Linux-Advocacy Digest #693, Volume #33 Wed, 18 Apr 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home ("User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys")
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal ("User Rdkeys Robert D.
Keys")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (GreyCloud)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (GreyCloud)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (GreyCloud)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (GreyCloud)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home
Date: 18 Apr 2001 16:09:02 GMT
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Martel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/18265.html>
> : Missing Novell server discovered after four years
> : "...the University of North Carolina has finally located one of its
> : most reliable servers - which nobody had seen for FOUR years...One of
> : the University's Novell servers had been doing the business for years
> : and nobody stopped to wonder where it was until some bright spark
> : realised an audit of the Campus network was well overdue...Attempts to
> : follow network cabling to find the missing box led to the discovery
> : that maintenance workers had sealed the server behind a wall."
> : Can you imagine an NT server running totally unattended for four
> : years?
> In the computer world, that's tantamount to discovering the remains of
> Pompeii. Except that it was still working! Now, the motive of discovery was
> Microshit and software audits. Were it not for the BSA, that lone server would
> have continued until the hardware died, humming away the years like the
> Energiser Rabbit. That is some good uptime, 4 years entombed in a room that
> was sealed off like the dead Pharohs of Old Egypt.
Gee, here at NCSU, I just took down an old AIX 1 server (IBM Model
80/386) that had been up continuously from 1989 through 2000 after the
Y2K rollover (it was even Y2K compliant). Mostly it was put out to
pasture for no good reason, except to drop a sparc in its place.
During 12 years of operation, its only problem was one HD bellyup.
My NT4 box, well, it regularly bluescreens me, at least once a month,
for no good reason.... such fun....
There is something to be said for something as ```remains of Pompeii''
in serverdom... if it works, don't muck it up with that other pointy
clicky thingie that bluescreens you to boredom....
Good ol' *nix runs forever......
Bob
------------------------------
From: "User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: 18 Apr 2001 15:15:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here are some files from a Windows 2000 Professional system along with
>> the copyright strings that are contained in them:
>>
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE
>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>>
> Yer right - look at that. Proof from a linvocate - sorry, that caught me off
> guard.
> big deal - you don't really consider those commands significant to the rest
> of W2K do you?
Absolutely. Those commands and the structures upon which they ride
form the basis of the Internet. It is interesting that the copyrights
are so old on those. Mine, from UNIX, have dates in the mid 90's.
MS using old software again..... could pose security issues.
I am not a Linux advocate, but work with all forms of UNIX.
But, I could not resist the reply, since files like the above
are fundmental to the Internet. I am assuming Gatesware still
wants to play on the internet?
Bob
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:22:51 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Jean-David Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
> > > > controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
> > > > in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
> > > > port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
> > > > much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
> > > > bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
> > > > is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
> > > > would not some private industry be just as dumb?
> > >
> > > Why let the facts get in the way of a good dis, right? Your lack of
> > > knowledge on the issue doesn't seem to prevent you from jumping to
> > > conclusions.
> > >
> > > The facts in the matter are a) that it wasn't a battleship, and b) that
> they
> > > were running a beta version of the control software which did not
> validate
> > > entry fields. As such, when an operator entered a 0 into a field, it
> was
> > > stored in the database, causing all subsystems that depended on that
> > > information to fail with a divide by zero exception.
> > >
> > > The application could not be restarted because every time they restarted
> it,
> > > it would re-read the data values and crash again, thus the ship was dead
> in
> > > the water. Further, the ship wasn't towed in, the ship had alternate
> > > propulsion mechanisms onboard because it was an experimental project
> running
Sorry, I didn't know that this article was that old. Always better safe
than sorry.
However, none of the surface vessels have any alternate propulsion
systems. All of the thrust goes thru the main reduction gears. If it
has more than one prop like the Aegis class does (2) then one of them
may be operable... but very doubtful if a computer system is running
this part. Most likely, the problem will be in the interface
circuitry... after all it sounds like a shake down cruise. Ran into a
lot of this before and the real culprit will be a miswire or similiar
breakage. Once in a while it's just a bad design. Those ships do shake
some and shake more when its full speed ahead.
