Linux-Advocacy Digest #535, Volume #33 Thu, 12 Apr 01 04:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (GreyCloud)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (GreyCloud)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (GreyCloud)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (GreyCloud)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Ian Pulsford)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0 (GreyCloud)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Pete Goodwin)
Linux.org, gnome.org and linux.com ("Tan Siong Hua")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Gerhard Woeginger)
Re: Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now. (GreyCloud)
Great Bob Young (of Redhat) Interview/Q&A ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:14:10 -0700
Brent R wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > MH wrote:
> > >
> > > "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > (The following are the editorial opinions of the author, no more, no
> > > > less)
> > > >
> > > > It was good to see the DOW go back above 10000 yesterday, but there
> > > > are lingering doubts about whether the bear market is over.
> > > >
> > > > Which has many people asking, what happened to the optimism of the 90's?
> > >
> > > Saturation and the laws of diminishing returns.
> > >
> > > > Where is that spirit of unbridled optimism that fueled so many years of
> > > > steady growth.
> > >
> > > It has been replaced with skepticism and malaise.
> > >
> > > > The author would like to advance a pet theory. It's all Microsoft's
> > > > fault.
> > >
> > > Interersting concept, albiet all too common.
> > >
> > > > For the past decade, there has been a bubble of investment spending,
> > > > which
> > > > has produced high profits and further investment, all based upon a
> > > > single phenomenon:
> > > > Moore's Law. The principle that says that computers will go twice as
> > > > fast every 18 months.
> > >
> > > I believe simple greed would suffice as a more accurate and plausible
> > > explanation of the phenomenon you allude to.
> > >
> > > [history lesson snipped]
> > >
> > > > And every year or so a new type of microprocessor would be released with
> > > > even more
> > > > power. And not coincidentally, a new version of the Windows OS would be
> > > > released,
> > > > which added features at the expense of using more CPU resources. So
> > > > everyone had
> > > > to spend a bunch of new capital on upgrades, which started the virtuous
> > > > cycle all over again.
> > >
> > > Define 'everyone'. Many organizations have not upgraded beyond windows 95 or
> > > 98.
> > >
> > > > But now the cycle seems to be breaking, and the blame, for this author,
> > > > rests squarely on
> > > > Microsoft. They seem to have hit the wall, to have run out of ideas.
> > >
> > > Solely?
> > >
> > > > It has been three years since Windows 98 now, and Microsoft is working
> > > > on their fourth attempt
> > > > at a replacement OS (Windows SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and now Win
> > > > XP), but
> > > > most desktops are still running good old Win 98. Why? Because there are
> > > > no features in the new
> > > > OS's that are interesting enough to be worth the pain and expense of an
> > > > upgrade.
> > >
> > > I'll agree for the most part with this.
> > >
> > > > When the internet began to take off there was an opportunity for
> > > > Microsoft to become
> > > > its champion. However instead MS appears to have seen the internet as a
> > > > threat to its desktop
> > > > based computing empire, and it attempted to smother the baby. First (as
> > > > this author
> > > > recalls) by promoting the MSN as a rival to the internet itself, and
> > > > when that didn't work,
> > > > by (according to Sun)poisoning standards like Java that could have been
> > > > used to
> > > > build robust e-commerce systems, leaving the world of internet commerce
> > > > in disarray,
> > > > and turning dot-coms into dot-bombs as cunsumers shied away from the
> > > > resulting mess.
> > > > In an attempt to close the barn door after the horse was out, MS has put
> > > > forward their
> > > > new dot-net initiative. It has been called mind-numbingly complex, and
> > > > due to customer
> > > > suspicion over Microsofts motives, it is seeing adoption rates about
> > > > equal to the Ford Edsel.
> > >
> > > Sun is nothing more than a MS wannabe. Java, as most know, is not all that
> > > Sun purports it to be.
> > >
> > > > In the view of the author, Microsoft overall seems to be transitioning
> > > > in behavior, from an
> > > > innovator that liberated users with cheap easy-to-use software, to a
> > > > mainframe-style company,
> > > > obsessed with controlling users and maximizing its revenue from each
> > > > trivial product upgrade.
