Linux-Advocacy Digest #735, Volume #33 Fri, 20 Apr 01 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1 ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:9 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Gunner ©)
Re: Communism (Gunner ©)
Re: Communism (Gunner ©)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) (Gunner ©)
Re: What's the point (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM (Garry Knight)
Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1 (Conch)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Monte Milanuk")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (Charles Lyttle)
Re: What's the point ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM (Christian Huebner)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:18:08 GMT
"Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bIYD6.60652$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> O.k. now that I have your attention,.
>
> I have posted a few times here and there, but what amuses me is
this;
> Windows trolls complain about how useless, unfriendly, incomprehensable
> linux is, but most linux users have used windows for an extensive amount
of
> time. So after all the bashing of whom has the "lazzy" os I say it is
> Windows. Can you do "True" OS maintanence in the CLI?
Like what, say, reconfiguring your web server? Possibly, but there's a
nice, easy to use friendly GUI interface that does that, so who cares?
> P.s. Ya Windoze might have better games, but why buy a $1.5K
piece of
> silicon to play games when you can buy a PSX2 for $300?
Does the PS2 also do accounting, word processing, etc, etc?
> P.s.s. If windows is so "great" why can it be brought down with a
> "dumb-ass.txt.vbs"??????
You don't think a script in Linux could wipe out, at the least, all the
files you have write permissions to, and if you happen to be running as
root, pretty much everything? Of course it could. There are only two
significant differences involved. One, the general user under Linux
_doesn't_ run as root, and two, the typical Linux user doesn't run uknown
scripts. Then again, the typical Linux user is _still_ most likely a
techhie of some sort, who wouldn't do that under Windows, either.
When Linux has 80 million non-techhie-type users, the sort who _would_ run
unknown scripts, who _will_ end up wiping out all their own files, at least,
then we can say "Yes, but it didn't take the system down" - which of course
ignores the point of having a system in the first place, namely, to work
with your data, which is now gone.
------------------------------
From: Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:9 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:19:08 -0700
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:24:42 -0400, Rob Robertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> > > > In Milwaukee, the Democrat's unit of exchange is a pack of cigarettes.
>> > >
>> > > I'm not in Milwaukee, but I'll take them anyway. Make that Marlboro
>> > > Light 100's. How many votes did you get from me? One pack per vote
>> > > please.
>> >
>> > She's not just cheap...
>> > she's easy, too.
>> > :-)
>>
>> I suppose as a life long Democrat I ought to know what the going rate
>> for a vote is, but... Should that have been one carton per vote?
>
> If you switch your vote to Libertarian I think you get a joint and a
>package of Twinkies. At least that's what I've heard,... from people I
>hardly even know, really.
>
>> Sue
When I voted Libertarian for the first time, I got a boxed set of the
Federalist Papers, and my choice of a pint of Hoppe's #9, or 50rds of
7.62x39.. had lots of ammo, so took the Hoppes
Gunner
""The greatest evil is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted)
in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices...like the
bureaucracy of a police state or a thoroughly nasty business concern."
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
------------------------------
From: Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:19:11 -0700
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:18:03 -0400, Rob Robertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> up his stupid inability to read his own words).
>>
>> I consider my point proven.
>>
>> Kulkis is a liar.
>
> I've marked all his posts as 'read' in the newsgroup as
>I don't find any value in anything he has to say anymore.
>
OHNONOTTHAT!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
yawn.
Gunner
""The greatest evil is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted)
in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices...like the
bureaucracy of a police state or a thoroughly nasty business concern."
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
------------------------------
From: Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:19:12 -0700
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:52:52 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>In the past you have advocated shooting people just for being
>democrats.
>
>Do you deny this?
Ive done the same. But...Ive changed my outlook a bit. We should keep at
least a few breeding pairs in zoos, to show future generations what kind
of varmint is a Democrat/Liberal.
Gunner
""The greatest evil is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted)
in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices...like the
bureaucracy of a police state or a thoroughly nasty business concern."
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
------------------------------
From: Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:19:13 -0700
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:08:59 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> >> If you get caught with a women that is not your wife,you can go to jail
> >> for this;the women might be put to death.
>
> Aaron> What part of adultery is against the law do you not understand?
>
>It's a freedom thing, you would not understand.
Not in Muslim countries, according to THEIR laws.
Gunner
""The greatest evil is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted)
in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices...like the
bureaucracy of a police state or a thoroughly nasty business concern."
