Linux-Advocacy Digest #26, Volume #34 Sat, 28 Apr 01 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Boris Dynin")
Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Communism ("Marksman")
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy. (pip)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Nomen Nescio)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Nomen Nescio)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:14:00 GMT
Paul Repacholi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VMS is not affected by this sort of thing, the 'bomber' runs out of
> quota and gets an error.
Cool! I didn't know that.
Although I do know (from experience) that hardware failure
can take it down. But that's true of anything.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:14:01 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's silly. All you need is to queue the upgrade to
> > any given page until nobody's looking at it.
>
> And you magically know when nobody is looking at it, how?
The OS should know that. At work, our system (Galaxy
running on OpenVMS 7.2-1) knows automagically when a
certain record is up on one terminal and won't allow
any other terminal to change it. It isn't that much
more difficult to write the update software so that
it keeps checking to see when nobody's using that page
and writes the update then.
> You have to go around to each terminal and find out.
Not if the system is well-designed you don't.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: "Boris Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:36:58 -0700
There's MSDN article on MS SAX implementation (MSXML3.DLL). Basically, what
it says is that MSXML3 cannot be accessed from VBScript (ASPs); it's
possible that some of its methods can still be accessed from VBScript but
not all of them. You should probably write a COM component in C++ (call it
Intermediate.DLL) and have it call MSXML3.DLL. Your ASPs will call that
component: Intermediate.DLL.
Boris
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2E5G6.2164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:FC3G6.209390$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Boris Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:YuQF6.114$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > If there is an exception in MSXML.DLL, Server package process
will
> > > crash
> > > > > and ASP will get an error code.
> > > > > Server package process will be restarted by COM+.
> > > >
> > > > What does it take to make that happen? Apache is pretty
> straightforward,
> > > > but have never found any documentation for IIS that makes any sense.
>
> > > If you subscribe to MSDN library edition ( ~$100 per year) you'll get
> all
> > > the docs you need (manuals for resource kits and sdks). Maybe Technet
> > > subscription will be better for you: it's geared towards sysadmins/IS
> > > managers.
>
> We have developers with the subscription, but none of them know
> how to configure IIS.
>
> > The MSDN docs are free online if you don't want to pay and don't mind
> > not having a local copy (the MSDN site has never been down, so it's
> > not a bad trade-off):
>
> That pretty misleading, since there have been times when no one
> could reach MSDN, the recent DNS outage being one of them
> and coincidentally one of the few days I was trying to find
> something there.
>
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library
>
> I have a hard time finding anything here. Do you have any hints
> on how to find the specific instructions to set up the msxml3.dll
> to keep running?
>
> > As far as getting IIS to restart the package, it happens automagically.
> > If the package crashes, the next time it's requested COM+ will go "Well,
> > hey, that package isn't started..." and start it up.
>
> If it restarted automagically, I wouldn't be here complaining about it.
> Either it isn't restarting or IIS just refuses to access it again after
> it hits an error. IIS keeps accepting connections and often will
> continue to serve static pages but it just hangs on any page that
> needs xml/xls processing (most of the site). Restarting IIS
> seems to be the only cure. And if it happened to pop a dialog
> box as it crashed you can't do the restart with the remote tools,
> you have to click the button as many times as it appears.
>
> > To ensure this is very robust, ensure that you have medium or higher
> > isolation with the package for maximum availability.
>
> Then why does the default installation of msxml3.dll not work
> with those settings?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy.
Date: 29 Apr 2001 00:36:18 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: What's the point of being civil with pathalogical liars.
: I think they're shit-eating donkey-rapers, and so I feel no need
: to refrain from letting everyone else know that these "[Mafia$oft]
: can do no wrong" weenies fuck livestock in their spare time.
Nope. We already covered this. No farm animal would ever let itself
be f*cked by a Wintroll. :)
Seriously though . . . .
I've always believed that it's a good idea in advocacy to be civil
even if your opponents are not. It really does a lot to enhance one's
own credibility, even as the donkey-ra^H^H^H^H^H^H opponents do their
best to detract from their own.
Joe
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:38:01 -0400
"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:34:20 -0400, "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:05:55 -0400, "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:53:27 -0400, "Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"theRadical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:06:13 -0700, Gunner ©
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:44:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>Mathew wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> > "Gunner ©" wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >> >>> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:31:15 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> >> >> >>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any
claim
> >to
> >> >> >his own life.
> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >Hope that helps.
> >> >> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >> >> >>> > > >> which means soooo [sic] much coming from a fucking
idiot
> >> >twat
> >> >> >such as
> >> >> >> >>> > > >> yourself.
> >> >> >> >>> > > >
> >> >> >> >>> > > >Gonna come say that to my face?
> >> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >> >>> > > WEEEEE! I get dibs on the video rights! And we can split
> >the
> >> >fee
> >> >> >when
> >> >> >> >>> > > we send numbnuts body to a medical school.