> > > > As users balk at painful and expensive upgrades, MS is squeezing for
> > > > more license fees from
> > > > products already in use. One recent article seemed to indicate that MS
> > > > had asked one firm to pay
> > > > a license for every CLIENT system that accessed a web site built using
> > > > windows NT.
> > >
> > > MS still makes products that are easy to install and use, and they are
> > > actually getting better at providing this benefit.
> >
> > If you call "repeating the same series of point-and-click operatons
> > over and over again, for 150 files" easy. Most people, however, would
> > call that laborious, irritating, and error-prone.
> >
> > One of the things computers are BEST at is boring, repititous tasks..
> > and yet...Mafiasoft software provides NO facilities for the average
> > user to automate boring, repititious tasks.
> >
> > why is that?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. BASH/CYGWIN is available for Windows, as is
> sed & awk, batch files (ok they do suck but they can do *some* large
> scale things fast), the Windows Scripting Host (although I haven't tried
> this one out) and some limited DOS console stuff that can do scripting
> pretty easily.
>
> > > Obsessed with controlling users? I'll go along with that. They are, after
> > > all, a monopoly company. Most monopoly companies behave in the same
> > > predictable ways.
> > >
> > > > Students of history will see that this sort of behavior will inevitably
> > > > to the demise of Microsoft.
> > > > But for the US economy, this will be a good thing.
> > >
> > > Demise seems a bit strong to me.
> > >
> > > > The Barbarians have already gathered at the gates. The Linux OS, which
> > > > some claim is more
> > > > powerful and robust than Windows, giving the scalability of large UNIX
> > > > servers to cheap intel iron,
> > > > is already growing faster than Windows 2000, and is reported by the Wall
> > > > Street Journal to have claimed
> > > > over a 30% market share in servers. Although Linux use on the desktop
> > > > has been limited to under 10%
> > > > by the inertia of users accustomed to MS Office, there has now been an
> > > > end-around-run. The Openoffice
> > > > organization ( http://www.openoffice.org ) has released an office suite
> > > > with nearly the same look-and-feel
> > > > as MS Office. It will process MS office document formats, and runs
> > > > equally well under Windows and Linux,
> > > > and is being given away for FREE in perpetuity.
> > >
> > > Look and feel don't equate to the ability to usurp an extremely well
> > > entrenched product.
> > >
> > > > Not only that, but old-time arch-rivals of MS, like IBM, are beginning
> > > > to lose their fear of defying
> > > > Microsoft. It seems that it has suddenly dawned on them that Microsoft
> > > > isn't all that talented, or
> > > > tough, and given their relative sizes, it might just be time for IBM to
> > > > give pipsqueak Microsoft a
> > > > thrashing they have long deserved. The first blow is for IBM to spend
> > > > over $1billion on Linux
> > > > development this year.
> > >
> > > Jury is out, IMO, on what impact IBM will have on MS's market share through
> > > it's exploitation of Linux.
> > > Some corporate piss may trickle from the commode down to Linux's end-user
> > > base.
> > > Funny, you would have me mistrust MS, (easy to do) but would have me trust
> > > IBM?
> >
> > IBM has new leadership. The current CEO, upon assuming the title,
> > fired off a corporation-wide memo blasting management for specifically
> > ignoring customers' true needs, and that this was the primary reason
> > why IBM was posting losses in the midst of a booming economy. AIX was
> > one such project. Yes, it's unix...but it is so much UNLIKE other
> > kinds of unix, that it "doesn't play well with others".
> >
> > Adopting Linux is a way of now meeting customers' needs for systems
> > which can run the same administrative scripts as their Solaris and
> > HP-UX systems, without IBM having to repeat the capital investment of AIX.
>
> I haven't worked at all with AIX so I suppose I will accept that it's
> more of a malevolent commercial UNIX than a benevolent one. But... I
> have heard that Linux will run on S/390 as a VM in a dynamic memory
> partition only, and underneath it's really just S/390 anyway. So why not
> just run S/390 (I work on an IBM ES/9000 system at work by the way)?
>
> > > > As Microsoft does a long slow fade into irrelevance, there will be a
> > > > liitle pain for the current
> > > > users of Windows, but it will be quickly replaced by enthusiasm. As the
> > > > constipating plug of Windows
> > > > is removed from corporate IS departments, a flush of new creativity will
> > > > ensue as technical personnel
> > > > suddenly feel free to explore more creative and innovative ways to build
> > > > servers, networks and protocols.
