Linux-Advocacy Digest #560, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is inevitable! (Mike Raeder)
Re: Whistler review. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Whistler review. (Sandman)
Re: Whistler review. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: lotus notes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful (James W. Swonger)
Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot. (Perry Pip)
Re: LA Times article re. Microsoft... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:57:24 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <903862$376c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vv5ce$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <8vsa0t$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> In article <8vr8r9$5a7fd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Same mecanism you get one into a win machine.
> >> >> >> >Lure the user to open it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, the user needs to save it, give it executable permissions,
> >> >> >> su to root, give it root/suid permissions, put it into the path,
> >> >> >> add a script into /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d to get the trojan
> >> >> >> started, modify the firewall scripts to open the required ports,
> >> >> >> etc. etc. etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We've been through this before.
> >> >> >If the user execute the program, it can handle the rest on its own.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not without root permissions, it can't. You really don't
> >> >> understand the unix security model, which is causing you
> >> >> to fully misunderstand why the scenario you describe
> >> >> cannot happen.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please take a look at Eric Raymond's intro to unix, it
> >> >> will help you no end with these quite hard questions.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, I am.
> >> >The point I was trying to make that 9x is a *single user OS*
> >> >You seem to be unable to understand what a *single user OS* is.
> >> >A *single user OS* has no cocept of permissions.
> >> >On a *single user OS*, the *single user* has root-like status.
> >> >
> >> >Now, try to make the same arguement for the NT line, and you fail.
> >> >
> >> >You really need to understand the concept of *single user OS*.
> >> >
> >> >If you want to talk about the *disadvantages* of single user OS, that is
> >> >another matter, but trying to compare a *single user OS* security model
> >> >(non-existant) to a linux or unix is laughable.
> >> >Why don't you compare a bike to a motorcycle?
> >> >No, that is not a good enough comparition, why don't you compare a
> >carrige
> >> >carried on the back of a hundred turtles (average land turtles, normal
> >speed
> >> >400 meters per hour) to a Formola 1 car?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> You cannot install anything on a unix machine without the
> >> appropriate permissions.
> >
> >I know, what is your point?
>
> That you don't understand how unix works, so you don't understand
> why what you're saying is silly. You cannot install anything on
> a unix machine without the appropriate permissions. This seems
> pretty simple. If it's hard, there are some really good books on
> sale of the beginner's unix styles.
DISCLAIMER:
Admittedly, I jumped in this in the middle and I may have the
context of this thread wrong.
Windows NT/2K will not allow you to install or run applications
without the appropriate permissions. In fact, it's very similar
to unix in these regards. The executable files themselves must
have X permissions for the user trying to execute it. To install
an application, the user must have the appropriate permissions
to the resources the setup application changes (registry, system
files, etc). Typically, these require Administrator privileges,
but not always. It all depends on what the program needs to install.
This is similar in most cases in Unix. Most applications don't
require root to install, but they will only be installed for
that specific user in their own home dir. If you want to put it
in /usr/local for everyone, or it will be a service that will run
automatically at startup or similar, you must be root to do this.
Similarily, you can't install services on NT/2K without being the
administrator, or having the appropriate permission to do so granted
by the administrator.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:59:47 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <903l4f$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Vn%U5.25827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:900dr0$5pbqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > "Corneil du Plessis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:900d6e$kaq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > > Only Microsoft expects their customers to upgrade everything when they
> >> > make
> >> > > a change.
> >> >
> >> > I still have a win95 running word 6 on a 486 & 12MB
> >> > It's being used daily.
> >>
> >> Word 6? Hmm, hardly the first version of that product. Did you come
> >> to the party late or are you just conveniently forgetting the cycle
> >through
> >> the earlier versions - and the fact that for quite some time after Word97
> >> came out and was shipped bundled with a lot of new machines you had
> >> no way to access documents in that format?
> >
> >To Word, yes.
> >I used a dos based Word Proccessor call Einstien until almost 1996.
> >It loaded of a 5-something inch floppy and had a white on blue color that
> >from took me a while to shake of in regard to word proccessor (my first
> >reaction to my first BSOD was "Who loaded Einstien?")
> >I've been loyal user to this application (and this version, for that matter)
> >for almost 6 years.
