Linux-Advocacy Digest #908, Volume #31 Fri, 2 Feb 01 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Curtis)
Re: Goodby MS... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Paul Thurrott reports: "Microsoft Executives Trash Linux" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Tread carefully when advocating Linux & OpenS (gswork)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("David Brown")
Re: The 130MByte text file ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:31:44 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <95dhe6$afh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "Kenn Guilstorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2Tpe6.5100$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Even now, the disk quota system used in Win2k is rudimentary, at best.
>
> How & Why?
Here's one reason:
Subject: Disk (over)quota in Windows 2000
From: Dave Tarbatt - ACS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:00:04 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Mail message body
I've been looking into disk quotas under Windows 2000 and have uncovered a
few anomalies. On top of a few peculiarities there appears to be a bug which
allows a user to exceed their disk quota by as much as they wish.
*** The problem:
Tested with Windows 2000 Professional build 2195 (release version). Existing
files can be extended even if a user is over quota. If exploited by a
malicious user then at best it is a nuisance at worst it may act as a DoS if
the disk if filled.
*** Description:
After playing around with the newly introduced disk quotas in Windows 2000 I
soon uncovered a bug which would allow an ordinary, unprivileged user to
exceed their allocated disk quota and fill a disk/partition. Under normal
circumstances when a user is under quota I discovered by experiment that new
files can be created upto a size of (Quota - UsedSpace + 2KB - 1byte), i.e.
they can go overquota by up to 2047 bytes. Not too much of a problem.
Extending existing files can be up to (Quota - UsedSpace +1KB -1byte) i.e. up
to 1023 bytes overquota - nothing much to be worried about.
However, if you are overquota new file creation is only possible upto 728
bytes if (UsedSpace < Quota+1KB), i.e. you havn't gone more than 1KB
overquota. Exisiting files can be extended by up to 736 bytes up until
(UsedSpace >= Quota+1KB). Using this point alone, I created a lot of files
with "echo.>file0000" at 2 bytes each to use up the user allocated diskquota
and extended them up to the 736 byte limit per file - I was now way over
quota.
The limit of how far over quota I could go depended on my initial quota and
how many tiny files I could create up until I hit the quota then extending
them all. Then I thought "What if I create 0 byte files?".
Oh dear! If you are under quota you can create as many 0 byte files as you
wish. They count towards nothing. Then extend these files by 736 bytes and
your disk starts filling up and up and up...
*** To recreate (typical example):
Create an ordinary unprivileged user and give them a diskquota of, say, 1MB.
Open a command prompt and using whatever means you wish, create a lot of 0
byte files (e.g. SHIFT>FILE0000). Then append/extend those files by up to 736
bytes (e.g. ECHO 736-characters-here>>FILE0000). If you try and extend beyond
736 bytes the file and it's contents get chopped off at 674 bytes so for
speed disk filling with fewer files don't try and go beyond 736 bytes.
See attachment for a batch file to create 10,000 of 0 byte files then extend
them all to 736 bytes.
*** Workaround/fix:
None known. However, to prevent DoS on servers you should not permit people
to write to the same partiton that the operating system resides on.
Dave,
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 06:07:04 -0500
>Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>> Incidentally, I'm running an old P3 500 and I can get an MP3 to
>>> play, while I'm recording a CD, browsing the internet, downloading
>>> a file from an FTP server, and reading newsgroups (I was working
>>> to solve a programming problem I was having...damn caffeine-free
>>> pop). It didn't miss a beat -- which surprised me, 'cause I think
>>> Win9x would have crapped all over itself.
>>
>> I'll bet you have at least 128 Mb of RAM. 98 works better with
>> large amounts of RAM. By the way, I wish I could browse the
>> internet and read newsgroups at the same time, like you.
Phew. I had expected a post to the effect that he was lying. :=)
You'll need about the same RAM for Linux to do those things smoothly
as well, assuming one is running KDE or Gnome. But so what? RAM is
cheap these days and most current workstations will pack 128MB of RAM.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodby MS...
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:18:17 -0600
"Kool Breeze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 6 NT servers replaced 1 UNIX server. The 1 UNIX server ran 6 apps +
> sendmail/poop/imap + DNS + Bootp/DHCP + Samba file/print sharing for
> up to 50 users running Win9x and/or WinNT/2k.
