Linux-Advocacy Digest #734, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! (Steve Mading)
Re: Comparison by windows buffoon (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("ono")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Frank. N. Puppenstein)
Re: Poor Linux (John Travis)
Re: Poor Linux (John Travis)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep servers up - CODE DECAY! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks Redhat (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Shane Phelps)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: Windows 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: 26 Jan 2001 00:04:10 GMT
Lloyd Llewellyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Microsoft has proved its superior INNOVATION skills once again by coming out
: with a new, highly secret feature in Whistler!
: This new exotic feature is a kind of "skin" or "theme" system that can change
: the look and feel of the entire interface of the operating system! Oh my god,
: that is so revolutionary! I can barely comprehend it! I'll bet those Linsux
: Lusers will be drooling over this! They will have to admit defeat now!
Any bets on how long before some clueless moron who thinks MS invents
everything first comes in here trying to claim Gnome or KDE are copying
Whistler's idea?
I give it about 1 month. (Enough time for Whistler to actually start
being used by people other than those interested in pre-beta testing.)
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison by windows buffoon
Date: 25 Jan 2001 17:11:22 -0700
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[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
Just because you *can* compile a kernel from scratch doesn't mean you
are required to do so. In your case, why not just leave well enough
alone and use a distribution, that's what they're there for.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:12:14 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
22:37:22 +0000;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>> [...]
>>>I remember using a version of WP in about 1994 (or 3?) for Win3.11. It
>>>was one of the best word processors I have ever used. I'll still stick
>>>by that comment, even when its compared to Word 2000.
>>
>> Well, I have to say that's an uphill battle, even assuming one is a
>> WordPerfect fan. WordPerfect was, of course, 'king of the hill' at DOS
>> wordprocessing (and Unix, too, in fact) but the 'hidden codes' mechanism
>> was never as useful in a WYSIWYG GUI package as it was on the
>> no-graphics text screen.
>
>Really? The earliest version I used was a Win3.11 version. That had a
>reveal codes function which was very useful.
Well maybe that's it. You never used the original WordPerfect, so you
don't know how outrageously powerful, rather than merely 'very useful',
reveal codes was. ;-)
>> Personally, I'm a huge fan of WordPerfect, but
>> I don't really like the Windows version much. Nor did the Macintosh
>
>I liked the Win3.11 version a lot. I processed a 30-40 (can't remember
>which) page report on that. As I remember, it was extremely good at
>handling diagrams. That was the first big bit of wordprocessing I had
>ever done and I was very disappointed with everything I've used since
>except LaTeX.
You'd have liked the DOS version, I'm sure. You'd have slit throats
rather than give it up, in fact, I'd bet, if you'd have had a couple
months at it. Maybe its just the pain of the loss; I can't stand to use
WordPerfect on Windows. Then again, I remember when Word made sense,
and that fit a WYSIWYG GUI wordprocessor much better than WordPerfect's
reveal codes. But that was eight years ago, and Word has gone very
markedly downhill since then.
[...]
>> My OEM charged $5 to include StarOffice on my system (I chose not to.)
>
>If you don't have a broadband connection its probably worth it, unless
>you don't mind waiting :-)
TBH, five bucks on a $1800 computer is so little that, if I planned to
use StarOffice, I just might pay them simply to have it pre-installed.
But I don't mind waiting, either (or didn't, when I had Gozilla; does
RH7's ftp client support resume?)
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:02:27 +0100
> Maybe I am being a little harsh. Early Win2000 betas were slow too, but
from
> what I saw there is no reason on Earth why any intelligent person would
> "upgrade" from Win2K to Whistler. I'd bet it might go over with those
> running WinME, but I doubt many people who run Win2K will waste their time
> and money on it.
I heard that they want to put the cd-burner into the os. It's about time
they do something about that. I had it with shoving out money for stupid
burner-software upgrades.