> >
> >About the documents, I can read documents made in office 97 or 2000 with
> >Word 6.
> >File > Save As > Word 6.0
>
> That conversion takes forever and doesn't properly convert everythingl
> as anyone who's been unfortunate enough to have this microsoft overt
> 'upgrade or else' conversion filter imposed on them by the monopoly
> we so love to suffer from.
I believe this was a problem in the initial release of Office97. In certain
circumstances, the down-level conversion wouldn't convert correctly.
More recent service releases for Office97 have fixed this.
Office2000 does not have this problem.
Please get your facts straight before bashing MS and embarassing yourself.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:04:15 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pZjV5.26860$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > That's not what I said. Kulkis made reference to .exe files not "any
> file"
> > I
> > > too have an open file and can rename it. If I have file.txt open, it can
> > be
> > > renamed file1.txt without having to make a copy because there's no
> > > dependency elsewhere which gets broken, such as shortcuts or
> associations.
> >
> > I've never been able to do that while the file was locked. Is there any
> > way to insure that only one program can access a file and when finished
> > with it, make it disappear before unlocking so another program can't
> > open it between the time you unlock and the time you delete?
>
> I have no idea. Permission settings perhaps.
Windows has varying levels of file locking that you can set when you
open a file. This varies from open it, no lock to open it don't
allow anyone else to even READ it.
An example of this would be that most apps open their log files
in the least obtrusive way, whereas NT opens it's pagefile with the
most restrictive locks so that you can't even read it while NT has
it open.
I guess it all depends on what type of app you're using and how
critical the file that app is opening to the app.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is inevitable!
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:17 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Mike Raeder wrote:
> >
> > sfcybear wrote:
> > > Linux is moving faster than expected! But hey, we knew it would!
> > >
> > > http://www.ottawacitizen.com/hightech/001129/4958837.html
> >
> > Funny, rarely does anyone wax poetic about this wonderful
> > licensing part of Linux. Soon all of our servers will be
> > Linux (and FreeBSD). Then I will have the pleasure of
> > telling the beancounters to bugger off when I am asked for a
> > licence audit. Thus making more time to spank my cow-orkers
> > at Quake. :)
> >
>
> And Orking a cow is an activity that one should NEVER pass up.
Yes, but as long as it's not in the state of Utah. :)
http://ugrad-www.cs.colorado.edu/~crosby/asr/overview.html (section 1.5)
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit
materiari?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:29:57 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The trick is that he's counting things like grep, ls and man as
>> "applications". By that logic I have 1200 or so "applications" on
>> my NT workstation, 1500 wouldn't be much of a stretch.
No, he's counting *packages*.
> Wrong. ls, man, and grep are part of the base installation.
Please check your facts. Here's grep:
eris:/usr/lib/cgi-bin# dpkg -S /bin/grep
grep: /bin/grep
eris:/usr/lib/cgi-bin# dpkg -l grep
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
|
Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:
uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-==============-==============-========================================
ii grep 2.4.2-1 GNU grep, egrep and fgrep.
and here's ls:
eris:/usr/lib/cgi-bin# dpkg -S /bin/ls
fileutils: /bin/ls
eris:/usr/lib/cgi-bin# dpkg -l fileutils
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
|
Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:
uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-==============-==============-========================================
ii fileutils 4.0.32-1 GNU file management utilities.
So, grep and its siblings has its own package, while ls is one of
the twenty-three programs that make up the fileutils package.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:36:04 +0100
In article <905lvd$11km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Shame really, 'cos the only thing I would actually use
> > > > > > > > >> Microsoft OS for in my own time would be game playing. And
> > > > > > > > >> that's only possible with DOS.
> > > It isn't refuting my arguement. It isn't even close. What game in the
> > > *last three years* run on DOS and was even moderatedly successful?
> > > Mark's original statement was that he couldn't run games on non-dos
> > > platform.
> > >
> > > Qoute: Shame really, 'cos the only thing I would actually use Microsoft
> > > OS for in my own time would be game playing. And that's only possible
> > > with DOS.
> > >
> > >
> > > You've failed to answer my question, what even modertedly successful
> > > game (for the PC) came out in the last three years that didn't run on
> > > Windows?
