Linux-Advocacy Digest #65, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Linux is great (Bob Hauck)
Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (mlw)
Definition of WIndows 95: ("javaduke")
If Microsoft Made Cars: ("javaduke")
Re: history of term "software engineering" (Duane Hague)
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (lyttlec)
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. (Chip Anderson)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Definition of WIndows 95: ("Chris Applegate")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Why Linux is great ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (spicerun)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:43:44 GMT
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:49:14 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob, a download manager is a tool that :
>a) automates / schedules;
The "at" command does this on Linux. For lots of things, not just
downloads. You can get an "at" command for Windows too you know.
>b) optimises;
>c) assures
I'm not sure how I can "optimize" my downloads. The file is x bytes
big and my connecition is y bytes per second. Seems pretty cut and
dried. I don't care much, anyway, since I will be asleep at 4am.
>GetRight (http://www.getright.com/) does all this and much more. For
>example, you can schedule a download list after hours, segment files to
>increase download speed, automatically resume if necessary.
I can do all that with tools that come with my OS. And I do, being as
my home network is behind a dialup, broadband being slow in coming to
my neck of the woods.
BTW, segmenting files doesn't increase download speed. I mean, you get
y bytes per second regardless, and the file is x bytes big. I think
the only use of this would be to compensate for lame tools that can't
resume a download properly.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:52:59 -0500
Let's avoid getting into a pissing war about applications. Lets talk
about real serious (technical) limitations or problems with Linux.
What can Windows or Win2K do that Linux can not?
What can Linux do that Windows or Win2K can't?
Why isn't Linux suitable for the desktop?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Definition of WIndows 95:
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:53:57 GMT
Windows 9x: 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to
an 8-bit operating system, originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written
by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
http://www.zfree.co.nz
------------------------------
From: "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: If Microsoft Made Cars:
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:56:56 GMT
In an effort to express the accomplishments of Microsoft in understandable
terms, Bill Gates made the following comparison with General Motors products:
He said, "If automotive technology had kept pace with computer technology
over the past few decades, you would now be driving a V-32 instead of a V-8,
and it would have a top speed of 10,000 miles/hour (160,000 km/hr). Or you
could have an economy car that weighs 30 pounds (14 kilos) and gets a thousand
miles to the gallon of gas. In either case, the sticker of the new car would
be less than $50.00." End of statement. GM responded by pointing out that
if GM built cars that operated like Microsoft products: You'd have a car
that crashes 4 times a day. Every time they repainted the lines on the road,
you'd have to buy a new car. Your car would constantly die on the freeway
for no reason, and you would just accept this as a normal part of operations
and drive on. Your car would also stop and fail to restart, and you'd have
to reinstall the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this,
too. You could only have one person in the car at a time unless you bought
a Car95 or a CarNT. But then you'd have to buy more seats. (Macintosh would
make a car that was powered by the Sun, was twice as fast, twice as easy
to drive-but would only run on 5 percent of the roads. Macintosh car owners
could get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars, which would make their
cars run much slower.) To continue, the oil, engine, gas, and alternator
warning lights would all be combined into a single "General Auto Protection
Fault" warning light that, when lit, would oblige you to stop your car in
the middle of the highway and restart it. New seats would force everyone
to have the same size butt. If you were involved in a crash, you would never
be able to determine the real cause of the crash. Finally, the airbag system
would ask you to press an "Are you sure?" button before deploying.
http://www.zfree.co.nz
------------------------------
From: Duane Hague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: history of term "software engineering"
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 21:50:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <8thf27$g43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Thornburg) wrote:
>
> > In article <nVQK5.329$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Software engineering is an established science which has existed
> > for over two decades, [[...]]
>
> Wandering down memory lane...
>
> To the best of my very hazy recollection, "computer science" originated
> before "software engineering."
>
> The term "computer science" was certainly unknown when I was at MIT,
> 1962-66. The University of Wisconsin Computer Science Department was
> created sometime when I was there, 1966-1975. I think it was circa
> 1969-1970, and UW was at the leading edge but not the bleeding edge of
> the wave. So, "computer science" = late sixties.
>
> I am pretty sure that the phrase "structured programming" became popular
> BEFORE the phrase "software engineering" did.
>
> "Structured programming" was sweeping the nation around the end of the
> time I was at Wisconsin, i.e. the mid-seventies.
