Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. (David Utidjian)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("ono")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:56:08 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
> >
> > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of people
> > looking at the source code.
>
> Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the Firebird project.
> Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge shows that no one
> has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
>
> Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source security is.
But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux. From developers,
to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the obvious bugs would
be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux release from
all major distributors still comes riddled with security exploits not to
mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and all this
peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are these glaring
bugs slipping through so frequently?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:57:16 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93t6k7$10j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>
> ---Begin Excerpt---
>
> " We are presented with two choices at this point, we can downgrade the
> operating system to Windows NT 4.0 and use the same high-end, extremely,
> fast network cards or we can stay with Windows 2000 and replace the network
> cards with the lower-end, but still server-class, network cards. We have
> opted for the first plan as this is a configuration which we have used and
> know works. At this point, we do not want to experiment with our clients
> only to find out that the lower-end network cards are not sufficient to the
> task.
>
> ---End Excerpt ---
>
> Is it true that "Microsoft has not released any figures on corporation W2K
> server migration figures, almost a year after its release."? I'd appreciate
> links to any articles if they are available.
>
> Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
> Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
I don't think you do.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:58:46 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, what is khttpd then?
> > >
> > > an experimental kernel based web server
> >
> > So it's a kernel based web server, that's exactly what I was talking about.
>
> Funny, I could swear you were talking about tux, the Red Hat
> Linux webserver. Tux is a separate subject from khttpd.
We were talking about Tux. Tux was run in kernel-mode on the SpecWeb tests.
> > You just said that kttpd kicked IIS's ass in specweb99, so please admit
> > you were wrong, or show me the results.
>
> As anyone can verify, "Red Hat 6.2 threaded web server" aka Tux
> is the world speed record holder - AFAIK no specweb results have
> been submitted for khttpd.
We're talking about Tux, get with the program.
> > In a benchmark... real stable. In real world? Just like everything
> > else linux: FLOP.
>
> So you think Linux has flopped? That's rich.
It certainly hasn't succeeded. At something like .012 percent of desktops,
it's hardly a glaring success.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:19:54 GMT
In article <lep86.2937$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:29:02 GMT,
>> > > Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > brought forth the following words...:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >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.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Has it been pointed out to you that it took 6 months as open source, to
>> > > discover a backdoor that had existed in a previously closed source program
>for
>> > > years?
>> >
>> > No one was looking because no one needed to.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
>No one has reported an exploit. If a customer had experienced a break in
>due to this bug, Borland would've been sued, or would've had to issue a patch
>of some kind. No security site mentions this bug. It would've been reported
>by now if it had been exploited.
>
The point still remains the interbase was closed source since the
back door was installed in 1992. It wasn't until 2000 that it
became open source and had it NOT become open source the
back door would have still been in there to this day.
>
>-Chad
>
>
I don't know why this is so fucking difficult for you to understand
Chad.
The back door existed in CLOSED SOURCE code and not OPEN SOURCE code,
since 1992.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:20:08 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of Linux
> were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode.
Nope, wrong again - the wintrolls claimed that it's kernel mode.
I pointed out more than once what Tux architect Ingo Molnar
said, and I'll say it once again for your benefit:
The specweb tests were done with a user mode Tux.
Tux can run in either mode -
khttpd, which you confused with Tux, is an experimental
in-kernel webserver (that takes about 26k of memory)
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:10:21 GMT
Chad, I found interesting bits of information at the Spec Web99 site:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99 . For example your question about Tux is
probably answered by this URL:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001128.zip , Dell's Tux
SpecWeb99 source code. This is the 'dynamic API' part of the test. It is
standard Unix user-space source code, not kernel code, so the dynamic part
was very likely running in userspace. So a faulty dynamic API cannot crash
the kernel. I hope this helps.
Thomas
> > > I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one several
> weeks
> > > back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your situation
> were
> > > telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel mode.
> > > It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high
> numbers
> > > they achieved.
> > >
> >
> > In other words, you did no research of your own before blasting Tux. Your
> > confusing Tux and khttpd makes this quite clear.
