Linux-Advocacy Digest #866, Volume #31 Wed, 31 Jan 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A Linux "Domain Server"? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT (Marty)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (.)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Nick Condon)
Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! (meow)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists) (Craig Kelley)
Linux and Do178b certification ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Will future employment agreements prohibit open source development? (Nick Condon)
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Will future employment agreements prohibit open source development? (Craig
Kelley)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (chrisv)
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! (.)
Re: NTFS Limitations (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:56:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon) wrote:
> Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly: you tried (and failed) to
install a
> telnet server on Linux?
That's correct. It complained about a dependancy.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:00:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - 54% Configuring hardware/devices
> - 38% User interface shortcomings
Well, well, well. What a surprise.
> - 33% Automated system administration
Sounds cool, when can I have it?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Linux "Domain Server"?
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:01:42 GMT
this is the link to the how-to setup samba as a PDC.
http://bioserve.latrobe.edu.au/samba/ntdomfaq.html
thanks Bill Nash
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:15:54 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marty"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> It has now moved on from that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, the situation hasn't changed. I'm still ignoring Malloy
> >> >> > like I was at the beginning of the thread, and Malloy is still
> >> >> > posting his ridiculous responses like he was at the beginning of
> >> >> > the thread. He hasn't moved on.
> >> >>
> >> >> That part of the situation has changed, but Marty has since joined
> >> >> in, which means that some parts of the situation have changed.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, the situation hasn't changed. I'm still ignoring Tholen,
> >> > and have been for over a month. Dave is still posting his ridiculous
> >> > response like he had in other threads. He hasn't moved on.
> >>
> >> Who is Dave?
> >
> > Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> I thought I had, but I mus have missed the relavent post.
>
> Who is dave?
More evidence of your reading comprehension problems. Dave is none other than
Tholen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 31 Jan 2001 14:28:29 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > : You misspelled, "Leftist ACLU fantasies"
>> >>
>> >> > : The Constitution does NOT prohibit mixing the state and religion, it
>> >> > : merely prohibits:
>> >>
>> >> > : A) the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, and
>> >> > : B) government interference in religious organizations.
>> >>
>> >> > : Freedom OF religion =/= Freedom FROM religion.
>> >>
>> >> > The ability to be free from religion if you so choose is a
>> >> > prerequisite for real freedom of religion. If everyone is
>> >> > required to be religious, then you've got government regulations
>> >> > of what does and doesn't count as a religion, and *that* is
>> >> > definately a case of government interference in religious
>> >> > organizations. One necessary (but not sufficient) test to see
>> >> > if government is keeping it's grubby little hands off of
>> >> > religions is to see what happens to those who choose not to
>> >> > participate in a religion.
>> >>
>> >> I do not want bush spending my tax dollars on religious organizations.
>>
>> > The President can't spend anything....only Congress.
>>
>> > Which is why the "Reagan Deficit" is a misnomer....it was the TIP O'NEIL
>> > deficit.
>> > [All spending bills MUST start in the House]
>>
>> But they can brought down by the senate AND president before they see
>> the light of day.
> Dem's ALSO controlled the Senate...
AND president.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:46:43 GMT
In article <958j3n$rsr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to remember which of KWord and AbiWord was the one that
> either had redraw problems or crashed a lot.
we'll talk about that later.
> Neither Notepad nor Wordpad use a virtual buffer like Programmers File
> Editor does.
PFE falls over and dies too.
> > bullshit. Try manipulating large logfiles or using a scripting
language,
> > or even use the jdk without a shell.
>
> I'd use PFE for a large file.
It falls over well under 100 megs. So does word. So does every other
graphical win text editor that the winAdmins in our organization have
ever attempted to view large log files with.
> JDK insists on outputting stuff to the console - that's about the only
> reason why it needs a console. Otherwise the CLI can be ignored.
Ummm... No. jdk requires the cli to interpret source into bytecode.
> I found PSP had more features than GIMP. As for scripts, you place too
> much emphasis on their importance.
That's because I use a computer for something other than looking at
pictures, writing documents, and clicking icons.
