Linux-Advocacy Digest #541, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Martin Eden")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Bob Hauck)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (Bob Hauck)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Salvador Peralta)
Re: NEW: Richard Stallman's speech on FSM & GNU/Linux (Salvador Peralta)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Mandrake in VMware in Windows 2000 - HELP! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (LShaping)
Re: Why Hatred? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Windows 2000 (Bob Hauck)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:38:45 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:06:58 GMT, "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Mentioning Corel and Debian GNU/Linux in the same sentence tends to
suggest
> >that you have never run either.
>
> Don't you LinoScrews ever do your homework before spewing forth your
> inaccurate, religious crap?
>
> Corel is based on the Debian distribution.
>
> http://linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/index.htm
Umm. Yeah. That's the hype. The fact that you believe it means you don't
know much about the topic. I found the similarities to be skin deep. Though
an intelligent rebuttal, if you can manage it, will be appreciated.
>
> >Take a week and install Debian and see what I mean.
>
> Must one mother of an operating system if it takes a week to install.
You moron. LOL!
>
> Geeez and to think I was complaining that Win2k took an hour to
> install.
It took me a half an hour to install, and that was with a 25 Gig format. Now
I am wondering if you have ever installed anything you have been ranting
about.
>
>
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
Because it's stepped on by just about everyone?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:47:46 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:09:22 +1300;
>> What are the winvocates going to say? Micros~1 have now said that 9x and
>> NT are poor (despite opperste claims from the winvocates).
>
>In fairness to the winvocates, very VERY few of them have claimed that
>Win9x was any good. Any that do you can quite safely consider based
>outside of reality.
Yes, they did. They stamped and shouted that Win95 was great, and
Win3.1 sucks. Then WinNT 4 was great, and Win95 sucks. Then Win98 was
great, and Win95 sucks. Then Win2K was great, and WinNT sucked. And
what happened to Win2K 'Personal Edition'? And now Whistler has a 'PE'
that's finally going to replace Win9x, which they'll now admit has
sucked all the time, and the more consumers say they don't want to pay
NT-level prices, the more Whistler, or 2K, or .NET, or whatever, will be
great, and whatever they have, which has sucked since the beginning,
sucks less than paying for something, even if it sucks less, and there's
little chance of that happening.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:43:52 GMT
On 17 Jan 2001 17:13:15 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am unaware of any configuration change to windows that I can't do through
>the command line BUT I'll stress that I've very rarely tested that claim
Where do we find documentation on the various commands? Do I have to
sign up for MSDN or what?
>Your milage may vary. I've seen X crash so often I would never ever think of
>using it. Period.
You have _got_ to be kidding. I can count the number of X crashes I've
had in the last two years on the fingers of one hand.
>There is no debate. Telnet is a free load for Unix - but it's also the same
>for Windows. You do pay a price for Terminal services - let me remind you
>and our readers that unlike in NT4, there are two modes of terminal services
>with W2K. The mode I'm talking about is remote administration mode, NOT
>application mode.
So, can you start applications in "remote administration" mode? What
happens if you need to start up Notepad?
I guess you need to explain this two-mode business and what you can and
can't do in each mode. Specifically, what do you get for the 32 MB
overhead in "application" mode, and what's missing in "admin" mode?
>> You can administer the HTTP server and IIS components, no one argues
>> this. Can you re-home the back end network? Can you add IP routes? Can
>> you diagnose the Oracle connection problem? What if IIS dies?
>
>You do not need IIS for TS to work - that's optional. You can download TS
>client from MS free.
Except he was talking about admin via HTTP. That'd be hard if IIS
dies.
Will the MS Terminal Server client work on my Linux laptop? On a Mac or
OS/2 or Solaris?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:43:54 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:11:42 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>iPlanet (Netscape) is a player now. Apache is on its way out, it's
>IIS and iPlanet now.
