Linux-Advocacy Digest #57, Volume #31 Mon, 25 Dec 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (Tesla Coil)
Too much computing (Arthur Frain)
Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?" ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (steve@x)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Kyle Jacobs")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tesla Coil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 18:14:12 -0600
On 25 Dec 2000, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> The suggestion to a perfectly VALID PROBLEM about updating
> components in Linux was "get a new one" response. Except they
> are using SuSE and SuSE 7 is NOT available by means of
> downloading, you have to get the CD/DVD pack, and that COSTS
> MONEY.
All upgrade packages necessary to install AbiWord 0.7.12 on
an existing SuSE 6.3 platform are available for free download
from SuSE's ftp site. End of perfectly valid problem.
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Too much computing
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:24:42 -0800
Please read the following headline from Reuters:
"Sun Marks XMas with Partial Eclipse Over N.America"
Is it about
a. Sun Microsystems
b. Sun Microsystems and Data General
c. A partial solar eclipse on Christmas morning
My first thought was (a), but the headline didn't
parse very well.
Scary.
(And I even knew the eclipse was occurring,
although it was too cloudy here to notice
anything).
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?"
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:33:02 GMT
[snips]
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, people aren't going to buy OS after OS after OS;
No? Why not?
64-bit platforms are becoming available; you don't think people are going to
be willing to drop a 64-bit OS onto them? As new methodologies become
available, you don't think people are going to be willing to drop new OSen
onto them?
> ditto with Office versions.
As with any application, as long as they provide new features, features that
people want, people will continue to upgrade.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:02:16 GMT
Read this latest crap from the copyrighted ones.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15682.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15655.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15684.html
This is how Microsoft and appearently IBM plan
on competing in the future.
This is how we DECIDE who has the best operating
system. And appearently so long as this operating
system is Microsoft, you will do well.
Anybody else can just get fucked appearently.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.freebsd,comp.os.openbsd,comp.os.netbsd,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:05:39 GMT
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:33:26 GMT,
israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You seem to have picked one point out of the post out of many good ones and overdone
>it.
>> As a NEW OS2 (Joe Blow no less) user and happy with it,I'm using v3, lets see
>positive feed back.
>>You seem to be a Linux fan, fine, but please don't rock the OS2 boat.
>
>Learn to read carefully.
>I suggested " NetBSD, OpenBSD ,FreeBSD, Inferno or even Linux."
>I began using Linux around 1992. It is too easy to use and is now
>pretty boring. I now prefer some of the others on the list.
>
>The reality is that nowdays, there is a range of operating systems now
>( NT, 2000Pro , 2000Server , 2000 Advanced Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
>Inferno or even Linux that routinely whip OS/2's ass.Face it,
>operating system theory and practice have come a long way since OS/2.
>
>I find that current OS/2 users are a bit like Amiga users, graying at
>the edges and using OS/2 either due to nostalgia , fear of / inability
>to learn a new os or too poor to afford the hardware for anything
>decent.
>
>I urge you to check out the other options.
>NetBSD is optimised for networking and is nice for wannabe geeks and
>has ports to almost every platform.
>FreeBSD is generally faster than Linux and it filesystem is more
>robust. Yahoo and cdrom.com run on it.
>OpenBSD is security oriented.
>Inferno is a virtual operating system with a virtual filesystem and a
>virtual machine.
>Linux is yawn....
>Sorry, Linux is good at SMP and is very fast on minimal hardware.
>
You forgot that Linux has the largest driver support of any of the
*nix's which is why they are the king of the hill. They are also
the ONLY one which is GPL'ed which ensure's it won't end up in
the hands of some evil bunch of jerks.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:11:48 GMT
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> Except that for many devices (sound cards, network cards, video cards, etc,
> etc, etc) it is usually the at least semi-clueful who are installing the
> devices. Anyone can plug in a printer, but it takes a little more skill to
> get an internal card mounted properly. (Not much more, perhaps, but the
> real novices don't generally even contemplate opening their boxes.) Such a
> person can, I think, be expected to have at least some idea of installing
> drivers and the like. It's a hell of a lot easier first to find drivers,
> then to install them, under Windows than under Linux, as a rule.
