Linux-Advocacy Digest #190, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 13:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("David Casey")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("David Casey")
Strange passwd (Martin)
Re: COM on UNIX (RussLyttle)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Suggestions for Linux (Andres Soolo)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: COM on UNIX (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (israel raj thomas)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Casey" <[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: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:26:07 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was decorated multiple times in SWA Theater of Operations.
> Bill wasn't.
You made the claim, now prove it or admit you are lying.
Dave
------------------------------
From: "David Casey" <[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: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:28:45 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, when DejaNews restores their entire message-base again,
> it will be quite evident.
Doesn't seem like it will ever happen. You got lucky this time.
> If you don't recall, it was PRECISELY because I *dared* to mention
> that historically, our enemies have considered our medics to be
> high priority targets in an ambush that got your (yellowc1c4's),
> Bill Hudson's, Dave Casey's, and V-(wo)man's undies in such a bunch.
Cool! I thought you'd forgotten about me! I guess you're scared of me
posting you into another corner again. Hard to keep up with me, isn't it?
Dave
------------------------------
From: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Strange passwd
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:42:37 +0800
I installed 2 Turbolinux at 2 separate machine A and B. I want to make
some users who do not need a password when they are login.
=========================================================================
In Machine A, I tried as following:
>passwd -d user123
>passed -S user123
Changing password for user user123
Empty password.
(and I can login this user without a password.)
=========================================================================
In Machine B, I got something different as following:
>passwd -d user123
>passed -S user123
Changing password for user user123
No Password set.
(and I CAN'T login with this user without a password.)
=========================================================================
Why this happened? The two machines are have same linux version and same
config, and I tried to delete the problem user in machine B, and
recreate again, but problem still exists.
Thanks for any helps!
Martin.
------------------------------
From: RussLyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: COM on UNIX
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 16:15:03 GMT
Andy Newman wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Has anyone build a COM server on a unix/linux machine ,
>
> There are a few commercial COM implementations. Level8 offer
> some interesting products.
>
> >Yes...the idea was INVENTED on Unix....
>
> Probably not, the Xerox people were probably doing it a long
> time before, and the people before them...
>
I think it was first from IBM, but dropped when they couldn't solve the security and
stability problems. MS adopted the son of
the IBM model as COM (then DCOM, MTS, ActiveX at marketing whim). CORBA takes a
different approach to the same end and is,
hopefully, more secure.
> >YEARS before migrating to Microshaft-land.
>
> Yes. COM is implemented via DCE RPC which was done on Unix.
>
To prevent flames, I agree, but, as you said earlier, that wasn't where the technology
was invented.
> >It's called CORBA
>
> Sort of. You need DCOM+MTS to match good ORBs.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 16:33:20 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:15:06
>"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:92idqb$1qs5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > It's been shown numerous times.
>> >
>> > The OS cannot be determined accurately. Period.
>> >
>> > Cases in point: Several sites (listed in another thread on this topic
>> several
>> > weeks ago) show that they web server is IIS 4.0 running on Linux or BSD.
>>
>> Then please point me to that post. I have been asking for such data for
>> weeks.
>>
>> > In this case, it appears that there is a Linux or BSD firewall/load
>> balancer
>> > and that the web server behind it is NT/IIS. Now, which uptime do you
>> think
>> > is being reported? Is it the web server, or the firewall/load balancer?
>>
>> The firewall/load balancer, of course. OS and uptime will typically come
>> from the front end machine (through network characteristics), the
>webserver
>> comes from the http header strings. If the OS is coming from the
>firewall,
>> so is the uptime.
>
>Found another one.
>www.walmart.com
Another one WHAT, Ayende?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:39:56 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > Any script you can write in Unix can be written for Windows as well.
I
> > > > don't understand your point.
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > Fork off 500 paralell processes on a LoseDOS machine and see what
> > > happens.
> >
> > The same thing that happens under Linux.
