Linux-Advocacy Digest #429, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: does anyone care if linux does not become ultra-popular? (mark)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:36:43 +0000
In article <G90U5.279316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:10:37 GMT, Mike wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >Without going into the historical context, what customers demand is an
>> >editable document.
>>
>> They may or they may not. It depends on the type of document.
>>
>> HTML is editable (and modern word processors can import it).
>>
>> RTF is also editable and can be created on any platform.
>
>Sure it depends on the document. There are lots of those where format
>doesn't matter: presentation foils, memos, emails, and so on. In general,
>nobody cares what format those are in. But when a document has to go into a
>document control system, and be added to other specifications, and be
>modified and returned for approval, and modified by others when they create
>similar specs later, and so on, LaTex isn't going to cut the mustard. It's
>just not a common, accepted format.
I always think it's interesting that the rfcs are all in ascii. It
strongly suggests that most specs do not need to be in any kind of
strange binary format for any particularly proprietary word processor.
Latex is common, it's just not supported by the monopoly providers
software (MS Office or whatever).
>
>The point I was trying to make was that using an editable text file, LaTex
>or otherwise, to do word processing isn't viable, because we don't just
>create documents for ourselves. Today, it's a given that others who come
>later are going to have to edit and change the stuff I create. Similarly, I
>don't create new specs from scratch - I use the documents that were created
>before. Donn's original point was, "...in a nutshell, I think word
>processors suck. I ... [use] html and LaTeX as a substitute."
Our organisation is increasingly moving to HTML for document storage,
management etc., not least because the vast majority of users in
our intranet userspace navigate that space with a browser (most
commonly netscape, but a lot of ie as well). HTML is not so much a
substitute, but the target format.
I suspect that if the content creation volumes were measured for
HTML and proprietary MS formats for the planet, the MS formats would
be quite small compared to creation in HTML.
>
>Presumably, if he thinks word processors suck, he's not using one to do his
>editing, and he's not likely to read in HTML or RTF.
>
>Even if he was using a word processor, HTML is neither a page description
>language or a viable word processor storage format, and browsers like
>Netscape still have a difficult time printing it correctly.
I don't seem to have any trouble printing. And the page numbering
works, and content pages are consistent.
>It's not good at
>tables,
I haven't noticed any problems there.
>can't handle arbitrary embedded graphics,
Inline graphics seem okay to me.
> has no inherent equation
>capabilities,
equation markup is being worked on, it is not yet stable or
in production browsers that I'm aware of.
> or much of an ability to handle complex page formatting,
What exactly is 'complex page formatting'? If this is trying
to put characters or objects at specific points on a page,
I would point out that the nightmares caused by docs written
for eg., letter size paper that are printed on eg., A4 are
, well, nightmares. It's just bad writing style.
This is where the concept of a markup language is so far
away from the traditional word-processor.
It's probably also why word processor usage is dying a
rapid and in my view timely death in my organisation.
>not
>to mention references, footnotes, page numbers, and on and on. That's not a
>bad thing: HTML is great for browsers. But trying to substitute HTML for a
>word processor isn't viable unless you don't do much.
Trying to substitute a word processor for writing in HTML is
short-sighted - document access technology has massively moved
on. It's interesting to note that people over about 45 still
tend to print their documents to read them - people under
that age tend to do it on-screen.
In 20 years nobody will be printing at all (ie., the 'printers'
will have retired from the workplace - they will probably
still do it at home :). If you're writing documentation you
expect to still be in use at that time, better write in a format
which will be suitable for browsers.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: does anyone care if linux does not become ultra-popular?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:44:42 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, spicerun wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> Another good reason to go Debian! You can install a base system
>> which has no X desktop graphical user interfaces and learn the
>> base Linux product from there. When your thru learning Linux
>> you can use Dselect to add what ever X desktop you like. Have
>> multiple desktop's if you choose to.
>>
>> Best part is Debian is totally free. If you have decent internet
>> access and can read and have access to 20 diskettes to build your
>> install disks you can have Debian. It doesn't even require a
>> visit to you local store.
