Linux-Advocacy Digest #269, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: auto run ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("tony roth")
Re: auto run ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Windows 2000 (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("David
Brown")
Re: Red Hat dead/dying? (John A. Stewart)
Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000 (Jay Hunter)
Re: Red Hat dead/dying? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Could only... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Could only... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. (.)
Re: Archie Bunker argument (was Re: Could only...) (rich)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: auto run
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:53:27 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
> ZippiZ wrote:
>>
>> I am using Turbolinux and Debian, I know the way to set the program to
>> autorun at startup is the rc.local in Turbolinux, but what is that in
>> Debian? Thanks for any suggestion!
>>
>> ZippiZ
> What the fuck is autorun?
Lets look at the word more closely shall we...
First, lets split it in two...
Auto... Short for automatic. To do something without manual intrervention.
Run... To start a program...
So to autorun a program means to start a program auotomatically...
</sarcasm>
Can we say Duuuuh???
Zippy just didn't mention what program he wants to autorun.
I've never used Turbo or Debian, so I don't know if it uses sysv init style
startups.
Oh... And for a unix system enginner, don't you think you should KNOW about
such things a sig file size limits???
Mine's a couple of lines too long, but you're taking the piss with that one!
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
==============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: 05 Jan 2001 08:52:18 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) writes:
> Aaron Ginn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : I've since converted all my partitions to ReiserFS (with the exception
> : of the boot partition, of course). If I ever have to power off
> : again, I know that the subsequent reboot is fast and reliable.
>
> I know this is changing the subject, but when I read statements like this
> I worry just a little. I have less confidence in ReiserFS than you, due
> to a strange problem that I experienced with it a few months ago: I had a
> small ReiserFS partition in which one directory went loopy. Doing an "ls"
> of that directory led to an unending harddrive-grinding noise and no
> output. Eventually, I gave up on that. The ReiserFS fsck (I don't
> remember its name) reported that the file system was clean. I tried "rm
> -rf" on the directory (it wasn't anything of vital importance), and it
> ground for a while, then aborted with an error message.
>
> I've never before experienced this with any other type of file system: an
> obviously broken file system that is claimed to be clean by the utility
> that checks it. It seems pretty bad to me; how could you ever hope to fix
> such a file system?
>
> Anyways, I copied all of the directories somewhere else, and then used
> mkfs to make a new filesystem...ext2, of course. :)
>
> By contrast, I've never had a problem with an ext2 filesystem that
> e2fsck could not find and fix. I know: anecdotal evidence. I'm sure
> someone else has had exactly the opposite experience.
>
> My desire is certainly not that you stop using ReiserFS, rather to remind
> you not to be TOO confident in it or any other software: always make
> backups.
Of course I do regular (well, semi-regular) backups, but in the three
months I've been using it, Reiser has worked very well for me. I've
never seen anything like what you describe above. Of course, I
haven't had to use the Reiser fsck utility yet either.
My Linux machine doesn't really have anything on it that I would be
devastated about losing anyway, other than a lot of mp3s. I just got
tired of waiting 15 minutes to boot whenever the ext2 partitions on my
17 GB hard drive were uncleanly mounted for one reason or another.
Reiser eliminates that.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:20:00 -0800
hmm, so we'll go back to the era of dumb terminals, great! Centralized
computing never had the concept that endusers are smart and need tools to do
their work creatively. As for your example of "telemarketing" systems can
you point me to a commercial telemarketing system that runs on a
"centralised computing" system, please a web site would be great!
also can you inteligently discuss the "fundemental flaws in NT achitecture"?
"the FACT remains that Windows was chosen over UNIX
due to unix's complexity when setting up the transaction side of the server"
there is no "FACT" a fortune 500 firm is not about to use an inferior
system just because its easier!
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There is a gradual move back to centralised computing (esp. in the area of
> telemarketing) due to its very Low TCO when the cost is spread over a
large
> orgnistation, hence, the server needs to be "multi-user" and with this
> demand, the OS must also be able to handle and process thousands of
requests
> per second. NT does not, and never will, have the scalability required to
> undertake massive tasks such as Centralised processing until Microsoft
fixes
> the fundemental flaws in NT achitecture. This is where UNIX comes into
> play. Although you could use NT's "success" in the e-commerce area as an
> example of scalability, the fact remains that Windows was chosen over UNIX
> due to unix's complexity when setting up the transaction side of the
server.
