Linux-Advocacy Digest #883, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Pan)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!} (kiwiunixman)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 14 Dec 2000 23:20:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Bob Hauck wrote:
:>
:> On 13 Dec 2000 22:28:33 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> wrote:
:>
:> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> >: Yes...the term liberal (root: liber = freedom) has been absconded
:> >: with by the freedom-hating socialists.
:> >
:> >Then why help then mis-use it? Stop calling them liberals then.
:>
:> If he called the Democrats "socialists" or "communists" then people
:> would think he's an extremist nutcase.
: Actually, I DO call them communists on a regular basis, and yes,
: people call me an extremist nutcase for simply telling the fucking truth.
Using the terms "liberal" and "communist" interchangably to describe
the same set of people is not telling the truth, though. You even
said yourself that the communists absconded with the term "liberal"
even though it shouldn't apply - so stop supporting this action
with your posts. To continue as you are is to paint all liberals
(both meanings) with the same brush.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:32:29 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>> Maybe, just maybe you can get one pinkie up to the Esc key, but
>>>>>> that is insufficient to operate the key painlessly.
>>>>> False.
>>>> Independent of keybaord?
>>> Yes, unless your keyboard is weird,
>> Ah, so your defense is that any keyboard that doesn't mean your
>> standards is "weird". Any keyboard that I can produce to support
>> my case is by your definition "weird".
> I just was looking for a new modem yesterday. I went to three different
> stores: (Specifically Best Buy, CompUSA, and, a local university supply
> place called "DoIT"). Out of curiosity while I was there I looked at
> the keyboards to see if any of them did not match the following
> description: "esc is closer to 'a' than left-arrow is to 'j'."
> All of them matched that description. Each and every one.
Therefore my keyboard is "weird"? I note that you didn't specify
the number of keyboards you looked at.
>>> and for whatever dishonest reason you are not telling us this.
>> You're erroneously presupposing a dishonest reason on my part, Steve.
> Okay, then what is the reason you aren't talking about it?
What makes you think I haven't been talking about it? I've been
telling you about it all along.
> Is it because you like prolonging the argument?
You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't been talking about it.
> Because you know you are wrong?
I am not wrong.
> What is it?
An erroneous presupposition on your part.
> Out with it, what's the reason?
You're still erroneously presupposing that I haven't been talking
about it.
>>>>>>> The escape key is all by itself, one key, easy to 'whack' without
>>>>>>> needing much accuracy (if you get all 'butterfingers' and slap the
>>>>>>> key on the edge, that's good enough).
>>>>>> With other editors, I don't need to do that.
>>>>> Yeah I know - more precision is needed.
>>>> How would more precision be needed to NOT strike a key (because it is
>>>> unnecesary)?
>>> If I hit half-off the escape key, I don't end up hitting
>>> another key next to it and getting the two-keypress problem.
>> If I don't need to hit a key at all, no precision at all is needed.
>> How can that be more precision?
> As you know perfectly well, this is not a comparasin of escape vs
> no escape. It's a comparasin of escape vs arrow keys - which one
> requires more precision (and therefore cannot just be 'whacked'
> with a slap in the general direction.)
An illogical comparison, given that one gets you out of a mode,
while the other moves the cursor around. Try comparing apples and
apples.
>> I say yes, from first-hand experience. It takes me less time to
>> not hit a key than it does to hit a key. How about you?
> If this were merely an argument about one single key, then what
> you said might have actually been relevant.
Above you were talking about one single key, namely Esc.
> It's about the use of hjkl cursor movement (which INCLUDES using
> esc) vs arrow key movement.
Above you said it was just a comparison of "escape vs arrow keys".
Do make up your mind.
> I'm not arguing that esc is faster than not hitting
> any key (and you already know this). I'm arguing that hjkL, with
> it's associated use of ESC, taken as a whole, is faster than using
> the arrows, taken as a whole.
And I disagree with your argument. Apparently you don't like
that, hence this lengthy discussion. Why do you have such
trouble accepting that a different person might find something
else more efficient than you do? It's rather arrogant for you
to sit there and insist that because you find your way faster,
it must be faster for everyone.
> Normally I'd assume that common sense would take over from here
> on out,
Instead, your arrogance has taken over.
> but in your case I'll spell it out: If hitting esc is slower
> than not hitting it, BUT hitting hjkl is faster than using the
> arrows, then overall, it is still possible for the hjkl method
> to be faster, depending on the ratio of time spent on hjkl vs
> time spent hitting escape.
