Linux-Advocacy Digest #64, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Bob Hauck)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows Stability ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows Stability ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Ilja Booij)
Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?" (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Why Advocacy? (pip)
Re: swithching to linux (Glitch)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Bob Hauck)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:43:46 GMT
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:54:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The thing you are missing is that most NT users must operate with OS
>> privileges which would allow a virus to spread
>
>That's not true. NT is perfectly capapble of being used in locked down way.
Yes, but it hardly ever is. The default install is not "locked down"
and in non-corporate settings that is unlikely to be changed. Note that
he (and you) said "NT" and not "W2K".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:43:47 GMT
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:47:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>There appears to be a perception amongst people within this group that
>NT (and Microsoft products in general) should be completely secure
>"out of the box". On the other hand Unix systems in general require
>attention from an experienced administrator to secure them.
I don't know of any Unix-like system that allows normal users to write
into system directories or configuration files out of the box. The
default install of NT4 does allow this.
>Most Unix systems still run ftp, telnet and nfs daemons. These
>systems lack any sort of security.
The discussion wasn't about network security, but about allowing users
to run viruses and trojans they get in email with admin-equivalent
priviledges. Most NT users do in fact run as at least "power user"
because doing otherwise makes it a lot harder to install and use popular
software packages.
Anyway, it is trivial to turn off Unix network services. At worst it is
a matter of commenting out some lines in a file or two. Modern systems
offer a GUI management screen where you can select which deamons to run
at boot. Much less work than "locking down" a default NT system that
provides no network services.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:46:29 +0200
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:928sa4$fqv$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Wrong.
> > I can run today's windows on a 4 years old mid-range computer quite
> > comfortablely, be that a server or a desktop.
> > I don't do it for reasons that has nothing to do with Windows the OS, I
> > can't play any of the new games on a 4 year old computer, many
> > applications would work horribly or not work at all on a four years old
> > computer. OTOH, I've nearby a win2k (P233,32MB) which run Bryce half the
> > time.
> >
> > On general, I've noticed, Windows can run on a 5 years old mid-to-high
> > range computers.
> >
>
> You know, don't you, that 2K will NOT even install an an machine with 32MB
> So why do you tell lies like this. Even NT4 would be a pain in the ass on
a
> machine like that. I know, I had the bad luck and had to install NT4 on
> stuff like that. You can't even run decent Minsweeper on such a machine
> On the other hand, Linux would chomp away quite happyly on that thing
Win2K pro would run on 133Mhz+32MB
Win2K server need to be installed with 64MB, but afterward, you can run it
on 32MB.
Haven't tested Win2K AS on low end machine, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:52:28 +0200
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:snY16.30932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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.
>
> Got one here. Used to be my primary development machine, now it's working
> as a server. It's about 2 years old and still going. I don't expect to
> retire it until it dies of natural causes.
I've a nearly 5 years old computer which is still running the OEM install of
windows 95, it is used as a desktop OS at the moment, running Word & Excel
mainly, but still just as bit as usable as it was when the OEM shipped it.
> > The performance aspect falls off so suddenly the machine is useless.
>
> Performance is just fine. Actually, far more than is required for the
> current demand.
Correct, the 5 years old computer I've works just as fast as it used to.
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: 26 Dec 2000 17:53:13 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> There's no such thing as a 486-75. The fastest 486 is a DX2/66. Unless
> your talking about some 486 clone, in which case, it's not a 486. That's
> lie 1.
Probably an AMD-486 i guess..
>
> > 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.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but Win95 will install with only 4 megs. I
> don't claim it's useable, but it will indeed install. Yet another lie.
>
> > 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.
>
> And what applications does Daddy use?
>
> > That speaks very highly of Linux.
> >
> > And we have another Linux user in my hood now.
>
> What does daddy do when he wants to install new programs? In one day you've
> taught him all the wonders of Unix?
Most people also don't know how to install under Windows. So it's
mostly not a problem there.
<snip>
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?"
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:52:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > MS employees also know this is temporary.
> > This is actually GOOD for MS.
> > This allows them to repurchase those stock
> > options for much lower than they
> > originally gave them out.
Unfortunately, this exposes them to much higher tax liabilities
and tax penalties. The conversion requires conversion from Incentive
Stock Options to Non Qualified Stock Options. The tax liability can
more than double.
> > For instance, if MS gave their employees options
> > at $100 a share, they have to buy those options
> > at whatever the going rate
> > is. By buying up a bunch of excess stock at $40 a
> > share, they are in much
> > better shape when the stock rebounds.
This assumes that they have substantial amounts of CASH (most don't),
that they aren't borrowing on the value of the stocks (most are), and
that the margin calls don't require them to exercize their options to
cover margin loans.