> Hence, the selection of NT was never based on the fact that NT was
superior,
> but because it was easier. However, this flaw in UNIX has been addressed
> (by the iplanet alliance), and you will find that later (when companies
> decide to upgrade etc) they will dump NT for UNIX.
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:eR00B6ndAHA.319@cpmsnbbsa09...
> > ok dumbass give me a good reason for a multi user server vs the
> > functionality provided by a typical nt server! oh boy this is going to
be
> > fun :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Since you have such as vast knowledge regarding UNIX and Windows 2000,
> > > then you should know what it means. Why have I made this conclusion,
> > > because you make so-called educated conclusions regarding UNIX vs.
> > > Windows 2000, hence, you must experience with both platforms to make
> > > such sweeping statements, otherwise, what you are saying is hot air,
and
> > > nothing more.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: auto run
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 16:35:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
> First, lets split it in two...
> Auto... Short for automatic. To do something without manual intrervention.
"Auto" means "self" as far as I know! As in "automobile" = self-moving.
> Run... To start a program...
Look up "locofoco" in the dictionary. A good one.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: 05 Jan 2001 09:13:54 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > > I've seen you reply to 100+
> > > line posts, where your only contribution (if it can be called that) was
> > > to write LOSE (or some variant) where the original poster had written
> > > Win[32|NT|dows]. Is there some point to you doing this?
> >
> > Annoys the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
>
> It demonstrates how little you contribute to this group. It hardly annoys
> anyone, but when you post, because of the way you post, people pay little
> attention to what you have to say, because you've amply demonstrated your
> inability to hold a sensible conversation.
>
> BTW, your signal to noise ratio is still very low. When are you going to
> learn and change that? (BTW: that was a rhetorical question - you're
> incapable of learning, so it won't change).
Kulkis is actually the only entry that I have in my killfile. I can
tolerate Chad Myers and Drestin Black because they at least don't have
to resort to 3rd grade toilet language when responding to someone that
disagrees with them. In the 6 or so months that Aaron has posted
here, I have yet to see a post that actually contributed positively to
any thread.
Unfortunately, some of his posts still pop up in threads that I've
scored up because his score creeps above my kill score. Seeing his
occasional post helps to remind me why I scored him down in the first
place.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:34:05 +0100
>
>> If it connects via USB, or the
>> parallel port (some do - I have one lying around here that is both an
ISDN
>> TA and a modem, and uses the parallel port to get the full ISDN 128
kbaud),
>> or a network, it will still be a real modem. It may not have drivers for
>
>USB might have high enough bandwidth to do the LoseModem trick...
>
>
Although USB theoretically has enough bandwidth, it would take more hardware
to make it work properly that it would to build a proper USB modem. Note
that this is a very different situation from USB speakers, where the PC
sends commands to the speakers to produce various sounds - it would not be
too difficult to make a USB software modem for transmission, it is the
reception that would be tough.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John A. Stewart)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Red Hat dead/dying?
Date: 5 Jan 2001 16:47:02 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Replace Windows with Linux....
>Seriously. I recently did a contract with EDS. We supported over
>5,000 Unix workstations at GM sites scattered all over Michigan and
>even farther away from one room with a staff of less then 20 people.
>This took care of all problems other than hardware failures.
>For those situations, each GM site has a couple of people on duty
>during business hours to do things like keyboard/mouse/spaceball
>replacement, and escorting the vendors' Service Engineers to the
>workstation in question if more extensive work needed to be done.
>These people are barely Unix-literate.
I'm a Unix system administrator but I can see that most of our users are
better served with a Windows machine on their desktop. It's the
applications and common look and feel that make this the only realistic
option for the desktop. I've seen a local telecom manufacturer that still
provided Sun workstations to their engineers, but a large portion of their
computer room was occupied with NT servers that enabled the same
engineers to run Word, Excel, Powerpoint and other popular windows
applications. They have since switched to Microsoft Exchange mail.
