Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #33 Mon, 9 Apr 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant ("Brig Campbell")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Greg Copeland)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Chad Everett)
Linux mailing list for Iranians (Arash)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Rich Teer)
NT secure server space majority? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Logan Shaw)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Chris Street)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Sam A. Kersh)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Rob
Robertson)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Nigel Feltham)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Nigel Feltham)
Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brig Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:47:28 -0700
"Brian Inglis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:46:55 -0500, "Ben L. Titzer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Compaq has several Xeon based servers (4x, 8x, and even more) that have
up
> >to 32 and 64gb of physical RAM. Any kernel running on those machines
> >wouldn't "need" that much memory; it would of course, have to manage it,
> >though, for user applications. Versions of Windows 2000 server have
> >support for these large memory spaces, and I *think* there may be Linux
> >support. Plus whatever OSes companies like Compaq and HP have running on
> >their "big-iron" Intel boxes probably have PAE support as well.
>
> Their big-iron boxes are not Intel - Alpha and PA-RISC
> respectively. They'd probably not push PCs competing with their
> high end machines, although they'd probably sell you one if you
> wanted to give them that much money. How much cache goes with
> your 64GB, and how long does it take to load/save that memory on
> a real PCI/UDMA drive?
>
The ProLiant ML770 is the new 32-processor, industry-standard server from
Compaq. This system delivers maximum scale-up (single server) performance in
the ProLiant line, with 32 Pentium III Xeon processors, large SDRAM memory
capacity and huge I/O expansion. The ProLiant ML770 is based on the Cellular
Multi-Processing (CMP) architecture, designed for maximum performance and
scalability. Compaq has upgraded the CMP architecture by adding additional
high-availability features and Compaq storage and options.
http://www.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/description.html#keyfea
t
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Apr 2001 11:52:05 -0500
Thanks. I was very much aware of that. Just like a helicopter is still
considered to be a rotor wing plane, that is really a ducted rotor plane
as well. It just happens to look more like a car than most planes. In
short, it's still a plane. Which means, planes are planes and cars are
cars.
To touch on the original topic, it's often forgotten the difference
between real exploits and theoretical exploits. It's often important
to understand that many people simply use SSH as a means to keep clear
text passwords off the wire.
I'm assuming (*that* word) that you were trying to be funny. If so,
that's how I took it. Enjoy!
Greg
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > With your logic that SSH = telnet + encryption, I can say that a car and
> plane
> > are exactly the same thing; isn't a plane a car with wings?
>
> http://a432.g.akamaitech.net/7/432/622/10000229993214/abcnews.go.com/media/T
> ech/images/ho_moller_skycar_h.jpg
>
>
>
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 11:41:31 -0500
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:41:28 GMT, silverback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>too bad you forgot to mention the fact that it was the large
>corporations that wrote the laws under the Nazis. It is capatailism.
>
Hey...you just proved that the Nazi system wasn't capitalism. Thanks!
>
>fascism has nothing to do with socialism buttfuck
>
True, but you're comparing apples and oranges. A fascism buttfuck is
pretty much the same thing as a socialism buttfuck.
------------------------------
From: Arash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux mailing list for Iranians
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:51:54 GMT
Dear Linux Friends,
I would like to draw your attention to two new mailing lists regarding the use
of Linux in Iran and through Iranians (and their specific needs):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxiran
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/farsikde
Anyone interested in these issues is welcome to join.
Best wishes,
Arash
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:04:30 GMT
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Per Espen Hagen wrote:
> Sure, but I would prefer good content with good form over good content with
> lousy form. Maybe good form is indicative of poor content in your experience,
I agree - as long as the good form is an open standard that is readable by
everybody without too much hassle. The trouble is that too many people
worry too much about form, even when the content is good/important.
For example, where I'm consulting at the moment (an ISP), they distribute
the staff phone list as a Word document. What benefit does that have over
a plain ASCII text document? None. But it's in a proprietory format, and
is several 10s of kilobytes in size. What is wrong with distributing it
as a web page?