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: 21 Apr 2001 01:19:23 +0100
On 18 Apr 2001 18:24:41 GMT, Neil Cerutti wrote:
>Brent R posted:
>>If you have downloaded a trojan that puts a script named 'su' in
>>your home directory that's meant to emulate logging in as root
>>but really emails your password.
>I think good security demands that the current directory is not
>in your path, though, so to run the trojan I would need to type:
>
>$ ./su
>
>If you're paranoid you can type
>$ which su
>before embarking on this perilous command.
>
Of course, the really, really paranoid realize that "which" may also be
part of a trojan and give a false path to su so you /think/ you're safe... :-P
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · There will always be survivors - Robert A. Heinlein · []
------------------------------
From: Garry Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
gnu.emacs.help,alt.religions.vim,alt.religion.emacs,fj.editor.vi,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:42:42 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:29:27 -0500 in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am just so tired of XEmacs. [...]
> My left wrist is hurting from hitting C- and ESC- keys
ESC key? Why not use the Alt key? Or are you not running on a PC?
--
Garry Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Conch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:42:05 -0500
Martigan wrote:
>
> O.k. now that I have your attention,.
>
[///]
>
> P.s.s. If windows is so "great" why can it be brought down with a
> "dumb-ass.txt.vbs"??????
It's like this. Sure, Linux is robust and it stays up and running
compared to Windows 98 (or whatever version). But having a computer
and its OS stay up is quite boring if there are no applications to
run on the damn thing! I mean, sitting there all day long listening
to the computer fan while Linux runs and I have no apps to play with
doesn't exactly give me a woody!
If you are into sitting around listening to a computer fan all day,
then Linux is for you. If you like hot rodding around with the latest
and coolest commercial, shareware, and freeware apps, then Windows is
the only choice!
I didn't make the rules, this is just the way it is for right now.
------------------------------
From: "Monte Milanuk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:55:54 GMT
Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Man..that ladder logic is the wierdest way to program I've ever seen.
> If you have never used it, it would seem strange. But just think, there
> was automatic code generation before PCs. You can draw a diagram on your
> display, and it starts running. The VM reads a line of the drawing and
> executes it. Sort of like having a VM read a UML diagram and run the
> code.
As an ex-motor control electrician in a large steel mill, I have to agree.
Ladder logic makes a lot of sense if you are trained in how to troubleshoot
using electrical prints. Plus, the dirty little secret of PLC's and ladder
logic programming as far as I'm concered is that it is dirt easy to bypass
and circumvent failed field devices. No physical rewiring required. W/ a
PLC and ladder logic, it's pretty easy to figure out where you need to
modify things, and how. But to do the same w/ a regular programming
language... maybe for a professional programmer it might be simple, but not
for most technicians, I think. Not that tech's are stupid, just it's not a
normal way of thinking for them. That, and most people that proficient at
programming seem rather adverse to getting dirty on a regular basis ;p
Monte
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:07:41 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:28:40 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >I see the same thing. But NT is not often used where it could, due
> >either a crash or lack of timeliness, do any damage to the work process.
> >I have seem it tried several times. One crash shut down a process line
> >permitting liquid nylon to harden in pipes and valves. 15 minutes off
> >line cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another caused
> >disruption of a refinery operation. It took several days to get the
> >plant cleaned up and back on line.
>
> Dumb question, but .... whatever happened to the concept of redundancy?
> I'll admit it adds to expense (specifically, equipment and software
> licensing costs), but as far as I can tell, many web server farms using
> NT have just that: web server farms, with multiple machines; this makes
> the reliability quite adequate -- maybe even 99.999 % (5 minutes/year)... :-)
>
These aren't servers, these are controllers. For this application there
are no fail over mechanisms. Also the system as designed came pretty
close to the 99.999%. It is just that the 5 minutes is very costly.
> Granted, this is a far cry from industrial control processes.
> (How long does it take for nylon to harden in a tube line, just out
> of curiosity? Are we talking hours, minutes, or seconds?)
>
about 12-15 minutes in this case. Due to flow characteristics there are
points in the line where the temperature drops fast which leads to local
solidification which cascades rapidly.
Even if the computer had come up in only a minute or two, bringing
everything else up took time.
> (ObLinuxPlug: Linux would work very well here :-) )
>
Actually, it would. But I haven't seen the mechanisms for handling the
situation ported to Linux yet. This is a good opportunity for some
companies that developed PDP-11 and VAX hardware/software to jump in.
Most of that stuff could be easily ported. Perhaps no to the PC
platform, but to some Linux platform.
> >
> >I build SCADA system also. Several US cities are running systems I
> >designed. But if the operator displays fail, the A-B PLCs and
> >specialized computers will still run everything OK. The operator, just
> >has to run around to check local controls like he did before the
> >computers were installed.
