Linux-Advocacy Digest #419, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 15:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: KDE Hell
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ed is the standard editor ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 12 Jan 2001 13:48:22 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93n49k$car$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <hWD76.28007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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?
I don't ---- but neither does anyone else! What good is there to have a 100%
secret backdoor? If no one knows it's there, it's not useful eh? Just like
the Interbase thingy, it wasn't a security threat UNTIL the open source
folks published the backdoor. Since then there has been a HUGE upswing in
port scans for the port Interbase exposes - gee, great. Guess we'll force
people to patch it by making it accessible to every script kiddie out there.
Obviously things should be patched, but to announce the details of the
backdoor in such detail are irresponsible - they should have said:
"Warning - a backdoor was found, no we're not telling you how to exploit it,
yes, here is the patch" - instead, the irresponsible, egotistical open
source types couldn't wait to publically announcement every script kiddies
dream, how to exploit system admin authority. Great...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:50:57 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:00:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:32 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>When I put exec kwm at the end of .xinitrc file I get kde.
>>
>>No, you get kwm, I would think.
>
>kde/kwm/ who the fuck cares?
...anyone that is capable of thinking for themselves,
is aware of their own needs and desires, or can do
something as gruesome as select an option from a menu.
[deletia]
Not all consumers are content merely to eat whatever crap
you shove in their general direction. This is true even
for those that value their time or have no particular
technical inclination.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:54:30 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:25:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2001 08:39:58 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>And remember.... MusicMatch Jukebox is AVAILABLE for Linux.
>
>Sure it is. It's a 13mb behemoth whino port that is at least one
>version behind the Windows version and is so painfully slow that
>nobody in their right mind is using it.
That still doesn't get at why anyone would particularly
care to run the Win32 version.
[deletia]
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:58:47 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:30:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2001 08:39:13 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>> MusicMatch -> $19.99 (also available for Linux)
>
>The FREE version is only slightly differing in the speed at which it
>burns CD's and is still FAR ahead of anything Linux has.
A CD is going to burn as fast as the hardware can manage, no
slower and no faster. If you seriously think that musicmatch
alters this, you are a true fool.
[deletia]
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:57:45 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:27:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:00:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>> So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
>> to despise so much? Please be precise.
>
>You mean actually answer the question, unlike you?
>
>Xmms can't even remember the song directory properly.
I don't recall it having that problem actually.
I also run the distribution that you claim to.
>See my reply to Craig concerning the Whino version of mmjb.
>
>
>
>
>> What about 4.0 is that you need so badly that you would put
>> up with a few less fps?
>
>Possibly better stability and speed, but alas I was wrong.
In my experience, G400 never has had any stability problems
on either 4.0 or 3.3. The Quake3 performance of the G400
under 3.3 is also quite adequate.
>
>
>>>around, I forget). Under Mandrake they even tell you this when you
>>>select the card.
>>>No consistency with Linux, it's just a mess.
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself actually.
>>
>> You've just told us that Mandrake gives you a comprehensive
>> set of options and tells you where each would be appropriate.
>
>It would be nice if it worked.
Quit trying to lie to us.
I run the distro that you are trying to slander using the
hardware in question (as well as the Voodoo3).
[deletia]
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:00:36 -0500
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I don't care, it's a poor design then, but the fact remains, the >2GB
> > limit on Ext2 remains for the most part. Reiser and Ext3 aren't stable yet,
> > let alone released.
>
> Wrong again wintroll -
>
> Hate to break this to you, but resier has been shipping for some time.
>
About 2 years, in fact. At least for SuSE
> jjs
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:03:37 -0500
jtnews wrote:
>
> I developed my own securities analysis
> software in java.
Then why work at all?
I'd just manage my securities, reap the rewards, and spend my time
doing whatever I wanted.
Why extremely wealthy men insist on working until they drop dead in
the office is incomprehensible....
Not once have I ever seen a Brinks' truck in a funeral procession.
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> > Lots, but not to start. What are you doing now?
> > --
> > Russ
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not powered by ActiveX
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 06:35:49 +1100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> 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.
You mean an ordinary user being able to deny another user services is
not 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.
That's all you ever heard about. Now, *why* did it crash? Did it write
some random junk into random locations, or something similar?
You know that "random junk" is usually anything but random, and that
a determined attacker will figure out to have exactly the right junk
written to a useful (for the attacker) location.
>Yes, annoying, and yes an issue, but not like glaring
>security holes and root exploits ever-present in Linux.
Wow! Did they teach you this debating technique in a special course?
Or at the toastmasters? It's amazing how you mention this "fact" in
a way which suggests that it is commonly accepted knowledge which no one
could possibly disagree with ;-)
>> 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?
No, I am not. I am just saying that there don't seem to be the
myriads of khttpd (or even TUX) exploits around that one would expect
if the image you paint matched reality.... In fact, I am not aware of
any exploit for either server --- something that isn't true for IIS.
You postulate that the khttpd or TUX code has exploits, and based on
that argue that nobody could possibly consider putting them into
production use. However, reality seems to contradict you.
Bernie
--
In politics it is more blessed not to take than to give
Enoch Powell
British Conservative politician
Daily Telegraph, 31 January 1964
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 06:47:16 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>BTW I forgot the most important manner in which your machine is
>completely non-standard.
>Memory SIMMS.
