Linux-Advocacy Digest #413, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes ("tony roth")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:55:43 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93mc6k$2vt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Besides, there haven't been any security issues with the GDI in the
> >kernel
>
> Really? You mean when earlier versions of kernel-GDI didn't properly check
> the parameters passed in to some methods, and thus allowed ordinary users
> to crash the whole machine, that was not a security issue?
It's more of a DoS than a security issue. Was security compromised? Were
non-priveleged users able to obtain a privleged state in the system? No.
It just crashed and rebooted. Yes, annoying, and yes an issue, but not
like glaring security holes and root exploits ever-present in Linux.
>
> >and only very poorly written video drivers can do harm, and
> >even then the worse they can do is cause a BSOD. Not anything compared
> >to a kernel patch, root kit, or similar problem with an httpd running
> >in the kernel. I've yet to see an httpd that didn't have an exploit
> >in it (yes, even Apache and IIS). OTOH, I've yet to see an admin
> >exploit using video drivers and the GDI.
>
> I will wait for you to post a pointer to the first khttpd exploit you
> can find. I won't hold my breath, though ;)
Are you *really* trying to argue that there are no bugs AT ALL in that
httpd they used?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:12:28 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 11 Jan 2001
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93krth$rps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> : news:93iqoq$fea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :>
>> :> : I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I simply
>> :> : don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get annoyed when
>> :> : Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows today. It can't.
>> :> : If it could, I'd be using it.
>> :>
>> :> Can you comprehend the difference between "X can do Y", and "I use X to
>> :> do Y"? Just because YOU don't use it that way doesn't imply it can't
>> :> be used that way. Pretending that your personal needs are identical
>> :> to everyone else's is a common error when extrapolating from anecdotal
>> :> evidence to the general case.
>>
>> : I didn't say it can't be used that way. Why do you insist on pretending I
>> : said things I didn't say?
>>
>> You *did* say it can't be used to replace windows. You even repeat it
>> in this reply.
>
>No, I said it can't replace Windows, not that it can't be USED to replace
>windows.
Oh, that makes perfect sense then. Guffaw.
He's never going to stop wiggling, Steve; you know that, don't you? ;-)
[...]
>> And that's what's false. Let me teach you some basic logic:
>> If someone says, "X *cannot* do Y", all it takes is a single
>> counter-example to prove it wrong.
>
>Sure, show me a single counter-example of Linux displacing every copy of
>Windows on every desktop of the world.
Guffaw.
>> That's why it's a pretty
>> stupid idea to make such a sweeping generalization in an
>> argument. All it takes is a single example of someone replacing
>> Windows with Linux, and the statement "Linux cannot replace Windows"
>> becomes false. Go read the press releases for the last few years.
>> While there aren't a *large* number of these examples, there are some,
>> and all it takes is one single example to make your claim false.
>
>No, I used the words Linux and Windows as a collective, not as an
>individual. If I had said what you claim, I would have said "A linux
>install can't replace a windows install" or something similar.
[...]
>It quite simply can't. At least, not today.
I think what you really mean to say is "it hasn't", and you'd like,
desperately, to be able to rest your case entirely on that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:19 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93mjk1$vn8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <o0j76.21053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93jbt6$iri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi Chad,
> > >
> > > If this really necessary?
> > >
> > > > > "Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in
> the 2.2
> > > > > Kernel."
> > > > >
> > > > > Wouldn't want to mention the 2.4 kernel would we?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, hasn't really changed much.
> > >
> > > Here's some information about the 2.4 kernel:
> > >
> > >
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-05-007-04-NW-LF-KN
> > >
> > > A small quotation:
> > > "A number of changes in Linux 2.4 can be described as "enterprise
> level."
> > > That is, they may not be immediately useful to many desktop users
> but work
> > > to strengthen Linux as a whole. For the most part, the addition of
> these
> > > features does not degrade Linux in more "normal" environments.
> First, Linux
> > > 2.4 can handle many more simultaneous processes by being more
> scalable on
> > > multiprocessor systems and also by providing a configurable process
> limit.
