Linux-Advocacy Digest #188, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 08:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Glitch)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Glitch)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Patrick Raymond Hancox")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:00:36 GMT
OK, let's accept the claim that MS OS's aren't really multiuser systems.
Why?
My guess: MS and perhaps application software companies decided that
it makes it easier to force an organization to purchase one copy of a
piece of software for everyone. If organizations really started
picking up on the client/server model (that is, those with Ethernets),
it would be a little harder to prevent orgs from purchasing one copy of
a program and placing it on one machine. Of course, they could figure
out ways to allow only one copy to run, but it would require more work
on their part.
In particular, for Microsoft, if it were really multiuser, you could
have graphics terminals running applications remotely off a server. So
you wouldn't have to purchase NT/2000 for those terminals...
sjfromm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:38:13 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
> > >
> > > I don't know how long a linux box would be able to survive if clueless
> > > people (with root access) would start fiddling with it.
> > >
> >
> > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
>
> I'm so sorry. You are wrong. When you compare nix to win you gotta compare lin
> to nt4 or w2k. Both have secure journaling file systems. lin does not unless you
> are a programmer level user and build reiserfs and edit numerous crypyic config
> code to enable it.
I did not mean a filesystem that protects a user from the consequences
of the OS crashing or a power supply going out. The Poster befor me was
talking about a person with root access deleting/editing files that they
knew nothing about. In this respect Linux has this capaibility (u can
only delete system files if you are root, otherwise u don't have
permission). WIth Windows 95/98 you do not have this capability. Anyone
can delete anything. A few posts below someone says that WinME has this
capability. It's about time.
Also, I'm not going to exclude windows 95/98 from this topic as Linux
can act as a server and a workstation(desktop PC). Therefore if u
compare it to NT (which acts as a desktop or server) you have to also
compare Linux to WIndows 95/98 which obviously act as workstations and
can technically act as servers. Because of this Linux can be compared
to either NT or the dumbed down version of Windows.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:32:28 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
> > >
> > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
> >
> > I'm so sorry. You are wrong. When you compare nix to win you gotta
> compare lin
> > to nt4 or w2k. Both have secure journaling file systems. lin does not
> unless you
> > are a programmer level user and build reiserfs and edit numerous crypyic
> config
> > code to enable it.
>
> PLUS: Windows Me has System File Protection. You can't delete or overwrite a
> system file accidently.
Finally
------------------------------
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:33:45 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:vD%O5.75454$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's entirely correct. The use of Raw partitions have nothing
> > > > > to do with database sizes. It's an issue of performance. However,
> > > > > it must be said that you may not gain anything from raw partitons
> > > > > at all. IIRC, Oracle has also been recommending the converse route,
if,
> > > > > for example, you are intending to set up Oracle on Sparc machines
> > > > > running Solaris.
> > > > >
> > > > > The bottom line is: people can and do maintain >50 Gb databases
> > > > > (Oracle or otherwise) under linux without dedicated partitions,
> > > > > and thus, of course, Myers's comment is complete nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > Very few db, if any, keeps databases in one huge files.
> > > > It's inefficent to do so.
> > >
> > > Just ask the computing department in my organization that runs
> > > Microsoft Exchange. It stores all mail, calendar and related items
> > > for everybody in one huge file.
> > >
> > > They came to us for help when it became corrupt. We had to use linux
> > > and some open-source tools to dissect a bad backup tape.
> >
> > And you're blaiming your incompetent computer dept. operators on Exchange?
> > They didn't do good backups, and now it's Exchange's fault?
>
> Perhaps if Windows had a concept of a home drive, and the server
> stored all their information in their own home space, then one bug
> wouldn't take down everyone's mail/calendar/task lists.
What does a home drive have to do with mail? Home drive is where you store
your documents and settings (yes, Windows has had this for quite some time)
but storing everyone's email, etc in different places would severly impact
performance.
> It is a bug in Exchange, if you ask me
Exchange does more than just email. Besides, where does sendmail keep it's
mail before the client downloads it? In each person's home drive? No, of
course not it keeps it in a central mail store until the user downloads
it via POP3 or IMAP
> -- and it speaks volumes for how people in Redmond think.
Not really, it speaks volumes to your ignorance.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:46:40 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:33:45 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>
|> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> > >
|> > > Just ask the computing department in my organization that runs
|> > > Microsoft Exchange. It stores all mail, calendar and related items
|> > > for everybody in one huge file.
|> > >
|> > > They came to us for help when it became corrupt. We had to use linux
|> > > and some open-source tools to dissect a bad backup tape.
|> >
|> > And you're blaiming your incompetent computer dept. operators on Exchange?
|> > They didn't do good backups, and now it's Exchange's fault?
|>
|> Perhaps if Windows had a concept of a home drive, and the server
|> stored all their information in their own home space, then one bug
|> wouldn't take down everyone's mail/calendar/task lists.
|
|What does a home drive have to do with mail? Home drive is where you store
|your documents and settings (yes, Windows has had this for quite some time)
|but storing everyone's email, etc in different places would severly impact
|performance.
|
|> It is a bug in Exchange, if you ask me
|
|Exchange does more than just email. Besides, where does sendmail keep it's
|mail before the client downloads it? In each person's home drive? No, of
|course not it keeps it in a central mail store until the user downloads
|it via POP3 or IMAP
Actually, in typical UNIX flexible fashion, this is configurable.
