Linux-Advocacy Digest #153, Volume #30 Fri, 10 Nov 00 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions: ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What does KDE do after all ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Terry Porter)
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("BigA")
Re: RedHat BugList Summary (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions: (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Chad Myers")
Re: RedHat BugList Summary ("Chad Myers")
Re: RedHat BugList Summary ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions:
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:22:59 GMT
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ueulu$hqi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
[much nonsense deleted]
> So, I try Mandrake 7.2 recently, which goes very well! Find a
configuration
> on the Linux Laptop page that came out about the same time as Mandrake 7.2
> and now my laptop runs.
[and even more...]
> Additionally, Don't mess with Linux on a laptop unless you have a LOT of
> free time to waste. It just isn't ready yet.
What??? Are you practicing for a career in fiction?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:30:13 GMT
"DTZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Okay, there are some application, which (unfortunately) only run under
> KDE, and Konqueror is not too bad. But there are also quite a lot of
> pre-KDE applications (which compile within minutes).
What do you mean by 'only run under KDE'?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Nov 2000 06:29:04 GMT
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:53:16 -0500, Clifford W. Racz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Just a point of fact - Windoze will *require* swap space, even with 512 MB
>> of RAM. It's so a crashdump can be written to disk before the system
>> checks out, in the event of a crash (which BTW is far more likely under
>> Windoze)...
>>
>> --
>> Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
>> jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
>> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
>
>I have yet to, in 9 months of daily usage, have Windows 2000 lockup once.
I've seen numerous reports on the NG's of it doing *just* that, locking up.
>But Linux never locked up either, once i got it running.
>
>My Windows 2000 disk cost me $5.
Wow, over here in Australia win2k is about $400 (new install)
So did Microsoft start giving away free software lately?
> Took me 2 hours to set up. Since I get
>paid (as a contractor so i work as little or as much as I choose) $20 an
>hour; I figure Win2000 cost me a total of $45 to get running.
Still got the receipt, the SPA might like to see it ?
> In contrast,
>Linux has cost me an estimated $1000
hmm Linux is free, mine cost me $6.50.
Perhaps you should shop where I shop ?
However I wont be buying Win2k for $5, as the police in this country take a
very dim view of theft.
> and netted me very little in return. I
Linux has made me about $2000 lately :)
>don't care who Claire is...
Nor do I!
However I'm only too aware, *what* he is.
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 1 hour 20 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "BigA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:33:19 GMT
"the inherent problem that Microsoft maintained for all these
years that you are unable to boot a recovery floppy or CD to
go fix an NTFS problem."
Guess you've never heard of the NT Emergency Recovery Disk?? I wonder, have
you even used NT 4.0???
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RedHat BugList Summary
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:05:10 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why do you say they're not comparable? Red Hat is averaging more
> exploits per month now than Win95/98/ME/NT/2000 and Outlook/Express
> combined!
Here's the count of security issues BugTraq registered throughout 1999
for various systems. There's a couple of caveats, though, mainly that
some systems are more popular than others, some (i.e. open source) is
easier to find defects in, and the OS numbers are aggregated with the
application numbers (i.e. NT 4.0 includes Explorer for NT 4.0, Red Hat
includes all included applications, and so on)
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 96
Microsoft Windows 98 44
Microsoft Windows 95 40
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0SP3 32
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0SP1 31
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0SP2 30
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0SP4 29
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 for Windows 98 29
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 for Windows NT 4.0 28
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 for Windows 95 28
Microsoft BackOffice 4.0 27
Microsoft BackOffice 4.5 26
Sun Solaris 7.0 25
Microsoft IIS 4.0 24
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0SP5 23
Sun Solaris 7.0_x86 21
Sun Solaris 2.6_x86 21
Sun Solaris 2.6 21
RedHat Linux 5.2 i386 21
RedHat Linux 6.0 i386 20
http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/forums/bugtraq/faq.html
FWIW, MS is still in the lead for 2000, but not with as many entries,
since, one must assume, the most obvious issues are weeded out by
now.