> > > Second, the scheduler has been revised somewhat to be more efficient
> on
> > > systems with a larger number of concurrent processes. Third, the
> revised
> > > Linux kernel can now handle an amazing number of users and groups--
> about
> > > 4.2 billion. (And that's a lot of users!) In addition, support for
> more
> > > powerful hardware is provided in the new kernel, which now supports
> up to 64
> > > gigabytes of RAM on Intel hardware, up to 16 Ethernet cards, 10 IDE
> > > controllers, multiple IO-APICs, and other pointless abuses of good
> hardware.
> > > The 2-gigabyte file size restriction has also been lifted. With
> these
> > > changes and others, the Linux kernel development team is proving
> that Linux
> > > can be an option in many new environments."
> >
> > They claimed Linux 2.2 was "enterprise ready" which was a big pile of
> crap.
> >
> > 2.4 is better, I'll agree, but it's still nowhere near the level of
> Win2K
> > DC, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.
>
> Have you even looked at the SpecWeb99 benchmarks? Linux 2.4 with its
> threaded webserver extensions blew every other OS out of the water,
> including the "enterprise" Unices on *much* more expensive hardware.
> Win2k with IIS5 has only just managed to /nearly/ catch up.
Of course, the Linux web server ran in the kernel, which isn't practical
at all.
If you look at the real data, Win2K blew away all the competition including
Apache on Linux.
Please show me one large company who is using a kernel-based HTTP daemon.
You can't, because they don't exist.
> Win2K datacenter? At what price per processor? At what price for
> support? Don't make me laugh.
Datacenter for a web server? Don't make me laugh. Do you even know
what the word "enterprise" means?
> > As far as the "4.2 billion users and groups", it doesn't matter
> because
> > the security implementation in Linux is elementary. There is no
> support
> > for ACLs (without "unstable" add-ons), there's only the
> less-than-secure
> > permission bits option. There's no real directory service. NIS+ is
> about
> > the closest thing, but it's still no NDS or ADS level.
> >
>
> As someone else said, what about LDAP? A widely used, scalable, and most
> importantly *open* standard.
For phone book and other basic directories. LDAP is read-only. LDAP 2 and
3 are read-write, but again, LDAP is just the directory access protocol,
not the directory itself (thus the name Light-weight Directory Access Protocol).
Are their any large-scale X.500 or later directories for multi-site,
multi-organizational, multi-master replication on the scale of ADS or
NDS? At present, only ADS and NDS compete in that space and there is
no equivalent for Linux. Especially written in Open Source.
I can write a phone book directory that uses LDAP for access, woohoo, big
whoop.
> Active Directory is an ugly, proprietary hack of an ancient Novell idea,
Not really. If you'd look at it, you'd see it's far superior to NDS in
a number of ways. But then, you've never been interested in facts, or
intelligence, you just want to blindly bash whatever you fear.
You probably don't even know what a large-scale Directory Service does.
> and of course it's designed to be incompatible with everything else.
Again, another BLATANTLY false statement. It was designed using all
available standards (X.500, LDAP, SMTP, etc). It can interact with
NDS, StreetTalk, Microsoft Exchange (which is another X.500 directory
service) and several other X.500 compatible directory services.
It can replicate to partners using X.500, SMTP, and other standard
protocols.
Clients can authenticate to it using standard Kerberos (yes, MS'
kerberos is 100% krbv5 compliant. They use the "vendor-specific"
field set by MIT for exactly the way MS is using it to communicate
with Windows clients to take advantage of Windows features. If you're
a unix machine authenticating to ADS, you wouldn't have use for these
Windows features anyhow, but you can still authenticate just like
anyone else).
Please, stop the lying.
-Chad
More
> food for the DOJ. Hope you go down in flames.
>
> > The 2gb file size has also NOT been lifted. There is still no "stable"
> > or "released" filesystem out there. RiserFS and ext3 are STILL in
> development
> > and both have caveats that may discourage their use.
> >
>
> Absolute, utter, blindly uninformed *BS*. Listen - ** AS OF GLIBC2.2 AND
> KERNEL 2.4, THIS LIMIT IS GONE ** I know it is, because I've got an
> image of a 40GB SCSI drive sitting right here on a nice big IBM hdd,
> ready to replicate for a new server.
>
> ReiserFS is a completely new filesystem designed from the ground up for
> real performance gains, and uses a completely different way of
> cataloguing and accessing files. In terms of speed, it totally trounces
> any type of NTFS, which can also be an utter nightmare when it goes
> wrong. I've been using it for months without a glitch, and it's running
> on two production servers at work.
