Linux-Advocacy Digest #388, Volume #30 Thu, 23 Nov 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Glitch)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Time for a Lynn bait.... here goes! (Matthew Soltysiak)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:51:35 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
He was referring to Windows , not X windows.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Please tell this to Gary, because I have the exact same problem, but
> of course it is me not kde/linux or whatever.
>
> claire
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 03:33:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Hallock
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> >on Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:15:59 -0500
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>> Believe what you wish.
> >>>
> >>> claire
> >>
> >>Everyone can get the menus to work but you. Doesn't that tell you something?
> >
> >Not me, but then it might be a usage issue. Erik F. mentioned
> >that a way he likes to work is to:
> >
> >1. Select text on document #1.
> >2. Edit > Copy.
> >3. Select text on document #2.
> >4. Edit > Paste.
> >
> >Presto: instant replacement, when using Windows. Alas, this doesn't
> >work for my version of kwrite. But that may be because I'm using
> >RedHat 6.2, and whatever version of KDE came with that.
> >
> >This is obviously not a major flaw, but it does illustrate that
> >things break sometimes -- even under Linux. :-)
> >
> >>
> >>Gary
> >>
------------------------------
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: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 01:52:19 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > If you've javascript enabled, a site could send a user to everywhere in
the
> > web at its whim.
> > Link require the user actively clicking on them, javascript doesn't.
> > I did it in order to see if just by browsing HTML page (HTML email,
frex) I
> > could make IE/Outlook execute the command.
>
> Thank you.
> I had some idea that you hadn't done it just to show how good you are in
> JavaScript!
I'm not that good with it, I rather use VBS, which isn't case sensitive
(it's a pain when you try to read COM objects, frex, which can be
capitilized in the funniest ways).
You can do quite a lot of interesting things with javascript & vbscript, my
favoraite is to put a vbs into a html file using FSO.
You get "unsafe ActiveX warning", and if the user allows it, full access to
the file system with the user's permissions.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time for a Lynn bait.... here goes!
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:59:37 GMT
No instead your GUI manager will segfault and throw you back to the
command-line.
kiwiunixman wrote:
> Heres an even better one I experienced:
>
> I was running Windows 98 SE, connected to the internet, and the blue
> screen of death popped up complaining about pppmac or something, claire
> whats wrong, this never happens on my linux box. If I turn my computer
> off for 30 secs and turn it back on, then connect to the net, the
> problem goes away.
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> > Hey sweetie pie! (cream pie, of course)
> >
> > Here's one from comp.windows.misc:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok, so I have Win2k running on a Micron Millenia (P3-733, with Via
> > Apollo 133 Mhz bus chipset). Two problems:
> >
> > 1. Everytime I try to put the system into standby, it tells that my
> > video card driver (Nvidia GeForce 256) won't allow it. What's weird is
> > that this didn't happen until I put my Plextor 12/10/32A CD-RW drive
> > in. Even weirder is the fact that I went back and reinstalled Win2k
> > and didn't reinstall the Plextor software. Everything worked fine for
> > a couple of days and then all of a sudden it started doing it again.
> > All that I had reinstalled was WinZip.
> >
> > 2. Recently, my sound started cutting out after a few minutes. I can't
> > pinpoint it to anything in particular and it's starting to drive me
> > nuts. I always have to reboot to get my sound back and usually I have
> > to kill the power because it hangs during the reboot.
> >
> >
> > You don't read comp.windows.misc, do you, sweetie cream pie in the
> > Billy Goats's face?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:35:25 -0600
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vk112$4pche$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> All of this reminds me of an old win95 bug (may also be in 98 and NT/2k):-
>
> Place any file on the desktop then rename this file to use all 255
available
> characters (win9x supports 255 char filenames so I would expect them to
> work reliably). Then try to delete the file (or do anything with file from
> any
> application). This causes a GPF error in whatever application tried to
> access the file. Another case of MS incompetance.
Oh, of course. Bugs don't exist in anyone elses code. Right?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:37:35 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>>> And without inside knowledge, we don't know what the problem is
there.
> >>>>> Maybe they have power problems. Maybe they had some hardware
failures.
> >>>>> Maybe they've been experimenting with beta software. Who knows.
> >>
> >> Are you grasping at straws here, Eric? Thought so. ;)
> >
> >You know the reason?
