Linux-Advocacy Digest #54, Volume #31 Mon, 25 Dec 00 13:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Andres Soolo)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows SUX ("Richard J. Donovan")
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Todd")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Todd")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (petilon)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Todd")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? ("Todd")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Todd")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (SwifT -)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 25 Dec 2000 15:49:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> its' predecessor too. Hell, Charles Manson is more stable than NT.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That would make a great .sig line...
No! Noooo! Please! Please don't ...
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Conscience doth make cowards of us all.
-- Shakespeare
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 16:06:18 GMT
On 25 Dec 2000 15:49:57 GMT, Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> its' predecessor too. Hell, Charles Manson is more stable than NT.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is one of those VERY TRUE statements found right here on COLA!
If you want stability, you will use Linux.
If you want a very naughty, unstable OS, you will go the
Microshaft WAY!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Richard J. Donovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 16:34:40 GMT
> Linux doesn't run it only b/c MS won't port it.
But if MS did port Office to Linux, who would use it anyway? Office
isn't any good in Windows; would portage eliminate the dancing paper
clip and introduce Reveal Codes?
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:35:45 -0700
You're making the same mistake you've been making all along. It's getting
NO uptime from you so you can't use yourself as an example. If what happens
in your situation happens "in many cases", then we'd see a lot of sites with
no uptime reported. What site does
it pull the OS from the webserver and the uptime from the firewall? You
claim this happens but you haven't given an example. In your case Netcraft
knows that the firewall isn't providing the data correctly or isn't
providing the data at all (we're not privy to what they're getting, only
their interpretation).
Show a concrete example where this happens, not the theoretical possibility.
Adam Ruth
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DFE16.142$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If the OS is detected correctly, and the uptime returned for that system
> is
> > accurate. Then what diff does it make whether it is listed as a
webserver
> or
> > firewall if what you are after is uptime ?
>
> You're making the same mistake you've been making all along. You're
> assuming that Netcraft will identify a web server with a firewall as the
> firewall, but that's not what happens in many cases (including my own).
>
> Netcraft reports the server and OS as Linux, but it's getting it's uptime
> data from my firewall, which is neither Linux or Unix based (actually it's
> getting no uptime at all because my firewall doesn't give out that data).
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:47:11 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:926u8o$h0a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >funny, that I had win95 for 5 years before I upgraded, and in
> >all that time, never had an application not install becuase
> >it needed something else to be there before it installed.
>
> You don't install many games, do you? DirectX seems to be legendary for
> always being one version behind what your software actually wants...
FUD.
I use my Windows 2000 Advanced Server box for all of my work *plus* games.
I installed DirectX 8.0 from the 'windows update' menu item.
Installed without a hitch, didn't have to do anything.
All of my games run fun. BTW, I play AOE II - the conquerors, Tribes, Earth
2150, Ground Control, Alpha Centauri (and the expansion), StarCraft, and a
couple others now and then.
All work flawlessly under Windows 2000.
DirectX is so simple to upgrade, it is almost invisible.
Now let's get back to how difficult it is to install stuff on Linux...
-Todd
>
> Bernie
> --
> The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the
> intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon
> Sir John Eric Ericksen
> British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:50:45 +0800
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, I wanted to try this program that is supposed to be good.
> >
> > When I tried to install AbiWord using rpm, I get the error
> >
> > "only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of
RPM"
> >
> > Ok, after searching the net, I found rpm version 4 out there
> > (I was using rpm 3.0.3). So, I download rpm for rpm 4.0, but
> > when I try to install rpm 4.0 using my current rpm, I also get
> > the same error.
> >
> > So, I search the net again, and I find someone saying that rpm 3.0.5
> > will not give the above error. So, I search for rpm 3.0.5 and
downdownload
> > the rpm file for it.
> >
> > I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
> >
> > error: failed dependencies:
> > textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> > sh-utils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> > bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> > libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> >
> > Ok, so I hit the net again searching for textutils, I download
> > it, then I do
>
> Funny, just click on gnorpm and pick abiword -- it does all this for
> you. But, if you insist on using the wrong tool for hte job then go
> ahead.
>
> Gnorpm is an example; there are several such tools including rpmfind,
> which will do dependencies.
>
> Now, how to I update my Windows 2000 machine from the command line
> again? Remotely?
If you want to do it via the command line, you can use Telnet or for more
security, go with rcmd. If you want to use the GUI remotely, fire up
terminal services (administration, not user).
Very easy.
There are more powerful tools to remotely update more than one machine
automatically if you are administering many computers (say an IT job), but
that would be way off topic... what is on topic is that with Linux, it is
hard to install stuff period. Forget remote capabilities... it is hard
enough to use when you are directly on the console!
-Todd
-Todd
>
> I thought not.
>
> --
> 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: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 25 Dec 2000 08:06:00 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL" says...
