Linux-Advocacy Digest #736, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 23:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Vendor Neutral Linux Certifications, or, LPI vs. SAIR (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Sgt Detritus)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Comparison: Installing Monopoly Crapware vs Debian ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Bob Hauck)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Re: Does Code Decay ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Nic Bellamy)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Poor Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Vendor Neutral Linux Certifications, or, LPI vs. SAIR
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:27:36 GMT
In article <3a70be62.571288@news>, Bruce wrote:
>I'm interested in learning Linux from a professional perspective. I
>have taken an intro course and have been using Linux for over a year
>now. I've installed many distributions and have learned a lot. But,
>there are gaps. I want to get certified with either LPI's offering or
>SAIR's offering to both (a) give myself a structured study goal and
>(b) obtain a well rounded and respected vendor-neutral Linux
>certification. I'm going to do this self-study, using various
>distributions and several PC's including a Sparc workstation.
>
COOL!
>My question is, which is better or has the better future? SAIR seems
>more academic and thorough, but focuses on multiple distributions
>(which you can argue is both good and bad). LPI seems to be more well
>known at this time, and is supposedly distro neutral, but it doesn't
>seem to cover as much ground and detail as SAIR's cert. LPI seems to
>get more press, but there seems to be this tone that SAIR isn't going
>away and will compete quite heavily with LPI.
I'm an ANTI certification guy.
I think you should just get your butt over to Debian and
install that OS on everything including your sparc a few
times. Set up the networking. Set up X. Set up the FTP
server. Set up the SSH. Set up the Telnetdssl. Set
up Samba. Set up NFS. Play with NMB. Play with the
printing. Mount some .iso files. Burn some CD's.
If you played with Linux for 6-7 years you get pretty
good at that. I'm sure you will use Debian as RedHat
doesn't support a sparc version anymore.
>
>Does anyone have an experience with which they think is better or is
>about to "Take off" ?
>
>Bruce
>
>
>Vendor Neutral Linux Certifications, or, LPI vs. SAIR
>
>
I will vote on 'BRUCE' training to save the day.
Certifications don't really mean shit to me.
It's the time in the trenches which counts.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Sgt Detritus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:25:33 GMT
In article <94qj28$hst$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
> : Perhaps the most unsettling piece of this puzzle is that Redhat has
known
> : about the problem for more than six months.
>
> Unsettling? I'll tell you what's unsetting: in spite of the fact
that Red
> Hat has had fixes available for months, NASA decided not to apply
them.
Well said. Also notice tha WinZealots refuse to acknowledge this.
Perhaps this is because they are simply jealous because RedHat found
the hole and made a patch available BEFORE there were any attacks.
When was the last time M$ admitted to a flaw and fixed it before a
problem came up? Just because linux is relatively secure (when set up
proplerly) is no excuse for being a sloppy SYsAdmin. Note also that
the author of the original article seems to be convinced that there is
something resembling absolute security. He probably also thinks his car
is immune to theft because he just bought the Club.....
>
> --
> David Steinberg -o)
> Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
>
--
Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
without noticing is a man with way too much on
his mind.
~~Terry Pratchett, Guards, Guards~~
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 20:32:12 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > But it can't even reach C2 level of security...
>
> Actually there is work going on right now in that regard,
> because government wants to make use of the power
> of Linux, rather than having to choose between expensive
> traditional RISC Unix solutions, or flaky pc server solutiuons.
And W2K is being evaluted as we speak.
>
> > NT is more "highly securable" the NSA says...
>
> What a joke - nt can be configured on certain hardware
> to get a nominal security rating, but if you install a network
> card, or even a floppy, your security rating goes right out
> the window. Not a very useful pc, huh?
Wrong, completely and utterly wrong.
NT4 sp6a certified WITH networking and floppy.
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 20:32:15 -0600
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> 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.
You are wrong. NT4 was C2 certified with both a floppy and network
connection.
>
> 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.
NT4 has been certified at C2 level. No personal OS has ever made Red.
>
> 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.
True, NT5 has not been certified, yet. NT4 with networking has.
>
> 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.
The OS is certified, not the hardware, however the hardware is documented.
You'll note than when describing the certification and process, hardware is
not part of the process. C2 is not about hardware. Changing hard drive type
will not invalidate this configuration (think about it eh? If I ghost from a
SCSI to IDE drive - how is this less secure?)
SO, read and remember - certification is for the OS, NOT the hardware.
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 20:34:09 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94q9sk$fbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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...
>
> The NSA doesnt say that. In fact, no one says that.
