Linux-Advocacy Digest #422, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 17:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Re: Microsoft Email Lists (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (Craig Kelley)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:35:51 -0000
On 12 Jan 2001 14:29:11 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 11 Jan 2001 19:16:39 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
>> >
>> >AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7% - woo hoo!!! A whole
>2.7%
>> >and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
>> >
>> >I have never seen Tux in production, IIS (and SWC) is out there.
>>
>> Where?
>>
>
>How would you expect me to SHOW you the proof that SWC is out there?
You made the assertion. If you can't support it then you
are talking out your ass.
>Netcraft doesn't report it so...? It's being sold and is being currently
>developed and upgraded - it's like asking for proof bic lighters are in
>use - where's the URL for that?
Your analogy simply doesn't hold. A bic lighter is not similar
enough to SWC for an analogy between the two to be appropriate.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Email Lists
Date: 12 Jan 2001 21:39:06 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Somebody subscribed me to a bunch of Microsoft listserv lists. I
> imagine that it came from posting here...
> Anyone else had this problem?
Post some headers of the request replies, and maybe we can figure out
who did it.
Oooohhh, I hope hope hope hope HOPE it was flatfish. :)
=====.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:26:09 GMT
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a5f5df0$0$45705$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So, the product was out for nearly 7 months as open source with a complete
> and fairly obvious backdoor ... took the community that long to find it?
>
> Seeing as how it remained hidden perfectly for 6 years as closed source this
> is nice proof that security through obscurity works just fine thank you. In
> fact, had the code NOT been released, this backdoor would continue to have
> existed.
>
> I do not applaud the open source find - it was too long coming - instead I
> decry Borland/Inprise's quality control - what the fuck! 6 years guys and no
> one spotted this ???? Open source should not try to ride the backs of this
> for their own self-glorification, that's sad.
That's all they can do, really. Isolated incidents are all they have to
cling to to satisfy their need for acceptance.
-Chad
>
> "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
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:43:02 -0700
"Brian Craft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just came from the first showing of the Antitrust movie,
> http://www.antitrustthemovie.com , and give it a 2 thumbs up for support
> for the Open Source Community. It very clearly shows what Microsoft has
> and is doing and in the end, Open Source prevails!
>
> A must see for all fellow Open Source geeks!!
Just don't try to watch the trailer while running Linux (thanks, Apple
Computer).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:29:02 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:47:57 GMT
> <hWD76.28007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:93m071$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?
>
> Whereas Windows 2000 is completely and totally bug-free and can be
> relied upon for the utmost in reliability and comfort for both
> the casual user and the highly competent IT/CSO [*] professional,
> while running both older Windows programs and emulating DOS packages.
Who said that? Not me.
It's funny, you guys say, "Open source is superior"
I say, "No it's not, look at X"
You say, "Oh, so closed source is perfect, right!?"
Um... no, I'm saying Open source isn't superior, nor perfect, nor
anything the OSS advocates claim it to be. It's no better, only
worse than closed source.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:44:33 -0000
On 12 Jan 2001 14:33:13 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:40:20 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >
>> >> SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
>> >>
>> >> AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7%
>> >
>> >You got the order of events wrong. Tux beat iis by more like 250% -
>> >then, after months of frantic, all-out effort, the best microsoft could
>> >do is come close to the Linux result with their new "benchmark buster"
>> >product.
>>
>> This much is obvious merely by looking at the dates on the
>> benchmarks submitted for webbench 99.
>>
>> [deletia]
>
>Fact: Current high Tux 2 score, 7500
>Fact: Current high IIS5 score, 7300
>Fact: 200 difference from 7500 is approx. 2.7%
>Fact: there are remedial math classes available
There are also similar courses that teach you to avoid
bad rhetoric. All you've demonstrated is that at best,
a payware solution can keep up with a free and gratis one.
>
>Why not find some ancient IIS3 benchmark and declare Tux 2 beats it by
>10000% - what's the value in that? Silly...
That's quite unecessary. There are IIS 5 benchmarks from the same
quarter (and vendor) that are soundly beaten by Zeus or Tux.
OTOH, Dell doesn't even claim that this 'merely adequate'
configuration is even available yet.
