Linux-Advocacy Digest #909, Volume #31 Fri, 2 Feb 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: How long does your box run for? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How long does your box run for? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How long does your box run for? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How long does your box run for? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("David Brown")
Re: The 130MByte text file (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Mig)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Mig)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Mig)
Re: Goodby MS... (mlw)
Re: questions (windows & Mac)....? (Oxford)
MacOS looking more like Linux Everyday - (Oxford)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! (Ilja Booij)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Linux is a fad? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How long does your box run for?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:19:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:30:15 -0700...
> ...and Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 144 days of uptime the longest my Linux boxes have. The only
> > reason they are restarted is because like California, here in
> > Alberta we are going through a power deregulation too. Power
> > deregulation is the stupidest thing any government has ever
> > done.
>
> Hey, we in Germany deregulated power two years ago or such, and still
> our power grid is about five times as reliable as the US one used to
> be. Deregulation is OK, you've just got to do it the right way.
>
> mawa
> --
> Einblattlocher!
> Elektrogriller!
> Erbsenpürierer!
> Zweifingertipper!
>
I have a linux box running redhad 6.2 and is
serving web, mail and ftp and has been running non
stop for over 200 days.
Also we in the UK have and a degulated power
system. I cannot remember when we last had a
powercut (unless for maintenance work - cannot
remember the last one).
saleem.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How long does your box run for?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:18:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:30:15 -0700...
> ...and Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 144 days of uptime the longest my Linux boxes
have. The only
> > reason they are restarted is because like
California, here in
> > Alberta we are going through a power
deregulation too. Power
> > deregulation is the stupidest thing any
government has ever
> > done.
>
> Hey, we in Germany deregulated power two years
ago or such, and still
> our power grid is about five times as reliable
as the US one used to
> be. Deregulation is OK, you've just got to do it
the right way.
>
> mawa
> --
> Einblattlocher!
> Elektrogriller!
> Erbsenpürierer!
> Zweifingertipper!
>
I have a linux box running redhad 6.2 and is
serving web, mail and ftp and has been running non
stop for over 200 days.
Also we in the UK have and a degulated power
system. I cannot remember when we last had a
powercut (unless for maintenance work - cannot
remember the last one).
saleem.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How long does your box run for?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:17:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:30:15 -0700...
> ...and Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 144 days of uptime the longest my Linux boxes
have. The only
> > reason they are restarted is because like
California, here in
> > Alberta we are going through a power
deregulation too. Power
> > deregulation is the stupidest thing any
government has ever
> > done.
>
> Hey, we in Germany deregulated power two years
ago or such, and still
> our power grid is about five times as reliable
as the US one used to
> be. Deregulation is OK, you've just got to do it
the right way.
>
> mawa
> --
> Einblattlocher!
> Elektrogriller!
> Erbsenpürierer!
> Zweifingertipper!
>
I have a linux box running redhad 6.2 and is
serving web, mail and ftp and has been running non
stop for over 200 days.
Also we in the UK have and a degulated power
system. I cannot remember when we last had a
powercut (unless for maintenance work - cannot
remember the last one).
saleem.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How long does your box run for?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:18:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:30:15 -0700...
> ...and Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 144 days of uptime the longest my Linux boxes
have. The only
> > reason they are restarted is because like
California, here in
> > Alberta we are going through a power
deregulation too. Power
> > deregulation is the stupidest thing any
government has ever
> > done.
>
> Hey, we in Germany deregulated power two years
ago or such, and still
> our power grid is about five times as reliable
as the US one used to
> be. Deregulation is OK, you've just got to do it
the right way.
>
> mawa
> --
> Einblattlocher!
> Elektrogriller!
> Erbsenpürierer!
> Zweifingertipper!
>
I have a linux box running redhad 6.2 and is
serving web, mail and ftp and has been running non
stop for over 200 days.
Also we in the UK have and a degulated power
system. I cannot remember when we last had a
powercut (unless for maintenance work - cannot
remember the last one).
saleem.
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 13:38:13 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <95e6f8$j6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
>> 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.
>
>
NTFS is terrible for fragmentation. It may be better than FAT, but it is
still terrible.
In Win9x, the defrag program needs to do all the work itself - it needs an
understanding of exactly how data is stored on the drive, and uses direct
disk access to move it around. Under NT, there is an API allowing a defrag
program to get a disk map, and allowing it to move file sections to
different physical locations. This means that a user program can do the
defragmenting without any direct disk access - it is perfectly safe
(assuming, of course, that NT and NTFS are perfectly safe), even while other
programs are accessing the same files.
