Linux-Advocacy Digest #195, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Paul)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OS stability ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{ ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 13:55:14 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FbDP5.19550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> I don't know about you, but I control my associations and hence I'm
the
> > >> one determining which application is used and not the sender.
> > >
> > >How nice for you. If you would like to do the same for a few hundred
> > >people in remote offices and check them after every program
> > >install then I could be as safe as if they used a reasonable program.
> > >If you aren't willing to do that, don't try to tell me it isn't a real
> > >problem.
> >
> > Sounds like you've got a security problem - which is easily solveable.
> > Just run Windows NT / Win2k and lock down the security on the
> > workstations.
>
> What changes would you make that would allow all normal email
> messages to be safely viewed without encouraging the users to
> save unviewed attachments to files?
As I've told you several times, there are Outlook security updates that make
it impossible for Outlook users to execute attachments.
However, there is no mechanism in place to stop users from saving email
attachments since that would prevent users from mailing valid attachments to
each other.
You could use Hotmail's ability to read popservers and disable Outlook,
Outlook Express, Netscape, Eudora and every other email reader if that is
your goal.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:54:19 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_LcP5.7660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > One problem I've with OSS model is that it's always under development.
> > I don't know about you, but I think that at some point (check topic)
someone
> > has to say "This is as much as we are going to put into this version.
From
> > now on, we will only pull out the bugs."
>
> That's one of the many fundamental problems with OSS. No one takes charge
> and therefore no one accepts blaim. If they put a product out and claim
it's
> great and wonderful, a bunch of people use it and it fails miserably (as
they
> usually do) they just back up and say, "Well, hey, it's under
development!"
> There's no responsibility and therefore no trustworthiness.
>
> -Chad
And with commercial systems they just as often say: "Well hey, it's fixed
in the new version - trust us and buy it. You don't expect us to go back
and fix that version you got in 1995 do you?". Or if it was innovative
PC programming the company might say "Well hey, we got bought out by
this giant company and all the engineers that knew how it worked left".
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 13:57:42 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9PDP5.19555$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:QeqP5.125604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Easy root exploits are a Linux specialty.
>
> No, I thought Microsoft had a patent on that technology. They
> have had no trouble maintaining their lead in the bugtraq stats:
> http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/forums/bugtraq/intro.html
Linux wins the "root exploits" race everytime.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:49:09 GMT
In article <vrBP5.7783$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There is no way to defend against a wide-spread, distributed DOS
> > attack under ipv4 without having some nasty firewall rules period.
If
> > someone wants to take you out, they can; it's only a matter of
> > resources. While I agree that we should do everything possible to
> > reduce the danger, it's silly to count DoS attacks as bugs (many of
> > them are because a tcp/ip stack follows the rules!).
>
> There's no way to defend against a DoS attack, but a DoS attack
shouldn't
> crash the machine. The fact is, those Linux machines that have been
up for
> over a year are susceptible to these attacks. A very short term one
could
> render the machine crashed or hung. If they handled the DoS properly,
the
> machine would be available again after the DoS had stopped and it
wouldn't
> need to be rebooted.
>
> > > Strange that Microsoft seems to provide 100% availability with
such
> > > machines.
> >
> > .. except from Russian intruders? :)
>
> Including Russian intruders.
>
> > Every OS has bugs in it.
> >
> > Every ip stack can be DOSed.
> >
> > Open Source DOS attacks are easy to generate, but get fixed quickly.
> >
> > Closed Source DOS attacks are more difficult, but stay in operation
> > longer.
>
> But machines that have been up for years haven't been patched, and can
be
> identified as such quite easily now.
But you have not proven that the NEED the patch! you have NOT proven
that they have the configuration REQUITRED to exploit the vunerability!
the link you provided only said there was code to fix a TCP problem. Not
ALL the TCP code needs to be compiled in, so the servers may well be
secure.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul)
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:02:42 GMT
In article <lRBP5.7789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bAsP5.14094$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Not true. Multiple users can be logged in simultaneously. For
>instance,
>> > Win2000 ships with a telnet server that allows multiple people to log in
>> > at the same time, each using their own user profile and priviledges.
>>
>> Oh yes I forgot about that. However, you can't actually do a great deal
>can
>> you? If you run notepad, it pops up as a window on the main screen!
>
>No, it doesn't. Try running an X program from a telnet login, what happens?