"possible"
"depending"
There, you just agreed with me that it won't necessarily be any
faster. So what's your problem?
> In my experience, hjkl + esc is the faster way.
Not my experience. Strange that you don't want to accept that.
>>>> It can; it can cut the number of keystrokes in half.
>>> Only if you have superhuman timing, of your key-repeat rate
>>> is amazingly slow. Getting exactly two keypresses and no more
>>> by using the key repeat is hard. Slowing the repeat down to the
>>> point where this is possible leads to other annoyances (taking
>>> a long time to type something like /*---------------------*/).
>> Not nearly as annoying as your argument. Do you really think that
>> autorepeat is used for two instances?
> No, I don't. That was precisely my point,
On the contrary, you were talking about moving a long way, probably
gearing up to tout the count prefix of vi, while forgetting that
autorepeat prevents me from having to hit the key the number of
times I want to move. Thus you rushed in with your two count
example.
> Mr. "reading comprehension".
How ironic.
> I was showing you that autorepeat doesn't eliminate the need to
> hold you hand over the arrow keys for a time while you tap several
> keys.
I don't need to tap "several" keys. I hold one key down.
> You recognized that the example I gave doesn't work well
> for auto-repeat,
The first example you gave works well with auto-repeat, so you
engaged in demage control by adding that two count example.
> but failed to see that this was exactly my point.
On the contrary, you were talking about moving a long way, probably
gearing up to tout the count prefix of vi, while forgetting that
autorepeat prevents me from having to hit the key the number of
times I want to move. Thus you rushed in with your two count
example. By the way, it's often slower to try and count the
number of lines I might want to move, so the count prefix of a vi
movement command can be slower than using autorepeat and simply
stopping when you get there.
>> Yet that's the example you
>> tried to use. (Note that your example came AFTER my reference to
>> "autorepeat", which followed your reference to "several times".
>> Is "two" your idea of "several"?)
Note: no response. But thanks for leaving the evidence intact
that you referred to "several times" originally, not "two".
>>>>>>> so hitting them with a twisted wrist, using your stretched
>>>>>>> pinkie, doesn't work.
>>>>>> Works just as well as for the Esc key.
>>>>> I will never agree to that premise without a demonstration. It
>>>>> doesn't seem possible if you are a human being using a standard
>>>>> keyboard.
>>>> Yet you expect me to agree to your premise without a demonstration.
>>> Here's my demonstration: measure the distance between 'a' and 'esc',
>>> compare to the distance between 'j' and 'left-arrow'.
>> You don't want to believe my measurement, or you dismiss my keyboard
>> as "weird". How convenient for you.
> All you have to do is name the keyboard - what make and model is it,
> Given that I can probably find a diagram of it or a picture somewhere.
> If you refuse to do that, I'll have to assume you are lying.
Such arrogance. Have you mentioned the make and model of your keyboard?
> NONE of the seperate keyboards I can find on the market today fit your
> argument.
Some keyboards aren't separate.
> If you want to back up your argument, then name the keyboard or shut up.
Practice what you preach, Steve,
> The only keyboards that fit your claim are an occasional laptop layout
> here and there.
Something "weird" about a laptop, especially nowadays?
> Is that what you have?
I have several computers, including several portables.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:36:48 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Repeating it is pointless.
>> Especially without any supporting evidence.
> Go into any fucking computer store and right before your eyes
> will be anywhwere from 5 to 15 examples right on display.
Why bother when I already have a keyboard in front of me?
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:40:41 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> JFS was probably not that much work to port to Linux, since it already ran
> on AIX. And DB2 is most certianly not free. I took "1500 Linux developers"
> to mean 1500 people working on linux, not 1500 people working on code that
> runs on linux.
>
> Even so, 1500 developers should be producing a ton more than this.
1500 developers writing a host of vertical applications to service their
client pool, less the number of people who worked on porting linux to
their entire line of servers, plus DB/2, plus a communications protocol
whose name is eluding me at the moment, plus application developers
building websphere and a host of visualage tools that have been ported
to linux, plus the IBMers who worked on porting domino to linux,
etc.etc.etc.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:36:15 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard.
>> My keyboard is quite standard, Steve.
>>> If yours is different, then say it or shut up.
>> Practice what you preach, Steve.
> I would, except that mine isn't "different".
Mine isn't "different" either.
> There *IS* a standard 101 and 104 key layout pattern,
Including specifications on spacing?
