Linux-Advocacy Digest #214, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Bruce
Schuck")
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux get new term? (Pat McCann)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:11:40 GMT
In article <FdUP5.7898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uo50o$8kb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Keep up with the treads you post to. It's there franky or are you
not
> > bothering to READ the stuff in the group! The guy posted a link to
some
> > redhat scurity thing. It was not the official redhat site. THe guy
> > demanded that I prove that all of the items could be fixed without
> > rebooting. At first I claimed that there were no kernel problems but
> > then I looked again and found one. BUY UNDERSTANDING HOW THE EXPLOIT
> > WORKS (something you have not shown any capacity for) I was able to
> > determine what was needed inorder to make a successful attack!
Sendmail
> > needed to be installed, the user needed to have access to an shell,
and
> > they needed either the ability to transfer files to the box or a
> > compiler needed to be installed. All those conditions needed to be
met
> > before the exploit could be done. Just the kernel code vunerablility
was
> > NOT enough! MANY other conditions needed to be met. If you do not
> > understand this, you do not understand how to secure a system.
>
> Well, that's even worse then. A known kernel exploit exists and
nothing is
> done to patch it?
No sendmail? no need! no remote access? no need! No compiler or file
transfer capability? no need! The ability to exploit the hole is
criticle and a point that you seem to miss over and over! Knowing what
this exploit is and how it works, I can now design an email system that
would stop anyone from exploiting the hole! WITH OUT PATCHING IT! You
seem to think that if you apply all the patches you are safe. THis is
not the case. You need to understand what you are doing and why you are
doing it. If you understand this, you are building a system so that you
are not waiting for the next exploit to be found and the next patch to
come out! The default way I would design an Email system would prevent
the exploit of this bug. I have always been safe from this exploit, even
before it was issued!
>
> I searched Alan Cox's official kernel patches, and not a single
mention is
> made of this sendmail kernel exploit you claim. It doesn't exist in
an
> official patch, thus it must not be a real problem that the kernel
> developers would take notice of. Since you claim the patch exists,
why not
> just provide a link to it. I don't believe that it is a kernel patch.
>
> > > 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 do not know that!!!!! Pure speculation!!!
>
> And you don't know that they do. It's pure speculation on your part
as
> well.
The point is that you claimed that the record setting sites could not
possibly be secure because they have been up so long. I do not need to
prove that they are actualy behind a firewall to prove that they can be
secure even though they have been up for over 2 years. You have not yet
proven *YOUR* claim that they can not be secured!!!!! The exploit you
pointed out and the send mail bug can all be secured against without
rebooting the system!
For all you work, you have found none.
>
> I have no trouble believing that intel uses an advanced firewall, but
> www.linux.de? I doubt it. Zope.org? Probably not.
Any proof???????? or is this just more of you personal opinion????? why
can't you ever backup what you claim?????
www.xnol.com?
Not a
> chance, it's in China and there are export restrictions.
>
What export restrictions are there on a fire wall????
Never mind that there are firewalls that could be configured to prevent
most attacks! But you have not even proven that an fire wall is needed
to prevent the attack on the kernel vunerability. Untill you post more
information you DO NOT KNOW how the exploit is done so you have NO idea
how to stop it. It is YOUR claim that this exploit NEED A REBOOT to
prevent not mine. Without that, you do not know.
Your claim that started all of this was that a site was insecure simply
because it has been running for a long time. You need to prove that
there is a security hole that can not be secured against without a
reboot. you have looked though the LINUX bug warning and found none
> > you have claimed that
> > these sites are vunerable to being hacked because they were NOT
patched!
> > But by your own admition here THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE PATCHED in all
> > cases to be secure. Other means can secure them so you have
absolutely
> > no proof that any of the top 50 are vunureable to ANY known hack
only
> > your opinion.
>
> And you have no proof they aren't vulnerable.
>
But your claim was that they ARE vunurable simply because of how long
they have been up. You have not proven that the are vunurable much less
that there is any vunerability linked to how long they have been
running. On the other hand, Ever exploit that has been mentioned can
either be pached or prevented using standard good security practices.
THE BOTTOM LINE: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CLAIM! You have looked though
the kernel security list several times now and have not come up with a
single Linux security hole that REQUIRES a reboot to prevent
explotation! I would say that MY point has been made while you are VERY
far from finding ANY suport for YOURS!
> > > The only way to show that would be to attack them, and that would
be
> > > illegal.