Wow, there's some serious denial going on here.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:43:58 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:45:19 -0500, Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are currently working on LINUX (in alpha) and Macintosh (in Beta)
> support software.
The poster was asking about RAID systems known to work with Linux.
> Some things you CAN have (at least with our products) using
> IDE RAID
Uh, but not yet on Linux, right? That _was_ the question. Are you
*sure* you don't work in Marketing?
> Do you think we'll have a hard time finding people to sign up to test
> our BETA LINUX app? I hope not :-)
Maybe, maybe not. But people looking for a production-ready system
probably won't.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:06:06 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone who describes HTML as a "foreign language" has no business
selling themselves as a "geek by trade", especially when their trade is
building web pages.
ZDNET should be embarrassed to publish such claptrap by a clearly
unqualified individual.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:56:30 +0000, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
> >
> >My sentiments exactly.
>
> Use the DAMNED control panel.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NEW: Richard Stallman's speech on FSM & GNU/Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:11:33 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pretty lame bit of astroturfing. Here's the link:
aduni.org/video/01-02-01Colloq1.ram
James Thornton wrote:
>
> FYI: ArsDigita University made a RA streaming video of Richard
> Stallman's speech on the Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux
> Operating System that he gave at ArsDigita University earlier this
> month.
>
> A link to the video is on the aduni website, and I have a link to it at
> the top of http://www.jamesthornton.com/.
>
> James Thornton
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:13:46 +1300
> You mean like a webserver? repeatedly giving out the same stupid pages.
> Running apache is about the only thing that makes sense with linux, there
> are no other things to do there. With the exception of compiling kernels
> maybe. But then again you can't install it without loosing your uptime :-).
Perhaps you should expand your view of servers... Linux makes an awesome
[nearly anything] server, not just a web server.
> btw: With W2K you can run a webserver while playing a DirectX game. Thats
> what I call 'really' using a computer! W2K downtime is most likely caused by
> performance-freaks installing the newest GeForce beta drivers ;-).
Coincidentally, a linux user can play 3D games (not DirectX currently, of
course, but let's say OpenGL) while serving anything, and when the user
installs the latest GeForce 'drivers', he doesn't bring the machine down.
> I know! linux is SOO COOOOL that it doesn't even need a restart when you
> replace the motherboard.
Heh =)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:20:48 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Condon wrote:
>>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fine, I'll reword it just for you. Linux cannot replace Windows as the
>>>> major OS of choice today.
>>
>>Let me put an edge on this.
>>
>>Horse shit!
>>
>>You don't have a clue Fukenbush!
>
>I think E.F. is right on this one. Until some issues are addressed --
>mostly in terms of ease of use out of the box -- Linux can't be
>a direct plug-in replacement for Windows. (Remember that most businesses
>can't swap out all of their infrastructure at once; they do it a
>piece at a time.)
[...]
>So I think E.F. is right -- today. Tomorrow might be another matter,
>especially if Java takes off (it's doing pretty darned well already).
I think its just as likely you're talking yesterday. ;-)
There are no "issues" which need to be "addressed"; this is a market,
not a project! There is production and purchasing and complaining and
changing that needs to go on, sure. And that will start happening as
soon as there is a free market. In fact, its kind of automatic. Until
a monopoly shows up to point it out, we hardly even notice it.
The only thing that has to happen for Linux to replace Windows on the
desktop is to get Linux instead of Windows on a desktop. Job done.
Everything else comes *after* that.
EF is just crowing over the fact that it *costs* consumers money to get
*away* from a monopoly (in fact, that's pretty much a definitive
statement about 'monopoly'). Luckily, we live in a modern society, and
so we have anti-trust laws. Once the monopoly is remedied, Linux is
going to *explode*. All over; the desktop, the console, the TV, the
refrigerator...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:22:27 +1300
> >In fairness to the winvocates, very VERY few of them have claimed that
> >Win9x was any good. Any that do you can quite safely consider based
> >outside of reality.
>
> Flatbrain claims that all the time actually...