>
> Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of Linux
> were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode. This
> is what spawned the debate as to whether the numbers really mean anything since
> no intelligent person would run a production web site in the kernel.
>
> Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
>
> Was the Tux use in that benchmark running kernel mode or not? In the previous
> debate, they said it was. If you're now saying it wasn't, then please provide
> a URL. So far, no one has debated that Tux was running kernel mode.
>
> > khttpd is a kernel mode web server.
>
> But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Tux.
>
> > Tux has a kernel component, but also has a user mode component. It was
> > designed to be stable and secure while at the same time providing high speed.
> Two
> > very different animals.
>
> I don't care, if you think it's "stable", if it runs in the kernel, then
> the risk of compromise is even higher than user-mode http servers.
>
> -Chad
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:04:44 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93t5k1$5c7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:3rns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
> >> In article <usj86.2348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
> >> >> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
> >>
> >> Why do I feel this is just a downright lie?
> >>
> >> > Bottom Line:
> >> >
> >> > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
> >> > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
> >> > tasks.
> >>
> >> Strewth, are we living on the same planet? Linux has proven that it is
> >> enterprise ready.
>
> > Not really. Scalability is an issue, and still is.
>
> Oh I see. Tivo to S/390 isnt good enough for you? Tell me, exactly how much
> does windows scale?
Ah yes. A token linux installations runs in a virtual machine on S/390 and
suddenly Linux is hugely scalable. In fact, they have to run thousands of
them to accomplish what S/390 or Win2K Datacenter Server could do by itself.
Not to mention that Linux doesn't even appear ANYWHERE on the TPC marks.
Even NT 4.0 < Sp3 at least held some respectable positions in the
price/performance
category. Since you argue that LInux has such a low TCO, you'd think Linux
would dominate that position. But instead, something like the top 150 p/p slots
are held by Windows.
The top 4 and 5 of the top 10 slots for performance (which is the real prize)
are held by Windows 2000. Linux... nowhere to be found.
The only real contenders are Windows 2000, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and OS/400.
Linux couldn't hold a candle to any one of those OSs.
> > Performance is an issue
> > especially with the brain-dead ext2 filesystem.
>
> Chad is lying again; he has never been able to come up with any evidence to
> support this.
Hmm, doesn't support >2GB files, doesn't even journal meta-data, has no
concept of transactions and roll-backs, flakes out with even the smallest
glitch or power outtage, must be continually fsck'd because consistency
routinely goes out of whack... what more do you need?
>
> > There is no enterprise-level
> > journaling large-file-capable filesystem for Linux
>
> There are three.
None of which is released, tested, and ready for prime-time.
> > (except for a few beta ones).
>
> One of them is out of beta.
Which? Reiser? Please post URL(s).
>
> > Linux's security is laughable with the elementary permission-bits scheme.
>
> You forgot about chattr, but you wouldnt know about that, having never, ever
> used linux once in your life.
It's still not DAC. Linux uses a 30-some year old security scheme which is
non-flexible and not very secure. In fact, DAC is a requirement for the
enterprise and for highly secure installations. Linux couldn't be considered
even if it tried.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:23:46 GMT
In article <qip86.2940$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>
>It certainly hasn't succeeded. At something like .012 percent of desktops,
>it's hardly a glaring success.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Here we see Chad saying Linux is a flop and hasn't succeeded.
Yet the top people at Microsoft are proclaiming Linux a serious
threat.
Wonder why Chad would say this when virtually everything else
he refer's to has to be tied into the Microsoft Web site.
But you be the judge.
Either Chad Myers is disconnected from reality or Microsoft is.
It's a very challenging notion.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:24:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley wrote:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Absolutely,
>> >
>> > OS-X on Linux.
>> >
>> > I'll try that.
>>
>> What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
>
>BSDI.
>
>--
BSD meaning the NET, OPEN, and Free versions of BSD.