And of course, if you think MS writes perfect software, you really
should see the list of problems Purify comes up with when run on an
MFC program. Scary.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions:
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:12:55 GMT
"Raul Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1. Linux is an OS: Linux is not the total operating system.
"Linux" commonly refers to the whole system. Except if you're
Stallman.
> With the kernel itself it is difficult to do anything, isn't it ?
Well, I put a kernel on a floppy, with only a handful of programs on a
root fs. When you boot it, it loads or stores the complete disk image
across the network. Great for reinstalling MS OS'es that we use for
testing - in three unattended minutes.
Yeah, I could've used Ghost. This solution, is free (in both senses)
and took me like half an hour to set up.
>> 3. Linux is hard: I did teach my self the basics by reading books,
>> so the explaination of "Linux us too hard" doesn't cut the mustard.
Unix is actually a much simpler system than e.g. NT. But it's also
less opaque, so you get to access all the low-level stuff easily.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:10:04 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote...
> > I disagree, no other OS, except maybe the Mac, which was very costly in the
> > time span we are talking about, came even close to Windows GUI in comfort
> > and ease of use.
>
> OS/2 anyone? Unfortunately, the extra cost was a deterrent. Not to
> mention IBM's 'brilliant' marketing.
Um... OS/2's UI sucked. It was completely unintuitive. IBM didn't have
to market OS/2, its suckiness preceeded it.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:13:36 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:26:17 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> But that doesn't matter because your fundamental theory, that "less
> >> patches equals more security", is flawed.
> >
> >I never said that.
> >
> >Jesus, I get sick of explaining the topic thread to you guys over
> >and over again. Can't you keep focus for at least one day?
>
> You are just a super-genius who is misunderstood by the commoners.
> Give us a break, we can't hope to compete at your level.
I'd at least expect that you could hold your attention through at
least one topic, most everyone else seems to be able to.
> >Anyhow... several Penguinistas had got off on their high horse
> >saying that Open Source yielded better security and a more thorough
> >review from peers thus resulting in a higher quality, more secure
> >product in the end run, which I have proven to be complete B.S. as
> >Red Hat now has more bugs and P.E. exploits.
>
> And here you use raw numbers of exploits to make claims about security,
> which is really close to what you claim to not be saying.
>
> My claim, if you had bothered to read it, is that some number of the
> exploits for Linux were discovered by "white hats" before they were
> exploited by crackers. There is no evidence that this is true for
> closed products. Therefore, using raw numbers *as you are doing* is
> misleading.
Um... there are many watchdog "white hats" and "grey hats" who report
these exploits almost exclusively. NT BugTraq archives will reveal this.
EEye is the first one that comes to mind. There have also been several
university-types that have reported bugs in I.E. as well.
> >But it's proven by the numbers and every claim you guys have
> >that Open Source is superior is false and unprovable at best.
>
> As are your claims that MS is superior.
The facts speak for themselves, my claims only reverberate them.
If you wish to dispute the facts, which wouldn't surprise me, please
do so to your own embarrassment.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RedHat BugList Summary
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:15:36 GMT
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:20:06 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> |
> |"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> |> On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:43:32 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |wrote:
> |> |
> |> |"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> |> |> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |> |>
> |> |> > Can you please list the number of known security bugs in a linux
> |> |> > distribution of your choice that has been out in the open for nearly
> |> |> > as long as win2k?
> |> |>
> |> |> As far as I can tell, Debian has zero security bugs for 2.2.
> |> |>
> |> |> Among the six security issues the last month, I guess two (nis and
> |> |> traceroute) would be said to apply to the OS and not applications.
> |> |
> |> |What I can't understand is, in this day, Year 2000, there are _STILL_
> |> |bugs being discovered in traceroute, ping, etc. These utilities, and
> |> |apps like NIS have been around forever.
> |> |
> |> |I can't find one recorded instance of a bug with any of MS's base TCP/IP
> |> |utilities (ping, tracert, etc). I mean, come on, this is getting
rediculous.