> s/when/if
>
> If the X-Box fails, and considering every non-OS/Office product launch
> Microsoft has attempted over the last few years *has* failed,
Actually, even the OS and Office releases have been disappointing.
Windows 2000 server is primarily displacing Windows NT installations,
and even those are limited to servers that are so volitile that NOT
upgrading to Win2K would require the purchase of additional servers
and NT 4.0 licenses.
While growth of domains has continued to grow by 120%/year, the
active server market is growing at only 50%/year for IIS and 75%
for I-planet (Sun) and 53% for Apache (Linux & FreeBSD).
Sales of Windows 2000 workstation haven't been overwhelming, primarily
because even though Microsoft promised LDAP, Kerberos, and better
security, Active Directory is incompatible with LDAP used by NDS and
UNIX, Kerberos used by NDS, UNIX, and OS/390, and security holes in
applications continue to turn Windows 2000 security into swiss cheese.
> then they are going to be in big trouble this time next year.
Microsoft is already in big trouble. Sales are down, over half their
revenues last quarter came from investment holdings, and even the SEC
has begun requiring Microsoft to report as a holding company, similar
to CMGI and Berkshire Hathaway.
> I hope the X-Box is a wild success,
I question the viability of Microsoft if they intend to compete with
Sony PS/2 and Sega and Nintendo using a U.S. pricing model.
Furthermore, attempts to shoe-horn Windows CE into this box could
create more problems than it solves.
> because it'll mean cheaper consumer-grade hardware for everyone.
This is questionable. In a monopolistic market such as PCs, adding
a new competitor might dilute the price across market share. In a
heavily competitive market like Game Consoles, Microsoft is not even
in the same league. They'd have to spend several $ billion to promote
the product and accept smaller margins and higher cost/risk.
> Something, however, smells like Windows CE devices here.
This isn't necessarily good news. Keep in mind that Windows CE
competes in a very competitive market, and loses more than it wins.
The Palm/Visor/Sony units do what people want a PDA to do. WinCE
tried to impose MS-Everything into the PDA environment and left people
with unfulfilled expectations.
> > Actually, MS has already sent out memos
> > about tightening their belts.
At very least.
> Well, people aren't going to buy OS after OS after OS; ditto with
> Office versions.
Very true. Even if they do continue to sell Office and OS versions,
each upgrade must compete against more formidable competition from
Linux, BSD, and UNIX.
> They need to find a new revenue stream, and perhaps
> the X-Box will be it. I'm sure Sony and Nintendo are going to do
> their part to make sure it doesn't happen -- but both Sony and
> Nintendo are more "closed source" than Microsoft has ever been.
Short of offering total interoperability and support for all media,
Microsoft is offering nothing unique. There are other ways to get
great game machines without resorting to yet another OS.
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:02:41 +0000
mlw wrote:
> (3) Counter FUD
> There are a lot of people saying things about Linux that are simply not
> true. We should address these and counter them with facts.
The problem is that people who spread FUD generally do not listen to any
reason :-(
> (4) Dispel myths about Windows.
> Linux is a good operating system. It is not the best, but it is very
> good. IMHO, as a whole, it is far better than any of the offerings from
> Microsoft.
This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want the
pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait until 2.4.
Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are not as
concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps more
importantly software. Linux will in time.
> Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
> "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
> environments are much better than they really are.
So true!
> The above reasons are my reasons for posting here.
>
> Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
Games! Also some very neat software is not yet available for Linux.
Putting on my programmers hat: there is NO reason why I would want to
program under windows unless I am getting paid for doing so (apart from
the "better" ide's). Putting on a sys-admin hat there is also NO reason
why someone should want Windows other than if they can't be bothered to
learn new things.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:17:49 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:32:01 GMT,
> Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:45:46 -0600,
> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course that depends on what you mean by "good performance", but the act
> >>of compiling the kernel alone will use up way more memory than you have free
> >>causing swapping to beat all hell, and on a 486 laptop (laptop drives are
> >>much slower than workstation drives due to low power consumption) this would
> >>be painful to do anything in any other console due to the fact that swapping
> >>will be a nightmare.
> >>
> >
> >Um humm.
>
> Erik is in error here anyway, many laptop drives are in fact faster than the
> equivelent workstation drive, they are lighter, have less hysteresis in the
> hardware, and smaller platters (equivelent to higher RPM speed). They tend to
> be less robust in some ways, for wear and tear, although more robust re:
> impacts and such. As allways, a tradeoff is there.
Laptop drives spin at around 4300 RPMs i believe and those are drives of
today. Slowest modern desktop drives are 5400 RPMs
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:39:49 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pip wrote:
> mlw wrote:
>> (3) Counter FUD
>> There are a lot of people saying things about Linux that are simply not
>> true. We should address these and counter them with facts.
