Linux-Advocacy Digest #204, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Goldhammer)
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... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Myers")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 07:16:51 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xsFP5.19675$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> You don't have to remember anything - it is logical enough that you can
> make it up as you go along.
Let me see, of the top of my head, things that you *have* to remember in
order to handle linux.
Lot of commands and their parameters.
Sure, you can man <command>, but you need to remember those commands,
otherwise, you don't have an option to find them. The command's name is
rarely useful.
cp vs copy
rm vs del/delete/erase
You need to remember the meanings of a lot of file names, /etc ring a bell?
You've a *lot* to learn before you can "make it up as you go along"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:21:58 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8unr88$202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Strange. I just did a complete review of each kernel patch summary, and the
word "sendmail" doesn't exist in any of them. Which kernel patch are you
referring to?
> again, you completely ignore the posibility that the exploit could be
> stopped by other means leaving the server secure without patching the
> kernel.
No, I don't ignore it. Firewalls can stop the problem. But I doubt many of
those top 50 are attached to firewalls that do.
> 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!
The only way to show that would be to attack them, and that would be
illegal.
------------------------------
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 07:21:00 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NxFP5.19676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a0eda81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Do you handle those machines/users in person?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Generally no. I only get involved when the windows guys can't make
> > > things work and start blaming the servers or network.
> >
> > IOW, you've no direct experiance with normal users.
> > You've never had to deal with them, you deal with much more knowledgable
> > users.
> > You've no idea why certain things are built the way they are, and you
> attack
> > them without any knowledge of why they are built this way.
>
> Just the opposite. I see all the worst problems that are a direct result
> of the way things are built. Sort of like emergency room workers
> learning a bit about various automobile design defects. If the only
> time you see an OS is on isolated machine you aren't in much of
> a position to judge its security features.
You don't see the reasons why those were builtin.
Emergency room workers has any knowledge in car engineering? Rarely so.
Do they understand why things are built the way they are? I doubt it.
Do they've an idea what problems the cars were designed to circumstance? Not
really.
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five
steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same
principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful
feature, that.
- Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:22:13 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:foFP5.19672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > The only *right* way to handle those things is to educate the user.
>
> But then they would insist on switching to a different OS. Are you sure
you
> want to recommend that?
Very much so, I don't like win9x very much.
Handling a lot of win2k clients in *much* easier.
------------------------------
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 07:24:32 +0200
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote...
> > However, it is not, and never was necessary to consider email
> > attachments to be identical to files.
>
> Why not? Why confuse the joe user with a new concept. Treat it as a file.
> He already knows what a file is. :-)
Hopefully.
Unfortantely, that isn't always true.
------------------------------
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 07:27:43 +0200
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yIKP5.86023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:06:13 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Because notepad is about as simple as application can get and still be
> >useful?
>
>
> Notepad is not useful.
Editting small text files in not useful?
Why don't you tell that to the *nix world? They would heartily disagree,
it's a large part of what an *nix admin does.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 05:34:48 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:27:43 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:yIKP5.86023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Editting small text files in not useful?
>Why don't you tell that to the *nix world? They would heartily disagree,
>it's a large part of what an *nix admin does.
I did not say that "editing small files is not useful". You
and a few others here should desist from attributing
statements to people they never said. What I did say, as is
plainly obvious, is:
Notepad is not useful.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 05:40:07 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > 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?
This depends on how many other people already have read access
to the directory in question or should have read access to the file.
Having an owner with r/w access and everyone else having read
access is the nomal case so if there is already some restriction
keeping everyone but these two from getting there you have nothing
else to do.
> I don't want to create a group for them, because that is the only
connection
> between those two people.
That is about as sensible as saying 'I don't want to apply an ACL' just
because I don't want to do it that way. But, most systems these days
create a group for each user as you add them to the system. If you
haven't added people to the second user's group, you already have
a group created containing him. Leave the file owned by the first
user, change the group to the one containing only the 2nd user and
turn off 'other' read/write access. There is no need for the owner
to be in the group. It is possible to contrive situations where the
user/group/other permissions are cumbersome, but generally they
are contrived, not natural situations.
