Linux-Advocacy Digest #82, Volume #30 Mon, 6 Nov 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows resources (was Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever) ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: What a mess.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (mlw)
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows resources (was Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever) ("David Brown")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What a mess.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What I dont like about Linux (Jacques Guy)
Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food) (Michael Salem)
Re: what happens when an old programmer dies? ("K3")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (mlw)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What I dont like about Linux ("MH")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Chad Myers")
Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar ("Chad Myers")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Ketil Z Malde)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows resources (was Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:21:59 -0600
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u5t3p$mm8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Yes and no. Yes, they do have a DOS header, though this wouldn't be
> >required if they weren't trying to maintain compatibility with 16 bit
> >programs that depended on that header.
>
> For whatever reason (it can't be that serious - I run a lot of 16-bit
stuff
> and DOS programs under NT, and they run far better than on my Win95
machine
> at home), conventional memory is still a problem in Win9x. To make
matters
> worse, Win9x allocates DLL space from the bottom up (EXE files get space
> from the top down - it was a scheme from Win3.1 aimed at reducing memory
> fragmentation), so sometimes it puts whole DLLs in conventional memory,
> greatly reducing the free space. This used to be a huge problem in
Win3.1 -
> I don't know if it happens much in Win9x because I have never tried to
push
> it that hard.
This is simply not true. All executables (and DLL's) start at 400000h,
which is well above conventional memory. DLL's *ARE* in fact executables.
There is no difference in the way that DLL's and EXE's are loaded by the
system. LoadLibrary calls the same loading functions that ShellExec does.
The only difference is that LoadLibrary passes special parameters to the
startup function of the DLL (the so called DLLMAIN).
If this were true, it would be impossible to swap out DLL's, which is
patently false (since conventional memory isn't swapped under Win9x) and the
mere act of loading the MFC dll's would completely use up conventional
memory.
Additionally, conventional memory is shared between all processes under
Win9x, that would mean the same DLL's would exist in all address spaces.
That's not the case.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.graphics.api.opengl,comp.os.linux.x,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: What a mess....
Date: 6 Nov 2000 12:22:26 GMT
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 06:32:51 GMT, Jeff Jeffries wrote:
>I have been trying to figure out what windowing setup to use to develop a
>C++ and OpenGL application under Linux that will be portable to other
>*nixs.
>
>I am totally confused. There is Motif, GTK+, Qt, xwXwindows, FLTK, and
>several others.
>
>I have no idea any more how to evaluate what I need.
Well, look at them all, and figure out which one you think is best.
>Is there any way out of this besides trying my application with each and
>every window manager?
<sigh> Use any toolkit, and it will work with any window manager.
The momentum is definitely with GTK and QT. So use one of these.
gtk-- is the most popular C++ binding for GTK+. Qt is my personal
favourite, it's native C++.
>use Motif, but by now I've heard lots of bad things about it, like the
>difficulty of using it in an OO program....
If you want to code in C++, use Qt or Gtk--. WxWindows is also OK, but
like I said, Gtk and Qt are the most popular toolkits.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 06:30:08 -0600
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u6577$1ph$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Actually, I'm not really sure it even works on 98, as format prompts for
> > information/confirmation. /Y isn't an option as far as I'm aware. But
> > of course, there'd be nothing to stop you making a format program of
your
> > own and running that from autoexec.
>
> echo del c:\windows\system.dat > authoexec.bat >> null
>
> Good bye system, that would work on 98.
Actually, no.. it wouldn't. Windows 98 introduced the registry backup
system. If the registry is corrupted or missing, it will restore a backup
automatically.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: 6 Nov 2000 12:32:59 GMT
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:47:30 GMT, Jeff Jeffries wrote:
>I need to choose either GNOME or KDE. I will be doing computationally
>intensive C++, with very heavy disk I/O. Results will be displayed in 3D
>preferrably with OpenGL.
>
>1. Are GNOME and KDE C++ and/or object oriented? How will this affect
>developing with C++?
GTK has a C++ toolkit, gtk--. QT/KDE are OO. Both are OO and similar in
design.
>2. I know GNOME has gtkglarea; does KDE?