Considering Dell's history, that is quite peculiar.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:46:39 -0000
On 12 Jan 2001 14:40:08 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93mbpa$p17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's very likely
[deletia]
>> This submission page is full of IIS 5.0-specific tunings, while the SWC
>3.0
>> submission has none at all! IIS 5.0 was probably just taking away some
>space
>> on disk and RAM, and was idling around - this was probably the best it
>could
>> have done to help get a better result ;-) Obviously this is not what
>> Microsoft PR wants us to believe though :-)
>>
>
>You are really dense aren't you? SWC is a web CACHE - do you know what the
>word cache means? Do you understand how a web cache works? Obviously not.
>Where do you think the pages the cache is supplying were generated????? Do
By our logic, the physical disk hardware on a fixed disk
drive is capable of keeping up the same sustained thruput
as the cache memory on it's controller.
[deletia]
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:54:01 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93l9sj$j98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "rus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
> :> instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
> :> Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
> :> work and not time for figuring out their OS?
>
> : I'm sorry, but most Linux people seem to think you don't exist.
>
> Bullshit.
Not bullshit. You don't seem to be one of those people, but that doesn't
mean they don't exist and are not even in the majority.
The vast majority of heavy Linux users i've met or come across have the
attitude "If you're too dumb to figure it out, use windows".
> : Why would
> : someone want to get work done instead of tweaking their OS? (yes, that's
> : sarcasm).
>
> *Most* people want to get work done.
Indeed.
> And, no, they probably don't want to have to learn any more about a PC
> than they have to.
Exactly.
> But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
> unpredictable and frequent intervals;
That's bullshit. Most people don't have frequent bluescreens under Win9x.
Unpredictable, perhaps, but then how predictable is a kernel panic?
> they don't want to have to
> reinstall their software and/or OS for no defensible reason;
The reason (and it is quite defensible) is that it is the easiest and
cheapest solution. 30 minutes and your system is back and running, while
you might otherwise spend hours figuring out the problem otherwise. I've
done it under Linux as well, spend 2 or 3 hours trying to solve a problem,
and resort to reinstalling to bring it back to "virgin" status.
> they
> don't want to be forced to upgrade unrelated software just because
> they upgraded one piece of it;
Wow. That never happens under Linux right? I guess RPM's dependancy
management is useless and serves no purpose. apt-get doesn't really
retrieve other pieces of software when it's installing something, it's just
pulling your leg.
> they don't want to deal with bitrot or DLL Hell;
And you *NEVER* run into problems on Linux where an app requires specific
versions of glibc built with specific options, while other programs need it
build with different ones?
> they don't want to have to pay 3 or 4 times more for
> software than for hardware over the lifetime of the machine, etc.,
> etc,. etc.
Most people pay 3 or 4 times as much in gas and maintenance costs than they
do for the price of a car.
> Linux and Windows both have problems, but the problems of Linux are
> solvable and in fact are being solved rapidly, whereas neither appears
> to be true of Windows.
7 years is rapidly?
> Many desktop-oriented Linux apps may seem immature compared to their
> Windows counterparts, but, compared to those same apps at a similar
> point in time after their release, they look an awful lot better to
> me, and they're improving far more rapidly as well.
I don't really see that. How long was KDE2 in development? 2+ years? The
problem with open source is that everyone wants to be implementing the
latest whiz bang feature, but doesn't want to do maintenance unless it's
serious problem. That leaves thousands of tiny issues that nobody finds
"sexy" enough to fix, but all give a bad user experience.
> It's not hard for me to see why Mafia$oft is scared. I don't think it
> should be underestimated. It's recovered from similar blunders before
> (though never through lawful tactics). But I do think that it is
> going to have to either adapt or cease to exist as we know it. And I
> think it knows that as well.
There goes the "Linux isn't competition for Windows" theory.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 21:33:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93nmal$52t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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?
<sigh> Attempting to debate with you guys is impossible.
Do I now have to teach you to read?
It's MORE. M-O-R-E, MORE of a DoS than a security issue. Security on
the system was not compromised in any way.
Shall we then list all the DoS exploits on Linux?
It was a DoS (a local one, BTW) on NT that was fixed rather quickly and
it's over with now, so what.
There have been hundreds on Linux, and most are fixed now, so what?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:54:57 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <qwm76.345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"rus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
> >> instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
> >> Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
> >> work and not time for figuring out their OS?
> >
> >I'm sorry, but most Linux people seem to think you don't exist. Why
would
> >someone want to get work done instead of tweaking their OS? (yes, that's
> >sarcasm).
>
> This man is an asshole.