>
> The problem is that people who spread FUD generally do not listen to any
> reason :-(
>
>
>> (4) Dispel myths about Windows.
>> Linux is a good operating system. It is not the best, but it is very
>> good. IMHO, as a whole, it is far better than any of the offerings from
>> Microsoft.
>
> This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
> which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want the
> pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait until 2.4.
> Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are not as
> concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps more
> importantly software. Linux will in time.
>
Maybe USB-support is not perfect in Linux. So I don´t buy USB-Devices
because I want the OS and not a special kind of a mouse.
>> Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
>> "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
>> environments are much better than they really are.
>
> So true!
>
>> The above reasons are my reasons for posting here.
>>
>> Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
>
> Games! Also some very neat software is not yet available for Linux.
> Putting on my programmers hat: there is NO reason why I would want to
> program under windows unless I am getting paid for doing so (apart from
> the "better" ide's). Putting on a sys-admin hat there is also NO reason
> why someone should want Windows other than if they can't be bothered to
> learn new things.
>
Never understood why people are playing on a computer. I prefer playing
poker once a week with real guys (turkish and russian) because this is real
3D.Maybe one day babelfish will be useful to translate the
four-letter-words.
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Auf der Donau 29
45139 Essen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:43:42 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:32:41 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Lyday wrote:
>> You are obviously an idiot. NT, 2000Pro, 2000Server, 2000Advanced
>> Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux do not whip OS/2 ass in any way
>> whatsoever, really.
>Uh huh. And just how are you going to back this up? Never used OS/2,
>so I wouldn't know.
OS/2 was a very nice system compared to Win95 and NT3, which were more
or less contemporary with OS/2 2.0. The problem is that development
basically stopped a while ago. Yes, IBM has released updates, but they
haven't been making the effort that the MS and Linux camps have been.
For example, OS/2 had a truly OO desktop based on something called
"SOM". The classic example of the use of this was a program that
overrode the folder class to create a new kind of folder that understood
ftp. So you could have remote ftp sites on your desktop. There were
other programs such as Object Desktop that took advantage of this to
enhance the system in all kinds of ways. The system scripting language,
Rexx, knew about the desktop and could be used to manipulate it. It was
really quite ahead of it's time.
But with COM and KParts and Bonobo, the other guys have this technology
too now and IBM hasn't made any fundamental improvements to OS/2's in
quite a while. They just don't seem to care much anymore, which means
that the whole market has stagnated. Compare and contrast to the Linux,
BSD, and NT communities.
>Uh, well, BSD and Linux are being actively worked on, and have seen
>numerous continual improvements.
Yes, and that's the problem with OS/2. IBM has left it for dead. They
kick out a few updates once in a while to keep certain big users happy
and that's about it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:43:46 GMT
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:34:52 -0800, Martin Ozolins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I really don't think anyone in their right mind who spends millions on
>hardware is going to risk that investment on a share ware OS.
Unfortunately for that theory, IBM has recently sold a multi-million
dollar system that will be running Linux. To Telia, a large ISP/telco
in Europe.
BTW, Linux isn't "shareware", it is "open source". There's a difference.
>All these companies are doing is expanding their own customer lists. When
>Linux isn't producing new leads for them they'll drop support like a hot
>rock.
Yup, just like when Windows isn't producing new leads for them. The day
when either of those happens seems to be quite a way off yet.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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 17:44:18 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ddW16.67214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean
> all
> > the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
> >
> > I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
> > now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> > getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> > distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> > support.
>
> As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get a
> BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in the
> process.
Not that I'm anti-BSD... I'd love to try it if I had a spare CPU.
But what is better about it? I understand that OpenBSD code is well
scoured of insecurities, but what other advantages does BSD offer?
And what do you see as any disadvantages to BSD for the linux geek?
Thanks!
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:47:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:58:13 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:22:44 GMT
>> <oSe16.55343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Windows NT TERMINAL SERVICES EDITION does exactly that genius. And Windows
>> >2000 now serve's a remote console session (remote DOS prompt)
>> >
>> >Gee, sucks when Windows is moving along, and Linux is standing still.
>>
>> Dumb question, but what can Windows NT Terminal Services do that
>> Linux + X + xterm + ssh (ssh has an X server proxy that encrypts traffic)
>> can't?
>
>It can cost one hell of a lot more for the server!
Well, yes, but I was thinking more in terms of productivity gains... :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random $$$$$ here
up 89 days, 17:36, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:00:48 GMT
[snips]
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> How do those make a power switch intuitive?
> >
> >> They make it widely available and well-known, perhaps.