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the name... is that a who or a what? But of
course, I left myself a way out... I said 'very few' ;)
The majority of winvocates have all rallied behind Win2k, because it
actually runs for a while.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 Jan 2001 03:46:44 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
>"Unknown Device detected.
>Please insert driver for Unknown Device."
>Whilst giving no clue as to which Unknown Device it was referring to.
Which reminds me of one of my pet peeves with MS-ware. The MS-DOS format
command is nice and cuddly, and when you type something dangerous such as
format e:
it will say something along the lines of
WARNING! This will delete all the data on hard disk e:
Do you really want to do this?
When you answer by pressing 'y', it *then* prints
formatting 3567MB on drive e:
or something along those lines. Now, why the **** doesn't it tell me
how big "e:" is when it asks me whether I really want to format it?
Especially given MS-DOS's sometimes rather interesting ideas on how to
map drive letters to partitions, I have to wonder how many people
typed 'y' only to immediately shout "NOOOOOO! Not *that* one, you
**** **** ****** machine!"....
Bernie
--
If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake in VMware in Windows 2000 - HELP!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 Jan 2001 03:57:07 +1100
"rnwalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I installed VMware 2.03 inside my Windows 2000 box, 128mb, PIII 500, ADSL,
>D-Link card. This is a stand-alone system in my home.
[...]
>When we got to the network part I said I had ADSL
You don't. Not on the "machine" you are installing Linux on.
>and the install started doing its thing. It got to the network card
>and gave me the following error "insmod'ing module lance failed at
>/usr/bin/perl-Install/modules.pm line 479 No Ethernet adapter has
>been detected on your system". Bridging is enabled in VMware and
>running in services.
IIRC, VMWare emulates one particular network card, and translates whatever
you do to that emulated network card into whatever the host OS understands.
Just read the docs, find out what card it is, and tell the install that
that's what you got.
>After reboot, it waits about 3 minutes at "starting ADSL".
No wonder --- it tries to query your "ADSL" for an IP address, but the
other side just doesn't answer....
>It asks for a login that it was suppose to do automatically. I give
>it meesha / catlove and it logs me in and sits at the root prompt in
>text mode.
How have you determined that the prompt you get is a root prompt?
Can you, for example, do
echo "Hello" >/etc/oink
or do you get an error message when you do that?
>What happened to this fancy interface? Is this VMware that is causing my
>troubles or Mandrake? Any help would be appreciated. I am sure as soon as
>I get this going, my problems will only have just started!
Well, you have at least two problems with your setup --- your information
about your network "hardware" was wrong, and you also withheld all the
stuff from the second CD. It's not really all that surprising that things
don't work....
Bernie
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred well-place business men decide to
do it
Andrew Young
American Democratic politician, 1932--
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:24:27 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan
2001 02:57:20 -0000;
>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:34:48 GMT, Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> I wrote:
>>>> I always like to go back and leaf through this old hardware manual
>>>> where they theorized that it would be completely and utterly impossible to
>>>> move past 28.8kbps on analog modems...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> On some line's 28.8K isn't attainable. Also, 28.8K is pretty
>>> near the theoretical upperbound allowed for common copper
>>> wiring and US FCC regulations.
>>
>>Well, I believe V.34 and V.34+ can go over the same wire with the same
>>signal level. The extra speed is gained by better data compression.
>>Obviously fitting more data per time unit would result in greater data loss
>>per time unit if the quality of the line stinks, so it makes sense for the
>>modems to negotiate a lower speed.
>
> Doesn't the extra speed also come from restricting the length
> of the line?. I imagine that those older estimates are with
> more pessimistic assumptions.
You're thinking DSL, though you always have a greater likelihood of
negotiating a better speed with a shorter line length.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:33:27 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet it's
> MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be realistic.
Sounds like you neglected to visit Netcraft and read the stats I posted here a
week or so ago.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:16:16 GMT
Bas van der Meer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>LShaping wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
>> The conclusion is "You need to buy Whistler because Win-9x sucks".