>
> That is what is known as an "argument from ignorance".
No, it's not. I'm not arguing that anything *IS* true or false, I'm saying
that neither of us know, therefore an argument one way is just as valid as
the other way (in other words, neither is valid).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:40:32 -0600
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Is that the one which came with the machine, or one you had to
> >> add later? My debian machines have the capability as part of the
> >> distro.
> >
> >Ahh.. the Unix advocates last resort "But it doesn't come with the
> >distribution!"
>
> Ah, so you have to get that separately then. Is there a
> broken one supplied with NT5/win2k, or none at all? How do you know
> where to get it?
How does one know where to get kernel updates or patches? One must assume a
certain level of competancy if they want to do more advanced things.
uptime.exe is available in the resource kit, or downloadable from microsoft.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:41:38 -0600
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Grow a clue. uptime.exe works over the network. And it reports accurate
> >uptimes, even on NT4.
> What period does this addon work over (ie., how many days before
> it rolls over to zero)?
It works on all periods and does not ever roll over to 0. The reason is
that it works by reading the event log for a startup message then subtracts
the time entry of that startup message from the current time of day.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:43:36 -0600
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vjj2e$kg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
> >>
> >> I can - if you don't expect your OS to be up for more than 1 week at
> >> a time, or so, then 50 days allows a huge margin.
> >>
> >Our mail server:
> >
> >05/10/2000 15:22:26 Shutdown Prior uptime:104d
> >1h:31m:32s
> >
> >Shutdown for a hardware upgrade.
> >
> >Of course, that's using the right tool for the job.
> >
> That being the tool you've downloaded from microsoft
> because the one provided was broken, I guess?
No, NT doesn't provide an uptime tool. The uptimes reported by netcraft
appear to be returned by a command from the web server, not from a utility.
> How did you know to get it?
Maybe he bothered to look.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:54:52 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have used LockFile extensively, but suppose for second you're right
that
> > LockFile doesn't work well (it does). That doesn't change the fact you
> > claimed NT can't do it at all.
>
> Maybe you didn't grasp the context. Or maybe I was too
> concise. The context was that of an RPC implementation.
> You have a server process, and a number of clients. Well the
> server process doesn't start a different process for each
> user request. It just spawns a new thread.
It could very well spawn a new process, or it might spawn a new thread.
That's something the implementer can choose to do.
> As LockFile is
> process related, and not thread related, it's totally
> inexistant, as far as this sort of applications is
> concerned. You must resort to a specific device which turns
> out to be a File locking mechanism.
What are you talking about? It's painfully easy to write multi-threaded
safe locking within a process. Simply maintain a map of file position
ranges and thread ID's. If the file position range is in the list, it's
locked and don't use it until it is, fire an event when you unlock the
range. Big deal.
> I thought I was thick,
> but DB designers have confirmed to me from different sources
> that for multiple user database access the FileLock API is
> totally useless.
That depends entirely on the design of your server. Use the right API for
the right job. FileLocking is designed to arbitrate file access between
processes because processes don't know about each other in most cases.
Threads should very well know about each other and can arbitrate access
themselves.
> It's an API designed for classical point-and-click users.
Bullshit. It has nothing to do with "classical point-and-click users".
It's an API designed for blind arbitration. Threads are not blind.
> If you've used it for such applications, then you've been
> happy, of course. If you'd tried to use it for the sort of
> application I was mentioning, then you'd have been utterly
> disappointed.
And which API does something similar under any other OS and works with
threads?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:52:07 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Chad Mulligan wrote:
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > But it really is very simple to install wine. If you can't do it, then
> you
> > have no brain:
> >
> > rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
>
> This assumes you use a distribution that supports RPM, not all do.
>
The other major choice is deb. Just get the deb package and install. It is
easy.
>
> >
> > man wine.conf
> >
> > follow the instructions to adjust wine.conf for your local environment.
> >
>
> Taking about a week and several volumes of typing.
>
I take it you have never installed wine. wine comes with a base wine.conf
file that typically only requires a one line change to specify where your
Windows C drive is located, if even that.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:04:16 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Interesting that you didn't answer the question... again.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you keep avoiding it?
> > >
> > > Because I'm fed up of ignorant people trying to show that
> > > shit is butter.