>
> Can't comment unless SCADA systems are things like those used in
> metropolitan traffic projects with gigantic status screens showing
> where every traffic light, streetcar, or train is.
>
Right. Supervisory, Control, and Data Acquisition. Usually you have lots
of little computers spread around the town doing some job and reporting
back to a central control station. The control station can monitor data
coming in or send out commands to override local pre-programmed control.
If contact is lost with the central station, local computers have a
default program. Workers can go around and manually operate the local
controllers.
> [rest snipped]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 1d:22h:34m actually running Linux.
> We are all naked underneath our clothes.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:09:06 -0400
Edwin wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9bolc7$a8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The problem is not that Windows or Office are bad software. They aren't.
> > > Windows and Office are both fabulous.
> >
> > Hahahahah!
> >
> > Windows and office are _appauling_ products!
> >
> Of course. That's why so many people buy them, because they want to be
> appalled.
> >
> > -Ed
You really are that stupid, arent you?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:09:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nomen Nescio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:20:06 +0200 (CEST)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) eeped:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nomen Nescio
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> clacked:
>> >> <snype>
>> >> >
>> >> > because it would cost them more than they paid for thier machine in the
>> >> > first place
>> >> > ya retard
>> >> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >> >
>> >> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>> >> > more even than death
>> >> > - bertrand russell
>> >> Upgrading a kernel. Well, I have SUSE Linux, I goto the suse ftp site,
>> >> download the latest rpm kernel, drop into super user mode, then rpm -Uvh
>> >> kernel.rpm and voila, reboot, and I have a new kernel. Is it that hard,
>> >> no, so stop spreading FUD on issues you have no experience.
>> >
>> >why look, it's another lying sack of shit unix headcase! he snips the
>> >context and then accuses me of ignorance! way to go fuckhead. if you
>> >ever wonder why linux has gone nowhere with endusers reread yourself.
>>
>> We should just count ourselves lucky we don't have you as an advocate...
>
>i don't do advocacy dimwit
>
>> you're getting far too wound up for usenet, it's not that important, take a
>> few valium and relax. It'll all seem better in the morning.
>
>you write like a homosexual
And how would you know?
For the record: my understanding is that homosexuals are more intelligent
and more sensitive than average. So "writing like a homosexual" does
not seem to be a very effective insult... :-)
But there is an issue. Assume $100,000 [*] a year for a seasoned computer
professional. This means that a typical kernel rebuild (15 minutes)
is going to cost approximately $12.50 in labor costs alone.
How scandalous.
There are, admittedly, additional costs. Going from 2.2 to 2.4 will
require the replacement of a few utilities, mostly firewall and
connectivity stuff (pppd, ipfwadm (2.0) => ipchains (2.2) => ??? (2.4)).
[.sigsnip]
[*] this will vary, depending on many factors, of course.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and how much did a Windows install cost, again? :-)
EAC code #191 4d:11h:42m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:13:41 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:33:15 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Greg Cox wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The version of the story I heard was that the first ship of a new class
> >> of Navy ship was out testing a new ship's control system programmed
> >> using a custom database running on NT4 and the DB software crashed, not
> >> NT. I believe the story goes that the captain said in his report that
> >> the DB software crashed a couple of times and was successfully restarted
> >> but the ship was towed in on the third crash with the system left in its
> >> crashed state for later analysis by the developers...
> >>
> >> --
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Essentially the version that was posted here. The DB crash, iirc, was
> >due to the cook entering too many items in a dinner menu. This crashed
> >the DB, the DB took down NT. It got restarted without anyone knowing why
> >it crashed, the cook did it again. When it crashed, it took out
> >propulsion. On the third try, the Captain decided to call for a tow
> >until the problem could be solved.
> >
> >One joke was that it should be intuitive that entering 4 entrees in the
> >dinner menu will shutdown the ships propulsion. The Navy fixed the
> >problem by making a new regulation prohibiting more than 3 entrees at a
> >meal.
>
> Oh man...what a way to solve a problem!
>
> I hadn't been aware that it was the cook putting in too many entrees
> that was causing the database to crash. Reminds me of the old song
> (poem?) about the lack of a horse's shoenail causing loss of a battle...
>
> OTOH, a database crashes when it will -- one hopes very infrequently,
> but how does one specify that a DB will crash when, say, a scratch page
> fills up and gets flushed out to a disk that's already full?
> One also hopes that next time the Navy designs a slightly more robust
> system that won't go down every time the DB server decides to powder
> its nose.