>> But I knew that already :o)
>Then you're wrong, because the reasoning is faulty: the assumption ("Win-9x
>sucks") is correct, but the conclusion ("You need to buy Whistler") is
>false. The conclusion does not follow out of the evidence presented, thus
>the statement is false.
A sixth grader could figure out that the evidence included more than
what was presented. Some of us human beings have that ability. BTW
Bas van der Meer, do not reply to both groups and direct the followup
to your own.
Bye,
LShaping
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:31:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:31:43 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Condon wrote:
>>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fine, I'll reword it just for you. Linux cannot replace Windows as the
>>>> major OS of choice today.
>>>
>>
>>Let me put an edge on this.
>>
>>
>>Horse shit!
>>
>>You don't have a clue Fukenbush!
>
>I think E.F. is right on this one. Until some issues are addressed --
>mostly in terms of ease of use out of the box -- Linux can't be
>a direct plug-in replacement for Windows. (Remember that most businesses
>can't swap out all of their infrastructure at once; they do it a
>piece at a time.)
>
Utter crap! In the mainframe world this kind of move is done all
the time. And before there were Windows and PC's people did things
the old manual way with pen and paper.
How did we get from pen and paper to the PC?
>There is the possibility that a company might be able to replace
>NT SMB providers with SAMBA servers [*], though; NT webservers would
>then be replaced by Apache units, and the users switch from
>Microsoft Outlook to a POP-based Netscape setup. Or perhaps
>they use StarOffice.
>
It's much more than a possibility.
>Once the users are suitably conditioned, the central mail
>system can be switched over from Exchange to sendmail or qmail,
>and the long process of switching user boxes would begin,
>probably department by department. The infrastructure will
>have to support mixed-use SMB and NFS for awhile (easy enough
>for Linux).
>
Suitably conditioned?
>It gets worse if some of those users are program developers.
>It's not clear what would replace VC++, without retraining (I
>can live with vi and gmake, but not everyone's so willing to
>switch like that :-) ).
>
Well I guess you would use C++ then?
>As for starting a new company -- probably best to do it right, and
>that means using Linux. :-) But I doubt that company startups
>are the bulk of new computer and/or OS sales.
>
I would agree with this one.
>So I think E.F. is right -- today. Tomorrow might be another matter,
>especially if Java takes off (it's doing pretty darned well already).
>
To say that E.F. is right about anything or even truthful about
anything is a slap to the human race all the way back to the
birth of Christ.
Your talking about a man who claims Windows is reliable and
scalable and in the same breath says Linux isn't.
Yet there are no SUPERCOMPUTER clusters built from Windows.
Your talking about a man who claims that GCC is the compiler
of choice for Windows developers.
E.F. is one of the most mind boggling cases of twisted perverted
thinking I've ever run into on the internet.
You could put a peice of white typing paper in front of the buffoon
and he would hollar that peice of cardboard is black. Then actually
get into an argument with you about it and proclaim his reasoning!
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>
>
>[*] A more likely scenario is that central disk service is provided
> by something like a Network Appliances box, which would require
> very little action to flip over to NFS, as I understand it.
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>EAC code #191 5d:19h:13m actually running Linux.
> You were expecting something relevant down here?
E.F. is a very special child with very special needs.
E.F. should not be confused with an adult.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:35:00 +0500
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
In article <c1.2b5.2YzdpG$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> uhhh, let's see ... you can run DOS apps using Softwindows in Irix ...
> so I guess that you couldn't *possibly* assume one can run DOS programs
> on an SGI machine ... Irix has no more relation to MIPS than mainframe
> to OS/390 ... here's a quicky for you from an IBM page that mentions
> "mainframe" :
>
> "We offer network professionals a wealth of courses from beginner
> to advanced to help expand their knowledge of IBM OS/390 (and the
> earlier counterpart MVS) mainframe systems."