>
> By the time I joined Wang Labs in 1989, "software engineering" was such
> a common term that it was the customary job title for software cobblers,
> software artisans, software craftsmen, software hackers, and software
> artists--when working for large corporations. The top of the
> "individual contributor" career ladder at Wang was, however, "software
> architect," a term which was either originated or popularized by Charles
> Simonyi of PARC, then Microsoft.
>
> Anyway I'd guess the term became widespread sometime between 1975 and
> 1985.
>
>
I more or less agree with you. Also based on fading memories, the phrase
"structured programming" came out of the ALGOL-66/PASCAL generation and
had crept into FORTRAN (RATFOR by 1975). In my opinion, it paralleled
the academic fight for "computer control". Pre-1965, most academic
Mathematics Departments seemed to view computers are engineering toys
that gave "approximate answers" without "elegance and precison" and
therefore computers were only useful for statistics. By the late 60's,
the Math Departments realized how much power was slipping from their
hands and they started the Computer Science movement to take back
"control" (ie. money & power). I would say that "Computer Science"
peaked about 1978. The "counter-reformation" of "software engineering"
came out of the Ada movement (Strawman, Ironman, DOD-1, etc) in the late
70's and by 81/82(?) resulted in the Software Engineering Institute (and
related).
PS: Back then in the mid-60's a Hacker was someone who had figured out
how to "dink" the JCL punch cards to get more CPU time for his program
and also had a print subroutine that could make a line printer hum a song
while printing his outputs!
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:01:49 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where is the compettion for Lotus Notes on Linux? Client version that
> is not some Domino server.
Notes itself: http://notes.net/linux
> In fact where is ANY groupware for Linux?
>
> claire
A search on freshmeat.net pops up a list of 26 right
off the bat, including the above Lotus notes and
several web based solutions. Some loose collaboration
can be done with a web bbs and a mailing list manager
which are all over the place.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:46:55 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u4joo$lt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
No, it tells you how stupid they are.
When you try to open an attachment
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: . <[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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:11:35 +1300
> No waiting for the WSIWYG to catch up, no bugs because you're using the
> newest version of Word.
News flash! Microsoft today released a new version of word. All
4876835582 bugs from previous versions are now considered fixed.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:19:43 GMT
Ayende Rahien 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?!
Exactly the point. Outlook can't know. You can't know. Outlook
attachments are an inherent security flaw no matter what. In fact the
entire OS and MS Office package is an inherent security flaw.
Story just now linked on slashdot : MS hacked again. This time the
hacker got into the download area and claimed he *could* have added
trojan horses to the download files. MS forgot to install one of their
own patches. MS claim the job of keeping up security is just too big for
a large company.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chip Anderson)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:19:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chip Anderson wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
--snip--
>> >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?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> A much broader application base.
>
>This is an artifact, not a strategy.
>>
>> Chip
>
Of course, but it is the main reason I think someone looking for an OS
would buy Windows today.
Chip
------------------------------
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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:20:25 +1300
> For editing source code, an IDE is the best, period.
Proof of this would be nice.
For editing source code, an computer is best, period.
> > It is also very easy to lose files using the NT Explorer GUI.
>
> How?
1. Click a file or folder
2. Have an accidental muscle spasm and accidentally twitch the mouse
while the button is down. File or folder is now moved to Random
Directory (tm). An undo will fix it IF you notice you've done it.
> > Too many prompts, too, in places where you can't configure them out.
>
> Examples?
I dunno about prompts I can't figure out (although the ones that say
retry and cancel, but both buttons appear to do the same thing piss me
off), but prompts I can't avoid are the ones that really make me mad.
Delete a file... are you sure?
turn off confirmation, delete a file... "that's too big for the bin, are
you sure?"
delete a directory... same message again, with an 'all' button which
doesn't work (ie: it comes up again for EVERY FILE ENTRY inside the
folder you try to delete.) This is a 98 problem. Workaround: open the
folder, select all the files, delete - no prompt, but now I have to go
back and manually delete the folder too.
I shouldn't have to perform these damned acrobatics just to delete some
stuff.
Ultimate workaround: CLI.
------------------------------
From: "Chris Applegate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of WIndows 95:
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:34:55 -0500
That was funny five years ago.
CDA
------------------------------
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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:40:06 +1300
> > I suspect you read "WSH" as "Win shell", rather than "Windows Scripting
> > Host". WSH is that oh-so-convenient service in Windows which runs
> > scripts for you from, say, email attachments. This, along with the
> > access to the operating system which VB gives you (and anyone else), as
> > you mentioned, is what makes it possible to so easily say ILOVEYOU to
> > all your friends (and everyone else in your address book) and delete
> > files randomly from your hard drive at the same time.
