Linux-Advocacy Digest #96, Volume #30 Tue, 7 Nov 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (tom)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (sfcybear)
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Matt Kennel)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:12:30 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > WinCE is based on the NT kernel though (well, at least it was at some
> > point).
>
> Never was CE based on NT. I still have the development kits (somewhere
> in my office). CE was originally touted as an embedded real-time OS.
>
> I would love to see a reputable web page that claims it.
I don't have a source, but I read somewhere that the CE kernel was spawned
from the NT kernel source. No, it's not the same, not even close, but
shares many traits.
> > 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.
>
> You are missing the point. NetBSD (more so than Linux) has no real
> archetecture "habbits" designed around processor design. Linux is a bit
> more tied to x86, but fairly generic now.
Huh? How can an OS not be architecture dependant when it needs to do things
like manipulate page tables, process interrupts, and save and restore
different run levels? All these things are different for every processor
architecture on the planet, and thus you need to write code speciific to
that processor to do it.
> NT is very tied to x86 design. While they do try to use macros in the
> DDK, more often than not the are either unused or while blocks of code
> are done in the \i386 subdirectory.
What are you talking about? NT was designed on the MIPS R3xxx series
computers. It was then ported to x86 afterwards. How could it be tied to
the x86 design? Hell, for that matter, There was an Alpha port of Win2k up
until the late betas.
> In NetBSD and Linux, there is assembly language stuff, but smaller bits
> are coded as assembler. Look at NT's AT disk driver, about 20% of the
> code is OS specific. Where as, including all the bits in the kernel
> tree, Linux is about 5%. (These are rough estimates, based on lines of
> code in generic areas vs lines of code in arch/i386.)
That's a device driver. Device drivers are, by their nature, platform
dependant.
If you want to make the argument that Device drivers are more platform
dependant on NT than Linux, you might have a point, but then NT device
drivers tend to take advantage of more of the hardware acceleration and
other features.
------------------------------
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 23:16:13 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, and Win98 had that "automatic optimization" feature that was
supposed
> to eventually move all of your oft-used apps to the faster part of the
> hard drive. You don't hear much about that feature, do you? Never
> helped.
Actually it did help. There are several things here. First, MS made it
possible to map code segments of applications directly out of disk cache,
thus memory was not used twice (once in cache, once in main memory).
Second, MS licensed Intels technology which fragments files in such a way
that causes them to load faster when multiple files are being loaded at the
same time (for instance, an exe with lots of DLL's). It worked quite well
actually, and I think that some of it made it into Windows 2000 as well.
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:06:31 GMT
In article <8u5u5e$rks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows 95/98/ME are consumer products with a built in flaw - they
have
> no memory protection against errant applications overwriting memory,
> hence the whole system is unstable.
I'm just "passing through" here, checking out this group once in awhile
for fun. Just for the record, I'm generally happy with my Windows98
(lite); the couple of times I tried Linux (Mandrake 7.1), I was not
particularly impressed.
That said, I just had to throw this into the discussion when I saw the
comment above about Windows' lack of memory protection. Mr. Goodwin
talked about "errant applications"; he forgot to mention Windows needs
protection from itself!
Lately I've found that something interferes when I run Defrag. So last
night, I went to the trouble of booting into Safe mode; I figured you
couldn't get any more 'stable' than that. Started up Defrag on both
hard drives and went to bed.
This morning, I got up and there was a dialog box stating that Defrag
had finished, etc. What happened when I acknowledged this?
1. "Defrag has committed an illegal operation" (acknowledged this)
2. "Explorer has committed an illegal operation" (acknowledged this but
the dialog would not go away)
I ended up having to do a hard reboot, with the accompanying automatic
scandisk, blah blah blah. Apparently, Windows can't even deal with its
own programs, let alone 3rd party "errant applications."
Just thought you Linux guys would love this. ;)
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:20:12 GMT
"Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a06e667$0$32675$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I don't think there was ever a released version of Linux that did not
> > do copy-on-write fork()s and shared-text program loading. There
> > have been some variations over the years regarding the actual
> > memory mapping and sharing the various buffers. Most of this
> > was developed back in SysVr3 unix and independently in the
> > *bsd version at about the same time (early 80's) - and had probably
> > been done in a similar way in earlier operating systems.
>
> Great. Anyway, fork() immediately followed by an exec() in the child
branch
> is not a very efficient way to start a new process, because the duplicated
> address space will be thrown away almost instantly.