A defrag program consists of three parts - a pretty GUI, an algorithm for
deciding which files should go where, and a low-level access part to do the
actual file manipulation in a safe way. The first two parts should be
roughly the same for a Win9x and an NT defrag program, regardless of the
file system used (although that may cause some small changes to the
algorithm). The low-level part is completly different for Win9x and NT, but
in NT's case it is already built-in to the OS. So if the Win9x defrag
program is reasonably modular, a couple of microserfs should be able to put
together an NT defrag program in a few weeks.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:47:47 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't have a 130MB text file, nor a more "GUI" editor than XEmacs,
>> but I tried loading a 150MB compressed disk image of an NT
>> installation that I had lying around. It took a while to load, but it
>> seemed to work okay.
>> The computer is still serving its three graphical users, and twenty
>> users of file, web, proxy, DNS and other services, with its 84 days
>> uptime (since installation on this hardware).
> Fair enough - what kind of tool did you use for this?
I'm not entirely clear what you're asking here? Use for what?
XEmacs is of course able to load files by itself, and services are run
by the various daemons. Did you mean to create the disk image?
> Was it a CLI based tool, or a GUI based one?
XEmacs is of course a GUI tool, in the sense that it opens a window.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:48:29 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> If the Operating System hangs, who should I blame? An errant
> application? Aren't people here complaining that Windows is too easy to
> crash, yet here I find I can take out Linux by doing something so
> obvious and easy - and yet it works on Windows.
But, you havent verifyed that the OS did hang. If you could telnet, ftp,
httpd or whatever to the Linux box and it didnt respong.. i would accept
that i actually did hang. Care to repeat that experiment with httpd running
and tell us if Linux really did hung?
But it didnt work on Windows.. you gave up- remenber?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:44:26 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
[cut]
Does not work! ctrl-alt-Fx will not work since the keyboard is not
receiving input If the keyboard stuff is not running at higher priority
than the rest of XFree then forget it - it will never work.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:41:57 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <95choo$24e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > These are not similar tools... Kwrite and Kedit are light weight editors
> > for Linux... they are editors ala notpad + syntax highlithing + a bit
> > more... and nothing else.
>
> So, the Open Source community produces light weight tools that barf
> under a big load?
Is there a Open Source community?
I would blame the KDE developers. No wouldnt, since these two are
lightweight editors - or rather end-user toys. Very handy for doin simple
stuff fast but nothing else.
> > As i told you - i got a bluscreen on Wordpad and a 30 MB file.. so a
> 30 MB
> > file did hang Windows - no big deal since the file whas binaty and
> what the
> > heck should i load a binary file in a text editor ? I didnt even have
> > the patience to let Word read the whole file... after 15 minuttes i gave
> > up.
>
> WordPad did indeed crash on me with this file. It did not Blue Screen
> though.
>
> Word faffed around and eventually asked me what character set I wanted.
> I gave up after that. At no time did Windows hang, freeze or crash.
It did crash and as a experienced user you know Windows crashing is common
when things go slightly wrong.
Could this "giving up" and "crashing" possibly mean that youre exercise is
quite idiotic and unrealistic?
> > That was not Linux - that was some KDE editors and maybe X that you
> > hang.
> > These are just apps running on Linux.. One feature i like about Windows
> > (at least NT and W2K) is that the three finger salute allways produces a
> > screen where you can start task-manager and kill a process even if
> > ressources are very low.. X definitevely lacks a way to have something
> like
> > the 3 finger salute or maybe a control console with higher priority and
> > with top running where you could kill processes.
>
> Linux of itself cannot edit files. Linux is an OS, nothing more. I think
> you are being a little pedantic here, and possibly splitting hairs. I
> could take PFE in isolation, since it is not supplied with Windows.
>
> 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.
No, Linux didnt hang - Not even X hung but the application XFree86 - wich i
admit is not good... but Linux certainly still runned.
> Yes, the three-fingered-salute is a useful feature - I certainly missed
> it when I was trying to kill some of the editors I tried on Linux.
Yeps, there you hae it. I think XFree should provide higher priority
keyboard/console for administring wild processes .
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodby MS...
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 08:01:54 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Kool Breeze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 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.
