Linux-Advocacy Digest #812, Volume #31 Mon, 29 Jan 01 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: C2 ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: you guys suck and so does your os! ("Tony Neville")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:10:41 GMT
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers once wrote:
> >
> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:94qdeg$13mm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> : news:94nnig$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> :>
> >> :> I don't need to see it. It isn't possible to get better than 100%.
> >> :> EVERYTHING in Unix is remotable. The best anyone can do is to match
> >> :> that, but it isn't physically possible to actually beat it.
> >>
> >> : Windows Terminal Services + Microsoft Management Console provides
> >> : better than telnet remotability.
> >>
> >> That's nice. Now wake up and look at the calender. UNIX *also*
> >> provides better than telnet remotability.
> >
> >Not really. They're all variations of telnet (SSH, etc). Some
> >of their applications have web-based administration components
> >which are usually horribly slow and semi-broken.
> >
> >Nothing like MMC or the speed of WTS.
> >
>
> MMC is a joke and you know it.
Hmm, you've never used it, have you?
Have you seen all the snap-ins?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:11:55 GMT
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers once wrote:
> >
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance rankings?
> >>
> >> Just the fact that chad asks the question tells us that
> >> there are some windows pcs there -
> >>
> >> My prediction is that these windows records will
> >> be broken by Unix systems - maybe solaris, maybe
> >> aix, maybe Linux, maybe all of the above, but they
> >> will not stand.
> >
> >The Unixes had leap frogged for years, then Win2K came
> >in and blew them away. There may be one that takes the
> >lead, but MS will be right back up there before long.
> >
> >As far as Linux on the TPC, please, don't make me laugh.
> >Linux isn't even ON the tpc, ANYWHERE, let alone on the
> >leader board.
> >
>
> Windows 2000 couldn't even reliably server quake 3 for 6
> people for us last night.
Ah yes, and here we have it folks! Everyone stop buying
Win2K because Kevin was too incompetent to keep his box
running. Never mind that we have no idea what hardware he
was using, what other software he was running, what was
the exact problem he encountered with Quake3, or the
fact that Quake3 really isn't all that great of a game
and tends to crash frequently on any system.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:12:52 GMT
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers once wrote:
> >
> >"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.
> >
>
> I've never really heard of this TPC before.... sounds like something
> companies use when it suits them.
>
> You have to consider that entering this tpc thing isn't free.
Ah yes, when confronted with your own ignorance, attack the source,
because it certainly isn't reliable. Never mind that it's been a
trusted industry benchmark dominated by Unix vendors and large
database vendors for years, only to be trounced upon by Microsoft.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:15:06 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC?
>
> Because no distributions have shipped with the 2.4 kernel yet?
So you think 2.4 will suddenly make Linux jump into the future
and suddenly be stable and a serious contender, as opposed to the
joke it is now? I'm sorry, you mustn't have taken your pills this
morning. Linux 2.4 is really a catch-up measure, bringing Linux's
feature set into circa 1998. Everyone has moved on.
> > Surely,
> > if it was the best, IBM would be looking for any reason to
> > oust MS from #1-#4 on the tpc.
>
> Excellent point - If that's the case, it's just a matter of time.
Suuuurrrreeee... keep dreaming.
Face it, Linux just doesn't have what it takes to even make an
appearence on the price/performance board. At least NT 4 owned
that spot. Win2K now owns the covetted Performance category.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:15:45 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:02:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> where has your reasoning been. I have been listening to Microsoft's
speechs
> >> since NT was first encarnated, and not once, have they ever achieved what
> >> they wanted, that is, to be the almighty UNIX bashing OS.
> >
> >Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance rankings?
> >
> >Thank you.
>
> ...by throwing together 100 toy servers together.
Which cost significantly less and produced much higher scores than
IBM's and Sun's best offerings.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:18:05 GMT
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers once wrote:
> >
> >"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.
> >
>
> NT4 got C2 in the UK; but not internationally.
There is no C2 on the UK, AFAIK. It got the E3/FC2 if that's
what you're referring to.
It holds the C2 orange AND redbook certifications in the US,
and the E3/FC2 in the European union.
-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: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:19:04 GMT
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers once wrote:
> >
> >"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!".
> >
>
> www.scyld.com you fuckwit
Welcome to the KillFile.
You seem to be pretty dense, insisting that Linux has even the remotest
hope in the Enterprise department, something of which is has no features
or design for.
Oh well, pitty.
-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: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:20:19 GMT
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:NCRc6.54641$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > > Besides, Win2K has NTFS5 which doesn't have this problem anyhow.
> > > >
> > > > Give a hacker a DOS boot floppy and this product
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfsdospro.shtml
> > > >
> > > > and see what happens.
> > > >
> > > Give a hacker physical access to a computer and kiss it goodbye. Doesn't
> > > really matter what OS is running....