>
> Tee Hee. I wonder how the lawsuit against Microsoft by the DOJ will progress
> now that Janet Reno is suffering from "boot-in-ass" syndrome and John
> Ashcroft (the STAUNCH conservative) will be at the helm going after REAL
> criminals instead of successfull businesses? Tee Hee :-)
>
It isn't up to just Ashcroft.
There are 19 states to deal with:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/359/business/Not_off_the_hook+.shtml
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:58:48 +0800
"Zane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7KK06.250$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At work we use Windows NT on workstations and the other day people got
> email with an attached virus. The virus reformatted that persons hardrive
> if they clicked on the attachment.
>
> I thought the purpose of NT was to protect the workstation from being
> manipulated either from the user of that workstation or from an outside
> source. Isn't that why you have an administrator login versus a login for
> a user?
If NT is set up appropriately for security, you can configure NT for
multiple users -- giving access to that user's files - nothing more.
If you insist on being logged in as Administrator, well, you take your
chances.
> Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
First of all, most of the Linux hackers are the ones making viruses for
Windows machines because they hate Microsoft and Windows so much. So you
won't find many Linux viruses... hmmm... maybe I should start :)
Secondly, if you are logged in as root all of the time, you are again taking
your chances.
I wouldn't worry about viruses using Linux... most of us Windows programmers
need to get real work done and we don't sit around trying to destroy other
peoples' computer files.
-Todd
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:10:43 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:58:48 +0800,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Zane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:7KK06.250$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> At work we use Windows NT on workstations and the other day people got
>> email with an attached virus. The virus reformatted that persons hardrive
>> if they clicked on the attachment.
>>
>> I thought the purpose of NT was to protect the workstation from being
>> manipulated either from the user of that workstation or from an outside
>> source. Isn't that why you have an administrator login versus a login for
>> a user?
>
>If NT is set up appropriately for security, you can configure NT for
>multiple users -- giving access to that user's files - nothing more.
>
This is presuming you can keep it up long enough to do anything.
>If you insist on being logged in as Administrator, well, you take your
>chances.
>
BTW for the clueless, Administrator is something they introduced with
the NT series. Before that they had no concept of a super user.
The Super User concept was indeed stolen from the Unix arena.
And YES, as any moron would know, using Unix as the super user all
the time will lead to disaster.
>> Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
>
>First of all, most of the Linux hackers are the ones making viruses for
>Windows machines because they hate Microsoft and Windows so much. So you
>won't find many Linux viruses... hmmm... maybe I should start :)
>
This is incorrect. The Phillipines kid who release I-LOVE-YOU didn't
even run Linux. He was majoring in writing Windows software and
was using Visual Basic. The I love you VIRUS was created using Visual
Basic and Windows 98. It was not created using Linux.
Those are the facts....
>Secondly, if you are logged in as root all of the time, you are again taking
>your chances.
>
Notice how the typical Windows user has to emphasize and RE-emphasize the
obvious to the Unix user. This is because in his windows world the concept
of a super user is NEW to him. It is a NEW experience for the Windows user
to have any control over his environment at all.
It is like a 5 year old child who's just found his fathers gun.
He triumphantly carry's the weapon all around the house showing everyone
his new found power.
>I wouldn't worry about viruses using Linux... most of us Windows programmers
>need to get real work done and we don't sit around trying to destroy other
>peoples' computer files.
>
>-Todd
>
Notice how the typical Windows user has to emphasize and RE-emphasize everything
to his reading audience. It's like his reading - target audience has no
brain. They MUST have this information BEATEN INTO THEM before the learning
experience begins.
In reality this beating is wrong, his ideaology is wrong, his foundations
are wrong. There is nothing right about the Windows world.
And it should be obvious to anybody with 1/2 a brain can see, going the
Windows way is the wrong way. If you consider yourself intelligent
then Linux is the way to go. Don't go the Windows way.
Your a grown adult now. Your not some wimpering 5 year old in his fathers
back yard sandbox with your tonka toys. You are a BIG BOY NOW!!!!
Use Linux and quit acting like a 5 year old.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:31 +0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft Windows got where it is by the crime and villainy of Bill
> Gates.
First of all, that statement is false. I *chose* to use Windows 2000
because it lets me do more than Linux by a long shot. Linux is simply too
frustrating to use to be useful at this point.
> Linux's world domination depends on being being the best OS available.
As with most any product.
> This is neither unobtainable nor unreachable.
True.
> The questions are: what is
> missing? and, What do we need to do?
There is sooooooooo much that needs to be done with Linux to convince users
of OSes like Windows 2000... there is so much to list that I doubt my SMTP
server could handle the email.
Furthermore, I doubt most Linux users would even know the user requirements
of an OS these days. They are still in the 'old school' way of thinking
where a kernel should be 1MB even when there are 1 terabyte ram chips in
development. <sigh>
That is why Linux will *never* replace windows... it is not because it
doesn't have potential, it's because of the users.
I'm sure you don't even understand what I am talking about.
-Todd
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:24:26 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> Probably so since "Mein Kampf" was required reading for the German poplace.