>
> BTW, it's supported by several distributors right now. Bong.
>
> > >
> > > What Processor architectures does Windows 2000 run on by the way
> Chad?
> >
> > What does it matter?
> > To answer your question, Win2K will run on any platform that it's
> ported to.
> >
> > The NT kernel has been ported to many platforms, but MS only sells the
> ones
> > that people demand: x86 and IA-64.
>
> Oh, so there's no demand for UltraSparc, POWER-4, MIPS, Alpha, and the
> like? What planet are you on? Do you realise what Oracle runs on most of
> the time (let me tell you it's not Win2k that wins here)? Why are there
> so many new supercomputers being built with Linux on Alpha?
>
> Plus, IA64 is starting to look like a dog already (possibly a dead one)
> and the P4 is a joke right now.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > "The Linux community continues to promise major SMP and
> performance
> > > > > improvements. They have been promising these since the
> development of
> > > the
> > > > > 2.0 Kernel in 1996."
> > > >
> > > > And they still promise. And promise... and promise...
> > >
> > > Well it's just been pointed out to me that it still beats Win2k in
> an 8
> > > processor configuration. Not by much though.
> >
> > URL?
>
> www.spec.org - you're so lazy (like most windoze zealouts - must be the
> 'point and drool') that you couldn't even use a search engine.
>
> >
> > > > > "Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System."
> > > >
> > > > Still.
> > >
> > > Are you unaware that there are now a number of possible solutions,
> including
> > > one from IBM?
> > >
> > > February 2000 press release:
> > >
> http://oss.software.ibm.com/developer/opensource/features/jfs_feature.ht
> ml
> >
> > Released? Default FS on which distribution?
>
> You get a *choice* with just about every distro. That's the idea.
>
> >
> > >
> > > ReiserFS:
> > > http://www.namesys.com/
> >
> > Released? Default FS on which distribution?
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > >
> > > One testimonial:
> > > >From Source Forge
> > > http://ftp.sourceforge.net/ has 850GB storage, half of which is
> reiserfs,
> > > half is ext2. Both filesystems have been running flawlessly for > 4
> months
> > > of production (actually longer, but wasn't reiserfs before). That
> server
> > > pushes between 15Mbit and 50Mbit/sec, and pulls/syncs about
> 2-5Mbit/sec,
> > > 24x7.
> >
> > Anecdotal. I'd like to see it being used in a video or art production
> house
> > where >2GB files are the norm and they're moved around with a furious
> pace.
> > NTFS4 and NTFS5 handles it with grace. Linux isn't even considered
> because
> > it's a joke.
>
> Are you blind *and* deaf? Why does it seem to be replacing SGIs all over
> Hollywood - Toy Story 2 was rendered mostly on Linux boxes, I believe,
> and the upcoming LOTR, too. Maya and Houdini are both available, as is
> both MainActor and Broadcast2000 (the latter being OSS). There's more on
> the way, and others whose name I don't recall. Oh, and RenderMan. And
> BMRT. Need I go on?
>
> >
> > > reiserfs also powers the CVS tree filesystem for
> cvs-mirror.mozilla.org
> > > (also tokyojoe.sourceforge.net), which is the one and only anonymous
> CVS
> > > checkout point for mozilla. That server has run flawlessly under
> very heavy
> > > load since its birth.
> > >
> > > I don't get involved in kernel politics, but as a production
> filesystem,
> > > reiserfs is ok in my book.
> >
> > Production? When was it released?
>
> What do you mean? You microserfs can sit and wait until MS Marketing
> decides its "OK" to admit there are "undocumented features" and deign to
> give you a service pack.
>
> >
> > > SGI:
> > > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
> > >
> > > > > "There are no commercially proven clustering technologies to
> provide
> > > High
> > > > > Availability for Linux."
> > > >
> > > > Still.
> > >
> > > http://www.missioncriticallinux.com/
> > > ^Concentrate on this link.
> > >
> > > http://linux-ha.org/
> >
> > You can say it's HA all you want, but there is no infrastructure to
> support
> > it. You have to have strong vendor commitment to support a corporation
> > running HA, with Linux, it's a "I'll get around to it when I feel like
> it".