> > > > Which will result in another rush of capital spending, and we will begin
> > > > anew the virtuous cycle
> > > > of economic growth.
> > >
> > > Until open source has a web browser that will compel users to switch from
> > > the now dominant I.E., and software efficacious to educational uses is
> > > produced, it will remain just a pleasant refuge for the more tech savvy from
> > > MS's visions and frustrations, and the best server platform available. But
> > > then I enjoy shell scripting, AWK, SED, and the the 'feeling' that using
> > > open source products provide. Just don't expect me to cruise the web \
> > > Usenet with NN || Mozilla || Konqueror || <insert inferior browser here>
> >
>
> --
> - Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
I've heard that IBMs new S/390 can run 35 years without crashing. Any
truth to this?
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:23:00 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > How can you compare PDP-11 assembler to 8080 assembler?
> > > The evidence is in seeing the same reserved words that DEC uses in
> > > comparison to ANSI basic. North Star also wrote their basic, but never
> > > patterned it after DEC like Gates did. MS basic then was so close to
> > > DECs that its a wonder DEC didn't sue him.
> >
> > Especially for the CTRL-Z for end of file.
> >
> > That right there is the smoking gun.
>
> Uhh.. Ctrl-Z is the ASCII definition of EOF.
Yes, in DECs file system it is the definition of EOF.
In UNIX the EOF is CTRL-D!
CTRL-Z is char code 26. Just another character.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:29:23 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > Java and
> C++ are very similar languages. What you are complaining about
> > is the difference between whether the code is compiled into a binary or
> > whether it is compiled to "byte-code" and "interpreted" at run time.
> > If you compile Java code to machine code executables the way you
> > do with your C++ code the preformance issues end up becoming equal.
> > It's the JVM you're complaining about, not the language.
>
> Even compiled Java suffers many drawbacks over C++. For instance, Java's
> garbage collection makes any application that frequently allocates and
> deletes objects much less efficient than C++ which allows much better
> handling of memory.
>
I think you have the memory allocation schema in C++ and Java backwards.
Java doesn't suffer from memory leaks. One screw-up in C++ by not
deallocating what you allocated and things go haywire.
VC++6.0 still has problems with multiple inheritance. The MSDN
libraries show work arounds for this problem. Gnu C++ doesn't suffer
from these problems.
> > >People buy MS products because they get something out of it. Ever tried
> to
> > >use Borland products ?
> >
> > Borland makes grep IDEs...much better than MS Visual Studio that's for
> darn
> > sure. Borland compilers are much superior to Microsoft's.
>
> Actually, Borland's IDE is quite buggy and error prone. It lacks key
> useability features. For instance, there is no way to easily manage all the
> windows opened up by BCB, and there isn't any way to split code windows to
> see two parts of the code at the same time. The only way to do it is to
> open two seperate edit windows.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:00:07 GMT
Jim Broughton wrote:
> Ya know Pete this is a linux ADVOCACY group not a bitch about linux group.
What's wrong with negative advocacy? Can't take the truth huh?
> If you want to pitch a bitch go somwhere else.
I see everyone here has their eyes tightly shut. I'm just trying to pry
them open a little.
> OR why not just advocate as
> to why you use linux (no mater how many distros you have tried). You can
> also read a little and learn.
I already know more than you. For one thing I can spell.
> If your going to be porting apps over from
> windows I would sincerly hope you do or your apps are going to fall flat
> on their faces.
This statement makes absolutely no sense.
> Of course this would give you even more to bitch about.
I'm complaining about how inept Linux appears to be after using the
wonderful system that is Windows.
> If your so brain dead that learning anything is out of the question why
> not just go back to rock tablets and a chisle+hammer or better yet give up
> on linux and just stay with windows the rest of us would throw a party on
> hearing this. No you would not be invited.
Ah, yes, the old argument. You can't take what I say, so you ask me to
leave.
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:03:27 GMT
Grant Fischer wrote:
> Try their support database.