I think you have that backwards.
> 1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
/etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
> 2) SB Platinum Live! 5.1 - sort-of supported, but with limited
> functionality.
Do they have a full-support driver for this card for Win 2000 yet?
> 3) Matrox G400 dualhead. Semi-supported.
I have no info about this one!
> 4) DVD: supported as a data drive only. Forget video, apparently.
Yeah, 2600 got an injunction slapped on them to prevent the distribution
of the DeCSS video decoder code for the DVDs.
> 5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
Redundant complaint? (See 2 above).
> 6) MS optical USB wheel mouse... semi-supported. Drops out regularly.
> 7) USB webcam unsupported.
> 8) IBM extended functionality keyboard... semi-supported.
Oh, these are biggies. The web-cam sounds bad, though.
> 9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional without
> significant customization.
This makes no sense at all.
> Now, compare that to, say, WinME, which detected and supported all those
> devices. In some cases it required extra drivers/apps in order to get full
> functionality, but they were provided with the hardware, and at the very
> least I could actually install the OS because, unlike Linux, it actually
> admitted my hard drives existed.
Well, just run WinME then. Bill Gates loves you!
> As it stands now, my hardware, under Linux, is at best semi-functional.
> With XFree86, I have the option of using an older version which supports 3D
> acceleration, or a newer version which doesn't, but does support other
> features of my video card.
I think you need to do a little more research, lazybones.
> Is Linux more stable? Probably. Does it consume fewer resources?
> Probably. Does it allow heavier customization? Probably. As a user, do I
> care? No; I want to _use_ my machine. I have the machine to let me run
> applications to perform tasks; I do not have the machine for the prime
> purpose of catering to it's particular whims. Two of us spent about 15
> hours setting up Linux, and it still only half worked; one of us spent less
> than an hour setting up Windows, and it worked just fine. Those 14 extra
> hours under Linux bought nothing, and are 14 hours I _could_ have spent
> doing real work, playing games, reading news, or whatever suits my fancy;
> those hours were a net reduction in my use of the machine.
And you learned nothing in those 14 hours, apparently. And quit co-opting
the phrase "real work" to denote whatever crap /you/ think is important.
> If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great.
My Linux box caters to me. Works very well. My particular box doesn't
do everything I'd like it to do, but I could easily buy the couple remaining
pieces of hardware for less than the price of Win 2000 Pro (and no, I would
never, ever buy ME, that piece of crap. The DOS-dependent versions of Windozzzz
are a definite dead end.)
> If your
> goal in life is to make the machine as invisible as possible, so that you
> can simply do what you want to do, Linux does not seem to be the ideal way
> to go. In much the same way I don't want to rebuild an engine just to drive
> to the store, I don't want to rebuild a kernel just to run my word
> processor; the very notion is ridiculous. Maybe that's what the Linux
> community considers the "adult" approach to software, but some of us have
> better things to do with our lives.
You're full of prunes. Your experience is valid, but you are stupid and
foolish to generalize from your experience to then say "what Linux Is".
But hey, it's your right to enjoy Windows. Just don't try to fob your
prejudices off as the final story on Linux.
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: 26 Dec 2000 00:12:57 GMT
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:31:45 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:31 +0800,
>Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
No, the users definition of a "good operating system" is more pragmatic
than dogmatic. To the user, a "good operating system" is one that runs
the required applications.
>There is NOTHING Windows 2000 server offers which Linux doesn't already
>offer. Nothing.
On the server side, Linux is quite impressive. On the desktop, it still falls
behind in applications.
>Oh yes, We do! We understand that your a nitwit and you don't seem
>to care who knows either.
No, you don't. Because you're not listening. It's clear from your completely
unjustified sense of superiority that you're too defensive about your
beloved OS to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:19:54 GMT
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:11:45 GMT,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Todd 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.
>
>That's odd, I find Linux gives me far less grief than windoze.