My comment 2x2, abraxas, et. el was towards teh comment that linux is highly
securable.
I said linux isn't c2 level evalauted.
NT4 is:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 20:34:15 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 25 Jan 2001 22:40:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >It never fails to amaze me that people at large see "C2" as some kind
> >of goal to be reached. C2 certification guarantees a nearly useless,
> >horribly configured machine.
>
> I forgot to bring up that part.
You forgot or it's not true.
Read this, really read it:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
This is NOT a useless or horribly configured machine. It's a perfectly
useable system. It never fails to amaze me that whenver C2 is mentioned the
wannabe's lose their minds in lies, distortions, FUD and just plain crap.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 20:34:18 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94qa01$fbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It never fails to amaze me that people at large see "C2" as some kind
> of goal to be reached. C2 certification guarantees a nearly useless,
> horribly configured machine.
Lie.
Read this:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
It's a perfectly usable machine. Educate before spuing eh?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 25 Jan 2001 20:34:23 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > Then I guess I'm lucky because the 100s (yes, 100s) of installs I've
done
> > ahve always found, at the very least, a default driver to do the job.
Then a
> > quick download from windows update and I'm up - or at most I might have
to
> > visit the manufacturers site for a download. Are you trying to tell me
that
> > drivers for ALL hardware are bundled with Linux? ahahhahahah
>
> For the most part, that's the big difference - Linux includes
> support for the devices, while with windows you are always
> having to worry about finding "drivers".
>
> > So, Linux has to pretend it's Windows in oder to get the job done -
imation
> > is a sincere form of flattery.
>
> Actually not, it would be much better to use a non microsoft
> format, but it's amazing what Linux can do in a pinch.
>
> > But, do you really think wine performance is
> > as good as native performance? We both know otherwise.
>
> Of course, it you want performance, you're going to run
> native Linux apps, not futz around with wine. wine is a
> temporary kludge. BTW do you think windows could run
> Linux programs at all, let alone at near normal speed?
>
>
> > Excuse me - are ANY of those products included in the download? Show me
any
> > distribution tha tincludes SimCity 3000, Unreal Tournament and CorelDraw
and
> > Gimp and Star Office....
>
> Pardon me but your ignorance is showing.
>
> gimp has been in every Linux distro I've ever seen.
>
> star office and IIRC most of the others come with SuSE
> and other distros -
Pardon me but your inability to read the subject or contents is showing...
I didn't discuss the distro's I was talking about just the kernel
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing Monopoly Crapware vs Debian
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:18:29 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <94qdua$iv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Everybody wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Debian is probably the hardest install of them all right now
> and it's not that bad.
>
> But I have another VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION!
>
> W2k has been out now for how many months? 6-7 or more???
>
> Why on earth is there no Monopoly Crapware version of
> Napster working for W2k yet?
>
> I have 2 napster GPL'ed versions installed on my Debian workstation
> and they both work just fine.
>
> What is the problem with Monopoly Crapware?
>
Never had a problem with napster on my Win2K Server.
It's the clients downloaded from www.napster.com , btw.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:43:44 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:17:39 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Hauck
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:59:00 GMT, Chad Myers
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 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.
Well, I'm sure there must be some since Chad wouldn't just make
something up, now would he? And I _really_ doubt that VBScript is any
easier than the others either, unless Chad is speaking of those who
already know VBScript rather than those who don't know any of them.
Not that Chad would ever do that.
>This includes COM, ActiveX, and ADO, BTW -- although these may
>be extra-cost options.
SWIG is your friend. You can throw a nice Perl/Python/Tcl wrapper
around pretty much any C library and many C++ ones. Just wrap the
appropriate DLL's and you're in business.
OTOH, I seem to get along fine without all that cruft. The other
languages provide most of the features you'd use ActiveX and ADO for
anyway, except for being able to read poorly-documented proprietary data
formats.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:00:52 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 20:34:23 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
[deletia]
>> > Excuse me - are ANY of those products included in the download? Show me
>any
>> > distribution tha tincludes SimCity 3000, Unreal Tournament and CorelDraw
>and
>> > Gimp and Star Office....
>>
>> Pardon me but your ignorance is showing.
>>
>> gimp has been in every Linux distro I've ever seen.
>>
>> star office and IIRC most of the others come with SuSE
>> and other distros -
>
>Pardon me but your inability to read the subject or contents is showing...
>
>I didn't discuss the distro's I was talking about just the kernel
Your rant rather effectively illustrates just why the
comparison is the proverbial "apples to oranges" and
infact doesn't demonstrate anything meaningful.