> I see, you like your applications to have redraw problems or crash do
> you?
And here I thought you said that you couldn't remember whether Kword or
AbiWord crashed and had redraw problems. Credibility, -10 points. I've
never had AbiWord crash or had a redraw problem.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:22:54 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:54:35 -0500...
...and Flacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which three of these support services would be most useful to you?
> (choose three)
>
> - 41% Software update notification
> - 15% Automated file backup
> - 10% Online file storage and sharing
These are the only ones I've recognised as useful for me, the others I
don't need.
mawa
--
Eric S. Raymond, of Halloween Paper fame, maybe public enemy #1 at
Microsoft Corp., for some reason still believes that we should rather
put our fate in the hands of corporations than in the ones of a
government. Don't ask me why. I simply don't get it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: 31 Jan 2001 15:05:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
<9595j2$9m9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon) wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly: you tried (and failed) to
>install a
>> telnet server on Linux?
>
>That's correct. It complained about a dependancy.
Bullshit. Every Unix system in existence supports telnet from inetd. There
are no Unix telnet servers.
------------------------------
From: meow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:17:21 GMT
Well this is just great
I havent even had my Sony Vaio a week and the screens fucked
I installed Mandrake 7.2 and when asked to choose a monitor choosse lcd
that can do 1024x768 which worked fine initially but after a reboot it
trashed the screen which is now permament
Fortunately its new and under warranty so ill get a new machine from
them.
This isnt the first time this has happened to me. Linux also fucked up a
monitor i had a few years back too.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. THERE IS NO REASON THIS CANT BE CODED SO
THAT THE USER CAN ONLY CHOOSE OPTIONS THAT HIS MONITOR SUPPORTS.
iTS EXTREMELY BAD PROGRAMMING THAT IT ALLOWS THEM TO SCREW UP THERE
MACHINE SO VERY EASILY.
Im a very experienced computer user and a program of 15 years so im not
some hopeless newbie that can barely switch on there machine.
mr angry
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[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: 31 Jan 2001 08:23:58 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:53:49 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
> > >> somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
> > >
> > >Yes.
> > >Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
> >
> > Linux had that.
> >
> > What it lacked was the 'trick' of binding NICs to single
> > CPU's in sort of a primitive version of system partitioning.
>
> It lacked a good design of not locking resources to a single
> CPU. This was a problem throughout the kernel, IIRC, the NIC
> thing in Mindcraft was only evidence of this.
I'm sorry, but if you're unable to accept C't benchmarks because they
haven't published pro-Microsoft stories, we're going to have to ignore
any future comments about Mindcraft here until you demonstrate that
they have published pro-Linux statistics.
Regardless, the single spin-lock was in the 1.3 and 2.0 kernels.
Kernel 2.2 had granular locking -- the network stack, however, wasn't,
and that's what Microsoft exploited with the Mindcraft "test".
> The SMP design still (in 2.4) lacks behind most other
> SMP implementations out there. I'd like to see another Mindcraft-
> like benchmark where they have a really good SMP-friendly software
> and they see who scales better.
Sure. Since you have no idea what you're talking about I'm sure we
could construct a test. Let's say SpecWEB? Hmmm? :) Windows 2000
can even use better hardware!
Mindcraft-like benchmark? What is that? A "benchmark" that is
heavily weighted against the weaknesses of a target operating system?
How about a new fair benchmark: Give 2 sides equal funding and tell
them to build the fastest server they can, paying for all hardware and
software in the process. They will need to serve out to 200 clients,
so be sure to pay for all access licenses needed as well.
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions?
Date: 31 Jan 2001 08:27:02 -0700
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Flacco,
>
> > > This is not a prediction: Microsoft desperately wants student mindshare
> > > and to engender a feeling of community.
> >
> > Do you think it will work?
>
> Did you see one of the replies?:
>
> "Participants will get FREE FULL VERSIONS of Windows 2000 Professional and
> Visual Studio 6.0 Professional on CD and we will help you install them.
> Pre-registration is required for the Installfest, so I know how many copies
> to get."
