Linux-Advocacy Digest #844, Volume #31 Tue, 30 Jan 01 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Yup, it's definatly Mandrake (aflinsch)
Re: Yup, it's definatly Mandrake (aflinsch)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: A Linux "Domain Server"? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (sfcybear)
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: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Chad Myers")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Chad Myers")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: NTFS Limitations (.)
Re: Desktop MTTF, Linux, lets get some numbers. (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 31 Jan 2001 01:00:49 +1100
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In article <953pud$mhv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>Are you the bmeyer who had a winning entry in the IOCCC?
Uhm, yes. Why?
Bernie
--
'Do you pray for the senators, Dr. Hale?' --- 'No, I look at
the senators and I pray for the country'
E.E. Hale
American clergyman, 1822-1909
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 31 Jan 2001 01:10:07 +1100
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>J Sloan wrote:
>> Spotted this today on the news - FYI
>Yeah, it looks like Linux is the future of supercomputing, at least for the
>next "generation" of IT.
For *some* sorts of problems, that undoubtedly true. If you can do with
comparatively coarse parallelism and comparatively slow individual
processors, and get your "super" from the sheer number of processors, then
a Beowulf cluster is certainly a great value/money solution.
Quite many of the problems demanding a "supercomputer" can be adapted to
that approach. But some simply can't, and for those, there is still a need
to come up with fast-as-hell non-clustered machines. Sometimes you might
"just" need a closer coupling of all the processors, like full shared
memory[1], but sometimes, you really need just one greased-lightning sort
of processor, and an environment around it to keep it happy.
Bernie
[1]: A well-done (i.e. rather expensive) Beowulf can have fairly low
latencies and high bandwidths, but especially in the latency
area it is still nowhere near single shared memory architectures.
--
Efficiency is intelligent laziness
David Dunham
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yup, it's definatly Mandrake
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:59:23 -0600
John Travis wrote:
>
> There is constant bitching about this package in a.o.l.m. Everyone saying
> the package sucks this and that. Everything comes up double in the menus.
I have seen this too -- but only in kde & gnome, other desktops/window
managers seem to be ok with it. Restarting kde usually fixes it, if
that did not work, then running update-menus as a user (rather than as
root) fixes it.
> But interestingly enough it works perfectly in Debian. Go figure.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Yup, it's definatly Mandrake
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:55:40 -0600
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > First mistake. You should have waited until update-menus completed.
>
> You mean it doesn't tell you when it's finished?
Nope. it starts a series of background processes.
>
> Does it tell you when it's finished?
Nope. But if you run it with the -v (verbose) option, it does dump
some messages to the console, so that you can see that it is doing
something.
> >
> > Same thing. Just run update-menus and wait until it finishes. Note
> > that it will send a bunch of processes into the background, do it from
> > a console and keep trying ps until yousee that it is complete.
>
> WHAT! That's a pretty naff way to do that sort of thing!
>
It sure is. Usually I just let it go in the background and forget
about it. I suppose running one of the top variations would do the
same thing.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:03:34 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Myers) wrote in
> <Qppc6.27759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> 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.
>
> Gartner are unbiased? hahahaha.
>
> I read a Gartner quote about the recent conclusion of the Sun-vs-Microsoft
> Java case. They said (something like) "Sun is upset with Microsoft for
> making a better JVM than they do. The message from Sun is: if want to do
> Java you have to do it on Unix".
>
> Wow, I thought. Has this "analyst" even heard of Java before today? And
> then I spotted he was from Gartner. Still, kudos for putting a pro-
> Microsoft spin on *that* story, I'd have thought it was impossible.
They provide object market analysis. They call it as they see it.
In fact, their summary of the Sun-vs-Microsoft, if that is in fact what
they said, is pretty factual. Except Sun says, if you want to do Java, you
have to do it our way, on our terms, and the way which makes us most
profitable.
It's funny how you guys have this grand conspiracy that everyone is
in MS' pocket somehow. It's great that you now attack Gartner. It
just gets better. No scientific or anlysis firm is sacred, if they've
ever posted a pro-Microsoft article, then somehow they must be servants
of Bill Gates. If they've ever posted an anti-Linux story, they must
be servants of Bill Gates. It never once crosses your mind that there
are lots of things to praise about Windows, and lots of things to
criticize with Linux.
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:22:54 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux "Domain Server"?