A true case of the pot calling the kettle black.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:38:37 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I don't care, it's a poor design then, but the fact remains, the >2GB
> > limit on Ext2 remains for the most part. Reiser and Ext3 aren't stable yet,
> > let alone released.
>
> Wrong again wintroll -
>
> Hate to break this to you, but resier has been shipping for some time.
Really? This must have been within the past month or two, because we
were just having this debate about that time.
What is the shipping version, and what distributions are using it
as their default filesystem?
-Chad
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:41:09 GMT
"Ulrich Weigand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93nir4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> |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.
> >>
> >>
> >> This *again*!
> >>
> >> Yes it *has* been lifted. Ext2 has *always* supported files >2Gb on 64bit
> >> *and* 32 bit architectures.
>
> >No, not on 32-bit, and not *always*. Only recently with a special *patch*
> >that doesn't work with all applications.
>
> >> The restriction on file sizes was in the kernel VFS (Virtual File System)
> >> layer on 32bit platforms.
>
> >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.
>
> This has nothing to do with ReiserFS or ext3. On a kernel that doesn't
> support large files (e.g. unpatched 2.2) you cannot access files >2GB
> on 32-bit machines on *any* file system, be it ext2, ext3, ReiserFS, NFS,
> coda, or whatever ...
It has to do with a poorly designed kernel, then. NTFS supports >2GB (actually
something like a single 1.8exabyte file) files on 32-bit.
> The ext2 filesystem has indeed always (at least since 1995) supported
> files up to 8TB size in its on-disk file format. Due to limitations of
> the core VFS layer and the system call interface to the userspace
> libraries, however, on 32-bit architectures it used to be impossible
> to access files larger than 2GB.
Limitations due to poor design.
>
> There have been patches available to both kernel 2.2 and glibc 2.1.3
> for quite some time that fix these issues. With kernel 2.4 and
> glibc 2.2, there are no patches necessary anymore; these restrictions
> have been fixed in the official releases.
But I remember in this debate we had not too long ago, that existing
applications must be recompiled to use the >2GB files because many
have been operating under the assumption that 32-bit platform + ext2fs
= <2GB files.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:06:52 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <uGd76.288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:93in2m$adklg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >The Windows setup files are all 8.3 conformant. We were talking about
> >> using
> >> >a network card, not a modem.
> >>
> >> I thought we were talking about installing from the internet so both
> >> netcards and modems are relevent here.
> >
> >As if installing Linux via modem is feasible.
>
> Funny you should ask this.
>
> Debian will install over a modem and I just did this 2 weeks
> ago. I put potato on a rural PC on a farm for a farmer.
>
> The Debian install dials the phone, and the download takes
> over night. If the phone line disconnects it redials
> and apt-get restarts where it left off.
>
> It's totally hands free and it doesn't miss a single bit.
Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were connecting at
speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours. Even
a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27 hours, or
more than a day. Not "overnight".
Of course you're going to suggest that useable Linux systems can be had in
100 Meg, and to that i'd say bullshit. Not for someone new to Linux it's
not. You're going to have to install X, which is about 40MB download alone.
You're going to have to install productivity software, likd StarOffice.
Another 70 Megs or so, not to mention the base OS is going to take 10-20MB.
Now, throw in a decen window manager, like KDE or GNOME, and you're well
over 200MB's.
Second,
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:09:44 -0600
"Yatima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:20:37 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >The only way it could do this is if the install kernel was the same as
the
> >run kernel, which means the kernel couldn't be optimized for the machine
> >you're running under.
>
> So an unoptimized kernel is a problem for linux but not for windows
> 2000. Nice double standard.
NT installs an optimized kernel for your platform during setup.
> BTW, ever here of autoloading kernel modules? A general kernel doesn't
> need everything but the kitchen sink compiled in. Just modules that only
> load if and when needed.
No, but the kernel itself has to be. A Linux install kernel has to be able
to run on a 386. MS's install kernel is both multiprocessor and 486
optimized (for NT4, P5 optimized for 2000).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:14:48 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OTOH, any version of Windows (full install) that you can name will
> be missing basic utilities and device drivers that any 1G Linux
> installation (or even a 500M one) would have included.
>
> No WinDOS install includes the CD worth of stuff that is an office
> suite or the several CD's worth of stuff that are the dev tools.
If it did, you'd be bitching about how it was anti-competitive.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
