Linux-Advocacy Digest #730, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Matt Corey)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison by windows buffoon
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Comparison by windows buffoon
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Poor Linux (J Sloan)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matt Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:52:23 GMT
In article <949q62$ku1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > My experience with Windows 98 says that it would be much shorter
> than
> > > 216 hours. I am quite happy when Windows 98 runs for 48 hours
> without
> > > having to reboot. But by that time, something internal usually is
> > > messed up, which prevents properly shutting down. And then on the
> > > reboot, that idiotic scandisk screen comes up blaming me for
> > > improperly shutting down Windows. My experience with Windows 98
> > > includes about fifty different configurations and thousands of
hours
> > > of use.
> >
> > I suspect you don't care (or perhaps already know?), but if you'd
> like to
> > stop scandisk coming up just because the machine crashed, you can
add
> > Autoscan=0
> > to your MSDOS.SYS file under the [Options] heading. Alternatively,
> you
> > can install TweakUI and turn it off with that.
>
> Except there is a reason for scandisk. There is a good chance that,
> after an "improper shutdown", the filesystem is not in a consistent
> state. Not running scandisk could lead to filesystem corruption, lost
> data, and yet another re-install.
>
> Linux has something similar call fsck (File System ChecK). Except
many
> linux users never see it because they've never seen an "improper
> shutdown" (other then a power failure :-)
Lets see... 4-year old power failure(Likes turning off random stuff)
6-year-old stress tester (likes spelling stuff on the
keyboard.)
12-year-old electrical engineer ("but I needed a place to
plug my CD player in!" after unplugging all 5(five) of my systems on 3
different circiuts just to run an 25-foot extension cord to his bedroom
to avoid unplugging his lamp that hasn't worked for months.)
Helpful wife (turned off my FreeBSD box when she saw the
BSOD screensaver on the monitor. "I figured it crashed like your
computer at work did so....")
I've seen more than my share of "improper shutdowns" and have only had a
problem once on my boxen. (linux(2), FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD)
Matt
>
> >
> > In my personal experience, Win98 is the all time worst offender for
> not
> > shutting down properly. I think it has a lot to do with some MS
> > innovation called 'Fast Shutdown'. How ironic.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:08:23 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:34:36 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snipped>
|> unix style filesystems with the inodes &c were also designed in the
|> 70s. however, it's not the age of the filesystem design. it's the
|> also competence of the design and the goal of the design. FAT was
|> made for floppies and tiny systems. unix filesystems were made for
|> hard drives and larger systems. it's still MS's fault for keeping
|> such a bad design as FAT and trying to keep it going where it doesn't
|> belong, but age is not the issue.
|
|It's interesting then, now that FAT has moved on, whereas ext2fs
|has not. (NOTE: I realize FAT sucks, I'm not trying to claim it's
|better than ext2fs, just more updated).
Read what Johan said.
ext2 got it right the first time, FAT had to be updated 2 or 3
times in the intervening period.
--
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] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:08:23 GMT
On 25 Jan 2001 13:35:25 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Philip Van Hoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
|> >
|> > OK, lesse...
|> >
|> > W2K:
|<snip>
|
|Ahhh, I clipped all your crap because you simply skipped my point and the
|thread. You didn't address my text - instead created a strawman and some
|more made up scenarios of your choosing...
|
|Can't take the heat...
Sorry, *you* are accusig *him* of using "made up scenarios of your choosing"
That must be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that
I've seen in a long time.
--
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] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:08:23 GMT
On 25 Jan 2001 13:42:21 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Philip Van Hoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
|> >
|> > OK, lesse...
|> >
|> > W2K:
|>
|> Get yourself a Pentium 3 @ 800 Mhz minimum and a cdrom and a licence (a
|> few hundred dollars)
|
|You don't already have a $600 computer? You can't spring $80 for the OS? Are
|you that broke that a sub $1000 PC is outta your reach?
|
|>
|>
|> > ==========
|> > ok, now, how to do a BAREBONES Linux 2.4 install, no real apps, just
|command
|> > line crap:
|> > ==========
|>
|> Why the latest kernel? Why not for example Redhat 6.2 and upgrade your
|> kernel? Or Mandrake if you like easy installs. (since you use Windows NT
|> you don't care about shitloads of crab on your harddisk.. so mandrake is
|> perfect)
|
|Cause we're talking about 2.4 here - DOH! Don't avoid the subject - but you
|have to, to avoid the truth.