KDE has something that lets you write OpenGL applications.
>3. What else should a C++ developer know?
I prefer Qt because it has better documentation, and C++ is the primary
language binding. YMMV.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: mlw <[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: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:36:05 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:15:27 +0200,
> > Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:Mm3N5.123118$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> > >You are right. I may have overestimated.
> > >> >
> > >> > "May" have?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. And I was talking peripherals.
> > >>
> > >> > Tell me, does windows run on powerpc?
> > >>
> > >> It used to.
> >
> > No version you buy now does
>
> IIRC, you can still buy NT 4.0, which does run on PowerPC.
>
> However, Win2K _will_, it's just no one wants to, so MS doesn't
> put it in the pacakaging and test it.
>
> Win2K has the technology to run on just about any 32-bit or
> 64-bit platform.
The last time I saw either a MIPS or PPC version of NT was an old MSDN
CD, AFAIK, it is no longer distributed.
>
> >
> > >>
> > >> > Mips?
> > >>
> > >> Don't know.
> > >
> > >It does.
> >
> > I don't think that was ever released past beta, and it's not available now
>
> Um... wrong. Perhaps you should just stop talking about what you know
> nothing about.
>
> NT 4.0 CD had (and still does, IIRC) have a MIPS installer.
>
> The NT 4.0 had (and probably still does) have:
>
> i386 (x86)
> Alpha
> MIPS
> PPC
>
> >
> >
> > >Alpha too, for that matter.
> > >
> >
> > Dead, developement stopped prior to W2K
>
> Because the demand just wasn't there.
And here we have an example of how Microsoft is clueless. Moving a
system to a new OS is a huge risk. Just releasing something and waiting
for sales is not good enough. For NT on something other than x86,
Microsoft would have to "prove" that they were serious. They would have
to port ALL their applications, and wait for a long time, market it, and
eventually people would be convinced MS was in it for the long haul.
They didn't. They ported a few, SQL server being one, but not every app.
After a couple years, they pulled the plug.
I remember it all clearly. My favorite quote was: "If they still make it
in three years, I'll try it." This was from a PPC Mac guy, while I was a
Windows developer. Of course they didn't make it three years later,
because they were not serious about cross platform development.
What Microsoft does not understand is that portability is a product
development philosophy, not a check box on a feature list.
>
> >
> > >> >StrongARM?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. The IPAQ/WindowsCE combo is doing great on StrongArm.
> >
> > Had to give you one...
> >
> > >> >motorola M68K series?
> > >>
> > >> Who cares?
> >
> > The embedded world, same people who care about StrongARM
> >
> > >> > howabout HP-PA? or Sparc? what about S390?
> >
> > Of course, the answer is no...
>
> Again, little demand.
Again, if they claim "portable" they should be willing to back it up.
Look at NetBSD or Linux, these are portable operating systems.
>
> -Chad
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: 6 Nov 2000 12:40:51 GMT
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:33:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Well, KDevelop 1.3 (for KDE) just came out, so if you need an IDE to
>work within that might be your best choice. GNOME has glade, but I
>found it less confusing to just code the stuff from scratch myself.
KDevelop is an IDE, which uses an automake/autoconf based build under the
hood. Their default configure.in files are quite handy if you're going to be
writing any KDE/QT based projects. (however, I prefer to steer clear of
automake. I find the automake-Makefiles very messy)
Glade on the other hand is a GUI builder, which generates XML GUIs. the
idea is that you build the GUI by way of drag-and-drool and just implement
the callbacks ("slots" in Qt-speak) by hand. The intriguing aspect of
glade is that the GUIs can be built on-the-fly at runtime from the
XML files. Only the callbacks need to be read at compile-time.
This is very similar to the Qt designer package. However, it seems that
Qt designer works by generating all the source code (and it appears that
it forces you to derive just to implement the slots by hand, which is
very annoying. In contrast with glade, which uses a seperate file
callbacks.c for its "slots" that doesn't get overwritten on subsequent
runs of glade)
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows resources (was Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:48:41 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8u5t3p$mm8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Yes and no. Yes, they do have a DOS header, though this wouldn't be
>> >required if they weren't trying to maintain compatibility with 16 bit
>> >programs that depended on that header.
