Linux-Advocacy Digest #720, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 06:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Does Code Decay ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Ian Davey)
Re: MS opens up on Whistler copy protection ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux (Albert Ulmer)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Stuart Fox)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Shane Phelps)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Shane Phelps)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Does Code Decay ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: ADSL, Alcatel, BT and Linux (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:43:57 +1300
Also, there was a good article comparing Mainframe OS's with commercial OS's
such as Windows 2000 and Solaris, and the main reason why they have a
limited uptime when compared to mainfram OS's is due to the fact that
Mainframe OS's contain code scrubbers that ensure that less problems occur
kiwiunixman
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm cross posting this to the linux and nt groups as it seems pertinant
> to both.
>
> Recently MS had a lowkey campaign to get customers to replace NT with
> W2k because Nt suffered from code decay. I came across an article "Does
> Code Decay? Assessing the Evidence from Change Management Data" by
> Stephen G. Eick, on the IEEE site. You can get the article at
> <http://wwww.computer.org/tse/ts2001/e1toc.htm>.
>
> For those who don't have time or can't read the large PDF file, the
> authors looked at a system having 100,000,000 lines of C/C++ source and
> 100,000,000 lines of header and make files. They came to the conclusion
> that code does decay. Some symptoms they listed are :
> 1. Excessively complex(bloted) code - the system could be rewritten with
> many fewer LOC
> 2. A history of frequent changes
> 3. A history of faults
> 4. Widely dispersed changes - fixes hit lots of modules or have a large
> size
> 5. Numerous interfaces(entry points)
>
> I especiall like #2. Now everyone who complains about Linux 2.4 kernel
> taking so long, know why.
>
> Too late for NT, but Linus needs to keep this in mind. Keep the kernel
> simple and compact.
>
> --
> Russ
> <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:57:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I recompiled Netscape to disguise what platform I'm *actually* using.
>
>Security through obfuscation.
Do you mean Mozilla? As far as I'm aware there weren't any working source code
releases of version 4, so how did you managed to recompile it?
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS opens up on Whistler copy protection
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:09:25 +1300
The problem with Microsoft is that they assume that the average joe has
thousands to waste on upgrade etc. Look at the larger picture, the average
per-capita income in New Zealand is $NZ27,000, however, most people know,
the majority actually earn below the per-capita. Now think, a person who
earns little over $NZ400 a week is NOT going to save up for weeks on end to
buy a copy of Windows or Office when the can copy it off a friend. If
Microsoft really wanted to make people use a legal copy, maybe they should
lower their prices to a level that the average joe/jane can afford. The
will not lose money, either they will make the same profit, or improve due
to economies of scale and the fact that there will be more consumers willing
to upgrade/buy their products legally.
kiwiunixman
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> From The Register [www.theregister.co.uk]
>
> The product activation copy protection system that will ship with Whistler
> and Office 10 will form the basis of a "cross product" protection system
> for Microsoft software, and the signs are that the company will move
heaven
> and earth to make it stick. Speaking to The Register earlier today
> Microsoft product manager, licensing technology group, Allan Nieman went
> through the checklist of gotchas, and explained why product activation is
a
> pussycat really.
>
> But first, although cracks and patches dealing with the protection in
> Whistler builds 2410 and 2416 (an "internal" Microsoft build currently
> maiming bandwidth in shady circles) have been produced, it would seem that
> the panic produced by product activation's appearance in the beta code was
> unnecessary - according to Nieman, neither of these builds is actually
> protected. "It's just a UI screen," he says, a "first glimpse" of what the
> system will look like. Just click next, as Microsoft's technical beta
> testers have now been informed. Duh.
>
> Obviously that won't be the case with the shipping product, so the work of
> the script kiddies won't have been entirely in vain. But Microsoft really,
> really wants people not to hate product activation and - strange but at
> least at the moment true - is trying to draw a sharp distiction between
> activation and registration. And, by the way, registration will not be
> compulsory, according to Nieman.
>
> As has now been widely reported, product activation takes a product key
> from the software packaging, combines it with a code generated from the
> specific hardware you're installing on, and then in exchange for the
result
> you get an unlock key from Microsoft, either over the Web or by phone. But
> this is not registration. You only need to give Microsoft the code, not
> your name or anything else, so it's entirely anonymous unless Microsoft is
> doing any surreptitious sniffing, which Nieman assures us it is not.
