Linux-Advocacy Digest #597, Volume #30 Fri, 1 Dec 00 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux is awful (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is awful (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Matt Kennel)
Re: Linux is awful (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is awful (John & Susie)
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:12:45 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > VB is the easiest and most simple way to provide an application with
> GUI.
> > > > And if you take a look at the code, you'll see that there are no
> components
> > > > glued together.
> > > > The application use standard API call to read/write/modify the
> registry. You
> > > > could do the same with any language that has a compiler for windows.
> > > > It's usually very easy to convert VB code to C/C++, the reverse is not
> true,
> > > > of course. If you know C/C++/Java/<any programming language>, it
> shouldn't
> > > > be hard to understand what the application is doing.
> > >
> > > Oh, I'm not worried about understanding it. Having already mastered
> most
> > > aspects of C++, become familiar with MFC and the Win32 API, and now
> > > knowing pretty well knowing how to use C++ Builder (and hence, some
> Delphi),
> > > I have really no need for VB.
> > >
> > > Granted, it may have some hooks into entities that the above products
> don't
> > > give you, but, for the size of projects I work on, VB is not suitable.
> > > And it has other costs that I'm not keen on paying.
> > >
> > > The funny thing about VB is that is great for the simple apps such as
> > > you have written. But it has shortcomings in larger projects, and
> > > your workarounds then make it into a house of cards.
> > >
> >
> > As many years have passed since its introduction, maybe the meaning of
> > BASIC has been forgotten.
> > It was developed at Dartmouth College in the mid 60's as a mean to teach
> > students how to program. I'd rather say as not to program. Nothing else
> > than a handy tool for quick things you use just once, IMO. And it's an
> > acronym for "Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpreter Compiler".
> > If you think that not many years later, with the same purpose (i.e.
> > teaching how to program) professor Wirth at Zurich Polytechnic School
> > created Pascal, well, you may see the difference.
>
> VB is indeed the beginner approach to programming in windows.
> It's quite handy at times like this one, when you need to create simple
> applications easily & quickly.
> Building not-so-simple applications can be done as well, but can be a pain
> more often than not.
> A programmer that tries to undertake a major task with VB should be taken
> out and shot.
Well, maybe you might support my opinion, that teaching of Basic (and
VB) should be forbidden, and its usage be only permitted on a limited
and controlled basis to grown up programmers, after a careful
examination by a commission of experts. Sort of "adults only", but more
stringent.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:14:13 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> Help files are easier to read & understand than man files, and provide just
> as much information.
It depends on which man page you compare to which help file, actually.
> Reason is that MS can:
> A> Keep them up to date.
So can the maintainer of a GPL software package. Many Linux programs
that aren't a part of a distro install their documentation into the man
pages.
> B> Pay somebody to write them in mostly non-technical jargon that the user
> can understand quite easily.
You need to check out the Linux HOWTOs to see just how clear the writing
can be.
> C> Right click>What is?
Very often, this part of help is little more than a descriptive label,
and a redundant one at that.
> D> GUI is much easier to use than text files, as it doesn't require so much
> knowlege. See LinuxConf as proof of this.
Have you ever run "linuxconf --text"? It's faster than the GUI version!
Anyway, just quibbling. I find the man pages generally very good.
They're a little easier to put together than help files, so are sometimes
more up-to-date. In fact, the most up-to-date last-minute documentation
usually comes in a README.TXT file.
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:15:38 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:33:14 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >StarOffice has an annoying way to load *everything* when you open it.
>
> >*And*, it replace the familiar look of Windows with a totally new one,
> >which I, presonally, don't like.
>
> And that is enough to justify paying several hundred dollars instead of
> taking the free one? I don't think so. Network effects and vendor
> lock in explain it a lot better.
Actually not on a personal level, no. StarOffice is fine for reading
Word docs, and has the added advantage of running on Linux and Windows -
and I use both daily. However, I was turned off by two things you would
call 'trivial'
-- the full screen UI (reminiscient of the old AppleWorks system for any
IIe devotees)
-- the seeming inability of the spreadsheet program to doa print in
'fit to one page' mode
This latter drove me to distraction enough to bother getting a licensed
copy of Office2000 from my company's intranet (after having already
downloaded and installed StarOffice on Linux and Windows).
User Interface issues (trivial though they may seem) can be <the> single
biggest impediment to a product's advancement.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:18:39 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> The smallest useful Linux distro i've seen fits in 5 floppies. With that
> you get X, netscape and a few other things. If you go for the 7 floppy
> version, you get GCC and sendmail as well.
