Linux-Advocacy Digest #200, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Marty)
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Why Hatred? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(Peter Hayes)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("mud")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptimes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[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 23:59:07 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "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.
Interesting, but this doesn't solve problem #2. BTW, is there enough
documentation publically available for someone to actually code such a thing?
> > * 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.
Allow me to clarify. An application program can make filesystem API calls to
encrypt one of its files (or any file for that matter) without the user's
permission.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:09:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 02 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
> >> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >> That's bizzare, I'd holler to my vendor long, loud and hard about
> >> >> that one - do you have a hardware support contract for the
> >> >> system in question? What distro and kernel? What kind of
> >> >> hardware?
> >>
> >> I grinned at that, of course, because I often take MS apologists to
task
> >> for winging into "troubleshoot mode" as soon as someone mentions a
> >> problem they have on Windows. I ridicule them for doing this, long and
> >> loud, because its really just empty posturing. Generally, the point is
> >> to find someone to blame other than Microsoft.
> >
> >Yeah you would since you were afraid to discuss your past problems,
afraid
> >that they might be soluable.
>
> And as a troll you will feel free to repeat this lie ad infinitum, as
> "proof" of itself, because I am not at all interested in, yet again,
> watching Microsoft apologists go into a tizzy of blame-casting in leu of
> troubleshooting. I happen to be a much better troubleshooter than you
> presume, and have no need for random opinions from people who can't tell
> the difference between monopoly crapware and reliable computer systems.
>
I guess you don't bother solving problems for your customers, you just blame
your incompetence on your tools.
> >> It occurs to me now, of course, that J is doing essentially the same
> >> thing, but there is a fundamental difference. It makes perfect sense
to
> >> find "someone to blame" other than Linux, since Linux isn't a producer,
> >> but a product. Obviously, it makes sense, in fact its necessary, to
> >> reduce the fault domain to a single vendor, in such a situation. Kind
> >> of ironic, though.
> >
> >Linux is a product now. Two days ago you described it as a service.
Which
> >is it?
>
> Software.
>
> [...]
> >> Only if its a pile of crapware.
> >>
> >
> >Sound logic that.....
>
> Indeed, it is, and rather irrefutable, if colloquially presented, yet
> still falsifiable. Feel free to have a go at providing evidence to the
> contrary.
>
> --
> 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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:11:14 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CIk46.51464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fFj46.11915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:u3R36.62473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
15:19:01
> > > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000
23:01:49
> > > > >> [...]
> > > > >> >While your at it, please show where Republicans have bent the
rules.
> > > > >> >After all, this is what T. Max was claiming, which is an obvious
> > > > >> >lie. I called him a liar, and I proved it. Now, prove why I am a
> > liar.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You just did.
> > > > >
> > > > >You have a warped sense of lying.
> > > >
> > > > Guffaw.
> > > >
> > > > >You claimed that Republicans bent the rules. They did not, I proved
it,
> > > > >thus proving you a liar.
> > > >
> > > > No, you claimed that the Democrats were trying to "subvert the rule
of
> > > > law."
> > >
> > > Which they were. You didn't even answer the claims, instead stooping
to
> > > name calling.
> > >
> > > > I merely pointed out, which caused you to thrash wildly in
> > > > partisan posturing,
> > >
> > > Spare me the story telling, Grandpa.
> > >
> > > > that unless you can recognize that the Republicans
> > > > were doing the same thing,
> > >
> > > Which they weren't. You have not made one attempt to even back this
claim
> > up.
> > > This was the claim, in fact, that I proved you were lying, or, at
least,
> > > grossly ignorant.
> > >
> > > > and to the same degree, then your
> > > > consideration of the reality of the situation is obviously, and
deeply,
> > > > flawed.
> > >
> > > Please show me ONE, just ONE example where the Republicans "bent" the
law.
> > >
> >
> > Watergate
>
> In the Florida Election process.
>
> If you want to go into the past and point out times when Dems and Reps
broke
> the law, I could cite far more Democratic law-breakings.
>
> Anyhow, Nixon did that on his own, that wasn't sanctioned by the RNC,
whereas
> this Florida fixing was sactioned by the DNC.
>
As opposed to the Republican Sherrif's setting up roadblocks to intimidate
African American voters on their way to the polls.
