Linux-Advocacy Digest #783, Volume #31 Sun, 28 Jan 01 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft is fired. (Karel Jansens)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! (Karel Jansens)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Gates Vaccine ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: All this Whistler stuff. (Mart van de Wege)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Otto")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: C2 ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Chris
Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:19:06 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm willing to bet that a lot of virus-writers have had access
> > > > to Windows code for YEARS
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, high school kids are so well known for keeping secrets.
> >
> > Open sand, insert head.
> >
> > Do you really think k1dd135 are the only people with an interest in other
> > people's systems?
>
> Did you even read the message? He said specifically "VIRUS WRITERS". As we
> all know, VIrus writers tend to be high school and college kids for the most
> part. They work by glomming onto each others work and modifying each others
> code. If said virus writers were all harboring the source code to windows,
> there'd be thousands of people trying to keep it secret. Not going to
> happen.
If someone uses the phrase "as we all know", (s)he usually means: "I
really don't have a clue, but if I make enough noise, nobody'll check
the facts".
But giving you the benefit of the doubt, what data prompted you to
make that statement?
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 28 Jan 2001 13:24:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sorry, Open Source was essentially created by RMS, an American who followed
: his principles for something like 10+ years before Linus got on the
: bandwagon. Why do you people like to think the US never invents anything?
That is incorrect. RMS has nothing to do with "Open Source," and
admits that free software predates him by a long time - he may have
popularized, written, and supported a great deal of it himself, but
the idea is at least as old as computing itself.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:29:12 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a few? How many is a few? Apple II, Commodore 64, PET, trs-80,
> > > color computer, Altair, TS-1000/ZX-81, Unisys A and B systems, CDC Cyber
> > > systems, Cray I, II, III, XMP and YMP, ETA 1, Connection Machines,
> > > RS-6000, AS/400,
> > > IBM System 36/38, Any number of VAX systems, IBM 43xx, Tandems, HP
> 9000,
> > > Psion...
> > >
> > > I could go on for quite some time you know for systems that don't have
> > > Linux ports.
> > >
> > >
> > Well, now you have to take that AS/400 off the list. IBM is working on
> that
> > Linux-port and Beta is expected later this year (native mode, naturally).
>
> When it's released, I will.
>
To use your own style of "logic": Charlie never mentioned "released"
or "of post-beta status" in his post, only that there had to be a form
of linux working for a certain computer.
> > By the way, to include Apple II, TRS-80 etc on that list just shows that
> > you don't have a clue. These machines certainly have more brain than you
> > show by this argument.
>
> I'm making a point. Charlie said there were only a few computers that don't
> have Linux ports to it. Last I looked, those were computers.
>
This is exactly the kind of "logic" that will win you a "kook of the
month" award, Erik.
You also forgot the ENIAC.
> > Microsoft is supporting Intel and Alpha and nothing else (and that only
> for
> > the NT-versions of Wintendo(tm), consumer-products like wintendo9xx are
> > left out.)
>
> Those are dead products, being discontinued this year.
>
Do you mean that Windows will be discontinued this year?
> > > Never looked at the number of processors supported by CE, have you?
> >
> > Well, i don't ask my pocket-calculator either what os it's working on. CE
> > is just plain dumb, it's Wintendo(tm) made even smaller (if thats possible
> > at all). Word for CE is little better than a slightly extended NotePad
> from
> > Win3.1. You must be kidding to include CE-machines in the same sentence
> > as computing.
>
> CE is a powerful system. Hell, there are dozens of thin client terminals
> running on CE.
>
Please name twenty-four.
Or twelve.
> You seem to think that a computer is only a computer if it runs the latest
> version of Linux.
It is, by all practical standards, a good definition
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 28 Jan 2001 13:29:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>Personally, I think that EVERYONE in America should have to apply for
:>citizenship, just like immigrants.
:>
:>How many of the "government owes me a paycheck for my mere existance"
:>ignorami would be prevented from voting until they demonstrated an
:>understanding of our history and Constitution in a Citizenship application.
: What makes you think that such people even bother to vote?
The fact that nearly half of the people who vote, vote for Democrats,
and nearly all the rest vote for Republicans, who are only slightly
less inclined to trash the Constitution and the rights of individual
human beings than are Democrats.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:36:53 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> > > > > Solaris - 35 sites (30 with stats), avg 60.18, max 334.76, min 6.26
> > > > > Linux - 19 sites (14 with stats), avg 36.73, max 89.39, min 4.94
> > > > > W2K - 11 sites, avg 19.82, max 45.05, min 3.84
> > >
> > > Hello, Chad! Four days and counting. Where's that reply?
> >
> > Hello, Chad! Five days and counting. When are you going to come out and
> > champion the Unix killer?
>
> Hey, Chad! Six days and counting. Are you sure you haven't seen this yet?
> Is your news server's DNS down or something?