This may, in fact be a simplification.
pseudo code:
hdcWin = GetDC(hwnd);
hdcMem = CreateCompatibleDC(hdcWin);
SelectObject(hdcMem, hBitmap);
SetMapMode(hdcMem, GetMapMode(hdcWin));
GetObject(hBitmap, sizeof(BITMAP), &bm);
pt.x = bm.bmWidth;
pt.y = bm.bmHeight;
DPtoLP(hdcWin, &pt,1);
ptStart.x =0;
ptStart.y = 0;
DPtoLP(hdcMem, &ptStart,1);
BitBlt(hdc,x,y,pt.x,pt.y,hdcMem,ptStart.x,ptStart.y,SRCCOPY);
DeleteDC(hdcMem);
ReleaseDC(hdcWin);
This is well over 23 parameters/functions, and this is a simple paint. If you
needed to do transparency, or any sort of simple sprite animation, it would be
a lot more and involved memory bitmap copies of the screen and some pretty
funky bitblt raster ops. Also, this doesn't even deal with loading the bitmap,
nor does it define how to make a DIB a DDB.
While bitblt it is pretty powerful, I prefer the Mac's CopyBits.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Oxford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: questions (windows & Mac)....?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 07:27:58 -0600
In article <95cqc5$p3j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "cool cool"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ******important***********
> oh, I've seen this from a science magazine that they have on one page,
> perha
> ps it's just a commercial or an article of something else, not sure, have
> th
> is Mac OS but what's bizarre (sorry if I've misspelled) about it is that,
> everything on the screen is like bubbles, except the menu bar on top
> how amazing is that when, like say, pull down a menu from the menu bar,
> the
> drop-down menu goes like a waterdrop.
> and the "windows" (or how should I properly call it?) are like bubbles on
> th
> e screen.
> like, can you imagine how fantasic this thing could look like?
> is this really true? like is this what they're releasing (the new
> MacOS?)
> I would run to to store to buy a Mac in the first day of its release if
> it's
> true.
> but since that page didn't say anything about anything.
> so I would hope that anyone could answer.......?
Yes, it is cool!
And the newest builds of OSX even allow the icons to be realtime!
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.apple.com/macosx/theater/genie.html
OSX is shapping up to be a massive event for the personal comptuer.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Oxford
-
------------------------------
From: Oxford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MacOS looking more like Linux Everyday -
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 07:39:42 -0600
This one new feature will allow current Linux users to move to the
powerful MacOSX more easily!
<http://www.macuarium.com/macuarium/actual/rumores/2001_01_31_betagb/dock
-vertical.jpg>
The troublefree hardware is here:
http://www.apple.com/hardware
OSX is only 50 days away!!!!
Oxford
-
------------------------------
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:37:48 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you translate "DAC" from microsoft speak into english
> > > > for those of us who don't know microsoft speak?
> > >
> > > Ah, so you expose your ignorance.
>
> Yes, thank you for the gracious response -
> It figures that a dolt like you would jump at the
> opportunity for a cheap shot.
You attack and argue and attack and argue, but when it really comes down to
it, you don't know what you're talking about. It's very frustrating for
me to have to deal with all your posts when they're just baseless.
In the future, please attempt to know a little more about what you're
debating.
>
> > DAC is not Microsoft speak. In fact,
> > > many trusted Unixes had it before MS even had Windows.
>
> Not too much use for "trusted unix" in internet services.
So? That's a non sequitur.
The point is that NT can be an ultra-secure trusted system
when configured to be so. Linux, OTOH, cannot. In fact,
Linux doesn't even have the most basic underpinnings to
even be considered for trusted status. Namely, DAC and
pervasive auditing.
>
> > NetWare had it in 4.x.
>
> I don't do netware.
Another non sequitur. I don't care what you do or don't do,
I was merely illustrating your ignorance when you say
that DAC, which is a widely accepted and respected way of
doing security properly, is "Microsoft speak".
People who know security use DAC.
> Sorry if I wasn't up on all your TLAs, but that's life.
Yeah, keep your head in the sand.
It's not just a TLA, it's THE way of doing security in
the grown-up world. Your arguments that Linux is somehow
secure are nothing more than ignorant banterings.
Perhaps you should pull your head from the sand and take
a look at what's going on around you.
No, Linux really isn't that great, and in fact doesn't
really have any of the necessary features to make it a
great OS.
-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: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:38:16 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien 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 has had smp support since version 1.1.31.
> > >
> > > That was ~1995.
> >
> > Very poor SMP at that.
>
> But it worked, and unlike windows, it kept getting better!
>
> > It didn't get half-way respectable SMP until 2001.