>
> http://sdb.suse.de/sdb/en/html/ashley_dhcp-2nics.html
Yes, I read that article. It doesn't solve the problem.
> Bugs happen. These companies build extra stuff into their distributions
> trying to make them easy to install, and they are going to have
> bugs. Hopefully they will get around to putting the fix in themselves;
> I think this report is from SuSE 7.0.
Yes I know bugs happen. However, it is just so many more happen with Linux
that just appear plain dumb. DHCP loads _before_ the devices load. Hence
the devices are screwed when they try to load. Duh?
> I believe the firewall scripts just uses the device name, not the IP
> address; you can configure a fixed IP address, but it attempts to
> autodetect if you don't. People use it for ppp devices, so once
> the order is right hopefully it'll work with DHCP also.
I remember reading somewhere that the firewall can't handle DHCP.
> Note to Pete: this isn't really attempt to help you, but is for
> the benefit of the audience. This "I've fallen and can't get up"
> act is funny, so others might want to see the joke.
Oh I'm sure we're all splitting our sides with mirth.
> I have horror stories about networking under Windows that would make
> you run screaming. I deal with them in a different manner.
I have none. It works better than Linux.
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:04:25 GMT
Jim Broughton wrote:
> or could it be that your brain is as ill functioning as a windows based
> computer.
Ah yes, can't think of a suitably intelligent response, let's jump into the
quagmire of personal attacks. Ah yes, that'll work!
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:44:22 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Donn Miller wrote:
>
> > Alright, Pete is back! His postings and the ensuing responses always
> > make for a good laugh. I was wondering what the he11 happened to him.
>
> Did ya miss me?
>
> I've been busy porting my Windows app over the Linux with Kylix.
>
> > Each week, Pete reviews a new distro. Don't miss his critical review of
> > Slackware next week, same time, same NG.
>
> Did Slackware years ago. Tried out Mandrake, but didn't like it. SuSE seems
> to just work better, network/module funnies notwithstanding.
>
> --
> Pete
> Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
> Kylix: the way to go!
How is the Kylix working out as compared to MS office software?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:05:24 GMT
Tim Kelley wrote:
> The boot process loads kernel modules before any daemons start up ... well
> I don't know how SuSE does things but that is sorta silly.
That's exactly my point.
> Windows is definitey not free of things like this, on our network at work
> the novell netware client loads before some services it depends on,
> causing it not error out unless you wait a few seconds to log in.
Our Netware at work just works. No waiting to log on.
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:06:25 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
> I don't get it. The kernel and modules are distro independent. If there
> is some ordering of modules issue, why don't you just modify your system's
> startup scripts to load things in the order that works for you.?
I tried moving DHCP to boot.local as suggested by SuSE support.
Unfortunately, it is still too soon.
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:52:29 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> This is why the army, although thermal imaging is available, STILL
> camoflauges all equipment, because only SOME opponents have thermal
> vision equipment.
>
> For the others, who don't have it...the camo works just fine.
>
I can't wait until we all have thermal imaging gear coz then we can all
paint our tanks florescent techno-swirls. Kkaki is so drab.
IanP
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:09:40 GMT
Jim Broughton wrote:
> hmm sounds like another Pete Goodwin wannabe.
(in)famy at last!
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:50:39 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > Microsoft says it's a quality issue, which is nonsense (what -
> > > > > Microsoft, concerned with quality? <g>). A Register article a few
> > > > > weeks ago asserted that MS's real reason is that USB doesn't offer a
> > > > > content-control mechanism, and 1394 does.
> > > >
> > > > Didn't MS ever consider all of those USB devices people purchased??
> > > > Some enterprising company will make adapter cards and drivers for
> these
> > > > orphaned products.
> > >
> > > USB 1.1 is still supported, USB 2.0 isn't because USB 2.0 isn't done
> yet.
> >
> > What is MSs' intentions then?