If I want to run an Oracle instance, I don't need to worry about
whether or not I am running Linux kernel 2.4. The same is true
for USB support, Firewire support, journaled filesystems or
3D acceleration in current top end gaming cards.
There is no built-in-obsolescence with the linux kernel that
might require one to install NT5 just to get USB support.
It has not been demonstrated that anyone should NEED to perform
a kernel upgrade, or even that it is necessarily as difficult
as might be implied by a site that does CPU fan reviews.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:50:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:34:00 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Bennetts family wrote:
> >> > Unix could stay pretty stagnant for a very long time, with only bugfixes
> >> > and driver updates/additions) and kick the crap out of Windows for a very
> >> > long time. Windows is a lousy design, that needs to keep in touch with 20
> >> > year old bodge fixes (FAT, etc). Unix did things a much better way right
> >> > from the start. I predict that in 20 years time, Windows will still be on
> >> > a FAT derived FS, and suffering miserably from it.
> >> >
> >> I think in 20 years Wintendo(tm) will be recognized as the single one
> >> biggest errors in computing history.
> >
> >Kind of like the nuclear-fission handgrenade, but without the benefits.
>
> ...they actually did make fission artillery shells...
>
> "The nuclear artillery: We're so sure we'll get our man because
> we'll get ourselves at the same time..." '-)
Those guns have a range of 15-30 miles.
If the gun is properly dug-in, the crew completely safe.
(Besided, it takes quite a long time for shells to travel that far.
>
> --
>
> Freedom != Anarchy.
>
> Some must be "opressed" in order for their
> actions not to oppress the rest of us.
>
> |||
> / | \
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Nic Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:53:13 +1300
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> The OS is certified, not the hardware, however the hardware is documented.
> You'll note than when describing the certification and process, hardware is
> not part of the process. C2 is not about hardware. Changing hard drive type
> will not invalidate this configuration (think about it eh? If I ghost from a
> SCSI to IDE drive - how is this less secure?)
>
> SO, read and remember - certification is for the OS, NOT the hardware.
So installing an electronic keyboard sniffer does not invalidate the
rating then?
Regards,
Nic.
-- Nic Bellamy <nic at asterisk dot co dot nz>
IT Consultant, Asterisk Limited - http://www.asterisk.co.nz/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:01:50 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:30:15 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Poor flatfish, he is frantic with rage and confusion over the
>fact that Linux is alive and well, and microsoft has Linux as
>it's biggest threat -
Linux isn't a threat to anything I need software for so actually I
could care less what Linux does to Microsoft and in fact I could save
a fortune in applications cost's if Linux was able to do even 1/10th
of what I can easily do with Windows and Windows applications.
>Surely, if the bizzare caricature painted by flatfish, and other
>wintrolls were true, none of us would have ever heard of Linux,
>much less be using it.
I don't think any Windows user cares what you run on your machine.
Use the tools that work for you.
>jjs
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:04:32 GMT
On 25 Jan 2001 16:14:33 -0600, "Conrad Rutherford"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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)
More like having the Penguinista stand in a tub of saltwater, hands on
the water spigot and connecting that nerve up to 120 VAC.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:03:28 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Read Bach's book "The Design of the Unix Operating System"
>
> : There's a section on the Unix processes scheduler.
>
> : The algorithm is both insanely simple AND wickedly efficient.
>
> : I believe the word is "elegance"
>
> But we have to admit that there is one really big flaw in the
> scheduling technique used: the busy-loop problem. If you make
> a program that gets stuck in a loop that has no I/O, then it
> gets an absurd amount of CPU time that brings everything else
> to a crawl after a while.
Nope. The scheduler has a 32-bit quantity associated with
every process.
When a process hits the CPU, the high bit is set.
Every so often (1 millisecond or so), this value is right-shifted.
Scheduling goes like this:
Start out with most urgent "nice" value.
Of those processes which are NOT waiting on an event, select among
those processes in which the high-order bit is still 0...looking
for the one which has the LOWEST value.
When all "not waiting on an event" processes at this nice level have
run, the scheduler proceeds to the next nice level.
simple, elegant, and efficient.
> A "while true do nothing" loop will
> make every other program crawl. There could be an argument
> for allocating a minimum sliver of time to an interactive
> process once it starts getting some I/O activity so that
> you can type that "kill -9 9999" command to kill the offending
> process without having it take several minutes to execute.
> (But there could never be an argument for going so far as
> Windows did in this direction.)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:05:19 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:09:52 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does that really sound too difficult for you?
>
>jjs
You're dreaming.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