That all depends on where you have the DISPLAY set.
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:05:29 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dPjP5.9504$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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
Sendmail commits a copy to disk in a file by itself before replying to
the sender that it has been accepted. Then it turns local delivery
over to the local delivery program which is configurable of course.
The usual configuration for local delivery on small systems stores
each user's messages in a separate file under a common directory.
This scales better than a single large file of course but still has
limits. Medium sized systems often configure to make local delivery
go to a file in the user's home directory, or each message in its own
file under a directory there.
> > -- and it speaks volumes for how people in Redmond think.
>
> Not really, it speaks volumes to your ignorance.
>
> -Chad
Enlighten us then: how do you restore one user's email from a system
backup if all users are stored in one big file?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:07:51 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_BsP5.14099$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > You do know that the trailing slash on a directory is required by
> > the http spec don't you? Send a request to a web server without
> > it and it will send back a redirect with it on - otherwise your
> > browser would not be able to construct relative links correctly.
> > Using smb: as a protocol seems like an afterthought, but if it
> > is done where http: would be accepted, shouldn't it act the
> > same way?
>
> Doesn't really matter, smb: packed up shortly after I logged the bug, the
> trailing '/' no longer works.
>
I thought you said you turned off your DNS to cause this to break.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:11:32 +0200
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Also, I'm not going to exclude windows 95/98 from this topic as Linux
> can act as a server and a workstation(desktop PC). Therefore if u
> compare it to NT (which acts as a desktop or server) you have to also
> compare Linux to WIndows 95/98 which obviously act as workstations and
> can technically act as servers. Because of this Linux can be compared
> to either NT or the dumbed down version of Windows.
No, you can't.
Reason is, Linux is a multi user OS.
Win9x is a *single* user OS.
See the difference?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:15:36 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bRDP5.19556$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uj0qs$1u1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > They are equally meaningless to someone who doesn't use
> > > them. In a building with about 6 computers in every office
> > > I can't say I've ever seen a VBS icon, or that I want to.
> >
> > Your problem.
> > You *choose* to intetionly remain ignorant, that is your own problem.
>
> If you think memorizing a VBS icon is a step on the path of knowledge,
> suit yourself.
Did you ever admin a linux machine?
You've to remember *way* more than a silly icon.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:24:15 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FbDP5.19550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> I don't know about you, but I control my associations and hence I'm
the
> > >> one determining which application is used and not the sender.
> > >
> > >How nice for you. If you would like to do the same for a few hundred
> > >people in remote offices and check them after every program
> > >install then I could be as safe as if they used a reasonable program.
> > >If you aren't willing to do that, don't try to tell me it isn't a real
> > >problem.
> >
> > Sounds like you've got a security problem - which is easily solveable.
> > Just run Windows NT / Win2k and lock down the security on the
> > workstations.
>
> What changes would you make that would allow all normal email
> messages to be safely viewed without encouraging the users to
> save unviewed attachments to files? And again, please don't
> say something is easy if you aren't offering to do it for all my
> remote offices.
There are number of ways to do this.
A> D/L the beta for outlook protection from MS.
B> Remove execute rights from temp folder.
C> Educate the user!!!
D> Learn something about the way outlook open those files, so you see those
"saving is bad" is a mute arguement.
> > >Until you reinstall the OS, or a program that decides to make
> > >itself the default handler for something.
> >
> > Can't be done if you apply the right security. Why haven't you done
> > so?
>
> As far as I can tell there isn't a 'right' association that correctly
> matches
> the differences between email attachments and files.
No, because the associations are system wide and are there for comfort and
ease-of-use.
The only *right* way to handle those things is to educate the user.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:26:24 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MmDP5.125809$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > What if you don't run windows on your desktop/laptop or whatever machine
> > is in front of you when you need to remotely administer something?
>
> Then you are missing out on a tremendously productive OS. But you already
> knew that.
Cute...
>
> > The only reasonable tool
> > I've found to deal with remote windows is VNC installed as a service
> > because you can run the java client in any browser if you don't happen
> > to have the client loaded wherever you are.
>
> WTS has a browser-based ActiveX control client.
I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
as warped as usual.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:32:16 GMT
"PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FxCP5.196$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Nothing on *nix platform comes even close
> in the ease of use and the selection of languages.
