Linux-Advocacy Digest #236, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 17:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) (Craig
Kelley)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:16:29 +0200
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > Notepad is not useful.
> >
> > How so and why?
>
> Why use a junky editor such as notepad on Linux when there are so many
better
> editors available?
If I want a quick & dirty text editor, notepad is my choice.
And in case you didn't notice, notepad is a windows tool.
It's apperantly very complex one, WINE hasn't been able to make it word
correctly.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:19:59 +0200
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >The next version of Windows will be out in 2001. It will merge the best
of
> >Win2K and the best consumer aspects of Windows Me. And programmers from
both
> >versions are working on it.
> >
> >On the other hand, the next version of Linux (after the long delayed 2.4
is
> >finally released sometime in the next 6 months) is 3 or 4 years away. And
> >will be written by who knows. (I'm assuming it will be the Linux
programmers
> >who can't get a full-time job).
> >
> Now compare the Windows release times to Red Hat, Debian, SuSE,
> Mandrake, etc combined. Those are the real OS:es, Linux is just the
> kernel - a very small part of an OS. Very important, but small.
No so.
You'll have to decide, either linux is just the kernel, and anything else
are merely additions to it, or Linux is everything that the dist disk
includes.
Most people claim that linux is just the kernel, the rest are just
extentions.
And the kernel is the most important part of the OS, you remember that?
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:26:22 -0000
> And tell us...how do you READ the VBS/VBA/JS file beforehand *WITHOUT*
> executing it?
Easy. Save the file to disk (remember, kids, that's the default option) and
then open it in Notepad, Script Editor, MSIDE, or any other text
viewer/editor program. Or is that too difficult for you?
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:28:50 +1300
> > > Scripts don't NEED shortcuts.
> >
> > No... you can always drop to the command line and invoke the script
> > interpreter manually.
>
> Or write a BAT or CMD file. Or a WSH script.
Same thing... and then you could create another shortcut to your bat
file to supply the right options... shit! You could have a drive full
of shortcuts that all do the same thing!
> > Not quite as useful as being able to attach the
> > command line to the file to be executed, is it?
>
> Thats called a shortcut. Flexible enough to attach any number of command
> line switches to the same executable if you want to.
No, it's not called a shortcut... a shortcut is an additional piece of
wasted space. The command line goes IN THE FILE BEING EXECUTED. There's
no need to create a second file just to run the first.
> > Feel free to explain how creating a shortcut to one file helps you
> > 'create a logical grouping' of many different types of file...
>
> Lets say you have a project that requires the same scripts or executables to
> be used. Create shortcuts to each and drop them in a folder. Use the Task
> bar to make that folder a new toolbar so all the scripts or executables are
> a click away.
If I put all my scripts somewhere in the path, I can just type their
names. If I wasn't able to remember the different command lines I need,
it's certainly possible to make a wrapper shell script that, from a
functionality point of view, is identical to your shortcut.
> Much nicer than use ls to find your script in Linux/Unix.
I don't know about you, but I tend to remember the names of the scripts I
use, so re-searching for them all the time isn't a problem. If I forget
a command, I have apropos and online man/info pages. What happens if you
forget a command? Also, in the event of creating my own scripts, I also
have the option of extending the online help so that I can find my
command again later with apropos... again, what can you do? Write it
all up in a word document and put a shortcut on the desktop?
> So you have the same command line for the script? What happens if you want
> to run the script with different options and save those options? Do you have
> to have the full script for option? Sounds awkward.
I already acknowledged this below, so I don't see why you brought it up
again...?
> A shortcut is perfect for that. You can have a shortcut for each way of
> calling the script.
And I could make mini-scripts that call the main script with the
different options... I could even make them clickable icons in a GUI,
but I don't HAVE to to get the same functionality. Maybe you think Linux
is awkward, but I think it's designed for getting work done.
If you think Windows is the primary system for productivity, try working
in an office with regular users!
> Oh. In Windows we can make a shortcut for each different scenario and point
> at the same executable or script. It's nice to automate your options.
Ditto
> Too bad for Linux.
Not sure why...
> > 'archaic' is a relative term... in a few years, your windows GUI will be
> > labelled 'archaic' by people who still wont know any better.
>
> You are right. They will be using Blackcomb or .NET.
What is blackcomb? I'm not up to speed with upcoming releases (I assume
that's a project codename?)...
When .net arrives, I promise I will be switching to 100% free software.
If I can't play the latest games anymore, that's a small price to pay for
saving my soul ;)
> I label it archaic out of knowledge. I found Unix to be archaic when I had
> to use it. Besides, if I want to script and command line, I prefer DCL on
> VMS. Now thats an OS. Much securer than Linux too.
[must...resist...urge...to...correct...English]
I've never had the opportunity to use VMS, being a bit of a youngun...
does it run on anything nowadays? I certainly can't comment on the
security... I thought VMS was a bit of a relic from the old days, which
would imply it was invented back in the days when security was a tad less
involved... but as I say, I've never seen or used it, so I'm only
guessing.