SBH wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there software out there can configure Linux as a domain controller
> for a Windows NT domain? I'm thinking about running Samba on a Linux
> file server and when a user log in (from any NT machine in the domain)
> the user is autheticated throgh this Linux server and can access
> his/her files on the server. I know HP and Sun have proprietery
> technology for their Unix servers. Is this available for Linux.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> SBH
Last time I had heard (and that was a while ago), samba can be a PDC but
not a BDC, though work was in progress.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:10:50 GMT
Never have that problem. What are you doing wrong?
Facts are facts, linux is more stable than windows software, PERIOD. NO,
absolutly NO documented reports say otherwise.
In article <954ao6$4ri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9549fr$3jj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, the actual data shows that MS software is not very stable no
> > matter what you do to it. Facts are facts. ALL the data that has
been
> > coming out about W2K shows that it is less stable than Linux,
period.
>
> Which is about as relevant as the price of beer when your Linux + X +
> KDE 2.0 system has just frozen, and none of the usual keypresses
rescues
> you.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
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: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:07:03 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Curtis wrote:
>
> > >J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >
> > > | Penguinistas have a clearer idea than most about OSes.
> >
> > No. They seem to have a clear idea only of their favoured OS which
> > they really USE and not simply SEE running around the office or give
> > the light of day only when they need to read file format not supported
> > by their favoured OS. This is perfectly reasonable.
>
> Actually, most Linux users are more technical than
> the average windows user, and furthermore, most
> Linux users were windows users at one time. So the
> idea that a Linux user can't tell the difference between
> 95 and nt is just plain silly.
You'd be surprised. Many of your ilk post to this newsgroup and begin
bashing WinNT and 2K for faults of 9x. We have to continually explain
to them that, yes, NT/2K do have a fully 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking
kernel and yes, they do have a fully virtualized memory space, and yes,
they do have a full security implementation including process isolation,
required user-logon and pervasive security checking at all levels just
like in Unix, only better.
-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: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:08:04 GMT
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Curtis wrote:
> >
> > > >J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> > >
> > > > | Penguinistas have a clearer idea than most about OSes.
> > >
> > > No. They seem to have a clear idea only of their favoured OS which
> > > they really USE and not simply SEE running around the office or give
> > > the light of day only when they need to read file format not supported
> > > by their favoured OS. This is perfectly reasonable.
> >
> > Actually, most Linux users are more technical than
> > the average windows user, and furthermore, most
> > Linux users were windows users at one time. So the
> > idea that a Linux user can't tell the difference between
> > 95 and nt is just plain silly.
>
> also many linux users were unix users at university and now have
> become all too familiar with ms-windows in all its incarnations at
> work.
Or, as it seems more often than not, never touched Windows, or only
saw Windows95 and believe that ALL Windows are as bad as
that and therefore speak from their ass on such topics.
-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: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:09:38 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:956gs2$6nh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Never ass|u|me! Merely pointing out the NTFS is very vulnerable.
> > Chad's the one that made the inductive leap.
>
> Why do you think that NTFS is very vulnerable?
He thinks that since there's an NTFS driver (although it's read-only for
the most part) for Linux that NT is somehow now vulnerable to a Linux
boot disk.
What he forgets is that a Linux boot disk can also read ext2, which means
a Linux box would be vulnerable to a Linux boot disk as well.
<sigh> Poor penguinistas, they never think things through.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:13:47 GMT
"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vlvd6.53304$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Real kicker, that I forgot to mention, is that NT and W2K aren't even
> > supported. If you call them they have a help option for NT, but not W2k.
> > It gets lumped into "other Operating systems, estimated time of wait is
> > 63 minutes". I only had to hold for 21 minutes for NT.
>
> Then Earthlink is NOT a real ISP. Most ISPs (including Mindspring and even
> AOHell) support Windows 2000 these days. @Home definitely does (I work for
> Comcast @Home, and we SPECIFICALLY support Windows 2000), and you can
> configure Windows 2000 to use @Home WITHOUT THE CD!
>
> Plug in the computer name and workgroup during setup, and the mail and news
> settings using ICW. All done. Utterly painless.
It's important to note that Earthlink supports all those automatic features
as well.
I have set up several laptops for salespeople with 98, ME, and 2K on them
all connecting to Earthlink, and it's always painless. No typing in DNS,
WINS or IP Addresses, just the phone number, your user/pass and you're on.
This guy Russ must either be a.) lying or b.) a real moron.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:14:34 GMT
"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:apvd6.53305$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The ISP considers NT more important to support than W2K. I ask why they
> > don't have more Linux support. The answer was "Linux users don't need
> > our support. They usually support us."
> > I know MS is trying to obsolete NT, but the market doesn't seem to be
> > going along.