> |>
> |>
> |> Remember the "Ping of Death"? MS's ping utility could generate
> |> these (non-standard sized) packets from the command line.
> |
> |I don't remember this. I remember the only way to do it was with
> |"WinNuke" on the Windows side and there were several utilities on the
> |*nix side.
> |
> |> Other OS's needed fancy, contorted programs to generate these packets.
> |>
> |> Remote DOS attacks from the MS standard ping utility. I think that counts.
> |
> |I think you're mistaken.
>
>
> From http://www.insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html
>
> 2. How to test if you're vulnerable
>
> Unfortunately, this bug is really easy to exploit. Users are already
> trying it out "just to see if it worked". So, to test if your machine
> is in danger, find a Windows '95 or NT box (3.51 or 4), and run the
> following command:
>
> ping -l 65510 your.host.ip.address
>
> The message on the '95 box will be "Request Timed Out". This means that
> the ping wasn't answered, either because the machine is ignoring you
> (and rightly so if you're going to send it invalid packets), or because
> it's dead. It's that simple...
>
>
> I don't have access to one of the affected boxes to test this.
hmm, I did this on an "unpatched" 95 box and it simply didn't respond.
insecure.org must be mistaken.
IIRC, the "ping-o-death" related to misaligned ICMP fragments, not oversized
ones
and affected several OSen (including several Unixes).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RedHat BugList Summary
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:16:38 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:21:24 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >Why do you say they're not comparable?
>
> Do you even bother to read what I write or are you just an auto-posting
> robot? The whole post was about why they aren't comparable.
Thanks for including the post too, so I could re-read it to understand
what you're talking about.
More than likely you were, as usual, making false assumptions on invalid
data and I questioned your ill-drawn conclusions.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:21:49 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:W1AO5.124942$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8udv3g$2po$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:EIpO5.124873$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8uctuo$mi3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <6k7N5.13146$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:O76N5.123431$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before we waste anymore time with your drivel,
> > > > > > name the *nix tools that
> > > > > > matches the feature list of Access.
> > > > >
> > > > > None of them match the non-portability, vendor lock
> > > > > design goal of Access if that is what you mean.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For a really interesting study of the whole vendor-lock
> > > > proprietary mdb-format issue, check out the thread
> > > > in comp.databases.ms-access beginning with this:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=685029497
> > > >
> > > > It starts off innocently enough with:
> > > >
> > > > (Brinster:) "I have a .mdb file of subscribers from which
> > > > I would like to extract all email addresses. I do not have
> > > > Access...can I view the file or extract the info with some
> > > > other program or utility?"
> > >
> > > Notepad would have worked unless it was encrypted or secured.
> >
> > Notepad? I never looked into MDB files before, but aren't they binary?
> > I just checked MDB file in notepad, couldn't make a sense of it.
> > I strongly believe that it's a binary file.
>
> If you don't encrypt, the data is very visible with notepad.
Yeah, but you can't "extract" the data easily as it's in binary format.
You could human-read it if necessary, however there are many ways to
get at the MDB data that are free without ever having owned a copy of
MS Access.
-Chad
"If you don't encrypt, you must acquit!"
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:43:12 +1000
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>
> >
> > No, you think that because you are using the concept of programs acting
on
> > data files.
>
> Yes. And the blurring of that distinction by Microsoft is part of the
problem.
If you're going to try and blame it on someone, blame it on Apple. They did
pioneer the whole GUI thing, after all.
Of course many (myself included) would argue that blurring is a good thing,
UI-wise.
> > In the Windows, Mac, OS/2 etc GUIs you manipulate and execute
> > icons, whose behaviour is determined globally and identifiable by the
icon
> > and/or extension.
> >
>
> And the average user knows what the icon for Visual Basic is?
About as well as they'd know what something slightly different was in any
other OS.
