Linux-Advocacy Digest #186, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 04:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MORE EF MASTERMINDEN! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux vs Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:44:57 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92qhnu$21f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> Over the past year, Mozilla and Konqueror became usable, and
> :> StarOffice was finally freed.
> :>
> :> Hence, it's now possible to create a VERY reliable, functional, and
> :> cost-effective Linux desktop in a corporate environment for about a
> :> fifth of the initial cost of its NT equivalent, and with virtually
> :> zero ongoing support/maintenance costs. (There will be a one-time
> :> cost for retraining heavy MSOffice users.)
>
> : functional is a bit of stretch. I guarantee you that if you take any
100
> : office users and give them StarOffice, the majority will find StarOffice
to
> : lack features they need to do their jobs.
>
> I hear moaning and bitching every day about how MSOffice or Winblows
> crashed just before an important presentation or deadline.
Amazing that, isn't it? It knows exactly when an important deadline is so
that it can mysteriously crash, wiping out even saved backups just before
someone has to justify that they actually did work. While i'm sure it
happens, I have overheard several coworkers over the years say "Just tell so
and so that the PC crashed, that'll give you an extra couple of days to get
the job done".
"The dog ate my homework".
> If users are temporarily concerned about things SO "cannot" do because
> the keyboard shortcut might be different, or it might be in a
> different place on the menu, I think I can live with that.
There is all kinds of functionality that's just not present in StarOffice.
I'm not talking about keyboard shortcuts or moved menus.
> : You're also assuming that a typical office worker only has needs for
those
> : programs. Most companies have Access databases, contact management
systems
> : (ACT or GoldMine for instance. Nothing similar exists for Linux),
custom VB
> : programs, etc...
>
> You're *assuming* that I'm assuming. I've been around long enough to
> have a pretty good idea of how "[m]ost companies" work.
>
> Yes, there is some proprietary crap like what you've described. In
> many cases, there's a lot, and at least some of it is fairly central
> to some people's responsibilities.
ACT or GoldMine are pretty central core applications to just about any
business with a sales force. Entrenched data will also be quite difficult
to convert. For instance, a manufacturing plant that uses a Windows based
ERP and accounting system would spend millions in conversion alone.
> However, there is no reason that a browser-based front end can't be
> quickly and easily built around a contact system or any reasonably
> built Access "database." If it can't, then that's a very good reason
> to discontinue use of the thing as soon as possible, regardless of
> platform.
Oh, gee. Browser based front-ends are the savior of the world. You should
talk with Max, who believes that no interface should be browser based at
all.
> The VNC solution works in the interim.
What's the point of doubling your support costs (more like trippling,
because you also have to train your staff in both systems).
> :> "What about custom VB/Powerbuilder/Delphi apps," you might ask? Well,
> :> in the short term, you can keep NT boxes around for these, and access
> :> them via VNC.
>
> : That won't work, because every user will then be sharing the same
desktop.
> : Try putting 100 users on the same desktop.
>
> Obviously you still need 1 copy and 1 license per concurrent user.
> But you've already got one of each, or at least I hope you do, or else
> Mafia$oft's lawyers will be very unhappy.
So you stick 2 machines at every desktop. Talk about stupid. You've just
doubled the hardware costs, tripled the support costs, and are making users
3x less productive because they have to switch between different OS's all
the time. You can't cut and paste between systems for instance.
> You still win if not all of your users are in the system at the same
> time.
And what if they are?
> You may be able to use something like Terminal Server or Winframe to
> manage multiple instances per box, if licensing issues permit.
Then what's the point of using Unix?
> And this is only a stopgap measure. Slapping a Web interface onto a
> well designed custom app is really not a big deal - you did remember
> to use a MVC architecture, right? If not, then the thing needs to be
> rebuilt anyway.
Custom VB apps are seldom well designed. Hell, they may not even have the
source code anymore.
> :> In the longer term, though, most of the kinds of apps
> :> these tools used to be used for are being redesigned and rewritten
> :> using an n-tier architecture, with thin (browser-based) clients being
> :> the preferred mode of access. There is no reason the app should know
> :> or care what kind of OS the browser is running on.
>
> : They're not going to rewrite those apps. VB allowed them to write a
simple
> : app to do something quickly, they're not going to spend 100x more in
> : developer time to do something in C.
>
> Why use C *or* VB when every Linux distribution comes with good
> scripting languages and IDEs (including some GUI builders)?
Oh, yes... you're going to completely replace a VB app with Tcl/Tk or
something similar. Right. You're forgetting about things like OLE
embedding and programmed use of Word, something which will be near
impossible to duplicate without writing everything from scratch in Unix.