>>
>> For whatever reason (it can't be that serious - I run a lot of 16-bit
>stuff
>> and DOS programs under NT, and they run far better than on my Win95
>machine
>> at home), conventional memory is still a problem in Win9x. To make
>matters
>> worse, Win9x allocates DLL space from the bottom up (EXE files get space
>> from the top down - it was a scheme from Win3.1 aimed at reducing memory
>> fragmentation), so sometimes it puts whole DLLs in conventional memory,
>> greatly reducing the free space. This used to be a huge problem in
>Win3.1 -
>> I don't know if it happens much in Win9x because I have never tried to
>push
>> it that hard.
>
>This is simply not true. All executables (and DLL's) start at 400000h,
>which is well above conventional memory. DLL's *ARE* in fact executables.
>There is no difference in the way that DLL's and EXE's are loaded by the
>system. LoadLibrary calls the same loading functions that ShellExec does.
>The only difference is that LoadLibrary passes special parameters to the
>startup function of the DLL (the so called DLLMAIN).
>
>If this were true, it would be impossible to swap out DLL's, which is
>patently false (since conventional memory isn't swapped under Win9x) and
the
>mere act of loading the MFC dll's would completely use up conventional
>memory.
>
>Additionally, conventional memory is shared between all processes under
>Win9x, that would mean the same DLL's would exist in all address spaces.
>That's not the case.
>
You seem to know more about this than me regarding Win95, so I'll bow to
your expertise. I use NT for work and mainly use Win95 for games, so I am
not so hot at the gory details. I know for a fact (and personal experiance)
that DLLs often end up in conventional memory in Win3.1 (and cause all the
problems you described) - I thought it was possible in Win95 too, but I'll
take your word for it that it does not happen.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:54:54 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And here we have an example of how Microsoft is clueless. Moving a
> system to a new OS is a huge risk. Just releasing something and waiting
> for sales is not good enough. For NT on something other than x86,
> Microsoft would have to "prove" that they were serious. They would have
> to port ALL their applications, and wait for a long time, market it, and
> eventually people would be convinced MS was in it for the long haul.
One word... er.. phrase... er.. whatever...
.NET.
With .NET, MS can port Windows to any processor and Office.NET and any other
.NET applications will automatically work. Of course this is no different
from Java, except that MS has committed to releasing many products on .NET
and there is a strong interest from 3rd party developers.
> Again, if they claim "portable" they should be willing to back it up.
> Look at NetBSD or Linux, these are portable operating systems.
NT is portable, and has been ported to at least 5 architectures (plus rumors
of several others that never became real products, like a SPARC port).
While Windows CE is running on at least 15.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.graphics.api.opengl,comp.os.linux.x,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: What a mess....
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:59:17 -0600
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The momentum is definitely with GTK and QT. So use one of these.
> gtk-- is the most popular C++ binding for GTK+. Qt is my personal
> favourite, it's native C++.
Qt isn't completely native C++. It has that weird Meta Object System that
requires a pre-processing step.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:01:28 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Jesper Krogh wrote:
>
> > >This is a list of what I dislike about Linux, though easily solved and not too
> > >big a deal.
> > >
> > >1) Netscape
> > >The Netscape windows is *always* too tall, fixed easily.
> > >
> > >Well, there it is. Thats what i dont like.
> >
> > Really? For me, it always opens too small.
>
> For me it always opens the same size as i closed it last time.
Looks like you're all different. But I'm not!
------------------------------
From: 4ms2u$[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Salem)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:09:33 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Smith wrote:
> I tried to use two feet of flat modular phone cord once in an emergency,
> and could not get a 100BaseT connection at all.
...
> In years past, I was never able to get a 10BaseT connection to work with
> more than about three feet of flat modular cable.
As far as I remember the Cat5 specification allows not more than 12mm
of cable to be untwisted (to fit a connector), and bends to have a
radius of not less than 25mm. So problems with over 2 feet (600mm) of
untwisted cable are not unexpected.
>I had no way to force the devices to fall back to 10BaseT, so I was
> out of luck.