> but for others, it is quite the opposite, and they are more likely to read and
> take seriously a nicely formatted document. You can dislike this all you
> want, but this last group of people may very well include your boss, your
> customer, or someone else whose opinion may have serious impact on your
> livelihood.
Nice formatting is appropriate for certain documents - I couldn't agree more.
That's why I use *roff for typesetting any important documents I create.
> Unfortunately, most PC users don't know what to do with a PostScript file.
Hah! Now they know what it feels like! :-) I hear that later versions
of Word have a PostScript filter.
> Web page or HTML attachment -- well, sometimes one is better, sometimes the
> other. It's certainly easier for me to send an HTML attachment than to upload
Yes - but etiquette suggests that you make things easier for the reader(s).
> my document to a Web server. Most people don't have their own Web server.
> And sometimes you want a document to at least appear to be private.
Yeah - but I'm talking more about a corporate environment.
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: NT secure server space majority?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:08:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, pip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:24:56 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>"kirk@do_not_spam" wrote:
>>
>> If anyone thinks this junk will compete with windows they must be
>> out of their minds.
>
>This "junk" is already winning in the server space. Think again.
Latest information suggests that NT has a majority -- not just a
plurality -- in the secure server space. I have not been able
to verify this information, however; I'm not sure where to start. :-)
(This is mostly secondhand information from other posts in this
newsgroup.)
The majority, admittedly, is very slim -- about 50-52%.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:19h:55m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Logan Shaw)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 9 Apr 2001 12:10:17 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Per Espen Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rich Teer wrote:
>> Honestly, I think too many people favour form over content.
>
>Sure, but I would prefer good content with good form over good content with
>lousy form. Maybe good form is indicative of poor content in your experience,
>but for others, it is quite the opposite, and they are more likely to read and
>take seriously a nicely formatted document.
"Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but
rather when there is nothing more to take away."
(Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)
Simplicity is something I respect. All other things being equal, I am
more likely to be impressed by a document that is written in plain
ASCII, unless there is a compelling (as opposed to defensible) reason
to do otherwise.
Usually, there is not such a reason in e-mail, because e-mail is for
sending relatively short, quick messages. If a group of people are
working on some kind of more complicated document together, they're
free to use some formatting tool, but I don't see what this has to do
with e-mail, except that sometimes people abuse e-mail by treating it
as a file transfer mechanism.
To get back to the point, I don't believe that using a formatting tool
strongly correlates with good form. I've seen zillions of truly ugly
Word documents out there. Sure, I've seen ugly ascii-only e-mails too,
but most of the time, when someone is sending a documented formatted in
Word, it's not actually the case that is has nice form. It's the case
that they are *trying* to achieve nice form and haven't got a clue how
to do it, so they figure using fonts and bullets and boxes will do the
trick. (And the reason they're trying is that the business world today
expects it. It doesn't actually serve any useful purpose, but in many
situations people would be embarrassed if they hadn't used PowerPoint
or Word.)
In that sense, MS Word is sort of like portobello mushrooms. I've been
to several restaurants which use portobello mushrooms (and/or other
trendy ingredients like arugula) like a silver bullet. They don't
actually know how to prepare food that's tasty, but they figure all
they need to to is to include some trendy ingredients and write a good
description on the menu, and it will make their food good. And some
people are impressed. But I myself would rather have a hamburger
cooked by someone who knows how to make really good hamburgers than
something made by somebody who is faking it.
>You can dislike this all you
>want, but this last group of people may very well include your boss, your
>customer, or someone else whose opinion may have serious impact on your
>livelihood.
If I am in a position where my boss expects me to send him e-mail in
Microsoft Word, this is a bad sign. Why? I prefer to work on Unix.
If my boss sends me stuff in MS Word regularly, I'll have to either
have two computers or constantly leave my desk and borrow someone
else's computer to read my e-mail, but of which are just wasteful and
silly.