>
>I was planning to go to Debian, but decided against it. I was disappointed
>that the newest distribution does not include the newer packages that
>accommodate the 2.4.0 kernel, and does not include XFree86-4.01.
You can use unstable. There's also a proposal for a meta-stable
distribution which might meet your needs, but that's not ready yet.
>I understand
>that you can use the 'unstable' part of the distribution, but I don't know why
>it takes an unusually long period of time
Unusually long compared to whom? Debian's major 'claim to fame' is
its stability. That means that nothing goes into stable until it
really is stable.
If you want to run a mixed system, you can. The package management
system is good enough to pull only the parts you need from the unstable
tree, but be aware that those parts are _unstable_, they will also
be unstable by debian standards in other distros as well.
>for Debian to qualify the newer
>packages and move them to their stable branch (ie- I just don't want to do the
>work to install the packages that now install standardly in other
>distributions). Plus, when you have a dialup only ISP connection,
That's what I've been using for several years with debian.
>Slink makes
>for a very poor tool in that scenario (It does work great with ADSL, T1, and/or
>other fulltime faster connections). I know Slink cuts down the amount of
>network traffic (for the servers that is), but it doesn't really save me much
>at 56K connections (I'd would get something faster than 56K, however nothing
>else is available in my area).
I've not had any problem using debian with dial-up.
>
>Just curious, Is Slackware ready for linux-2.4.0, and include XFree86-4.01?
>I've ended up with Redhat's 6.95 Beta, and I'm not moving beyond that in Redhat
>(especially after hearing about Redhat's 7.0 problems). I'm looking hard at
>Mandrake 7.2 and Suse 7.0 right now.
You need to face a reality - that newer packages will only exist in
betas, unstables or whatever, until all the bugs have been ironed out.
There's nothing to stop you using them, but you cannot expect the
stability of the tried and tested stable versions.
Bear in mind that some suppliers of software will offer what in the
open-source world would be considered at best unstable betas as
their salable product, will charge you for them, and will then charge
you for the upgrades to something a bit less beta.
Good luck which ever way you go!
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:48:58 +0000
In article <IHZT5.10134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <7qST5.5563$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, neJ wrote:
>> >> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:43:25 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Microsoft don't care two hoots about security - so of course this
>means
>> >> >>nothing to them.
>> >> >
>> >> >And yet look at the number of security problems in *nix systems -
>> >> >those infamous DOS attacks weren't lauched from Windoze platforms, now
>> >> >were they??
>> >>
>> >> The number of security problems in *nix systems are few and far
>> >> between compared to windows. Attacks are frequently launched from
>> >> *nix machines because the of many advantages (better IP stacks,
>> >> for example). I have had my router scanned by NT machines, though,
>> >> so they're not all done from *nix.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The problems with eunics are neither that few nor that far between, NFS
>is a
>> >primary case in point.
>> >
>> >
>> NFS is a protocol, what's the problem?
>>
>
>It is a fairly simple matter to achieve root access on the host machine due
>to a flaw in the original Sun NFS code. As of eight months ago this NFS
>security flaw still existed. I'm not sure if it has been resolved as yet
>because I've been, intentionally, away from UNIX for some time. The problem
>is in the authentication of clients once the connection was made that allows
>root access to the target file system.
Not if you don't expose NFS where you shouldn't. Proper security does
not come from exposing things to the world which shouldn't be and hoping,
it comes from taking appropriate precautions.
Appropriate precaution is easy to take with debian GNU/Linux using
the inherent firewalling capabilities of the linux kernel and the
supplied firewall management tools.
NFS is just a protocol.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:54:56 +0000
In article <qFZT5.10131$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <VwQT5.18617$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"neJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:43:25 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Microsoft don't care two hoots about security - so of course this
>means
>> >> >nothing to them.
>> >>
>> >> And yet look at the number of security problems in *nix systems -
>> >> those infamous DOS attacks weren't lauched from Windoze platforms, now
>> >> were they??
>> >
>> >Nor were the majority of computers that the attacks were launched AGAINST
>> >running Windows.