The Linux Router Project aims to get it all on one disk!
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:27:46 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:906o5q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Win95 on a 386 with 4 megs of RAM? You might be able to install it, but do
> > you really think it will run? Looks like yet another one has fallen for
> > Uncle Bill's Windows propaganda.
>
> Those are the minimum requirement.
> This mean it will run (more likely stumble along, actually) on it.
Microsoft routinely quotes minimum requirements on their boxes.
You need to double what they say. If you want to run a lot of software
at once, then quadruple it. Realistically.
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:30:19 GMT
Jerry Peters wrote:
>
> With Linux (in my case Slackware) you need to read the documentation
> before starting, and actually _plan_ your install. You also don't get
> much practice installing Linux. I've been using it for 6 or 7 years
> and only done 2 installs.
You want to get practice installing Linux? Load up telnet, ftp, nfs,
rpc (the service version of all these), and leave the box connected
to the Internet.
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:34:32 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:43:58 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:30:13 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:>Huh? The quote BLANK FILE is still built to support all the current
:>versions features and the old version still hadn't the prescience to be
:>able to read those attributes.
:
:HTML supports this by simply having the parser ignore tags it does not
:understand. So it is _possible_ to build file formats such that older
:parsers can still read part of the information.
:
:In the past, PC software vendors didn't do it that way mainly because
:they were so cramped on memory and CPU power that they ended up
:designing their file formats to be fast to load rather than robust and
:extensible. Old habits die hard, especially when there's a marketing
:advantage to be gained by doing nothing.
The point is to design a file format as a generalized file format, and
not as a pickled representation of one proprietary implmentation.
This has been done long ago in the scientific community, mostly for
astrophysical and geophysical data sets. The features and abilities
of both the analyzing programs and the generated data sets have
evolved over the years, but still things work quite well, because they
were designed by many as a general and extensible file format.
There is another example that a few people may be familiar with.
It's called Internet Protocol. Some guy named Vint Cerf and a few
others, not including Al Gore, invented it.
The second point is that with a monopolistic market share it is in the
interest of the monopolist to thwart competition and not have fully
open file formats, even if it hurts its customers.
If there were, by contrast, more vendors with a smaller market share each,
then it would be in everybody's interest to continue with a standard
and compatible file format, because if they went to a lockup format their
products could be easily replaced and the customers would leave.
Monopoly power has everything to do with it.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:35:13 GMT
Eric Meyer wrote:
>
> >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
>
> I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the like),
> but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
>
> Em
You mean, like, it took 1/2-hour for Windozzzzzzzzz, and
50 hours for Linux?
Man who is tired often have bad mileage.
------------------------------
From: John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:32:56 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Robert Wiegand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Eric Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
> > >
> > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the
> like),
> > > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
> >
> > Then you are a pretty lucky guy.
> >
> > Windows may be nice if everything works correctly, but it is a nightmare
> > when something fails. Since you can't see hwat is really happing inside
> > the OS it is really difficult to trace down and fix a problem.
>
> No, that is simply not true.
>
> > Windows is also a major pain to install if you have a number of
> > devices that aren't supported by the base OS. Installing everything
> > on my Windows PC takes about 5 CDROMS and 2 floppy disks. And you have
> > to reboot the stupid machine after installing each driver.
>
> I've 3 devices that are not supported by win9x natively (though win2k &
> whistler & some linux does support those natively), it's neither a nightmare
> nor does it require a reboot after each driver installation.
>From one NT user to another - bullshit.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:41:57 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:907jgd$t2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3a26e716$0$3654$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3937182.html?pt.ms..feed.ne_home
> >
> >I can't blame them, lack of interest is why MS dropped support for other
> >chips in W2K.
> >
> No, they dropped the more powerful CPUs because NT could not be
> rewritten to both stress those systems and not slow to a crawl on
> the contemporaneous Intel CPUs.
NOPE, That was a marketing desicion. Too bad because NT on an Alpha was
quick.
>
> They need to stress the hardware to drive people toward the upgrade
> treadmill, as I explained in another thread.
>
> They tried, and failed, so withdrawing support is the best way of
> keeping the forced upgrade scam from being exposed.
>
> --
> "Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
> they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
> consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
> -DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:43:29 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> He had also mentioned avoiding Trojans. Most of the stuff there is just
> intended for that purpose.
I meant for Trojans and port 139 exploits to be treated as different.