> that the vast majority of keyboards sold use.
Evidence, please.
> I could list them all, but then again I don't have all day.
It's so much easier to pontificate.
> Let's just start with the one in front of me:
> IBM KB-8923
The IBM part numbers I'm familiar with start with two digits,
then a letter, and then four digits. ANd for some reason, IBM
likes to have part numbers and FRU numbers that are different.
> I've seen keyboards on Dells, Gateways, Compaqs, Sparc stations, SGI
> Indy's, SGI O2's, IBM 3151 terminals, DEC VT220 terminals. They all
> fit my argument, the only exception being the one I already mentioned,
> a few laptops have layouts that are unique to them. (with the
> arrow keys up above the number row, on the right.)
Your experience seems to be rather limited.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:38:35 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> so I invite any onlookers to just look upward in this thread at other
>>> posts by tholen.
>> And they'll see me talking about the use of those keys for cursor
>> movement, the qualifier that you conveniently left out.
> It's irrelevant to the argument.
On the contrary, it's central to your claim that I left out the
qualifier.
> It's not a qualifier on to whom it is intuitive.
Huh?
> (More pendantry on your part).
That statement, whatever it's supposed to mean, it purely yours, Steve.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!}
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:41:54 +1300
I regularly logon onto sun.com, and have never, in the 3 years of being
a part of the sun developer connection, experienced any problems.
Secondly, the hotmail site runs on a cluster of Windows 2000 Servers
(Personally, I don't classify Windows as a server platform, rather a
glorified desktop OS on a powerful computer).
kiwiunixman
<snype>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:39:59 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> Forgetting to type it doesn't change the fact that you thought Aaron
>>>> wrote something that he didn't write, Steve. That's an example of a
>>>> reading comprehension problem.
>>> Uhm - yes it does change it. The omission was on the output side,
>>> not the input side. (I read it correctly, but failed to write
>>> it back out correctly.)
>> Either way, it's your problem, not mine.
> I admitted it when I made the error. You still kept up with the
> claim that I didn't know what Aaron meant.
Because you kept up with the claim that he said "nothing is intuitive".
> That makes you a liar.
Balderdash, Steve. I haven't lied about what you wrote.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:41:48 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
>>>>> You didn't say so.
>>>> I shouldn't need to say so for those who understand context.
>>>>> (See I can be a pendantic pain too. Your game is fun.)
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game, Steve.
>>> Sorry, I was giving you too much benefit of the doubt again.
>> Where was the alleged benefit of the doubt?
> Assuming you weren't malevolent, and that this was all just a
> prank or a game to you.
Are those the only choices? It's either a prank/game or something
malevolent? Such arrogance!
>>> I guess this deceptiveness is about something serious and important
>>> to you then, which actually makes it worse than a game.
>> What alleged deceptiveness, Steve? Yours?
> This deserves no reply.
Translation: you can't substantiate your claim.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:44:35 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> There isn't a concrete cutoff line, since everything in natural
>>>>> languages is at least slightly relative. I put "intuitive" way
>>>>> out there as much more realative than words like "twist" or
>>>>> "stretch", which describe specific types of motion.
>>>> But not amounts of motion. Is 5 millimeters a stretch? Or does it
>>>> need to be 10? Maybe 20? Is 10 degrees of rotation a twist? Or
>>>> does it need to be 20? Maybe 30?
>>> The distance is irrelevant to the term.
>> The distance is quite relevant to your usage of the term.
> Get with the program, and try to actually read my posts for once.
You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't actually read your posts,
Steve.
> I already refined what I said when I realized I was dealing with
> a pendantic twit.
I see that you're now taking the Aaron Kulkis approach: invective
rather than a logical argument.
> I refined it to not 'as much', rather than not at all. That was
> several days ago.
And did you read my response several days ago?
> [rest deleted, as it is irrelevant in light of the above]
Yet another pontification.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:48:00 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91a8rt$9tk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:a3ZZ5.16358$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It suprises me that all you OSS and GPL developers (the distinction
is
> > > > really lost on me) really like the fact that you are making large
> > > > corporations tons of money on the cuff. IBM, Sun, Corel et. al.
must
> be
> > > > laughing all the way to the bank. Will you please explain why you
> wish
> > to
> > > > give away the sweat of your brow?
> > >
> > > Well, these corporations are also giving a lot back to the open
source
> > > community. IBM has open sourced AFS and JFS, for example.