What I heard too ist that they want to charge money for IE6 (don't have a
link). It makes almost sense to charge money for it as there is no more
competition (ns beeing almost as dead as a dodo and opera having 0% of the
market).
------------------------------
From: Frank. N. Puppenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:14:32 -0800
NSA is a division of Microsoft.
--
"Poof. You're a puppeteer."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:59:36 GMT
And Aaron R. Kulkis spoke unto the masses...
:Considering that in Russia, there are no copyright laws, you can actually
:get Microsoft products for about $5 or less (which is, ironically, exactly
:what they are worth).....Wouldn't THAT be an interesting purchase :-)
Not really. Considering that paying 5 US dollars for say, W2K in Russia, is
probably more expensive for them than what we pay for it here.
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1-pre9|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .96 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:00:59 GMT
And Kyle Jacobs spoke unto the masses...
:"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:
:> > No, it was distinctly "no comment" to your "MATCH.... jerkoff" line...
:> > Again, I have no comment as that making rude, personal and often
:undeserving
:> > comments about people on USENET is, cowardly, and wrong.
:>
:> loser.
:
:No comment.
Erm..that is a comment Kyle :-).
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1-pre9|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .96 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:22:28 +1100
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "Daniel Tryba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94q48p$o11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> > familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock.
> > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only if you are used to Windows.
> > > Who hasn't?
> >
> > MacOS users for example.
>
> Yea, but it looks a lot like Windows and a whole lot not like any linux
> gui. so your point is moot.
>
Other way around :-)
Remember a few years ago when Apple sued MS for infringement of the UI
'look and feel"?
and yes, I *do* know that the case never got to court, and tha Apple got
the WIMPS idea from X-PARC and MS probably did as well, as did Project Athena.
BTW, they aren't all *that* familiar to MacOS users. There are a number of
behavioural differences and differences in menys which throw Mac users off.
The old Windows 95 UI was much closer to the Mac's than the later 9x and
NT UIs. These changes are not to everybody's taste.
fvwm and fvwm95 (the window managers in older Red Hat distributions) are
closer to Mac UI than the later Windows or Gnome/KDE.
[ snipped other topics ]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:22:59 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 25 Jan
2001 22:44:09 -0000;
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:37:22 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>>> [...]
>>>>I remember using a version of WP in about 1994 (or 3?) for Win3.11. It
>>>>was one of the best word processors I have ever used. I'll still stick
>>>>by that comment, even when its compared to Word 2000.
>>>
>>> Well, I have to say that's an uphill battle, even assuming one is a
>>> WordPerfect fan. WordPerfect was, of course, 'king of the hill' at DOS
>>> wordprocessing (and Unix, too, in fact) but the 'hidden codes' mechanism
>>> was never as useful in a WYSIWYG GUI package as it was on the
>>> no-graphics text screen.
>>
>>Really? The earliest version I used was a Win3.11 version. That had a
>>reveal codes function which was very useful.
>
> This notion that the early versions of WP for Windows were
> "too weak to live" is a common FUD mantra used by the Lemming
> crowd. They are an attempt to cover up the fact that msword
> lagged far behind both WP and amipro.
Not in this case, no. I was/am a very strong WordPerfect fan, and I was
familiar with all the early Windows versions, as well as all the later
DOS versions. Word for DOS and Word for Windows, as well; ami pro was
my weak point, which means I probably only taught three or four courses
on it. It wasn't FUD, I'm afraid; the first two versions of WordPerfect
for Windows were very weak. They were buggy, not incredibly fast, and
simply didn't "go well" with Windows. The reveal codes mechanism just
doesn't make as much sense when you've got WYSIWYG, and the complete
legacy printing system caused a lot of confusion, especially to those
who were already familiar with WordPerfect. Handling printing well was
one of WordPerfect's strongest points, as was reveal codes and the very
efficient function-key control method; all of these were liabilities in
a Windows environment.
My brother still uses WordPerfect for Windows; its a fine wordprocessor.
