Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 (Karel Jansens)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Bones)
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Shane Phelps)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Bones)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Bones)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Bones)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Bones)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:54:23 -0100
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Joseph T. Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Jan 2001 00:31:19
> >> >Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >: The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
> >> >: couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
> >> >: Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Actually, Excel for the Mac predated Excel for Windows, and for that
> >> >matter Windows itself.
> >>
> >> Well, not 'Windows itself'. Windows 1.0 (a side-kick like
> >> task-switching GUI desktop) predated Excel, I think. Excel for Windows,
> >> however, predates Windows 3.1, the first Windows that anyone really
> >> bothered with.
> >
> >1. Is it really fair to compare Windows 1 to such a fine product as
> >Borland's Sidekick?
>
> I merely meant to indicate its target market, not that the products were
> comparable.
>
> >2. True. Just the other day I happened to be leafing through some 1991
> >PC rags and in one of them was a review of Excel for Windows 3.0 (I
> >think it was in PC Laptop - Is that still around BTW?). The reviewer's
> >biggest complaint was that the program took a whopping 5 MB of disk
> >space and required at least 2 megs of RAM to run comfortably.(*)
>
> Yeah; that's because it still had scads of bumble code(*) from Win386,
> which was the development platform for Excel for Windows. Five meg of
> disk and 2 meg of RAM in 1991, on a laptop, was unfeasibly outrageous.
>
Oh, I don't know. I had a 386sx with a whopping 6 megs and a craayzy 40
meg - Yes, folks, that 40 as in four-oh! - hard disk. It could have run
Excel.
It didn't. I preferred Quattro Pro for DOS. Call me stubborn. Back then
it was 123 or Quattro anyway; if you mentioned Excel to serious number
crunchers, they'd say: "What?" and susequently refuse to buy you beer
anymore.
Ahhh, those were the days...
> Near as I can recollect (none of this is historically documented, but I
> did live through it all), Excel for Mac predated Windows entirely. When
> MS started trying to make Windows (a GUI, with no preconceptions about
> what that would mean), it was a task-switching shell, with a built-in
> notepad and calculator and such (Mac's 'Desktop Accessories', more or
> less). It was a nightmare, practically unusable on the hardware of the
> time. Version 2 wasn't much different, but Win286 was then released,
> and Win386. In these products, Microsoft took advantage of the enhanced
> capabilities of these chips to make task-switching practical. Excel was
> the flagship application for this platform, and Win386 was included in
> the Excel package. It had to be, because you needed it to run Excel,
> and it was extremely unlikely you would already have it, as very few
> people would have considered it worth any money at all to purchase
> separately. I say Excel was the 'flagship' app, because it was the main
> (only) Microsoft app. PageMaker, however, was even more popular, and it
> was PageMaker, more than anything else, which got the ball rolling with
> Windows. Windows 3.0 was pretty much Win386, but not as crappy. Word
> for Windows 1.0 was the flagship for that; I've heard it reported that
> they were developed in parallel.
>
Many Windows programs shipped with a special version of Windows in the
early days. I recall my first Windows WP, Samna's Ami Pro, coming with a
boxload of disks, containing "Windows SA", a limited edition of Windows
(whether it was 386 or 3.0 based, I cannot say, as I never actually
installed it, having been infected with the real thing already). But
friends told me it was basically just a graphical shell to run your
Windows proggie in. Kinda destroys the whole point of Windows, insofar
as it ever had one...
As a sidenote, I believe both Excel and Word (1) entered the Windows
scene at about the same time: the same magazine had a review of Word as
well.
> With Windows 3.1 and Word 2.0, the forced bundling started.
>
Um.
I bought my copy of Win 3.1 retail, without any bundling going on. It
was bloody cheap too. And I got a T-shirt. Pity it had "Microsoft"
written on it.
I still have that copy. It was the one that refused to work with a
retail version of DR-DOS. It is also the one Erik Funkenbusch insists
doesn't exist.
> >BBTW, I recommend anyone to re-read some of those prehistoric
> >publications; it really does put things into perspective.
>
> I keep a mid-80s era glossy advertisement for a Zenith XT-compatible on
> my bulletin board, just to keep me in perspective. It had dual floppies
> and a CGA board, and went for about $5000.
>
Heh.
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:47:53 GMT
Chad, I think both sides may have a point here. A comment in this thread
suggested to read this URL:
http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/07/20/1440204.shtml , it's a technical
description of Tux. What appears to have happened is this: Tux serves dynamic
web pages (read: complex code) from userspace. It serves static web pages
(read: simple stuff) directly from kernel-space. Tux also has the ability to
generate dynamic web pages in kernelspace, but this was not used in the
SpecWeb99 test. From a security point of view this is a valid architecture:
the overwhelming majority of security problems originate from dynamic code,
serving static web pages is a well defined and simple thing.
