Linux-Advocacy Digest #995, Volume #31 Mon, 5 Feb 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: whining drive? Fix it! suggestions on keeping it working (Nigel)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (CR Lyttle)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Bob Hauck)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux headache ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is a fad? (Donn Miller)
Re: Aaron R Kulkis (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Paul Thurrott reports: "Microsoft Executives Trash Linux" (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Wintrolls (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Wintrolls (Charlie Ebert)
Re: UltraEdit in Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What makes GNU/Linux god! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: win2k -> linux (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: whining drive? Fix it! suggestions on keeping it working
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:19:09 +0000
>
> Since the drive is already experiencing errors and in fact,
> the kernel has remounted it as RO, I have already written it
> off. At this point it becomes an experiment in "how long can
> it run and provide firewalling and masquerading." Since that
> is in the kernel and doesn't get swapped, this might be until
> the next power outage. (Even though it is a laptop, the battey
> is toast so it requires AC power.) As long as the logging S/W
> doesn't "go crazy" because it can't write logs, it seems like
> it might be able to go on for quite some time.
>
> Since it is a firewall, installed S/W is minimal and a reinstall
> even w/out backups will be simple when the time arrives.
>
It's possible that the drive is long dead and the machine only continues to
run because all code is in memory and the system is not using any drive
swapspace - a dead drive will have no affect on a machine which does not
need to access the drive until one day when it's time to reboot then it's
all over!
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 00:30:20 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> > >
> > > My questions:
> > > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating system?
> > > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit (please
> > > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
> >
> > It is rumored that microsoft is doing some work on
> > a future 64-bit version of windows.
>
> It's not rumored, the beta has been available for 3 months publicly.
Why would you need a new version (rather than build) for 64-bits? By the
time MS Windows came out, it was well known not to make any assumptions
about sizeof(int).
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: b o b h {at} h a u c k s {dot} o r g
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 00:44:04 GMT
On 5 Feb 2001 19:52:08 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: These don't take into the fact all of the Linux boxes that were compromised
>: during the extensive DDoS attacks last fall. Entire university labs of
>: Linux boxes were compromised and use in this manner.
>Of course Unixen (like Linux) are used more as DOS attackers than
>Windows boxes. That's because remote usability is actaully possible
>in Unix.
Back Orifice lets you use a cracked Windows box as a DDOS platform.
There are assorted kits that assist in getting Back Orifice installed on
a target machine, or to bind cmd.exe to a socket.
The reason "university labs" are popular for this kind of thing isn't so
much that they run Unix, it is that they tend to not have all the latest
security patches but do have lax supervision over who's doing what.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 6 Feb 2001 00:53:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
:> :>
:> :> In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :> > John Hasler wrote:
:> :> >>
:> :> >> Walt writes:
:> :> >> > The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
:> :> >> > of God."
:> :> >>
:> :> >> Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
:> :> >> atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
:> :> >> imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
:> :> >>
:> :> >> > That is definitely an active belief.
:> :> >>
:> :> >> "Does not believe" is not "believes not".
:> :>
:> :> > Geeze, you're as dogmatic as the people you deride.
:> :>
:> :> Uh, fella, this is as basic a piece of modal logic as one can get.
:> :>
:> :> You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
:> :> necessity, obligation, and so on. Id normally direct you to the
:> :> library, but let's try ...
:> :>
:> :> Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
:> :> I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
:> :> operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
:> :> operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
:> :>
:> :> Now you know what the subject area is called - it's an important and
:> :> large one - you can look it up.
:> :>
:> :> Peter
:>
:> : There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
:> : 1) Belief that the proposition is true.
:> : 2) "I don't know"
:> : 3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
:>
:> : One cannot claim that one is neither (1) nor (2), and still TOTALLY
:> : without a belief.
:>
:> You are right. Too bad for your argument, though, that atheists
:> often *do* say (2), and your implication that all atheists say
: Then they aren't atheists, they are agnostics.
The terms are not mutually exclusive.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:33:17 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And SunView preceded that .. 1984 or '85.
>
> OpenLook had a nice-looking suite of applications, like mailtool,
> filemanager, etc. It was probably a great-looking desktop at the time.
> Well, I suppose OpenLook could be considered a desktop, at least it probably
> was at the time. I'm assuming SunView is OpenLook, but I really don't
> know...
As the guy said sunview preceeded openlook. Sunview wasn't based on
X. Openlook was, believe it or not, an 'open' specification for a
particular look and feel written on top of X. Openlook came with the
xview library which had about 6 functions. Using those 6 functions you
could write applications which adhered to the openlook look and
feel. It was very nice from a programmers point of view except when
you needed to do something at a lower level than xview provided. Sun
also provide devguide which was a GUI tool for producing the GUI
part of openlook applications.