>
> The ONE app that the 6 NT Servers ran didn't do ALL the things the 1
> UNIX server did. So the client complained.
>
> So, we are now going back to the 1 UNIX server and 50 AnyWin Client
> mode.
I don't quite follow here. You specifically state that the application
didn't do everything the original app did, which is why the users
complained. This has nothing to do with the OS.
What exactly is your point?
> I personally wrote the Win9x/WinNT/2K to UNIX server system.
This sentance does not parse. Can you explain exactly what a
"Win9x/WinNT/2K to UNIX server system" is?
> I managed to learn just enough MFC/Win32 to get the app going and
> never learned the details, ie, 23 parameters/functions to paint a
> bitmap to the screen.
This is such a wild exageration that it makes the rest of your post suspect.
> Now I am into java and I have about 500 lines of code doing MUCH more
> than I could EVER do/learn in MFC/Win32.
Umm.. you just said you didn't know much about MFC or Win32. How could you
possibly make this judgement on such a limited knowledge?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Paul Thurrott reports: "Microsoft Executives Trash Linux"
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:21:04 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Paul Thurrott's Wininfo is an authoritative source for Windows news.
Having
> followed his reporting for a long while, Paul Thurrott provides fair
> Windows-centric reporting (he also manages to come up with a number of
> exclusives).
He's not an "authoritative" source. At best he's 50/50 on accuracy.
Sometimes he's got good info, sometimes he's talking out of his ass. It
appears he was completely wrong about Beta 2 of Whistler having a new UI
than beta 1 did.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:10:21 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ga2e59.bj6.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <95dhe6$afh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Kenn Guilstorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:2Tpe6.5100$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Even now, the disk quota system used in Win2k is rudimentary, at best.
> >
> > How & Why?
>
> Here's one reason:
<snip DoS attack on 2K>
That is a bug, though.
That doesn't explain why he think that 2K's qouta is rudimentary
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:12:19 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95e2ua$251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:95bv3o$3ga$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Chad Myers wrote in message
> <0Wde6.602$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >
> >>
> >> >No, quotas have been around for NT for years.
> >> >Save the lies.
> >>
> >> I am curious about the disk quotas on NT - we have NT 4.0 Server at the
> >> office, and I can find no mention of disk quotas anywhere in the help
> files,
> >> or in any of the administrative tools. In fact, the only mention I
find
> of
> >> the word "quota" is that in order to use the SU program (a utility to
let
> >> you change to another user in a command box - it is very limited, but
> >> nonetheless essential for administrating NT - why you have to buy it as
> part
> >> of the NT Resource kit is beyond me), a user has to have the "Increase
> >> Quotas" account priviledge.
> >
> >There are very good 3rd party implementations of Quotas. He never said
that
> >they had to be built into the OS, he just said NT 4.0 doesn't have
quotas,
> >which is a lie. Win2K has them built in, that's the only difference.
> >
>
>
> So quota management is one of these few extra utilities that Linux has but
> you have to buy third-party for NT? Or go for W2K, which is gradually
> catching up with the unix world in regards to these minor, extra utilites.
>
> I am disappointed - I may have used quotas if they were available on NT 4
> (hidden functionality is not available - saying NT doesn't have quotas is
> factually wrong but effectively true).
Get used to it.
To count only unused features of NTFS alone:
Hard links
Rephrase points
Streams
Three *very* useful features, rendered useless because there are either no
API to manipulate them (in the case of streams) or no userland level tools
to use them. (Not that it's that hard to create one, it's the principle that
matter.)
------------------------------
From: gswork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tread carefully when advocating Linux & OpenS
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:14:10 GMT
Open source is lovely for programmers professional and hobbyist alike.
There are interesting things about it though, many of which have been
discussed at length before so I'll pick on a few.
However open a system is it's meaningless to the actual user for whom
the source code is just hard drive filler. To use source you must
understand it to a degree enough to change it meaningfully.
Organisations deal with this by employing programmers (good news for
them) to tweak the systems or buying in propriety systems.