> > >
> > > Gary
> >
> > But didn't Sun promise worlds of support to the Linux community. Cross
> > platform Apps IIRC. They made Solaris run Linux stuff but aren't you
> still
> > waiting for the Solaris packages for Linux?
>
> Here is a thought, when Linux would be able to run Solaris applications,
you
> can get IE to Linux.
>
It might even be useful in that case.
<GRIN>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:49:01 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > But didn't Sun promise worlds of support to the Linux community. Cross
> > platform Apps IIRC. They made Solaris run Linux stuff but aren't you
still
> > waiting for the Solaris packages for Linux?
> >
> >
>
> And how exactly does this indicate the end of of Open Source??
>
Sun et al. are siphoning off resources without paying for them, then
reselling the results, eventually even you twits will get tired of working
for free and quit.
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:51:02 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> > The rest of these responses were largely idiots explaining how to
falsify
> > registration info or people just up in arms over a simple and true
> > observation.
>
> You said that there has been no further development on the GPL version,
> which is false: There have already been 3 build versions in the last 3
> months are no fewer than 20 teams moving the Open Office project
> forward, and parts of it have already been integrated into the gnone
> project's office suite.
>
Links please.
> You can stick your head in the sand and ignore the truth of the
> situation when it gets pointed out to you, but it won't change the
> facts. The only observation one can make about your post is that you
> either had no clue what happened to what happened to S.O. after it was
> GPL'd, or you simply lied. Which is it?
>
I just did a search on SO and found one, repeat one, hit that pointed to Sun
who cliamed to own SO. I don't care about Wildebeest licensing I was
looking for allegedly free software and found it owned by one of the biggest
whores in the industry.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:52:06 GMT
"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <PRVZ5.14004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad C.
> Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:45:08 -0500,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> ><trimmed>
> >> >>
> >> >> Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
> >> >> never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
> >> >> have this capability yet.
> >> >
> >> >.....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
> >> >
> >>
> >> And spell checked.
> >>
> >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> >> They stole Windows from apple.
> >
> >Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
>
> Four things:
>
> Apple was already working on these ideas and visiting Xerox was merely
> the spark that turned higher management on to the concept.
>
Bull.
> You can't really steal something when you pay for it.
>
When did they pay?
> Xerox didn't get paid much because they didn't realize what they had.
>
> When Apple started with the idea they had no way of knowing it was a
> success. Microsoft just plagiarized someone else's success.
>
Bull.
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to
that
> wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
> bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:52:55 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:919k7i$f2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2QVZ5.13988$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:38:14 +0200,
> > > Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > >We are talking about Win2K systems here, if you want to talk about
the
> > Win9x
> > > >problems, I'll be more than happy to join the conversation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then why do you keep refering to NT all the time.
> > > And your statement is incorrect, see below.
> > >
> > >
> > > >> This is the point. And it's a point which is totally
> > > >> un-arguable.
> > > >
> > > >Win2K/NT/Whistler protect the system from users unless they are
running
> > as
> > > >administrators.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not true, see below.
> > >
> > >
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > >Actually, WinME tries to protect the user without going to true multi
> > user
> > > >enviroment, it does this by basically reducing the user to non-root
> > level,
> > > >with no way to access root level privileges short of hacking its own
> > system.
> > > >It's one of the main complaints that I've against WinME.
> > > >
> > > >The NT line offer this protection, and this is the one that we are
> > talking
> > > >about here.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong again buddy.
> > >
> > > I can log into any W2K box as a common user, write a program
> > > which can corrupt the Win/system directories, run the program,
> > > and cripple the system. Why? Because they have no sense
> > > of program ownership for software YOU write.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong answer, on a properly configured system with rather simple
> protections
> > set, a user written program will not have access to those directories or
> > even the registry.
>
> This is incorrect, actually, the program would've the user's rights,
> therefor, assuming default configurations, the program could read HKLM &
> System dirs, but wouldn't be able to write to them.
> They have access, but not write/modify/delete access, which you need in
> order to cripple the system.
>
A user can be denied read access to critical areas of the registry if
desired.
>
>
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:53:55 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BGZZ5.43389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mDXZ5.15285$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > If you speak of Linux you could point to APT-GET Dselect
> > > or RPM as firsts within the *nix community.
> > >
> >
> > They are just variations on Sun's package manager
>
> Which is a variation (or maybe the same) as the SysV
> package manager.
>
My point exactly.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