Could it be that they forgot to shock mount the computers?? But knowing
NAVSEA they will have contracted a militarized version computer, not a
commercial version. Too many Milspecs dictate this.
Another area can very easily be the application program. The
grapevine mentioned that the NT O/S was thouroughly scrutinized and
thousands of bug fixes done without MS knowing it. After all they did
purchase the source quite a while ago. And another culprit, and its
happened before a lot, is sloppy workmanship on the ship from that
particular shipyard.
> > > beta software.
> > >
> > > The Navy and the canadian company that wrote the software stated that
> the
> > > problem was not related to NT in any way. In fact, the canadian
> contractor
> > > laid the blame on the Navy for not installing their validated version
> before
> > > the incident, which would have prevented the problem from ever occuring.
> > >
> > > The navy, however, believed that they should shake out the vessel and
> see
> > > where the potential failures might be so that in real emergency
> situations,
> > > they would know how to respond.
> >
> > Still, I think their point was that a single application brought the
> > entire show down... a situation that's critical when it really matters
> > (which admittedly it usually doesn't).
>
> It brought the whole show down because the application was central to the
> entire system. When the application won't run, neither does the system.
> That has nothing to do with the OS.
>
> > I've been an MS defender in here... still I would never use NT to do
> > something like that... that's just not what it's made for. UNIX is more
> > apptly suited in that role.
>
> Unix is neither more or less aptly suited. Please explain how the same
> design would somehow make the application work in Unix.
Actually, its not NT anymore in a sense... militarized version.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:26:08 -0700
Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:19:28 GMT, Franek
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> >> maybe the problem was with the application, but didn't it take nt down with
> >> it?
> >I wasn't there at the moment <g>.
>
> This happened on the USN cruiser Yorktown - look up comp.risks
> archives for the gory details. You guys do all read comp.risks, don't
> you?
>
> In summary, an application failed to validate input, causing a divide
> by zero error in a related process (NOT the entry screen) but that
> managed to cause a BSOD crash, which in turn took the engines down.
>
> Subsequent reboots failed due to the persistence of the error
> (recorded in the in the db) causing reboots to fail in the same way.
> The problem was eventually fixed by bypassing application autostart
> and hacking into the DB to fix the error. Yorktown was dead in the
> water until the problem was diagnosed and fixed, but IIRC eventually
> powered up and returned to port.
>
> The real trouble was that the NT box was a single point of failure.
>
> As others have said, you should not use NT OR a *nix in a truly
> critical system. Aircraft use at least triply redundant hardware with
> continual crosschecks and hand shaking to enable error detection and
> voting downnthe failing system. Less portable applications are written
> for Compaq NonStop (running the Guardian OS) or Stratus (running VOS)
> systems which have software and hardware designed to survive any
> single point failure and with hot-pluggable replacement for all
> components.
>
> HTH
I have serious reservations about the credibility or the accuracy of
comp.risks.
>
> --
> gregorie | Martin Gregorie
> @logica | Logica Ltd
> com | +44 020 76379111
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:54:06 -0700
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Rob Robertson wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Aaron> I think Sliverdick should be made to serve as an example to all others
> > > Aaron> who believe in his idiotic shit.
> > >
> > > Yes, by mocking his views and exposing his lies.
> > >
> > > Killing him for his ideas, as you advocate, is the
> > > act of a totalitarian, which you have often shown
> > > signs of.
> >
> > Aaron is not advocating killing Yeadon *directly* for his
> > ideas, Andrew; he's putting Glen in a position of evaluating
> > a system (pure democracy) that rejects inherent individual
> > rights and uphold political, mass-derived rights. If Glen
> > supports the 'will of the people' then it stands that any
> > system that rejects his just claim to his own life allows
> > a 'vote' as to whether or not Glen continues living.
> >
> > It's a valid point (even though I've chosen not to join
> > in the voting) because, as Aaron *implies* in his example,
> > the rejection of inherent individual rights will lead
> > inexorably to a vote on who lives and who dies. Kulkis
> > (and Glenworthy) both tacitly reject totalitarianism
> > in this thread.
