Linux-Advocacy Digest #203, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux in Critical Systems? ("Operator Jack")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (James E. Freedle II)
tv guide (Terry Porter)
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) (spam)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (James E. Freedle II)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) (spam)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Mike")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Goldhammer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Operator Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Critical Systems?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:20:53 -0800
"Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "S. W. Davison" wrote:
> >
> > o US DOD weapons or combat support systems
>
> They use Microsoft.
Actually, The US Navy is supposed to be implementing Linux to replace those
NT servers onboard ship that tend to just stop working (and stop the ship as
well).. At least I know there was a vender/consultant eval'ing different
linux's in Feb 2K
> > o US NASA ground control systems
>
> Pretty sure they run some type of UNIX. Someone told me it was Linux,
> but I'm not really sure.
Note that the author of some very popular linux network drivers
worked(works?) at NASA.. remember Beowulf, anyone?
> > o Medical equipment control
>
> I think it's QNX.
Usually microOS, vxWorks, QNX, DOS, or some application embedded rather than
an OS.. MT/MU OS's not allowed ;)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:27:43 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "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.
>
> I said you needed to pay for extra software. How many connections to
> you get with the Workstation? Server? I routinely have 5-10 people
> logged into my workstation at work just for the fun of it. Can I do
> the same with Windows 2000 workstation?
No, you said you needed to pay for "add ons". That's not the same as paying
for a version of the OS that supports what you want.
> It costs money.
Indeed it does. But that's irrelevant to whether or not it's a builtin
feature of the OS.
> > > And you still need to be picky about the software.
> >
> > No, you don't.
>
> I know for a fact that Omnipage Pro doesn't work and that Office 97
> requires updates.
Omnipage Pro. You mean, the software that uses a scanner to create text
documents? How exactly are you planning on doing that remotely anyways? Of
course it's not going to work, since you would have to be local to operate
the scanner, and I know of no network scanners.
That's like complaining that CD-Writing software doesn't work (it may or may
not, I don't know). How are you going to put a CD-R in the drive if you're
not in the room?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:27:07 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GuJP5.19747$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > And there are command line equivelants for ghostview?
> >
> > Of course. Ghostview is an unnecessary wrapper for ghostscript
> > whose only use is for viewing in graphics mode. If you don't have
> > graphics mode you can still use the underlying tool to manipulate
> > postscript.
>
> Viewing a pdf file or .ps file is "unnecessary"?
>
> That's the purpose of ghostview. I'm not talking about manipulating
> postscript, but rather viewing it. How do you view an eps file in text
> mode?
ps2ascii
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:36:56 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:g0KP5.19757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where does it say that what it considers as a transaction includes the
> data? I question this because I have seen other sources that said it
> didn't.
What point is there in doing a re-do transaction if you have no data to
apply to it?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:40:01 -0600
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't think that happens under Win2k (I'll check though). I think
Win2k
> > honors the context for the local user.
As a postscript, I just tested this with the Win2k telnet server. Executing
Notepad did not spawn a notepad on the desktop, in fact it simply refused to
create the window and the app exited.
> > Similarly, what happens if you have DISPLAY set for a machine you are
not
> > logged into? Does your app pop up on someone elses computer if you
mistype
> > the IP address and that IP happens to have an X server running?
> Only if the owner of the display has set xhost + or otherwise authorized
you.
> Of course, who uses IP address directly? Most of the time you would use
the
> name, which is less likely to be typed in error.
Sounds like a great way to screw with your fellow employees.
------------------------------
From: James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:40:21 GMT
==========
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:s4JP5.7854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Most unix boxes run just fine without X even locally, so X obviously is
> > > not a requirement for multiuser access. You can access just about
> > > everything in character mode. On windows, there is often no character
> > > mode equivalent for GUI programs so telnet access may not be useful.
> >
> > And there are command line equivelants for ghostview?
>
> Of course. Ghostview is an unnecessary wrapper for ghostscript
> whose only use is for viewing in graphics mode. If you don't have
> graphics mode you can still use the underlying tool to manipulate
> postscript.
>
> > Netscape works in
> > command line mode?
>
> That's called lynx.
>
> > What about the KDE utilities?
>
> Again, mostly unnecessary GUI wrappers around work that can be
> done in character mode.
>
> > Most of the command line programs available for Unix are also available in
> > Win32 ports. If you want to do work through telnet, you can most
> certainly
> > do the same work on Unix or Win2k.
>
> But can you manage the machine itself? I have no trouble doing anything
> short of pushing the reset button on a remote unix box through telnet,
> including updating software, tweaking device driver settings and the
> like. How do you deal with installshield/setup on a windows box?
> It is also very handy to have files containing some canned sets of
> command line commands to do particular things that take a lot of input.
> For unix systems I just save them in a file and paste the relevant lines
> into a telnet window to get them done. I see windows guys saving
> screen dumps of systems, then paging through a mess of them punching
> all the same buttons again and again. Is there a better way than that?