> >
> > How convenient.
> >
> > I'd prefer batch files. ;-\
>
> Batch files?
>
> echo format c:/q/y > c:\autoexec.bat >> null
>
> Guess what happens when you reboot?
>
> Not very secure.
So, Win scripting host -> insecure
batch files -> insecure
windows -> I think you can see the pattern emerging...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:43:31 GMT
It's got both. Prints faster on the USB port though, at least on my
system.
claire
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 20:50:20 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 20:28:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 12:56:25 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I have never seen a USB printer. FYI it works on my HP just fine.
>>
>>Lexmark z42 is an excellent USB printer that does 2400 dpi and works
>
> ...with a Parallel port.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:36:13 +0200
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u496b$jmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <q_gN5.3881$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > MS just hides them so you can never fix them thus you remain
> vunerable.
> > >
> > > RedHat seems to have an inexhaustible supply.
> >
> > And they're making more every day!
> >
>
> Yep, something MS does not seem to do, make FIXES!
>
Prove it!
Show me ONE serious (IE, mainly dataloss or security risk or but also
whatever else otherwise serious bug) that MS had left unfixed for a long
period of time.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:50:42 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > For editing source code, an IDE is the best, period.
>
> Proof of this would be nice.
>
> For editing source code, an computer is best, period.
>
>
> > > It is also very easy to lose files using the NT Explorer GUI.
> >
> > How?
>
> 1. Click a file or folder
> 2. Have an accidental muscle spasm and accidentally twitch the mouse
> while the button is down. File or folder is now moved to Random
> Directory (tm). An undo will fix it IF you notice you've done it.
Aren't you looking at the screen?
You would notice.
BTW, the same can happen at any drag & drop system.
Okay, here is the #1 reason linux is superior to windows, you can tell the
computer accidently to move some folders/files to another directory.
> Delete a file... are you sure?
> turn off confirmation, delete a file... "that's too big for the bin, are
> you sure?"
That is because recycle bin allows you to restore it, that you can delete a
file permenantly is something that most people agrees should have a warning.
> delete a directory... same message again, with an 'all' button which
> doesn't work (ie: it comes up again for EVERY FILE ENTRY inside the
> folder you try to delete.)
Not neccecarily, it would only ask you for every file attribues. (IE,
readonly, exe, hidden)
BTW, I do believe that this only happens when you *really* delete (IE, don't
move to recycle bin), I think that the time you spend clicking all several
time is by far better invested then by franticly looking how to undelete
source code for the project due tomorrow at 8am that you've just removed
from the computer.
This is a 98 problem. Workaround: open the
> folder, select all the files, delete - no prompt, but now I have to go
> back and manually delete the folder too.
or deltree
> I shouldn't have to perform these damned acrobatics just to delete some
> stuff.
> Ultimate workaround: CLI.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:50:37 +0200
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
Ayende Rahien wrote:
\> > How could they know?
> > Let me ask it again: How could Outlook know, for crying out loud?!
>
> Exactly the point. Outlook can't know. You can't know. Outlook
> attachments are an inherent security flaw no matter what. In fact the
> entire OS and MS Office package is an inherent security flaw.
By your own words, *any* attachments are unsafe, to any OS.
The fact is that Outlook lets you save them to the disk by default, NOT run
them.
That you override the default settings in order to force outlook to run them
is not outlook's fault.
> Story just now linked on slashdot : MS hacked again. This time the
> hacker got into the download area and claimed he *could* have added
> trojan horses to the download files. MS forgot to install one of their
> own patches. MS claim the job of keeping up security is just too big for
> a large company.
I heard about it.
Didn't someone post something about redhat still using apache with a
vulnerability whose (their only) fix was to upgrade?
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:55:26 GMT
mlw wrote:
> Let's avoid getting into a pissing war about applications. Lets talk
> about real serious (technical) limitations or problems with Linux.
>
> What can Windows or Win2K do that Linux can not?
Who in this newsgroup (excluding Wintrolls) cares about Windows or
Win2K?
>
> What can Linux do that Windows or Win2K can't?
> Why isn't Linux suitable for the desktop?
Why must Linux be compared to Windows or Win2K?
What can other Unices do that Linux can not?
What can Linux do that other Unices can't?
Why isn't Linux ready for prime time (compared to the other Unices)?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
