Linux-Advocacy Digest #198, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 21:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux in Critical Systems? (Edward Rosten)
Re: OS stability (Bob Hauck)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("JS/PL")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux in Critical Systems? (Glitch)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Terry Porter)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Glitch)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? ("Garry Knight")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:12:33 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:raGP5.19695$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Just about anything you can do under Unix via telnet. Ports for most
> > programs exist for Win32. Elm, Pine, bash, tin, etc...
>
> Those are all useful, but under windows you really need to run 'regedit'.
> Can you do that via telnet?
Yes. regedit /? gives you the command line syntax.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:14:47 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HiGP5.19698$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:lOBP5.7787$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> > > Two or more simultaneous users,, each with their own PRIVATE data
space,
> > > both in memory, and on disk, each user having their own UNIQUE user
> > > id, which is persistent from login to login.
> >
> > Yup, Win2k has all those features. Clearly you have no clue about it or
> you
> > would know this.
>
> Would you like to qualify that as to which versions do and do not include
> this capability, and for how many people at once?
Using that definition, all verison of NT ever created are multiuser. Most
people consider remote GUI to be part, which would require a version of NT
with remote GUI, such as NT4 WTS, or Win2k Server (or Advance Server, or
Datacenter).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:16:31 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BfGP5.19697$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:lRBP5.7789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > 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?
>
> On all my machines if the remote has permission to open a window back
> on the display that is the parent of the telnet session, it will do it
> automatically. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work?
Really? Now how do you do that without an X server?
Multiuser has nothing to do with what the client is running. For instance,
what if I telnet to a Unix server from a Mac or Windows box without an X
server? Does that make Unix no longer multi-user because the client can't
support a remote GUI?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:24:21 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > 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.
I think it was. At the time I had the problem I found other
people had similar experiences and were blaming it on
the fact that the MFT never shrinks.
> > 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.
The purpose of the machine was to make news stories from a wire
service available through a web server. It collected a few hundred
articles a day, and the disk was nowhere near full. Should this be
a problem for a filesystem that someone was claiming should
handle an enterprise?
> And it doesn't kill the system, it slows it down.
Well if you want to be technical about it *I* killed it after it
had crashed (perhaps an unrelated reason) and had not
completed its chkdisk (or scandisk or what ever that blue-screen
thing a startup is) after running over a three day weekend.
> IIRC, there are ways to handle MFT, so maybe there is a way to workaround
> this problem.
I've never seen anything recommended other than a reformat.
> Never happened to me, so I can't tell you any more about it
It is easy enough to test if you aren't afraid of the result.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Nov 2000 17:35:23 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Untrue. All versions Windows 2000 ships with a telnet server that
> allows
> > > multiple users to log-in using their own priviledges. Windows 2000
> Server
> > > also provides Windows Terminal Services for remote graphical logins.
> This
> > > is not an add-on product.
> >
> > Ammendment: It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need
> > to spend a bunch of money on add-on products to run any off-the-shelf
> > software; and even then you have to be choosy about which
> > off-the-shelf software to run (ie, Office97 needs significant tweaking
> > before it will run under the Terminal Server and other packages just
> > won't work at all [like OmniPage, for instance]).
>
> That's true for NT4 Terminal Server, not for Win2000. I've run Win2k WTS,
> and have never needed a special version for any software for it. It all
> just works.
Even from an NT4 client? A Macintosh? A Linux machine?
You need extra software.
And you still need to be picky about the software.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Critical Systems?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 02:36:13 +0000
> Can anyone point me to published accounts of use of Linux in "critical
> systems?" I'm particularly interested in examples of use in:
>
> o Medical equipment control
Probably not Linux. The last version of the FDA regulations wouldn't
allow a multitasking OS in medical equipment, though that might have
changed. DOS is/was very popular for this kind of application.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
Rosten
weather is because of all hte fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:43:47 GMT
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:38:33 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Sure, but that's just one item. Routine maintenance should be
>conducted on all parts in the system. Memory, Disk Controllers
>themselves, Power Supplies, CPU's, motherboards, etc...