>
> That might work ;-)
Yeah, and you could sell them on E-Bay the next day! ;)
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists)
Date: 31 Jan 2001 08:36:28 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - 54% Configuring hardware/devices
> > - 38% User interface shortcomings
>
> Well, well, well. What a surprise.
>
> > - 33% Automated system administration
>
> Sounds cool, when can I have it?
A Beta of the first version? Now.
http://services.eazel.com/download/
--
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]
Subject: Linux and Do178b certification
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:31:00 GMT
The scope of this post is Linux compliance to the Do178b requirements
(Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment
specification).
My study would aim to circumvent the certification risks of Linux use
in level D or level C aeronautic embedded software systems.
For now, I have an average grasp of state of the art regarding the real
time abilities of Linux (RT Linux, RT Application Interface) and the
issues raised by those solutions.
I lack information on the POSIX 1b compliance of Linux, though.
Has anyone here heard about resources related to this last point?
Another aspect that should be worth exploring is the actual state of
stability metrics of Linux? I understand that question, laid as is, is
pretty broad and does not reflect the complexity of it (configuration
of system and kernel, etc...), but any work on this aspect would be of
great help. If anyone has knowledge of such studies or ressources,
input would be most definitely appreciated.
I would certainly prefer some pragmatic hints or directions in which to
search for, than general or metaphysical considerations, and my last
wish would be to launch another 'Microsoft sucks / Linux rocks' or 'Why
Linux will rule the world' thread (even if I do agree with some if not
all assumptions stated here ;) ).
Thanks in advance.
Best regards.
Jérémie
P.S. : Please excuse my gramatical humping, but english is not my
native idiom.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Will future employment agreements prohibit open source development?
Date: 31 Jan 2001 15:37:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Flacco) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Continuing in a series of doomsday posts :-)
>
>Given the almost undeniable threat that open source poses to entrenched
>software providers, do you think the commercial market may try to dry up
>the open source talent pool by prohibiting employees from participating
>in it? Surely the case could be made that open source is a competitor in
>a given corp's market.
Most software development is done inhouse and doesn't compete with anyone.
Have a look for developers in the job pages. How many positions are with
software houses? Maybe 1 in 20?
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: 31 Jan 2001 08:50:56 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Your ideas concerning the X-box are intriguing. This leads me to
> > > wonder... what happens when/if MS gets *really* desperate? Given the
> > > ample evidence of their arrogance (Ballmer's public, virulent fits of
> > > rage) and immaturity (Gate's whining petulance in his 1998 deposition),
> > > could they attempt to do serious damage to the industry itself if things
> > > get really tough for them? Sort of a "It's my ball and I'm taking it
> > > home" mentality?
> > >
> > > Stay tuned.
> > >
> > > No matter how people (in this ng and others) hammer away at MS vs Linux,
> > > you can't escape two fundamental truths:
> > >
> > > 1 - Both OS's do roughly the same thing
> > >
> > > 2 - One of them costs a shitload of money
> > >
> > > You can't compete with free. Netscape found that out. I can't wait to
> > > see what MS will do about Linux.
> >
> > Simple. Windows *will* be free or it will die. Sooner or later this
> > *will* happen. It may take 5, 25 or 50 years but it will come to
> > pass.
>
> That is largely what .NET is about. The problem with OSes is that
> they are threatened by middle ware, take Netscape's example, for
> instance, they attempted to create Netscape as a platform on which
> applications will run, this way, you could replace the OS underneat
> it without feeling it. If Netscape would've succeeded in their
> move, they could've ruined Windows. That is why IE is free & so
> good, MS fought for survival in this case, it's unrecommended to be
> on the other side when MS thinks it's that seriously threatened,
> they have more resources that almost anybody that you could name.
> MS realized that it would be too expensive to destroy everybody that
> was thinking in Netscape's direction, so they decide to make the
> middle ware themselves.
I doubt that they will coopt the entire internet, which is what they
would need to do in order to succeed at this. Intel already tried
with the KNI extensions for web "acceleration"; they bought off a
dozen companies to make enhanced websites for the Pentium III
(remember the ads?). The idea was similar to .NET, albeit *much* more
crude: They would tempt users into using their products with the
promise of better network features.