As a sidenote, Unix was also developed when security was an afterthought,
which shows in the older protocols... and yet linux, freebsd, openbsd
(competently admin'd - BIG caveat) are all VERY secure. Why is this?
> > Why do you suppose MS has finally come out with a telnet server?
>
> So Unix/Linux users can be converted to the darkside Luke.
No... so NT users can enjoy the wonders of text-based remote admin.
> > Because the CLI is too valuable to lose.
>
> It never went away in WinNT or Win2K.
I know, which I thought was my point?
> > Are you somehow trying to imply that linux isn't able to share apps
> > between multiple user accounts?
>
> Can it?
Yes... hell, even ls is an app of sorts, you don't honestly believe
every user has their own copy of the system tools do you?
> > Do you believe linux users reinstall
> > every piece of software for every new user?
>
> Don't they?
GOD no. One piece of software + one computer = one install + any number
of users
> > ls, find, apropos, which. And combinations, but I guess combinations of
> > commands wont make a lot of sense to you.... it's a linux (rather,
> > unix) feature that 2k doesn't support so well.
>
> If I wanted Linux on Win2K I'd buy the Unix add-on. Hell, I can even get
> DCl-lite for Win2k if I want.
Hey, if I was mad and wanted to run another OS under win2k, perhaps I
could do it... but why would I when I could run it natively and junk 2k?
> Can you do VMS emulation on Linux?
I have no idea!
> I know that KDE and Gnome are attempts at Windows emulation.
I wouldn't say that... the ideas behind gnome and kde are the same as
the presented ideas behind windows (common platform for developing apps
with a common look and feel), but they certainly don't try and emulate
windows. Rather, they try and emulate functionality =P
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:26:30 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uj0kg$viv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
> >
> > Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
> > Check NTFS first.
> >
>
> I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
> you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
> real-world situations very well.
And if that is not enough..ACL's (Access Control Lists) can make
up for the deficiency...on a per-file basis, if need be.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:29:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:16:12 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
[snip for brevity]
>> What Aaron & Les refuse to understand that anyone who can read VBS/VBA/JS
>> (some of the simplest in existance) can understand basic safety measures.
>
>And tell us...how do you READ the VBS/VBA/JS file beforehand *WITHOUT*
>executing it?
In an ideal world, one would drag the icon from the
Outlook preview pane or viewer pane (obtained when one double-clicks
on the message line) to wherever it needs to go, maybe with
the "[+]" icon indicating a copy. Sadly, this doesn't work.
One has to:
[1] Position the mouse over the icon,
[2] Right-click,
[3] Select "Save as", which happens to be the third entry
(the first two are "Open" and "Print"),
[4] Futz with the file requester. which is not the standard
one but is the Office-specific one.
To expect a rank novice to know this may not be horribly reasonable,
although it's not that difficult.
>
>
>> Those who can't...
>> Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
>> I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
>
>So...in other words..for newbies...GLUE THE FUCKING ACCELERATOR
>TO THE FLOOR because newbies might not be able to find it....
*I* would suggest a multi-level .EXE Information Tool, which
would start with some sort of identifier (e.g., "(c) 2000
BlahBlah Corp., 123Kb; modified such-and-such, no viruses found").
One can subsequently drill down to e.g., figure out what DLLs
are required, and drill down even more to see what calls are
used -- of course, most of this will be of interest only to
a hard-core programmer type such as myself. But it's a start. :-)
Double-clicking on an .EXE would probably execute it, but
an option in the mailer (and maybe in the system as well) could
fire up this tool instead, with an option in the Information Tool
to actually execute the .EXE file.
'Tis but a thought, of course. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random tool spec here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:29:17 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:QOgP5.18758$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8uj0kg$viv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
> > >
> > > Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
> > > Check NTFS first.
> >
> > I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
> > you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
> > real-world situations very well.
>
> Really? How do you deny someone in an access group access to a single file
> that all others in that access group can access without creating an all new
> group to put everyone but that one person in?
>
> That's a pretty common real-world situation.
This must be some definition of "common" which differs from normal usage.
In 17 years, one MAJOR university, and several Fortune-50 companies,
I've never seen that situation even once.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:30:18 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:22:02 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:QOgP5.18758$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >Really? How do you deny someone in an access group access to a single file
> >that all others in that access group can access without creating an all new
> >group to put everyone but that one person in?
> >
> >That's a pretty common real-world situation.
>
> Sure. It's the kind of feature that you use everytime you're involved in
> a usenet pissing contest.
>
> For the most part, the NT systems I've seen are set to the extremely lax
> default configuration, and the users have no idea what ACLs are, and don't
> care a great deal about granular access control.
>
> The reason that viruses do a lot of damage is largely due to the fact that
> no one bothers to secure their files properly.
The nice thing about Unix is that the defaults are relatively safe,
and offer NO opportunity for one person to remove another's files.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:31:51 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KP3Q5.20458$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> You don't and generally shouldn't if you want to be able to work
> with a variety of machines and different versions of things. You
> just need to know how to quickly find the details for the things
> you may never have seen before. On unix-like boxes, the man
> pages usually provide exactly that. On of the reasons I dislike
> windows is that there is no equivalent, so for windows machines
> you are probably right that you do have to learn a lot of stuff before
> doing anything.