But its not that much better than Word, TBH (you can only do so much on
Windows); a pale shadow of its former self. And those first few
versions were definitely weak. A real shame, too, because WordPerfect
for OS/2 was shaping up very nicely, but you couldn't do something like
that on Windows.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:26:37 GMT
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 25 Jan 2001 23:10:46 GMT;
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Steve Mading wrote:
>:>
>:> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> : Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT;
>:> :>
>:> :>Actually, I think the reason for it is that the only reason Windows
>:> :>is popular at all is because of all the applications that are only
>:> :>released for Windows and nothing else, not because the OS itself is
>:> :>all that spectacular. Therefore, porting the OS to other platforms
>:> :>would be usless unless MS could get all the third-party application
>:> :>developers to make all of their software for non-intel platforms
>:> :>also. If ONLY Windows and maybe Office ran on platform Foo, but
>:> :>nothing else did, nobody would want it. MS discovered this, and stopped
>:> :>trying to support other platforms. Of course they falsely attributed
>:> :>this to people being uninterested in other platforms, when in fact
>:> :>they *would* be interested if the Windows world hadn't been
>:> :>monoplatform for so long that all the app developers forgot how to
>:> :>program cross-platform code. (Consider how Corel ported WP 2000
>:> :>to Linux - by using Wine instead of actually doing a real port.)
>:> :>
>:>
>:> : Coincidentally, immediately after Microsoft bought a big stake in the
>:> : company, IIRC.
>:>
>:> I got a copy of Corel WP 2000 for Linux *before* MS bought that
>:> large sum of stock in Corel.
>
>: Was it a native port, or something to run on Wine?
>
>Wine. My point is that you can't blame the MS buyout for
>the decision to use the Wine solution. The work was already
>done to make the Wine solution before that happened.
So why would anyone come out with a "new version" which used wine when
they already had native code? And why wouldn't you think its a bit more
than a coincidence when they are very soon thereafter "bought" by
Microsoft? You don't actually think MS might have had a "meeting" or
something with them, do you?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep servers up - CODE DECAY!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:43:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jtnews wrote:
>Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
>Maybe they should start using Linux! :-)
>Hee hee hee! :-)
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4583218.html?tag=st.ne.1002.unkn&tag=unkn
It's the CODE DECAY INSIDE!!!!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks Redhat
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:45:58 GMT
In article <3a707cd4$0$1135$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad Rutherford 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?
>
>
>
Redhat not only took a shellackin on this one but also the GCC issue.
I'm proud of linux and I'll defend forever but the people with RedHat management
NEED to start growing a brain.
They are trashing the Linux name.
And IBM is appearently comming up with a distribution of their own now.
It is an absolute SAD quarter for the Linux community thanks to RedHat.
Run DEBIAN now!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:49:06 GMT
In article <MXVb6.23235$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
>>
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>> > > >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >> > > Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues
>> > with the
>> > > >> > > limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT
>> > or
>> > > >> > > NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that
>> > doesn't
>> > > >> > > mean it doesn't have its limits).
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file
>> > creation when
>> > > >> > dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
>> > > >> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long before
>> > > >> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
>> > > >
>> > > >16 Exabytes ???
>> > > >16 billion Giga byte.
>> > > >
>> > > >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
>> > size.
>> > >
>> > > Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
>> > >
>> > > And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
>> >
>> > Difference is in the size.
>> > And the 2GB limit in what exactly? FAT has it (actually, it's a partition
>> > limit, but that is beside the point) but it's justifiable, FAT was designed
>> > in the 70s.
>> > Linux on 32bit has(d) it, it's not justifiable, because need for such files
>> > exist for a long time,
>>
>> i agree. linux should move to 64 bit size_t for files regardless of
>> processor. linux-2.4 will do large files, but C is a cranky beast
>> sometimes and updating software can be cumbersome.
>>
>> > I can assure you that there was no need for 2GB files
>> > in the 70s, when FAT was designed.