What routine maintenance do you recommend for disk controllers and
memory? I guess every five years or so you ought to replace the
battery on the motherboard, and maybe once a year vacuum the power
supply fans and check the bearings (or just replace the fans to be
safe). But memory and disk controllers?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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 19:41:53 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lRFP5.19683$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > 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,
>
> Note that what you are really saying here is how bad NT and 98 really are.
Compared to Windows 2000, Win9x is shit. But if I was forced to choose, I'd
still choose it (9x) over Linux though, even as a webserver.
There's probably more choice in webservers under Win9x although I haven't
verified that. One nice one is
http://www.sambar.com
> Not everyone is going to forget that - especially the people still
> using them.
After using Windows.Net no one will care how crash prone 9x was.
> > and by the release of the system *after*
> > whistler, I wouldn't be surprise if those a minority even on the server.
>
> Also note that MS only improves things when they have to in response
> to competition. If you really want them to produce a great system you
> should be encouraging the competitors to force the issue.
There always has been competition, that's why the price's have remained the
same while Windows.* has been improving with each release. The next home
version of Windows will put the competition to shame.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 16:58:17 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lRFP5.19683$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > 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,
>
> Note that what you are really saying here is how bad NT and 98 really are.
NT 4.0 was great when it came out. And with SP6 it is pretty stable. Win2K
is a lot better.
Improvment is a wonderful thing.
I try not compare Win2K to Linux circa 1995, but the Penguinistas love to
compare Linux 2000 (wherever it is) to Win3.1 or Win 95 Or NT 4.0 SP 0.
What a bunch of crybabies they are when you note the improvements in Win2K
and their arguments look even more stupid.
> Not everyone is going to forget that - especially the people still
> using them.
Just a crybaby Penguinista who wants to live in the past and throws little
temper tantrums when Linux root exploits are a dime a dozen.
As I thought.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:03:20 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:38:33 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Sure, but that's just one item. Routine maintenance should be
> >conducted on all parts in the system. Memory, Disk Controllers
> >themselves, Power Supplies, CPU's, motherboards, etc...
>
> What routine maintenance do you recommend for disk controllers and
> memory? I guess every five years or so you ought to replace the
> battery on the motherboard, and maybe once a year vacuum the power
> supply fans and check the bearings (or just replace the fans to be
> safe). But memory and disk controllers?
Memory should be run through a memory tester. This is a device which buries
it in various data patterns and re-reads them verifying each bit is correct.
It does this as many times as you tell it to. Memory typically fails either
within the first few weeks, or after some kind of power irregularity (such
as a failing powersupply). That's why it's important to test all your
components, since a failure in one, can result in failures in others.
Higher end motherboards have diagnostic devices you can buy from the
manufacturer. Compaq (the kind of computer MS uses internally for it's
servers) has high end diagnostic hardware for it's rack servers.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:08:58 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Critical Systems?
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Can anyone point me to published accounts of use of Linux in "critical
> > systems?" I'm particularly interested in examples of use in:
> >
>
> > o Medical equipment control
>
> Probably not Linux. The last version of the FDA regulations wouldn't
> allow a multitasking OS in medical equipment, though that might have
> changed. DOS is/was very popular for this kind of application.
Thats why all those tests in the hospital take so long and cost so much
b/c they can only do one at a time. and it takes so long b/c it's under
DOS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:07:24 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ammendment: It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need
> > > to spend a bunch of money on add-on products to run any off-the-shelf
> > > software; and even then you have to be choosy about which
> > > off-the-shelf software to run (ie, Office97 needs significant tweaking
> > > before it will run under the Terminal Server and other packages just
> > > won't work at all [like OmniPage, for instance]).
> >
> > That's true for NT4 Terminal Server, not for Win2000. I've run Win2k
WTS,
> > and have never needed a special version for any software for it. It all
> > just works.
>
> Even from an NT4 client? A Macintosh? A Linux machine?
Huh? The kind of client is irrelevant. The Win2k TS client works on NT4,
9x, 2k, and CE devices. You can use the Citrix client for non-Windows
clients. Yes, that's an extra expense, but then that wasn't what you
originally said.
The software (such as Office) runs perfectly fine no matter which client you
use.
> You need extra software.
>
> And you still need to be picky about the software.