Yes, you can create scripts that will work with Install shield if the company
has set it up to do so. I was reading the documentation for SQL Server 7.0 and
it tells you in detail of how to run through the install and answer all the
questions to create a script to install it over the network on a remote
machine.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: tv guide
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 13 Nov 2000 04:41:45 GMT
Hi all:)
Recently somone here wanted Linux to allow them to get tv listings under
Linux, heres one way :)
from http:??www.freshmeat.net
tvguide 1.4
by Kurt Hindenburg on November 12th 2000, 12:58 EST
tvguide is a Perl script that reads the tv listings from tvguide.com and
outputs them in a table format.
Changes: Date and time are now accepted as parameters. The user may now
specify channels to be listed. Time zone and date are printed.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 23 hours 30 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:57:52 -0800
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:36:56 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:g0KP5.19757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Where does it say that what it considers as a transaction includes the
>> data? I question this because I have seen other sources that said it
>> didn't.
>
>What point is there in doing a re-do transaction if you have no data to
>apply to it?
>
The transaction could have been a file delete, rename, etc.
>
>
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:47:36 GMT
==========
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
> "Charles M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >Telnet,
> Windows 2000 Terminal Services, FTP, Remote Console (done locally)
> > >and several others.
> > >
> > >They can all be done locally on the same machine without a network
> > >connection using only local loopback.
> > >
> > I did try telnet (to the local machine) from win2000, but it doesn't
> > give a logon prompt (that suprised me, but I've never tried a local
> > telnet on win2000 before). I checked the telnet services properties
> > and notice that logon properties defaults to 'Local System' account.
> > There is a choice for setting a single account username/password, but
> > that didn't seem to work for me (wouldn't connect at all). How would
> > you use telnet to perform a su type command? (runas seems to be
> > limited to a single command, not a complete login shell, so that
> > doesn't seem to be what I'm after here).
>
> Try to run cmd.exe with runas. Then the whole shell runs as that user.
>
>
>
For what reasons would you need to switch to another user?
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:38:32 GMT
In article <rnJP5.7857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8unm39$u07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > No, the exploits mentioned do *NOT* require a certain socket.
*ANY*
> > socket
> > > is susceptable to the exploit. it's quite easy to scan a system
to
> > see
> > > which ports are open and send malformed packets to any of them.
The
> > problem
> > > is in the core code that effects all sockets, not in individual
> > services.
> > > The same TCP code is used by any socket implementation you use.
> > >
> > please provide proof of this, since the page you posted did not.
>
> Use your brain.
>
> How could a bug effect only a particular port? Only 2 ways.
>
> 1) There is some hard coded special case code in the general IP stack
> relating to only that port number. I don't know of any such code in
any IP
> stack.
>
> 2) The service using the stack, that opens the specific port number
has the
> bug. Not the general TCP code.
>
> Additionally, since it's in the TCP code, and not the UDP code, that
means
> that only connection oriented protocols are effected, which further
> illustrates that it's a general TCP code failure, otherwise it
wouldn't be a
> kernel patch since userland sockets are a library.
I have no repect for your technical skills at this point. As the kernel
patch that I have discribed before the PATCH is in the KERNEL but the
EXPLOIT REQUIRES SENDMAIL which IS a USERLAND UTILITY!!!! Get rid of
sendmail and the kernel nolonger needs to be patched because the bug can
not be exploited! So, you have proven NOTHING HERE! It is COMPLETELY
POSSIBLE FOR THE EXPLOIT TO REQUIRE A USERLAND SOCKET FOR THE EXPLOIT to
be successful!!!! In this case, even shutting down the socket in the
services file might stop the attack.
again, you completely ignore the posibility that the exploit could be
stopped by other means leaving the server secure without patching the
kernel.
You have NOT shown that ANY of the record holders are vunerable to ANY
attack that would crash the system or give the attacker access to the
system!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:47:56 +0200
"PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PeJP5.2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> - ADO. Want to go through 100.000 text files, word docs, powerpoint
> presentations and so forth in the file server and collect, say file sizes,
> authors and what have you in a ...say Solid server database (any
> ODBC-compliant database will do). Use Indes Server components (ah, it
takes
> SQL queries as well, so no need to change the mindset to RegExp or plain
> english) to retreive, ADO to put the data in. So next week the Solid is
gone,
> and there is Oracle on the other end? No prob. Change the ODBC link in
> Control Panel, no need to touch the code.
As a note, I would drop the system DSN and go for direct ODBC (or better yet
OLEDB), *much* more efficent. (System DSN need to travel to the registery
and then to the file system in order to find the connection code)
Downside, you need to change the code when you change databases. (One line
only, though)
> Can you guess by now, why I like the WSH, ASP and all those little other
> three-letter acronymes that come with Windows platform?
Yep.
Cause it's cool and it's working!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:53:18 +0200
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Sounds pretty portable to me. Any machine with IE on it can be used to
> > administer a Win2K server.
>
> I'm assuming an admin could also use Netscape if he so wished to
> administer a win2k server or is Netscape not included in Microsoft's Ten
> Commandments? "Thou shall not have no other browser before IE"
Make moziila support activex, and other such standards, and I don't see a
reason why you can't.