> >
> > It's amusing how these slops think that Linux is somehow immune to
> > this.
>
> no one thinks any operating system is immune to this. what gave you
> that idea?
Chris proposed this "hack" for NT/2K as though NT/2K was the only
OSen vulnerable to this type of attack.
Must I repeat the entire thread, or does your newsreader not thread?
-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: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:22:33 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > If so, let's hope they have better luck than these people when they
> > > > > try to use Win2K for their enterprise application:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, the register. Constantly on the look out to make up stories
> > > > that show MS in a bad light.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, the obvious answer to this article is is that Delphi's
> > > > admins are incompetent. They choose some back-woods network card
> > > > that doesn't have good drivers (which, if I were them, I would switch
> > > > right then. If the company that I buy NICs from can't write stable
> > > > drivers, I don't want them as my NIC vendor any more).
> > > >
> > > You forget:
> > >
> > > a) That "good drivers" are available for low end performance, and not
> > > high end.
> >
> > Intel makes damned good high-end server NICs and their drivers are
> > a perfect compliment. Anyone who knows anything typically uses these.
> > The ones that don't typically use 3COM, which is probably what happened
> > in this case.
>
> You mean that Win2k doesnt provide decent drivers for 3COM NIC?
No, 3COM provides drivers for 3COM nics. Many happen to ship with Win2K,
but I've yet to see a "good" 3COM driver for any NIC.
> That 3Com Gigabit 3C985 which is used for the CERN supercomputer (maybe
> you heard of it) isn't worth a support from MS?
MS doesn't support 3rd party hardware. This is pretty standard, what
planet do you live on?
> When it's got a Linux driver?
So? I could write a really bad driver for multiple platforms to, but that
doesn't change the fact that it's a bad driver.
> However both Intel and 3Com provide NIC's 1000Base-SX as per standard
> IEEE 802.3z
> So it's not a matter of brand.
> Well maybe Win2k is enterprise ready, but only if you think of
> enterprise in terms of grocer's shop.
What the hell are you talking about?
-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: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:23:24 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:56:01 GMT,
> Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:NCRc6.54641$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > > Besides, Win2K has NTFS5 which doesn't have this problem anyhow.
> >> >
> >> > Give a hacker a DOS boot floppy and this product
> >> >
> >> > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfsdospro.shtml
> >> >
> >> > and see what happens.
> >> >
> >> Give a hacker physical access to a computer and kiss it goodbye. Doesn't
> >> really matter what OS is running....
> >
> >It's amusing how these slops think that Linux is somehow immune to this.
> >
>
> name one person who has said that linux is immune to this? deja is at your
> service, just name one, that's all I ask.
Chris proposed this "hack" as though it was some vulnerability that only
NT/2K had. Need I quote the whole thread? Does your newsreader do threads?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:24:21 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Richardson wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Jan 2001 07:44:44 -0500,
> > Norman D. Megill, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >In article <dGKc6.19391$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > >> Besides, Win2K has NTFS5 which doesn't have this problem anyhow.
> > >
> > >If so, let's hope they have better luck than these people when they
> > >try to use Win2K for their enterprise application:
> > >
> > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
> > >
> > >--Norm
> > >
> >
> > I did find this story amusing, wonder if M$ will fly some techs and muscle
out
> > to "convince" Delphi to change their minds...
> >
>
> A quick glance to:
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.delphi.com
>
> tells that if they did, they didn't succeed, for the moment.
>
> It also tells that with Win2k they weren't able to keep their site up
> for more than half a day.
Which means they were incredibly incompetent. You could try to break
Win2K and you still couldn't get it to crash that often. They must
be switching the power on and off or rebooting for the hell of it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Tony Neville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Tony Neville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: you guys suck and so does your os!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:39:48 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tony Neville wrote:
>>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christian Beaumont
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > <Needless sillyness deleted>
>> >
>> > >By the way, the other question for you, reading my mail - do you
>> > >think I am pro Linux or against?
>> > >
>> > >-chris
>> > >
>> >
>> > Despite *THIS* newsgroup or *THESE* newsgroups, you can not deny
>> > that Linux is growing at a rapid rate.
>>
>> That's no indication of one OS's popularity compared to another.
>> A 1% increase in sales of Windows OSs may equate to, says, one
>> million purchases, whereas a 25% increase in sales of Linux OS may
>> equate to 500 thousand purchases. Microsoft's Windows OSs have a
>> massive userbase already in existence, so of course its rate of
>> growth would be lower. If Mr Bloggs created an OS and gave a copy
>> to a friend who installed it on his pc, its rate of growth would be
>> 100%. Would you then say Bloggs' OS is becoming more popular than
>> either Linux or Windows? Naaaaahhhhoooo....
> If I told you that you had a termite infestation, and that the size
> of a termite colony grows at 25% /month, would you say, "oh, it's
> only a *small* termite colony" and forget about it?