Individuals though are just as cluelessly dependant upon third parties
as they ever were (unless they are programmers too). Only this time
they get to rely on (hopefully) a collegiate coder culture who'll
improve their apps without him knowing or paying. The same culture
would hopefully produce highly flexible customisable software in the
first place, more than just wallpaper changing.
There are risks with this reliance though. Coders here have
expressed arrogance toward people who use Windows as if comfort with it
is *their* fault. They get it on the box they buy, they use it at
work, it's easy - what did Linux & OpenSource advocates expect the
average user to be familiar & comfortable with? Looking down upon
them and mocking them as stupid is not going to win any support.
More over this may come though in apps developed. 'For developers by
developers' is not a good design paradigm for the average app to be
used by the average user. We might be comfortble with command line
parameters, computer jargon and so on but others are not. That's
partly why Mac and MS developers spend so long on making their
apps 'friendly'. Point and Click is not inherently evil.
Now, maybe being too 'friendly' is a dangerous thing. Computers,
especially now they are linked around the globe, are powerful things.
We wouldn't want a 737 pilot to be confronted by that irritating
paperclip 'helper' when his fuel mix is going wrong, we want him/her to
understand about fuel, turbofans, aircraft architecture and
aerodynamics. So maybe computer uses would benefit from a little
understanding about code, cpu's, hardware & logic before using one.
That would be the opposite to the trend of the last 15 years.
Computers are 'magic' to most people. The artificial and nannying
environment of windows keeps you at arms length, holds your hand and
doesn't let you peek down the side alleys - It's a government OS.
OpenSource can help people see behind the covers if they want, to
change things, to connect. That, ironically, is what frightens many
people. Its a mindset most politicians, many corporates and a
surprising mass of the general public don't want you to have.
Still, GPL and some licenses rely on copyright (however much some call
it copyleft) laws to enforce it. Genuine public domain means freeware
with source if you want to give it away, no strings at all. Some
people get carried away with open source being revolutionary. It fits
quite comfortably with property rights, just in a way rather different
from propriety software. Only complete free-choice give away is
truly 'open'. Requiring by license that certain things are done is a
lawyer thing. If supplying source is a Good Thing it will win out
anyway.
Finally, there is an ironic twist. As open source and freeware expands
there is less need than ever to learn about programming, even as the
volume of freely available compilers etc grows. Why? Because if you
want a util, a game or whatever then you used to have to either choose
from the shop or write it yourself. Now you can go to download.com or
any of it's equivalents and quicklly find dozens of freely available
programs much more advanced than anything the beginner or intermediate
coder could put together. That can put off beginners ('whats the
point' is an attitude I've encountered) and you have to want to learn
for the sake of learning to get going these days (no bad thing, but you
get the point)
Anyay, I *love* open source in it's various guises. It's a hobbyist's
dream.
Even if you don't want to spend years downloading you can get a
distribution CD with Linux and about 1500 apps and development tools
for a few dozen dollars. MS Windows and Office costs hundreds .
(although you do get a whole array of irritating, pointless, dumbed
down office assistents as a 'bonus')
On old stuff, I don't mind MS DOS, you know among the W95-onward user
(who doesn't know DOS) if you do something in DOS (like delete the MS
trojan 'index.dat' files) they think you're a hacker ;-)
(I wonder if you can still do that in Windows 2000 / me ?)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:30:00 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <95e4s4$id5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> >No, quotas have been around for NT for years.
>> >> >Save the lies.
>> >>
>> >> I am curious about the disk quotas on NT - we have NT 4.0 Server at
the
>> >> office, and I can find no mention of disk quotas anywhere in the help
>> files,
>> >> or in any of the administrative tools. In fact, the only mention I
>find
>> of
>> >> the word "quota" is that in order to use the SU program (a utility to
>let
>> >> you change to another user in a command box - it is very limited, but
>> >> nonetheless essential for administrating NT - why you have to buy it
as
>> part
>> >> of the NT Resource kit is beyond me), a user has to have the "Increase
>> >> Quotas" account priviledge.
>> >
>> >There are very good 3rd party implementations of Quotas. He never said
>that
>> >they had to be built into the OS, he just said NT 4.0 doesn't have
>quotas,
>> >which is a lie. Win2K has them built in, that's the only difference.