Hey, Chad! It's been a whole week. What's the problem? You should at least
be able to come up with a lame claim that uptime isn't important to the Hot
100, or that kernel hackers are bribing those sites to reboot their W2K
machines just to make MS look bad.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gates Vaccine
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:33:43 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> That's 0.33% of my net worth,
> a rate almost 2.5 times what billg gave.
My mistake. Bill's gift is spread out over 5 years, not a one-time gift. If I hurt
myself and give AHA a whopping $10/year
for five whole years, my relative generosity will be more like 12.5 times Bill's,
rather than a mere 2.5 times as I claimed
earlier.
Me 'n' Bill are right up there with Mother Theresa in terms of self-sacrifice, eh?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:41:31 +0000
From: Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All this Whistler stuff.
Nigel wrote:
>> (and yeah I am posting this from windows, 'cause
>
>> my NIC refuses to work under linux. I do have an idea why not
>
>> though, and I may get it fixed soon)
>
>
>
> Try posting the make and model of your netcard (and any other
>
> relevant data) here and maybe you will get some help?
Ok,
It's a 3com 905C, and according to the vortex-diag program it
appears stuck in half-duplex. Using 'insmod 3c59x full_duplex=1'
it should go into full-duplex, which is what my cable modem
requires, yet after loading the module vortex-diag still reports
it as being in half-duplex mode. I tried 3com's 3c90x driver, but
I seem to have a kernel symbol mismatch when compiling it. That's
irrelevant though, as the 3c59x driver should work according to
3com itself.
As to what happens when it attempts connection: it sends out a
PADI packet (my ISP uses PPPoE) then times out waiting for a
reply. This seems to be consistent with the half-duplex
situation. The reasoning is as follows: the card sends the
packet, then waits for a handshake to switch to receive,
meanwhile the cable modem doesn't send any handshake signals, but
returns a PADO packet immediately. Since the NIC doesn't answer,
both it and the modem time out.
Hope I am making sense, as I am still busy hacking up things and
learning,
Mart
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:08:23 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> chrisv wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Under normal usage, a crashing app will crash ALL of Windows as well.
> >
> > Change will to can and you would be correct.
>
> 85% of the time, it is *WILL*.
Utter nonsense. The Win98SE part of my box is *totally* unaware of Aaron's
Law [IOW ther have been some system crashes, but tey are hopelessly
outnumbered by the number of application crashes], and the Win2K part
*still* has to experience an application induced crash.
If what you wrote before is what you have *actually* experienced, I must
conclude that one of us is doing something wrong.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:59:53 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: 1st to have some sort of credibility, use a proper email address
: 2nd it only effects Redhat Distros, not SuSE etc. I use SuSE, and I don't
: really care. I knew this would finally happen, redhat has always been
lazy,
: now it is really coming home to them (redhat).
:
First, proper email isn't a requirement to have credibility. People have
reasons why they don't use legitimate email addresses.
Second, the Ramen worm is platform specific. Although at the moment it's
directed at Red Hat, nonetheless, it can be easily modified to attack other
distros as well. Arguably Red Hat has the widest and most used distros in
the Linux market, hence the Ramen worm looking for that distro to guarantee
success for the worm. People using SuSE should care, the worm already has
routines to attack SuSE and FreeBSD but neither of them are activated. Let
it be a warning for people using other distros to patch your system until
it's not too late.
Third, the number of Linux specific viruses, worms will grow this year. The
actual exploit what the Ramen worm is carrying could be changed by plugging
in a different exploit. There will be mutations of this worm, not to mention
the new ones which will show up this year.
Fourth, the Raven worm is a lesson learned in OS platforms. The platform in
question can not defend itself, that's the responsibility of the person
between the chair and the keyboard, a.k.a. administrator.
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:44:35 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > Those records broke every unix record ever held. There has never been a
> > single linux appearence in the TPC benchmarks because linux lack enterprise
> > scalability and performance and lacks an appropriate database.
>
> Let's consider the fallacies in your statement -
>
> 1. "Linux lacks enterprise scalability"
>
> This statement indicates you are out of your depth here,
> and merely parroting the party line. Had you just finished
> reading microsoft's hilarious "Linux Myths" page?
The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC? Surely,
if it was the best, IBM would be looking for any reason to
oust MS from #1-#4 on the tpc. The answer is, Linux isn't
anywhere near ready. It just doesn't have the infrastructure
necessary to compete on the level of Win2K, AIX, Solaris, etc.
Likewise, there's no high-caliber database for Linux. There's
Oracle, but from what I've heard, it doesn't perform anywhere
near the way it does on Win2K and Solaris.
What about a transaction processor? Is there any enterprise-class
transaction processor for Linux?
Perhaps you should think a little before speaking from your anus.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:14:43 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > J Sloan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think Linux was considered abolutely secure by stupid people.
> > > >
> > > > No, you are 100% wrong here.
> > > >
> > > > Stupid people have not heard of any OS besides windows.
> > > >
> > > > jjs
> > >
> > > I am not 100% wrong. Linux is not absolutely secure. It is more
secure
> > > than windows, but what does that mean?