>
>But if windows it what turns you on, knock yourself out!
>
>I'm sure microsoft is quite pleased to have such a tireless
>advocate as you, spending your christmas cruising the
>Linux newsgroups!
>
>> 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.
>
>Please enumerate some of them, it would be interesting.
>
>I'll bet that it boils down to one thing, which in your mind
>is of paramount importance: How well the platform can run
>microsoft programs written for the windows pc platform.
>
>Since microsoft's one useful monopoly is in file formats,
>you have a point - however, be amazed, as there are
>other programs, not sold by microsoft, which do pretty
>much the same sorts of things, and run quite nicely on
>microsoft and non-microsoft OSes alike.
>
>> 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>
>
>Hey, I'll take all the RAM I can get for my Linux servers!
>But what you call "old school" does make for efficiency.
>That's why Linux not only scales up to places windows
>can never go, but also scales down to places windows
>can never go - could you imagine a wristwatch running
>windows nt ? LOL! Of course not! That's about as likely
>as windows running on a manframe computer...
>
>> That is why Linux will *never* replace windows... it is not because it
>> doesn't have potential, it's because of the users.
>
>"never" is a long time my friend...
>
>BTW Linux is already replacing windows, mainly in
>places where microsoft file formats have not yet
>hopelessly locked the users in.
>
>jjs
>
>
I've got a better one for you! I have an old 486-75 laptop made
by Toshiba. It has 5 megs of ram on board and a 500 meg hard drive.
My friend took it out of my closet, I'd forgotten about it and attempted
to install W98 on it. Wouldn't do it. Then he tried W95. Again, wouldn't
do it. Not enough memory.
Took it over to my desk and began putting Debian 2.2r2 on it.
Loaded fine and I have about 200 Meg's left over to play with.
It certainly won't run X windows but it was capable of compiling a
new 2.4 kernel, downloading using Dselect and running a telnet
all at the same time with no appearent doggieness!!!!
I think this 486 ever ran faster. It was originally loaded with
Windows 3.11 and I've forgotten about it all these years. This
is a 6 year old computer.
Took the computer with me to my Dad's house for Christmas and
he was so impressed he's running 2.2R2 now with X windows.
He has an old Pentium 133 with 32 megs of ram and the thing
just SCREEMS now. They had W98 on it before and it would
just BARELY MOVE. You could double click on a window to open
it and it might be as long as 10 seconds before you saw the
window open.
That speaks very highly of Linux.
And we have another Linux user in my hood now.
Anybody who tells me Windows is on an even keel with Linux
in the performance department is a total liar. There's
no way it can even come close.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 25 Dec 2000 15:22:39 -0800
In article <928hhd$rfp$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter says...
>
>I DID read the post. The original post was just that, crap.
crap up yours.
It is a valid problem. I simply wanted to install a small
application on linux, and I can't.
All the suggestions given are worst than the problem.
Why the hell should I install a new OS just to install an
application? If MS forced people to do that, all will be crying
foul.
>I don't believe a single word of the original post.
who cares what an idiot like you beleives.
typical linux zelot reponse. deny that the problem
exist. keepm denying problems exist, and linux will remain
in the back room, where only hackers will use it, while
the rest of the world will use an OS meant to be used
by normal people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:22:57 GMT
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:55:47 +0100,
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> SuSE 7 is not available in the typical sense.
>>
>> There is an evaluation version ONLY. All other upgrades performed must be
>> done manually. 7.0 is available as an EVAL version ISO image which
>> functions exclusively off the CDROM and uses an FS image file on a FAT
>> volume to accomidate "changes".
>>
>> If this person want's 7, he has to BUY IT.
>>
>> Well, there goes another "Linux is Free" advantage.
>>
>Sure, you expect to write to SuSe and tell them, "hey, send me
>your 6 CD's and 1 DVD, your handbook of 640 pages, several
>other books et al" and you won't pay a dime!
>Youre for sure a windows looser, no one else would show so low
>intelligence for all the world to see.