Thomas
> > 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
>
> Ok, here you go. If Thomas is correct, than this debate is over. I must
> have been mistaken to think that Tux was operating in kernel mode. I got
> this information from a previous debate on the same subject several weeks ago.
> The Linux supporters never questioned the claim that Tux was a kernel-mode web
> server, so I assumed it to be a fact.
>
> -Chad
>
> >
> > > > > 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/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[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 10:03:07 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> 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
>
Well, the new c't just did a comparison between Gigabit network cards.
They also tested their speed under Linux, linux -> w2k, w2k -> linux and
w2k -> w2k.
Guess what, ALL cards performed miserably under w2k compared to linux.
For example: 3Coms 3C985B-SX was 5 times(!!) faster under linux than under
w2k (NETIO test).
! Card haf NO w2k- drivers but was working good under linux. The fastest
card under w2k performed still more than 10% worse than under linux.
Well chad, sure sounds like a driver issue, doesn't it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:26:39 GMT
> In article <93t2e3$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snipped: OSX and Quartz]
> Alright look. There are a few things that all of you need to get straight:
OK, I was just "what if-ing" based on points other posters brought up.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:31:32 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > And your point is what? The early years of the PC industry were
> entirely
> > > Intel based. I'm not talking about Apple II's or Commoodre 64's here,
> but
> > > rather business machines bought by businesses. Back then, the mainframe
> > > people (even inside IBM) thought PC's were a fad that would pass and put
> > > nearly no effort into connectivity between systems. The only way to
> > > communicate at the time for most people was BBS's, and even then people
> > > didn't exchange documents.
> >
> > Well, I thought my point was quite obvious. The computer
> > industry has a long history of different data formats. There
> > have been some standards for data developed over time such as
> > the 8-bit byte and IEEE floating point, but there are still many
> > differenenes. Not taking this into account is very
> > short-sighted.
>
> The PC industry as a whole was short sighted. The IBM PC's original design
> was highly short sighted, especially when you consider that 68000's were
> available at the time (and had been for several years).
>
> IBM controlled the PC, and they treated it like a throw away project with
> little to no planning. The PC industry followed IBM's lead.
Now *THAT'S* what I like to see!
None of this newfangled namby-pamby M$ or Linsux bashing.
Let's go for the *original* EVIL EMPIRE - IBM ;-)
Ahh, sweet nostalgia.
This stuff take me back a bit. Remember when we were all scared stiff that
the PS/2 and OS/2 (half an operating system on half a computer) were
going
to dominate, and we actually welcomed Compaq MS's strength as a counter to
IBM's nasty behaviour?
and when we all thought what a waste of resources those funny WIMPS on
the Macintosh were - a whole 128KB of memory? They were cool toys, though,
but horribly expensive.
Le plus ca change, la plus maintenant*
It's nice to have a reminder of the past now and then. The funny thing is
that a lot of the current linvocates would have been winvocates
(MS-DOSvocates?) then and many of the winvocates would have been
hard-core
IBM-ers.
- and the Mac zealots would've been Mac zealots. You have to give the full-on
Mac crowd full points for loyalty.
(and the old-school Unix hardliners)
* yes I know I misquoted, but I'll be buggered if I can remember my
schoolboy French.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:36:12 +1100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <d4o86.84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > In article <MrK76.1164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
> >wrote:
> >> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
> >> > > >> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
> >> > > >interchangeable.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> What about Word98?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
> >> > formats.
> >> > >
> >> > > Funny but just 3 days ago you said that Word 2000 and Word 98 were
> >> > compatible
> >> > > formats. You said there were NO incompatible Word formats in this
> >series.
> >> >
> >> > No, I said Word 2000 and Word 97 were compatible. Wake up and pay
> >> > attention.
> >> >
> >> > > Now this.
> >> > >
> >> > > Again! How much proof from the MANS OWN WORDS do we need before we
> >> > > just stamp "DUMBSHIT" across his forehead and cut this man loose.
> >> >
> >> > You're the dumbshit that can't even keep an argument straight.
> >> >
> >> > > Does anybody listen to this idiot?
> >> >
> >> > Clearly you don't listen to anyone.
> >> So everyone who jumped on the bandwagon and converted from Word97 to
> >> Word98 are screwed and now have to convert to Word2000 format? How many
> >> Word formats are there?
> >
> >What the hell are you talking about? Word 98 is the *MAC* version. Word 97
> >is the PC version as is Word 2000. Nobody "jumped on the bandwagon" and
> >converted to Word 98 unless they also converted to Macintosh, in which case
> >they're not going to be converting back.