To lock down any system, Win or *nix, a hell of a lot of steps have
to be taken. Maybe a few more for Win, especially Server. The
end result is a machine no one can use very well. And often the
quickest cut to this Gordian knot is "social engineering".... calling
some poor dumb peon and eliciting information from him or her.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:46:00 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9097va$o2g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> : "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> :> >
> :> >How about going to the root of the problem and updating your BIOS?
> :> >
> :>
> :> My BIOS has nothing to do with Win98 failing to shut down.
> :>
>
> : Actually it has everything to do with it.
>
> You contradict this statement down below.
No contradiction. The driver needs to communicate with the BIOS for proper
power management. Not all BIOS's are equal.
>
> :> Interestingly, if I use APM and linux on the same hardware,
> :> not only does it close down properly, but it powers down as
> :> well.
> :>
>
> : So you got the correct drivers.
>
> Make up your mind - is it the BIOS (a hardware thing) or the
> drivers for it (an OS thing)?
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:49:10 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Curtis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your example had me wondering though.
> > > >
> > > > What practical real world task are you doing with you real world
> > > > operating system in the context of browsing that I can't achieve
with
> > > > IE? I use Netcaptor to be exact that uses the IE engine. I don't use
OE.
> > >
> > > Avoiding Trojans comes to mind. Not to mention that NT/2000 require
> > > some serious reconfiguration to avoid myriads of problems due to that
> > > leaky boat called "port 139".
> > >
> >
> > Two settings changes are 'serious reconfiguration' hell you can turn it
on
> > and off as desired. Or just implement IPSEC and still use it as
designed.
> >
>
> This link provides something more than two setting, in order
> to provide a certain amount of security for NT. Is the
> fellow crazy or you're oversimplifying a bit?
>
> http://bunbun.ais.vt.edu/work/securing_nt.html
He's downright paranoid. But he's addressing more than just port 139 which
is what we are discussing. Interestingly I just put up a firewall system
using most of his techniques just today. That site pertains to NT 4, Win2K
is easier and IPSEC does most of those steps by policy rather than registry
hacking..
HTH
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:59:57 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > Most people, however, would opt to the free choice, which is the get the
> > > source and compile it, and then use it.
> > > All of this without you seeing a penny.
> > > Not to mention that someone else might take your application, make some
> > > minor changes, and sell it, profiting from *your* work.
> > > And if you design your application well, people won't *need* to call you
> for
> > > help.
> >
> > You've got some good points there.
> >
> > There is one form of non-monetary payment you get, which is the good
> > will of other developers who let you use their tools to do your work.
> >
> > I think what you say is most true when the application is large,
> > well-written, well-documented, and performs a popular function.
> > In that case, then the project can only be funded by a company
> > with sources of income from other projects. A good example is
> > Star Office. Another is IE.
>
> (MS)IE is not open source.
> Actually, I'm thinking more about things like Apache & MySQL as examples for
> how it can work for the benefit of all.
> The problem is how to make *profit* out of GPLed products.
> If anyone seen "Cabaret" (a decent movie about pre-nazi germany), you might
> remember the song "Money Makes the World Go Around"
>
> But what I'm saying is true for all well-designed software. It should be
> able to be used without *requiring* you to buy support.
> Buying support for a product you don't know well is a Good Thing. Especially
> something as critical as an OS, such a Linux or FreeBSD.
> That way you get people who get *paid* because they *know* how to fix the
> system to *help* you.
> The problem is that you can usually do *without* buying the support.
> Especially in the examples that I've said: Linux/FreeBSD
> Plenty of help avialable for free, of course, it might not be as good as you
> would get if you paid for support, but it's usually enough.
> Now, assuming that I make a good software, no matter what size it is, I
> would hope that people can learn to use it without *requiring* my help.
> Frankly, if I sell support and give the software away, I find myself in a
> conflict of interests. On the one hand, one of my definations of good
> software is that it's easy to use or learn.
I can only give you a couple of personal experiences, one as a customer,
the other as a programmer.
My company has purchased a big program for the administration, raw
materials, stock, production scheduling, billing, everything. The
program is reasonably well done, it is very flexible, and you may play
with hundred of options. Well, in principle we have the expertise to
handle it, and to set up the appropriate options as the need arises.
But we have our job to do, so we pay an annual fee, in order to have
someone, with good knowledge of the program to spend some time with
administration people, production people etc. listen to them, set up
options, suggest the best approach for a given problem, etc. In five
years we've spent twice or thrice as much as the original price. If the
program had been free, and the fee higher, it wouldn't have made a big
difference.
