Linux-Advocacy Digest #755, Volume #31 Fri, 26 Jan 01 21:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: (OT) linux ftp clients (was re: linux is crude and inconsistent) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft is fired. (Bob Hauck)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft is fired. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Charlie Ebert)
Kernel upgrade - not bad at all (Mark Styles)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Craig Kelley)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Run for the hills! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Desktop ( Was: Re: Whistler predictions... ) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Conrad Rutherford")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:22:56 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94sejg$i7m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> Chad Myers wrote:
> :>
> :> > P.S.- sponsoring an independant benchmark does not necessarily
> :> > taint the findings.
> :>
> :> Hint: "sponsored" and "independent" clash.
>
> : Then you have no idea how the scientific world works. All studies
> : are sponsored by someone, but it doesn't affect the outcome of
> : the study.
>
> : Just more Penguinista fud.
>
> What a load of bull - most studies are sponsored, yes, but not
> necessarily by one of the parties being judged in the study.
> A study sponsored by a third party can be impartial, but a study
> sponsored by one of the parties being judged by the study cannot.
I'm not saying that influce CAN'T happen, I'm saying that there
are trusted scientific sources which can provide unbiased,
uninfluenced results in a study. NTSL, Gartner, and others.
Mindcraft was also one of these (they've done many studies),
until the Penguinistas unjustly destroyed their reputation.
Just shows you how insecure Penguinistas are. If something
shows the obvious flaws in their OS, then suddenly the show-er
is the devil and must be purged.
Why can't you guys take constructive criticism and recognize
the glaring weaknesses in your OS, fix them, move on and
become better people?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:24:18 GMT
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> T. Max Devlin once wrote:
> >Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:34:36
> > [...]
> >>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).
> >
> >Guffaw.
> >
>
> Hmmm..... what's ext3 and reiser then
Where are ext2 and reiser? Still not shipping or production.
They're not the default fs' on the major distros, they're
only included (on some) as an at-your-on-risk kind of deal.
When Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, et al ship with Resier
or ext3 as the default, then I'll stop bashing Linux for
this horrible weakness.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:40:13 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:57:28
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> > Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:22:28
>> > [...]
>> > >Now you've crossed the line. You've asked T. Max Devlin to produce facts.
>> > >Don't you know that that would break his streak of fact-less posts?
>> >
>> > That it would require intense research in order to point out your
>> > baseless presumptions and trivial fabrications is a rather laughable
>> > suggestion, Chad.
>>
>> I recommend against taking the time to research facts for refuting Chad.
>
>Well, no one has been doing that, so it shouldn't be a big loss.
Sure, a couple people have wasted some time trying to present you with
evidence that your "facts" are skewed bullshit, but you don't seem to
pay any attention.
>I present fact after fact after fact, and all you guys (Max, you, et al
>except for Ghost in the Machine) do is critize, personally attack, and
>spew forth baseless supposition.
We were hoping you would catch on, after a couple weeks (months?
years?) of being called a troll, that you'd figure out that most people
you're arguing with know your "facts" for the skewed bullshit that it
is. That's why you have a reputation as a sock puppet for Microsoft, in
case you didn't get it. But I'd have thought that time you were being
ridiculed as giving blow-jobs to Bill Gates might have given you a clue.
>> I wasted a couple of hours over the weekend looking up Hot 100 uptimes, and
>> Chad won't even bother to respond to the post. He much perfers to make up
>> his own statistics.
>
>Start a new thread, I told you. This thread is talking about Fortune 500.
This thread, Chad, is talking about whatever the hell the people posting
to it want to talk about. You want to keep redirecting us to the
Fortune 500, because you believe the fact that most of them are locked
into Microsoft's monopoly crapware is somehow cogent. Nobody seems to
want to argue with you on that point, because the only people who would
take the idea seriously are pretty much sock puppets themselves.
Its kind of amusing, though, watching you try over and over to redirect
the discussion to that senseless, and remarkably isolated, piece of
"fact" that you want to insist you have been providing.
>Why do you insist on ignoring this? Fortune 500 is, IMHO, as important, or
>more important than the Hot 100. I think it's more reasonable to see what
>Dell, Compaq, Merril Lynch, Fidelity, and many other huge corporations are
>using for their critical web eCommerce infrastructure than what eGroups
>uses for their message boards, wouldn't you?
