Linux-Advocacy Digest #90, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 01:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux] (Ray Chason)
The Truth, was "Linux fails to deliver on the hype" (sfcybear)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Wintrolls (J Sloan)
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (Ray Chason)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (J Sloan)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:07:46 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thorsten Moellers) wrote:
>If I close the mozilla started as tmoeller before starting the second mozilla
>as peek, there is no problem at all. I did not test to become <peek> per rlogin,
>maybe that works better, but on my system the user peek gets access
>to the bookmark file of tmoeller also bookmark.html is only readable for
>tmoeller.
Here's a clue to what's going on. The second Mozilla may have detected
the first running on the same X display, and signalled it to launch
another window--which runs in the tmoeller account. Navigator doesn't
do this; it just starts another Navigator, and complains that it can't
acquire the lock to the cache.
Prediction: if you start a Mozilla from the "su peek" shell, and then
from the tmoeller shell, then both will show the peek bookmarks.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Truth, was "Linux fails to deliver on the hype"
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:11:14 GMT
The truth about the SuSE layoffs:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16772.html
In article <95un7e$40a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
> Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:20:16 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 9 Feb 2001 22:27:46 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> But the thing is, the software interface to those things is IDENTICAL
>:> to what it was on the old motherboard. Having to 're-detect' them
>:> is just a stupid Micorosoftism. I have done the motherboard and
>:> hard drive transplant thing, and Kudzu (the redhat device detector)
>:> noticed no new hardware, and everything ran fine with no changes to
>:> the settings at all.
>
>: Heh... if the object of the debate is to have both of us admit that Win9x
>: is brain dead in its decision making, then I think our mission is
>: accomplished... =)
>
>Well, the original argument was about software drivers, and whether
>hardware vendors will insist upon them staying closed source. Someone
>brought up the motherboard swap and I said this doesn't count because
>that doesn't require 'drivers' like peripherals do, and that's when
>this side topic came up.
I'm sorry, but I've been misconstrued. The mention of Linux support for
the Itanium was a response to a statement that open source drivers
before hardware availability is not possible.
>It's sort of relevant to establish whether
>or not the way Win98 *appears* to have drivers for the motherboard
>shoots down my claim that motherboards don't need driver software. That
>is why it became relevant whether Win98 was telling the truth or
>not when it claimed it was installing "drivers" for motherboard
>devices.
I though that was a whole different discussion, actually.
>: What version of Redhat involves Kudzu? I've never used it or seen it in
>: action, but the latest version of Redhat I've seen is 6.0...
>
>I don't know when it was first introduced. It showed up when I
>went from 5.2 to 6.2. It is usually rather silent, amounting to
>nothing more than a one-line message during boot. It only makes
>itself noticed when it discovers a change in hardware that it thinks
>it knows how to deal with.
And then what does it do? It seems to me that "kudzu" is a rather
apocryphal name for such a utility.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:14:17 -0500
Simon Palko wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Simon Palko wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Simon Palko wrote:
> > > > > No it's not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got an HP Visualize C240 sitting next to me, but I'm more the
> > > > > exception. The CAE guys tend to have a couple SGI or HP stations,
> but
> > > they
> > > > > ALL have a Windows desktop. That's the standard.
> > > >
> > > > Not for automotive CAD/CAM/CAE work.
> > > >
> > > > And at GM, Ford, etc....Applix is the standard office suite for these
> > > users.
> > >
> > > /me points at his header.
> >
> > My header is forged for security purposes.
> > It obscures what platform I'm actually using.
>
> Mine's not. Feel free to drop me an email for confirmation.
>
> > > No, it's not. All the CAE guys I know have Windows stations as well.
> And
> > > MS Office is the standard office suite company-wide.
> >
> > You're saying that the CAE guys have TWO computers on their desks?
> >
> > Yeah, right...
>
> No, it's often three or four. But usually at least two.
>
> Have you *EVER* been to a Ford engineering office?
>
I used to WORK at the Ford Product Development Center.
Specifically, in the TDM department, the department which runs
the servers which warehouse all of the part files.
we
> --
> -Simon Palko
>
> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
> backs!"
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:26:31 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
[...]
>> >That's an error in the way Windows detects hardware, that's all.
>> >It gets tricked into thinking you have new cards when you
>> >change the thing they are plugged into (the motherboard).
>>
>> Actually, I think its a flaw in the way Windows is designed. If you
>> change the thing they plug into, Windows has to reload all the cards
>> from scratch.
>
>Unfortunately it's even worst than that. They reload all the cards, but
>not from scratch. They leave behind a lot of previous things which
>interfere with the new ones and make the system sluggish if you're
>lucky, unbearably unstable most of the times, unable to start for the
>rest.