>
> How could anyone suggest that this poor young
> man be executed--
>
> http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/abrose.htm
>
> Is there any doubt that Glenn D. Yeadon's photograph
> betrays a solemn, thoughtful, sincere borderline
> mentally retarded upstanding citizen?
LOL! I was thinking along the lines of Keel Hauling!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:57:12 -0700
Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > Rob Robertson wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aaron> I think Sliverdick should be made to serve as an example to all
>others
> > > > Aaron> who believe in his idiotic shit.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, by mocking his views and exposing his lies.
> > > >
> > > > Killing him for his ideas, as you advocate, is the
> > > > act of a totalitarian, which you have often shown
> > > > signs of.
> > >
> > > Aaron is not advocating killing Yeadon *directly* for his
> > > ideas, Andrew; he's putting Glen in a position of evaluating
> > > a system (pure democracy) that rejects inherent individual
> > > rights and uphold political, mass-derived rights. If Glen
> > > supports the 'will of the people' then it stands that any
> > > system that rejects his just claim to his own life allows
> > > a 'vote' as to whether or not Glen continues living.
> > >
> > > It's a valid point (even though I've chosen not to join
> > > in the voting) because, as Aaron *implies* in his example,
> > > the rejection of inherent individual rights will lead
> > > inexorably to a vote on who lives and who dies. Kulkis
> > > (and Glenworthy) both tacitly reject totalitarianism
> > > in this thread.
> >
> > How could anyone suggest that this poor young
> > man be executed--
> >
> > http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/abrose.htm
> >
> > Is there any doubt that Glenn D. Yeadon's photograph
> > betrays a solemn, thoughtful, sincere borderline
> > mentally retarded upstanding citizen?
>
> That requires a warning label, Martin. Shame on you.
>
> As far as Glen's "White Rose" website is concerned, I'm
> a bit perplexed that a search of "Nazi Hydra" on Google
> only shows a couple dozen hits, and the vast majority of
> them are Glen spamming several political newsgroups and
> getting *zero* response. If you're curious, here's the
> search,...
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Nazi+Hydra%22&btnG=Search&meta=site%3Dgroups
>
> ...and for kicks you could click on 'view thread' to see
> noone (apart from the neo-Nazi Vange) responding to it.
> The few times it appears in an ongoing thread is when I
> was contrasting Glen's call for nationalizing/naturalizing
> California's energy industry with other fascist calls to
> nationalize industries.
>
> Doesn't seem like much of a 'liberal resource', does it?
>
Nope. I think he's worried that he won't get enough electricity to
power his air-conditioner that the state bought him. He's looking for
utopia, but he won't find it in the U.S. Actually, not on this planet
he won't.
> _
> Rob
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:04:42 -0700
Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Rob Robertson writes:
> >
> > Rob> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> > >>
> > Aaron> Rob Robertson wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Rob Robertson wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Henry Glenworthy wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > "Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > "Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style
>pure-democratic
> > >> >> > > > > vote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall,
>and
> > >> >> > > > > filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now."
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > AYES:3
> > >> >> > > > > > NAYS:0
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > ABSTAIN:1
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good,
> > >> >> > > > > but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't
> > >> >> > > > > vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for
> > >> >> > > > > the action or the mass decision behind it.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > >>>>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > What!? You don't believe in "one person - one vote", even if
> > >> >> > > > the result is the trampling of individual rights? Tsk, tsk.
>Shouldn't
> > >> >> > > > the easily swayed, fickle general public get to determine the fate
> > >> >> > > > of minorities it has suddenly grown to dislike? Shouldn't people
> > >> >> > > > who drive while using a cell phone and drinking their Starbuck's
> > >> >> > > > latte be shot on the spot?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Heavens, no! That's just,... it's immoral, first of all, and entirely
> > >> >> > > incommensurate with the actual crime. What if we just firehosed them,
> > >> >> > > instead?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Should not the murderer be subjected to the loss of his own life?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Therefore, someone (like Sliverdick) who advocates democracy (mob rule),
> > >> >> > should be subjected to mob rule.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I agree completely that Glen should be responsible for his actions, but
> > >> >> I wanted to point out that since *I* don't believe in mob rule and view
> > >> >> it as an abdication of moral responsibility, I'm not voting 'aye' -- I'm
> > >> >> not voting at all on the question.