> Please note that these are the company's decisions, not mine. I'd
> have gone a different way on a few points, although I largely agree
> with most of them (including DNA - we had to fight to keep it as an
> acceptable option for new development, since it's burned the company
> quite a bit; however, I'm not averse to recommending it in the rare
> cases where it is the technically better solution and where it doesn't
> result in continued over-dependence upon Mafia$oft).
And why do you think they make those decisions? Clearly because they
believe it's in their best interests. Or do you think you can second guess
them?
> :> But, once you've done that, it becomes possible to port the app
> :> relatively easily to other platforms.
>
> : No, those apps are still using Windows API's, they're just using common
> : subsets.
>
> Using the API directly is a very bad idea, especially from VB, where
> most of our Windows-only developers work. Most knowledgeable
> developers abstract it behind functions that take VB data types at the
> very least; watching a VB novice try to figure out why embedded null
> characters f*ck up VB string handling is a painful experience, and so
> senior developers always write functions that others can use rather
> than attempting to figure this stuff out on their own.
Hmm.. ebedded Nulls aren't really a problem in VB. VB uses a length based
string, by storing the strings length as an offset, unlike C strings which
use NULL for terminators.
> :> Hardware support: this is a chicken-and-egg problem, exacerbated by
> :> pressure illegally asserted by Mafia$oft, but even so, we're seeing
> :> more chickens and more eggs all the time. I predict this will be a
> :> non-issue within those same two years.
>
> : I doubt it. Linux will never have those scaled down modems and other
> : hardware that OEM's love because they're cheap.
>
> They could publish the interfaces, and then Linux hackers could write
> drivers. That they don't is almost certainly 100% due to Mafia$oft
> pressure, and it remains to be seen whether it will be able (or even
> willing, in light of .NET) to continue to exert it.
Right. They don't publish their hardware specs because it's a competitive
industry. If I can come up with hardware that works the same as your
hardware, I don't need to write drivers and I make more money because of my
reduced support costs.
> :> Appearance: yes, we need better font rendering. XFree86 4.0.2 has it.
> :> The toolkits need minor adjustment to take advantage of the render
> :> extensions. That will be a done deal soon, with completely
> :> antialiased distros available probably midyear if not sooner.
>
> : Apart from fonts, they also need more standards between desktop
> : environments.
>
> That's coming.
Doesn't look like it.
> I will be the first to admit that UI design is one of the few areas
> where most Windows programs are demonstrably superior to their Linux
> counterparts.
Hell, and the Windows programs aren't even well designed in most cases.
> But that is a sign of the relative immaturity of these apps. Windows
> apps of a similar vintage (~10 years ago) were monstrosities compared
> to KDE- or Gnome-anything. Linux apps will catch up, especially once
> more formerly Windows-centric ISVs are on board.
No, even Windows 3.0 apps were more consistent and better designed than most
X apps.
> :> :> 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.
> :>
> :> I find that hard to believe, since I've never seen *any* Linux user
> :> run as root, but, if that's really the case, you should be able to fix
> :> that problem yourself with minimal effort. :)
>
> : It's easy to run as root. Most users don't understand the security
issues.
> : When you don't run as root, you need to worry about file privs and such.
> : It's a pain to su all the time.
>
> Once you get on the net, you *will* be portscanned, and once a
> portscan finds a way to do something nasty as root, you *will* be
> cracked. Once you're cracked, at least in the way that people usually
> are cracked (i.e., by "script kiddiez"), you will soon find out.
Unless you have a firewall, as most cable and DSL modems provide these days
by default.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MORE EF MASTERMINDEN!
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:46:51 -0600
Shut the fuck up Ebert.
I've already posted my web site, and shown that it runs under Linux via
Netcraft.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <_VY36.5313$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >No, I use Linux because it's the right tool for the job I use it for,
> >however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the
lack
> >of standardization between distros.
> >
>
> Now! To consolidate everything else EF has said,
> take a gander at this comment.
>
> Does anybody believe EF uses Linux or has ever used Linux?
> If you've been a study of EF you wouldn't think so.
>
> To mix EF with Linux would be like giving a rat poison.
>
> Truely, no domestic house pet is safe while their is
> an EF in your neighborhood.
>
> EF is masterbating - homocidal - jerkwad brain.
>
> I rest my case.
>
> Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:52:56 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > So here it is the new year and no new Linux kernel yet. Goes to show
> > that Linux's due dates are no better than anyone elses.
>
> Who cares? When it is released, it will work, unlike MS who delays and
> delays, and eventually releases a buggy project because Marketing says
> it has too.
Oh, that must be why there were something like 6 or so kernel patches
released within weeks of 2.2's release.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:57:25 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92pop8$uln$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the
> > lack of standardization between distros.