> >
> > LOL, I'm not arguing that fact. Please unwad your panties. The point is he
> > may be discussing games that fall outside of that criteria. If he ISN'T
> > then you're right and he's wrong. You may want to ask him about the games
> > to which he is referring. That would bring this thing into perspective.
>
> He said that it is only possible to play games with DOS. "that's [playing
> games] only possible with DOS."
Well, to be splitting hairs, he did say that game playing was only possible via
DOS for "his own time" which I suppose includes "his own games" that he likes
to play. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:29:26 GMT
They were very good quality machines, I had mine for 9 years (bought in
1989), with no faults, or virus problems. If I could, I would buy
another one. The best thing I liked were the games/programs that were
included with it, like:
Miniture Gold
Crazy Cars
Kindwords (Wordprocessor)
Fusion Paint (Painting Tool)
AmigaBASIC (First Programming Tool I used, funny enough it was developed
by Microsoft)
Back then I the Amiga was a really speed demon having 1.5 Meg RAM, an
extra disk drive, 8bit audio, and a processor running at a blistering
7.2Mhz.
kiwiunixman
In article <0wrV5.99$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Do you remember the Amiga 500 with Workbech 1.3, now that is efficient
> > programming, and surprisingly fast considering it ran off a FDD
>
> I only got to play with the Amigas briefly and I was as impressed with
their
> speed and layout as I was with their graphical capabilities. Too bad
> Commodore's business model wasn't as sophisticated, huh?
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Go home Al....
> Game over, man!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lotus notes
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:34:05 GMT
Unfortunately no, Lotus has however released Domino Server for Linux. I
have heard through the grape vine that someone got Notes running under
Linux using wine.
kiwiunixman
In article <ukoywdsWAHA.195@net003s>,
"W.Edwin van der Meijden, Alforto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ls,
>
> does anyone know of Lotus Notes running on Linux?
>
> W. Edwin van der Meijden
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James W. Swonger)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 30 Nov 2000 14:31:15 GMT
I have had Linux experiences which cover the range. The biggest problem
I've had is with the video (X), the cards evolve too fast for the drivers
to keep up and you run a good chance (1 in 3, in my cases) of having a
machine that won't automagically set up, despite the best intentions of
the user-friendliest distributions.
What I think is really missing is a good hardware oriented Linux site,
which tests and lists boxes/packaged systems, and peripherals, which
are truly "no hassle Linux". With user comments and links to drivers.
If there was a way for "lusers" to see what did and didn't work ahead
of time, and vendors knew how many people were shopping on this basis,
(hit stats) maybe there would be motivation for better availability of
drivers and config scripts.
I have been to a couple of Linux hardware sites, but they don't seem
to be what I envision. I wish somebody like Linux Journal would take
up this sort of thing, but it might be too lowbrow and tedious for
them.
In article <905iu0$1coo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The REAL problem
>> with Linux is that there aren't an incredible amount of preconfigured
>> Linux
>> boxes for home use (compared to the numbers for MS). If there was a
>> higher
>> number of easily available home Linux boxes already configured, and they
>> had customer support departments that know as much about Linux as Windows,
>> it would be a lot easier to get started. Most of the problem is getting
>> Linux setup, and getting all the hardware working, which is difficult for
>> non-computer oriented folk. (And some Linux users as well as Windows
>users
>> look down on these people, unfortunately). Actually using something like
>> KDE 2.0, or Gnome is not that tough once it's setup properly. My
>> computer-despising fiance has no trouble using KDE 2.0 for her everyday
>> usage (email & word processing).
>
>Frankly, I think that setuping linux is the easiest part of the
>installation.
>About the only thing that is hard in it is the repartitioning part.
>And using it for normal tasks like browsing and email and word processing is
>very simple as well.
>The problem start when you try to go a little beyond this.
>Due to a very steep learning curve, most users will simply give it up,
>saying it's too hard, and will never get their computer to its full
>potential.
--
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot.
Date: 30 Nov 2000 14:45:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:13:07 +0000,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> How many years of experience with Windows? How many with Linux? Did
>> you build the machine for Windows, or for Linux?
>
>OpenVMS - a decade.