By the way, is there any way to force dual-speed 10/100 NICs to run
at 10Mbps? For any NICs, and under any operating system?
Best wishes,
--
Michael Salem
------------------------------
From: "K3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.life.internet,alt.obituaries,alt.society.funerary,alt.windows98,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.society.futures,gnu.misc.discuss,sci.geo.satellite-nav
Subject: Re: what happens when an old programmer dies?
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:18:46 -0500
"Michael Meissner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Razor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Old programmers never die, they become obsolete and decompile.
>
... or they just Terminate and Stay Resident! ;-)
=======================================================================
Kendall F. Stratton III
Fort Fairfield, Maine, Good 'ol USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.maine.rr.com/k3
Want to know why the U.S. is running out of Oil?
Because nobody checks it. You see...
All the oil's in Texas, Alaska and Oklahoma
while all the "dipsticks" are in Washington, D.C.
======================================================================
------------------------------
From: mlw <[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: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:19:38 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And here we have an example of how Microsoft is clueless. Moving a
> > system to a new OS is a huge risk. Just releasing something and waiting
> > for sales is not good enough. For NT on something other than x86,
> > Microsoft would have to "prove" that they were serious. They would have
> > to port ALL their applications, and wait for a long time, market it, and
> > eventually people would be convinced MS was in it for the long haul.
>
> One word... er.. phrase... er.. whatever...
>
> .NET.
We'll see.
>
> With .NET, MS can port Windows to any processor and Office.NET and any other
> .NET applications will automatically work. Of course this is no different
> from Java, except that MS has committed to releasing many products on .NET
> and there is a strong interest from 3rd party developers.
>
> > Again, if they claim "portable" they should be willing to back it up.
> > Look at NetBSD or Linux, these are portable operating systems.
>
> NT is portable, and has been ported to at least 5 architectures (plus rumors
> of several others that never became real products, like a SPARC port).
> While Windows CE is running on at least 15.
fi
WinCE is not part of the NT tree, it doesn't even support the full win32
(or even close) API.
NT, is not "portable" it has been ported, yes, but clearly it needs to
be "ported" for each release. There is a big difference between being
portable and being ported a few times.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:27:35 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > NT is portable, and has been ported to at least 5 architectures (plus
rumors
> > of several others that never became real products, like a SPARC port).
> > While Windows CE is running on at least 15.
> fi
> WinCE is not part of the NT tree, it doesn't even support the full win32
> (or even close) API.
WinCE is based on the NT kernel though (well, at least it was at some
point).
> NT, is not "portable" it has been ported, yes, but clearly it needs to
> be "ported" for each release. There is a big difference between being
> portable and being ported a few times.
All OS's must have at least some portion "ported". The parts that are
dependant upon the processor, interrupts, etc.. On NT this is the HAL, which
is pretty much the only part that needs porting (plus any device drivers for
a new system).
The same is true of Linux. Someone actually ports it to a new platform.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:40:51 -0500
> > >1) Netscape
> > >The Netscape windows is *always* too tall, fixed easily.
> > >
> > >Well, there it is. Thats what i dont like.
> >
> > Really? For me, it always opens too small.
>
> For me it always opens the same size as i closed it last time.
For me, it always opens the same size. Though I wish it wouldn't open at all
because it's a truly lame excuse by an "industry" leader for a web browser.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:26:47 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TOrN5.123619$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Raffael Cavallaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <WDMM5.2797$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >So you're saying that if someone said "I've managed to plant a time bomb
> > >somewhere in the <insert distribution here> source code" You'd be able
> > >to find it in a timely, reasonable manor? ROFL...
> >
> > You can tell bad rhetoric, because it always starts:
> >
> > "So you're saying..."
> >
> > and proceeds to say something completely different than what it pretends
> > to respond to.
> >
> > Here's what I _am_ saying, and which you can't deny, and which even
> > Windows2000 Magazine, a publication completely beholden to Microsoft,
> > says:
> >
> > Users will never be able to review Microsoft code. Users _can_ (and do)
> > review Linux and other open source code.
>
> I don't believe that happens at all.
