Linux-Advocacy Digest #67, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (kiwiunixman)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Advocacy? (Mig)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:01:42 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:03:47 -0600, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've never known a soldier that wanted to risk everything for nothing.
> >
> > Yet, in the past, that's what the US government has asked of them. That
> > is one thing that, thankfully, seems to have been greatly reduced of late.
> >
> > > I don't mind the quarter billion price tag of our military.
> >
> > You misspelled "trillion".
> >
> > > We should double that and put half the doubling into payraises and r&D
> > > damnit!
> >
> > Payraises are fine. Readiness is fine. Most of the R&D they do is
> > sensible. Lots of things the military does are worth paying for, I can
> > certainly agree with that.
> >
> > OTOH, there are a lot of things the "Military-Industrial Complex" does
> > that need to be questioned. Questioning these things does not imply
> > that the questioner doesn't support the men and women in uniform. In
> > fact, it is our duty as citizens to keep an eye on things that cost a
> > quarter- trillion dollars a year.
> >
> > > I DO mind the trillions we spend on black hole entitlement programs.
> >
> > Which ones would those be? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? None
>
> Communist programs, each of them....
Actually, I suspect that a better definition would be "Socialist", not
"Communist".
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:03:40 -0500
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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).
>
> Sorry, I'm playing typical end-user here. What menu option is hdparm
> selected by?
What is it under Microsoft Windows?
[Hint: none!]
>
> > > 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?
>
> Well, I have full surround and the remote center works, so look like.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Works under Windows.
How about some simple 1970's technology like remote login...
>
> > > 5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
> >
> > Redundant complaint? (See 2 above).
>
> Nope; this is the remote center; the SB! Live Platinum was short a few
> options, the remote center was completely non-functional.
>
> > > 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.
>
> The mouse sure is, if you're a GUI type person.
>
> > > 9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional
> without
> > > significant customization.
> >
> > This makes no sense at all.
>
> No? Let's see. Windows, install with the card in, voila, that's it.
> Linux, install with the card in, oops, nothing. Fart around with DHCP
> settings. Nope, no network support. Four hours later, discover that
> disabling the ATA-100 bus re-enables networking support.
>
> >
> > > 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!
>
> I rather doubt he knows me from a hole in the ground, actually.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Why? Windows is smart enough to get it right; Linux, the super-hyper-ultra
> system, isn't.
Linux gets all of its drivers loaded right THE FIRST TIME...
no 17 reboot process to do a system install
NO rebooting to install an application.
Oh...and Linux *NEVER* loses drivers like Windows is wont to do...
> Research time: about 15 hours, to determine that no, Linux
> is simply not functional in this configuration. Resolutions: don't use
> Linux, or use the machine in a semi-functional state until sometime, maybe,
> someone comes up with working drivers. I chose to go for a functional
> sstem.
>
> > > 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
>
> > And you learned nothing in those 14 hours, apparently.
>
> Not true at all; I learned that Linux was more work for less result.
>
> > And quit co-opting
> > the phrase "real work" to denote whatever crap /you/ think is important.
>
> I see; my work, the stuff that's actually important to me, is "crap". So,
> anything other than catering to the vagaries of Linux is crap, eh? Sorry,
> some of us use the machines for fun, work and other things... and that's
> real work, doing real tasks, rather than catering to a half-functional OS.
>
> > > If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great.
>
> > My Linux box caters to me.
>
> Good. Mine doesn't. So I turfed it.
>
> > > 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".
>
> I can only go by my experience; I can't go by yours, or the guy next door's.
> My experience says that Linux is a waste. When I try it again in another 2
> years, that might be different; obviously strides are being taken along
> those lines, but it ain't there yet. Give it time.
You have demonstrated that your sole purpose in life is to
act out the role of Bill-Gates' mind-controlled droid.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:05:47 -0500
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> DishDude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > You can add Dennis Miller to that list as well, AFAIAC. :)
>
> Aw, man, Dennis was in rare form on MNF last night. "Tackle by Claude Rains",
> that was really a good one. Trouble is, people don't get Dennis's jokes
> because the references are older than N'Sync.
>
> > > Some of Al Franken's early stuff on SNL was pretty good, i'll admit that.
> > > You'll never convince me that Brenner or Shandling have any talent, though.
> >
> > Agreed. Typically whiny humor that only New Yawkas/Yiddish really
> > appreciate. Doesn't translate well to the rest of the country though.
>
> Get literate, buddy. Read some books and get some learning.
> You'll find life more enjoyable.
True...but it won't improve Dennis Miller's humor-drought...
>
> Chris
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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 22:08:27 GMT
Your blue screenability can be reduced by zealiously using the System
Restore to snapshot your PC to the max avalable (but sane) disk space.
Good luck....
"David Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92ap09$6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Is this the OS that is supposed to bring MS to its knees? what a joke.
> >
>
> No, this is the OS for which the concept of a GUI is still in it's
infancy.