Huh? On unix if my executable file starts with:
#!/usr/bin/perl
it will be executed by perl without the user needing
to know what interpreter is running. Or it can say:
#!/bin/sh
for a shell script, or
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
to run with perl but with the warning flag set. How
do you allow any file to specify it's own interpreter
and command line flags, and if you can't, why do
you like it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:32:54 +0200
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GNzP5.125764$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
it.
> > >
> > > PLUS: Windows Me has System File Protection. You can't delete or
> overwrite a
> > > system file accidently.
I don't like the way it assumes that the user is stupid and lock him out of
a lot of things that you want to do.
> > Finally
>
> Win2K has had it all year of course.
>
> By the end of the year Whistler will merge all the stability of Win2K with
> the Consumer parts of Windows Me.
>
> And Microsoft will have unforked the codebase.
>
> And will be able to use the freed up resources on .NET and Blackcomb.
Oh, yes.
If Whistler is as good from 2K as 2K is from NT & 98, then Linux\Unix has a
reason to be *really* afraid, and by the release of the system *after*
whistler, I wouldn't be surprise if those a minority even on the server.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:36:03 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yuBP5.7784$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
> > 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!
>
> Sure you do. Hard disks have mean times between failure. If you don't
> change them prior to the MTBF you're risks go up exponentially, just like
> not changing your oil. Of course the MTBF on hard disks is quite high,
but
> that's taking into account that some drives fail after a week, some after
10
> years. Doing routine diagnostics will help you identify that.
Don't your raid controllers let you see the error statistics and swap drives
without a shutdown? I think this is really all a ruse to excuse the fact
that the OS won't stay up without periodic reboots to fix memory
leaks.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:34:36 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Okay, here is how you do it.
> > Start>Run> "Regedit"
> > Go to:
> > "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\"
> > if there is a sub key call "shell", go to it, otherwise, create it.
> > In "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell", delete any previous attempt to do the
> > notepad.
> > Then create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\" called "notepad"
> > create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad" called "command"
> > Go to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad\command\" and double click the
> > default value. (called "(Default)" )
> > Enter "C:\Windows\Notepad.exe %1" at the edit string box that would
appear.
>
> Small correction... put quotes around the %1, so long filenames are
> handled properly.
>
> Is there a %* or something similar? This method doesn't work with
> multiple files unfortunately.
That is because notepad can't handle multiply files.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:34:44 +0200
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ukilv$26779$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >For the "You can change *everything* {if you know how}" - people, here is
a
> >tidbit, a lot of people don't even bother to change their color settings.
> >That is how much Joe User want to be able to customize his workstation.
>
>
> On the other hand, some users can become bored with default settings and
> want to try something new - Our secretary at work knows very little about
> computers (she types with 2 fingers) yet every day she seems to have a
> different
> colour scheme (she likes to play with these things when bored). Imagine
the
> fun
> she could have if she could use a different window manager every day or
even
> just change theme on one window manager - even total newbies can work out
> how to do these things if / when they want to.
A> She can.
B> I'm not talking about ancedotal stories, I'm talking about the majority
of the of them.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:34:50 +0200
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ukj1n$241f1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I can't tell. Reason is, KDE (and linux, for that matter) has *really*
> lousy
> >support for the languages I need.
> >
>
>
> But it does have support for users to implement their own languages. This
is
> why
> a lot of china is using Linux / KDE - when a country have several
variations
> of a
> language (think how many variations of chinese are spoken in china) and
> commercial
> operating systems support at most 1 or 2 of their languages and have no
way
> to add
> support for a different language but another operating system is available
> that is not only
> free but has the ability to be simply extended to support every variation
of
> your country's
> language then which operating system do you chose?
I don't care.
I don't live in china.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 22:39:40 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any
files.
> > >
> > > Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
> > > Check NTFS first.
> > >
> >
> > I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
> > you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
> > real-world situations very well.
>
> Explain what you mean by this.
I mean that the 3-set combination lets you describe permission for
any group that you create. If you arbitrarily want to describe
permissions that don't match a group, ACLs let you do it.
> By talking about tighter control I'm talking about the ability to grant
> different file permissions to individuals or groups to much higher degree
> than I can on linux.
That isn't 'tighter'. It is just the ability to let your permissions
diverge
from your group definitions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:39:30 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3gEP5.19574$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uj3b6$sdg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ext2 has no more problems that NTFS - less if you ever let an
> > > > > NTFS fill with tiny files.