>
> Didn't they smoke windows nt in 4-way specweb
> back in the summer of 2000?
Smoke? 3%? Not really. And that was using kernel
trickery.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: 02 Feb 2001 14:53:33 +0100
meow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well despite your claims it happened.
> Maybe its just Sony laptop screens that are dodgy but it was fine
> running Win 2000 pro
> When i installed Linux it screwed the screen up. Go figure.
> Someone mentioned in one of the replies that i shouldnt of chosen lcd
> monitor as the monitor choice.
> If this is the case what would be the approriate selection for a sony
> laptop screen
> The card inside is an ati rage mobility.
maybe you should ask in comp.os.linux.X
(if you really want an answer, that is)
ilja
------------------------------
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:38:54 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > The SMP design still (in 2.4) lacks behind most other
> > > > SMP implementations out there.
> > >
> > > Such as?
> >
> > NT 4.0, Windows 2000, most higher grade Unixes such as Solaris and
> > AIX, and several others. Basically, the big boys.
>
> You've just proved my point.
>
> First of all, don't include your pc operating system
> in the same sentence as Unix, it just makes you
> look silly.
Should be the other way around.
Reference: tpc.org
Windows 2000 owns #1 - #4. Unix is silly.
-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: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:44:21 GMT
"nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kfte6.1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > nuxx wrote:
> > >
> > > "Champ Clark III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In article <95bh0f$t75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> >
> > > In my opinion, quotas aren't nearly as important as fine grained ACLs in
> the
> > > corporate world (where NT was initially targeted). NTs file sharing
> >
> > I've worked at more sites than I can count. Unix's traditional
> > owner/group/other scheme has been sufficient every place I've been at...
> > even though every commercial version of Unix out there offers ACL's,
> > I have NEVER once seen a system in the corporate world using them.
> >
> I'm not doubting your background or experiences, but if you've ever worked
> on a large scale industrial project involving sensitive information from
> multiple departments in multiple companies, you'd understand why fine
> grained ACLs are absolutely vital. You really need greater power than
> owner/group/other in many situations (I do realise that Unix can to this -
> interesting that you've never seen it).
>
> > NT *needs* ACL's because it lacks the traditional Unix scheme.
> >
> Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the traditional Unix file sharing
> model is better than NT or Netware?
Or any of the trusted Unixes, or any of the software listed for C2.
DAC is a much more intelligent and secure way of assigning permissions than
the cheesy permission bits Unix uses. Even Unix vendors know this and
many ship with their own DAC implementation.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 2 Feb 2001 13:52:22 GMT
Could you please take this conversation private or at least to
a more appropriate newsgroup. While I believe God advocates Linux
(Bill Gates being the antiChrist) comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
are not appropriate forums for this discussion.
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <95com2$rj6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: No..that's agnosticism.
>
>: A theism *IS* a belief....specifically a belief in the null postulate.
>
> Break it down: a - theism = lack of theism = lack of the belief that
> god exists.
>
>:> If you null hypothesis is that
>:> deities and the supernatural don't exist, then no active
>:> 'belief' is not necessary.
>:>
>:> Agnosticism is more of a position that the issue is unsolved
>:> or unsolvabe.
>
>: i.e. "I don't know"
>
> Belief and knowlege are not the same thing. An honest person could
> admit to themselves that while they believe a god exists, they really
> don't *KNOW* this for sure. Agnosticism is compatable with theism and
> also with atheism. It is not some third in-betweener group, like the
> popular media distorts it to be.
>
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 2 Feb 2001 13:57:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Grant Edwards writes:
>> Now, if somebody would compare Bill Gates to Hitler, we can officially
>> declare this thread deceased.
>
> Hitler was a much better public speaker than Bill Gates is.
>
> There. I compared them. Ok?
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
Hitler also had a better haircut.
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:45:23 GMT
"Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >And it was *bad*.
> > >
> > > Demonstrate it.
> > >
> > > [deletia]
> > >
> > > Bear in mind that C't contradicted the findings of Mindcraft.
> >
> > That's interesting, considering that Linus himself *ACKNOWLEDGED* the
> > findings.
>
> Both are right in a way. The Mindcraft benchmark has no realworld
> relevance whatsoever.
Which doesn't really matter. Several flaws in Linux were exposed.
Linus admitted that there were issues and he moved to fix them. To
what extent he fixed them shall remain to be seen.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux is a fad?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:05:16 -0500
Perhaps, but so were rock and roll, talking pictures, and cars.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