Sendmail (well, actually the local delivery agent, whch is also
easily changed) can deliver email to mailboxes in users home
directories as easily as to a central directory, and this makes
quotas more general. You don't get to exceed your quota so easily
by email files to yourself and not downloading them, and the admins
only need to enforce quotas in home directiories, not the OS
partitions.
|> -- and it speaks volumes for how people in Redmond think.
|
|Not really, it speaks volumes to your ignorance.
No comment required.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 03:53:08 -0800
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uhk0h$kk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In using Windows, there is a downside... like this for example.
>
> Dealing With OS Decay: Rebuilding Your Windows System from Scratch
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2531288,00.html
>
> I really don't think Linux has this problem, does it?
>
>
>
Actually it does.
Just like in the Win world, sometimes articles are published by morons
proclaiming to be experts (most of the ZD staff, for example). Sad truth is
these twits are really just prorogating nonsense and confusing the rookies.
Look at OS Opinion (http://www.osopinion.com) some time for examples of
really pathetic "advocacy".
p.s. Mac users have the same problem as well.
*****
To: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Win2K fried your CMOS battery? Was that a typo?
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:40:00 -0000
> > What a long sig you have. Surely violates the 4 line
> > recommendation.
>
> fuck that. Why play prisoner to policies drawn up when
> a 10 MEG hard drive was $3000 ????
Aaron adds modem users to the list of people he discriminates against...
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 07:48:01 -0500
Colin R. Day wrote...
> Curtis wrote:
>
> > Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > > But how can that happen? Outlook opens the file using the default
> > > > associated application as defined by the user of the system. The file
> > > > cannot determine what opens it. That's ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Are you trying to claim that all the people who opened
> > > ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs really were well advised about
> > > how this was different from other email, knew exactly
> > > what would happen next, and blew up their networks
> > > on purpose? What is ridiculous is that they had no
> > > idea, and no way of telling what it was about to do.
> >
> > If the ignorant user is gungho to make things happen automagically
> > through file associations, then he should face his own waterloo with that
> > attitude.
>
> Hey, answer my question. Did these users explicitly associate shell
> scripts with an interpreter, or was it the default setting?
It's the default setting based on the type of user (ignorant ones) that
the OS is aimed at. How is the ignorant user going to direct the script
to the relevant interpreter when he/she receives a legitimate one to run.
The default setting is no problem for the experienced, informed user who
can simple CHANGE the default setting. The whole mess exists because of
the valiant attempts being made to have computers usable by the ignorant.
The machine becomes vulnerable as a result.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:52:48 +0000
A certain Erik Funkenbusch, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> But isnt the Server version not a add-on to the Professional version?
>
>No. It's a different version targeted at a different market. You can't
>turn a professional Win2k into a server without a complete reinstall.
The differences in the core code are minimal; tweaked registry settings
to optimize memory use for serving stuff out. W2K server though has a
lot of extra services as well.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:49:10 GMT
In article <ColP5.7666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uibbf$4d6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Are you blind or just stupid? Hardware failure has nothing to do
with
> > the
> > > OS.
> >
> > Well, then the great uptimes linux injoys must be due to the OS
because
> > linux runs on the same hardware and is performing better than NT and
> > 2000. IF this is not the case and the MS users are <snicker> doing
the
> > monthly hardware rotations you <more snikers> suggest <rolling on
the
> > floor laughing> then there is something that the MS users do not
trust.
> > Frankly, Franky, I think that MS has you so convinced that all of
the
> > problems are hardware related that you're not seening the real
problem
> > and that is the MS OS. Linux runs on the same hardware and does not
have
> > the same problems as Windows, so it MUST be the MS OS that is
demanding
> > that the sites be taken down.
>
> No, it's not the same hardware. It may be the same type of hardware,
but
> all that shows is that Linux admins do not perform regular
maintenance.
> That's to be expected from non-professionals.
Over all, it is basicly the same hardware. Or else Linux and UNIX users
Know how to buy better hardware! You have NOT proven that the downtime
for NT and W2K is because of HARDWARE maintenance! If any thing is
forcing reqular maintenance of W2K workstations every 30 days It must be
the software because It it is not required for Linux or UNIX.
>
> I've worked with computer hardware for 20 years. It fails, and it
fails
> often. I guess you consider fleet services like GE Capital Fleet
Services
> to be stupid for doing routine maintenance on their vehicles as well.
>
> Frankly, you're stupid if you put mission critical services on a
computer
> with a greater than 10% chance of failure without doing preventitive
> maintenance.