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 07:42:25 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UWHP5.19725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I don't think that relates to local delivery - even thousands of local
> copies shouldn't be much of a problem on a machine designed for
> that many users. The problem with lists is that sendmail tries
> to handle all of the recipients of a message in a single run of a
> single process. In a large group there are bound to be deliveries
> to slow remote exchange (for example) servers and worse, domains
> where the DNS server times out instead of answering so it can take
> a long time to make it to the end of the list. Aside from the problem
> on the list itself, retries on this message block ordinary queue runs
> for other retries too because there will be many systems to try before
> it is finished. The workaround for lists is to use a list manager that
> sorts the list by domains and hands to sendmail in reasonable size
> chunks, and for large systems in general to make multi-depth retry
> queues so very old failing messages can't block retries on recent ones.
>
> Does anyone run large lists on exchange?
Yes.
I've seen 10,000 people list being managed by a simple vbs script, access
database, and SMTP server (comes with win2k).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 13 Nov 2000 05:49:58 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:27:43 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:yIKP5.86023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Editting small text files in not useful?
He clearly didn't say that.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 13 Nov 2000 05:45:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Chad Myers wrote:
:>
:> "Andrew Suprun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> news:8MmO5.20966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ayende Rahien) wrote in
:> > <8ubtp8$9cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:> >
:> > >> Microsoft: "MSDE doesn't limit the number of users who can connect to
:> > >> its database, but it is optimized for five users. For a larger numbers
:> > >> of users, you should use SQL Server 7.0."
:> > >
:> > >Not so.
:> > >It's installed optimized for 5 users, there is nothing to prevent you
:> > >from re-optimzing it to much larger numbers of users.
:> >
:> > MS Access is open sourced already?
:>
:> Contrary to popular Linux belief, not everyone is a C programmer.
:>
: And the point of you're repeating this old bromide is??????
: clue for the fucking clueless
: it doesn't matter if *you* personally know C or not...
: as long as a large group of people who *do* can review it,
: and you are able to hear/read their evaluation.
Chad's view is like saying that you don't care whether or not
your car's technical manuals are available to the public. After
all, *you* don't know what to do with those manuals, so obviously
it doesn't matter if they are out there. This naive viewpoint
ignores the fact that it's kinda nice that your *mechanic* can
get access to those manuals.
------------------------------
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 07:49:27 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VwGP5.19706$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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 grow to a certain size, controllable by the user.
> > > 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?
It has nothing to do with how full the HD is, it has to do with the number
of files it has.
And I don't think that 1000 articles per day would have any affect at the
matter.
That would take three years to reach one million files, and the problem only
*begin* to appear when you've tens of millions of files.
And, of course, you weren't collecting a 1000 per day.
So this problem has nothing to do with the reason your system failed.
Regardless of the above, NT4+Sp4 and above can handle NTFS5, since win2k
doesn't suffer from this problem, and it's a FS relate, I would assume that
you might be able to upgrade to SP4 and solve the problem. However, I am
*guessing* here, I don't know, as I never had this problem.
> > 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.
That has nothing to do with the problem we are talking about.
The only thing that slows down is the creation of new files, since this
isn't what we are talking about, you'd other problems.
> > 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.
I don't have a NT4 around that I could experiment with, and this problem
doesn't affect 2000.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:54:13 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lDFP5.19677$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > ILOVEU & Melissa didn't mail any of your files to anyone.
> > > > Check symnatec.com for further information.
> > >
> > > There was a variant of ILOVEU that came around a few weeks
> > > later that copied all the graphics files it could find (everyone's
> > > browser cache, etc.) over to a different drive and mailed some
> > > stuff off somewhere. I'm not sure if anyone tracked down exactly
> > > what all it did. It filled our server disks and we had to shut some
> > > of them down until we got the latest virus scanners and cleaned
> > > everything. Our office is hardly computer-illiterate - this is just
> > > the reality of having a product like outlook around.
> >
> > Windows illeterate, I would imagine.
>
> No, we develop a windows product and nearly everyone has had
> some training. You can't make the 'ignorant user' argument here.
> They are users with better things to do than memorize icons for
> things that we do not use, though. I didn't spread it myself
> because I don't use outlook at work, so leave my windows
> experience out of it. The office in general is way above
> average in what you could expect the users to know.
You've a different defination of ignorant user than I do.
You've stated that you do most of the development on linux and that your
people are well versed in linux.
If your people can't take the time to remember one silly icon, then you need
to get more people, yours are about to crack.