> >> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >> >>> > > Aaron... try to draw it out as long as possible, so we
can
> >see
> >> >> >lots of
> >> >> >> >>> > > his blood and hear the sounds of breaking bones.. Ive
> >already
> >> >got
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> >>> > > buyer for the master tape.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> This is illegal,I hope you know.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What is the fact its illegal have to do with it? Attempting to
> >destroy
> >> >> >> >the Constitution is illegal as well..but I see cases of it ever
day
> >on
> >> >> >> >the net.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> yes, yet you are the one who accuses others of low character
while
> >> >> >> saying "if someone else does something, i can do it too." thanks
> >> >> >> again for pointing out the hypocrisy that rules your life gun
nut.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Besides.. I can make you sign a waiver that says you are
> >> >> >> >undergoing every bit of it voluntarily.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> i don't think so.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ><EG> Wanna bet you wont sign?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> more idle threats from a right wing gun nut.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I see fascist radical boy is still incapable of refuting anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> how the hell would you know you slimy stupid little piece of shit?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for proving my point fascist boy.
> >>
> >> you have yet to make one.
> >
> >I did and you proved me correct, again.
> >
> >> btw, do you still claim never to have
> >> masturbated you lying piece of crap?
> >>
> >
> >Since I am not the lying piece of crap, to whom was this question
directed?
>
> since i am not a fascist, you are a lying piece of crap to whom i was
> referring.
You are a fascist. You just don't like being called what you are.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:30:05 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
> >04:10:58 GMT;
> >>Chad Myers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I had to mention this, because, believe it or not, many Windows-haters
> >>> don't realize this and still think that WinNT or 2K are sucky like
> >>> Win3.1 or Win95 and seek to insult it at such a level which is, as
> >>> I'm sure you agree, really ignorant.
> >>
> >>True. Still, Microsoft has only started to realize the value of
> >>the UNIX style, and their software still is amazingly buggy for
> >>a company that supposedly devotes a lot of resources to testing.
> >
> >But they are trying really hard to emulate Unix, aren't they? Or should
> >I say "simulate"?
> >
>
> From a Usenet signature:
> **************************************************************************
> "Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to re-invent it--badly"
> -Henry Spencer
> **************************************************************************
>
> MS seems to be doing just that.
It would appear Linux is doing it better (or worse as the case may be).
-c
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy.
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:50:45 +0100
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : What's the point of being civil with pathalogical liars.
>
> : I think they're shit-eating donkey-rapers, and so I feel no need
> : to refrain from letting everyone else know that these "[Mafia$oft]
> : can do no wrong" weenies fuck livestock in their spare time.
>
> Nope. We already covered this. No farm animal would ever let itself
> be f*cked by a Wintroll. :)
This is just NOT TRUE!!! I know plenty of so called "nice" sheep and
goats who have fallen for those rough wintrolls charms. Always take your
animal to the vet before getting serious I say.
:)
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 03:00:04 +0200 (CEST)
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> The thoughts are already there. I remember that when I was in junior
> >> >> school (ie younger than 12) being called `gay' was an insult.
> >> >> Although we did not fully know what it was about, the intolerance
> >> >> had started. Since the intolerance was there, it needed to be
> >> >> addressed. What better time to address it than before it has had too
> >> >> long to become ingrained?
> >> >
> >> > you're a few million years too late
> >>
> >> So since the world is bad, we should not hope to change it for the
> >> better? Is that really what you are saying?
> >
> >
> > Question #1 How long have women been telling you that men should find
> > obese 50-year old hags just as attractive as 22-year old women?
>
>
> > Question #2 And in that time, has the attempted brainwashing campaign
> > changed the TRUE desires of heterosexual men even one iota?
>
> > a) yes B) NO
>
>
> I think I understand your point, but I disagree. Finding women attrictive
> is a low level thing in our barins that is designed to make us breed
> better. Such things can be influenced to a fair degree, but there are
> limits.
>
> The intolerance of homosexuals is a much higher level thing and can
> easily be changed.
how's that working out for you?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:45:00 GMT
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:U2HG6.7051$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri 27 Apr 2001 09:03, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >> Not experts, expert. One guy.
> >
> > Who was speaking for a group of developers working on said product.
> >
>
> All of them in the employ of SSH Communications Security, which stood to
> profit from fear-mongering against SSH1.
What would they have to profit from if OpenSSH decided to, or not to
use SSH1 or SSH2? If people are using OpenSSH, SSH.com is losing money
in the first place, why wouldn't he just try to shut them down altogether?
The fact is, SSH1 is "flawed", and since SSH2 is open and free as well
(and implemented in SSH2) there is NO good reason to stay with SSH1,
right? I mean, if there's a better apple at the store, and it's the same
price, why choose the rotten one?