>
> Nor, he guarantees, will the software check into base on a "phone home"
> basis after you've unlocked it. Once it's unlocked it'll be a fully stand-
> alone product that doesn't try to regularly validate itself with
Microsoft.
> Presumably this will mean that the "rental" versions of products Microsoft
> will be testing will have some form of time bomb rather than a phone home,
> but it seems pretty clear that Microsoft is willing to go quite a distance
> to separate privacy issues from anti-piracy.
>
> One could reasonably doubt that it can keep it up, or even (given the
> nature of .NET) that it's technically feasible to keep it up in the longer
> term. When Microsoft tested the precursor to product activation in various
> countries with Office 2000, Nieman says the company processed six million
> activation requests in 24 months. That's chicken feed compared to the tens
> of millions of activations a year if the system just applied to Windows,
> and the marketing people surely can't be happy about passing up data on
> that number of people.
>
> Nevertheless, registration will be separate, and won't be compulsory. Not
> exactly, anyway - Microsoft has required registration for access to
product
> updates in the past, and the position here tends to be a bit variable. The
> activation process was described as the "Office Registration Wizard" in
the
> O2K test, but that was what you might call infelicitious. Nor did you
> actually have to register as such - according to Nieman the only data
> required was country.
>
> So in that case, why is Microsoft bothering? Nieman says the system is
> primarily directed at "casual copying," where people loan one another
> software, pass it around the office, install multiple copies with just the
> one licence and so on. The system will certainly tend to stop people doing
> this, but on the other hand that could give casual copiers sufficient
> impetus to dig out the cracks and use them, and recordable CD makes that
> awfully tempting.
>
> Think yourself into the position of paterfamilias, one PC for him, one
each
> for the two kids to do their homework, so what's he going to say to three
> Office licences? Student licensing, yes we know, but he doesn't, and
anyway
> it's a hassle. He might hear about student licensing, or then again he
> might hear about StarOffice being free.
>
> You can circumvent the Whistler product activation system as described
here
> last week, and there are also two files circulating which deal with the CD
> key and the time bomb on the Whistler beta. Put together with a bit of
> cosmetics these provide the means to produce a completely unprotected
> Whistler CD, and it's unlikely there'll be any difference when it comes to
> the shipping product.
>
> That leaves it as eminently crackable, and whether it is cracked on a
> widespread basis or not will depend to some extent on cost, to some on
> hassle. Large numbers of consumers and small businesses swap software, and
> they're not about to stump up the readies to convert their current
> unlicensed software to full product. Even in businesses that do pay their
> licences, systems managers will frequently produce their own unprotected
> copies to avoid having to go through the activation process over and over
> again.
>
> But, says, Microsoft, they don't have to - and this is where you can maybe
> see an angle for the company. Product activation won't be present for the
> enterprise Select and the volume Open licensing deals. These will still
> require a single unlock for the media, but after that you can do multiple
> installs, just keeping a tally of the licences you're using. Microsoft
> licence management software will no doubt help you out here, and the Open
> licence scheme goes as low as five copies, for which you get discounts.
> Except on old operating systems Redmond wants you to stop using.
>
> Microsoft sees promotion of the Open licence to small businesses as going
> alongside product activation for consumers, as businesses will be
> encouraged to go for the volume deals. Of course by doing so, you report
> yourself to Microsoft, and are therefore more readily auditable. So
> consumers get roadblocks to stop them sharing with their friends,
> Microsoft's reach extends further down the business food chain, but there
> are no privacy implications. Microsoft likely won't squeeze much more
money
> out of the consumer market, but by being better able to police
> "unprotected" business licences, it could do well there. Quite a paradox,
> no?
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:46:45 +0100
Jerry Wong wrote:
> I want to gather information on the compatibility of Motherboards on
> Linux.
I'm using a GigaByte GA6BXDS here. Works like a charm.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:37:17 GMT
In article <0csn49.jpm.ln@gd2zzx>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I have beyond your help since four or five years ago, at least.
> > Outside of the simian chest-beating, though, I do appreciate your
> > attempts. I did warn you I already knew this stuff.
> >
>
> As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is clear you
> have read a little but have not implemented any of it. Is it no
> wonder that the teaching profession has such a bad name these days
> especially in your neck of the woods. Try making your classes a bit
> more practical. Then the teacher may learn something.