>
> This is completely false. Processes in Linux are much more lightweight
> in their counterparts in Windows land.
Yes, they are. But 500 processes should not cripple either machine on
today's hardware.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: 2 Jan 2001 17:10:53 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> idea. What a stroke of genius. Also, the whole idea of putting buttons on
> the bottom of the screen in a task bar may be original, provided they didn't
OS/2 had similar concept earlier.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CONSULTANT:
An ordinary man a long way from home.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:28:01 GMT
In article <xsy36.52770$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92m36.113093$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:92jgdq$dd7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > : > That could explain why Microsft platforms
> > : > are the leaders in the desktop and
> > : > server market.
> > :
> > : We're talking a number of felonies here. Cocain dealers are also
> > : very profitable.
> >
> > You seem to think that making profit is a felony,
No. Judge Jackson, 19 District Attourneys, and the Department of
Justice think that using illegal contracts, illegal use of monopoly
power in one market to gain control of competitive markets, and
numerous other business practices conducted by Microsoft constitute
criminal behavior.
If it were only a single executive committing these acts, they would
simply arrest that executive. When there is an entire corporate
infrastructure, and billions of dollars of investor capital at stake,
the remedy is to put the corrections officer in the board-room.
The Federal court has convicted Microsoft and it's executives of
criminal behavior. That conviction will be a matter of record even
if the entire verdict is overturned on appeal.
Overturning a criminal conviction on the basis of a technicality
is something drug dealers do quite regularly. This is what Microsoft
is trying to do. Microsoft asserts that they have done nothing wrong,
but even a presidential pardon and immunity from further prosecution
would not clear the federal court records.
This isn't some two-horse town in the middle of new mexico where
a good lawyer and a few well placed phone calls can expunge all traces
of the record. This is a federal court conviction which is subject
to contest by any or all of the plaintiffs and the defendent.
There is a remote possibility that the Supreme Court could review the
entitre record and transcript and deteremine that, despite numerous
acts of perjury, numerous admissions by the defendents, and several
thousand pages of briefs and corroborative evidence, that they could
decide that Microsoft "did nothing wrong".
If the Supreme Court makes that ruling, it will be like some of the
other contriversial cases where the court's rulings are based on the
letter of the law, not the spirit and intent of the law.
I DO expect the courts to prevent the involuntary break-up of
Microsoft. But I also expect the courts to impose many, if not
all of the behavioral remedies proposed by the DOJ and Judge Jackson.
Furthermore, the court will probably modify the ruling such that it's
in Microsoft's best interests to valuntarily split into regulated
and nonregulated businesses (possibly 3-4 subsidieries).
> > which is the case for the
> > cocain dealers according to the existing laws.
> > On the flip side, Microsoft
> > making profit is not against any laws at the present time.
Making a profit in legitimately conducted busines under legal contracts
and without breaking existing trade, fraud, callusion, and monopoly
laws is an honorable thing. Microsoft has the right to innovate and
to profit from it's innovation.
The issue here is that others also have the right to innovate and
profit from their innovation, but Microsoft's business practices
have created an environment where Microsoft is the ONLY company
who is allowed to profit from their innovation.
To take sides with Microsoft is to take sides against IBM, Sun, HP,
Dell, Compaq, Oracle, AT&T, Caldera, Red Hat, Novell, Corel, Inprise,
Real-networks, Netscape/AOL, and Apple, as well as all of the other
companies who have either been driven out of the market by Microsoft
or exist at a fraction of their original value because of Microsoft's
illegal business practices.
> Should a convicted cocain dealer be allowed to continue to use the
> marketing structure he built illegally as long as you can't prove he
> is not breaking a law today?
The real issue here is; what would be possible it a fully competitive
market? The best indicator of this would be the Linux market, in which
the market is intensely competitive, innovation thrives at phenomenal
levels, and profit is made by providing service, training, support,
and products for a common baseline set of standardized components.