>
> Again, utter crap. Fujitsu Siemens already offer the whole shebang -
> software, infrastructure and support. However, you can build such a
> system quite easily yourself, with high quality, commodity parts.
>
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> >
>
> I give up on people like you. How can you be held so much in the thrall
> of a company that never ceases to bleed you dry for finally giving you
> something that's vaguely functional? BTW, you want to fix a problem
> yourself? You're out of luck with any M$ project when it comes down to
> the nitty gritty.
>
> I'd love to call you a f***wit, but I'll restrain myself.
>
> A.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:08:07 GMT
"Bagpuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:f_A76.271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > "Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
> > > > operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
> It's
> > > > amazing.
> > > > Here are some of the common failures:
> > > Give me a break, do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit?
> > > If you're going to lie, at least make it halfway believeable.
> >
> > By pointing out some flaws in windows you have kicked over
> > a hornets nest! These blue nosed, humorless windoze zealots
> > are not to be taken lightly!
> >
> > jjs
> >
What I said was completely correct.
I subscribe to many mailing lists, read many support message boards,
talk with many colleagues who support hundreds of Win2K installations
on the desktop and I, myself, administer about a dozen or so Win2k
installations.
I can count the number of BSODs I've seen or heard of on one hand.
For this idiot to come in here and say it crashes several times a day
is absolutely rediculous. It's like saying that Linux crashes every
day. Even I, a professed Linux hater, will say that that's absurd.
This Matt guy has fallen off his rocker, or he's just blatantly
lying, which is more likely.
-Chad
>
> Too right! I'm a newcomer to this group and the mentality amongst the
> majority here is like a bunch of 12 year olds. It always appears to be a
> case of "Well, this doesn't work in Win2k when I do this" and the reply is
> always "You're a fscking idiot, it never happens to me so Win2k must be
> excellent." Although the chances of the respondent having the same hardware
> configuration and software configuration as the original poster are slim to
> none.
>
> There are also Linux fanatics that are convinced that Linux is the best
> thing since sliced bread; how it never crashes and anyone who crashes it
> must be a complete idiot.
>
> Both groups are living in cloud cuckoo land. Every OS has it strong points
> and its weaknesses. I might just have the situation in where I want to give
> a toaster an OS (Linux), I might just have the situation where I want to
> give an end luser an OS (Windows)
> The world would be a boring place without variety.
>
> Anyway, I don't know what the purpose of this post is because it will make
> bugger all difference to most of you.
>
> Oh, and just for the record I've had a stop error on Win2k Server from
> minimizing an explorer window *and* I've had Linux lockup on me by just
> starting X <shock horror>
> I'm off to play with my BSD box...
>
> --
> Bagpuss
> Your friendly cloth cat (donning flame retardant catsuit)
> Take the rubbish out before replying
>
>
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:28:14 GMT
In article <hWD76.28007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93m071$fip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.interbase2000.org/
> >
> > InterBase was released as open source at the end of July 2000. A
complete
> > backdoor was discovered when examining the source. This backdoor has
existed
> > in the commercial versions of the code since 1994 and appears to
have been
> > known about for some time and used by at least one Borland/Inprise
engineer.
> >
> > There's also a discussion on Slashdot :
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/11/1318207.shtml
>
> Ok, that's one example of one GOOD thing about Open Source. However,
> unfortunately, it's not the norm. Especially on large projects like
Linux.
> Bugs are still being discovered in the kernel (not at as fast a rate,
> granted, but they're there and still being discovered). Some are old
bugs,
> some are new bugs from new code.
>
> Some of these bugs had existed for quite some time. Why weren't they
discovered
> immediately?
Bugs are a part of life. Unless you are completely blinded by your lust
for Microsoft, you know that bugs are being found in MS software all the
time as well. Now, if we quit trying do divert the topic and paint Linux
as the only system that has bugs (since BOTH OS's have bugs, it's a
wash), the question remains: How do you know that there are no back
doors in your MS software?
>
> -Chad
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:05:52 -0800
right, which is exactly the same shit that linuts users spout! I can prove
mine, can you?
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Your anecdotal tale is simply not beleivable to those of us
who see windows in action on an everyday basis.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
