Linux-Advocacy Digest #67, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 19:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 18:16:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>> You can do the *same* for win9x/nt, but you didn't really look, did you?
>
>You can do the same, but I've only ever heard of one attempt...
>http://www.litestep.net
>
>Are there any others that people could recommend?
There's none at all that I could recommend. The native Windows desktop
is unreliable enough; why compound the problems by trying to use a
non-Microsoft product on MS's proprietary code known to be developed
with anti-competitive dysfunction purposefully added?
I speak from experience; over the years, I've tried all sorts of
different ways of trying to augment or enhance Windows with third-party
desktop software. Even if any of it is useful, it needs to either be
re-installed or reconfigured or worked around as soon as any MS software
is updated, if not more frequently. Crashes are common enough on
Windows; trying to so tightly integrate third party stuff with the bad
architecture of the OS is just asking for trouble.
These days, the only "customization" of the Windows desktop I find
useful is moderate management of the Start Menu and desktop, and
inclusion of some of the PowerToys, and a shortcut to notepad in the
Send To... folder. Anything else isn't worth the effort, after the
first couple of times.
--
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: 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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:24:24 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Clayton O'Neill in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Most of us don't believe what you believe because our experience directly
>contradicts it and all the literature does also.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. I can only suppose you are interpreting my
statements, the literature, or even your own experiences, incorrectly.
If your interpretations were as accurate, consistent, and practical (not
to mention more extensive across a wider variety of environments and
specialties) as mine, you'd be able to understand, as I do, that our my
statements do not contradict your experience, or the literature, at all.
You have anecdotal evidence; I have theory. Neither is transcendent, so
the number of practical cases is quite important in assessing which
might be more correct. By definition, anecdotal evidence is only one
person's actual experience. While my theories are certainly based on my
personal experience, they are theories, which I can present and you can
compare to your own experience. Where the two might appear to conflict,
you can question the theory, but you can't deny it unless you can
explain how, specifically, it fails. Since, as I pointed out, the
statements I've provided on this matter do not conflict with your
observations or experience, or the literature, you're going to have to
be a bit more explicit than you are, if you wish to consider the
validity of the theories I present. They are entirely correct,
according to my personal experience. Citing the same literature that
I've already dealt with years ago that form the backbone of your
"classical thinking" in terms of network technologies simply isn't
convincing in providing an argument to my theories.
>|It appears there are a number of people who work with Ethernet, but
>|don't really understand what it is about Ethernet that leads to a
>|"logarithmic response curve", a characteristic of Ethernets which is
>|entirely unique and unlike all other LAN or WAN transmission
>|technologies. It is not a matter of belief, but fact, nor is it simply
>|IBM FUD based on an esoteric but unimportant fact.
>
>The IBM paper that you keep referring to has been proven to be flawed by
>multiple parties, read the following for at least one rebuttal of most of
>what you've been spouting
>
>ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/WRL/research-reports/WRL-TR-88.4.ps
It has been proven by some parties to be misinterpreted by other
parties. I have already read rebuttals, and usually agree with them as
far as they go. In attempting to deny that there is a logarithmic
response curve to Ethernet, and that it fundamentally changes the
meaning and importance of the "utilization" statistic, they are goo
techno-pseudo-FUD whitepapers.
The ironic part is, of course, that the only types of systems that
generally have a problem with the "non-deterministic" performance of
Ethernet was IBM-style technology. "True Blue" networks are heavily
connection oriented. You can't even encapsulate "SNA" in Ethernet
effectively at all, and even after you start playing games to emulate
terminals with deterministic behavior, its almost guaranteed that
"dropped connections" are going to be an almost routine problem.
On IP based networks, particularly those that use client/server rather
than terminal/host software connectivity, it is rarely a problem that is
in any way noticeable unless you know how to recognize it, and consider
a quarter of a second delay 50 times a day to be more counter-productive
than a single 30 second delay. Since I'm not really at all concerned
about loading, transmitting, or servers and such, but whether people can
effectively, efficiently, and expediently implement and use technology
reliably, that kind of thing makes a load of difference to me. It makes
a huge difference to the end users, too, whether they know enough to say
it out loud or not. Especially since it might very well be those
non-deterministic half second delays which might make the difference
between "Sometimes it crashes, sometimes it doesn't" that are so
difficult to avoid.
--
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: 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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:29:42 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Layer 3 switching" is simply a performance hack to speed up routing in the
>> >common case. If it's at layer 3, it's routing. I agree the terminology is
>> >stupid. That doesn't mean the hack isn't useful or that it doesn't work most
>> >of the time.
