Linux-Advocacy Digest #836, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: switching to linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Les Mikesell")
Re: undefined reference to `__eh_pc' (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Michael")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:09:47 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
can
> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> >>
> >
> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when you
> >install a wrong application.
> >
> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications and
> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
> >
>
> <snipage>
>
> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
>
> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
> is not an operating system.
Show me the OS that can't be taken down by an applicaiton having root
privileges.
This is what we are talking about.
> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
> application in itself.
I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
Application do crush, and sometimes (rarely, btw) it's bad enough that I've
to log off & on to recover from the crush, but that is about it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:14:01 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:09:47 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
>> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
>can
>> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when you
>> >install a wrong application.
>> >
>> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
>> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications and
>> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
>> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
>> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
>> >
>>
>> <snipage>
>>
>> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
>>
>> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
>> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
>> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
>> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
>> is not an operating system.
>
>Show me the OS that can't be taken down by an applicaiton having root
>privileges.
>This is what we are talking about.
>
>> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
>> application in itself.
>
>I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
>Application do crush, and sometimes (rarely, btw) it's bad enough that I've
>to log off & on to recover from the crush, but that is about it.
>
>
>
At least *nix has a root. What is Windows excuse.
Anybody, any common user can take down their system.
This is the point. And it's a point which is totally
un-arguable.
True, You CAN cripple a *nix to emulate the same thing.
You can also pretend your dick is a pogo stick and go
bouncing down the sidewalk for all I care.
But Windows has no protection from this.
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:14:07 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
can
> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> >>
> >
> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when you
> >install a wrong application.
> >
> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications and
> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
> >
>
> <snipage>
>
> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
>
> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
> is not an operating system.
>
> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
> application in itself.
>
> Charlie
>
I would agree with you when referring to Win9x/ME, however when you enter
the NT/2000 family the game changes significantly. BTW, eunuchs are just as
susceptible to bad programming as windows and a programmer running as root
or some other privileged user can just as easily bring the system to it's
knees with a runaway process, some idiot fills swap completely and you are
toast.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:15:57 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:14:07 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
>> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
>can
>> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when you
>> >install a wrong application.
>> >
>> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
>> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications and
>> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
>> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
>> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
>> >
>>
>> <snipage>
>>
>> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
>>
>> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
>> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
>> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
>> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
>> is not an operating system.
>>
>> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
>> application in itself.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>
>I would agree with you when referring to Win9x/ME, however when you enter
>the NT/2000 family the game changes significantly. BTW, eunuchs are just as
>susceptible to bad programming as windows and a programmer running as root
>or some other privileged user can just as easily bring the system to it's
>knees with a runaway process, some idiot fills swap completely and you are
>toast.
>
Windows has no user accounting system. Linux and the *nix does.
This is not true.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:18:20 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9173km$gt7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The folders aren't so much of a problem as the menus because you
> > > > > > can at least type one letter of a name to jump somewhere that
> might
> > > > > > be close (depending...).
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are the menus a problem?
> > > >
> > > > How do you get 'close' to something in a menu, or temporarily
> > > > sort it to float the thing you want to the top?
> > >
> > > You type the uderlined letter.
> >
> > The Start/Programs menu doesn't have any.
>
> I know, and in this case, you need to type the first letter of the item
you
> seek.
> If there are several, you'll be brought to the first of them.
> If there is only one that start by this letter, you'll activate it.
Oh, I guess this does work under some circumstances - it never did the
ways I had tried before. Normally I slide the highlight across from
the 'Programs' directly to the adjacent menu item which pops out
its sub-menu. Even with the highlight on the main menu item a
letter key would active a matching item from this submenu, but I
didn't expect that and in fact had never hit a character that happened
to match before. Anyway, even using only the keyboard to open
the program menu, hitting a letter doesn't necessarily get me close
to the right place because the list isn't sorted alphabetically.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:23:26 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9173ko$gt7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > How many things are you talking about?
> >
> > A hundred or so are already annoying.
>
> Then do it like this, create directories inside start>programs and arrange
> your shortcuts there in them.
>
> Games
> Development Tools
> Graphics
> Utilities
>
> and so on.
My desktop is already mostly folders of dozens of things each.
> > > You've desktop, quick launch, assortment of bars of your choice, start
> > menu,
> > > programs, how long do you think it will take you to fill all of them?
> >
> > About a day. If I did everything through a GUI there would have to be
> > thousands.
>
> With all due respect, I find this hard to believe that you ran thousands
of
> programs daily, so you will need easy access to any of them.
The reason for having a menu at all (if there is one), should be for access
to the things you don't use often enough to remember, shouldn't it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:31:46 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9172p6$gjg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > You said "...regardless of the user...". That includes privileges of
ALL
> > > kinds.