When I see an organization become more and more dependent on Windows
applications even though they claim to be primarily a Unix shop I know it
is only a matter of time before they wake up and realize that it would
be better to just drop a Windows box on the desktop so all these
applications can be run in native mode.
Our experience is that Windows machines are easier to support in large
numbers. We can simultaneously drop a new image on hundreds of machines
using Norton Ghost mostly with the effort of a few junior staff members.
The much smaller number of Sun workstations we support are much more
difficult to manage because of the tendancy for Unix systems to be
configured to provide services and for machines to be kept in service much
longer than Windows machines. We've tried to centralize services as much
as we can and force people to retire older machines but the effort and
level of expertise required to support these machines is still high relative
to what it takes to support Windows desktop machines.
I should also mention that most universities also suffer from an
empire building mentality. Instead of providing basic services such as
email and file service on a few large well maintained servers, you find
many departments attempting to support several different operating systems
and associated servers with only one or two staff members.
--
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 613-520-2600x3707
"you are incompetent bloodlusting idiot pirates. -- CCS student feedback"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Hunter)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:19:20 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>I'll bet that after a lot of those Lose 2000 upgrades occur....a lot
>of Microshaft-friendly IT managers will be out on the streets.
>
I'll take that bet. No one ever lost a job by recommending/using Windows.
And what would have them run, Linux? hehehhehe... Not yet...
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat dead/dying?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:25:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc John A. Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our experience is that Windows machines are easier to support in large
You must be joking!
> numbers. We can simultaneously drop a new image on hundreds of machines
> using Norton Ghost mostly with the effort of a few junior staff members.
ghost will do the same for any partition, including linux
ones. It's simply a broadcast protocol. and doesn't depend on windows
in any way!
> The much smaller number of Sun workstations we support are much more
There's no reason why they shouldn't all be configured identically.
tftp and NIS+ takes care of the rest.
> difficult to manage because of the tendancy for Unix systems to be
> configured to provide services and for machines to be kept in service much
> longer than Windows machines. We've tried to centralize services as much
> I should also mention that most universities also suffer from an
> empire building mentality. Instead of providing basic services such as
> email and file service on a few large well maintained servers, you find
> many departments attempting to support several different operating systems
> and associated servers with only one or two staff members.
True, but that's not empire building. Empire building is when ONE
department starts to offer a special service for the whole uni,
usurping other departments efforts. An example would be taking control
of broadcast tunnels for video and audio communications.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 05 Jan 2001 17:58:27 +0000
> > Ever been to the UK? All plugs are 3-prong and contain a fuse.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not in my hotel rooms.
Really? Maybe some hotels cater to foreign travellers. The only
2-pin socket you're likely to see in the UK is a shaver socket in the
bathroom, which will only supply a small current (1 Amp, IIRC) and is
usually marked `shaver only'. Every other consumer electrical device
you can buy in the UK comes with a 3-pin plug (though a few years ago
you actually had to buy and fit your own plug), and every electrical
socket you will see in a house is 3-pin.
Actually, the razor anomaly has always puzzled me. I assume the reason
is to comply with international practice, since razors are such a
common item to travel with. I've a suspicion that UK building
regulations forbid normal 13 Amp electrical sockets in bathrooms;
certainly, normal light switches are illegal because of the risk of
shock with wet fingers (pull cords are used instead, unless the
lightswitch is actually outside the bathroom).
> What I was talking about was that wherever I have been in Europe (including
> the UK), every electrical device I saw used an un-polarized two-prong
> plug, which, according to my understanding of electricity (as taught to
> me at Purdue University), is a shock hazard.
The twin round plug is ubiquitous elsewhere in Europe. Once such a
standard is established, it's very difficult to change it while
preserving backwards coompatibility (having seen your sketch of the US
plug, either one of the pins is larger than on the old plugs - in which
case new devices will not fit into old sockets - or one pin is smaller -
in which case old devices will not fit into new sockets). On the
other hand, there are other issues about plug design and electrical
safety. If an american plug is pulled part-way out of the socket, is
there any live metal exposed? This is not the case for modern
European (including UK) plugs, whereas it is the case for the US plugs
I've seen.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Could only...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Jan 2001 03:25:02 +1100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Interesting, the percentage of murders using firearms didn't change.....