Look at the level of innovation in the telecommunications arena. In
markets where there is intense competition (long distance, internet
content providers, backbone services, hosting,...) the level of
innovation is extremely intense. In markets where there is very little
or no competition (high speed service to residential customers) the
level of innovation is completely stifled. In many areas, residential
customers are unable to get DSL because the local telephone company
that owns the wires won't spent $500 to replace an analog balun with
a digital repeater/codec. In other cases, residential customers
have fiber-optic cable running right in front of their house (en route
to commercial customers down the road, but are denied access because
the residential local telephone company doesn't want to lose revenue
from residential customers.
In the Microsoft marketplace, where Microsoft seems to hold all the
cards, it has taken nearly 15 years from the introduction of the first
Mac and the first Sun 1 graphical workstations for Microsoft to allow
the innovations of those companies to be ported to Microsoft Windows.
Even then, Microsoft's abject refusal to adhere to, and publish,
standards that would be mandatory under other federal communications
laws, has lead to incompatibilities and further market maniplation.
Microsoft introduced DHCP, ActiveX, Macroviruses, trojan horses,
and a perversion of Kerberos and LDAP called Active Directory,
which did little more that make illegal extensions to standards
established by a federally funded non-profit organization, for
the purpose of excluding competitors. Put bluntly, Microsoft's
"innovations" were actually flagrant theft of intellectual property
placed in the public trust during the Reagan and Bush adiminstrations
which were plundered and expanded during the Clinton administrations
for Microsoft's sole profit.
Microsoft has evaded and ignored nearly all government regulations
with impunity. They have ignored FTC laws including fraud,
bait-and-switch, false advertising, and illegal contract practices.
Microsoft has evaded and ignored numerous SEC laws including fraudlent
reporting of revenue and earnings, inaccurate reporting of "holding
company" assets, insider trading, and inaccurate reporting of financial
data.
Microsoft has ignored FCC regulations which restrict the use of
encrypted and non-standard emissions through common carrier equipment,
illegal wire-tapping, and the use of FCC regulated telecommunications
equipment for illegal purposes.
Microsoft also violated NSA Encryption restrictions with it's MSCHAP
and MSNBC encryption schemes (which were not relaxed until AFTER
it was discovered that Microsoft was in violation).
Microsoft has been in business since 1977. It's executives have
even bragged about illegal activities engaged in from that period
to the present. Bill Gates was a habitual wreckless driver, Steve
Ballmer regularly hired prostitutes, and many of Microsoft's former
partners (MITS, Commodore, Apple, Radio Shack, IBM,...) would probably
say that Microsoft engaged in some very illegal practices (in fact
lawsuits were filed and Microsoft nearly always settled generously
on undisclosed terms).
In fact, Microsoft's most effective legal strategy is to demand
that all of the records be sealed as part of the settlement so
that evidence presented in one court case can't be brought up
in another case. This is exactly what Microsoft tried to do with
the Caldera and Sun settlements.
To my knowledge, Microsoft has not actually engaged in violent crimes
such as murder or assault. There were the mysterious accidents, one
of which killed Gary Killdal, another nearly killed Steve Wozniack,
and a sailing incident that nearly killed Larry Ellison. But those
were probably just accidents.
I am interested in seeing this new movie - AntiTrust. The trailers
looked very interesting.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: COM on UNIX
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:47:57 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yes...the idea was INVENTED on Unix....
> > YEARS before migrating to Microshaft-land.
> >
> > It's called CORBA
>
> Sorry, CORBA came after COM.
CPRBA took time to get it (almost)right. COM just rushed to market with
something, be damned if it screws users.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno,comp.os.plan9,comp.os.freebsd,comp.os.openbsd,comp.os.netbsd
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:38:58 GMT
>> 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.
>
>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.
You have obviously not used any of them.
Try downloading and running FreeBSD or Linux.
> OS/2 can multitask and multithread better than any OS on the
>list.