> >
>
> Oh well excuse me!
>
> DECLARATION FROM THE SUPREME HIGH TECHNOLOGY PRIEST!
>
> MAC USERS ARE DEFAULT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD
> AND THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE!
>
> AND LINUX STILL EATS POWER SUPPLIES WITH IT'S DRIVERS.
>
> SO YOUR LUCK TO RUN WINDOWS AND THEN YOUR UNLUCKY!
>
> <EOT>
No, Erik is right on this point.
Mac zealots make Linux zealots seem like a bunch of namby-pamby
fair-weather friends ;-)
Once you've got that old-time Macintosh religion you're hooked
for life.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:08:22 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:34:45 GMT, Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
|
|>> Chad Myers wrote: (apparent by the quoting)
|>> What about the people who now have the closed source version, and haven't
|>> upgraded to the open source version who's exploit has now been made public
|>> knowledge.
|
|> If they are stupid enough to continue using something that has a proven
|> and documented security risk, they deserve anything that's coming to
|> them.
|
|I believe the Borland engineers argue that the backdoor was not in the code
|until there was a split in development and after the code became open
|source. I guess its their contention that the problem *was not* present in
|previous versions of the closed-source product, (they do have access to all
|the code for comparison.) Go on community.borland.com and poke around for
|some of their comments.
I read a page (followed a link in a /. article) by one of the Borland developers.
Originally the "politically/correct" thing was an internal account used
by the various bits of the code to connect to the cenreal security
system and it was not a backdoor.
Then there was an internal spit, and different groups within Borland
had different bits of the code (presumably with published interfaces).
Since nobody had overall control of the codebase, nobody checked for
interactions between the pieces (or at least, not well). Some time
after that some unforseen interaction exposed this account to the
outside world without anybody noticing (i.e. sometime in the last
5 or 6 years).
After it was open-sourced somebody finally did the right test,
or saw 2 bits of otherwise unrelated code, twigged to the
security hole, and published a bug report.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:29:20 +1100
J Sloan wrote:
>
> 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
The early assumption was that tux was largely running in kernel space,
and it took a while to clear this point up.
Interestingly, it appears that "IIS 5" was actually "SWC 3" which is
apparently a kernel-mode cache (which can update time-stamps). This
also took some time to surface :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:38:22 GMT
On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:13 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|(we're talking about the specweb results, of course)
|
|Big deal, in the kernel or not - people - focus and remember this little
|(and it is little) number: 2.7
|
|That's how many percent faster Tux was over IIS5.
|
|That's it - and that's what linvocates are so excited about?
|
|Portions of Tux 2 appear to have run in kernel space and some in user space.
|OK, whatever.
|
|IIS 5 is known to run in userspace, this is undeniable. There is rumor that
|IIS6 may have a kernel mode option too. Hey, why not? Of course, until Linux
|had to run something in kernel space to win a benchmark, it was evil and
|silly that NT should have anything in the Kernel. Oh, the jabs linvocates
|took at nt advocates over "GUI in the kernel" - but of course, this is not a
|problem when linux does it themselves...
The kernel mode Tux server is *optional* and can be removed if it worries you.
How can I remove NT's kernel mode GUI?
|I think people are missing the point - While Linux was running the tightest
|possible benchmark busting configuration using a specialized, uncommon (rare
|even) feature-poor web server and that's it - W2K was, by default, running a
|host of other background services and carried with it the "baggage" of any
|normal windows server - and yet still came to within 2.7% of that
|unencombered linux box. Tell you what, fire up a GUI on that Linux box,
|start up some more services - things unrelated to serving up pages. I'll bet
|that tiny skinny margin disappears.
If you think the tests were unfair, bitch to Dell. Dell built both boxes and
configured the software, and submitted the results.
Dell, not Linux, not Microsoft (unless anyone has inside information they are
willing to share, or I habe missed something obvious).
Oh, and look at the hardware specs. The 2 boxes have the same number of CPU's
running at the same speed, with the same amount of RAM and the same SCSI controller.
They have different number of NICs (Linux has 8, NT has 7).
They have different number of disks, arranged into different RAID configurations.
They have different *speed* disks (Linux has 10k rpm disks, NT 15k rpm).
I can't remember seeing *ANY* pairs of specweb reults where the hardware
configurations were identical.
All of this is getting close to apples & oranges (would that be mandarins & oranges?).
It's good for starting arguments, but no use in proving anything.
|Oh, and remember mincraft? "4 NICs - who'd ever build a machine like that?
|That's an unreal configuration!" the linvocates cried - and here we have a
|cute 8 processor 8 NIC machine and due to a victory thinner than the skin on
|a hen's front tooth, suddenly not a peep. Guess 8 NIC machines are just fine
|when you're a nose ahead eh?
|
|The hypocracy is thick...