Knowing about *nix systems give you very little advantage when you come to
use winodws.
A lot of habits are different, ways of thinking are different.
You can't take someone that knows his way in linux and tell me that he can
handle windows to one tenth as good as he can handle a linux box.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 13 Nov 2000 05:56:12 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:16:51 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>Let me see, of the top of my head, things that you *have* to remember in
>order to handle linux.
Wrong.
>Lot of commands and their parameters.
Again, you don't have to know a "lot of commands" to use Linux.
>Sure, you can man <command>, but you need to remember those commands,
Hahahaha.
Completely wrong.
For example:
man -k copy
...
cp (1) - copy files and directories
>You need to remember the meanings of a lot of file names, /etc ring a bell?
Again, false.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 13 Nov 2000 05:58:50 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:05:16 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>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?
About a minute. In Linux, each user has their own group.
However, this granular access control which is so nice in theory seems
to only be useful for .advocacy pissing contests. Especially since most
NT users seem to go for extremely lax file permissions anyway (for example,
all users have write access to system files on NT 4)
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 01:07:26 GMT
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JgFP5.84353$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:26:24 GMT,
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> >as warped as usual.
>
> People who indoctrinate themselves into Microsoft's way
> of thinking do indeed develop some very odd notions. You will
> note these yourself as you observe the logic displayed by
> some MS users.
>
> Some common trends:
Spare us your spin.
> 1. A database is a file.
No one ever said this, at least not in this group. It was
the intention of several penguinistas to imply that I meant
this in a recent thread, I was merely illustrating that
a database must be persisted to the disk somehow. How is this
done? Through a file. Perhaps multiple files, each one impacting
performance.
Ideally, one would only have to have one file (or the data on
one drive and the index or log on another) rather than many log
files (or one for every 2GB in Linux's case).
> 2. A portable application is one which can be easily
> carried from one Windows installation to another. This
> is what Bruce had in mind when he told me that Jet is
> the right choice for "easy portability".
portability is an overloaded terms. It is a fact that
any jet database file will work on any Windows system and
doesn't require Access installed. I believe he said this in
response to the fact that MySQL must be installed on all
machines to read a MySQL database.
Please stop skewing and removing context from people's quotes.
> 3. An OS is something that runs on an x86.
Again, removing all context. We were talking about Linux's
many shortcomings, including it's inability to address >2GB
files on a 32-bit platform. This is a design flaw and lack
of professionalism by Linux "designers". NT and several other
OSen have been able to do this since their inception.
It's just another example of how Linux ISN'T an enterprise
OS despite the claim of many Penguinistas and the marketing
of Red Hat themselves.
Really, has your argument become so devoid of reason that
you must result to removing context and misquoting the
opposition to make it sound like you're intelligent?
You're incapable of having an intelligent, argumentative
debate and are content in using trickery and nonsequitors.
Please....*PL0NK*
-Chad
------------------------------
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 08:00:58 +0200
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:05:16 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
>
> >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?
>
> About a minute. In Linux, each user has their own group.
>
> However, this granular access control which is so nice in theory seems
> to only be useful for .advocacy pissing contests. Especially since most
> NT users seem to go for extremely lax file permissions anyway (for
example,
> all users have write access to system files on NT 4)
Whose fault is that?
My systems, only admins can have full access to system files. (And even that
is limited)
Normal users has read & execute access, if they are lucky.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 13 Nov 2000 06:02:48 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:01:55 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>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.
NT has a great access control system in theory, in practice it comes shipped
in a wide-open configuration, and most users leave it like that.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 08:02:19 +0200
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Y3LP5.86131$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:27:43 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:yIKP5.86023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
> >
> >Editting small text files in not useful?
> >Why don't you tell that to the *nix world? They would heartily disagree,
> >it's a large part of what an *nix admin does.
>
>
> I did not say that "editing small files is not useful". You
> and a few others here should desist from attributing
> statements to people they never said. What I did say, as is
> plainly obvious, is:
>
> Notepad is not useful.
How so and why?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: 13 Nov 2000 06:03:51 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:53:18 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>Make moziila support activex, and other such standards, and I don't see a
>reason why you can't.
ActiveX is not a standard
>> > 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.
No, it doesn't "run" on Solaris, it crawls.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