One reason why people don't read e-mail formatted in some Windows-only
format is that this is a bad sign, especially if you are a Unix
administrator. If management is sending you MS Word documents without
asking first whether you can read them, it indicates they probably have
a Microsoft-centric mindset, which is sure to cause you nothing but
problems as a system administrator. So, if you're in the process of
interviewing for a job and you get sent something in MS Word format, it
might be best to delete it anyway. If it causes you to not get the
job, that might be best for your sanity anyway.
- Logan
--
my your his her our their _its_
I'm you're he's she's we're they're _it's_
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:17:23 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:06:56 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> But the question is, can an end-user get that stuff as he can with
> >> RPM. And if he can, how? I for one would like to know how to at least
> >> get a list of files and registry keys that were installed.
> >
> >Depends. MSI - Microsoft's new installation file format, exposes a list
of
> >everything which could be installed; you can snarf a copy of the MS
"Orca"
> >tool to examine the MSI files.
>
> So the short but non-buzzword-compliant answer is "not with the tools
> they give the end user". You have to go get some utilities from MS,
> and they work on the new format but not the old.
There is no "the" old format; there's a whole collection of them, from a
whole collection of vendors. Are apt, rpm, and the other Linux installation
packages interchangeable? Not that I'm aware of. Will rpm dump the
contents of an apt-style package? Then why would you expect any tool from
MS, or InstallShield, or Wise, or any other vendor, to read anyone's file
formats but their own? Why would you expect a bundled tool to read all of
them? MSI not only brings a whole host of new functionality, it also brings
a standardized file format, viewable and editable with readily available
tools.
> Which means that the answer is really "not for most current packages".
> Which explains why there are so many install spy utilities around I
> guess.
You might be able to get viewers from InstallShield for their packages, from
Wise for theirs, from MS for their earlier packages, and so on. Maybe you
can't. Personally, I've never seen much of a need, nor even desire to do
this. Well, not quite true; under Linux I've been tempted to rip apart some
of the install packages, but that's simply because they're not built right
in the first place.
> >One big difference between this technology and previous install
technology
> >is that "is installed" takes on something of a vague meaning; in a lot of
> >cases, while the product is "installed", perhaps only a meg or two of it
are
> >actually copied to the machine - the rest can be faulted in as needed.
>
> Works great until the network is down or the disk is full. Then you've
> created a whole new class of errors.
Depends what one means by "error". "This feature is unavailable at this
time" and the program carries on however it feels like - perhaps in exactly
the manner it would have if the user had selected a customized install that
didn't include that component of the product in the first place. Is that an
error? Or is that correct behavior? If it is an error, is it an error in
the program, or in the network? Of course, since you can specify multiple
source locations, one of those can be the local CD, another a network share
point, another an ftp server, and so on. As a home user, doing this sort of
thing might not be terribly useful; for an enterprise rollout, it is a
wonderful tool to have.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:17:29 GMT
On 9 Apr 2001 09:08:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
Everett) wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:55:52 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chris Street wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Grep is your friend.
>>>
>>> Twenty minutes with it will not reveal what you need though
>>
>>That's for sure. I found the reference to "X-Mailer" in a #define,
>>but it wasn't used anyway else in the code! I found where a
>>UNAME macro is used, and a few other clues, but still haven't
>>found where the posting host string is assembled.
>>
>>Will look later, when time allows.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>
>You're barking up the wrong tree. Just get slrn source on linux
>and modify the headers it assembles and make it look like you
>are runnning Mozilla.
>
Sorry.
The point I was making, which seemd to be what was claimed was that
the header is contained as a string in the build. It isnt - not even
any part of it. For example, you can grep the entire release and Win98
only occurs once - in a programmers remark. The string isn't there to
be found, so aaron needs to tell use how he did it.......
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam A. Kersh)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:23:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:03:26 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> and yer fucking nuts.
>>> and that is beyond any doubt.
>>
>>Translation: Sliverdick has been beaten. That's why he's not resorting
>>to personal attacks to the exclusion of arguing the facts.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >If not, then it ain't fascist.
>>>
>>> fascism has nothing to do with socialism fuckhead. Fascism is based on
>>> corporate rule and capatilism.
