Linux-Advocacy Digest #592, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 02:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: why open source software is better ("Les Mikesell")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (spam)
Re: why open source software is better (Sam Holden)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (J Sloan)
Re: [OT] .sig ("Z")
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" (Tim Hanson)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Ed Allen)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Joel Barnett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:04:08 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97mmnh$gvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> TSR's are not processes any more than the UNIX kernel is a "process".
>
> : What is it then? You claim that a process is the instance of running
code.
> : The UNIX kernel doesn't run in the context of the user processes, so
>
> The UNIX kernel behaves more like a Windows DLL than a Windows EXE.
> It doesn't "run" (except at boot time when it's setting itself up,
> much like a TSR). The kernel is a big library that other processes
> can call into to implement the more low-level parts of their code, and
> those parts of the code that require permission. The "mode switch" is
> NOT a "context switch". It's a switch to turn off all the traps that
> were put on memory and hardware so the process can do privileged things,
> but the same process that ran the user-mode code also runs the
> kernel-level code after the switch in modes is made.
So you're suggesting that the kernel scheduler requires a user mode app to
call into the kernel before it can actively schedule the program?
Yes, user mode calls into the kernel run in the user context (not entirely
true, such as in Microkernel based systems), but the kerenel itself also has
a context for things like interrupt handling and scheduling.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:57:56 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How many reasons for writing a DB server? OK here goes:
>
> 1 - You work for a large corporation that wants an in-house DB server, and
> they ask you to do it.
> 2 - You're interested in learning about DB servers, so you do it by
writing
> one.
> 3 - You need a DB server for one of your own pet projects, and don't like
> what's available.
> 4 - You enjoy writing software, so you come up with a DB server because
> it's *fun*.
>
> Your assumptions contain 2 fundamental errors.
> (1) Most software is created for its resale value. It isn't. Take a look
at
> any publication that advertises vacancies for developers. How many of
those
> vacancies are with companies that sell software? Maybe 1 in 20. Most
> software is created for it's *use* value. That value is undiminished if
you
> give it away.
>
> (2) People are only motivated if they can make money at it. This is so
> obviously false I don't think I need to say anymore.
The question is, if you aren't interested in making money (or the
underlying exclusive control needed for this), then why would
you re-invent well known wheels like a DB server? Why not
instead put all your effort into improvements to existing similar
open products? Wouldn't you expect better results if you
could avoid the many years of effort that went into the base
code for (say) postgresSQL and concentrate only on the
parts that are still missing?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:25:35 -0800
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:45:00 GMT, Chronos Tachyon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[Newsgroups trimmed, the CSS people are sick of this thread...]
[snip]
>
>You get flamed and insulted because you didn't even read the very URLs you
>posted as "evidence" in your favor. If you had read them, you certainly
>wouldn't be here ranting and raving like a lunatic about what amounts to a
>single speck of sand on an otherwise smooth tile floor.
Just by reading this paragraph I knew who you were refering to.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 2 Mar 2001 05:26:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:57:56 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> How many reasons for writing a DB server? OK here goes:
>>
>> 1 - You work for a large corporation that wants an in-house DB server, and
>> they ask you to do it.
>> 2 - You're interested in learning about DB servers, so you do it by
>writing
>> one.
>> 3 - You need a DB server for one of your own pet projects, and don't like
>> what's available.
>> 4 - You enjoy writing software, so you come up with a DB server because
>> it's *fun*.
>>
>> Your assumptions contain 2 fundamental errors.
>> (1) Most software is created for its resale value. It isn't. Take a look
>at
>> any publication that advertises vacancies for developers. How many of
>those
>> vacancies are with companies that sell software? Maybe 1 in 20. Most
>> software is created for it's *use* value. That value is undiminished if
>you
>> give it away.
>>
>> (2) People are only motivated if they can make money at it. This is so
>> obviously false I don't think I need to say anymore.
>
>The question is, if you aren't interested in making money (or the
>underlying exclusive control needed for this), then why would
>you re-invent well known wheels like a DB server? Why not
>instead put all your effort into improvements to existing similar
>open products? Wouldn't you expect better results if you
>could avoid the many years of effort that went into the base
>code for (say) postgresSQL and concentrate only on the
>parts that are still missing?
1. Because you don't want to use GPL'd software, maybe you are distributing
binaries to a few places and don't want to have to distribute source. And
the only open product in the category happened to be GPL'd. Maybe your
company has a no open source policy or some other silly generic policy.
2. Because it is more work to modify an existing product than it is to
write your own (maybe you need some simple operations that are not
provided in exiting products and interact badly with features that are.
3. Because it is fun. Even though I will never play tennis as well as say
Sampras I still might still enjoy playing tennis even though it will never
make me money or further the tennis field. Some strange
people actually enjoy writing code just like other strange people enjoy
collecting stamps, and others enjoy playing chess.