In your dreams !
cdrom.com used to handle 500 simultaneuous ftps transfers using just a
P2 500 running FreeBSD. ( They have upgraded since )
Here is a quote from them:
"Recent benchmark results running BSD/OS on Intel 486/66 processors
show speeds faster than a Sun SPARCStation II running Solaris. The
Pentium processor compares favorably with Sun SS10 when running BSD ".
>> Inferno is a virtual operating system with a virtual filesystem and a
>> virtual machine.
>Would like to learn more about it.
http://www.vitanuova.com/
For information about Plan 9 and Inferno.
Inferno can even run on a PDA.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:48:15 GMT
In article <92jics$r44$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92jdq0$bji$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Neither do most "shrink wrapped products".
> > One of the classic examples
> > of this was a client who wanted to
> > collect survey samples via e-mail,
> > cut-paste the replies (embedded in a
> > Word Document) into an excel
> > spreadsheet so that he could dump it
> > into an Access database which
> > could then be converted to SQL Server 7.
> > Had he only needed to collect
> > 5-10 surveys, he could probably have
> > skipped a number of these steps.
> >
> > Instead, he collected and hand-built 20,000
> > samples using these manual
> > methods and very expensive consultants.
> >
> > Eventually, one of the consultants got fed up,
> > wrote a perl script
> > that used a Linux shell command to
> > convert the word document to text,
> > piped the input into a scanning program
> > that parsed the desired fields,
> > converted these to SQL Insert commands,
> > and piped them to SQL Server
> > using the CLI interface. The responses
> > were sent to a robot which
> > automatically handled the responses.
> >
> > When another such survey was suggested, our friend with the handy
dandy
> > perl script offered to write an Apache/PERL form/script that would
> > identify and authenticate the user, collect their information, and
> > insert the completed record into the appropriate SQL tables.
> >
> > The initial "Microsoft Solution Survey" used well-known products
> > such as office, but required nearly 30 minutes of interaction per
> > form (total time for all steps). That meant a total staffing cost
> > of nearly 20,000/2 10,000 staff hours or 5 staff years (the survey
> > would have been obsolete before the results were tallied).
> >
> > The Apache/Perl solution took about 3 days (15 hours) to build and
> > took less time to complete than the original word document.
>
> That has nothing to do with the technologies that they used.
> It had to do with the stupidty of the users.
It had to do with users who were being told by Microsoft marketeers
that GUIs are GOOD, and SCRIPTS are BAD. They were doing things
the "Microsoft Way".
> It should take few hours to build a VBS file
> that would extract the word
> files from the emails, extract the
> content of the files using Word, and send
> them directly to the SQL Server.
I'd be very interested in seeing the scripts to do that. VBS
is pretty good at basic fixed format grabbing, but not very good
at "free form text" parsing.
> You don't need all those reduntent steps.
Correct.
> Alternatively, you could just use ASP & html forms,
> and write the results directly into the SQL server.
Correct, but then you are balancing the time requried to
write an ASP/SQL script set against the time to write
the Apache mod_perl script and postgres database updates.
It would take about the same amount of time to code either.
Stress testing the ASP version would be much more necessary
and much more likely to result in failures that need to be fixed
later. Actually, the most experienced server code writers wouldn't
use VB at all, but rather C++ or COM+ with fully reentrant code,
creating their own resource locks on well-known high-risk DLL
function calls. These people are very expensive and are on a
first-name basis with "Bill, Steve, and Mike".
The modern Windows 2000 programmer would probably code the solution
under VB or VC++ under MTS, since this would reduce the risk of
race conditions and deadlocks. But legacy and third party products
aren't so easy to upgrade.
Keep in mind that the Apache/PERL/Postgres solution is available in
source code, has been torture tested on high-capacity UNIX systems,
and has no client access or royalty fees. In fact the major expense
would be cortracting a fully competent very experienced programmer
who knew PERL, SQL, and HTML. They're quite plentiful actually.
--
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/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