> > > Work it out by yourself.
> >
> > No, it's because you don't know how netcraft is getting it's uptimes.
> >
> > You simply don't know and aren't willing to admit that you don't know.
>
> OK. Let's assume that my unwillingness to dig into
> documentation to locate something I stumbled upon perhaps
> five years ago may be interpreted as a total ignorance on
> the subject.
Just because you read about a way to get uptime 5 years ago doesn't mean
that this is the mechanism used Netcraft. The point is, neither you or I
know which mechanism netcraft is using specifically. They have not released
that information. It could be a poorly documented HTTP request, it could be
SNMP based (though doubtful, since this is usually filtered by firewalls and
filtering routers), or it could be something else.
> Can you please explain how this will provide an answer to
> the following questions:
>
> 1) If uptime was an irrelevant feature, why MS choose to
> implement it, when other OS's (such as IBM's AIX) don't?
I never said it was an irrelevant feature. Chances are, the uptime feature
was something that was implemented, but was not used and thus forgotten by
most people, including those doing patches. It's hard to do regression
testing on every tiny feature, especially if they are seldom used.
> 2) If they decided to implement it, why they did it in such
> a way as to make it utterly useless?
I don't know. It might have been a simple item on a checklist. "Implement
HTTP uptime. Hmm.. I'll just return the Tick Count and it's done".
> 3) If it was still irrelevant why they underwent the effort
> to implement it properly in Win2k?
I don't claim to know their thoughts, however, it seems only logical that
Win2k went through massive auditing and this was identified as not being up
to par. Thus it was re-implemented, like 90% of the rest of the OS.
> If it helps to provide such answers, I may consider to take
> the pain.
Unless you have evidence that states that this method you speak of is the
one used by netcraft, don't bother.
> If it doesn't, you're simply sticking to a side issue,
> because as usually MS has shown incompetent design, and
> you've no other resort than saying, "but you smell badly".
Incompetant? That depends on what the requirements were. If a working
accurate uptime was part of the requirements, then yes. If it was just
something thrown in as an item on a checklist, then no.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:02:58 +1300
> And didn't you say that the problem was at your mother's house?
Heh, nah, that was the original poster... I hijacked his thread! =)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:05:51 -0600
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Well some of us are capable of coaxing extended uptimes out of our
> >servers. Unix gurus would have us believe that it's rocket science,
> >but really it's not that hard
>
> No, it's very very easy using Linux. Very easy indeed. Rocket
> science is a little harder, of course.
>
> Want good uptime - try Debian GNU/Linux - it's very very stable.
Then perhaps you can explain why Debian's website has only a 35 day average
uptime.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:07:58 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think its possible you might be just entirely confused on this. All
> systems, including NT, give correct results after a certain amount of
> time. Its just the counter has rolled over, so a single sample doesn't
> tell you what the value is, because you don't know when it started
> counting, and how many times it has rolled over.
>
> Unless, of course, you keep track of it. Perhaps these results don't,
> but to say that the system gives "incorrect results" (except possibly in
> the case of Microsoft systems, I don't know) is inaccurate. Just
> because *you* don't understand a number doesn't mean its incorrect. The
> reporting might give incorrect results (and that may, indeed, skew
> NT/W2K to lower numbers, since it wraps every 50 days, while Unix wraps
> every year and a half. If you don't know what you're doing, or what
> you're reading, this could be an issue.
My question to you would be, how could you know simply by network access
that your first reading is not rolled over? You don't unless you have first
hand information from someone inside that says the machine was restarted.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:07:09 +1300
> > I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. If you mean the system clock, in
> > regard to the 49.7 day issue, then no. uptime.exe doesn't use that value.
> > If you mean that if your time of day clock get's whacked, then yes.
>
> Since NT doesn't store a large enough counter, we were informed that
> uptime calculated the actual system uptime by subtracting the boot time
> from the system time. Is this not correct?
Erik says (from another posting):
It works on all periods and does not ever roll over to 0. The reason is
that it works by reading the event log for a startup message then
subtracts
the time entry of that startup message from the current time of day.
So I was correct... if your system clock is wrong, your uptime is a
bald-faced lie. Well, at least it's a way for NT to hit the top of the
charts in uptime... "Scotty, set clocks to 2019!"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