> I tried it too, and it's too much hassle for what I want to do right now.
> But I can't wait for the distro to come out which will be a viable
> alternative for Windows. Some day... Maybe...
>
> David
>
> P.S. - Kyle, if you're reading this, many thanks for your suggestion. ME
is
> running much better so far then 98. No blue screens yet *crosses fingers*
>
>
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:10:24 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 20 Dec 2000
> 15:35:49 -0500;
> >False premise
>
> I'm afraid not.
'Fraid so.
> You're an anti-intelligence virus, Aaron, as are all
> trolls.
More of the standard Max-attack-speak.
> It lowers someone's credibility when you agree with them,
No it doesn't. Those who are incapable of reason will assign more or
less credibility based on the speaker . . . not the position.
> as
> any intelligent person would be forced to double-check how reasonable
> the position might be.
And, if they are truly intelligent, they will check the reasonableness
of the position. Reasonable or not is independent of the speaker . . .
"Even mine enemies have spoken sweet reason" . . . and when double
checking, a reasonable person will soon conclude that, regardless of
their opinions about the speaker, the position stands or falls on its
own.
It's only the kind of idiot who thinks that emotion some how measures
the validity of an argument, who could possibly believe that support
from a despised enemy is somehow hurtful to their position.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:21:05 +1300
Well, you mustn't be a bright admin if you need direct access to a
server. In a tyical UNIX setup (as with the case of Solaris 8 or
Unixware 7), all admin tasks can be carried out remotely via an
encrypted telnet session (OpenSSH or SSH). You would find that Windows
is a bit of a bitch when you need to admin a server on the other side of
the country. Also, with out a GUI and unneeded API's and addons,
there will be significantly more resources free for real work. With the
latest version of Windows Server and Advance Server, and the steep
requirements mean that many small businesses in New Zealand are moving
to Linux/UNIX, because the costs of upgrading is greatly excessive
compared to the miniscule amount (hard ware requirements and cost)
Linux/UNIX costs. Although in the US, where most business's can throw
around money, and don't care whether they spend too much or too little
on a server, in New Zealand, with the shit-house exchange rate, combined
with the anti-coperate welfare stance from the government (which I think
is great), software from Micro$oft cost twice the amount as a Linux
server setup.
kiwiunixman
Todd wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The puzzling question I want answered is wtf is he running games on a OS
>> clearly designed for sever. But here are some more puzzling questions:
>>
>> Why is there IE on the server version of Windows?
>
>
> To read HTML documents??
>
>
>> Why is there directX on the server version of Windows?
>
>
> DirectX is simply an API. If the program doesn't use it, DirectX isn't
> used. Why *not* have it installed? It is very stable anyway.
>
>
>> Why is there a GUI for the server version of Windows? wounldn't that
>> just be a memory and CPU cycle hog?
>
>
> To make it easier and more efficient to get things done in a more intuitive
> manner?
>
> And no, it doesn't steal cycles... check the 'idle' process when you aren't
> doing anything. It is pegged at 99-100%...
>
> Besides, given that 2000 crushed Linux in that famous benchmark that was
> audited by Red Hat, Microsoft, and PCWeek, 2000 still trounced Linux even
> with the mandatory GUI.
>
> -Todd
>
>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:926u8o$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.
>>>
>>>
>>> So by using the very latest MS OS *and* updating it to the very latest
>>> release of DirectX, you can get current games to run. Whoopeedoo, big
>>> surprise!
>>>
>>> Now, how exactly does that relate to Steve's amazing story about using
>>> Win95 for 5 years and never having an application requiring upgraded
>>> components to install?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now let's get back to how difficult it is to install stuff on Linux...
>>>
>>>
>>> I take it that, to level the playing field, we will use the very latest
>>> Linux distribution, and apply all the upgrades that are available? Oh,
>>> wait, that doesn't sound like what you suppose to "get back" to....
>>>
>>> Bernie
>>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: 26 Dec 2000 22:22:41 GMT
Nic Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I would...
: 1. No blue screen of death
: 2. No virus problems
: 3. Peer reviewed and peer-fixed software... no waiting for MS to fix bugs
: and market it as an upgrade
: 4. My modem works faster under Linux
: 5. My printer prints much faster under Linux
: 6. I can get all of the above on my laptop without the installation
: overheads or bugs of Min 2000
: 7. I can access and modify the source code and truly tailor applications.
In my view, many if not all of these are benefits of the freedom of
Linux. It's unlikely that Linux would exist at all, much less excel
in almost every respect, if not for the GPL or some comparable license
that would allow it to remain free.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:20:52 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Well, now, I'd say the right to bear arms might also have some small
> thing to do with why the USA has never been occupied.
Allow me to illustrate my point re: credibility . . . I agree with you.
Even though in most cases, I think you are a twit.
Your statement stands on its own, even though you are the one who wrote
it.