>> >
>>
>>
>> So quota management is one of these few extra utilities that Linux has
but
>> you have to buy third-party for NT? Or go for W2K, which is gradually
>> catching up with the unix world in regards to these minor, extra
utilites.
>>
>> I am disappointed - I may have used quotas if they were available on NT 4
>> (hidden functionality is not available - saying NT doesn't have quotas is
>> factually wrong but effectively true).
>
> Get used to it.
>To count only unused features of NTFS alone:
>Hard links
>Rephrase points
>Streams
>
>Three *very* useful features, rendered useless because there are either no
>API to manipulate them (in the case of streams) or no userland level tools
>to use them. (Not that it's that hard to create one, it's the principle
that
>matter.)
>
You forgot disk defragmentation APIs - MS has managed to ship a defragmenter
with their DOS+Win line for years, and they have done all the hard work in
the defragmentation API, yet they still failed to produce a defragmenter for
NT 4. Even for w2k, they had to buy in a third-party defragmenter.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:26:26 GMT
In article <95du6u$h1e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I gave up after that. At no time did Windows hang, freeze or crash.
Neither did mine.
Here's a quick and dirty method to fix it the heavy resource shift
(which, by the way, is what you're going to get if you try to open a
130MB file, you dork). Assuming you're logged in at tty1:
press: ctl-alt-F2 to get to a new login.
Log in as root.
type: ps -aux
Get the pid number of the hanging application. It'll be the number in
the second column from the left, on the row with the name of the
application on the far right that you want to kill. Let's pretend the
number is 1234.
type: kill -HUP 1234
press: ctl-alt-F1 to get back to your original login
Worked fine for me. (Incidentally, next time you try this,
hit ps -aux a few more times, and you'll notice that the machine is
constantly rearranging its resources to try to handle the load. This
isn't a hang. A hang is what you get when you try to create
relationships between tables using MS Access 2000, as it did for me
three times today. There's a difference. I can tell you, since we're
comparing applications, there are one hell of a lot more people swearing
at their Windows machines for hanging on an MS Access2000 relationships
diagram than there are Linux newbies swearing at their Linux machine for
not being able to open 130MB text files. Just to put your ridiculous
complaint into some perspective.)
If you're in GNOME, right-click on the hanging application on your
taskbar, and select "Kill App". Should kill it.
Now go see a doctor about this infatuation you have with massive text
files. Frankly, I consider it a blessing that my OS doesn't pump out
such bloat, as your Windows does via its registry.
> The fact is Linux hung and I had no way out of it. I suspect even if
> telnetd was running, it was probably hung too.
Well, you came here and you got your help. If you have any more trashing
of Linux that you'd like to do, piss off.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:39:51 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95e5k6$366$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <95e4s4$id5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >> >No, quotas have been around for NT for years.
> >> >> >Save the lies.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am curious about the disk quotas on NT - we have NT 4.0 Server at
> the
> >> >> office, and I can find no mention of disk quotas anywhere in the
help
> >> files,
> >> >> or in any of the administrative tools. In fact, the only mention I
> >find
> >> of
> >> >> the word "quota" is that in order to use the SU program (a utility
to
> >let
> >> >> you change to another user in a command box - it is very limited,
but
> >> >> nonetheless essential for administrating NT - why you have to buy it
> as
> >> part
> >> >> of the NT Resource kit is beyond me), a user has to have the
"Increase
> >> >> Quotas" account priviledge.
> >> >
> >> >There are very good 3rd party implementations of Quotas. He never said
> >that
> >> >they had to be built into the OS, he just said NT 4.0 doesn't have
> >quotas,
> >> >which is a lie. Win2K has them built in, that's the only difference.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> So quota management is one of these few extra utilities that Linux has
> but
> >> you have to buy third-party for NT? Or go for W2K, which is gradually
> >> catching up with the unix world in regards to these minor, extra
> utilites.
> >>
> >> I am disappointed - I may have used quotas if they were available on NT
4
> >> (hidden functionality is not available - saying NT doesn't have quotas
is
> >> factually wrong but effectively true).
> >
> > Get used to it.
> >To count only unused features of NTFS alone:
> >Hard links
> >Rephrase points
> >Streams
> >
> >Three *very* useful features, rendered useless because there are either
no
> >API to manipulate them (in the case of streams) or no userland level
tools
> >to use them. (Not that it's that hard to create one, it's the principle
> that
> >matter.)