One might almost think they had the conscious intent to make it very
difficult to get a new motherboard without buying a whole new PC (which
they get a cut of), eh, Giuliano? ;-)
You're right; it is even worse than having to reload all the cards from
scratch. BUT, I've had a great deal of success when upgrading any
low-level hardware (and even, sometimes, with stuff like soundcards and
modems, when Windows gets cranky) by ripping out the PCI bus* and
rebooting.
* In the software! Go to System--Devices and Remove the PCI bus
'driver'. On the reboot, Windows will do a complete detection. Stuff
will still be left on disk, of course, and maybe even some stray stuff
in the memory, but its the next best thing to a complete re-install, and
it doesn't trash all your application configurations. I will admit to
no responsibility whatsoever for anyone trying to physically remove the
"PCI bus" from their computer.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:36:46 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 9 Feb 2001 22:34:49 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Two years ago, any Microsoft sock-puppet might have claimed that the
>: 'problem' with Linux is that it couldn't possibly support new hardware
>: (motherboards, CPUs, 64-bit chips, et. al,) before the hardware was
>: released like Microsoft could, because Intel would give them access and
>: assistance. History has shown that this isn't what's happened.
>: Likewise, once there is a consumer market for Linux which is free from
>: monopolization, drivers, whether proprietary or open source, will not be
>: much of an issue.
>
>You are talking about an imaginary world where Linux has already taken
>a large part of MS's marketshare away so that all the hardware vendors
>have to support it for their own good.
Not really, no. In the real world, as a matter of fact, Linux already
*has* taken a "large part", considering MS is a monopoly; its certainly
larger than most others, if small in comparison to Microsoft's illegal
domination. I think you will find that most hardware vendors are more
than ready to support whatever they can to sell more product. So long
as Microsoft doesn't make it too incredibly expensive to avoid
supporting ONLY Windows (which we must admit they are criminally good at
doing), there's nothing stopping any vendor from supporting Linux, and a
growing number of them are doing so. By this time next year, it will be
considered an absolute requirement, if we even have to wait that long.
>I'm not. I'm talking about
>*this* world, where that has not happened (yet), and I have my doubts
>that it *can* unless we accept vendor-supplied CSS drivers as a means to
>get there from here. I don't *like* this, and I'm not advocating that
>it's a good thing. I just fear that it might be a necessary evil.
I don't see anything evil about it, that's the thing. There are market
circumstances which make it efficient. Monopolization is obviously one
of them, but its not entirely unique in that respect. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with closed source drivers, so long as they're
widely available. Its just Microsoft's monopolization which makes
closed source drivers anti-competitive. And the fact is that, in the
real world, there's no reason outside the monopoly for most of the
vendors you might be thinking of to use closed source drivers; they
drastically increase the cost to the producer of supporting the
hardware.
But still, in the end, it appears you're just pulling the "this world"
stuff to point out that the monopolization is still occurring. But on
the other hand, I don't even really know what about closed source
drivers or Linux or Windows lead to this discussion. I was merely
responding to the false argument you used about there being an inherent
'lag time' because it was supposedly impossible to have open source
drivers available simultaneously with the hardware. OTOH, if you
consider closed source drivers to be a 'necessary evil', then obviously
having no open source support decreases the value of the hardware
product in your mind. Since that costs hardware producers money in lost
opportunities, it seems pretty obvious there isn't anything necessary
about it. Or even sensible.
But now we are talking about post-monopolization, again, not the "real"
world. Heh.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:54:29 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:39:31
[...]
>Hmm, this is the first I've heard of there being a problem with the
>ToS. It's funny how no one else seems to think it's a proble, especially
>MS' biggest competitors, who spare no hate for MS. Pretty suspicious
>claims, if you ask me.
Bwa-ha-ha, guffaw, and all that. You're so ludicrous, even as a
sock-puppet. ;-)
TOS is a putative kind of capability of TCP/IP. It was recognized years
ago that it was not very effective because it was possible that a
brain-dead implementation would simply make every packet the highest
priority. AFAIK, this predated Microsoft's brain-dead implementation
which makes every packet the highest priority. You'll note that though
Microsoft's "biggest competitors" haven't made a big deal about it, they
do not provide brain-dead implementations, even though it "makes sense"
if you don't give a shit about standards. I guess they give a shit
about standards. There's nothing to "suspect", then, nor any question
to the claim, that Microsoft does not.
And, just for the record, Chad; nobody asked you.
>> But since you've switched the subject to QoS...
>>
>> > IIRC, Microsoft Windows 2000 is the first and only OS to fully support
>> > QoS throughout.
>>
>> For Microsoft, "fully support" is a marketing term that does not mean
>> "works right".