> >
> > Nope, you can prove that a security hole exsists that can not be
fixed
> > without a reboot, can be exploited remotely AND can not be stoped by
any
> > other means.
>
> You seem to confuse the word "can" with "is".
>
You claimed that they were not and could not be secure BECAUSE they were
up so long. It is this point that you have failed to prove. You have not
even come CLOSE to proving it. You have not porduced a SINGLE kenel
security hole that can not be defended against. And normal security
measures would have prevented the exploitation of the holes mentioned
and the exploit would have been blocked BEFORE THE EXPLOIT WAS EVEN
KNOWN!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:41:53 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:09:08 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Considering that you're a paid Microsoft shill, this is not surprising.
Prove it.
claire
------------------------------
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 Nov 2000 10:35:55 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
Citrix software isn't an add-on?
> > 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.
Regardless, scanning software works remotely under Linux; just like
each and every software package.
> 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?
Perhaps the CD-RW is in a server room with an operator that puts in
blanks when you ask her to. Who knows. You can't do it with Windows.
--
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: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 09:51:13 -0800
"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"
Why would you want to use a slow buggy piece of crap like Netscape?
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 09:53:48 -0800
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "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:
> > >
> > > 1. A database is a file.
> >
> > Or a collection of files.
> >
> > >
> > > 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".
> >
> > Try emailing a user an Oracle database.
> >
>
> tar and gzip it up and mail it, what is so hard about that?
And all the reports and forms needed to access it?
> With all
> the extra formatting that MS likes to add to files within their Office
> suite of apps you would probably want to zip the Access db anyway since
> it would probably be bloated with formatting, etc.
No. It would have all the reports and forms as well.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:46:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> Actually, Linux dialup tools like Kppp allow you to assign
> DNS configuration on a per-entry basis, and edit resolv.conf on the
> fly.
I don't remember seeing anything in Linux Mandrake 7.2 setup about this.
Got some reading to do!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:54:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, they're built in to W2K server.
But not Windows 2000 Professional?
> Obviously you need W2K server. They are installed by default. Look in
> the control panel. It even provides the client installation
executables
> for the client machines for you.
So you need the next version up from W2K Professional to get the
equivalent with any flavour of Linux.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:57:18 GMT
In article <2nGP5.7836$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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).
NT4 on its own does not come with WTS.
Windows 2000 Professional does not come with WTS.
This is correct, right?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:04:32 GMT
In article <8uf7i4$eim$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Claire points out we will see how long you and Mandrake lasts.
> My guess is about 7 to 10 days... then you'll start to have funny
problems.
> Hmmm...man pages are done......maybe drakconf??
> Anyone with a better guess??
>
> Youre smarter than the others but not that smart Pete.
I see.
So I'm not smart because there are bugs in KDE 2.0, is that it?
I'm not smart because I've logged bugs on a few problems like
applications crashing, konqueror ftp: not working, smb: not working, is
that it?
Hey Mig, give it a rest. Sounds like you need one.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:27:04 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:g0KP5.19757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:MGIP5.125975$[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)
> >
> > When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and
undo
> > information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information
> allows
> > NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if
> necessary),
> > and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
>
> 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.
When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and undo
information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information allows
NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if necessary),
and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:27:16 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:04:32 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm not smart because I've logged bugs on a few problems like
>applications crashing, konqueror ftp: not working, smb: not working, is
>that it?
Sounds like typical Linux...
Oh yea silly me I keep forgetting, Linux is the kernel.
claire
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.election,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux get new term?
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 Nov 2000 10:28:42 -0800
Doc Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the government spends my money to develope software, then
> as a tax payer I should have the right to use that software.
>
> So there are three merits for open source only in the government:
>
> 1. Better accountability.
>
> 2. It is a resource owned by the people.
>
> 3. Reduced costs.
Without a doubt, except that you are arguing that government-sponsored
software should not be copyrighted -- that it should be required to be
released to the Public Domain. It should not be proprietary software
like any software licensed under GNU, BSD, or other licenses in which
any person or organization has proprietary rights.
Don't use "open source" when you mean "non-proprietary" (ie, in the
public domain) or vice-versa. Almost all open source software is
currently proprietary and it would be absurd to have publicly funded
software with restrictions that forbid its distribution when combined
with proprietary software and other common and beneficial uses.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:44:44 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:c9JP5.19744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Z_GP5.125958$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> You wouldn't say that if you ever tried to keep one running before sp3.
I had no problem keeping an NT Server running from the beginning.