> >
>
>
> You forgot disk defragmentation APIs - MS has managed to ship a
defragmenter
> with their DOS+Win line for years, and they have done all the hard work in
> the defragmentation API, yet they still failed to produce a defragmenter
for
> NT 4. Even for w2k, they had to buy in a third-party defragmenter.
Well, the defragmentation APIs for win9x are likely to be totally useless
for NT. Totally different file systems, but for the FAT partitions, yes,
they should've probably taken the APIs, but then, it's a 9x code, I *don't*
want it in NT.
For a start, NT4 didn't ship with a degragmantor(sp?) because it was
believed that NTFS doesn't fragement (it does, but it handle the situation
nicely).
As for 2K, you've to consider several things:
<A> How much it would cost them to develop their own defragmentor.
<B> How efficent it would be?
<C> Can they buy or license already working product that would be as
efficent (or reasonably efficent, at least) at a lower price?
If <C>, then there is no need to spend more money than you've to.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:58:34 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> >Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> >>> Incidentally, I'm running an old P3 500 and I can get an MP3 to
> >>> play, while I'm recording a CD, browsing the internet, downloading
> >>> a file from an FTP server, and reading newsgroups (I was working
> >>> to solve a programming problem I was having...damn caffeine-free
> >>> pop). It didn't miss a beat -- which surprised me, 'cause I think
> >>> Win9x would have crapped all over itself.
> >>
> >> I'll bet you have at least 128 Mb of RAM. 98 works better with
> >> large amounts of RAM. By the way, I wish I could browse the
> >> internet and read newsgroups at the same time, like you.
>
> Phew. I had expected a post to the effect that he was lying. :=)
>
> You'll need about the same RAM for Linux to do those things smoothly
> as well, assuming one is running KDE or Gnome. But so what? RAM is
> cheap these days and most current workstations will pack 128MB of RAM.
The "so what" is code bloat and consequent reduction in maintainability.
Of course, it's a trade-off between flexibility and efficiency, too.
I don't agree about Linux being in the same RAM boat as Win 98, though.
There's something really screwy about 98. NT/2K and Linux are much
more comparable in the RAM area, in my opinion.
Also, browsing the Internet isn't a good test of performance, since
HTTP is a "get-it-and-wait" protocol, and one's computer is generally
capable of more throughput than one's link to the Internet. In general.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:00:22 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95e4s4$id5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > So quota management is one of these few extra utilities that Linux has
but
> > you have to buy third-party for NT? Or go for W2K, which is gradually
> > catching up with the unix world in regards to these minor, extra
utilites.
> >
> > I am disappointed - I may have used quotas if they were available on NT
4
> > (hidden functionality is not available - saying NT doesn't have quotas
is
> > factually wrong but effectively true).
>
> Get used to it.
> To count only unused features of NTFS alone:
> Hard links
> Rephrase points
> Streams
>
> Three *very* useful features, rendered useless because there are either no
> API to manipulate them (in the case of streams) or no userland level tools
> to use them. (Not that it's that hard to create one, it's the principle
that
> matter.)
Here is another one in IE.
Sometimes you want to build granular security for sites.
For example, I want to let microsoft.com to use javascript because the site
is much harder to work with otherwise and I trust that they wouldn't abuse
javascript too much[1]. Or amazon or slashdot that uses cookies in order to
keep me logged in. But if I surf into sites I don't know, I don't want
either javascript or cookies enabled.
Now, it's fairly simple to divide those settings in IE, you click on the
symbol on the button right of the screen, and you get a way to set your
security, and set all kind of permissions.
By default, there are four possible zones, Internet, Local Intranet, Trusted
sites, Restricted sites.
Say that I want to add a zone, how do I do it?
I can't.
But, there are more than four possible options. And it's relatively simple
to add/remove/rename/change icons with them, you need to get a program call
IE Zone Editor.
So now I've very granular security, but I'd to use external program for
that, and this is something that I just can't understand.
I can't understand it. The functionality exist, it's not like it's asking MS
to do something new, they already have it!
[1] endless loop that open new windows, frex. Or recursive function without
exit hole.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