If the program had been bad, we'd have stopped paying after the first
year. Considering the company which provides the program, and the
assistance, I'd say that 20% of their revenue comes from selling the
program, 80% from selling the service. Should the source be freely
available, a second company could copy it, but could be in competition
only if they could provide a better service. The time it would take for
them to learn all the insides of the program compares with writing a new
one, while the original company works to produce next, better version.
My company is specialized in special purpose microprocessor based
industrial controls. We provide electronics to our customers which
manufacture mechanical machines, and then sell everything to the end
user. One of our customer has an internal lab with some expertise, so we
always supply the sources of the microprocessor programs, in order to
make it possible for them to quickly respond to particular requests from
end users. Well, when the modification is really minimal, they do it
themselves (usually with a telephone call to check that what they're
doing is correct). As soon as the modification is bigger than that, they
ask that we do it, because they've found out, out of experience, that we
do it faster, safer and cheaper. They had tried once to hire a
programmer of experience, have him implement some extra functions, and
they've been forced to ask us to run to help in Germany, where a machine
was failing a test for Bundes Post, because of some errors of the above
mentioned programmer of experience.
Of course, that's what keeps us on the market. If we weren't able to
provide better service at lower cost, we would be pushed out.
Can those experiences be extended to the whole world of software?
Almost everybody can fix the plumbing at home. But plumbers are among
the best paid professionals all around the world. (I can hear T. Max
Devlin yelling: COMPUTERS ARE NOT BATH TUBES, but analogies help to a
certain amount!)
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:00:13 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This frog shit beats the hell out of whale shit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And ALL the windows shit beats the living hell outta the
dinosaur
> > shit
> > > > unix
> > > > > > drags itself though.
> > > > >
> > > > > How would you know?
> > > >
> > > > Because I started in computers running unix and have graduated to
W2K.
> > >
> > > You sound like somebody who never ever understood unix in the first
place.
> > >
> >
> > Actually there are quite a few of us around. We started in the dark
days of
> > terminals now we've moved Open Systems into something really versatile
and
> > powerful, yet easy to use.
>
> Microsoft products are not Open Systems.
>
> The only systems which meet the definition of open systems are Unix-based,
> plus maybe Open VMS.
>
The way the systems work is the way Open Systems (Note: Open Source and
Open Systems are different concepts) were designed to, better than the
imitation mainframe systems that eunuchs have evolved into.
> Hope that helps, moron.
>
op cit.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
<stupid sig trimmed>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:01:48 GMT
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:57:51 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >> Uh huh. You're a NT/2k admin, I presume? How many hits/day do _you_
get?
> >>
> >
> >Not that many
>
> Well, that's my fucking point. For a living, I admin high-traffic boxes.
NT/2k
> just can't keep up with the load -- unix/clones can.
>
Benchmarks seem to prove otherwise.
>
> > because business runs on more than a web server.
>
> So? First, my job description ventures far further than administrating
just webservers, I'm
> just using webserving as one (1) example of where NT/2k can't keep up. In
any case, though, my
> point is, if NT/2k can't handle the stress of being a webserver, how is it
going to handle an
> equal amount of _any_ activity, webserving-related or not?
>
Then your question is moot.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> --
> J.C.
> "The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
> homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
>
> -- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:03:40 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Curtis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your example had me wondering though.
> > > > >
> > > > > What practical real world task are you doing with you real world
> > > > > operating system in the context of browsing that I can't achieve
> with
> > > > > IE? I use Netcaptor to be exact that uses the IE engine. I don't use
> OE.
> > > >
> > > > Avoiding Trojans comes to mind. Not to mention that NT/2000 require
> > > > some serious reconfiguration to avoid myriads of problems due to that
> > > > leaky boat called "port 139".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Two settings changes are 'serious reconfiguration' hell you can turn it
> on
> > > and off as desired. Or just implement IPSEC and still use it as
> designed.
> > >
> >
> > This link provides something more than two setting, in order
> > to provide a certain amount of security for NT. Is the
> > fellow crazy or you're oversimplifying a bit?
> >
> > http://bunbun.ais.vt.edu/work/securing_nt.html
>
> He's downright paranoid. But he's addressing more than just port 139 which
> is what we are discussing. Interestingly I just put up a firewall system
> using most of his techniques just today.
Means that you're paranoid too? ;-)
(Sorry I couldn't resist!)
> That site pertains to NT 4, Win2K
> is easier and IPSEC does most of those steps by policy rather than registry
> hacking..
>
> HTH
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