>
> We (meaning @Home) support both equally. Other ISPs may "skew" things
> toward one OS or another. The ONLY 32-bit OS we don't officially support is
> Linux (it does NOT mean that Linux won't work, however).
But it's too costly to support Linux because of it's overcomplicated, under-
featured design. The TCO really is outrageous.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:33:57 +0100
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > > > >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.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Ok...they weren't "application induced" crashes.
>
> What kind of crashes were they...exactly...
None of any kind so far <knock on wood>. But I had a quite hefty Dr Watson
log file.
But we were talking of apps that kill Windows "Under normal usage, a
crashing app will crash ALL of Windows as well." weren't we ?
> Aaron R. Kulkis
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:37:55 +0100
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
951rmn$sm9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > 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 ?
>
> Sorry Paul but this one Aaron hits right - im not sure it was Melissa but
> one of the big ones in 99 was one where you didnt have to execute anything
> - just had to view the message. That one utilized the buffer overflow in
> the date fiels or am i mixing two different togehter ?
Don't know.
> And ILOVEYOY was not Melissa.. or was it the same in France?
I know they weren't the same. That's why I asked how Melissa was different,
to seee if they operated on same principles.
> Cheers
Paul 'z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: 30 Jan 2001 14:41:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Curtis wrote:
>>
>> > >J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> >
>> > > | Penguinistas have a clearer idea than most about OSes.
>> >
>> > No. They seem to have a clear idea only of their favoured OS which
>> > they really USE and not simply SEE running around the office or give
>> > the light of day only when they need to read file format not supported
>> > by their favoured OS. This is perfectly reasonable.
>>
>> Actually, most Linux users are more technical than
>> the average windows user, and furthermore, most
>> Linux users were windows users at one time. So the
>> idea that a Linux user can't tell the difference between
>> 95 and nt is just plain silly.
> You'd be surprised. Many of your ilk post to this newsgroup and begin
> bashing WinNT and 2K for faults of 9x. We have to continually explain
> to them that, yes, NT/2K do have a fully 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking
> kernel and yes, they do have a fully virtualized memory space, and yes,
> they do have a full security implementation including process isolation,
> required user-logon and pervasive security checking at all levels just
> like in Unix, only better.
AIX has B series certification.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop MTTF, Linux, lets get some numbers.
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:56:09 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> In article <955lv6$asd$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ralph Miguel Hansen wrote:
>>mlw wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OK, the latest FUD tactic of the winvocates is to say that Linux is
>>> unstable with a GUI.
>>> Lets get some numbers together about desktops.
>>>
>>> Take the number of hours, total not just current uptime, that your
>>> system has been running, and divide by the number of crashes you've had.
>>> Lets be accurate and generous, an X crash that can only be fixed using
>>> telnet or ssh, should be counted as a crash.
>>>
>>>
>>> Send this information to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> Each mail should have these lines:
>>>
>>> machine: name
>>> hours: 4000
>>> crashes: 0
>>>
>>> Machine, followed by hours, followed by crashes. Each one on its own
>>> line, and each with a number following a colon after the word. You may
>>> have more than one machine per document. Only one mail (multiple
>>> machines) per email origin will be counted.
>>>
>>> I will write a quick program to calculate.
>>>
>>> I will try to reduce spam data by:
>>> email from Windows machine will be rejected.
>>> questionably high crash numbers will be double checked.
>>> unreasonably small crash numbers will be double checked.
>>>
>>>
>>> If I get a usable response, I will post these numbers periodically.
>>>
>>>
>>I have one crash per week with KDE2 Beta; no data loss, nothing to repair.
>>If I could not live with that, I would use one of the fvwm's or something
>>like that. At school (41 years old and still learning), I have one crash
>>per week of NT4 SP6 which means the whole system has to be rebooted and a
>>few weekly crashes of one of the famous, reliable and
>>incredibly-large-monster-files-creating M$Office-Applications. I think
>>you should count these crashes too; M$Office is an application separate
>>from the system as i.e. KDE is an application.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Ralph Miguel Hansen
>>Using SuSE 5.3 and 7.0
>>
>>
>
>
> KDE is a desktop and they have a *RELEASE* of KDE 2.0 so you
> don't have to run your beta anymore.
>
> Charlie
>
Beg your pardon, I am using KDE 2.1 Beta 1. And surely I am not complainig
about something, this Beta is running as stable (at least) as the NT-stuff
I have to use at school. Sometimes it's hard for me to find the right words.
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using SuSE 5.3 and 7.0
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