>You still have not got the message that SuSe (or RedHat, Mandrake etc)
>CAN un SHOULD charge money (for the CD'S (they cost money to manufacture)
>for the books (they aren't cheap)). Well, SuSE 7 Pro costs less than 60
>Dollars. Compre that to the windows prices and then come back to us
>
I run Debian so I shouldn't speak but Suse is only about $35 at the store.
And the book they give you alone would be worth that much if you bought
it from Boarders or one of the other book stores.
Suse gives you tremendous value for the price you pay for it.
You can also order Learning GNU/Linux featuring Debian 2.2 for
about the same money from Cheap Bytes.
Debian has over 6,000 packages now compared to Suse's 1,900.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: 26 Dec 2000 00:23:26 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:31 +0800, Todd wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>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.
Depends on what you are trying to do with it. Obviously, if you confuse
it with Microsoft Windows, and try to run MS Office on it, it really
will be frustrating and difficult to use.
Likewise, if you try to treat Windows like Linux, you will get nowhere fast.
>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.
Well, just pick out the top few items on your list.
>Furthermore, I doubt most Linux users would even know the user requirements
>of an OS these days.
I think you're dead wrong. Take a look at the KDE and GNOME project, and think
again! They're certainly heading in the right direction, and they're certainly
prepared to listen to users. Perhaps KDE and GNOME are not as mature as some of
the Windows development frameworks, since they are still only a few years old,
but they have the advantage of not being burdened by legacy code also, which
makes the design very clean. (well, at least in the case of KDE. GNOME is still
saddled with a legacy programming language)
> 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>
This comment is just plain ignorant. There are several reasons why the kernel
should be small -- one of them being that you might want to run the OS on
something much smaller than a desktop computer.
There is absolutely *NO* advantage in having a large kernel, because you can
make the kernel small and load modules in. FYI, the Linux kernel RPM takes up
11MB of disk space, and most of that is in the core modules. So in terms
of the functionality offered, Linux is quite big. But in terms of bloat, it's
small. You get to have your cake and eat it too, and that, sir, is smart.
>That is why Linux will *never* replace windows... it is not because it
>doesn't have potential, it's because of the users.
Linux will never replace windows because it isn't and never was intended to
replace Windows. And it doesn't need to replace Windows to be useful for the
millions of users who load Linux onto their servers, development machines, and
desktop workstations.
>I'm sure you don't even understand what I am talking about.
I understand what you're talking about. But do you ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:31:25 GMT
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:05:04 GMT,
Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snips]
>Win2K _can_ work on bargain basement hardware. However, whether it's Linux,
>Win2K, Solaris, or whatever, ask yourself this: if you want a stable,
>reliable machine, say a server, that you can _rely_ upon to remain up, do
>you crap together whatever old junk you have lying about, or do you build it
>on a foundation of quality components? You _could_ use that flaky old 1.6Gb
>drive that you sometimes get read errors from, or you could use a slightly
>newer 4Gb drive that doesn't give read errors - which will be more reliable?
>
>Let's recap:
>
>1) Don't use unproven drivers.
>2) Don't load your machine down with irrelevant crap.
>3) Don't use crap hardware.
>
>Yes, indeed. The are arguments against using Win2K. And against using
>Linux, and against using MacOS, and against... hmm... no, they're arguments
>_for_ using the bare minimum shred of sanity when approaching system design
>for a stable setup - regardless of platform.
>
>No. But why have 500 things loaded, if you only actually need 50? Does it
>benefit you in any way? Does it, in fact, do anything other than consume
>resources?
>
>Very few manufacturers _can_ test their drivers under _every_ possible
>configuration. And drivers are software; I've yet to encounter an actual
>non-trivial bug-free piece of software. Use drivers which have been around
>long enough to have been tested under a wide range of conditions and you're
>much more likely to have a stable machine.
>
>Expensive? Running older drivers with a higher degree of confidence is
>expensive?
>
>What extra costs? Let's see:
>
>1) Reduced resource consumption, wihch potentially _lowers_ costs.