> >
> >Ball bearings have been in use for decades, they are manufactured in
> >the millions, and they're cheap. Does that make them intuitive?
>
> Obviously, you know what a ball bearing is. That makes it intuitive.
> Or at least ubiquitous. Similarly for power switches.
I think part of the problem is not being completely clear on what is meant
by "intuitive". I suggest there are three classes of intuitiveness:
1) A door handle is intuitive, because even without needing to be taught
about doors, handles, and the like, its purpose is readily apparent.
2) A power switch is intuitive, because while you do have to learn the basic
concept of power switches, new ones are generally pretty obvious.
3) The need to _use_ a power switch is intuitive, because while you do have
to learn the basic concept of things being powered up, new devices are
generally pretty obvious.
The first requires little or no learning. The second and third are a little
more abstract, requring the basic concept that things can be turned on and
off. Once that concept is learned, the method for performing the act, and
the requirement for the act itself both become straightforward. In all
cases, the thing or process itself suggests what to do, or how to use the
thing. (Power buttons are pushed, and are usually sufficiently distinct
from, say, keyboard keys not to be confused with this. Door handles are
pulled and are generally sufficiently distinct from, say, door knockers as
to not be confused with this. Powered-off devices are usually silent, or
lacking other indications of applied power. And so on.)
> >>>>>>>> and hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive. (Just extremely
useful.)
"hjkl", by none of the "definitions" above would be intuitive. You may
learn that cursoring about the screen is necessary, and under what
conditions it is necessary, but there's nothing about "hjkl" which even
hints that are the keys which would accomplish this effect. The most
obvious use of them, for anyone having used a keyboard, is to type the
letters H, J, K and L, not to move the cursor about. Their utility as
cursor keys is purely a matter of stored knowledge, having no indication
that they are to be used this way; I fail to see that they could even be
considered as intuitive. Easily learned, perhaps, but that's another
matter.
> Not necessarily. If hjkl is not intuitive and the arrow keys are,
> then the obvious conclusion is that vi users are all deluding
> themselves on how intuitive and powerful their tool is, and that
> we should switch to another editor, such as BRIEF, which never had
> the non-intuitive cursor key mapping.
Cursor keys would fall into the second category I listed, I think; the need
to use cursor controls at all needs to be learned; having learned that,
though, an up arrow key would seem to imply one of three things: displaying
an up-arrow character, moving the "paper" up so you can work on the
following line, or moving the cursor up, so you can work on the preceeding
line. Not absolutely obvious, but the next step (testing the key to see
which of those it does) is at least hinted at by the requirement to move the
cursor. With the cursor keys usually being located near to "page up" and
"page down" keys, there's also a secondary hint that they may be useful in
this context. I fail to see anything about the H,J,K or L keys which even
hints that they _could_ be used in this context; short of failing to find
any more obvious solutions to the problem and then systematically hitting
every key in order to discover what effect it has, there would be no way,
without external information, to determine their use in this context. This
hardly matches any concept of intuitive I've ever encountered. Once they've
been learned, they may be quicker than using cursor keys, you may be able
to form a mental map ("outside keys are major motion, inner keys are minor
motion", for example) but intuitive?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:07:23 -0600
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Some Windows programs assume system wide access to operate. To
> >> operate these programs you must also have privileges which would
> >> allow a virus to spread.
> >
> > Name one. The only one I know of that requires this out of the box is
> > Office 95, and that can be worked around pretty easily.
>
> Borlands Delphi versions 3,4 and 5.
Nope. Delphi works just fine on a user account if you've installed it from
that user account. You don't need systemwide access.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:11:50 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The answer is to not use Windows NT for these programs OR use NT in an
> > > insecure way. Most users will choose to use NT in an insecure way.
> >
> > No, the answer is to use it the way it's intended to be used.
>
> That may be all well an good, but you can't argue, on one side, that
> Linux is hard to use because one sometimes needs to manually manipulate
> settings, and then argue that NT isn't for the same reason.
We're talking about two entirely different useages. Sure, in a controlled
by IS situation, Linux would be perfectly fine for the desktop (assuming
that the proper applications existed for the users use). In a more
traditional windows environment though, say a home user or even small
unmanaged business then Linux is not something that is acceptable.
> Yes, there are solutions to these of course, but does the average user
> know them? Do you argue that they have to read a FAQ or HOWTO? If so,
> you are being a hypocrite.
The average user doesn't have to. The administrator does.
> The user will user a system with the least amount of work. Just because
> there are work arounds for this limitation, and it is a LIMITATION, does
> not mean the average user will use the more complex solution. Most of
> the NT users I have seen just give themselves admin privileges.
And most Linux users i've seen run as root.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