>
>> But neither does the fact that it is useful or works most of the time
>> make it worth the difficulties and expense (both initial and on-going)
>> which it incurs.
>
>Mate, you're a wonder. On the one hand you go into great detail about the
>complexities of properly understanding network configuration, and on the
>other you're blithely dismissing a tool without considering when it might
>or might not be appropriate.
Technology is not a tool. Technology is the use of tools. Layer 3
switching, as a technology, is never appropriate. You were supposed to
have learned that from the "great detail" I've gone in to about
_complex_ networks (which are simple, while simplex networks are
complicated).
>Or is this one of those Holy War things you're on about?
No, its just my distaste for overt bogosity.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 6 Nov 2000 00:30:03 +0100
Christopher Smith wrote:
>"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>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.
>
I think it's a flaw by design. The default behaviour is wrong.
>>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 ?
>
I don't buy that as a parallel to the Outlook problem. Rm's only purpose
is to delete files. Outlook was never meant to do that.
>>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.
>
You can specificially pipe it, yes. But that rm does not get run, by default,
if you choose to display the attachment. In Outlook, if you choose to display
(open) the attachment it _will_, by default, be run.
>>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.
>Outlook doesn't run the script. It hands the file off to the *shell* to be
>dealt with by their default handler. In the case of .vbs files this is the
>script interpreter (unsurprisingly).
>
Allright, all handing off of scritps to the *shell* should be
disabled by default.
>>Wasn't there something about a preview box in Outlook that opened the
>>attachment as soon as the mail was opened?
>No. There was, IIRC, a buffer overflow at one stage involving the date
>field, but I believe that has been fixed. No attachments are ever executed
>unless the user asks.
>
OK, just wondering.
>>>>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.
>>Only if enabled first.
>It's "enabled" by default. I just opened up a message with an attachment in
>Pine and hit "|" then "/bin/sh" and it tried to pipe the attachment to sh.
>
That is _not_ the same thing. The equivalent in Outlook would be
something like: Right-click on the attachment, select "Sent To"
and "Windows Scripting Host". A very specific action.
If Pine had been as badly configured as Outlook you would only have to
select the attachment and hit "Display" to run it.
>>Isn't Outlook available for Mac?
>Outlook is not. Outlook Express is, but I don't know if it has this
>functionality. I would _assume_ it does, as I would assume nearly every
>other Mac mail program does.
>
OK.
>>>I guess that makes Outlook a reasonable mailer, since the list is
>>>configurable. The list is in the registry and determined by filetype.
>>It is the shell that actually executes the program.
>>The flaw is that Outlook uses the global, system-wide list.
>This is for convenience's sake. That's so you don't get a different program
>depending on where you launch a filetype from.
>
Convenience has its backsides, it seems. It's all about finding the right
balance I guess.
>>Therefore,
>>execution of scripts cannot be disabled unless Outlook itself is made
>>aware of what is scripts and what is not.
>Which is a maintenance nightmare. Why should Outlook have to do this when
>no other program does?
>
For security reasons?
>Disabling the execution of scripts is easy - just set the default handler
>from vbscript to notepad.
>
Granted. Downside is that you disable execution system-wide.
No double-clicking on script icons any more (unless you want to edit them in
Notepad of course). Personally, I'd disable it easy.
>>In Unix/Linux there is a mime-type list that is used for mail/news
>>programs, one could say it's global for the mail programs.
>And the browser and in KDE, IIRC, the shell.
>
The _shell_? Well, I've never used KDE, but I find that a bit odd.
>>>Depending on your config. They *might* include script interpreters.
>>>There is no intrinsic reason why they can't.
>>I don't know of any distribution that has this enabled per default. Do
>>you?
>Dunno, never looked.
>However, that's irrelevant. The argument is that this "problem" is somehow
>a) only present in Outlook and b) inherently impossible under Unix (or any
>other OS).
>
Not impossible. But disabled per default.
There might also be other reasons that there are no ILOVEYOU.txt.sh for Unix,
but the fact remains that there are none at present, and hasn't been for
a long time.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ StrICQ# 17519554 ]
------------------------------
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:36:59 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter Desnoyers in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>To extend on this more than T. Max is likely to want to (or be willing
>to) hear I'll give my media access protocol throughput stump speech.
How about more than he needs to, as you make relatively clear:
[...]
>First, the simplifying assumptions.[...]
<*Smirk*> So much for going into detail.