> > > you have to be pretty damn braindead to think any system is secure,
> > > unless it is locked underground with no external network or power
> > > connection.
> >
> > Strange, I don't know of any self-replicating worms in Windows.
> >
> > Viruses like Melissa and such require user interaction in order to
> > propogate, RameN does it without any interaction at all.
>
> Really?!?!?!?
>
> Melissa relied upon the fact that Outlook Express STUPIDLY opens up
> and 'executes' mail messages WITHOUT user interaction.
Damn ! I've been conned again ! My copy of Outlookk Express didn't do tha
when I received the ILOVEYOU.TXT.VBS. How is Melissa different ?
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:48:09 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a73729a$0$11937$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >I believe NT is certified on several different hardware platforms,
> > >all of which are available to the average joe (mainly through
> > >Compaq). One could buy similar hardware to the boxes tested and,
> > >while not technically C2, you could obtain the level of security
> > >tested in the C2 certification because, as I stated before,
> > >the OS is the main focus of the certification.
> > >
> > >-Chad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And as WE stated before. It's software and hardware.
> >
> > And now you finally admit it.
> >
> > That's a good boy.
> >
>
> Charlie - C2 applies to the OS - only. Period.
Well, Charlie's assertion earlier was that the OS had nothing
to do with it, and that NT wasn't C2 certified, the hardware
was.
I never denied that hardware was a part, but a very
insignificant part of it, contrary to what Charlie would have
you believe. Of course, we all know now that Charlie was just
FUD'ing to try to obscure the fact that NT has a much more
trusted and industry accepted security model than Linux's
cheesy permission bits scheme. Maybe they'll learn and put
an pervasive DAC implementation in Linux and call it Trusted
Linux or something, but that seems unlikely. They seem to be
content in arguing that permission bits is somehow more secure
or as secure than DAC. Oh well, let them keep their head in
the sand.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:50:40 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ERKc6.99$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:02:04 GMT, Chad Myers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> When we install the 2.4.x kernal and associated libraries to enable
> > >> >2Gb file support, we do *not* have to reformat any disk partitions
> > >> to make the change effective.
> >
> > > What about the applications? Don't most of them have to be rewritten
> > > to support the new method?
> >
> > No, they just have to be _recompiled_, nor _rewritten_. If you knew
> > anything at all about computers or software, you would understand why.
>
> No, they have to be rewritten to use off_t and lseek, rather than fseek or
> ftell. If the application was originally written to use lseek, then it's
> possible to recompile, but few developers actually do that.
One example that we always use (you know, since they claim that Linux is
enterprise-ready) is Oracle on Linux. You can't recompile Oracle, so you'll
just have to wait until the next version, and maybe, just maybe, Oracle
will be nice and include its support for the >2GB files, but maybe not.
I'm sure there are a dozen or so other applications that will have this problem.
That's just the little piece that they never tell you when they say, "Linux
supports >2GB files! You're an idiot for saying any less!".
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:06:03 GMT
Raymond Patitucci wrote:
>
> I didnt write anything in this post originally, but I would like to
> explain why Linux is unfeasable as a workstation platform. There are no
> good wordprocessing, spreadsheet or database programs for linux.
Star/Open Office; Applixware; MySQL; PostgresSQL (based on the Ingres
database of yore).
> Microsoft rules here.
If you're talking about Windows workstations/desktops, yes.
> Linux is essentially good at being a server and a programming
> platform to program C and JAVA.
Right!
> Thats it.
Wrong.
> Linux is a back end system and a cheap programming platform.
And a decent front-end system.
> Any company that writes software in C or JAVA
> would most likely use UNIX over LINUX.
This statement is too unfocussed to debate.
> Also, the GUI's on LINUX suck.
Where do you get that idea? Have you compared the functionality of
GNOME/Enlightenment or GNOME/Sawfish to what Windows 2000 offers?
About the only things GNOME lacks (as far as I know) is system-wide
anti-aliasing, which to some people just slows the GUI down. (And,
in Windows, forces a reboot if you want to enable it. It ended
up disabling it because it made the GUI noticeably jerkier in
updating the screen on my laptop.)
> Microsoft has the best GUI.
It is a good-looking GUI, but I find it fairly unresponsive on all
Windows systems I have used. I'm amazed how accepting people are
of this slowness... but then, they haven't had a chance to experience
Linux or other OS's.
> Microsoft has the better front end user
> interface than LINUX.
Yes, except when it freezes the operating system.
> I dont think anything I said about LINUX can be said
> about UNIX.
Seeing as UNIX is proprietary, too, and that there are many
varieties of it, I'm not sure if you can say anything hard and
fast that covers all these varieties. In any case, much the
same set of support apps are available on Linux.
> UNIX is probably better than Windows, but LINUX has a long way
> to go before it is as good as windows or UNIX.
I don't think the way is as long as you think, but I do think
Linux coders should not let up in making improvements to what
is already a great operating system at a great price.
Chris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