>Again, most IBM MC machines (yours included I believe) used
>proprietary memory chips and there used to be many FAQ's on how to
>convert them by soldering little wires on them and so forth.
What you *really* meant to say was along the lines of
``Your machine actually reads the ID pins on the SIMMs, and interprets
the results according to the standard. It then goes on to *believe*
what the SIMMs send back.
This turns out to be a very unfortunate thing to do in a world awash
with badly or not-at-all ID'ed SIMMs. What makes it even more
unfortunate is that most motherboard and/or BIOS manufacturers
simply ignore the ID pins, and thus ignorant users will often
"test" that their SIMMs work OK by putting them on another motherboard,
and then blame the PS/2 for not working with the "obviously OK" SIMMs.'',
right?
>Trying to claim that a PS/2 is standard is ludicrous to anyone who
>knows about those machines and lived through that era.
They might not accept all of the same crap hardware that other machines
of the same era did (although claiming that the way PS/2 machines handle
72 pin SIMMs, more commonly known as "PS/2 SIMMs", is somehow wrong sounds
really silly to me), but that doesn't make them non-standard.
>The problem was despite being better they were shunned by the public.
Actually, the current problem is that the silly machine will not reboot
properly.
It has all supported hardware in there. The disks are IBM, the SIMMs
are properly ID'ed full parity Fast Page Mode, the SVGA card is original
IBM, and Windows98 *does* run on the machine. It just doesn't reboot without
first going through a "Safe Boot".
Bernie
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means
government by the badly educated
G.K. Chesterton
New York Times, 1 February 1931
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 06:54:18 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 12 Jan 2001 07:25:01 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>So why *did* you say "SCSI card"? We were talking about my machine, remember?
>>My machine doesn't have a SCSI card. Thus, the SCSI card, stamdard or
>>non-standard, can hardly be the reason for my machine's reboot-problems,
>>now can it?
>Your machine HAD a SCSI card, you just chose to remove it.
Yes. I chose to remove it a long long time ago, and I never mentioned
it once when describing the machine's reboot problem. So why do you
think a card lying around in a cardboard box is relevant to the solution
of said problem?
>>But as you seem to know so much about my Adaptec card (including that it
>>wasn't even made by Adaptec, but rather by Future Domain), why don't you
>>tell me its model-id, and what needs to be done to disable the card's
>>built-in termination?
>You are confusing 2 issues. First issue, most IBM SCSI cards Including
>the TMC-850, TMC-1680 and such were built by Future Domain for IBM and
>rebadged by IBM. Changing the EPROM on these cards to the Future
>Domain EPROM eliminated all the problems associated with IBM Custom
>EPROM.
That's great. Now, unless you know something about my Model85 that I don't,
I can't really see the relevance of *any* of those cards to either my
Model85, or to the Adaptec SCSI card lying in front of me. See, if it
says "Adaptec", it's not an FD card rebadged by IBM....
>Second issue. Future Domain was Acquired by Adaptec at some point and
>these adapters were rebadged yet again by Adaptec.
Yes. That happened in 1995, i.e. no less than 4 years after the card in
front of me was produced.
>If it is one of the above cards, you need to run the reference disk to
>disable termination or change any of the other settings.
Nope, sorry, no floppy required.
>If you have one of those, doubtful with a date of 1991, you need to
>run the SCSI Select utility to change settings
Nope, sorry, no software needed.
Want to try again?
Bernie
--
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change amid order
Alfred North Whitehead
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 06:59:02 +1100
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 Jan 2001
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>It's a Microchannel based IBM PS/2
>>
>>Indeed. That is "nonstandard"? It strikes me as a very well defined standard.
>No, "Microchannel" was an attempt to wrest back the PC platform from the
>open market; it was a proprietary bus implemented only by IBM.
It was not implemented only by IBM. It was also a standard --- not a free
one, but one which you had to license, granted... but that doesn't make
it any less of a standard. Quite the opposite, really.
>>Have you tried recently to buy an ISA VGA card? How about a
>>VLB EIDE controller? Does that mean these busses are "non-standard" all
>>of a sudden?
>You're over-stating the case. Mostly by ignoring the difference between
>an enhancement in the 'standard PC architecture' and a proprietary
>replacement for it.
Have you tried buying any of that stuff lately? If the fact that
Microchannel cards are hard to get these days means that Microchannel
was non-standard (as you seem to believe), then what does that make
ISA and VLB?
And what, pray tell, is "the standard PC architecture"? And if anyone
gets to decide what it is, shouldn't it be IBM?
Bernie
--
Human blunders, however, usually do more to shape history
than human wickedness
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:07:05 -0500
"Marc L. Cohen" wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > TTK, Ciar wrote:
> > >
> > > ttk@typhon:~/prog> alias | grep ed
> > > ed jove
> > > ttk@typhon:~/prog>
> > >
> > > This alias has been in my .cshrc on every system I've had an account
> > > on for many, many years .. except systems which for whatever reason I
> > > cannot install jove on, in which case I've aliased it to "emacs -nw".
> > >
> > > -- TTK
> >
> > Why would you *ever* type "ed"
> >
> > I made that mistake....once....
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> Back in the 1970s it was quite usable. At Columbia U. I was using a
> PDP-11 RSTS system and hated the editor there. I wrote an ed clone in
> Basic which became the standard editor on the system for everyone while
> I was there.
I found it to be even worse then IBM's mainframe version of edit.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