> >
> I what way does that (even if it were true) interfere with the distro you
> use? Or do you (out of habit from windows) do your daily reinstall
routine?
Trying to find a program for my particular distribution has become a pain.
Updating has become a pain. In trying to upgrade XFree86 4.0.1 to 4.0.2, I
completely lost the ability to start new programs because the dependancies
got out of whack. Things needed to be installed in specific orders and it
took hours to figure out which files had to be installed first.
> And before in this thread i did NOT say that NT locked up every night.
> Just once with an distroyed filesystem was enough for me.
> I do NOT accept such things. The machine had to be reinstalled, so i
> figured that in that case i could just as well install linux. It has
stayed
> that way, thats all. The other machine was installed with WARP 4 at that
> time and is now also a linux machine.
Just one power outage can kill your whole filesystem under ext2.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:29:15 GMT
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > NTFS 5 allows for compression on a per file basis as well as encrption on a
> > per file basis. This is quite nice to have at the file system level.
>
> I'd prefer such a feature at the application level for a couple of reasons:
> * Allows the use of different algorithms, not just the standard system ones
That's the great thing about the IFS system in Win2K (and NT), you can
write your own EFS that could even be Open Source and could use any number
of different algorithims. EFS is just the one that came with Win2K, but
there's nothing preventing anyone from writing something just like it with
more flexibility.
> * Can't be forced to encrypt or compress a file by a program (more control)
I'm not sure I understand what this means, but given the flexibility
I've mentioned above, I'm sure it could be done fairly easily. Of course,
there's nothing preventing you from doing it all at the application level
as well, but then every application must become aware of encryption which
is a bit more to ask than just having the OS do it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 08:57:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:53:48 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:5LX36.47378$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files,
it's
> >> > not
> >> > going to be able to replace Windows.
> >>
> >> In some instances, it is very useful to be able to use an editor to
edit
> >> these text files and configure the system. Sometimes a GUI can just
"get
> >in
> >> the way".
> >>
> >> I don't think Linux is going to be held back by being configured by
text
> >> files - I think your other excellent points are closer to the truth.
> >
> >You misinterpret what I said. I said as long as Linux *MUST* be
maintained
> >through text files. In other words, even with tools like linuxconf, you
> >still need to maintain quite a bit through text files exclusively.
> >
> >There's nothing wrong with text configuration files, as long as there are
> >easier ways to maintain it as well.
> >
>
> Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
> OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
> the OS.
Yes, its' been gasping its' last breaths for, what, 30+ years now?
If its' configuration model were an issue, it would have been re-done by now
doncha think?
> In theory MS could release an OS with an entirely different structure
> for the registry and not break a single application. This is possible
> since the interface to the registry is controlled through regedit or
> the appropriate library functions. OTOH with Unix the system is
> configured through any text editor and the configuration parameters
> are exposed at the lowest level - through the file system. Any small
> change to these files would break numerous programs.
Any small change to registry contents would have the same effect.
Your example of changing the access mechanism is a non-sequitor.
> An open system like Unix is somewhat analogous to having hardware
> without drivers - all software would be exposed to the internal
> operation of the hardware. This is what it was like in the early '90s
> - take a look at the early source code for NCSA telnet and you will
> see that there was different code for different Ethernet cards. The
> first thing you did before buying a new Ethernet card was ensure it
> was "NE2000 compatible" - otherwise you may be buying a host of
> compatibility problems. Packet drivers providing a standard software
> interface solved these problems.
Kernel Modules == device drivers
> Unix is more or less stuck. Its open design prevents it from ever
> undergoing any sort of radical redevelopment. I know a lot of the
> people in this group think that Gnome or KDE or linuxconf is a radical
> redevelopment. But this is just window dressing (pun intended). In
> the meantime MS has made the transition from DOS, Windows 3.1, 95/98
> and on to NT/2000 while breaking relatively few applications. All of
> these OS's have very different natures - especially NT versus the
> others.
You are assuming radical re-development is needed or, indeed, desired.
A counter-point to this would be that if MS had started out with a solid
backbone, the need for radical re-designs would be moot.
>
> The one thing that Windows haters love to attack the most is the
> registry. Why did MS ever give up those nice .ini files? The irony
> is that the introduction of the registry is probably one of the most
> important changes MS has made. Even if NT/2000 doesn't survive it is
> difficult to see an open and inflexible OS like Unix surviving much
> longer.
An OS that has been embraced for over a 30+ year period stands a far better
chance of survival than one that has had to re-define itself at least thrice
in half the time.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 03:03:48 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Indeed it did. Yet, somehow a Windows NT machine that crashes daily
doesn't
> > have something wrong with it?