I'd like to see 1999 figures for that one --- there was a massive
decrease from 1997 to 1998. Whether that is a statistical fluke, or the
effect of the new laws, will take more data.
>If gun control laws are effective, then why did the approximate
>number of murders with firearms stay constant?
It didn't. It either fluctuated, or started a downward trend. Which one
it is will be hard to know right now.
However, what is quite easy to know is that we haven't had anyone go nuts
with a gun here in years. Also, it appears as if there was some reduction
in firearm-suicides (which is *much* more common than murder, anyway),
although once again it is hard to judge from limited data, and there seem
to be several ongoing trends in those figures anyway.
However, what can be stated without even the smallest shadow of a doubt
is that your assertion that murder rates had tripled since introduction of
tougher gun control laws is just so much baloney.
Just out of interest --- where *did* you acquire that "information"? And
what else have you learned from the same source?
Bernie
--
One man's wage increase is another man's price increase
Harold Wilson
British Prime Minister 1964-70 and 1974-76
In a speech at Blackburn, 8 January 1970
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Could only...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Jan 2001 04:06:37 +1100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, I didn't. I live here, you don't. I looked at the statistics from
>> the Australian Bureau of Statistics, you didn't.
>Whoops...my mistake..it was England where it tripled....
Coroner Inquests which returned a finding of unlawful homicide, in England
and Wales[1]:
1988: 147
1989: 133
1990: 165
1991: 162
1992: 177
1993: 143
1994: 162
1995: 217[2]
1996: 169
1997: 165
1998: 142
1999: 165
So, when exactly did the murder rate in England triple? I mean, it's not
like these numbers are hard to find --- the Home Office has them on its
web site!
Bernie
[1] From http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb800.pdf
[2] This includes 48 verdicts arising from the Marchioness pleasure boat
accident. Take those out, and you get 169.
--
Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate
John F. Kennedy
US President 1961-63
Inaugural address, 20 January 1961
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: 5 Jan 2001 18:15:31 GMT
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. That's fantastic.
> And to think Wired made it No. 4 in their "Vapourware 2000" article.
> On the day in history that Linus releases the 2.4.0 kernel Microsoft
> releases another build of Whister:
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=3043
> But this build is designed to stop you installing the operating system on
> all but one computer (read it to see).
Pffft, a dozen and a half warez-groups have been writing key-gens for
exactly this sort of anti-piracy measure (which originated through
the first generation Psygnosis in the time of the Amiga-anyone remember
that?) for at least 10 years.
Go microsoft. Way to innovate.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rich)
Subject: Re: Archie Bunker argument (was Re: Could only...)
Date: 5 Jan 2001 18:22:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also schrieb Stephen King:
>Peronally I would feel safer in an airliner full of armed passengers
>than I would using Microsoft products to access the 'net ;-)
You have been sigged.
--
Personally I would feel safer in an airliner full of armed passengers
than using Microsoft products to access the net. -- Stephen King in COLA
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:52:04 GMT
In article <QWb56.146542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Listen, there IS a technology called "pattern detection" which works on Word
> macro viruses (to detect "suspect" patterns).
>
> Why can't pattern and behavior recognition be instituted into an intelligent
> recognition system to recognize the interdependencies, and MODIFY the
> previous configuration strings accordingly?
>
> I'm thinking an XML system meets heuristics detection from AV.
Ok, sure. Now "using XML we can make a tool to configure everything
easily" becomes "let's write an AI system so that our universal
XML-based config tool doesn't destruct the system".
All nice and userfriendly, that.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:51:53 GMT
In article <QWb56.146542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Listen, there IS a technology called "pattern detection" which works on Word
> macro viruses (to detect "suspect" patterns).
>
> Why can't pattern and behavior recognition be instituted into an intelligent
> recognition system to recognize the interdependencies, and MODIFY the
> previous configuration strings accordingly?
>
> I'm thinking an XML system meets heuristics detection from AV.
Ok, sure. Now "using XML we can make a tool to configure everything
easily" becomes "let's write an AI system so that our universal
XML-based config tool doesn't destruct the system".
All nice and userfriendly, that.
--
Roberto Alsina
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
******************************