BSDI is what became of FreeBSD.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:27:13 GMT
In article <Fuo86.87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:73o86.57941$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > 56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
>> >
>> > Ok charlie, you've just completely shot your credibility on this story
>> (your
>> > credibility is shot anyways, but on this story you're lying).
>> >
>> > 56K doesn't work with fiber lines. 56K works only on copper connected
>> > directly to a CO because it takes advantage of the lack of analog to
>> digital
>> > conversion. If you've got fiber between you and the CO, you get
>multiple
>> > A/D conversions and it totally screws your ability to get more than
>33.6.
>>
>> I thought the restriction was that one end had to be directly on a digital
>> line (usually the answering modem) and the rest depends on the
>> quality of the analog signal. You get one A/D conversion going on
>> fiber but there is no reason for it to ever go back to analog.
>
>Yes, the ISP has to be connected digitally (no D/A conversion), which is how
>they get around shanons law. When fiber is used in remote areas, it's
>because they're multiplexing a number of phone lines into a remote switch.
>The remote switch then must go to a central switch, which causes a D/A
>conversion followed by another A/D conversion to get into the main trunk.
>
>> Besides, you seem to have forgotten that 56K modems have V.42biz
>> compression so even if you get the 33.6 connection your throughput
>> can easily average 4x that on uncompressed material. It boils down
>> to not being a real problem to grab an iso image as long as your
>> ftp client knows how to restart and you can let it run a few nights.
>
>compression doesn't help you when the files are already compressed.
>
The fact is before the fiber lines were installed 3 years ago,
rural areas could only manage a 33.6k connnection into the cities.
Today, ADSL is avaiable if you want it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:27:33 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:33:11 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes you are Pete. Like the rest of the Wintroll crowd, you claim that this
>was so easy to do with Windows... and that youre such experienced users and
>amazingly you never have things work when you try Linux.
Why is this so surprising?
Why is printing over a network such a pita with Linux?
How about reading news offline?
A decent browser?
Fully supported hardware instead of making do with the features that
are supported currently while the others get worked on?
Consistency between distributions?
I can set up ICS and have each PC on the network dial out (I'm on a
modem) by checking one box under Windows 2k.
I can add a network printer under Win2k by clicking on Add a
printer->Network Printer->Browse and then double click on the printer
I would like to add and that is it. It works. It works in color, B+W
and all of the features I paid for (multiple trays and such) work.
It does not get any easier than that.
I can setup a firewall by clicking on setup.exe but yet I can modify
it later any way I wish. Sure I paid $29.00 for it but how much have I
spent on Linux? Much, much more overall not even counting time.
All and I mean ALL of my hardware works to it's full capacity under
Windows.
>Thats fantastic
>because you people know so much more about drivers, the kernel etc and
>youre just so much lousier than this than me... i usually get things
>working in the first try.. and if dont i search deja or the relevant
>websites for info. I do well.. and can't claim that i am a super-duper
>expert.
I have needed to use the net for help exactly once using Windows and
that was with Win2k which I have just started using, and I didn't
understand the C$ sharing concept.
With Linux?
All I do is search for answers, most of which are outdated, dangerous
or just plain wrong.
>- Why cant you that claim the expertise?
I can't speak for anyone else but I have used computers since the mid
1970's.
>Why are you people proud of not being capable of using simple stuff that
>even the softest Linuxer uses with his eyes closed?
Because many things under Linux are not simple. Reading news offline
is not simple.
>
>Well.. i gave you two weeks after your succesfull installation of Mandrake
>(and i have seen Windoze "lowfat" users install redhat 5.1 and have
>networking on the first try) before you started complaining about it. I
>must give you credit.. you have lasted about 5 to 6 weeks or maybe even
>more. Congrats Pete.
Again, Linux on the desktop is such a poor alternative to Windows it
is not even close.
>Why just not waste your time and go for W2K.. or maybe even try FreeBSD
>(have fun partioning your disks) ?
Maybe he likes wasting his time installing and re-installing Linux,
reading How-to's and so forth?