Yes, that's why it is only the page tables that are duplicated and the
vfork() hack was used before efficient virtual memory handling
came around. But fork() may be followed by any number of actions
in the child before it exec()'s a new program if it ever does at all.
There is no way to match the same possibilities in a combined
system call. I suppose the popularity of huge GUI processes might
make it reasonable to rethink this, or always keep a tiny agent running
with some IPC for communication so you could tell it to start new
processes for you.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:20:40 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, and Win98 had that "automatic optimization" feature that was
> supposed
> > to eventually move all of your oft-used apps to the faster part of the
> > hard drive. You don't hear much about that feature, do you? Never
> > helped.
>
> Actually it did help. There are several things here. First, MS made it
> possible to map code segments of applications directly out of disk cache,
> thus memory was not used twice (once in cache, once in main memory).
> Second, MS licensed Intels technology which fragments files in such a way
> that causes them to load faster when multiple files are being loaded at the
> same time (for instance, an exe with lots of DLL's). It worked quite well
> actually, and I think that some of it made it into Windows 2000 as well.
In spite of this technology, the Win 98 system on my daughter's PC
is slower than ever. I never noticed it did any good, and I ended
up going with NT, even though I had to scout around for various drivers.
However, what you say is interesting, and I would like to learn more.
Got any link to follow? Thanks!
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:22:20 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> A Microsoft study released today shows NT increases employment
> exponentially as computers increase in numbers.
> "Obviously this was our intent. We deliberately made the system a pain
> in the ass so that more and more people would be recruited into IT jobs
> to deal with the horrible OS no-one with qualifications wanted to touch.
> To ensure that the NT users appear to know what they're doing, we have
> also developed a range of multi-choice exams."
>
> "Here at Microsoft, we take the economy very seriously, because the more
> clueless punters are backing our OS, the more copies we sell."
>
> [No offense intended to people who actually WORKED to get their MCSE]
It is intriguing that generating problems generates work, and is thus
good for the economy. This means woe, gentlemen!
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:30:07 GMT
In article <BZLN5.123778$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:0uLN5.13437$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:PQKN5.123765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > How does anybody get any work done with Linux? Do you have any
time left
> > > after downloading all the security fixes, compiling them and
installing
> > > them?
> >
> > First, since the linux distributions include so many programs, it
often
> > turns out that you aren't running the one in question anyway.
>
> It seems to me, most have to do with standard services.
>
> >You'd
> > have to buy a whole store full of add-on products for the equivalent
> > under Windows.
>
> But most of those wouldn't be so insecure to allow root access.
>
> > Then for the cases where you do have to update,
> > the distributors all have packaged updates that install with a
single
> > command,
>
> Most of the ones I've seen need multiple package installations like
this
> one:
>
> http://www.suse.com/de/support/security/adv5_draht_glibc_txt.txt
>
> SPECIAL INSTALL INSTRUCTIONS:
> Note that the complete update consists of three (3) binary rpm
> packages and one source rpm package per distribution and platform.
> libc-*.rpm contains the static libraries, libd is the package for
> the profiling+debugging version of the libraries.
>
> If at all possible, keep your machine calm while you perform the
> update.
>
> Keep your machine calm?
>
> > and (unlike anything from MS) if it isn't the kernel you
> > don't even have to reboot.
>
> But you do have to keep your machine calm. :)
>
> > Most of the distributions include a tool
> > to automatically pick up the updates for you.
>
> But there are so many that allow root access. How do you keep up?
>
> >
> > > > but those poor Windows users have no idea what horors MS is
hiding
> from
> > > > them because MS does not publish it's bug list!
> > >
> > > It's called the knowledge base. It has all the issues. It's
searchable.
> >
> > How often has MS published something there before someone else
> > made it public?
>
> They try and post the fix when they publish the problem.
>
Come on bruce, let's compare... Were is MS's bug reports???? Hmmmm? what
are they hiding??? Why won't you answer that? You can only look at an
OPEN list and bash it, but the real danger are the exploits that you or
I have no idea about. That is why MS's Closed bug list is so dangerous.
What exploits are left unfixed by MS because some exec wants to cut
costs so he just hides it??? What is so bad about MS's list that they
have to hide it?