No, you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 13 Nov 2000 01:07:46 GMT
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:50:48 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> I thought you said you turned off your DNS to cause this to break.
>
>If I close down dialup, smb: stops working. It seems that Linux is trying
>to use DNS from dialup which is no longer there. I'm not sure how to
>configure the system to ONLY use DNS when dialup is present.
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
This may help ?
>From the DNS Howto
http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/DNS-HOWTO.html
6. I want bind running when I'm disconn
There are three items regarding this:
I have received this mail from
doing this:
I run named on my
two root.hints fil
the real root serv
which contains...
----
; root.hints.fake
; this file contains no information
----
When I go off line I copy the root.hints.fake file to root.hints and
restart named.
When I go online I copy root.hints.real to root.hints and restart
named.
This is done from ip-down & ip-up respectively.
The first time I do a query off line on a domain name named doesn't
have details for it puts an entry like this in messages..
Jan 28 20:10:11 hazchem named[10147]: No root nameserver for class IN
which I can live with.
It certainly seems to work for me. I can use the nameserver for
local machines while off the 'net without the timeout delay for
external domain names and I while on the 'net queries for external
domains work normally
.................
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 20 hours 20 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:21:55 -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...
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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?
That is indeed a difference but it doesn't mean it has to be separated
security wise from Win95/98. Any OS needs security. Even if you aren't
speaking strictly in terms of someone breaking into the system the OS
should still allow some protection from people deleting things they
shouldn't just b/c they don't use them or know what they are and
therefore don't think the files are needed. 95/98 allows this to
happen, Linux doesn't unless you are root. If you have a son who is 10
years old u aren't going to give him the root password so your system
files in Linux are safe, they aren't however safe under 98. Just b/c
more than one user at a time can't use 98 doesn't exclude it from having
any security/safety measures in place, although MS has thought that all
along. In fact they seem to condone security flaws since they like
introducing 'neat' features into an email program and a word processor.
98/95 does have the profiles which supposedly allow different people to
login to the system with their own settings.
------------------------------
From: "Garry Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:31:03 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Remember how Motif became the darling and crowded out all of its
> competitors within very few years? Is that what will happen with GTK+
> and Qt?
>
> I was about to switch from Motif to Qt, but have gotten advice from
> several sources suggesting Qt failed to get adopted as the darling of
> the unix community and GTK+ has succeeded, so Qt will not be around,
> or will be a hanger-on.
> Seems like when a tool doesn't "win", all kinds of things happen, like
> ancilliary tools don't get developed for it, it isn't kept up with new
> developments, good books about it (and about using various tools in
> conjunction with it, like databases, graphics libraries, etc.) don't
> appear, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
I understand that Borland Inprise have done some kind of deal with
Trolltech to incorporate QT into their Kylix project, but don't quote
me on it as I've forgotten the details. There should be something about
it somewhere on their site. If Kylix takes off maybe it will breathe
new life into QT.
--
Garry Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: . <[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 14:37:56 +1300
> > Is there a %* or something similar? This method doesn't work with
> > multiple files unfortunately.
>
> That is because notepad can't handle multiply files.
True, but it can certainly be spawned multiple times, which I'd like to
achieve... perhaps I'll have to make a tiny app to do the job of xargs.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 02:00:20 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:jIFP5.125929$[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 I know from the Unix guys I used to work with that a couple of
vigorous
> discussions on an email list can totally choke a sendmail system. It
> basically spends all it's time trying to keep up with all the thousands of
> locations to write message to.
I don't think that relates to local delivery - even thousands of local
copies shouldn't be much of a problem on a machine designed for
that many users. The problem with lists is that sendmail tries
to handle all of the recipients of a message in a single run of a
single process. In a large group there are bound to be deliveries
to slow remote exchange (for example) servers and worse, domains
where the DNS server times out instead of answering so it can take
a long time to make it to the end of the list. Aside from the problem
on the list itself, retries on this message block ordinary queue runs
for other retries too because there will be many systems to try before
it is finished. The workaround for lists is to use a list manager that
sorts the list by domains and hands to sendmail in reasonable size
chunks, and for large systems in general to make multi-depth retry
queues so very old failing messages can't block retries on recent ones.
Does anyone run large lists on exchange?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