>
> Nothing that could be fixed by an army of onsite MCSE
> and microsoft reps. And I didn't say it crashes daily, I
> said it crashed at inopportune times, and the consensus
> from the microsoft experts was a daily therapeutic reboot.
Perhaps these people were padding their time, trying to milk the job for all
it was worth.
> > > I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
> > > and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
> > > will see if I can locate an online reference.
> >
> > You made the claim. Back it up.
>
> my aren't we paranoid.
You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and then
refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
> > > The windows machine that only runs the database needed
> > > to be reboted nightly. That's also standard practice at web
> > > server farms where they have "green acres" windows nt
> > > installations to try to provide uptime even though individual
> > > nt boxes blue screen at various times. It has been found better
> > > to do a therapeutic nightly reboot at a scheduled time rather
> > > than have windows nt lock up at some random and possibly
> > > inconvenient time.
> >
> > And you know this how?
>
> I work in the industry. I talk to people. I've been a webmaster
> and system administrator for years.
You talk to people. Nice.
> > I'm sure the Windows machines were 9x based. Right?
>
> I'll admit the nt boxes were less trouble than other windows
> systems.
You're so gracious.
> > > Because I've worked with Linux and other Unices,
> > > as well as windows, for years. I know how they behave
> > > in everyday, real life production environments. and I'm
> > > telling you, the Linux systems (and FreeBSD and others)
> > > let me sleep solidly. The windows systems are the ones
> > > that blue screen at 3 AM.
> >
> > Always in the middle of the night. Strange, isn't it?
>
> No, they will blue screen at other times, but it's the
> 3 AM blue screens that stick in ones memory.
Of course.
> > Sure, however there are still far fewer of those than all NT (including
> > Workstations).
>
> Since over 60% of the webservers on the internet are Unix,
> and 75% of the mailservers are Unix, and 80% of the high
> end databases are running on Unix, where do you get the
> idea that unix is outnumbered there by windows nt?
Where do you get those numbers from?
The only stats I know of about web server useage is Netcraft, and Netcraft
doesn't count sites. It counts hostnames. My website has 5 hostnames in
the global DNS and it's a single server. The numbers do not state what you
think they do.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 03:05:30 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Let me get it striaght, you've a NT box(s) that BSOD occationly, and you
> > remember those 3 AM BSOD especially because...?
>
> Getting up and driving to the office at 3 am does that -
> Gee, I'd have thought that'd be an easy concept....
>
> > Did you had to reset the machine manually?
>
> It isn't me, it's my poor nt admin co workers - I'm
> the lucky one, I admin Unix boxes, I get to sleep
> at night and have my weekends free.
You just said you had to drive to the office at 3am to reset it. Now you
say you don't.
> And AFAIK they had to reboot the blue screened
> windows pc server with the button...
It's a simple click to tell NT to reboot automatically upon a blue screen.
Doesn't sound like your admin friend was very knowledgable.
> Surely you've heard the old saying that the number
> one remote nt administration tool is your car?
No. You just made that up.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 03:08:20 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > No, I use Linux because it's the right tool for the job I use it for,
>
> I could swear by your postings that it's all wrong for you.
No, Linux just doesn't work for me on the desktop, and I refuse to accept
peoples claims that it can replace Windows today.
> > however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the
lack
> > of standardization between distros.
>
> That's cool, FreeBSD is powerful and stable, but if you think
> FreeBSD is going to be any different in terms of having config
> files in /etc and the like, you're in for a rude awakening.
I've run FreeBSD for years. The thing is, it's consistent where Linux is
not.
> But I don't see your point about lack of standardization
> between distros. what's your point? If you live in Europe,
> standardize on SuSE. If you live in the US, standardize
> on Red Hat. Everything works, problem solved.
Finding information about your particular distro is a pain. Figuring out
how to write your config files from a How-To written for a different distro
is like pulling your hair out.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:11:45 +0000
mlw wrote:
> What's the point of FAT32 if you have NT?
Why bother with NTFS on a single workstation that isn't networked most of
the time?
> I back up my system regularly, but I wouldn't do a special backup just
> for one package. Why should one expect that a program install would
> cause a system to fail to operate?
Installing a development package is a bit more than just installing any old
program.
Besides, this is Microsoft, you don't really trust anything from them do
you? 8)
> The emergency boot disk only restores the last registry, usually the
> state right after install.
You did run rdisk didn't you to make new backups?
> You can usually boot Linux "-s" for single mode, this will keep from
> loading any of the normal drivers and services. There are far more
> options for resurrecting a Linux system than a dead NT box, which is
> ironic, in that NT has these problems more often.
Windows 2000 has a safe mode, seems to work.
> > I've already answered that one.
> How?
Read my previous replies.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