No, nor does anyone else who's ever worked for or with a large
corporation. Institutionalized cluelessness can prove remarkably
profitable when you have millions of dollars to spend. If you want to
know what works, look at the people who know the technology, not the
Fortune 500. It might possibly be interesting, of course, to see what
even the Fortune 500, and (as I pointed out in a separate response) the
Fortune 100 use, except for the fact that its a monopoly we're
discussing when we talk about Microsoft, and every one with more than
half a brain would have to agree that a Fortune 100 firm is more likely
to be locked into a monopoly than anyone in the Hot 100.
>In 2 years, who's more likely
>to a.) still be in business b.) have the web still be in their primary
>business category? Hint: It isn't likely to be eGroups.
Hint: it isn't likely to be Microsoft, either, if this is the best they
can do at providing evidence that their products don't suck, is point to
everyone most easily influenced by their monopoly who would naturally
have to continue to have a relationship with Microsoft no matter how
worthless the monopoly crapware is, because of the huge installed base
they represent, all by themselves, and thus the vulnerability to lock-in
gets outrageously large the more Microsoft can make migration difficult.
>These guys are in it for the long haul, not the quick buck, and they've
>overwhelmingly chosen IIS and iPlanet and ditched Apache.
"Ditched"? You have some evidence that the Fortune 500 was formerly
using apache? I doubt it. See what I mean about "skewed bullshit"?
>There are the facts, why do you continually try to change the subject
>or avoid them, without posting any of your own facts to refute them.
Because you're a fucking moron, and this is even more evident when you
keep blathering on about "facts" when the "facts" you post are so
ludicrously easy to refute and you find it so necessary to engage in
such obvious and rampant spin-meistering.
>Why are you so afraid of the truth, Bobby?
I used to think Erik Funkenbusch was king of the sock puppets, Chad.
But you've taken away his title, for sure. But be careful; this "ono"
kid seems to have his eye on the prize. Lucky for you, he's still
wasting time on Aaron, because nobody else will give him the time of
day.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:25:40 GMT
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:09:17 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> |
> |"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> |> 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.
> |
> |Like I said, FAT sucks. But, ext2 DIDN'T get it right the first
> |time, they've had to update it, and now they're moving on
> |to ext3 because of the failings of ext2.
>
>
> When was ext2 updated? There were bugfixes, but no chnages in
> format or functionality that I am aware of.
There was a supposed patch that allows ext2 to use >2GB files
on 32-bit, even though it doesn't seem to be all-inclusive
and there are still "issues".
> Are you sure you are not confusing the fact that ext2 is itself
> an update/replacement for ext?
Who cares? It still sucks and a replacement that brings it up
to 1994 level still hasn't arrived yet. Let alone bring it up
to 2001 level.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: (OT) linux ftp clients (was re: linux is crude and inconsistent)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:43:45 GMT
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:06:59 +0000, Mart van deWege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>To be fair, the default linux ftp client is just the good old
>UNIX ftp command, it doesn't support resume. However, if you get
>From "man ftp" on Caldera eDesktop:
reget remote-file [local-file]
Reget acts like get, except that if local-file exists
and is smaller than remote-file, local-file is presumed
to be a partially transferred copy of remote-file and the
transfer is continued from the apparent point of
failure. This command is useful when transferring very
large files over networks that are prone to dropping
connections.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:43:47 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:58:52 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>No, you claim the DNS servers are on the same segment. The article says
>that MS's border router was misconfigured. No matter how many subnets you
>put your DNS servers, they all have to go through the border router unless
>you physically seperate them in different geographical places, like one in
>New York and one in Seattle and one in Dallas and one in Chicago.
Wouldn't doing that be a smart thing to do? They do have offices all
over the place. Or they could just contract with someone to provide a
few secondaries on other networks.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:43:49 GMT
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:07:02 +0100, ono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The boys at our place have a big HP box (~400mhz, 1Gig Ram >30'000 euro) for
>doing VHDL synthesis. But since they got the NT version of the software they
>all run it on no-name ( 500mhz, 256 Meg Ram < 1500 euro) intel pc's. Guess
>why they do that?