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:27:42 +0100
Adam Warner wrote:
>
nothing
>
just try to unlock your caps key would help a lot.
By yelling that way you did you're telling the world just one thing:
Not even clever enough to unlock CAPS !
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 3 Jan 2001 00:33:27 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The registry is a bad idea, I have yet to see one reasonable argument
: for it that can't be countered by a number of very good reasons against
: it.
I agree that a binary registry is a bad idea, but there are some kinds
of information that should be stored on a per-machine basis, for
example, package databases, MIME types, and so forth, and thus
something vaguely like a registry, only human-readable (XML would do
nicely) might not be a bad idea.
This "registry" should be for SYSTEM data, though, not application
data; apps should have their own data store. Also, to avoid locking
problems, it should not contain frequently changing data. Ideally, it
shouldn't be required for booting into at least a minimally functional
system. And, finally, it shouldn't have the disgusting mess of
completely undocumented bullshit that occupies most of any Windows
registry. Everything there should be documented, preferably inline,
and XML DTDs or schemas should be used to do at least minimal sanity
checking of data (for instance, strings should not be allowed in
places where a number would be expected, etc.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:34:17 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 18:22:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
wrote:
>
> Most crazy people have a obsession for the thing their crazy
> about. Adolf and Eva had a special lamp.
What lamp was that?
-Just curious...
Peter
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:47:50 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > But a platform really is only as good as the programs that are for it. Look
> > at OS/2 Warp. As near as I can recall, it was a pure32 bit OS when Windows
> > 95 came out, and yet, look what dominated the desktop. Windows. Why?
> > Windows had the better programs.
By this criterion, then Win98 is better than WinNT or 2000, since it runs
more (and presumably better) programs.
> We heard these same claims when NT4 was released...and it failed to
> deliver.
>
> Why should anybody believe this load of shit again?
Experience, mainly. Win 2000 /is/ an improvement. Still not so pleasant
in daily use, as it is slow in some thing, and bloated.
One sneaky thing Microsoft has done is gotten people to say "Windows",
one word, when there really are many separate products with different
strengths and weaknesses: 95, 98, NT, NT Server, 2000 Pro, 2000 Server,
2000 Advanced Server, and 2000 Datacenter Server.
The price tag goes up and up from left to right, but the Winboyz
can brag about features found in 2000 Server as if they were found in
all versions of Windozzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:42:25 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 01:08:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In addition I like running MusicMatch Jukebox as an MP3 player etc and
> prefer the current NATIVE Windows version instead of running a half
> assed 13 meg bloated piece of crap which is at least a version behind,
> running under Whino like I would have to use under Linsux.
This seems to be a non sequiteur. Surely you can run the latest version
under Wine, so why bother with the "half assed 13 meg bloated piece of crap
which is at least a version behind"? I don't understand.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:51:19 GMT
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wow: I bet you're a fun person to be with.
...yup
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:54:19 +1200
Hi Peter,
>just try to unlock your caps key would help a lot.
>By yelling that way you did you're telling the world just one thing:
>Not even clever enough to unlock CAPS !
I respecfully ask you to read my post, and what I was responding to.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:55:15 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> <sigh>
>
> Ask any self-respecting legal scholar or lawyer what they
> thought of the two FL Supreme Court rulings. If they say
> anything other than "Partisan" or "way off base", then they're
> not a self-respecting legal scholar or lawyer.
Too bad Chad can't see this note, but notice the tangle.
Let's rephrase:
Ask any X what they thought. If the answer is A,
then the X is not an X.
This kind of illogic can keep a discussion going forever.
No matter what one says, if Chad does like it, he
can say you're not a good person.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:58:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:43:32 -0600
<isP36.4631$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Well, I have dissimilar experiences. I've had Linux boxes crash dialy,
>>
>> Sorry, that's just not beleivable -
>
>Therein lies the problem with Linux zealots. They refuse to believe that
>Linux can be unstable.
Linux can indeed be highly unstable. Several factors can contribute
to instability on a particular machine:
[1] Bad power. You'd be surprised how many issues are resolvable with
the tweaking or replacement of the PC's power supply! (There's a
SIGSEGV FAQ somewhere that probably mentions this -- and it's clear
that substandard power will cause many problems, which may not
immediately be apparent to the casual user.)
[2] Bad interface cards or memory sticks.