> > > >
> > > > Fixed.
> > >
> > > When, and what do you have to do to old systems?
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q196/0/71.asp (NT
> > 3.5,3.51,4.0)
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q120/3/63.ASP (NT 3.1
> only)
> >
> > I *think* that this might be the problem.
> > Took some time to find as I didn't know anything spesfic about this
> problem.
> > Does this sound about right?
>
> Of course you didn't know about the problem.
I never encountered it before, and only had net-rumors to guide me to it.
Considerring, it took me relatively short time to find it.
> You don't expect MS
> to warn you about problems, do you?
Yes I do, and they do.
There are several announcement lists that MS operate.
It's a good idea to be registered in them.
> The first one about each
> file taking space that is never released in the master file table is
> the problem I meant, and I think it may have eventually killed a
> machine I was trying to run.
That isn't the problem.
The problem is a MFT with millions of file listed in it.
> It was running NT 4.0, probably sp3,
> and set up by someone who was gone before I took over the job.
I doubt this is the reason.
You need something in the order of tens of millions files before the problem
begin.
You've a *lot* of files in your system if you've 500,000
Practically the only scenario where this can happen is on an large NNTP
server.
And it doesn't kill the system, it slows it down.
IIRC, there are ways to handle MFT, so maybe there is a way to workaround
this problem.
Never happened to me, so I can't tell you any more about it
> > That wasn't what I'm talking about, Netscape branched off Mozilla right
> now,
> > fixing & optimizing the code and getting it ready to commercial release
> > state.
> > Any time that they will be a Netscape release, they will branch off
> > temporarily, getting the code to
>
> If you are using CVS and only have one main development path it doesn't
> matter whether you branch new development or not because you can
> always retrieve any date or tagged previous version instead of taking
> the head of the repository. If you are developing multiple alternatives
> at the same time, or things that may never be activated in the mainline
> version then you need branches to keep them separate.
That is more-or-less what I'm taking about.
At some point, you branch of the main CVS and just work on improving the
code itself, not adding more to it.
Making it release ready.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 13:40:27 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Nov 2000 01:21:04 -0700,
Craig Kelley, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:QOgP5.18758$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8uj0kg$viv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
>> > > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
>> > >
>> > > Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
>> > > Check NTFS first.
>> >
>> > I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
>> > you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
>> > real-world situations very well.
>>
>> Really? How do you deny someone in an access group access to a single file
>> that all others in that access group can access without creating an all new
>> group to put everyone but that one person in?
>>
>> That's a pretty common real-world situation.
>
>Perhaps, but not in my real-world.
>
>ACLs would be nice, but they are not necessary, and in fact suid group
>directories are much more useful (sticky -- somethine NT cannot do).
>If I had to choose between the two, I'd take sticky bits over ACLs any
>day.
>
>--
Fortunately, with linux you have a choice, there are at least 3 diff ACL
projects out there for linux.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:48:22 GMT
Let's see: turn off DNS, things break. Too complicated?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're over my head on that one. Sounds like you have your work cut
> out for you.
>
> claire
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:32:03 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>That didn't take long :)
> >
> >Oh it gets worse.
> >
> >I noticed that smb: works just fine when I was connected to the Internet
> >via dialup. I checked and found that the DNS addresses from my dialup
> >were somehow the system DNS (very good for a setup with no DNS and just
> >two nodes!). I tried to configure the network with no DNS (which is how
> >I set it up on installation) and now a whole bunch of KDE apps are
broken:
> >
> >klipper (actually when KDE starts)
> >konqueror
> >terminal
> >knode
> >kbabel
> >katalog
> >kmail
> >
> >Konsole the KDE crash handler
> >-----------------------------
> >
> >(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> >(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> >(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> >(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
>
> >0x40c2ee39 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6
> >#0 0x40c2ee39 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6
> >#1 0x40c8f8e0 in __check_rhosts_file () from /lib/libc.so.6
> >#2 0x4049b4d0 in KCrash::defaultCrashHandler () from
> >/usr/lib/libkdecore.so.3
> >
> >#3 0x40bcc008 in sigaction () from /lib/libc.so.6
> >
> >Seems like network configuration has blown away a major section of KDE
2.0.
> >
> >(Yes I have logged this as a bug with bugs.kde.org).
> >
> >Ho hum
> >
> >Pete
> >
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