>> >
>> Beg to differ massively. All the scans I see (and I see 2-3 port-scans
>> an hour) are _all_ looking for ports used by windows trojans.
>>
>
>Because they are still looking for a way in.....
Yeah, on windows trojan ports - as I said above. I don't run
windows so the trojans they're looking for are not on my
machine.
>
>> I see thousands of scans for windows machines. I don't see any for
>> unix machines.
>>
>
>Because they've already found a way in.
No, not on my machine. I've never been cracked.
>
>
>IAC, there are many methods of invading systems, port scans are, IMO, the
>least effective and least sophisticated. A true hacker wouldn't leave any
>trace of his infiltration. Port scans leave a heavy footprint in any
>firewall, proxy or router log.
A cracker always leaves some trace - your claim shows
a lack of understanding about how expoits work, and the actions
crackers will try to take to cover themselves.
A trace is _always_ left. Cracking even a poorly secured
unix based machine is a non-trivial task.
The massive amount of port-scanning shows how many thousands of
people are trying, continuously, to crack windows machines using
one of the very very many trojans out there. These are the ones
which are eg., regularly posted to newsgroups, knowing that many
windows users run Outlook express, and will 'open' the attachment,
infect their machine because 'open' also happens to mean 'run'
in the windows world.
Then, a few mins later, the scanner detects the running trojan,
and, guess what, your windows machine just got owned.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:55:52 +0000
In article <8vploq$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpjug$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > > Even if Mcrosoft gets off in the US court, the EC is going to fry
>> >> > > them.....
>> >> >
>> >> > Wooo. There goes 1/100th of the world market.
>> >>
>> >> You have ZERO grasp of world economics.
>> >>
>> >> Europe has several times as many people as the US, and total
>> >> economy of WESTERN Europe alone is bigger than the US economy.
>> >
>> >Argh. I actually agrees with Aaron on this.
>> >But why would the EC "fry them" ?
>> >
>> >
>> Breaking the law.
>
>Is there even a trial there?
>I think I would've heard about it if there would've been one.
>You need a trial before you can "fry them".
It's being considered, and this has been widely reported.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:57:40 +0000
In article <2QZT5.10139$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>> >Les Mikesell wrote...
>> >> Indeed, quite a lot of functionality has been withheld from those
>computer
>> >> users and they don't even know what they are missing. I'll bet if
>they
>> >> have a huge list of names in
>> >> Last, First
>> >> format and wanted
>> >> First Last
>> >> they would retype the whole thing since they don't have:
>> >> :%s/\(.*\), \(.*\)/\2 \1/
>> >> or any reasonable equivalent. Their loss. And it would be
>> >> mine if that is all I had.
>> >
>> >Actually, what I do in Win2k here is fire up my TextPad, open the search
>> >and replace tool, enable regex's and for the search expression:
>> >^\([[:word:]]+\), \([[:word:]]+\) or
>> >I could use your expression to be less precise
>> >\(.*\), (.*\)
>> >and the replacement expression
>> >\2, \1
>> >I hit 'replace all' and I'm done. If I feel I have to do this on more
>> >occasions, I just create a macro to do it with one programmable shortcut.
>> >
>>
>> Whereas I go to the pub and buy a pint with the money that I didn't give
>> to Microsoft :)
>>
>
>To bad you wouldn't have the time, what with all the arcane tasks needed to
>keep a UNIX healthy.
Even my updating is automated.
And, I can admin my machines using my Psion series 5mx and my mobile
phone from the pub if I really want to.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:00:18 +0000
In article <4%ZT5.10151$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9RST5.5585$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8v7jl9$6tl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8v6e81$bju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:CXwR5.370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> > Organization: Self Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> > Followup-To:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The
>> >> >> > Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> >> > >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joseph T. Adams
>> >> >> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> > > wrote
>> >> >> > >on 17 Nov 2000 00:52:50 GMT
>> >> >> > ><8v1vh2$7sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> >> > >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> > >>wrote:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>: Oh, yes.
