An Unauthorized Autobiography"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:24:38 -0000
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:40:11 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You take the term "FUD" to new levels. See comments.
>
>
><[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
>
>My office Win2k system has not locked up once since Feb 2000. That is OK
>for me.
...mebbe you just don't push them.
The developers around here average a crash a week.
NT5 just doesn't do well in some situations I suppose...
>
>> 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.
>
>Never seen this on my NTFS5 filesystem, which supports journalling and hot
>marking
>of bad blocks - unlike Linux EXT2.
Who's running ext2? I'm not? The upgrade was free too...
...unlike the MS option.
[deletia]
--
I'd love to kiss you, but I just washed my hair.
-- Bette Davis, "Cabin in the Cotton"
------------------------------
From: [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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:26:34 -0000
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:43:57 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 14:04:10 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >
>> >To do what?
>> >If you are talking about email.
>> >I just open Outlook (from the quick launch menu bar, really conveniant),
>and
>> >it automatically connects to my mail servers and download all my mail for
>> >me.
>>
>> ...after your done figuring out how to do all of that. Some
>> features of outhouse (like automagic spam filtering & message
>> archiving) don't present the user with a really simply method
>> of enabling or configuring things.
>>
>> Someone willing to RTFM for outhouse could do the same for any
>> other mailreader that you might claim has a more complicated
>> interface.
>
>Really?
>I get spam, I go to message> block sender, get asked if I want to block this
>sender, and the sender is permanently banned. Same goes for killfile, btw.
...once you manage to enable the feature first.
[deletia]
You're simply out of touch with the common user.
--
The cost of living is going up, and the chance of living is going down.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 5 Nov 2000 21:29:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8tqq20$bbm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> That's what Linux does. It's had it for a while now. I don't know
:> enough details of the other Unixen to know if they do it too. I first
:> heard about copy-on-write in the kernel about 3-4 years ago, if memory
:> serves me right.
: Great. One more thing where NT is on par with the cutting edge Unix
: implementations.
Actually, this is an area where Linux was behind the times in
comparasin to commercial Unixen. copy-on-write is very old within
the Unix world. This isn't an area where NT was *on par* with cutting
edge Unix technology - this is an area where both NT and Linux were
behind the cutting-edge Unix technology.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 5 Nov 2000 23:22:09 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:31:30 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:ewiN5.13207$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:kBgN5.123491$[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?
> >
> >How could they know?
> >Let me ask it again: How could Outlook know, for crying out loud?!
>
> They could make Outhouse do that fancy-schmancy COM thing
> that Lemmings sometimes like to brag about...
You don't even know what this is right?
There is no way in the world that Outlook can find out whatever this is a
harmless code or not, period. There is no way any software in the world can
find if it's a harmless code or not (read: anti viruses need updates),
period.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 5 Nov 2000 23:23:03 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:31:25 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
> >
> >Qouting from Bruce Schuck post:
> >
> >Regarding higher security settings:
> >______
> >If you have Office 2000, you need the SR-1 update.
> >
> >If you have Office 97, you just need the patch.
>
> That doesn't negate the original pisspoor design.
>
There is a fix for those who are too stupid to read plain english.
End of story.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 5 Nov 2000 23:23:50 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 23:52:59 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Ps_M5.13033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "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.
> >
> >Dito for linux/unix/*BSD, and so on, isn't it?
>
> No.
>
> You would have to go very much out of your way to
> achieve the same result under Unix.
If I run an unknown binary on Unix, wouldn't it be able to access all of my
files? How so?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:32:28 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:12:06 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I had a conversation with a woman at a Verizon store today. To make the
> >details concise, suffice to say, she had just bought a Compaq (Windows)
> >and is having no end of problems.
>
> I have heard similar tales of woe, and have found that more often than
> not, a "cover all possibilities" version of the OS is installed. This
> can result in all sorts of crap hanging around for devices that are
> not even on that particular configuration but may be on a different
> model.
> I can't comment on Compaq, but I have seen this on HP computers.
>
> >I am thinking to myself, that if she is having problems, out of the box,
> >with a pre configured computer, then she will have problems using any
> >sort of computer. She asked me what she should have bought. I thought
> >about it, and it was obvious. She should have bought a Mac.
>
> I bought one for my "computer hating 14 year old daughter who wants to
> move to the mountains and live off the land". She should have grown up
> in the 1960's instead of the 1990's.
(If only your daughter were 20 years older....)
>
> Anyway, we all love the Mac. It just works without the flash and bells
> of the PC.
> Software, while a little more difficult to find, is of a much higher
> quality than the Windows versions and all the basic stuff is there
> anyhow.
> I should have bought a Mac years ago.
> >Now, I know a lot of people that would simply not be able to deal with
> >the straight jacket that a Mac represents (I am one), but, I think it is
> >appropriate for some users.
>
> People who just want to get work done will love the Mac. People who
> like to tinker and live on the hardware/software upgrade mill will
> hate it.
I can honestly say that with Linux, I have never needed to upgrade. I
have only upgraded to do things faster. In Windows, this is not always
true.
>
> >So, if you want the hand-holding of an "idiot-box" (Idiot, as in the
> >slang name for indicator lights in a car.) then, I think Mac is the way
> >to go. If you want to do serious work, where things like data integrity
> >and "uptime" are important, then use Linux for FreeBSD.