> > >
> >
> > No, with real computers the user is not the same as the administrator.
>
> Who do you think set up win2k systems? Administrator-privileged users,
> therefor, the point stand.
Like I said, on real computers the administrator is not a user even if
it is the same person wearing a different hat.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: switching to linux
Date: 12 Dec 2000 23:32:53 -0700
"migs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hi...
> im thinking of switching to linux and have installers for redhat
> caldera, suse, and slackware.
> is there any diff between these distriburtions??? if so what are the pros
> and cons??
If you have to ask, you'd probably better stick with RedHat or Suse.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:37:58 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:14:07 GMT,
> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
> >> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
> >can
> >> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when
you
> >> >install a wrong application.
> >> >
> >> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
> >> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications
and
> >> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
> >> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
> >> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
> >> >
> >>
> >> <snipage>
> >>
> >> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
> >>
> >> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
> >> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
> >> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
> >> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
> >> is not an operating system.
> >>
> >> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
> >> application in itself.
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >>
> >
> >I would agree with you when referring to Win9x/ME, however when you enter
> >the NT/2000 family the game changes significantly. BTW, eunuchs are just
as
> >susceptible to bad programming as windows and a programmer running as
root
> >or some other privileged user can just as easily bring the system to it's
> >knees with a runaway process, some idiot fills swap completely and you
are
> >toast.
> >
>
> Windows has no user accounting system. Linux and the *nix does.
>
Windows 9x and ME have no user accounting system.
Windows NT and Windows 2000 do.
> This is not true.
>
Correct.
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:45:05 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YCCZ5.5579$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Open source is dying. It is being hijacked by the Corporate big wigs. Sun,
> Corel, Redhat and IBM are doing everyone a favor by destroying the anarchy
> that is open source software. I just started a download of StarOffice
5.2.
> (no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year ago) and
had
> to submit a lengthy registration document and license agreement with Sun.
> Free software indeed. Now I have an additional, largely useless, office
> application, but I'll be bombarded by advertising from Sun. I'd rather
pay
> and not have these intrusions into my life.
If you are really interested in the future of open source, why aren't
you going to http://www.openoffice.org instead of Sun? StarOffice
never was open source so you can hardly predict a trend in open
source based on the 5.2 version or anything that happens to it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: undefined reference to `__eh_pc'
Date: 12 Dec 2000 23:46:28 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:25:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Link using g++.
>
> >Didn't work ;-(
>
> Well, I don't know then. You're sure you have libstdc++ installed?
> Your compiler isn't missing any runtime support that goes in
> /usr/lib/libgcc/compiler-version? I have:
>
> [bobh@nebo egcs-2.91.66]$ dir
> total 4590
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 88205 Aug 10 1999 SYSCALLS.c.X
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1619453 Aug 10 1999 cc1*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2072865 Aug 10 1999 cc1plus*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 118512 Aug 10 1999 cpp*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1888 Aug 10 1999 crtbegin.o
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2048 Aug 10 1999 crtbeginS.o
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1420 Aug 10 1999 crtend.o
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1624 Aug 10 1999 crtendS.o
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1024 Sep 10 1999 include/
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 763576 Aug 10 1999 libgcc.a
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1927 Aug 10 1999 specs
> [bobh@nebo egcs-2.91.66]$ pwd
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/egcs-2.91.66
> [bobh@nebo egcs-2.91.66]$
>
> Anyway, if this doesn't help you might try asking in one of the gnu
> or linux development groups.
I tried this:
find /lib -name '*.so' -exec nm {} \; | grep __eh_pc
find /usr/lib -name '*.so' -exec nm {} \; | grep __eh_pc
And came up with no matches; it's not a symbol in any standard library
on my system here (RedHat 6.2).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: no.alt.arkiv,tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:58:24 +1000
"Jackal Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:916rve$28q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Paul Colquhoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> wrote:
> > That report is 18 months old. Here is a more recent report
> > where Linux outperforms Windows by about 3 to 1
> >
> > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-07-05-001-04-OP
> >
> > 18 months is a long time in the computer industry.
>
> The two machines have DIFFERENT hardware configurations. There is no base
> for comparision. This report does not show that Linux outperforms Windows
in
> any sense... :-|
Neither did the mindcraft tests considering the amount of tweaking and swap
given to the NT machine, none for the linux machine. You may also like to
note that they were testing a claim about the linux kernel (I can't remember
what, too long ago) and they used a kernel that predated the claim. The
test was shown to be biased.
Yet again Jackal you prove yourself to be either troll, or just plain
stupid, which is it?
-m
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