Wow, when I wanted to try out the 2.4 kernel, I just went to RedHat's ftp site
( rawhide.redhat.com - where they put stuff that isn't in their supported
distribution yet ) and downloaded the RPMs.
The installed with a simple rpm command ( 'rpm -Fvh *' if you are interested )
I needed to reboot to try the kernel, of course, and another reboot to get back
to the 2.2.16 I've been running.
It appears my firewall rules need some updating before I can run 2.4 full time,
but is was a simple test and took less than 20 minutes.
|>
|> Lets get another example..
|
|Why, can't face the one I gave? Why? Can't handle it?
|
|<snip> strawman BS krap
|
|> > ahahahahahahahahaah - I love this ... Linux 2.4 for the masses - YEA
|RIGHT!
|> > This is an upgrade?
|>
|> 2.4.0 is not yet for the masses. 2.4.5 will be more likely a kernel that
|> will be used by the masses. Probably when RedHat starts using the 2.4.x
|> series ... 2.4.0 is actually the real first test kernel of the 2.4.x
|> series.
|
|Oh, so 2.4.0 is really just a beta, 2.4 isn't even in release version yet
|eh? I know 2.4.1 is already out to fix bugs...
And add functionality, like Reiserfs.
--
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: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:01:04 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> Perhaps the most unsettling piece of this puzzle is that Redhat has known
> about the problem for more than six months.
What's unsettling about that? They provided updates within
hours, and emailed RHSAs to inform administrators of the fixes.
> It was only a matter of time - when linux started to be used by more than a
> handful of hackers
Let's see, that would have been around 1993 -
What's your point?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison by windows buffoon
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:03:53 -0000
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:46:54 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
>> Oh really - tell it to this pro-linux guy who wrote the linux portion:
>
>I don't care who you think is pro Linux, that means nothing.
That's not really the point.
He's selectively choosing his sources to bolster his point.
He's being rather disengenuous. That's rather obvious if
you just glance at the URL.
This is an integrator's site. They're targeting the sort of
crowd that build their own boxen from the chipset up.
>
>> Oh, of course, I'm SURE you could NEVER make a mistake while typing that
>> long line.
>
>Apparently you can't read. It would have to be the shell
>making the mistake of substituting thr wrong letter. That
>simply does not happen. It illustrates that you've never
>used Linux, and that's why you are batting .000 here.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:07:25 GMT
Said ono in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:23:37 +0100;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said ono in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:12:24 +0100;
>> >> "The tests that produced the greatest failure rates are the random Win32
>> >> message tests. In the normal course of events, these messages are
>> >> produced by the kernel and sent to an application program. It is
>> >> unlikely (though not impossible) that the kernel would send messages
>> >> with invalid values. Still, these tests are interesting for two reasons.
>> >> First, they demonstrate the vulnerability of this interface. Any
>> >> application program can send messages to any other application program.
>> >> There is nothing in the Win32 interface that provides any type of
>> >> protection. Modern operation systems should provide more durable
>> >> firewalls."
>> >
>> >We're talking about os failures here, not about badly written applications.
>> >btw: The person who made those tests is full of it!
>>
>> And you know its true, because he put an exclamation point at the end.
>
>C'mon, start thinking. These test are like when you put water into the tank
>of a car and measure how long it takes for the engine to die.
>Why sould I protect my application in a release build from random data when
>the data is always generated on the same machine from the same programs?
>You unix/linux people must be really desperate to prove fault in ms software
>to take such crap at face-value.
You don't seem to understand. Unix/Linux applications routinely die,
without killing the OS, when put to these tests. We're talking about OS
failures here, not about how badly written Windows applications are.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison by windows buffoon
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:08:17 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 13:45:43 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:07:34 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Plus, one can make extensive use of wildcards.
>>
>> Furthermore, there are kernel makefile options that will
>> completely insulate you from the 'gory details'.
>>
>> He doesn't even accurately describe the difficulty of
>> a kernel install.