>
> now where was that local PLO office ? Maybe it's about time to make a
> donation ...
>
>
This must be the most common and as well as the most ill informed
misconception that winvocates seem to have. OS/390 is an operating
system. It used to be called MVS and is now called zOS. Of all the
ways you can run Linux on an S/390 (that's the hardware) running under
OS/390 (that's an OS) is not one of them. You can run Linux on an S/390
in one of four ways:
- on the bare metal with Linux controlling the entire machine.
- in an LPAR ( a partition supported by the hardware itself, not
another OS). Other operating systems including other copies of
Linux can run in other LPARs.
- as a guest under VM/ESA
- under the Virtual Image Facility (VIF). You can think of VIF as a
stripped down version of VM/ESA designed specifically to run Linux.
It is simply not possible to run Linux under OS/390. You can run Linux
along side of OS/390 with Linux in one LPAR and OS/390 in another, but
then you are treating the S/390 as if it were two separate physical
machines. You can not run Linux under OS/390.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:43:49 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:34:48 GMT, Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On some line's 28.8K isn't attainable. Also, 28.8K is pretty
>> near the theoretical upperbound allowed for common copper
>> wiring and US FCC regulations.
>
>Well, I believe V.34 and V.34+ can go over the same wire with the same
>signal level. The extra speed is gained by better data compression.
Uh, no. It is gained from going slightly outside the nominal frequency
limits of the phone line. On good lines this works. On not-so-good
lines it doesn't. Everything faster than 14.4 supports some kind of
compression, but that's not included in the rated speed.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:55:23 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> 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.
Only if the exploit was done by some kiddie fool who splased "Ha Ha, I haxored
you!" all over the victim's system.
D'ya suppose the NSA does that when they slip in for a peek?
> Who knows how many back doors are in OpenSource software. It took them
> 6 months just to find this one in this product.
Actually, there was an incident a couple of years back where someone put a backdoor
in a popular OSS package and uploaded it to an FTP distribution site. It was
caught within 4 hours.
> There are thousands
> in Linux that they're finding all the time.
You've been throwing "thousands" around a lot in this thread, but never supporting
it.
Yes, there are "lots" of exploitable bugs in Linux and the S/W associated with
Linux. But the fact that they're being found is proof of our assertions about what
happens when the code is available.
> I would think that a product that was DEVELOPED under Open Source should
> have most of the security related bugs flushed out during all this
> extensive peer review you indoctrinate us with continuously.
InterBase wasn't "developed" under the OSS model. It was developed by a company,
and picked up by OSers when the company gave it away. Those OSers cleaned it up
and tested it, and decided they were about ready to go gold with it, so they did a
security audit on it. And that's when they found the back door.
The "extensive peer review" only happens when people actually use the product.
SourceForge clearly shows that no one has downloaded even the pre-release versions
of InterBase. After all, there are other free DB products out there.
Find us an OSS product that was developed as OSS from scratch, and is actually
"extensively" used, and show us how many back doors are in it.
You're grasping at straws here, Chad. Feeling threatened by OSS? Worried about
your stock portfolio? Those threats aren't going to go away unless *everone* hides
their head in the sand. And unfortunately for VBS programmers and MSFT stock
holders, those days are gone now.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:00:36 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are oft
> never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
> Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
What are you trying to do, win the prize for "Most Unsupported Assertions"?
You've filled this thread with huge generalizatons, but you haven't tried to
support any of your claims.
Re the above: How many spyware incidents were detected last year? How many of
those spyware products were OSS? How many were CSS?
You're just asserting dogma, not looking at the facts. Dogma is great for
preaching to the choir, but unfortunately the world is full of atheists on this
topic. People who don't worship billg and the bsod he rode in on will be wanting
facts, not credos.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:07:22 -0600
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> Why do people think the Windows GUI is so important to mimic?
Nothing amazes me more than seeing a screenshot of a Linux box running a Windows
look-alike theme.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