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-5558916.html
>
> "Microsoft "recognizes the importance of USB 2.0 as a newly emerging
> standard and is evaluating the best mechanism for making it available to
> Windows XP users after the initial release," the representative wrote in an
> e-mail. "
>
> "But MicroDesign Resources analyst Peter Glaskowsky believes Microsoft will
> be able to add USB 2.0 support to Windows XP fairly easily. "The vast
> majority of code is already in the (operating system), so all that is really
> needed are new drivers," he said. "
Ok, I've read the article. I would say that HP and the rest that
manufacture USB ported products will have written their own drivers. HP
is already vested into USB along with other vendors. So, I think its
becoming a non-issue.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:10:28 GMT
Jarko Vihriala wrote:
> First of all you're referring to linux as the complete package,
> remeber, that the "Linux" is the kernel, the core of the OS,
> the applications on top of it depend on the used distribution.
"Linux" will be seen by many as the complete package, just as Windows is.
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
From: "Tan Siong Hua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux.org, gnome.org and linux.com
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:57:58 +0800
I heard that Lnux is more stable, but I pay constant visit (every day) to
these 3 sites, www.linux.com, www.linux.org and www.gnome.org and the
gnotices in the www.gnome.org site, what I get is that these web site
frequently run out of order, time are I can't access this sites very often,
when compared t www.microsoft.com that only out of service for a very rare
basis, I wonder what's wrong with these Linux hosted sites, problem with
bandwidth? I don't know.....
------------------------------
From: Gerhard Woeginger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 12 Apr 2001 08:04:19 GMT
In comp.theory Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:12 -0600, Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#>
#>From what I've seen, it IS true that quite a few Java VMs _seem_ to
#>have been written in complete ignorance of the 30 years or so of work
#>that's been done on garbage collectors for Lisp, Smalltalk, Self,
[... deleted ...]
#>work perfectly well. In doing so, they often create situations that
#>make even a really well written GC substantially less efficient than
#>it could otherwise have been.
#>
#
# Why on earth are you comparing Java with C and Pascal? I think the
# discussion has been around Java and C++.
Could you please STOP cross-posting this thread to comp.theory?
___________________________________________________________
Gerhard J. Woeginger ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now.
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:08:17 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > * Have You Heard...Compaq has been left red faced by a defacement
> > > > > > double whammy as two of its sub domains were vandalized by two
> > > > > > different hacking groups?
> > > > > > Publication: vnunet.com
> > > > > > Issue Date: 22 March 2001
> > > > > > Title: Compaq Websites Suffer Double Hack
> > > > > > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1119535
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was the article.
> > > > >
> > > > > The article doesn't seem accurate.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com+
> > > > >
> > > > > Shows that on March 25th, the first site was running on Compaq Tru64
> > > Unix,
> > > > > and only switched to NT4 sometime in the last week or so.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it may not seem accurate, but an intrusion is an intrusion.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I follow you. The article claims that it was NT4 that was
> > > breached, yet Netcraft seems to indicate that at the time of the attack,
> > > they were running Tru64 (and Apache). Clearly one must call into
> question
> > > the validity of the article at all if they can't even get what OS the
> > > computer was running correct.
> >
> > "The two sub domain servers, both running hackers' favourite
> > Microsoft IIS 4 on NT, were hit overnight."
> >
> > This is the part above.
>
> Note also that it says which web servers were hit:
>
> "One of the defacements on www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com by
> Antihackerlink appears to have used the well documented Unicode exploit "
>
> And again, look at the link I provided:
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com+
>
> It shows that www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com was running Tru64 with Apache
> at about the time the article claims.
>
> > "Compaq's main site, Compaq.com, runs the less attacked Apache web
> > server on
> > Compaq's own flavour of Unix, Tru64."
> >
> > I would say by all of this that MS draws more attention to hackers and
> > that hackers do breach the security. If UNIX was the target, I'd say
> > they would have a more difficult time. Not impossible, just difficult.
>
> Which is completely irrelevant to the point here. At least one of the
> breached computers was apparently actually running Unix, and not NT4 like
> the article claims. That brings the entire article into doubt.
I went to your suggested link. All I found was that
www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com uses NT. Never mentioned the Tru64
UNIX as the server being intruded upon. But thats Compaqs problem.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Great Bob Young (of Redhat) Interview/Q&A
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:07:36 +1200
http://slashdot.org/interviews/01/04/11/1555216.shtml
Bob's replies are worth a read. Longest reply concerns the expansion of
Intellectual Property ("otherwise know as government granted monopolies").
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
******************************