Sunview was very fast even on a Sun 3/50 with 4MB ram. If Sun hadn't tried
to keep NeWS proprietory we might all be using that now. From what I've
heard it was a much superior design to X and used display postscript.
As an aside I once tried starting openwindows on a 3/50 with 4MB ram. It
took over an hour to start and whenever you moved the mouse the pointer
disappeared for several minutes while the disc was swapping like crazy.
Still it didn't crash. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:22:37 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Translation: Spend $15 "upgrading" to a USB mouse rather than simply
> buying a $3 ATX keyboard/mouse extension cord
Someone who writes drivers for both PS/2 and USB mice predicts that in 2
years, USB mice will totally replace the PS/2 mice. I don't agree with
this. For one, how do we know USB will still be around 2 years from
now?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:37:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Dan Hinojosa wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, people like that who call people "fucking idiots" are
>> going to drive a few people who would've been happy to support linux's in
>> their workplace away. As an advocate, they don't understand that even
>> courtesy counts. Like you said, "sad".
>
>Are you implying that the stories of Chad Meyers, Pete Goodwin, Flatfish+++,
>etc. do NOT paint pictures of complete fucking idiots who risk drowning
>every time they take a bath?
>
This is hillarious yet true. These three wintrol's spread more
crap about Linux than anybody I know of.
As far as YOU using another OS just because you had some kind of BAD
ENCOUNTER on a newgroup, then DO SO....
Don't hang around here like some nitwit and whin about it!
Go off an nit yourself a basket.
And have a bucket of grits on me whimp.
Charlie
>>
>> "--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
>>
>> > A very sad little boy who pretends to be a man with an important job.
>> >
>> > Nearly every post he makes he has to swear in.
>> >
>> > Sad.
>> >
>> > Still, I suppose it has to be so when Linux attracts mostly long hair
>> > weirdos.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?)
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:43:41 GMT
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 05:13:51 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:45:27 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Actually, there was a talk about entering streams into Linux, it was
>> > dropped because it's too much work.
>> Probably this is the same reason that streams aren't used for much in NT
>> as well.
>
>Not really, OpenFile() and most other APIs know about them.
But what do apps that don't pay attention to streams do when presented a
file that uses them? Maybe everything is fine, maybe not, depending on
the app. Surely some system utilities would need to be updated at least.
>The problem is that you lose the streams if you do FTP, EMail or copy the
>file to non-ntfs partition.
That's a big problem, since a lot of folks install NT on FAT just to
make system recovery easier. The ftp/email thing the Mac folk have had
to deal with for a while now. I'm not a big Mac person, but I believe
that tools like stuffit handle the resource fork for you. There are
ways of serializing them when making archives.
>> Another example of this is filename completion in cmd.exe. It has been
>> there for a very long time but hasn't been enabled by default. It was
>> also pretty buggy.
>
>At least in my system, it was enabled by default, I just recently learn that
>it even existed, though.
I'm told it is enabled by default in W2K. I have not verified this,
having only very intermittent access to a W2K system. In NT4, tab
completion has a number of, well let's call them misfeatures since MS
doesn't have bugs <g>. The most annoying one being that if there is
more than one matching file, cmd.exe just completes using the first one
it finds instead of showing a list.
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/ntfs5.htm
>Take a look at the buttom of the page, why can't I've something like this on
>any file that has streams?
Maybe the Explorer people don't talk to the filesystem people? Maybe
they are saving it to give you a reason to upgrade in the future? I
dunno. Looks like that whole page is full of stuff that's "already
there but not for users".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Paul Thurrott reports: "Microsoft Executives Trash Linux"
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:43:52 GMT
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:38:38 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"InBiz" <sl@theplanetdotorg> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What else would anyone expect Steve Balmer to say in public. In private
>> he's probably laughing his ass off at the 'Linux threat".
>
>That would be a dire mistake. Out there in serverland, what the big boy
>commercial Unices aren't running on, is quickly being swollowed up by the
>twin "fads" Linux and BSD. If either one comes through with a cohesive
>desktop that people can agree on...Microsoft's toast.
Even better...if either one comes through with a cohesive desktop, they
both do.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:45:18 GMT
In article <95mgsg$hr5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
>Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
>software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
>to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
>
Well, flatfish is a vast pile of shit.
Or haven't you noticed that.
>Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
>doesn't work under Linux?
>
Yeah I guess so. But it's 20:1 they tried it on Windows first
and didn't like it. So they figured running it on Linux would
make things all better.