> Fortunately, its' American audience is confined to run-down trailer parks
> and is of no consequence.
We can hope it stays that way. Keep your wits about you.
> I find Al Franken far more irritating than Rush. Mostly because he is an
> painfully non-funny comedian. He, David Brenner, and Garry Shandling set my
> teeth on edge.
He writes some pretty good stuff for Soldier of Fortune, I hear. I read
a nice parody of Rush, Gingrich, George Will, in Vietnam. Very funny!
Perhaps you've become insensitive to subtlety and nuance in comedy?
Maybe I just find everything too funny!
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:31:45 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:31 +0800,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Microsoft Windows got where it is by the crime and villainy of Bill
>> Gates.
>
>First of all, that statement is false. I *chose* to use Windows 2000
>because it lets me do more than Linux by a long shot. Linux is simply too
>frustrating to use to be useful at this point.
>
He just walked into a COMP-USA or a BEST BUY and said let me compare
operating systems. And the salesman showed him about 63 computers
all loaded with Windows 2000 and Window 2000 ME so he CHOSE Windows 2000!
Brilliant!
>> Linux's world domination depends on being being the best OS available.
>
>As with most any product.
>
Nope! It depends on stacking the desk at the consumer sites.
That's what it depends on. They typical consumer doesn't know
the difference between a good operating system and his butthole.
I reference you as the truth for this statement.
>> The questions are: what is
>> missing? and, What do we need to do?
>
>There is sooooooooo much that needs to be done with Linux to convince users
>of OSes like Windows 2000... there is so much to list that I doubt my SMTP
>server could handle the email.
>
There is NOTHING Windows 2000 server offers which Linux doesn't already
offer. Nothing.
>Furthermore, I doubt most Linux users would even know the user requirements
>of an OS these days. They are still in the 'old school' way of thinking
>where a kernel should be 1MB even when there are 1 terabyte ram chips in
>development. <sigh>
>
There is positively NO advantage in having a bloated Kernel with function
will NEVER be used by anybody. This is why we have modules and don't build
eveything into the Kernel. If you have a particular Video card or particular
NIC card which needs supporting, then only that module is loaded.
The Windows way is to load every module for every video card, NIC card,
hard drive, and every peripheral into your RAM and waste it with all that
useless crap your NOT using nor will you EVER USE as you don't have
10,000 different kinds of NIC cards! You have only one!
It is positively FOOLISH to bragg about a kernel which exceeds 1 mb in
size.
>That is why Linux will *never* replace windows... it is not because it
>doesn't have potential, it's because of the users.
>
If you saying Linux will NEVER become a bloated slow peice of shit!, I'd
agree with you. It will never topple Windows crown seat for bloated,
bluescreening, expensive, useless pile of shit of an operating system
crowned thrown!
>I'm sure you don't even understand what I am talking about.
>
>-Todd
>
Oh yes, We do! We understand that your a nitwit and you don't seem
to care who knows either.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:24:04 +0800
"Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EhF%5.16475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is Windows really easier to use than Linux?
Yes. Very much so. So much very much so.
-Todd
> Bracy
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:34:02 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> As for Borland, the last decent compiler they did, IMHO, was C++ 2.0 for
> Windows 3.1. I haven't seen any of their stuff recently though, aside from
> Delphi.
I thought BC++ 3.1 was the last good one! Actually, the free compiler
that Borland gives away, version 5.5, is not too bad, especially if
you also download the free debugger. It's a better compiler than
M$'s. It's even better, in some ways, than gcc, mainly because it
has a decent STL (from Rogue Wave). I've been able to build gcc-2.95.2
and add in the STLport package, though, so that I can finally compile
the code that Borland compiles, under Linux. gcc is pretty incredible,
and a real testament to open source.
I hate when someone says "you get what you pay for", because it is
quite often not true, and its converse, "you pay for what you get",
isn't always true either.
Again, though, "No fucker ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
Bleh.
Chris
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 18:44:56 +0100
On 24 Dec 2000 steve@x wrote:
> I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
>
> error: failed dependencies:
> textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> sh-utils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
>
> Ok, so I hit the net again searching for textutils, I download
> it, then I do
>
> root>rpm -Uhv textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm
> only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of RPM
> error: textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm cannot be installed
I didn't get the same errors (actually, I installed RPM 3.0.5 without any
problems) but I think I know how you can solve yours.
First, you should look after *older* versions of textutils etc...,
versions that already were available when RPM 3.0.5 got out. You'll find
these on rpmfind.net. After installing these, you can upgrade to 3.0.5 (do
NOT use RPM 4, since there aren't a lot of people using it, so further
trouble could become difficult to resolve). After that, you can use
V4-RPM's (and, if necessary, upgrade the textutils etc... to the latest
version).
And please, don't argue with "Linux sux because I had to use old versions
to upgrade", since it is easy to argue that Windows has the same troubles,
and we'll get in an infinity loop...
--
SwifT
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