>>
>> 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).
>
>-Chad
>
>
I can hardly wait for NTFS to move on,,, OUT THE DOOR!
I think I'd rather have FAT.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:56:37 +1100
Conrad Rutherford 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
> >
> > > 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...
NT 3.51 on a Compaq box with no network connection or floppy drive was C2.
I don't believe NT 4 or 5 were ever C2 certified in *any* configuration
but I may be wrong.
http://www.swynk.com/friends/sasha/tocs.asp
has information on how to configure NT 4 to C2 level, but I don't believe
MS has aver had a system certified to Orange Book C2, let alone Red Book.
NT's use of ACLs and fascist logging (when enabled) make it potentially
quite secure. Please don't muddy the waters by claiming *all* NT is C2.
NT 4 and 5 are claimed to be substantially different from NT 3.51.
Unless the situation has changed substantially, C2 certification is issued
to a system configuration (hardware + software), not an OS. Even installing
a SCSI hard disk in addition to the IDE disk a system is certified with
will invalidate the original certification.
Over to you...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:53:58 -0000
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:02:39 GMT, Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
>> >
>> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>> > > > >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> > 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.
>
>ext2fs is only a few years old.
ext2fs is also perfectly capable of handling "large files"
on MODERN archictures. It just so happens that PC Kludge
Klones don't meet that definition very well.
>
>> (NOTE: I realize FAT sucks, I'm not trying to claim it's
>> better than ext2fs, just more updated).
>
>unix filesystems were expanded from plain inodes, to indirect inodes
>and later to double and tripple indirect inodes to keep up with disk
>drive size increases. unix' filesystem design has been patched and
>kludged since the 70s just like cp/m or mircrosoft FAT.
>
>btw i am using reiserfs for about a year. so far i like it.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:57:29 -0000
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:26:37 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 25 Jan 2001 23:10:46 GMT;
>>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Steve Mading wrote:
>>:>
>>:> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>:> : Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT;
>>:> :>
>>:> :>Actually, I think the reason for it is that the only reason Windows
>>:> :>is popular at all is because of all the applications that are only
>>:> :>released for Windows and nothing else, not because the OS itself is
>>:> :>all that spectacular. Therefore, porting the OS to other platforms
>>:> :>would be usless unless MS could get all the third-party application
>>:> :>developers to make all of their software for non-intel platforms
>>:> :>also. If ONLY Windows and maybe Office ran on platform Foo, but
>>:> :>nothing else did, nobody would want it. MS discovered this, and stopped
>>:> :>trying to support other platforms. Of course they falsely attributed
>>:> :>this to people being uninterested in other platforms, when in fact
>>:> :>they *would* be interested if the Windows world hadn't been
>>:> :>monoplatform for so long that all the app developers forgot how to
>>:> :>program cross-platform code. (Consider how Corel ported WP 2000
>>:> :>to Linux - by using Wine instead of actually doing a real port.)
>>:> :>
>>:>
>>:> : Coincidentally, immediately after Microsoft bought a big stake in the
>>:> : company, IIRC.
>>:>
>>:> I got a copy of Corel WP 2000 for Linux *before* MS bought that
>>:> large sum of stock in Corel.
>>
>>: Was it a native port, or something to run on Wine?
>>
>>Wine. My point is that you can't blame the MS buyout for
>>the decision to use the Wine solution. The work was already
>>done to make the Wine solution before that happened.
>
>So why would anyone come out with a "new version" which used wine when
>they already had native code? And why wouldn't you think its a bit more
They only had native code for Word Perfect 7.
There were NO Unix versions for the other parts of
Perfect Office. PLUS what they did have was likely
built with Motif, which NOONE uses with Linux.
>than a coincidence when they are very soon thereafter "bought" by
>Microsoft? You don't actually think MS might have had a "meeting" or
>something with them, do you?
No need to attribute to malice or conspiracy what can
be obviously attributed to common corporate laziness...
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