4. Because by reinventing the wheel you learn a little bit about how things
are done, and what bits are hard. Computer science students have written
an awefully large number of crappy C++ string classes, and recursive
descent parsers because it is very helpful in learning.
5. Because it is a way to show off to your programming peers.
6. Because you honestly think you can do it better than what is available
and that your approach is different enough that usig the existing code
would make it more difficult.
--
Sam Holden
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:26:34 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well it seems all of you whining about the microsoft tax are missing the
> > whole point so I'll spell it out to you.
>
> So glad you're here to clear up these misconceptions.
>
>
> > It is not anyones right to demand that a certain product be supplied
to
> > them. And that's the whole gaping flaw in the argument.
>
> That's true, noone has the right to be sold any product. It is entirely
> up to the seller whether they will sell it or not. However, it is up to
> the CONSUMER what they BUY. If a customer says "I don't want Windows",
> the supplier either GETS RID OF IT, or says "then I wont sell you the
> computer".
Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay extra
for an OS they didn't want. I can't think of a time when hardware hasn't
been available seperate from software. If you own a copy of Windows it's
because you chose to buy it. The fact is, that no one wants to admit is that
it's much easier to buy a package than each individual piece. And it's
usually cheaper. I don't use the shitty little microphone but I'm not
whining about having to pay a microphone tax just to get my system. I don't
even use the clunky little inkjet printer they threw in. But I'm not
whining about an inkjet printer tax. My TV uses channel 3 only, I'm not
whining about all the extra "tax" I was forced to pay for a 100+ channel
tuner. Join the real world, you get what someone decides to sell. Nothing
more.
> > A while back some
> > morons came up with some kind of idea that it was their right to get a
> > refund on windows portion of a system if they didn't load the software.
They
> > soon found out they had only the right to either buy, or not buy a
package
> > that someone decided they would like to sell.
>
> These 'morons' were merely reading the license agreement, which states
> quite clearly if you don't agree to the license agreement you are
> entitled to return the product for a full refund.
And because they were morons they very quickly found out the way the real
world works.
> > You have two choices, buy what someone decides to sell you, or don't.
That's
> > the rules of the game. Get over it.
>
> You do actually have the right to enquire and deal with the seller. If
> he tries to sell you a system with windows, you're not doing anything
> immoral, illegal, or moronic by asking for a system without it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 05:39:01 GMT
In article <jxln6.16596$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <IY1n6.13991$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>> >
>> >The phone company was granted a monopoly, Charlie, much like your gas
>> >company and your water company are today. The fact that you could call
>your
>> >grandmother for a nickel isn't the same the price of housing or gas. It
>> >would be the same if you could put 1000 houses in the place that 1 house
>> >occupied 20 years ago, or get 10,000 miles per gallon of gas in your car
>> >today, but you can't, and it isn't.
>
>> The BELL comapanies became companies BECAUSE they had no regulatory
>> agency to govern them. You are totally wrong.
>>
>> They were NEVER granted a MONOPOLY.
>>
>> No company has ever been GRANTED a MONOPOLY.
>
>I could explain that you're wrong, Charlie, and I could provide references,
>and so on and so on, but what's the point? You are the quintessential fool
>who will never be confused by facts. Anything further I write will be met by
>the same stupid, baseless arguments, complete with lots of capital letters
>and horrible butchery of the English language.
>
>It's worse than just not worth it, Charlie. It's not even interesting.
>
>-- Mike --
>
But it's worth it to print this cute two liner.
Mike, your as useless in a debate as a wet speaker cone.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 05:40:12 GMT
In article <Ibnn6.921$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>Yes, you are full of shit that there is no such thing as a legal monopoly.
>You are not full of shit that one of the definitions of Monopoly is what you
>gave.
Thanks for arguing with yourself.
Thru yet?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 05:41:50 GMT
"Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97jc7l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Thanks. There is an article in this, and it won't be very kind to M$.
>
> The BSD networking stack development was funded by the US Government to
provide
> a reference implementation of the networking protocols. With few
exceptions,
> every TCP/IP stack out there that I'm aware of uses this code at its base.
>
> Microsoft is to be commended on making use of the best available
implementation
> for a change.
>
> (now everyone's going to think my evil twin wrote this. :->)
Maybe they used it in Win2k. I'd find it really hard to believe that they
started with perfectly good, tested code and deliberately introduced all
those bugs that we've all had to live through in all the earlier windows
versions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 05:52:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>http://www.eetimes.com/special/special_issues/millennium/companies/bell.html
>
> At first the research arm of AT&T, Bell Labs enjoyed a special status
> after its founding in the 1920s. Because of the monopoly granted AT&T
> by the government, in the interests of standardizing the telephone
> system, the lab could both be part of a commercial operation and play
> the open role of a national laboratory.
>
I see this in print and I've read it.
There is no record in congress of an actual vote nor bill passed which
grants AT&T nor IT&T a monopoly that I've seen.