> Its kind of like the free market; it does work and provides abundance,
> if everyone follows the rules. While the conservatives endlessly assail
> the liberals for wanting to give it a try,
"Give it a try" . . . what "it" are you refering to?
I'm not aware of any conservative "assailing" of liberals for "wanting
to give it [the free market] a try" . . . just the opposite, in fact.
Most conservatives I've listened to assail the liberals for wanting to
tear down (the popular phrase, lately, seems to be: "regulate to death")
the free market.
California's electrical power problems are a perfect example of what
happens when you let liberals regulate the free market to much.
> the liberals are not as
> bemused nor ignorant of the fact that not everyone will follow the
> rules. Ironically, where our real freedom is threatened the greatest,
> economic control, the conservatives would answer by saying 'since nobody
> wants to follow the rules, lets not have any'.
Far to often, your writings are as clear as the above . . . if anybody
understood that, I invite them to volunteer for ESP research . . .
;->
> In the end, any given liberal is as likely to be a stupid moron as any
> given conservative, and both have outrageous cases to cite as well as a
> substantial burden of evidence that extremists are more likely to gain
> popular support than moderates. As often as the case or the reporting
> may seem counter-indicative, liberals prefer the liberty of the
> individual
If this were true, why would gun control be such a strong issue with
liberals?
Contrary to your position, most liberals are willing to restrict or
remove a great many individual liberties, in favor of having the
government make the citizenry do "the right thing", whether it be in
regards to guns, global warming or private use of public lands.
Of course, most liberals view this as being an *increase* in liberty,
not a decrease.
How they arrive at that conclusion, is beyond me.
> and conservatives prefer the liberty of the business owner.
A base canard! Give one clear example of this pattern of thinking, if
you can.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:23:16 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:25:57
> > >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> dvick wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "taking a turn at the government teat"???
> > >> > Isn't that just an insulting way of saying the government pays for the
> > >> > armed forces? Where else do you expect the military to get funding
> > >> > but from the government? Bakes sales? Charging money for HMMWV
> > >> > rides?
> > >>
> > >> Why not? That's how our schools end up raising money for frills like
> > >> desks and blackboards.
> > >
> > >But... you wouldn't have schools, or desks, or blackboards if it weren't
> > >for the military protecting us.
> >
> > Well, now, I'd say the right to bear arms might also have some small
> > thing to do with why the USA has never been occupied.
>
> Isn't that the EXACT SAME RIGHT which liberals keep trying to
> get nullified...
>
> Just askin'...
Nope. According to the liberals, this is a not a right, therefore,
restricting or reducing this, can't be a reduction in personal liberty.
Can you say: "New Speak"?
;-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:22:13 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > (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. Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
> > "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
> > environments are much better than they really are.
>
> And people who use Windows and use Linux are quite capable of spotting
> what is "evangelism" and what isn't. Linux appears to be a very good
> system if all you want is a CLI or multiple CLI's. It starts to show its
> cracks when you try to go for a good GUI. Windows is far from perfect, but
> Linux + KDE for example is not any better.
Please list the advantages and disadvantages :-)
> > Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
>
> Because some things are better on Windows?
Please list the advantages and disadvantages :-)
> Because more hardware on Intel machines is supported on Windows than on
> Linux?
Incorrect. Only if drivers are delivered with the OS or are available.
Linux drivers are normally part of the distribution and/or are vendor
independent. From that perspective Linux supports much more hardware than
Windows. (BTW - its very diffcult Iif not impossible) to have up-to-date
drivers included in Windows by hardware vendors)
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:29:14 GMT
whats security access level 1001?
kiwiunixman
Todd wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> <snype>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, no.
>>>
>>> Using Windows, you have always had direct access to the software, your
>>> files, and the hardware.
>>>
>>> What is new with NT/2000 is the concept of multi-user - and those users
>>> having *less* access than normal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Multi user is when you share the servers/workstation resources
>> (CPU/Mem/hdd space) with multiple users. NT has never had multi-user
>> support until Citrix released Citrix Winframe, which allows a sort of
>> suedo multi-user system possible.
>
>
> This statement is blatantly false.
>
> To prove this, fire up rcmd under a different user, and connect to a NT/2000
> machine.
>
> Check the 'owner' of the objects, and you will see that they are owned by
> the user that connected with rcmd. When something is executed on the NT
> machine, the process and everything else is owned by the rcmd user. You can
> have different users at the same time, of course, each using their own
> resources.
>
> Please brush up on your NT knowledge.
>
> An even easier way to prove this is to use rcmd or telnet with Windows 2000.
> Fire up the task manager and click the 'view processes from all users'...
> you will see that the user processes are indeed owned by that user.
>
>
>> And from your extensive knowledge,
>> your should know what security access level 1 is, reply with the
>> answer, if you know, wintroll!
>
>
> You need to educate yourself far more regarding NT/2000...
>
> -Todd
>
>
>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