>> >> >> > >>: If Whistler is as good from 2K as 2K is from NT & 98, then
>> >> > Linux\Unix has
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> > >>: reason to be *really* afraid, and by the release of the system
>> >> > *after*
>> >> >> > >>: whistler, I wouldn't be surprise if those a minority even on
>the
>> >> > server.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>Even if Microsoft released a version of 'Blows that didn't blow,
>I
>> >> >> > >>still wouldn't use it, because:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> (a) I don't willingly support criminal organizations, with my
>> >> >> > >> money
>> >> >> > >> or by any other means.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >I'm not sure this has been proven either way yet, although the
>> >> >> > >findings of fact were interesting.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > #1. The Microsoft trial is OVER. They have been found guilty.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By a judge of questionable motives and mind. He himself has claimed
>> >> >> that he'll be overturned, admitting his poor judgement.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just because a judge says you're quilty, doesn't necessarily mean
>> >> >> you're quilty.
>> >> >
>> >> > Um, didn't you mean to say guilty instead of quilty here? And I've to
>> >> > object to the last statement. If a judge rules that you are guilty,
>then
>> >> > you *are* guilty, that is what the word means. At least, that is what
>> >> > the word means in court. Whatever you actually did what you are
>accused
>> >> > is a whole different matter, of course.
>> >>
>> >> Even if Mcrosoft gets off in the US court, the EC is going to fry
>> >> them.....
>> >
>> >Wooo. There goes 1/100th of the world market.
>> >
>> >
>> EC is largest & richest market in the world.
>>
>> Wooo.
>
>Wrong, Try again. SE Asia (Including NZ, and AUS) is the largest richest
>market in the world, with China and India following. EC ain't even fifth.
>If we Californians ever get our sh== together we'll suceed from the union
>and they'll drop to seventh or so.
>
Those are not a _single_ markets. The EC is the largest richest
single market in the world. It's quite possible that because of the
way currencies are valued internationally, that China and India are
first and second in the world, but this is the way things are now.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:08:59 GMT
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote...
> >
> > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > T. Max Devlin wrote...
> > > > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000
12:34:10
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > ....Most will benefit from the stability that Linux offers. But that's
all
> > it
> > > has to offer that's worth mentioning to the typical user. They can get
> > > the same level of stability using Win2k. ........
> >
> > Without resorting to flames and other foolishness, I disagree. Most of
the
> > vitriol statements like that draw come from years of hearing "Just wait
> > 'till the next version" and "Oh, we've fixed that SR<insert number
here>".
> > I've been hearing it ever since Windows V1.0 (I never used it, but, had
to
> > sell it). The botched up MS-DOS v4.01 STILL sits sourly with me. In
short, I
> > can't believe this statement and most others, with a bit of experience
under
> > their belts, won't either. Microsoft OS's are, IMHO, released WAY too
soon.
> > The balance between profit and quality, historically, has been out of
> > kilter. Their dominance in the marketplace is such that this needn't
change.
>
> Urhm. They're far from dominant in the server market. This is because
> they can't easily bamboozle that user base. Win2k is testimony to this.
> They're definitely upping the quality.
Very true. But, the small office, peer to peer area is still largely owned
by MS. As for upping their quality, I'll stay tuned to the newsgroups before
I make the leap.
>
> > Their past attitude, in regards to complaints or honest bug reports, was
> > dismal and some of us don't forget that. To their credit, they've come a
> > long way in the support department. However, some of us are a bit
hesitant
> > to pick up soap in the shower a second time.
> >
> >
> > Rant Mode Off.
> >
> > PS: I'm having a bad NT day, so sue me!
I'm calm now....
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:09:05 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vpf2i$5buf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
< ... >
> > To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
> > Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
> > credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
>
> FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
With all due respect, how do you come to that conclusion? My personal
experience is that FAT is utterly horrible. NTFS, is something i've only had
a few problems with. I've never had an ext2 FS failure, excepting an old 1GB
drive that lunched itself.
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
>
> > >> The registry is well renowned as a major weakness in the design of
> > >> windows.