[3] Bad drivers and/or modules. (Definitely possible, especially if
one is developing them.)
[4] Hackers throwing bad fragments at the system, causing it to crash.
(Even rarer, but still possible -- I'm stil not sure if
Linux's packet reassembly is completely foolproof yet, but at
least in theory I can do source code inspection :-) .)
[5] A misunderstanding of which part of the system crashed.
For example, KDE or GNOME might crash, leaving a user at
a rather confusing windowed display [*], or at the console prompt.
Or a badly-functioning SVGA app might damage the console to the
point of unusability, but everything else is still running along fine.
[6] Kernel-level memory leaks. (These are rare.)
[7] Daemon-leve memory leaks. (These are almost nonexistent; most daemons
will fork off subdaemons to do the actual work; these subdaemons will
of course open sockets and allocate and free memory, but release all
local resources (usually memory and opened fids) when they die. It's
a rather elegant Unixism; the only leaks would be if the top-level
daemon does something stupid -- which is possible, but not very likely.)
(As a side issue, I get nervous every time the system resets the SCSI bus,
usually because of a flaky CD-ROM disc. I'm not sure if the system's
written all the dirty bits out first -- my CD-ROM is on the same bus
as my hard drives.)
>
>Likewise, I know that Windows NT *CAN* be unstable, but I also know that it
>*CAN* be very stable if you know what you're doing. Windows 2000 is just
>stable period.
Actually, NT's instability factors are identical to Linux's.
Unfortunately, NT's parts are so tightly "integrated" that a failure
at a high level tends to confuse everything (ever wonder why NT Server
requires a GUI?). Since NT's source code is also not open, it's
not clear that anyone reviews it on a regular basis, either, which
means [4] might be a little more prevalent than it should be.
Also, NT uses threads, not daemons; it's not clear that a dying thread
will release any resources ([6], [7]). Who cleans up?
I'm not sure about "DLL Hell", admittedly. From what I've heard
regarding Win2k's "fix" for it, I find the notion a bit hackish.
I consider Linux a little more fault-tolerant; not everyone
writes Perfect Programs(tm). :-) But it's not perfect, and can crash.
On average, though, it seems to be slightly more reliable than NT.
I'll admit, though, I'm not sure how one can measure that in an
elegant fashion -- if I had a spare NT license and a good machine, I
probably could at least try to bang on it at home and see what happens.
However, I do not, so I can't -- but my development NT machine is
fairly stable, although I don't have a lot of services running on it.
Of course, this would be highly anecdotal evidence anyway -- one other
issue with Unix is that it runs on beefier hardware, such as big
multiprocessor Sparc boxes; this hardware is probably tested a
little more thorougly by the manufacturer than a garden-variety PC. :-)
>
>> For instance:
>>
>> zdnet did a year long test of windows nt and linux, running
>> their office server tasks. In one year the Linux servers did
>> not crash once. the windows nt servers crashed 13 times.
>
>Do you have a link to this?
Indeed, a cite would be most welcome.
[rest snipped]
[*] If the window manager crashes, all the frames disappear and any
window in a different workspace might get mapped, which means
one gets a pile of windows on his desktop.
If the session manager crashes, everything goes, and the user
most likely will be booted clean out of the system, with X
resetting itself and then xdm or gdm will present a login prompt.
If the X server dies, it will restart and present a login prompt,
at least on a system set up that way (I prefer starting X manually,
which means that its death throws me back into console mode).
If Netscape crashes, it's not clear what happens. Something
in there is mucking with kernel resources, as the system
freezes (according to one of your subsequent posts, anyway).
My experience is that Netscape locks up and I have to do a
kill -9, but the rest of the system is still functional.
There may be a number of issues here. Note that Netscape and
NT don't appear to get along al that well either, according to
some users (I've not really had any problems on my NT machine
at work, but then I don't use it that often).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 93 days, 20:44, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:06:11 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> I don't care if it's developed on a sheet of paper.
>
> I just want it to work, look good, and be simple to operate.
>
> Linux programs seem to be developed on UNIX, maintain their UNIX looks, and
> never go past "it works, but it looks terrible" phase.
Never? You're nutz.
> A failed concpet in open source: USER INTERFACE.
You are indeed the king of the command line.
--
Patiently awaiting the denouement of the Howie Long and
Terry Hatcher saga.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