>
>Tell it to the original author who is pro-linux:
>
>http://www.thedukeofurl.org/reviews/misc/kernel2224/5.shtml
No, I think this one is much more illuminating:
http://www.thedukeofurl.org/reviews/main/asuscuv4x/
Or perhaps this one:
http://www.thedukeofurl.org/reviews.shtml
It contains such "novice end user" articles as
chassis reviews, an overclockers guide and
reviews of CPU cooling fans.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:09:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:30:59 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The Windows user will be productive in a matter of minutes, the Linux
> >one? Well, try back in a few days.
> >
> >-Chad
>
> If he's not at the console, check the "reading room". Good chance he
> is in there with a pile of How-To's and forgot to come out.
Actually, this sort of nonsense indicates that you have
never used Linux.
Log in, then click on the program you want to run.
Does that really sound too difficult for you?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:10:20 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
> >
> > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen' is
now
> > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several Web
> > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
status
> > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas A&M,
and
> > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting Redhat
6.2
> > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
>
<snip>
>
> No OS is secure if the administrators ignore sercurity patches. There
> are all kinds of Red Hat servers that are unaffected because they have
> been properly administered.
>
>
> > Perhaps the most unsettling piece of this puzzle is that Redhat has
known
> > about the problem for more than six months.
>
>
> Wow, guess what? Red Hat has had fixes for over 4 months. What are
> they supposed to do, personally visit every site that uses Red Hat and
can I quote you these comments back if there is a IIS website hacked cause
the operator didn't keep up on the latest updates?
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:11:28 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 25 Jan 2001 13:23:26 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
> >
> >Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen' is
now
> >"in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several Web
> >sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
status
> >to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas A&M, and
> >Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting Redhat
6.2
> >and 7.0 versions of Linux.
> >Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating system,
> >Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to execute its
> >payload.
> >
> >One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
discovery
> >of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in computer
> >history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating system,
> >Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
> >
> >Perhaps the most unsettling piece of this puzzle is that Redhat has known
> >about the problem for more than six months.
> >
> >
> >
> >===============
> >
> >It was only a matter of time - when linux started to be used by more than
a
> >handful of hackers that eventually virus writers would turn their
attention
> >there. It's wasn't worth writing a virus for linux before - who'd have
> >noticed or seen it?
>
> The same people that did this time.
>
> This is just an automated root-kit taking advantage of unpatched
> systems for which fixes were available BEFORE this little outbreak.
>
I love how casually you throw this off... "just an automated root kit" - oh,
that's all...
And why is it that I imagine that if some IIS hosted site goes down cause
the admin didn't apply some security patch you will say it's MS's fault and
not the individual admin?
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:12:18 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
>
> > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen' is
now
> > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several Web
> > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
status
> > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas A&M,
and
> > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting Redhat
6.2
> > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
> > Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating system,
> > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to execute its
> > payload.
>
> > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
discovery
> > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in computer
> > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating
system,
> > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
>
> No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is highly
> securable. Theres a difference.
But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
securable" the NSA says...
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:14:33 -0600
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 25 Jan 2001 13:35:25 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> |
> |"Philip Van Hoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> |> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> |> >
> |> > OK, lesse...
> |> >
> |> > W2K:
> |<snip>
> |
> |Ahhh, I clipped all your crap because you simply skipped my point and the
> |thread. You didn't address my text - instead created a strawman and some
> |more made up scenarios of your choosing...
> |
> |Can't take the heat...
>
>
> Sorry, *you* are accusig *him* of using "made up scenarios of your
choosing"
>
> That must be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that
> I've seen in a long time.
Gee, my scenario is how to install W2K versus how to install the 2.4
kernel - is that a big stretch of the imagination for something someone
might do? I didn't specify hardware or any conditions except, how to get it
running BASICALLY.
wow - this must have really hit a nerve... P)
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:15:34 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > Oh really? Then perhaps you'll tell me why this article was taken from a
> > PRO-LINUX website that was linked to by slashdot...
>
> If there is an article on how to compile a kernel from
> scratch, it is clearly not meant for you, or other non
> technical end users. It was meant for those who would
> like to try compiling a kernel from scratch.
>
> End of story.
>
> Say, how do you do that in windows?