> > An icon representing a word document does the same thing no matter where
it
> > is double clicked. So does an executable file or a script. This is UI
> > consistency and IMHO is a Good Thing. I don't want to have to remember
a
> > different way to do everything from every different program. That's why
> > Unix sucks.
> >
>
> Nope. This is why UNIX/Linux is good. Have different browsers for mail and
> desktop, with the mail browser having no associations with shell scripts,
> if one so desired.
*shrug*. To each their own - I _like_ my UI consistency.
> > But the icon wouldn't have looked like a txt file. So, if a person is
used
> > to identifying a file by its icon, they would have seen something
strange
> > and if they were used to seeing extensions they also would have seen
> > something strange (strange = different).
> >
>
> But would the person have known that it was a shell script, or even
> what a shell script is?
They would have known it wasn't the usual text file.
And if they didn't, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:37:53 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:g8cfu8.dee.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <r_zO5.124941$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:iLyO5.15187$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8txO5.938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Um... perhaps you should do your research a little bit before
> >> > claiming any victory.
> >> >
> >> > It's very well known (especially since the story of their
> >> > Sun boxes spontaneously crashing made most of the major press)
> >> > that ebay runs their backend database servers on Sun boxes.
> >> >
> >> > These are the boxes that puked regularly.
> >>
> >> Yes, a large Sun box crashing is one of those 'man bites dog' stories
> >> that makes the news.
> >
> > Lately it's been man bites thousands of dogs because of sunspots and a lousy
> > design.
>
> Your ignorance is becoming tiresome. Bad design of what? The h/w? Sun's
> enterprise systems are rock solid.
Not according to the thousands of Sun hardware customers who suffered
spontaneous reboots of their systems due to a design flaw and were forced
to keep quiet under an NDA they had to sign with Sun which prevented them
from talking about it. What else does Sun have to hide that they're preventing
everyone else from knowing?
> Solaris? It may not have all the frills that come with Linux (although
> they are seeing the light) but Solaris is as solid and secure (if you
> know what you are doing) as you can get.
As you can get? Not quite.
It's slow, clunky, behind on the times and technology, only runs on Sun's
flawed hardware. Well, there is an x86 port, but it's a joke.
> Sun expects the administrators of their enterprise systems to know what
> they are doing. For their cluster solutions you must take a course on
> administering them. Properly installed and administered Sun enterprise
> systems are excellent and their cluster solutions give you 24x7 uptime
> of vital services.
But you pay a terrible (and grossly high) price for it and you suffer
with below average performance.
MS' clusters have set world records in Sun and IBM's own playgrounds
(tpc.org for example), cost fractions of what the Sun and IBM solutions
do and perform factors faster and cost less in the long run because they're
easier to set up and maintain.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:33:02 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Alsina
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:23:12 GMT
> <8ubr4n$mcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In article <3a080572$0$36976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8u8rlg$8k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In article <3a07d40b$0$14416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > news:8u77je$vai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > In article <3a06de7b$0$32739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > > > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > > By the way, what is the maximum
> >> > > > > partition size limit on Linux, and what is the maximum file
> >size
> >> > on
> >> > > > 32bit
> >> > > > > hardware?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Assuming ext2:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Max file size: 2GB, unless you use the "bigfile" patch.
> >> > > > Max part size: 4TB
> >> > >
> >> > > 4TB maximum FS size is quite decent, but 2GB filesize is hardly an
> >> > > "enterprise scale" limit. Needs to mature a bit :)
> >> >
> >> > Or you need to use the "bigfile" patch. You seem to enjoy selective
> >> > reading.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, and what are you going to do, recompile Oracle to use the new
> >API?
> >
> >What new API? Are you smoking something funny?
>
> Technically, it's a new API, but one can recompile apps
> by using the options:
>
> g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64 ...
>
> The source code -- at least for open() level stuff; I don't know
> about fopen() or iostream -- would not have to change.
> However, the objects would not be compatible, as open() and
> other such things become macros with the real calls becoming
> open64().
>
> Makes life interesting. :-)
So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
techniques or special filesystems.
Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