Perhaps what they are refering to is some kind of excusive contract.
But I can't seem to find support for where congress passed and the
president signed any such bill approving a monopoly.
However, I can show you the 1970's arguments from the appeals trials
where the phone companies attempted to prove they had been granted
monopoly status from the government and they failed to exibit proof.
That much I know.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:58:18 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs £135. Allowing for inflation, WinME
costs
> > > about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
> >
> > "some" additional functionality? Windows 3.0 came on less than 6
floppies
> > (compressed). WIndows ME is about 150MB's (also compressed).
>
> Hmmm. You're quite correct, now that I think of it. So, after you've
> installed your fresh new install of 3.0, and on another machine you've
> installed your fresh WinME, exactly what can you do on the new one that
> you couldn't do before?
>
> I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or "click
> the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at all, what
> bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
I'm not really sure what you're looking for. What can you do in Red Hat 7.0
that you couldn't do in 6.2? What can you do in MacOS 9 that you couldn't
do in 8?
> I can really only think of Internet Explorer (or perhaps I should say
> Internet related software, so as to include DUN).
Well, there are many new applets. ME does include a Windows Movie Maker,
Wordpad, HyperTerminal, disk defragmenter, Windows Media Player, Personal
Web Server, Plug N Play, Thousands of devices that WIndows 3.x can't use,
such as Winmodems and the like, DirectX, etc...
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 06:07:03 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or "click
> > the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at all, what
> > bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
>
> I'm not really sure what you're looking for. What can you do in Red Hat 7.0
> that you couldn't do in 6.2?
You could secure shell into the box, for instance.
You could see and use usb devices
You could use plug and play cards with no manual intervention.
Need I continue?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 07:21:36 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Once upon a while "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snips]
>
> "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Once upon a while "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>(Yes, I'm not american. Thank god!)
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you're not, too. We don't need any more book-burning fascist
>> >> censors in our country.
>> >
>> >
>> >Ah, an extra note:
>> >
>> >*plonk*
>>
>> As expected, from a book-burning fascist censor.
>
> While he may or may not be a book-burning fascist censor, I don't see the
> relevance of your expectation to his action. His action was to prevent
> *him* seeing further posts, not to prevent you or others from posting. If I
> decide to cancel a subscription to a magazine, that doesn't make me a
> censor, it simply means I don't want to recieve any more of whatever it is
> the magazine has to say... but others may, and my action doesn't interfere
> with that process.
>
> So how is his effectively cancelling his subscription in *any* way an
> "expected" action of a "book-burning fascist censor" specifically, as
> opposed to an available action open to anyone who doesn't want to tune in?
>
> I don't get it.
Good question Kelsey,
but since I have shown the group that I no longer want to read
messages by Mr. chrisv, I have also stated an opinion against
him publicly. He may or may not feel offended by this action but
it may be his right to state his opinion about my person as
I did about him. Although in real live (say for instance in
Germany) this might bring him and me to a court.
--
Z ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"LISP is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience
you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you
a better programmer for the rest of your days." -- Eric S. Raymond
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 06:26:17 GMT
John Delaney wrote:
>
> In article <97jjeh$62j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Langenberger"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ah, but what about:
> >
> > "revolutionary", "solutions" or "enterprise"?
> >
>
> "empower", "leverage" and "harness" immediately spring to mind as being
> immensely annoying buzz-words, e.g.:
>
> "Empower yourself with our software, which, through harnessing the power
> of the Intel Pentium (r) processor (#dum dahdum dah#), enhances your
> ability to leverage your business in today's highly competitive
> marketplace".
Going forward, what innovative ways have you found to get people to stop
saying "at the end of the day?"
--
Speaking as someone who has delved into the intricacies of PL/I, I am
sure that only Real Men could have written such a machine-hogging,
cycle-grabbing, all-encompassing monster. Allocate an array and free
the middle third? Sure! Why not? Multiply a character string times a
bit string and assign the result to a float decimal? Go ahead! Free a
controlled variable procedure parameter and reallocate it before
passing it back? Overlay three different types of variable on the same
memory location? Anything you say! Write a recursive macro? Well,
no, but Real Men use rescan. How could a language so obviously
designed and written by Real Men not be intended for Real Man use?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 07:01:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
>
>Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
>ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay extra
>for an OS they didn't want. I can't think of a time when hardware hasn't
>been available seperate from software. If you own a copy of Windows it's
That ignores the years when DOS and Windows were licensed
per-processor of course.
The OEM paid for a license on every computer they shipped whether it
was actually loaded or not.
That was so obviously anticompetitive that MS did not even go to
trial to defend it.
That led to the Consent Decree which they promptly ignored and their
breaking of that Decree is what got them convicted of monopolization.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:02:13 -0800
Ray Chason wrote:
> "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.
>
> But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to RTFM?
No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.
>
>
jbarntt
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