>
> Every system has it's strengths and weaknesses and for all of the
> verbiage written about the technical weaknesses of the Mac
> architecture, the machine has not crashed once since June 2000 and is
> on virtually 24 hours a day with absolutely no system admin at all.
I have written Mac software, there is much I do not like about it. The
reason, I think, the Mac and Mac software tends to have fewer problems
is because real Mac developers seem to "Love" their computer. They
really do, they are appalled if you ask them to do things that are
"un-Mac." Where as Windows guys will hack away at the system at will.
>
> >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?
>
> Market share and programs.
This is an artifact of the MS monopoly, nothing more. As other systems
gain acceptance, and cross platform techniques become more popular, this
will change.
>
> claire
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:26:22 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:54:40 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> We understand that you want to define things so you can cite tpc
> >> benchmarks. Database transactions, however, are only a part of what
> >> people mean by the term "dynamic content".
> >>
> >> Most of us would consider things like text searching (google, deja) and
> >> online forums (sourceforge, slashdot) to be "dynamic content".
> >
> >I understand that deja has terminated searching for anything over a year
> >old with the message:
>
> Which has nothing whatever to do with what was being discussed you
> nitwit.
>
>
> >I understand what you are saying. But eCommerce and transactional
> >processing and database lookups and writes are the strength of IIS and
> >Win2K.
>
> If you say so. But database lookups and transactions have nothing to
> do with IIS per se, as the lookup would proceed at the same pace had it
> been requested by an Apache server.
>
>
> >> You also seem to want to pretend that ASP on IIS and Perl on Apache are
> >> comparable technologies. They aren't. One is handled in the server
> >> process, the other launches a separate interpreter for each use.
>
> >I'd be glad to compare benchmarks of comparable systems do comparable
> >transactional processing.
>
> If they existed. Since they don't, do you figure you can just invent
> creative interpretations of what does exist? I guess that's why MS
> and other vendors pay for these benchmarks, so their flacks can mis-
> represent them to potential customers.
>
>
> >> The thing is, if you do this fairly you will find that there isn't a
> >> whole lot of difference.
> >
> >I think there is large difference in cost per transaction as the TPC-C
> >benchmarks show.
>
> The TPC-C benchmarks do not show that at all. They show that NT
> clusters can be more cost-effective than commerical Unix running on
> proprietary hardware in certain situations. Nobody knows what the
> results would be for Linux running on Intel hardware, as nobody has
> paid the fees and done it.
IBM had invested quite a lot in Linux, didn't it?
If they could've done the same on Linux, they would've.
However, to get to the first place (later to be push back to second by MS)
they had to be use win2k.
You think that IBM lack the sources/motivation to do so?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 5 Nov 2000 23:31:23 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 05:36:36 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >only use 5% of the features and require a consultant to help
> >them get everything set up.
>
> If your application will do well on a toy database,
> then you really won't need any help setting up an
> RDMS from one of the big boys for that task.
Yes, considerring the comlexity of databases, most certainly yes.
You need to learn a lot more about a RDMS than you need to know about Access
in order to create an application.
Not to mention that each RDMS is very different in the way it acts.
Especailly when you go a little higher then totally basic SQL.
Consider two of the finest features of MySQL (okay, it isn't a RDMS, but it
was mentioned in this thread), SHOW & LIMIT clauses, neither access nor
SQL7/2K have anything nearing its power.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:36:53 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >Really?
> >I get spam, I go to message> block sender, get asked if I want to block
this
> >sender, and the sender is permanently banned. Same goes for killfile,
btw.
>
> ...once you manage to enable the feature first.
Enable it? It sits rights there all along.
You can remove it, but there wouldn't be much point in that, would there be?
Got any idea how you killfile someone in Netscape? 5-10 times more
difficult.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:36:58 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sojN5.13214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8u3uob$6c4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Is there something in win2k/unix/linux/BSD/solaris/whatever to stop a
> trojan
> > from emailing all the confidential sources you have access to someone
> > outside your company?
> > Answer: No.
> > You can see why, don't you?
> > Anything that you run get your privileges.
>
> Right, which is why the mailers don't use the same associations
> to automatically start all the same programs that you would run for
> trusted content.
*No* mailer does this, Outlook included.
What is unclear about this?
Here is the message outlook gives you:
"Opening:
<filename>
___
Some files can contain viruses or otherwise be harmful to your computer. It
is important to to be certain that this file is from a trustwhorty source.
What do you want to do with the file?
[] Open it.
[*] (default) Save it to disk.
[*] (default) always ask me about this file type?
[okay] [cancel]"
If the user is incapable of reading two sentences of very easy-to-understand
english, what can you expect Outlook to do? Ignore the user and refuse to do
anything with the file?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: 5 Nov 2000 21:34:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8tnnqg$b98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :> Considering today's events about Microsoft and
:> :> their being HACKED into,
:>
:> : I wouldn't say "hacked", an employe was deceived
:> : into opening an email.
:>
:> Yeah, she should have known better. Open e-mail on Windows
:> and you are asking to be hacked into. Is that the message
:> you were trying to convey, Chad?
: You know what I meant.
: "...deceived into opening an email and running the executable
: attachment"
Oh, I knew exactly what you meant. I just find it telling that
Windows uers use the terminology of "opening" e-mail and "running"
e-mail attachments interchangably. It tells you something about
how a lot of them have their system configured insecurely.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