> > >
> > >It takes a *lot* to corrupt the registery, usually a hard drive
failure.
> > >Currupting the data *inside* the registry is another matter, and can
> cause
> > >system instability, just like putting invalid data in the files in the
> /etc
> > >dir.
> >
> > Err, text file damage is a minor problem - binary file damage is a
> > massive problem, especially if it happens close to the start of the
> > file.
>
> Please provide more information about any of these claimed events where
the
> registry was damaged that badly.
>
> > *That's* why the registry is a bad design decision making for a
> > weak OS.
>
> Please provide some credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:09:03 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vnubl$4ujgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:LhJT5.2681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:pUET5.10217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> You've been very fortunate in regards to the registry. I've experienced
> >> registry corruption on two occasions. Both occasions involved drives in
> >> pristine condition. Both were lockups that occured during service pack
> >> updates. They were on separate machines that normally displayed quite
sane
> >> behavior.
> >
> >Two occasions, out of how long time using windows? On how many machines?
> >
> >
> >
> The interesting question is 'with linux, how many times has
> your /etc directory been rendered unusable?
Honestly, never.
>
> The correct answer is probably never in the whole of the
> history of space and time for a production machine, but
> maybe if you look really hard, you might find one, somewhere,
> but it seems very very unlikely.
>
> The registry is well renowned as a major weakness in the design of
> windows.
It was a good idea that was just implemented in the wrong way. As per my
other post, I feel it should have been kept in a dedicated partition, away
from the file system.
>
> Mark
>
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:09:01 GMT
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8vnubl$4ujgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:LhJT5.2681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:pUET5.10217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Press shift when you click the OK button on the shut down
screen,
> > > this
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > give you quick shutdown.
> > > > > > > BTW, ctrl+alt+backspace doesn't restart X, it terminate it,
and
> > then
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > it, there is quite a difference here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a
> > consequence
> > > > of
> > > > > > the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been
you
> > > were
> > > > > > working on, but core processes other systems on your net might
be
> > > using
> > > > > > don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't
have
> > to
> > > > deal
> > > > > > with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > To the average user, the GUI *IS* a core process, and usually the
only
> > > > thing
> > > > > they care about on a desktop machine. Who cares if the telnet
server
> > is
> > > > > still running if you just lost all your work in the 5 open X
> > > applications
> > > > > you had going?
> > > >
> > > > If said desktop machine was also host to a CVS repository that was
> > > currently
> > > > being updated or hosted a printer that was in the middle of a large
> > print
> > > > job, someone would, indeed, care if the machine were hopelessly
locked
> > up
> > > or
> > > > rebooted.
> > >
> > > It's not an average desktop machine.
> >
> > The point remains that GUI sub-system failures need not bring down an
OS -
> > As they frequently do under the Microsoft model.
>
> The point is, that this advantage is largely moot to an average desktop
> user.
Agreed. I'm seldom ever around average desktop users anymore and so have an
odd point of reference. I'm delving more into dedicated applications and the
like.
As for the average desktop in a LAN environment, my feeling is that a lot of
CPU cycles go to waste. It makes sense, to me, to harness them to run
services and take some of the server's load. In this model, the OS
recoverable GUI failures would make a lot more sense.
>
> > > > > And corrupted file systems don't usually happen with NTFS since
it's
> > > > > journaled. And I have never experienced a corrupted registry
except
> > > when
> > > > > the hard disk developed bad spots.
> > > >
> > > > Key word being USUALLY.
> > > > You've been very fortunate in regards to the registry. I've
experienced
> > > > registry corruption on two occasions. Both occasions involved drives
in
> > > > pristine condition. Both were lockups that occured during service
pack
> > > > updates. They were on separate machines that normally displayed
quite
> > sane
> > > > behavior.
> > >
> > > Two occasions, out of how long time using windows? On how many
machines?
> >
> > I cede that such corruption is rare. My point is that it indeed can
happen.
>
> I respect you for that. Some here make it out to be the intolerable order
> of the day.
I'm not the jihaad type. <g>
--
Tom Wilson
<snip>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