Wouldn't know, never HAD to and never wanted to.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:16:04 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> P.S.- sponsoring an independant benchmark does not necessarily
> taint the findings.
Hint: "sponsored" and "independent" clash.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:17:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Hauck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:44:00 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:59:00 GMT, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, VBScript is incredibly easy to learn and use. For people just
>> starting, and who don't want to use Windows/IIS for the web server,
>> ChilliASP is a good way to get started.
>
>You are insane.
Personally, I think VBScript would be incredibly easy to use and
learn for projects of, oh, say, about 5 lines or less.
But it gets weird quickly, IMO. :-) For example: how does one
declare a class with public, protected, and private data
members, inheriting from another class? Java and C++ can
handle this without difficulty; I think Perl 5 can, too.
>
>
>> Learning Perl, Python, or PHP has a steeper learning curve and, in
>> some cases, doesn't provide as many features.
>
>Why is the PHP learning curve steeper than VBScript? What features do
>these languages lack? Have you ever used any of them or is this just
>more Chad Bullshit (tm)?
I would also be curious as to what features -- beyond the obvious one
of being supported by a certain company in Redmond which Really and
Truly Has The Customer's Interests At Heart(tm) :-) -- are in
Visual Basic that are lacking in Perl, PHP, or Python.
This includes COM, ActiveX, and ADO, BTW -- although these may
be extra-cost options. (But then, PERL itself is written in C;
one could in principle glom on a module to handle COM, ActiveX,
or ADO within Perl itself, in a manner similar to that ugly "delegate"
hack in J++. The things I'm seeing, however, are more elegant,
fortunately; Perl 5 has object call capability.)
>
>--
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:15h:18m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:19:10 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Sit a brand new user down at Windows, and one at Linux.
>
> The Windows user will be productive in a matter of minutes
How many minutes? 100? 10,000?
> the Linux one? Well, try back in a few days.
Really, a few days?
Just to log in and click on the appropriate icons?
Let me guess, this is a mindcraft sponsored test?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:20:20 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 25 Jan 2001 13:42:21 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Philip Van Hoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >> >
> >> > OK, lesse...
> >> >
> >> > W2K:
> >>
> >> Get yourself a Pentium 3 @ 800 Mhz minimum and a cdrom and a licence (a
> >> few hundred dollars)
> >
> >You don't already have a $600 computer? You can't spring $80 for the OS?
Are
> >you that broke that a sub $1000 PC is outta your reach?
>
> Actually, W2K is $150 OEM.
ha! Tourist pricing... funny how I can hit pricewatch.com and find plenty at
$96. And tell me again how OEM isn't a "real license?" ahahah
>
> A real licence will cost you $300.
$141 on pricewatch for a "real" license.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Regardless, "real people" have better things to do with their
> money than throw it out the window. This even goes for those
> of us in households where the monthly income is as much or
> more than your annual take.
So, are you suggesting that the $10,000 car is better than the $15,000 car
just cause it's cheaper?
you get what you pay for, simple formula - works 99% of the time.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:20:50 GMT
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Linux does not have the ability to auto-reneice applications based upon
> > activity. My GIMP process tree doesn't get priority level neicing when
>
> Sure it does. That's what the scheduler is doing the whole time. And if
> you want to change the scheduler policy, just choose a different one when
> you compile your kernel. Aren't these things modules nowadays?
Actually there's a kernel mod that lets you switch scheduler
policies on the fly - haven't tried it, but it sounds like fun.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:22:18 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 16:12:18 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
[deletia]
>> > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
>discovery
>> > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in computer
>> > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating
>system,
>> > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
>>
>> No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is highly
>> securable. Theres a difference.
>
>But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
>securable" the NSA says...
Actually, the NSA is securing Linux themselves (probably wise
if you REALLY care about your security) and they will even
be releasing their improvements to the community.
They've released some already. If you listened to more than
just the news that feeds your sad little agendas you have
been aware of that.
...that's not even getting into just what MS had to do to
get a system rated C2 and completely ingores the fact that
their current OS version hasn't been rated yet.
Besides, if you like Linux and need to run C2 or BETTER you
could always get Trusted Solaris or Trusted Irix. You would
get "better than Microsoft" security and a nice migration
path.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