>
> I look at the security advisories on each Linux site, and it's hole after
> hole after hole that allows root access.
>
> Linux = The Swiss Cheese of Operating Systems.
Linux: We put the X in security.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:34:45 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u5rbq$1obt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8u5aq0$1obt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yeah, but you should here the writer of Samba talk about the security
> >> > problems with MS's SMB. What the rest of the world would consider a
> >> > serios bug, MS put in as a feature! At one point when MS wanted to start
> >> > sending encrypted passwords they put that in the protocol and when you
> >> > selected encrypted passwords (thingking you were safer) the encypted
> >> > password was indeed sent, but for backword compatability, so was the
> >> > plain text file! Yeah, it's a feature!
> >>
> >> One of the things worth mentioning at this point is that microsoft
> >> traditionally waits until a "bug" is found by enough people to warrant
> >> fear of a lawsuit before they fix it. Conversely, linux bugs are
> >> confirmed quickly and acted apon without any "we dont think its an
> >> issue" damage control bullshit. :)
>
> > Speaking of bullshit...
>
> > Several of MSs patches were released within 24 hours of first posting.
>
> Neat. *ALL* of linux's have.
*BZZZT* Wrong, thanks for playing though. Several of Red Hat's patches,
for example, took several days.
Last statistic I saw showed that Red Hat had an on-average time of
releasing patches of about 3 days. MS was like 5, but MS does much
more testing because they affect much more systems. Some of their
patches also must be fully regression tested which also slows down
the delivery.
However, consistently, any privelege-escalation exploit (which there
haven't been many, recently) have been released in under 48-hours,
if not 24.
-Chad
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:53:02 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >> > howabout HP-PA? or Sparc? what about S390?
> > >
> > > Of course, the answer is no...
> >
> > Again, little demand.
>
> Again, if they claim "portable" they should be willing to back it up.
> Look at NetBSD or Linux, these are portable operating systems.
Earth to MLW, Microsoft is in business to make money, they don't think they
can make money by putting the development effort into supporting these
platforms (even assuming that SUN was interested in NT SPARC which they
aren't.) You might like to argue that their view is shortsighted, but that's
another discussion.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:38:23 GMT
"Michael Salem" <4ms2u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Eric Smith wrote:
>
> > I tried to use two feet of flat modular phone cord once in an emergency,
> > and could not get a 100BaseT connection at all.
> ...
> > In years past, I was never able to get a 10BaseT connection to work with
> > more than about three feet of flat modular cable.
>
> As far as I remember the Cat5 specification allows not more than 12mm
> of cable to be untwisted (to fit a connector), and bends to have a
> radius of not less than 25mm. So problems with over 2 feet (600mm) of
> untwisted cable are not unexpected.
>
>
> >I had no way to force the devices to fall back to 10BaseT, so I was
> > out of luck.
>
> By the way, is there any way to force dual-speed 10/100 NICs to run
> at 10Mbps? For any NICs, and under any operating system?
Depends on the brand, but typically the OS NIC driver should have this
capability, if not, there are DOS utilities for most NICs that allow
you to boot from a DOS disk and run a utility from there and configure
it (force 10 or 100, set buffers, etc)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:59:35 GMT
On 6 Nov 2000 04:07:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: One of the things worth mentioning at this point is that microsoft
: traditionally waits until a "bug" is found by enough people to warrant
: fear of a lawsuit before they fix it.
What fear of what lawsuit? Have you ever read the MS EULA? You've given
up any rights you might have ever had. They own the software, can pull
your license whenever they feel like it, make no guarantees that it will
actually ever run, and force you to give up your right to sue.
The worst thing you can do to them at that point is speak ill of them,
which due to certain mental midgets in Washington, DC may soon be illegal,
at least here in the US. Eek, look ma! No rights!
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:06:07 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:16:37 -0500, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>> Doesn't TUX run 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.
> It does. Running in the kernel has to be amazingly insecure and
> unstable.
Why so? It's not like it's as complex as a graphics subsystem, you
know. It's just a matter of parsing an http request, and pushing the
contents of a file. It's just sendfile with a little sugar.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
** 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
******************************