>
>Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
>What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
>he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
>
Well first things first.
#1. These trolls are not individuals/persons representing themselves.
They are paid by Microsoft to post this crap in favor of
the company and against Linux.
Flatfish posts 20 hours a day and he's been doing that for
4 months now. Most 'humans' you know of would not do this.
They would not do this unless they had several barrels of
body parts in their back bedrooms.
Oh, and they had been masterbating on them...
>
>Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
>seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
>yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
>something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
>them).
>
>Just my £0.02
>
>-Ed
Well Pete Goodwin is just an asshole. I don't think he's paid
by anybody to do anything. I believe he just sits on his ass
collecting British Welfare. EF or Mr. Fukenbush as I call him,
he's a self proclaimed know it all, jack of all trades, kind
of self help person. Point to a rock, say "it's a rock" and
EF will immediately begin a detailed analysis of your verbal
description, draw an immediate conclusion, and brand you a
Linux asshole for life.
So there you go.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:48:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nils Zonneveld wrote:
>
>
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
>> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
>> yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
>> something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
>> them).
>>
>> Just my £0.02
>>
>> -Ed
>
>You'll have to admit that without our much appreciated Wintrolls, this
>NG would be utterly boring. Besides that they have a point, not
>confirming to the Windoze world is not making your live any easier. I
>use a Mac, connected to my trustworthy Linux server and I've used my
>electronic banking software on my Mac for years now. Last month though,
>I discovered that my Mac client is no longer supported by my bank. Since
>we are making the transition from Guilders to Euro's within a year, the
>bank has decided to stop support for all programs that don't support the
>Euro. They are refusing to make any other clients then windows clients,
>because "the other market segments are too small". Unless I switch to
>windows I'll be not able to continue electronic banking. I have
>informed with other banks wether they support the Mac OS, or *NIX
>platform, nada, zilch nothing, all M$ only. The wintrolls do have a
>point here: M$ still has a monopoly.
>
>Just my € 0,02
>
>Nils
>
>--
>"Misschien is niets geheel waar, en zelfs dat niet"
>Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker) - Idee 1
And here's my .02 cents worth....
Appearently Microsoft isn't very certain of their monopoly
anymore as they have flatfish in here 20 hours a day posting
linux hate mail.
And yes, they have that web site prediction, posted by Adam,
which states we will all turn to methane gas in just 6 months.
What a load of shit....
Microsoft is the monopoly alright. So why are these assholes
here anyway? What threat is Linux to them????
Maybe *EVERYBODY* should be asking this important question???
Humm????
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: UltraEdit in Linux?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:49:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> hi all:
>>
>> i am a loyal user of UltraEdit for years under Windows. recently i am
>> using more and more Linux for software development, but i haven't
>> really found an editor that is quite as good and compact as UltraEdit.
>> so far, i've just been using the regular/standard editors that come
>> with Linux, such as vi, emacs, and pico.
>>
>> i would like to have something that would run under X and somewhat
>> resembles UltraEdit (keyword high-lighting, space-tab option, auto
>> format, and most importantly, the vertical selection!) anyone have any
>> idea of such editor in Linux?
>>
>> thanks in advance.
>
>XEmacs does all that nicely.
Hey! The GNU version of emacs is comming
out with an Xemacs clicky product very soon.
GNU to you to .
Charlie
>
>--
>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] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What makes GNU/Linux god!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:50:43 GMT
In article <_9Df6.111851$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martigan wrote:
>
What makes it the GOD of all operating systems is
the GPL inside.
Gentlemen!
To the UPTIME!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: win2k -> linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:52:31 GMT
In article <95n5h0$i2t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>hi all:
>
>first of all, i have read the HOW-TO on linux installation, the part
>using NT loader. unfortunately, it doesn't work for me (or maybe i am
>missing something really important).
>
>i have a machine that has win2k on it, and i've used partition magic to
>move it over so i have 3 partitions (DOS, Linux Native, Linux Swap). The
>DOS (FAT32) partition is 6000MB, and linux took up the rest of the disk.
>
>after successfully installing Red Hat 7, when rebooting, it went
>straight to the Win2k loading screen. i tried to use the linux LILO
>bootdisk, and got into Linux. but after making all the changes like i am
>supposed to according to the HOW-TO, i still can't get NT (Win2k) to see
>my linux partition when loading.
>
>is there something fundamentally different between the NT4 and Win2k
>loader? or am i missing something here?
>
Yip.
>any help (or pointing me to another web site) would be greatly
>appreciated :)
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
Use Debian.
It's much easier to use.
Your Welcome
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