The .NET initiative is ActiveX, the next generation, which, in turn,
is DCOM, which is COM/OLE... suffice to say that Microsoft has been
trying to do this for quite some time now and they still haven't
managed to do more than embed a chart into Excel, a data control in
Word or an IE control as a help system. I haven't seen an ActiveX
control on the web outside of microsoft.com in a very long time. The
odds that people are going to pay for these controls on a subscription
basis, even when they are locally cached, is doubtful. You see the
Jesse Burst's of the world already complaining about the new
activation system in Microsoft software, and they are hard-core
Microsoft fanatics (the activation system is the next step towards
.NET reality).
If Microsoft intends to force this on their customers, their customers
will rebel. They are accustomed to "owning" their software (even if
they don't) and are of the anti-computer-center generation of users
who hated central control of their computers back in the 80s and 90s.
They will want control over their machines, and Linux will give it to
them.
> Now, MS prepare for losing the trial, as it seems now, there will be
> OS-MS, and App-MS, .NET will save MS from the splint, by seperating
> the platform that MS products are working on from the OS. .NET is
> considered middle-ware, and as such, will go with the App-MS. If MS
> wins the trial, no harm was done, if it loses, you could say the
> same, the OS-MS will keep developing Win2k line, App-MS will develop
> for .NET, which will happen to work best on Windows, if it will work
> on non-MS platforms. (App-MS can make the arguement that it just
> doesn't pay off to develop for *nix, because of the hate many in the
> *nix world feel for it, and the resentment many there feel when they
> have to pay for their software, will prevent the port from paying
> off).
That's probably correct; either way the OS-MS line will die off or
become free. Whether they can maintain their monopoly with .NET is
very suspect, in my opinion. Stranger things have happened, though.
(I just can't see my Microsoft-using friends being all very happy
about paying software rentals or only being able to install software
on one cpu/harddisk combination; in fact they are all quite upset over
that possibility.)
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will future employment agreements prohibit open source development?
Date: 31 Jan 2001 08:53:06 -0700
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Continuing in a series of doomsday posts :-)
>
> Given the almost undeniable threat that open source poses to entrenched
> software providers, do you think the commercial market may try to dry up the
> open source talent pool by prohibiting employees from participating in it?
> Surely the case could be made that open source is a competitor in a given
> corp's market.
That would be at the point of "grasping for straws". Sure, a few
could do it, but it will not succeed because the Linux/BSD/UNIX geeks
of yesteryear are becomming the bosses now.
--
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: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:00:20 GMT
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>follow directions
One of which is "now, recompile your kernal...." 8)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: 31 Jan 2001 16:02:30 GMT
meow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well this is just great
> I havent even had my Sony Vaio a week and the screens fucked
> I installed Mandrake 7.2 and when asked to choose a monitor choosse lcd
> that can do 1024x768 which worked fine initially but after a reboot it
> trashed the screen which is now permament
> Fortunately its new and under warranty so ill get a new machine from
> them.
> This isnt the first time this has happened to me. Linux also fucked up a
> monitor i had a few years back too.
> THIS SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. THERE IS NO REASON THIS CANT BE CODED SO
> THAT THE USER CAN ONLY CHOOSE OPTIONS THAT HIS MONITOR SUPPORTS.
> iTS EXTREMELY BAD PROGRAMMING THAT IT ALLOWS THEM TO SCREW UP THERE
> MACHINE SO VERY EASILY.
It isnt possible with an lcd monitor. Whats likely happened is that you
screwed up a simple setting and do not know the difference between hardware
and software.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: 31 Jan 2001 16:05:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > 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.
>>
>> You know nothing of my ilk.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not, not better than Unix - still trying to catch up.
> Most unix still uses permission bits. DAC > Permission bits.
"Most" Unix?
Coherent, SCO, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris all have similar granularity to the
afterthought crap that gave NT C2.
That would be "most unixes" chad.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