>
Perhaps you should look in some of the RFC's for T. Max Devlin. A
hint, you'll probably find his name in some of the SNMP ones...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:11:22 +1100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
> > > > >
> > > > > MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
> > > > > europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
> > > >
> > > > And your point is?
> > >
> > > That W2K is obviously stable and powerful enough to do the job.
> > >
> >
> > Let's see now.
> >
> > MTTF of 2893 hours (*), 3100 servers.
> > I make that >1 crash / hr on average ;-)
>
> BIG NOTE: these are _DESKTOP_ numbers. Please ignore the Penguinista
> FUD.
>
Does that mean that MS makes more stable versions of its operating
systems for
server use?
Servers *should* be more heavily loaded than single-user desktops/workstations.
Servers are also not assumed to be turned off overnight.
Hence, servers should be less stable.
Please note that this report is apparently used in Microsoft advertising.
I would have expected MS itself to provide comparable server reliability
figures if these are better.
> Where is the URL mentioning 3100 for servers?
>
Where's the URL mentioning that MS deliberately introduces instability
into the
non-server versions?
Why should a server be more reliable than a lightly loaded single-user system?
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:26:41 +1100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Shane Phelps wrote:
> >
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
[ snip ]
> > > Our three external facing W2K boxes we reboot when a security patch requires
> > > it so looking at their "uptime" report in netcraft would make them appear
> > > unreliable when in fact they stay up without fail. Period. Our solaris box
> > > we've retired and I can say not soon enough, we were tired of it crashing
> > > all the time. The only copies of linux in this shop are those tucked safely
> > > away in VMWare virtual machines and most definately not attached to the net.
> > > Thankfully when linux pukes we can just recycle the virtual machine.
> >
> > .. so what are you doing right with NT and wrong with Solaris?
>
> Well, it doesn't say to NOT dump a pot of coffee on the Sun server every morning....
>
No, you're confusing it with using a Krupps JavaStation as a percolator :-)
[ sigsnip ]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:24:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow, you showed us, didn't you -
>
> haha, joke's on us, eh?
That was never my intention and I am sorry you think that it was.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:22:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which was probably your intention all along - then again, surely
> you see it's questionable whether you ever actually installed Linux.
Why would I lie about what I did? Why is it you guys immediately think
someone is lying when they admit the like Windows? This sounds like
dogma to me.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:29:01 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I for one wouldn't recommend a GeForce even for playing games under
> Windows. Basically, the card is designed for benchmarks and that's
> about it. The GeForce2 might get your more frames per second, but a
> Voodoo5 provides a much higher image quality. Once you've got so many
> FPS's the game is smooth enough, quality of the rendering is what
> becomes most important.
That's what I thought when I bought my Voodoo 5500. Yet when I mention
this card here I get told "why buy that card when the GeForce is faster?".
I've tried the GeForce and on some setups it's very jerky. The Voodoo
series at least is pretty smooth.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:31:31 GMT
In article <94i7or$94a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If all you want is games, get a play station II. It costs less than a
> desktop OS, the games and graphics are better, and it crashes less than
> win.
>
> What's impoortant to me are programming languages, databases, and
> development libraries. I was pleasantly surprised to discover how many
> programming libraries and development applications come bundled with
> mandrake 7.2. More, I think than with even the SuSe 4cd sets.
And if you want to program and play games, of what use is the PSII?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:57:41 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94oose$4e8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Also, there was a good article comparing Mainframe OS's with commercial
OS's
> such as Windows 2000 and Solaris, and the main reason why they have a
> limited uptime when compared to mainfram OS's is due to the fact that
> Mainframe OS's contain code scrubbers that ensure that less problems occur
Well, MS is targeting the mainframe market at the moment, it shows in W2K.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:59:11 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where's the URL mentioning that MS deliberately introduces instability
> into the
> non-server versions?
Check MS' 99.999% page, search for "stability tax".
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ADSL, Alcatel, BT and Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:09:11 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16343.html
>
> One reason I'm not with BT. I'm with The Cable Corporation (i.e.
> Telewest) and I'm getting a Cable Modem soon.
IIRC Alan Cox filed a complaint with Oftel about this, but I doubt
they'll do anything.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