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > Aaron> I think Sliverdick should be made to serve as an example to all others
> > Aaron> who believe in his idiotic shit.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, by mocking his views and exposing his lies.
> > >>
> > >> Killing him for his ideas, as you advocate, is the
> > >> act of a totalitarian, which you have often shown
> > >> signs of.
> >
> > Rob> Aaron is not advocating killing Yeadon *directly* for his
> > Rob> ideas, Andrew; he's putting Glen in a position of evaluating
> > Rob> a system (pure democracy) that rejects inherent individual
> > Rob> rights and uphold political, mass-derived rights. If Glen
> >
> > That was your idea, and not one I believe Mr. Kulkis smart enough
> > to think up on his own. He has repeatedly called for the killing
> > of people for their political beliefs, and I think that is exactly
> > what he had in mind when he started this.
>
> It's right up there at the top of the post, Andrew. Kulkis suggested
> a vote and said "Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now."
>
> I think you're off-base on this.
I have to agree with you also on this. You have to realize that a lot
of people are frustrated with the system as a whole. Americans that
work hard all year and have to give up most of their earnings to those
that abuse the system is real infuriating. And then you run into the
image of your frustration.... POW!!! Its right there and in your face.
Aaron is just feeding to glen some of his own medicine is all.
>
> > Rob> supports the 'will of the people' then it stands that any
> > Rob> system that rejects his just claim to his own life allows
> > Rob> a 'vote' as to whether or not Glen continues living.
> >
> > Rob> It's a valid point (even though I've chosen not to join
> > Rob> in the voting) because, as Aaron *implies* in his example,
> > Rob> the rejection of inherent individual rights will lead
> > Rob> inexorably to a vote on who lives and who dies. Kulkis
> > Rob> (and Glenworthy) both tacitly reject totalitarianism
> > Rob> in this thread.
> >
> > >> Even when you are not making lying cowardly forged
> > >> posts.
> >
> > Rob> What posts did Kulkis forge?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yeah, I responded to that in your other post. I'd like to see what he
> has to say in response, first.
>
> > --
> > Andrew Hall
> > (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
>
> _
> Rob
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:08:07 -0700
Ted Clayton wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:46:43 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > >> As I understand it, capitalism is an economic system, fascism is
> > >> a political one. Therefore, the two terms are mostly independent.
> > >
> > > No. Fascism is an economic system which is USUALLY accompanied
> > > by a police state and/or totalitarian government.
> >
> > The following would seem to support that it's first and foremost a
> > political system, though it'd also be worth checking a
> > business/economics dictionary.
> >
> > Note the origin of the word ... seems to indicate authoritarianism (though
> > its common usage tends to refer only to nationalist rightists)
> >
> > ===
> > how can I help you? >dict fascism
> > Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed., Copyright 1991 Oxford Univ. Press se>
> >
> > /Fascism/ <<"f&SIz(@)m>> n.
> > 1. the totalitarian principles and organization of the extreme right-wing
> > nationalist movement in Italy (1922-43).
> > 2. (also fascism)
> > a. any similar nationalist and authoritarian movement.
> > b. [disp.] any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views.
> >
> > /Fascist/ n. & adj. /(also /fascist/)/. /Fascistic/ <<-"SIstIk>> adj.
> > /(also /fascistic/)/.
> >
> > It. fascismo f. fascio political group f. L fascis bundle: see /fasces/
>
> You won't get anywhere with this crowd by doing things like quoting
> dictionaries, especially if the dictionary points out that fascism is a
> right-wing ideology. All this proves to them is that the radical
> left-wingers who control academia and do things like create
> dictionaries, study history and politics, etc. are lying about fascism
> so that they can advance their own fascist agenda.
>
> But I guess you'll find this out on your own soon enough.
>
> Ted
>
> > ===
> >
> > --
> > Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> > elflord at panix dot com
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily
> those of CMU.
>
> Altogether, I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us.
> If the book does not shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother
> reading it in the first place? -- Franz Kafka, letter to Oskar Pollak,
> January 27, 1904
Pretty much on the mark. The old saying goes "Those that hold the purse
strings call the shots."
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