Somebody made them all use the *one* HP because of the cost? The NT
version is newer and suports the current parts that the HP version
lacks?
I'll bet if you ask the engineers they would be happier with a Linux
version of the new one so they could keep using all their old scripts
and such.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:46:51 GMT
In article <g%bc6.576$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hmmm... They're having trouble again today. It sure takes MS a long
>time
>> > > to fix configuration errors.
>> >
>> > Today's problem was a DDoS attack on their routers. Apparently, some
>script
>> > kiddies wanted to make MS look even worse, never mind the fact that this
>is
>> > the sort of attack that crippled companies like Yahoo and AT&T not too
>long
>> > ago.
>>
>> Ah. Much is explained.
>>
>> I wonder what it will be tomorrow.
>
>Actually, it was quite easy to figure out that this was a DDoS attack.
>Traceroutes to microsoft IP addresses showed massive latency and dropped
>packets even before entering MS's routers.
>
I'd like to see GD Microsoft keep anything up for 1/2 a year without incident.
Or how about going a year without being broken into with their excellent
security.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:48:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Withers wrote:
>G'day
>
>I've been following developments closely on this.
>
>It appears that sometime this year all new Microsot software will need
>to be registered....or it will cease to function.
>
Interesting.
>This may offer OS alternatives like Linux a huge toe in the desktop
>door. With more and more homes being networked and having multiple PCs,
>how many home and small business users are going to be forced to pay up
>and stop using the "One CD fits all" approach they use today?
>
>In my own case.....I would have to upgrade 7 home PCs every year for
>both Windows and MS Office.....to the tune of lots of dosh per annum. As
>it is, I now have 3 of those systems on Linux...and quite happily.
>
>But some of my family members are reluctant to give up Windows. I may
>have to suggest to them that they pay for it in future....as I will only
>be paying for Linux software from 2001 onward.
>
>It is intersting that the US produced Windows......the country with
>one-party (two faction) politics has also given us no choice on the
>desktop. While politically diverse Europe with multi-party, proportional
>systems as the politcal norm, has given us Open Software and Linux....
>
>Sort of the illusion of freedom (US politics) vs the reality of freedom
>(European politics - outside Britain).
>
>There is an underlying cultural thing operating here somewhere...... :-)
>
>Steve
Very true. Our government should have it's ass kicked for allowing
Microsoft to become a monopoly in the first place.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:39:17 -0500
I bit the bullet yesterday and decided to upgrade my kernel to 2.4.
This is the first time I've built a Linux kernel, but I've built a few
unix kernels in my time.
Overall it went very well. I took a long break half way through, but
the total time actually sitting doing stuff was a little over an hour.
Here's a brief timeline:
Download new source: about 5 minutes
Unpack: 2 minutes
make config: 20 minutes (I wanted to make sure I had it right!)
make bzImage: 10 minutes
make modules: 10 minutes
put new kernel in place, figure out how lilo works, reinstall lilo: 10
minutes
reboot with new kernel: 5 minutes
The only change I had to make after that was an 'insmod ipchains' so
my masquerading would work.
I'm very happy and impressed with how smoothly it went, but (yes,
there had to be a but ;)) I would imagine the process would be very
daunting to somebody not comfortable with the unix command line. The
whole process terrified my girlfriend...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:52:06 GMT
In article <94sh8j$c9c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Steve Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: G'day
>
>: I've been following developments closely on this.
>
>: It appears that sometime this year all new Microsot software will need
>: to be registered....or it will cease to function.
>
>Well, they *claim* that this will only be an option, not a
>requirement - there will be two payment methods for software,
>the traditional buy it all up-front style, and the pay-as-you-go
>style (with automatic updates). The registration is just for
>the pay-as-you-go style. Of course I have about 0 trust in
>Microsoft to stick to this claim...
>
>: This may offer OS alternatives like Linux a huge toe in the desktop
>: door. With more and more homes being networked and having multiple PCs,
>: how many home and small business users are going to be forced to pay up
>: and stop using the "One CD fits all" approach they use today?
>
>: In my own case.....I would have to upgrade 7 home PCs every year for
>: both Windows and MS Office.....to the tune of lots of dosh per annum. As
>: it is, I now have 3 of those systems on Linux...and quite happily.