Irrelevent to almost anything today.
>UNIX - two or three years.
That was over ten years ago, right??
>Windows - six years or more.
>Linux - two or three weeks.
And that proves your nothing but a total fucking idiot for thinking
you are qualified to make comparisions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: LA Times article re. Microsoft...
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:43:31 GMT
I agree. The only people who believe Microsoft is the best software
producer are hiding from the facts. Microsoft is a large, inefficient
and corrupt organization that needs to get purged by the DOJ. When was
the last time Microsoft produced an application that used less hard disk
space and memory than the previous version? never. Compare that too
Linux (the kernel) and the size as stayed around the same, mem
requirements around the same, yet more functionality is bought to the
platform. Microsoft should learn a thing or two from such companys as
QSSL and BeOS, on how to write a decent OS from the ground up, with
fully documented API's and emphasis put on efficient programming.
kiwiunixman
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Worth a read...
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/20001129/t000114370.html
>
> Good quote...
>
> Cable executives have been openly surprised and irritated at
> the company's inability to meet deadlines, not to mention the
> consistently low caliber of the Microsoft programming that has
> arrived.
>
> Good does of reality. And a fairly decent explanation of why a lot of
> us prefer to run something else.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:53:26 GMT
The first Wordprocessor I used on the PeeCee (after moving from Amiga)
was Wordstar 2000, however, I found that Wordperfect 5.1 superior to it,
and I used harvard graphics for presentations, all these programs were
run in dos. Although I have used Office, I found that version 8 of
wordpefect suite was terrible, however, Wordperfect 2000 was very
similar to Word 97. In terms of databases, I dispise Access, I prefer
using Filemaker, much easier, and producers the same/better results that
Access.
kiwiunixman
In article <3a265668.105207319@news>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:54:19 GMT, kiwiunixman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm not going to be a pain in the ass, but I have some questions:
> >
> >>
> >> In my experience, Microsoft Office is the best office suite available.
> >> (Regardless of cost).
> >
> >What do you like about it? I have used it and I have found that Corel
> >Wordpefect gives the best results, esp. creating highly graphical
> >documents, the ability to clean up clip art after resizing it, smooth
> >fonts when using the Corel type Wordart, and handles HTML pages better
> >than Microsoft Word or Publisher.
>
> Guess it`s just because I`m used to it, and found the workflow in the
> other apps to be slightly askew. You know - very similar to the
> microsoft suite, but the differences that were there threw me
> completely. -> Frustration.
>
> >
> >>
> >> It would be more prudent to state that Microsoft does not produce
> >> quality Operating Systems.
> >
> >Must agree with that, I would like to see one of their OS's based on the
> >BSD Mach 4.4 Kernel, throw the Windows GUI on, and forget about backward
> >compatibility, I think it is about time some of these company's woke up
> >and smelled the coffee, provide for the OS, or close up shop. Make a
> >developer app to help third party vendor move apps to the new platform
> >(by redirecting all the Windows API calls to the new, UNIX like API
> >calls), I would also like to see a clean, properly documented set of API
> >calls to a make developers life easier.
> >
>
> A kind of UNIX/PC/MAC hybrid. :) A unified "computer" is getting
> closer I think...
>
> >DirectX is a piece of rubbish, write a game for DirectX and say go by to
> >the chance of easily porting it to another platform without a total
> >rewrite, OpenGL is the way to go, platform independent and very reliable.
> >
>
> C'mon - you know fine well that directx is/was never meant to be even
> close to being platform independant - it was solely an API for
> windows, and nothing else. OpenGL is 'only' a graphics API as well,
> directx handles a whole lot more than just display issues...
>
> DirectX saved windows. No doubt about it. If they didn`t pull it
> off, who know's what might have happened.
>
> >>
> >> Messenger is the best chat tool bar none.
> >
> >? Don't use it. I use ICQ.
> >
>
> Check it out - ICQ seems to me like it could have been written by
> Microsoft actually... It`s bloated, feature laden..etc..etc..
>
> Messenger is very simple, has a small footprint, and actually looks
> usable and clean - unlike the jazzy mess of ICQ....
>
> --
> Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor
impaired.
> - Geoff Miller
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