>>
>>Only in your twisted mind. Under capitalism, all businessmen are free
>>to conduct business in a free market. Under Fascism, small businessmen
>>are only allowed to operate with the permission of the big businessmen...
>>therefore, Fascism is NOT capitalism.
>
>too bad you forgot to mention the fact that it was the large
>corporations that wrote the laws under the Nazis. It is capatailism.
the Nazi or Natioalsozialistishe Partei was formed in 1919 was
originally part of the National Socialist German Worker's party;. It
was founded on fascist principals, not capitalist. When Hitler took
over the party in 1921, they quickly moved to place all industry,
established the "superiority" of certain social groups (Can you say
"Final Solution," silverback?) and the supremacy of Der Fûhrer..
The deeps of silverback's ignorance is truly astounding.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Patron Member
TSRA, JPFO
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/
===============================================================================
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote
in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:31:17 +0100
> Think of your ATAPI CD-R as essentially a SCSI device. It
> should be mounted to /dev/sr0 or /dev/sr1, etc.
Or /dev/scd1 (SCSI CD 1)
------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
silverback wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:02:33 -0400, Rob Robertson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >silverback wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:16:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >What part of Islamic theology specifies the vertical integration of
> >> >industry within the country.
> >>
> >> fascism is corporate rule dummy. Maybe you should educate yerself and
> >> find out how many of those Iranian corporations are controlled by the
> >> religious allyotahs.
> >
> > So if the Ayatollahs who constitute the ruling *state* power control
> >those Iranian corporations, how does that support your "fascism is
> >corporate rule" thesis, Glen?
>
> [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud] is playing dum.... err forgot who I was
> replying to there folks excuse me. [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud] doesn't
> have to play dumb he is dumb. Gee [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud] you
> might do a little checking and when you do you will find that the
> Ayatollahs own and control those corporations.
Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed* control of
the economy, not societal control by corporations. You and I have had
this conversations several times in the recent past, but only now do
you recognize that it is the state rulers controlling businesses that
constitutes fascism, not rule by corporations.
Do you remember this exchange, Glen?;
From: Rob Robertson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: #Feds Slap California power gougers down!
Newsgroups: alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 2001-03-13 06:25:27 PST
[...]
> The fascists are right wingers like yerself that
> allowed corporations to rule.
Not very good advertising for your book, _The Nazi Hydra_. Fascism
is the state-directed control of industry, not the rule by corporations,
and that's exactly what you propose above. You want California to take
over control of the power industry, or maybe the U.S. federal government?
<end>
I think it's a hoot that Grey Davis tried to institute a fascist take-over
of the electricity industry (to the cheers of leftist idiots like you) and
PG&E told him to go pound sand by declaring bankruptcy. But anyway, we've
had this "state-directed economy" discussion on a monthly basis, it seems;
From: Rob Robertson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Senate "Borks" Ashcroft, 58-41
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.elections,
alt.society.liberalism
Date: 2001-02-16 13:19:56 PST
> >> The fascist economy in this country was that
> >> proposed as free enterprise by one of the du Pont brothers in 1942.
> >
> > Whatever nonsense you have cooking in your head, the error in your
> >statement revolves around the phrase "proposed as". Either there is
> >free enterprise or there is not. Fascism does not allow free market
> >forces to operate; it is state-directed "planned capitalism", as
> >noted by Dr. DiLorenzo above, and I don't care about arguments over
>
> right wing claptrap doesn't prove nothing outside of proving that yer
> a lying fraud.
We can get to the destruction of language as a part of the socialist's
arsenal against freedom some other time, but it's clear that fascism
entails state-directed "planned capitalism" and the subjugation of the
individual to the needs of the state. It's not 'right wing claptrap';
it's simply what fascism is. I'm sorry if that disturbs you for some
reason, Glen.
From http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html;
Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System?
On Principle, v1n3
Autumn 1993
by: C. Bradley Thompson
Throughout history there have been two basic forms of social organization:
collectivism and individualism. In the twentieth-century collectivism has
taken many forms: socialism, fascism, nazism, welfare-statism and communism
are its more notable variations. The only social system commensurate with
individualism is laissez-faire capitalism.