No, because it's a bloody termite colony! I could extend your really
provocative yet contextless analogy to include another competing colony
of termites the size of a house, but I strongly suspect you chose that
one only to incite yet another bash-MS-fest.
Tony.
http://www.zfree.co.nz
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:29:22 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
> "Mathias Grimmberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
> > > "Mathias Grimmberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Streams, yes, I've heard about it.
> > > Frankly, I'm sure that most anti virus makers would be delighted because
> of
> > > it, the virus actually packs itself in a nice little package that you
> can
> > > nuke without harming the actual file data.
> >
> > But you can't do that.
> >
> > The virus must also modify the data in the default stream or it won't be
> > activated - ever.
>
> Actually, Streams, the only virus to have ever use streams copy the file's
> content to a stream and set itself as a the unnamed string.
> When it is run, it will first launch itself & then it will launch the code
> from the stream it put the original file's contents.
>
> cleaning it is a simple matter of:
> copy file.xyz:real_data file.xyz
I see, I should have looked it up. Of course that just makes it too easy
for the Antivirus vendors... :-)
> > > > [snip examples about image.jpg:Thumbnail and foo.doc:Formatting]
> > > >
> > > > > I'm sure you can see why this is a good feature.
> > > >
> > > > It also depends on some central registry allocating the names. Not
> quite
> > > > a scaleable setup. But it may work if MS would choose to do that work.
> > >
> > > Central registry? You mean MFT? That is how NTFS *works*, it's pretty
> > > scalable by what I've seen.
> >
> > No, not MFT. For e.g. the thumbnail thing to be useful everyone has to
> > agree that the stream containing it is called "Thumbnail" and that the
> > image data is stored in format foo. So there needs to be a central
> > registry for these stream names and what they should contain.
>
> No, you don't need a central registry for that. Not anymore than you need a
> registry for file formats.
> Tradition & convention dictate where & how it would be, not some registry.
And we end up in the same mess as with file name extensions. OK, so
somehow we manage to cope, but an official registry would be nicer IMHO.
> > > > > A> Awareness for this feature.
> > > >
> > > > Which lead to security holes in webservers some time ago, AFAIK bot
> MS's
> > > > and others.
> > >
> > > You mean the ::$DATA bug in IIS?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I know of this one, and it's entirely MS' fault for overlooking this one,
> but do you know of any other applications that are vulerable because of
> this?
Netscape's webserver on NT was vulnerable too IIRC. I'd guess pretty
much every webserver on NT was. Anything else capable to deliver files
via the net (while denying delivery of files with certain names) is
potentially vulnerable, say FTP servers. But I don't know of actual
vulnerable software other than web servers.
> (I think that the only thing that can be vulerable is scripts, where
> you want to guard your code.)
Yes, primarily. But then there are also config files the webserver may
not let you access otherwise and CGIs could be downloaded and analyzed
for security flaws. Both occasionally contain hardcoded passwords for
backend databases.
[big snip]
> > BTW, another fun NTFS feature are case sensitive file names. With them
> > one can probably break a great many apps. And there may even be security
> > implications.
>
> Well, NTFS *is* case sensitive FS.
> Readme.txt != readme.txt
OK, it is. The Win32 subsystem does the thing about "case preserving,
but not case sensitive".
> The problem (actually, I don't consider it a problem, case sensitive file
> names can be a PITA) is that userland tools don't differ between those
> too.
Not only that but Explorer actively fiddles with the case of file names
in order to provide a "nice" display, making the "case preserving" bit a
bad joke.
Arghhh, I hate Explorer. And the lusers that came up with the thing. I
still use the File Mangler - and NT 5 doesn't have it anymore... :-(
> Anyone knows how I can create Readme.txt & ReadMe.txt in the same directory
> under NTFS?
Hehehe, so this post is not only just rambling:
You could either use a program running in the Posix subsystem.
Or you could just pass FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTIC (IIRC) to
CreateFile()/OpenFile(). This flag is officially documented in the
description of CreateFile().
Have fun playing around with the feature. Some ideas: can I block access
to some document (if I can add to the dir but not write to the file),
can I plant a doctored EXE/DLL (same), can I cause inadvertent deletion
of the real file while trying to get rid of the "evil twin", can I break
backup programs which assume file names are not case sensitive?
Well, all assuming the admins are not just to good.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:10:13 -0800
Adam Warner wrote:
> > Did they just admit that Linux currently has a larger share of the server
> > market that Windows 2000? After all, how can you overtake if you are
> > already ahead?
>
> Yes. Great admission, eh?
I read on the linux-mandrake web site a few days ago that the 2000 IDC
report shows that linux had 60% of all licenses on servers shipped last
year.
This was my favorite quote:
"Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media"
Oh, that's what is sitting on my desktop. Thanks.
--
Salvador Peralta
"to close down windows, i.e. to STOP windows,
the first thing you do is click the START button."
- windows support
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