> Note
> that current is sp6a and win2k needs sp1.
All operating systems have updates and service packs -- although Linux leads
them all in root vulerabilities.
>
> > Improvment is a wonderful thing.
>
> If the real thing would ever catch up to the promises it might be.
WinNT was a very good OS. Win2K is a great OS. Isn't life grand when the
tools we use get better?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> For good reason. If you bought Win3.1 and wanted something that worked
> you would have been told to buy Win95, then 98, then ME, or alternatively
> NT 3.5, then 4.0, and then Win2k and you would still be trying.
Total nonsense. They were all tools that were really useful at their time
and kept getting better. Isn't is grand?
I know the Penguinistas love to live in the past as if Windows should be
stationary target so they can catch up even if kernet releases are now 2
years apart.
I can see it now. Linux kernel 2.6 in 2004! We lucky Windows people will
have seen Whistler and Blackcomb and a full blown .NET before you
penguinistas see the next kernel release ( and thats assuming Linus isn't
spending all his time on Transmeta Linux).
>
> With Linux, you could have started in 1993 or 4 and downloaded all the
> updates free all the way to the current version.
Linux is still a piece of crap in so many ways. And it was totally useless
for most of its history.
> >
> > What a bunch of crybabies they are when you note the improvements in
Win2K
> > and their arguments look even more stupid.
>
> No, Win2k is finally is close to a match,
Win2K kicks 2.2's ass. And 2.4 *might* be out for a month or 2 before
Whistler. Very few home users would choose Linux over Whistler.
> but you have to pay for it all
> over again
Chump change -for the great features and reliability -- if you upgrade.
> and if you need the advanced server it is pretty expensive.
Not compared to the cost of the hardware you would run it on.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 10:54:08 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:zUBP5.19544$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:UIpP5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Why does Microsoft need 3rd party software for full remote
> > > administration?
> > > > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
> > > >
> > > > Please define "full remote administration"? On Terminal Server
Client,
> > you
> > > > get the server console. TSC is a part of W2K server. You get two
> > > concurrent
> > > > licenses. So, if I see the server console before me, what am I
missing
> > > from
> > > > "full remote administration"?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Let's see..which is more productive.
>
> A) A Lose NT server that can handle 2, maybe 3 services one machine, or
Dozens of services a lot cheaper than one overpriced spontaneously crashing
Sun Box.
> B) A Unix server that can run 30 services one machine
And crashes spontanously and costs 100 times as much as an NT box?
Win2K please.
>
>
> Can you count?
Yup. In the Win2K world we know how much cheaper it is to get a great OS for
alot less money than the spontaneously crashing Sun boxes!
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Or
> > > even if you do, what if it isn't the machine where you installed your
> > > licensed copy of the client?
> >
> > You don't need to license the client. You get two Clinet Access
Licenses. As
> > long as only 2 connections are active, you can run the Client from any
PC.
> > Microsft even offers a web client ActiveX control.
> >
> > > Do you have to sit in one place and wait
> > > for the need to do remote administration?
> >
> > Nope. But you knew that as I've already explained it to you.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Translation: Another goddamned Security hole.
>From the man who thinks buffer overflows disappeared from Unix in 1998 thats
hilarious.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 10:58:08 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UWHP5.19725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:jIFP5.125929$[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.
Nope. The problem definitely was local delivery. You put the staff of a
medium sized university onto 4 or 5 mailling lists of 300-800 each. If a hot
and heavy email discussion gets going it generates 20-50 messages a day
going out to all those users.
Guess what. The Unix admins tell people to stop discussing. They tell them
to use other methods.
Sendmail can't handle it.
> 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?
Writing to an optimized database is quicker.
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:59:37 +0000
A certain Pete Goodwin, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Nope, they're built in to W2K server.
>
>But not Windows 2000 Professional?
W2K Professional is meant to be workstation only. That means that you
don't use it as a terminal server.
>> Obviously you need W2K server. They are installed by default. Look in
>> the control panel. It even provides the client installation
>executables
>> for the client machines for you.
>
>So you need the next version up from W2K Professional to get the
>equivalent with any flavour of Linux.
I concede that this is true but I would point out that it is not really
likely to be useful. A typical desktop machine, regardless whether it is
serving multiple X or multiple Windows Terminal Server sessions, is not
going to be as well specced as the typical machine expected to run
Windows 2000 Server; if you are seeking to run either Terminal Server or
an X server for more than a small number of machines you will need a
server type spec.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