>
>: But some of my family members are reluctant to give up Windows. I may
>: have to suggest to them that they pay for it in future....as I will only
>: be paying for Linux software from 2001 onward.
>
>: It is intersting that the US produced Windows......the country with
>: one-party (two faction) politics has also given us no choice on the
>: desktop. While politically diverse Europe with multi-party, proportional
>: systems as the politcal norm, has given us Open Software and Linux....
>
>False. While it is certainly true that open software is much more
>internationally developed than Microsoft software is, the GPL was
>done in the US, the FSF (GNU) is centered in the US. Without the
>existance of GNU, Linux wouldn't have been started. The Linux kernel
>was started by a Finn who since then has moved to California,
>and today there are still a large number of US people involved,
>including "Maddog" Hall (unofficially the second in command after
>Linus, I would guess). The infamous RMS is in the US and started
>at MIT. The Gnome project was started by a Mexican. Enlightenment was
>started by an Australian, KDE was started by (I think) Germans.
>The opensource world is diverse and not US-centric, but definately
>has a *lot* of US people in it. It just doesn't have the
>disproportionate amount of US representation we are used to seeing
>in other areas. The US only accounts for 5% of the world's population,
>and so it's not surprising at all that it doesn't account for the
>majority in a system where anyone in the world can have a hand in
>participating. *No* single country has a majority of developers in
>the opensource world and that's the way it should be.
>
>
>: Sort of the illusion of freedom (US politics) vs the reality of freedom
>: (European politics - outside Britain).
>
>: There is an underlying cultural thing operating here somewhere...... :-)
>
>: Steve
>
The main reason why just about all the software and high-technology items
originate from the U.S. is we are free.
That's the bottom line.
Yet when you get into a discussion about Microsoft and it's monopolistic
powers, the definition of the U.S. get's blurred.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 26 Jan 2001 18:55:07 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Maybe there's a good reason for literacy tests after all.
> >>
> >> Perhaps. But ill put my verbal SAT score up against yours or anyone
> >> elses, any time.
>
> > You mean << I'll >> and << else's >>? ;)
>
> No, I meant exactly what I typed. See dejanews for my multiple arguments
> for the granular use of capitals and contractions in informal prose.
I hope you didn't use it on the SAT then.
(And if we did institute literacy tests for voting, that could have
cost you your "right" right there.)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
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: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:55:36 GMT
In article <hyfc6.17424$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Like I said, FAT sucks. But, ext2 DIDN'T get it right the first
>time, they've had to update it, and now they're moving on
>to ext3 because of the failings of ext2.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Just out of curiosity, what are the failings of ext2 other than
no journaling. Windows doesn't have a journaled file system...
ext3 is suppose to bring us this in addition to the already in
use Reiser.
Where is Windows journaled file system?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Run for the hills!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:57:34 GMT
In article <UUkc6.4175$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>It's the end of civilisation as we know it!
>
>An OS that never crashes!
>
>A desktop that nobody wants to use!
>
>GASP!
>
>We're getting our first... <choke> Linux... <eek> box... <puke> at work.
>
>And since I'm the one running Linux at home, guess who gets to install it?
>
>8)
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
Humm... Hey Pete. Guess what...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Desktop ( Was: Re: Whistler predictions... )
Date: 26 Jan 2001 20:06:54 -0600
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > No copyrights! No lawsuit threats! No software police!
> > No bluescreens! No unexplainable lockups! No throwing
> > away that GOOD PC of your just so you can upgrade to the
> > next Microsoft product/s.
>
> Plus, linux tools are simply smarter. Instead of building monolithic
> applications that try and do your thinking for you and don't do it very
> well. (eg. Word ), the unix ethos behind creating light, extensible,
> interoperable tools has made its way onto the linux desktop.
>
> --
> Salvador Peralta
> http://164.67.27.112/ for at least the next 30-45 minutes
30-45 minutes? Is that a factor of your uptime?
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 26 Jan 2001 20:09:45 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94quch$dtp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:94qa01$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
>
> Looks like unix still beats NT:
>
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-93-008-A.html
I have never even suggested that there are not other OSes with higher
security ratings than NT.
I am rebuffing any claim that C2 was not achieve by NT4 while networked and
with a floppy drive.
I do not see linux listed anywhere...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