>
> I suppose you don't change the oil in your car either. The whole Oil
> Changing thing is a ruse designed to sell more oil and is completely
> unneccesary. Right?
I don't have oil in my computer! I don't have ANYTHING that REQUIRES
regular changing. Please povide documented evidance were a computer
manufacture recomends changing ANYTHING the way car manufactures
recomend changing OIL!
Your loosing it franky!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:08:08 -0500
Keith Edward O'Hara wrote...
> In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote:
> : Aaron R. Kulkis wrote...
> :> At least he knows it's executable code.
> :> And he has the OPTION of finding someone who can read the code
> :> before executing it.
> : Oh really now? Hahahahahaha. You really don't know what you are talking
> : about do you? This is why you sound so ridiculously unrealistic in your
> : arguments.
>
> The person who sent the attached code will be able to explain it,
> and probably did explain it in the body of the email ---
> at least in any circumstance where the code _should_ be executed.
CC'd mail from ignorant user:
"Hey guys, I got this nice little file off the net that does so and so.
It's wonderful. Just double click and run it." He doesn't know about the
trojan/virus planted there. He doesn't even mention where he got it.
Aferall that's irrelevant info in his ignorant mind. His fellow ignorant
buddies don't even ask either. This a way too common situation.
> Perhaps the explanation would be along the lines of
> "the attached script is a patch provided by the software vendor"
> but my limited imagination cannot conceive a situation where sufficient
> explanation of the code is not available from the sender.
You can only see things through your informed eyes it would appear. :-)
> :> So....what you're saying is....because some user's are not able
> :> to properly evaluate scripts....ALL users should be penalized by
> :> having scripts run for them without an opportunity for evaluation.
> : All users are not. All users have the option to evaluate the script
> : before running it in Windows.
>
> Not easily.
> The file-type .wsh has no view option as a right-click;
For me it does. I set it up that way.
> one must either start notepad.exe separately to open the file
> or install a viewer in the "send-to" list
Certainly.
> or associate a viewer with the file-type .wsh
That's not difficult either if you use some other editor other than
notepad.
> or append .txt to the filename
You're giving all the options. None of which exactly involves jumping
hoops.
> (and with the file-type .shs, the last option is not available).
>
> Is there an easy way to view these types of attachments?
For those users with the werewithal to actually wish to view these
attachments before running them, will have the werewithal to use one of
the options you gave above.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:57:39 +0000
A certain Aaron R. Kulkis, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>Translation . Lose2k "Professional" is deliberately crippled.
>
>What else would you expect from Microshaft?
"Crippled" is the wrong word. It is "crippled" in the sense that only
ten users can connect to shares on it at once. But would a user
workstation want to share files out to more than ten users ? It's no
more "crippled" than linux is if you recompile the kernel so that you
can use a small PC as a router booted off a floppy.
The different versions of W2K server are like different distributions of
Linux. There are two different distributions for SuSE for example. They
are just aimed at different classes of user and machine. You wouldn't
try to argue that SuSE Linux 7.0 Personal was a "crippled" version of
the Professional edition, would you ?
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:00:13 +0000
A certain Shane Phelps, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>W2K Terminal Services use Winframe technology licenced from Citrix,
>but for some reason uses Microsoft's own protocol (RDP?) instead of
>ICA, and supports a very limited set of client platforms (Win32 only?)
Nope, Citrix produces clients that work for many platforms - including
Linux. I've been able to get Citrix clients to connect to a W2K Terminal
Server from my SuSE machine. It is rather slower than the W32
equivalents, but still very usable.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:03:00 +0000
A certain Pete Goodwin, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
>> it is not. Comments?
>
>It isn't, in that you can't have two users logged into one machine.
Yes you can, with terminal services, built into W2K and works right out
of the box. Get a clue folks, before spreading misinformation.
>However, it is, in the sense that 'services' aka 'daemons' can run under
>different users accounts.
This is not "multiuser capability" in the sense the person asking the
question was talking about. Services can be run as different users but
that's only so that the service can have different credentials than the
currently logged on user.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:05:19 +0000
A certain Pete Goodwin, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Not true. Multiple users can be logged in simultaneously. For instance,
>> Win2000 ships with a telnet server that allows multiple people to log in
>> at the same time, each using their own user profile and priviledges.
>
>Oh yes I forgot about that. However, you can't actually do a great deal can
>you? If you run notepad, it pops up as a window on the main screen!
This is a capability that Citrix Metaframe has - "seamless window"
applications. That's where the window looks as though it is running on
your own desktop, ie you don't get a second desktop. This can be very
useful indeed - you can migrate a set of applications to terminal server
without your users being aware of it, retrained or whatever.
The default option is the normal desktop mode however.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:06:39 +0000
A certain Aaron R. Kulkis, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> My impression is that it is not. Comments?
>
>Claims that any Microsoft product is multi-user are pure fictions
>invented by M$'s marketing department.
W2K Terminal Services are not an invention. I log into one daily so I
must be imagining things.
Linux advocates won't get anywhere with misinformation.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