For me, I prefer applications and Linux dies in that respect as far as
my needs are concerned.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: More Linux woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:27:34 GMT
I was wondering why playing an audio CDROM (like you would buy in the
store) seemed to cause intermittent skipping when dragging windows or
doing any other activity under Linux Mandrake 7.2 so I decided to
investigate today.
The CDROM is an Acer 40x on the second IDE controller and it has a
digital cable (no analog) hooked to a SBLive in the system.
I played an audio CD and started to poke around the system enabling
and disabling digital audio with the KDE Mixer and things were acting
strange?
I unplugged the digital cable (the little 2 prong Berg connector)
while the CD was playing and to my surprise the sound CONTINUED to be
heard!!!
This sucker was, for some reason, doing Digital Audio Extraction over
the IDE bus!!!
No wonder things were acting strange....
Score another hit against Linsux for misconfiguring this one.
Ok Penguinista's, how to I disable this so my system isn't being
slowed to a crawl every time I play an audio CD?
Every time I look a little deeper I discover another reason why Linux
sucks, and I'm not even trying hard to find these things.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: David Utidjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:27:53 -0500
Heh my solution to this "problem" would have been very simple:
Spend a lot more money on some really nice hardware. A full on hardware
based RIAD5 SCSI array and a nice Quantum DLT tape drive could have
gobbled up the extra cash pretty quick. You could also have used "higher
end" hardware... genuine Intel mobo and CPU(s). Don't forget a nice
1400VA UPS. You did budget in a complete backup solution, yes? In many
ways... even for a Linux server you bid waaaay to cheap. There really is
not much difference between a 100 user file server and a 10 user file
server IF reliability is important... ecept for total disk capacity. If
anything was left over....
I would make up a hefty support/consulting contract that would have made
any tax accountant happy. Then ssh in once a week and check the logs and
whatnot.
I had to do almost the exact same thing a few years ago for a small
office. My budget was $15,000. With the applications and services the
client wanted I could easily have used up all that money on software
alone. Instead I built a very nice Linux based system... except for a 3
commercial apps (OCRShop, Applix, XVScan) the rest of the system is
completely OSS and I spent all the money on excellent hardware. In 4
years the cumulative downtime is less than 3 days (2 of those due to an
extended power outtage)... mainly for upgrades and maintenance.
Nice thing about Linux is it CAN be tailored to any budget even
excessive ones... you just get more for your money.
-DU-...etc...
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:19:27 +0100
> >What the hell are you smoking? I see tons of Linux software with
staticly
> >linked library files.
>
> Then name a few.
Could you give the name of some dll's that give hell? (like in dll-hell).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:29:55 GMT
In article <ZHo86.93$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93t22l$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Absolutely,
>> >>
>> >> OS-X on Linux.
>> >>
>> >> I'll try that.
>>
>> > What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on
>Linux?
>>
>> OSX is *not* BSD. You are quite highly misinformed.
>
>It's BSD based.
>
EF is confused as OSX used BSD code but OSX is not BSD.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:31:22 +1200
Hi Chad,
> > Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
> > Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
>
> Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
>
> Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
>
> I don't think you do.
Didn't I just ask: "Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are
flaky under the 2.4 Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?"
Here's your opportunity to provide an example.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:30:44 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Chad Myers wrote:
> Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of Linux
> were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode. This
> is what spawned the debate as to whether the numbers really mean anything since
> no intelligent person would run a production web site in the kernel.
>
> Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
>
> Was the Tux use in that benchmark running kernel mode or not? In the previous
> debate, they said it was. If you're now saying it wasn't, then please provide
> a URL. So far, no one has debated that Tux was running kernel mode.
>
Actually, there have been numerous posts indicating that Tux was running in user
space.
>
> But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Tux.
You were the one equating khttp and Tux. I was simply correcting your error.
>
>
> I don't care, if you think it's "stable", if it runs in the kernel, then
> the risk of compromise is even higher than user-mode http servers.
>
It's not pure kernel mode code. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that
khttpd is pure kernel mode code. That may be where the confusion comes from.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