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:42:00 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BZLN5.123778$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Then for the cases where you do have to update,
> > the distributors all have packaged updates that install with a single
> > command,
>
> Most of the ones I've seen need multiple package installations like this
> one:
>
> http://www.suse.com/de/support/security/adv5_draht_glibc_txt.txt
>
> SPECIAL INSTALL INSTRUCTIONS:
> Note that the complete update consists of three (3) binary rpm
> packages and one source rpm package per distribution and platform.
> libc-*.rpm contains the static libraries, libd is the package for
> the profiling+debugging version of the libraries.
Rpm is perfectly happy to install multiple packages with one
command - in fact if they had mutual dependencies that would
be the only way to do it. It is a little brighter than 'setup'
about things like that.
> > Most of the distributions include a tool
> > to automatically pick up the updates for you.
>
> But there are so many that allow root access. How do you keep up?
The people with blind, ignorant trust in Microsoft make a gloating
noise, not even knowing whether their OS is better or worse.
> > How often has MS published something there before someone else
> > made it public?
>
> They try and post the fix when they publish the problem.
Yes, when they are forced to by someone else's disclosure.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:43:32 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yeah, and Win98 had that "automatic optimization" feature that was
supposed
> > to eventually move all of your oft-used apps to the faster part of the
> > hard drive. You don't hear much about that feature, do you? Never
> > helped.
>
> Umm, at least one version of 95 supported the default registry backup....
> system.da0 and user.da0...
> I remember falling back on it once in 96 due to a retard double-clicking
> his entire-registry export file to 'see what was in it'.
Could be worse... He could have emailed it to the company-wide list.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 23:46:47 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Actually it did help. There are several things here. First, MS made it
> > possible to map code segments of applications directly out of disk
cache,
> > thus memory was not used twice (once in cache, once in main memory).
> > Second, MS licensed Intels technology which fragments files in such a
way
> > that causes them to load faster when multiple files are being loaded at
the
> > same time (for instance, an exe with lots of DLL's). It worked quite
well
> > actually, and I think that some of it made it into Windows 2000 as well.
>
> In spite of this technology, the Win 98 system on my daughter's PC
> is slower than ever. I never noticed it did any good, and I ended
> up going with NT, even though I had to scout around for various drivers.
>
> However, what you say is interesting, and I would like to learn more.
> Got any link to follow? Thanks!
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q191/6/55.ASP
And if you're interested in how memory works in NT, try this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/periodic/period98/ntaug981.htm
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 05:53:58 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u80ec$vjo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > That is the core of the problem. The border between secure and insecure
> > gets blurred. Things coming from a place as untrustable as the Internet
> > _must_ be handled differently.
>
> But not all mail comes from the internet. Indeed, in some environments a
> _majority_ of it is probably internal.
But that *is* the problem that allowed ILOVEYOU etc. to explode.
As soon as anyone opened it, it would grab the whole company
address book and send copies of itself from an address that those
people would trust. I got 3 copies from the company treasurer and
we only had a mild infection because it didn't know how to use
our LDAP address book except where people had copied it
locally.
> The point is the exact same thing could have happened if the email had
> instructions on how to pipe out of the mailer. And probably would have.
No, those people never follow instructions...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 05:56:22 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:47:31 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:"Glenn McGregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:news:laIN5.639$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Actually ctrl-Z is the SUB character, not EOF.
:>
:> I believe it was to be used for an indication of an alternate
:> character set, ie; substitute.
:>
:> The closest current EOF character in ASCII is FS, the file separator
:> character.
:
:Ctrl Z in VMS is Exit
:
:From the VMS EDT Manual:
:
:To exit from EDT, press CTRL-Z to return to line mode, if you are not
:already there. Then use one of the following commands to exit:
:
:EXIT
:Writes a new file with the same name as the input file, but with a
:higher version number, and returns you to the DCL prompt.
:
:QUIT
:Discards your changes and returns you to DCL command level.
So, when you exit emacs, does it put a Control-X Control-C at the
end of the file?
no.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:02:10 +1000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EaMN5.6813$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > NT is very tied to x86 design. While they do try to use macros in the
> > DDK, more often than not the are either unused or while blocks of code
> > are done in the \i386 subdirectory.
>
> What are you talking about? NT was designed on the MIPS R3xxx series
> computers. It was then ported to x86 afterwards. How could it be tied to
> the x86 design? Hell, for that matter, There was an Alpha port of Win2k
up
> until the late betas.
I thought NT was designed on (or at least first run on) the intel i860/i960,
then ported to the others ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