>Protocol #3: unslotted Aloha with carrier sense and collision
>detection. In this case a transmitter can detect any packet which
>started transmission more than S bits ago, and can detect a collision
>within S bit times, where S < N. In the case of 10baseT, S is 512
>bits, and is the maximum round-trip time of the largest legal network.
>In this case you can think of each packet transmission taking a
>collision round (2e slot times, or 5.4 S) followed by N-S bits of
>unmolested packet transmission.
[...]
Thank you. You explanation answered some inconsistencies I had in the
simplest understanding of Ethernet did not account for it being usable
at all, and why the fallacies in the IBM paper were considered so
grievous by some, when I thought the protests were trivial. I was not
taking into account the fact that collisions only occur (or are only
detected, we could say, but shouldn't) at the start of transmission.
>The result is that if the offered load exceeds the stable operating
>load, more stations will spend more time waiting in backoff rather
>than transmitting, and the ethernet will continue to operate in a
>stable fashion.
My concern for how "stable" the ethernet is should be obvious from my
recent posts. I am concerned with networks, not transmission channels.
--
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: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:44:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:19:04 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > What makes something "criminal"?
> > > Do I really need to explain our judicial process to you??
> > > EXTORTION IS ILLEGAL AND THERFORE CRIMINAL.
> > In effect, contrary to government regulations.
> And your point is?
That demonization of "government regulations" is silly.
> Hint fucking hint: wanting government protection of rights (as defined
> in the constitution) does NOT imply a desire for socialism, which
> ends up ALWAYS being implemented by a kleptocracy (see: Russia, China,
> Sweden, UK, Canada, and every other place where having everying provided
> for you means first having everything stolen from you).
Ah yes. That dirty word, "socialism".
And taxation is specified by law, meaning that, by definition, it is
not theft.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:48:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hey, fuckwad....it's you goddamned fucking SOCIALISTS who advocate
> > > extortion, not libertarians. You know....like, *you* *BETTER* pay
> > > all of these taxes so that we can write checks to crack-whores and
> > > their demon spawn....or else *YOU* are going to jail.
> > Cry me a river.
> Nah. I think I'll just go down to a welfare office and set some
> explosives...to go off about 2:00PM when it's good and crowded full
> of both parasite welfare crack-whores and parasite welfare clerks.
And when you get caught, don't forget to do your best Ollie North
imitation. Let's see how much sympathy you can get.
And don't forget to write a book while in jail about what you wish
the US to be like. Let's see what to call it ... "My Struggle"?
> > At least Mr. Kulkis is not an accountant.
> Correct. I do something USEFUL for a living.
???
The problem with Mr. Kulkis being an accountant is that he'd likely
apply the same accounting principles in his job that he does to the US
Government.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:51:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Loren Petrich wrote:
> > > > However, your objections to the news media's coverage of politics
> > > > may be interpreted as fundamentally socialistic.
> > > So, according to you, if it's not socialist, it's unfair.
> > Yet another sore loser of capitalism. Whenever some capitalist
> > decides against him, he wails "No fair! No fair! No fair!".'
> Exactly how is government confiscation of legitimate earnings, for
> the purpose of buying votes from the congenitally lazy.... "fair"
It's not confiscation, it's the law.
And how many welfare recipients vote, anyway? It's the oldsters who
vote the most. So why not hate them as lazy bloodsucking parasites?
And you are perfectly free to do what your "girlfriend" has done, to
move to a more congenial sort of country.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar
Date: 5 Nov 2000 23:55:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > BTW, window problably has as many or MORE exploits that Linux.
>>
>> I doubt it.
> WRONG. Linux has more exploits on average than NT and WAY more than 2000.
Actually, and not surprisingly, you are quite incorrect.
NT has more known exploits than SuSe.
Windows2000 has been out for less than a year, while linux has been out
for many years. Thus, more exploits have been found. Your thinking is
completely wrong.
Give it time.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 00:05:23 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
[snip]
> The windows GUI is consistent, perhaps not from version to version (95 vs nt
> interface) but certainly within a given version, it is consistent. For that
> matter, I'd people used to work on 98 that then went to work on 2000
> probably without even noticing.
[snip]
Well if Windows GUI is consistent you should be able to predict exactly
what will happen in the following scenario.
I have two open folders on my desktop. Each of them is a folder I found
somewhere which can be opened just by clicking on it.
I drag and drop an Icon from one folder to the other.
Now please tell me if the effect will be:
Copy to destination folder
Move to destination folder
Create a link on the destination folder
None of the above.
If you can do that (without adding "if the folder is..", or "if the file
is..." , then windows GUI is consistent and user friendly.
If you can't it's a piece of crap.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