Very big & complete help system is not enough?
Please point me to something that you can quickly find in man pages that you
can't find in window's system (equilent, of course) just about as quickly.
------------------------------
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...)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Nov 2000 14:33:31 -0700
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 14 Nov 2000 13:05:31 -0600, "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Note This level of recoverability protects metadata. User data can
> >> still be corrupted in the case of power and/or system failure. "
> >
> >You fail to understand the point of this very small excerpt from a much
> >larger body of information.
> >
> >For example: I have a file I'm writing to, every single change is kept track
> >of by NTFS.
> >
> >I'm writing a change, twenty individual writes to make this single change,
> >if any of the twenty are not done then the logical integraty of the file is
> >destroyed. If the power fails right after write #13, when the file is
> >recovered, the data that was only partially writen during the 13 write, that
> >inconsistant state, will be restored to it's previous known good value.
> >However, since there is NO WAY for ANY OS to know that I require having all
> >20 writes combined it can't know to roll back the 12 previous good ones.
> >It's not like a database where you set the start and end of a transaction
> >and can roll back a user defined transaction. The OS can only protect each
> >individual write, individually. It insures that each individual write was
> >either 100% successfully accomplished or returns to the previous know good
> >state. So, user data corruption can occur while the physical integrety of
> >the file is still intact.
> >
> >You have to understand the nuances...
> >
>
> Yes, this is exactly what I was asking about when I started this
> subthread. The claim that NTFS "only journals the metadata" has long
> been used as a criticism, but I fail to see what any file system could
> ever do to guarantee what you're calling "logical integrity". As far
> as I can tell, that's always the responsibility of the app.
A fully-journaled filesystem makes read() and write() calls atomic.
They typically use twice as much disk space as an equivalent non-(or
meta-only)-journaled filesystem.
Just like redudant RAID, it won't save files from bad programs and
users; but it _can_ keep a filesystem in a consistent state and
eliminate filesystem checks all together (although, they seem to be so
complicated that they usually _constantly_ check the state of the
system :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Nov 2000 14:34:59 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> I don't see what your point is. There's no reason why you couldn't also
> have a C++ ABI. In any case, the ABI for g++ will hopefully stabilise once
> they release version 3.0. I don't forsee a new C++ standards document
> coming any time soon.
AFAIK, that's the main focus for version 3.
--
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: "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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:34:24 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aV3Q5.20459$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > > > You've a *lot* to learn before you can "make it up as you go
along"
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes you need to know how to read a man page. Where do
> > > > you find the equivalent concise, fairly complete reference for
> > > > everything under windows without having to wade through an
> > > > intermingled tutorial about all the stuff you don't want to change?
> >
> > windows' help, MS' MSDN, MS' knowledge base.
> > Much deeper and complete than any documentation that I've seen for *nix.
>
> You miss the point. I don't want a tutorial mixed with the concise
> reference.
> I want to see a tutorial once if at all, then I want it out of the way so
> I can see nothing more or less than what the options are. You don't
> read a man page to decide what you want to do, you read it to see how.
Then get the references, duh!
It's not like they don't exist.
If fact, Start>Help>index would bring you to what you want.
In GUI, turial and reference are much the same things.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:35:42 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > None of which are near completion, would be considered anywhere near stable
> > > and go completely against the grain of *nix style "security".
> > >
> > > It's a hack-job on an antiquated and inadequate security model. Several Unix
> > > vendors have implemented DAC on their platforms, but only for Government
> > > jobs since the DOD requires it, but it's still a hack-job there, as well.
> > >
> > > It's the design philosophy that counts, not the attempts of individuals
> > > to correct the original poor design that matters.
> > >
> >
> > Then how is it that I use ACLs on Linux every day. And those ACLs are shared
> with
> > AIX.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't impossible, but it was a fundamental shift. I remember
> reading a few of the ACL projects' to-do list and it was almost completely
> dedicated to "fixing this application", "getting this application up to speed",
> "fixing this service", etc.
>
> It's a fundamental design principle in Linux and most Unixes that they use
> the permission bits scheme and there's a long road ahead to get everything
> switched over.
>
Actually, no. IF you re-design the subsystem properly, the old
file access calls (fopen(), chmod(), chgrp(), etc.) STILL work
properly.
EVERYTHING is entirely backwards compatable.
We're talking about ADDING functionality, not changing it.
Fundamental difference.
Code that makes PROPER use of typedef and structs as defined in the
*.h files in the /usr/include/ heirarcy will work just as before
with nothing more than a recompile -- ONE command brings the app up to date:
# make install.
Ooooooooooooooh that's tough.
> And even then, does the entire OS function with discretionary access control
> in mind, or just the file system? In order for a OS to be truly DAC-minded,
It's kernel level, so your concerns are overblown.
> everything must be controllable with DAC. For instance, the registry,
> local system policies, group policies, network and internet access policies,
> and much more are controllable through the same DAC framework that exists
> in the filesystem.
>
> To summarize, is it or will it be pervasive?
It's 100% backwards compatible....and that's ALL that matters...dumbass.
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