>2) Drivers freely avaiable with the hardware, or from the hardware vendors.
>3) Not installing extraneous software, reducing purchase and/or licensing
>costs, if any.
>
>Yes, indeed, *reducing* costs is *extra* costs.
>
I wanted to just clarify what is REALLY NEEDED here.
Granted I think the arguements of this man are indeed valid, but he's
forgetting the LONG HAUL aspect of building such systems.
Today, most companies build a mid-range server. And as most Windows
boxes go, a mid-range anything isn't destine to last more than a year or
two.
The idea behind Linux, and it's proven using google and others, is to
build a mid-range or high end server using Linux as the platform and
have the system be of use say 4-5 years down the road before retirement.
There's never been a Windows box made which I've seen go beyond 2.5 years
useful business life as the upgrades ususally end up killing the machine.
The performance aspect falls off so suddenly the machine is useless.
This is not the case for Linux.
So when you examine upgrade price for software, longevity, performance,
Linux win's in every aspect and Windows has no chance.
Windows is not a good server. And it's quickly becomming a NOT SO GOOD
desktop also.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:32:09 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> SuSE 7 is not available in the typical sense.
>
> There is an evaluation version ONLY. All other upgrades performed must be
> done manually. 7.0 is available as an EVAL version ISO image which
> functions exclusively off the CDROM and uses an FS image file on a FAT
> volume to accomidate "changes".
>
> If this person want's 7, he has to BUY IT.
>
> Well, there goes another "Linux is Free" advantage.
C'mon, you're being obstinately stupid about this. All that that "evaluation"
term means is that they give you a basic system, leaving off such treats
as StarOffice.
I might try to go here
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/live-eval-7.0/
and load it, just to see.
If you go to RedHat, you can get all of the iso images, and install it
just the same as if you had purchased the $30 and $80 kits from the
store.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: 26 Dec 2000 00:33:16 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:58:48 +0800, Todd wrote:
>> 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
That's funny, because you need to know something about Windows programming to
write a Windows virus. And you need to buy software from MS to do it. Most
Linux programmers would rather just write software for Linux. If they learn
about Windows programming, doesn't that make them a "Windows programmer" of
sorts?
>won't find many Linux viruses... hmmm... maybe I should start :)
Go write ahead. You will not find them very effective, however. The problem is
that Linux hasn't developed a culture of running software from untrusted
sources.
>Secondly, if you are logged in as root all of the time, you are again taking
>your chances.
Again, the vast majority of Linux users don't do this. Largely because there
isn't a need to. Linux makes it very convenient to switch from super user to
ordinary user.
>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.
Apparently, some of you do.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 26 Dec 2000 00:36:45 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:50:45 +0800, Todd wrote:
>
>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).
I thought rcmd was mush like rsh, in which case it isn't terribly secure ?
>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.
I think this has just been discussed. It actually isn't very hard at all.
> Forget remote capabilities... it is hard
>enough to use when you are directly on the console!
For a competent user, it is quite easy from the console, and the marginal
difficulty of doing it remotely is negligeable.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:58:21 GMT
Gee, only functions off the Live filesystem on the CDROM.
ISN'T THIS WHAT I SAID? IT's an EVAL version. You want functionality BUY
IT.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > SuSE 7 is not available in the typical sense.
> >
> > There is an evaluation version ONLY. All other upgrades performed must
be
> > done manually. 7.0 is available as an EVAL version ISO image which
> > functions exclusively off the CDROM and uses an FS image file on a FAT
> > volume to accomidate "changes".
> >
> > If this person want's 7, he has to BUY IT.
> >
> > Well, there goes another "Linux is Free" advantage.
>
> C'mon, you're being obstinately stupid about this. All that that
"evaluation"
> term means is that they give you a basic system, leaving off such treats
> as StarOffice.
>
> I might try to go here
>
> ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/live-eval-7.0/
>
> and load it, just to see.
>
> If you go to RedHat, you can get all of the iso images, and install it
> just the same as if you had purchased the $30 and $80 kits from the
> store.
>
> Chris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