>
> (One would also think that the propulsion DB system and the cook's
> DB system were on different systems. Like the cooks' DB system is
> ultra-critical to ship's operation -- he could write things down on
> index cards or paper notebooks if he had to. Note quite as convenient
> of course, but certainly not life-threatening.)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 1d:23h:40m actually running Linux.
> The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
Mind you, I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report. But is was
offered as proof that the crash wasn't the fault of the OS. "It was a
misbehaving application that caused the OS to crash." The Navy had to
clear the OS or justify to congress why it insisted on MS when most
contractors were saying it couldn't (or shouldn't) be done. The
contractor had to clear the OS because he promised that it could be
done. But he was late, and the Navy had to either cancel a test at a
loss of millions, or go to test with a beta version. So the vendor says
"we were only a little late, if they had just waited a few more days".
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:19:43 GMT
Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> Hate to burst your bubble, but SMB is based on IBM's technology. Microsoft
> simply ran with it. Having said that, after you kick IBM and Microsoft,
> I do agree that NFS should of been what they used.
>
IBMer #1 : This doesn't work.
IBMer #2 : OK lets publish it. MS will steal it and screw themselves.
This tactic is defined in chapter 5, paragraph 4, subparagraph 3, line 2
of the Spy vs. Spy handbook.
> Here's a interesting note. Most people don't realize the NFS tends to scale
> better than SMB on both network resources AND host CPU load. Back in the
> days when SMB was first picked up, most computers couldn't saturate a 10Mb link,
> because the bus was maxed, as was the CPU. These days, it's a different picture.
> In short, for VERY large file servers, NFS, while tends to support a slightly
> lower per-client transfer rate than SMB implementations, tends to support MANY
> more clients on a single host without being CPU bound than do SMB file servers.
>
> Enjoy,
> Greg
>
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Roy Culley wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18370.html
> > >
> > > Here's a snippet:
> > >
> > > "However, if for some reason it's necessary for you to use the many thrilling
> > > features of Windows networking without NTLMv2, then there is absolutely
> > > nothing you can do but pray."
> >
> > Microsoft love re-inventing the wheel over and over again. There was a
> > perfectly adequate file sharing protocol, called NFS which all UNIX's
> > had, from IRIX to Solaris, you were guaranteed that they could
> > inter-operate, but no, Microsoft had to be different, and now they are
> > facing the consequences for their arrogance. Do I have any sorrow for
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:28:17 -0500
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <p2BD6.4999$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Reiserfs is still not 100% as I understand it. Still minor bugs and
> > problems with the kernel.
>
> Instead of writing your usual FUD why not try reiserfs? I've used it
> since it was a patch to the 2.2 kernel. It is excellent considering
> the journaling was added late on in its development (many thanks to
> SuSE here who have pushed this and supplied devlopment resources). Is
> any software 100%? Reiserfs is very close.
When talking about your file system, there shouldn't be *ANY* bugs. MS is
very loathe to make changes to it's file system, and when it does, it spends
eons testing them. FAT32 started testing before Windows 95 came out, but
didn't actually appear in a product until nearly 2 years later.
Any possible bug in your filesystem should scare the living hell out of you.
One bug can corrupt your entire disk.
------------------------------
From: Christian Huebner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
gnu.emacs.help,alt.religions.vim,alt.religion.emacs,fj.editor.vi,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:26:06 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Id suggest trying elvis also.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:56:14 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mind you, I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report. But is was
> offered as proof that the crash wasn't the fault of the OS. "It was a
> misbehaving application that caused the OS to crash." The Navy had to
> clear the OS or justify to congress why it insisted on MS when most
> contractors were saying it couldn't (or shouldn't) be done. The
> contractor had to clear the OS because he promised that it could be
> done. But he was late, and the Navy had to either cancel a test at a
> loss of millions, or go to test with a beta version. So the vendor says
> "we were only a little late, if they had just waited a few more days".
This is all completely untrue.
Read all the info collected by Jerry Pournelle on the issue
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/Yorktown.html
The contractor in question also stated specifically that the navy had gone
against their recomendation of installing newer software that didn't have
the problem PRIOR to the event.
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.html
"... the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE
Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy
programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it
should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened
if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which
he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred. "
You should also read the original article which is the source of all this:
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/digiorgio.htm
Notice that in an article of great length, only 2 paragraphs are devoted to
NT, and none of the say the OS crashed.
Further, the same author that wrote the gcn article (which quotes from the
usni article) also clarifies his statements in a followup article:
http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/november9/6.htm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