> > And when the agreement with Citirix runs out, there will be RDP clients
for
> > all OS.
IE now run on three OS that I know of. Win*, Mac, Solaris.
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:07:01 -0800
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:53:18 -0800, "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:6fIP5.19732$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:NQFP5.125933$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> > > The thing you are missing is that journaling does not mean you won't
>> > > lose anything, it means that the operations are ordered so you can
>> > > always recover to a consistent state. Journaling metadata means that
>> > > the directory structure and free space tables are always consistent
>> > > or at least recoverable even though any particular file's contents
>> > > may not be correct. Journaling everything usually requires writing
>> > > changes to a log, performing the real update, then clearing the log
>> > > so that incomplete operations remain in the log and can be completed
>> > > during recovery. Making this set of steps come close to the speed
>> > > of non-journaled operations is non-trivial.
>> >
>> > Sounds like NTFS does it.
>> >
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
>>
>> There is really not enough information in that article to tell whether
>> the log is just metadata or not, and I doubt if the omissions were
>> accidental.
>
>It is exceptionally clear (and note this was NT 3.1 so it was in NT from the
>beginning)
No it's not clear. The log file does NOT record the file content data.
Here's a description from the horses mouth
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/winresource/dnwinnt/S839B.HTM
"Periodic Log File Checkpoints
Every few seconds, NTFS checks the cache to determine the status of
the lazy writer and marks the status as a checkpoint in the log. If
the system crashes subsequent to that checkpoint, the system knows to
back up to that checkpoint for recovery. This method provides for more
expedient recovery times by saving the amount of queries that are
required during recovery.
Note This level of recoverability protects metadata. User data can
still be corrupted in the case of power and/or system failure. "
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:45:09 GMT
In article <z4HP5.7840$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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.
then what you are saying here, is if no other system failures have
occured and it has made it past the first few weeks then chances are
it's not going to fail! If power is the issue, then just powering up and
down the system stresses the memory and could speed the failure of the
ram.
>
> 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.
Many diagnostic tools do not require shutting down, but you still have
not given the success rate a avoiding failures! The time requred to do
these test is quite large and even if they find all the possible
fialures it may not cost justify the time it takes to do all the tests
required to find all the possible failures.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 05:02:43 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fQaP5.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:39:19 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > >The media keeping their damned mouths shut until the results are truly
in
> > >would also be an improvement.
> >
> > I don't quite agree. The media's job is to report events, not to cover
them
> > up. OTOH, they jumped the gun wrt making predictions, twice (once when
they
> > called Florida, and once when they declared Bush the winner).
>
> Precisely!
>
> Their job IS to report events. It isn't to predict, speculate and
otherwise obsfucate the
> issues. I'm all for freedom of the press. Please don't get me wrong. It's
just that
> a certain responsibility comes with that freedom. Making a blanket
declaration about
> something so important as a Presidential election BEFORE the ballots are
completely
> tabulated, borders on gross negligence.
Let's see: "Gore concedes!" is news, as is "Gore unconcedes!" But I suspect
that few things in journalism are as bad as "Gore unconcedes! But it would
be irresponsible and negligent of us to tell you why!"
-- Mike --
------------------------------
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 07:01:55 +0200
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> 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.
You didn't understood the point.
Win9x is a *single* user OS, only one person can be logged on at a time,
that person is, as far as the system concerned, root.
Linux is a *multi* user OS, only one person can be logged on locally at a
time, that person is whatever the permissions declare him as such.
Win9x has no such concept.
Win2K & NT have taken this concept to much higher degree than in linux/unix.
I can delegate rights to much finer degrees in 2k/nt than I can on *nix.
Despite all of this, ME offers some limited file protection, but I don't
like to play with an OS which was built for the AOL user.
------------------------------
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 07:05:16 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kWFP5.19689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > By talking about tighter control I'm talking about the ability to
> grant
> > > > different file permissions to individuals or groups to much higher
> > degree
> > > > than I can on linux.
> > >
> > > That isn't 'tighter'. It is just the ability to let your permissions
> > > diverge
> > > from your group definitions.
> >
> > Which is highly useful all too often.
>
> Have you run out of names for groups?
No, but why would I want to create groups all the time?
Two people, on different groups, one works on a file (full control), the
other need to view it but not modify it (read access).
In NT/2K I can make it happens in about a minute.
How long would that take me in linux/unix?
I don't want to create a group for them, because that is the only connection
between those two people.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:06:13 +0200
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > WINE can't handle notepad to perfection, you expect it to do more
complex
> > things?
>
> Why not? Wine handles Lotus Notes quite well.
Because notepad is about as simple as application can get and still be
useful?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:08:29 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QpFP5.19673$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a0eda7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You forgot .DOC and .XLS. :-)
> >
> > They are not executables, they need Word/Excel to open them, and then
> you've
> > a message asking you whatever you want to run the macro or not.
>
> Is it different based on whether the input comes from a trusted source
> or not?
No, I've macros off, I don't care about them one little bit.
So far I don't miss them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 05:09:50 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:06:13 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because notepad is about as simple as application can get and still be
>useful?
Notepad is not useful.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