Well, I've only seen that many interfaces on mid to high end routers...
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:41:40 GMT
> In article <93rmod$uhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> Keep in mind that it is Linux/UNIX that has over 70% of the server market,
> and Windows NT/2000 that struggles, using $Billions in ads, to retain 20-27%
> of the server market (depending on which niche you are checking).
Jeez Rex, I hate to play MS Advocate, but which server market it this? I'm
positive that it isn't servers out on the Internet (perhaps Apache has
somewhere in the 50% range including all of the platforms it runs on), and
Linux definitely doesn't have anywhere near 70% with file and print
servers... Where are those numbers from?
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:41:43 GMT
> In article <RNc86.176355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
[snip]
> Easy. I have two machines. It's the older system I upgraded with the
> 30GByte disk, ATA100 controller and CDRW.
Pete, how much difference does the ATA100 controller make?
I'm always interested in this since hardware manufacturers always promote
these high performance numbers, which turns out to be the transfer rate from
the cache on the disk, through the i-face and into the memory on the
computer. I've measured older 33MHz controllers where the rate was
advertised as 10MB/s and the actual throughput was actually from 0.7 to 1.2
MB/s (depending on the hard disk).
Just wondering.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:41:44 GMT
> In article <s4q86.177028$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> J Sloan wrote:
>> I've never encountered a Linux system where telnet and nfs "didn't work".
>> Could you explain how you have attempted to activate those services, and
>> what was the result?
> I used linuxconf to activate nfs. It still resulted in "permission denied".
> As for telnet, it appeared not to be installed (despite my selecting it).
Don't you have to set up some "shares" before NFS is useful? As for telnet,
I'd like to think that the OS is giving you the hint not to use it. If you
like compiling stuff, go get OpenSSL, zlib, Perl and OpenSSH so you can
build yourself a secure alternative to telnet. I wouldn't trust a system
having telnet listening on a port whilst connected to the Internet. Maybe
I'm just being paranoid...
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:41:45 GMT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snipped: Telnet-ing for remote control]
> I can do most things from my Win2k server, but in reality I prefer to
> walk upstairs to the other computers, but I can see your point.
Try the free software at http://www.tridiavnc.com. I've only tested it as
high as NT4/Win98, but it works great, (assuming that all your boxen are
networked with IP.) Oops, its also open source, so I guess that disqualifies
it for you.
[snip]
> How do you read news offline, meaning you can download the messages/bodies
> read and reply and then spit them back to the server without having to be
> connected the entire time?
Why does this keep coming up? There's a whole array of newsreader and
spooler software out there. I've been using SLRN/SLRNpull for years, but I
guess this frightens some because it is "curses-based" (e.g. regular old
80cpl text, no posting in 72 pt. wingding font) and doesn't do messages in
HTML. I can totally inundate my favorite newsgroups with the carefully
crafted pro-Linux drivel of my choosing, and my shell scripts/cron daemon
dutifully post it so all of you can roll your eyes at it.
[snip: Burning a CD thru telnet control]
> Why would you want to?
> Who mounts the CDROM for you (inserts the media into the burner)?
His significant other has been instructed walk by the computer every twenty
minutes and change discs if the drive activity LED is out (human crontab).
[snip]
> Linux is a novelty that ends up folks systems because of curiosity and
> ends up in the trash can just as quickly because it does not satisfy
> the needs of the typical desktop user.
No one has written software that satifies the needs of the "typical" desktop
user. Those needs would be satisfied by something like that computer with
only one button in that Dilbert cartoon. The populace at large won't be
happy or productive with computers until there is just a single button to
push that makes the computer do whatever task is desired with no further
input. Even then, their management will probably send them to $1000/day
seminars to learn how to use this software.
> I have seen it happen 100 times or more.
Not fair, you can't count yourself more than once.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:38:02 +0200
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ujcu$5d4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : You need to check VBScript, then.
> : VB is the language and the GUI, VBScript is the language alone.
> : Well, there are some modifications, but it's almost the same.
>
>
> VBScript and VB are not similar, as you would know if you had to
> maintain code that must run in both environments.
I am using ASP extensively, and doing small apps in VB as a weekly matter, I
know that they are different, but VBS is the closest you can come to a
IDE-Free VB.
> (Case in point: all variables in VBScript are variants; VB no longer
> even has variants as of VB.NET.)
Cool, I had some troubles with VBS' variants.
> The language behind legacy versions of VB is VBA, not VBScript.
VB, VBA & VBS all have their roots in the same place, which was what I
meant.
BTW, is there going to be VBS.NET?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