>
>Well, considering that Cisco worked with MS to implement their QoS,
>I would say that MS appears to be the leader in this deparment.
And anyone else would say that MS has a monopoly in desktops, and if
Cisco didn't "work with" MS, their QOS would be worth about as much as
TOS is. You fucking pathetically dishonest sock puppet, you.
>So far I don't see any major QoS deployments or implementations,
>but I know if I were going to do it, Windows would be my only choice,
>for the most part.
But we all know that it doesn't matter what you say in the first clause,
the end of that sentence would be the same. You are as much a putz as
you are a piece of shit, Chadder-head.
>Support seems to be growing in the non-Windows
>world for QoS, but no one has taken a leadership role, that's
>for sure.
Hype has been brewing for years. Its as flawed an idea as TOS, and as
much an attempt at monopolization as EIGRP.
>> > In fact, Cisco, a leader in IP innovation, worked with
>> > Microsoft to get their QoS right in their routers and such.
>>
>> Kind of like Sun worked with Microsoft to get their Java right?
>
>I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Yes, but we *know*, Chad, that you don't know what you're talking about.
>> > How's Linux's QoS implementation coming along?
>>
>> Done. For at least a couple of years I believe.
>
>But not really. I haven't seen any real movement on the QoS front
>until just before Windows 2000 when you saw Cisco announcing
>support for many of their high end routers and support on the
>desktop with Windows 2000 and NIC vendors joining the bandwagon.
Well, perhaps if you didn't limit your information to Microsoft press
releases and your sock-puppet briefings, Chad, you'd be more aware of
things.
>It appears that Linux's support was merely academic and not
>integrated, as I don't see anyone who's using Linux using QoS.
What the hell does 'integrated' mean in that sentence? What the hell is
wrong with you?
>Whereas I've seen several deployments at multi-site corporations
>who use video conference and schedule their video at a higher
>priority. Works pretty well, actually.
We don't give a fuck, Chad, OK? Can't you just get it? We don't
believe a word you say, no matter how reasonable you pretend to be, and
we're well aware that you're not reasonable, OK? You're boring the SHIT
out of me. I'd prefer if we could have a rational conversation, but
obviously you can't do that, so just give up, PLEASE, and stop making a
fool of yourself.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:57:24 GMT
chrisv wrote:
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Actually, there's no reason that wouldn't work, as long
> >as the kernel is non-modular and lilo, being configured
> >to look for /vmlinuz, is run before rebooting.
>
> Sounds pretty involved.
no module support
lilo expects /vmlinuz?
run lilo
If those 3 simple points sound "pretty involved", I would
advise you not to attempt it yourself -
jjs
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:58:19 -0000
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Me: Click on the start button
>
>Newbie: What ?!
>
>Me: You see `Start' in the bottom left of the screen
>
>Newbie: Yep. Doesn't look much like a button.
>
>Me: Um. Well, you can push it (bu clicking on it) so it works like a
>button. Anyway, move the mouse over it.
>
>Newbie <moves mouse>
>
>Me: Now click on it with the left button.
>
>Newbie: <Clicks on button> Hey! why did it go away?
>
>(The newbie dragged a little bit when clicking and the menu disappeared)
Ah, yes, one of Win9x/WinNT's more annoying "features." Hover over a
menu item, get a submenu. OK as far as it goes. But then you move just
a little bit wrong, and the submenu either disappears or is replaced by
a different submenu.
What's really funny is that they had it right in Win3.1. A submenu
appears when you click on the menu item, and disappears either when you
choose an item or click somewhere outside the menu. Much less annoying.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 06:02:39 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
> > > > so, then, explain it to us.
> > >
> > > .NET represents an environment, a programming infrastructure that supports
> > > the next generation of the Internet as a platform.
> > >
> >
> > From what I've heard, it sounds like .net is merely an
> > attempt to take the sort of open, working tools and
> > protocols which are available today in the Unix world,
> > and twist them into a proprietary, windows-centric
> > model which can then be used to build a mechanism
> > for extracting regular payments from windows users.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Where do these idiots come from? Really? Where?
Please sir, do not hold back your true feelings.
Feel free to share your views, if you would like!
Clearly, you have been deeply offended that someone
would suspect microsoft of concocting a plan to divert
funds from private citizens into it's own swollen coffers -
To you, sir, I say, "wake up and smell the coffee".
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 06:05:35 GMT
Hi Charlie,
> I understand the people at FreeBSD caught them at taking
> souce code for the TCP-IP stack when they saw W2K replicate
> the exact same 1 in a billion bug which FreeBSD 4.0 had.
>
> I never heard the details further. The issue just mysteriously
> died.
Everyone is allowed to incorporate BSD-style licensed code into any closed
source software. It's a fascinating rumour but not a scandal.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