[...]
When government redistributes wealth through taxation, when it attempts to
control and regulate business production and trade, who are the winners and
losers? Under this kind of economy the winners and losers are reversed: the
winners are those who scream the loudest for a handout and the losers are
those quiet citizens who work hard and pay their taxes.
<end>
Fascism does not equal freedom, Glen. Fascism is authoritarian rule
with state-directed control of the economy, and as such is diametrically
opposed to laissez-faire capitalism, which is what I support. Here, try
these on for size;
http://www.lewRockwell.com
http://www.free-market.net
http://www.mises.org
http://www.hazlitt.org
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.unionsquarejournal.com
http://www.libertocracy.com
http://www.unknownideal.com
http://www.self-gov.org
http://www.lp.org
_
Rob Robertson
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:39:39 +0100
> Of course you are. Why would you be having these problems otherwise? A
> non-newbie would have read the appropriate How-To and came up with the
> answer or asked a polite question in a help-related Linux newsgroup (and
> there are several how-to's that allowed me to do what you are trying to
> do without such a headache)
>
Don't forget that some Linux distro's are better than others in this
respect - under Redhat 7.0 i had to change from the default IDECD
driver to IDE-SCSI and change symbolic link for /dev/cdrom to /dev/scd1.
Under Mandrake 7.2 it was already set-up correctly after installation -
my CD-RW was recognised by KISOCD as soon as it was run and CD's
are automounted just by browsing to /mnt/cdrom and /mnt/cdrom2 directories
(I have separate CD-RW and DVD drives) and CD's can just be ejected without
bothering to worry about unmounting them.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:43:37 +0100
> You're still a newbie. So am I. I was able to burn CDs with Mandrake 7.2
> with little setup other than telling XCDRoast which CD drive to use - it
> worked right out of the box.
>
Not all distro's are created equally - as you have discovered, mandrake can
handle IDE CD-RW drives right out of the box, Redhat 7.0 (and I presume also
SUSE from the top of this thread) need more messing about to set them up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:57:27 GMT
Good news! Apache now has 60.33% of the total server market,
compared to Microsoft-IIS's 25.26% share. Netscape-Enterprise
is a distant third at 3.79%.
http://www.inktomi.com/webmap/
Unfortunately, there is no information regarding secure webservers.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:21h:47m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 18:02:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 9 Apr 2001 10:47:39 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:48:24 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 667 Neighbor of the Beast
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:09:56 -0700
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> > Anonymous wrote:
>>> > >
>>>> > > server market share
>>>> > >
>>>> > > windows 41%
>>>> > > linux 27%
>>>> > > netware 17%
>>>> > > unix 14%
>>>> > > other 2%
>>>> > >
>>>> > > windows rules on servers too?!?
>>>> > > who woulda thunk it...
>>>
>>>41% is not rules.
>>
>>It is a plurality. While not a majority, it is in fact the
>>dominant platform. (This doesn't mean that it is the best
>>platform, of course!)
>>
>>>Anyway, since Linux is is Unix, let us combine the
>>>Unix and Linux scores.
>>
>>Be careful here. Unix is a conglomerate itself of many operating
>>systems: AIX, HP/UX, Tru64 Unix, Solaris, and even QNX and Mac OSX,
>>if I'm not mistaken. Linux is not Unix as far as the Open Group
>>is concerned (yes, that's a nitpick), although it's so close I for one
>>would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
>>
>
>Well Windows is a conglomerate of Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 2nd
>edition, Windows ME, Windows CE, Windows NT, Windows NT server, Windows
>2K Pro, Windows 2K Server and you let that all get lumped in a "Windows"?
Good point, although more than half of those aren't much of an issue as
far as servers are concerned; this still leaves
WinNT (maybe), WinNT Server, Win2K Pro (maybe), and Win2K Server.
I do wonder how many of those Windows boxes are NT, versus 2k.
Note that there is another difference; Unices are constructed by different
companies, whereas the Windows congomerate are all under Microsoft.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:21h:53m actually running Linux.
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