> >> And he had a financial stake in getting
> >> people to upgrade, because SSH1 is open source but SSH2 costs money.
> >
> > Upgrade? All he was suggesting was that OpenSSH remove the SSH1 capability
> > from their product and use the already-implemented SSH2 capability.
> >
>
> Why should they? The OpenSSH server can simultaneously support both SSH1
> and SSH2, and there are a huge number of legacy SSH1 clients out there that
> can't all be replaced immediately. The only thing that really matters is
> that SSH2 is the default protocol in the OpenSSH client, which it is.
We're not talking about legacy customers, we're talking about phasing support
for SSH1 out in the newer products. If customers demand SSH1 (which I find
hard to believe given the "flawed" nature of it) then they just keep running
the current version they have. If they cared about security in the first
place (why else run SSH1) then they'd probably want the latest and greatest
anyhow. I find it hard to believe there is this pocket of SSH1 die-hards
that refuses to let it go. I can't understand why everyone isn't pushing
for SSH2. It's free as well, isn't it? I can't think of one good reason
to keep supporting SSH1.
>
> > There was no upgrade or money involved. He was making the obvious point
> > that SSH2 is there for a reason, and it's irresponsible that OpenSSH
> > continues to distribute the "flawed" SSH1 protocol.
> >
>
> I'm afraid you're quite wrong. SSH1 was originally released by Ylonen
> under a license that, while tacky, still squeezed by as open source. Over
> progressive revisions of SSH 1.x, he tightened down the license until
> modification and redistribution were forbidden. A lot of people got upset
> over this, so they went about implementing their own SSH1 software, calling
> it OpenSSH and basing it on the last Free version of SSH 1.x. Ylonen then
> released SSH2 and actually charged money for it (pricing below, taken from
> <http://www.ssh.com/>). The OpenSSH folks then set about implementing the
> new protocol.
>
> SSH Secure Shell for Workstations $99
> SSH Secure Shell for [Unix] Servers $475
> SSH Secure Shell for Windows Servers $565
However, from what I understand OpenSSH supports protocol 2.0. This
means 2.0 is free, correct?
According to OpenSSH.org:
"OpenSSH supports SSH protocol versions 1.3, 1.5, and 2.0."
Why then even continue support for 1.3 and 1.5 in future versions if
there are known flaws?
>
> [Snip]
> >> This isn't like physics, where you can say "Well, this
> >> room of 12 Win2K servers have all been running without a hitch for a
> >> month now, so obviously Win2K can stay up for a year."
> >
> > But there are many hundreds of servers that have been running for over a
> > year now, if not close to two. Some of them may not even be running the
> > release version of Win2K since Beta3 was so stable.
> >
>
> Who's to say that Win2K doesn't have massive stability bugs that don't kick
> in until it's been running for some arbitrary number of days? This would
> not be unprecedented in Microsoft software.
It would in their server software.
> Running multiple machines doesn't help demonstrate a lack of memory leaks,
> timer overflows, or any other time-dependent bug.
Long shot.
>
> [Snip]
> >>
> >> I was referring to Microsoft in general. From an outsider's perspective,
> >> it would seem that the only time they bother throwing good programmers at
> >> a software project is when it can buy them good PR or when it will rake
> >> in obscenely huge amounts of cash, and that the majority of MS's army of
> >> programmers is rather mediocre.
> >
> > Well, perhaps that was the case in the past, but it's certainly not the
> > case now. SQL Server 7, Exchange 2000, SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 and
> > even Windows XP are amazing products. They're rock solid, they break
> > benchmark records, and set the standard for functionality in their
> > respective markets. If you can't see this, then you truly have your head
> > in the sand.
> >
>
> I haven't seen much in the way of benchmarks for SQL Server, because of the
> licensing agreement.
www.tpc.org One of the most, if not the most important one.
SQL Server OLAP services are renouned. I've heard of several shops using it
in conjunction with their Oracle servers just because it's so good.
> I don't have enough experience to discuss features or
> stability of any of those products except Win2K,
Well, that ends the discussion then. You continue to speak from a point
of knowledge when you really have none. You should really keep your comments
to yourself since they are ignorant.
> where most of the features were created with the explicit purpose of ruining
> compatibility with 3rd party software.
Case in point.
<SNIP: rest is irrelevant given the obvious bias and ignorant statements above>
-c
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 03:00:11 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> >
> > windows is a pretty cool system. i like it just fine.
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > more even than death
> > - bertrand russell
>
> Well, stick with it man. We can tell that you two *really* belong
> together. No one is trying to deprive you or anything.
actually the company which created said os is under attack by the
federal government. oddly enough many self proclaimed libertarians and
conservatives have no problem with this. apparently high tech lynchings
are ok provided you're careful to string up the right nigger.
if you're a leftist such lynchings are, needless to say, entirely
consistent with your barbaric philosophy.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
