Linux-Advocacy Digest #374, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Users...Why? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: LILO no boot .. says "LIL-" then just hangs there ("Steve Cox")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Terry Porter)
Oracle bubble beginning to burst ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: where's the linux performance? (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: 9 May 2001 22:35:49 GMT
Mad.Scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux.
I've been a developer for about 10 years, using M$ products much of
that time. Even before I'd ever heard of Linux, I hated M$, its
products, its business practices, its attitude of utter contempt
toward both its application customers and developers on its platform,
and pretty much everything else about it.
I became interested in Linux during 1997-98, when I began to
experiment with it, and found that as long as I was willing to use a
bit of what at the time was nonfree software (Netscape, and I believe
StarOffice), it could meet my needs not only as a server and a
development platform, but as a desktop as well.
I was *very* impressed by Linux, even though at the time I thought it
would take me forever to learn to use well.
Gradually I came to embrace the concept of Free Software as defined by
RMS and friends. This happened largely because as I became more
familiar with free software, I found the best of it to be far more
secure, maintainable, extensible, correct, portable, and above all
else reliable than its nonfree counterparts. My dislike for M$
gradually morphed into a broader realization that all proprietary
vendors, not just M$, have an interest in fostering dependency upon
their users, rather than empowering them, as free software tends to
do. M$ may have been the worst offender, but it is far from the only
one.
With the dramatic recent improvements in Gnome, KDE, and Mozilla, and
the freeing of StarOffice, we can now build EXCELLENT desktops for
developers and knowledgeable users using entirely free software.
I seldom have any need or use for M$ or any other proprietary software
vendor. But I do patronize companies and organizations that sell and
support *free* software, even when I don't have to. I think they are
doing a good thing from a moral and ethical standpoint. I don't know
for sure if their business model will be successful. I have my
doubts, since technology has usually empowered its users far more than
its creators. But I recognize the significant contributions many of
these companies have made toward free software, and would like to
encourage and reward them as much as possible.
While I prefer and use Linux for both desktop and server use, I have
nothing against other free operating systems, and in fact strongly
recommend OpenBSD for use in firewalls and DMZs. I also grudgingly
accept the use of proprietary software in the few remaining roles in
which it can genuinely outperform the free alternatives without
causing undue vendor-lock or other dependence. But I believe that in
the end freedom can, should, and will win.
Linux and free software have never failed me. Sure, there are places
where they're a little rough around the edges, but those rough edges
are getting smoother all the time.
Joe
------------------------------
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 18:39:19 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > What worst trouble? Oh, you mean runing 68k stuff on PPC. Nope, cant
> be
> > > > that. What do you mean?
> > >
> > > Oh I mean Taligent and Rhapsody and OpenDoc and
> > > QuickDraw GX and gawd only knows how many other
> > > initiatives to fix their OS.
> >
> > Taligent - shared enterprise. Didnt work out. No OS was produced, so
> > there was any backward compatibility problems.
>
> Didn't get far enough to have such problems.
>
> > Rhapsody - direct descendant - MacOS X - hAs Carbon and classic. Very
> > few nbackwards compatibility problems.
>
> I was not aware that Rhapsody had any direct predecessors or
> descendants. MacOS X is *very* clearly a descendant of
> NeXTStep.
>
You didnt get very far did you? Rhapsody was the original codeword for
the OS based on NeXT's OS. So, yes it had predecessors and descendants.
> > Open Doc? What backward compatibility problems did that have?
>
> You misunderstand me. The problem, until very recently, was
> not that MS would abandon their old platform in favor of a new
> one.
>
> The problem was that they couldn't seem to handle producing
> and supporting a new one. The never broke legacy apps
> because they never got that far.
>
Legacy apps would break all over the place in "new" MS OS's
> They tried several times- both new OSes and new
> frameworks within the MacOS. They couldn't seem
> to make it work.
Which they are you talking about now? Apple or M$?. Apple legacy apps
would have run under Copland (without new features), but Copland never
got out the door. Legacy apps DO run under OS X.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Steve Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO no boot .. says "LIL-" then just hangs there
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 23:41:44 +0100
In article <9dc3ut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Counts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I installed everything successfully (Slackware 4.1), recompiled a
> kernel, rebooted, everything worked as expected. Then, not long
> afterwards on another reboot, LILO just hangs. I have to boot using a
> floppy now. Any suggestions on how to fix this?
>
> Should I uninstall LILO and then re-install?
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Bob
>
>
This could be the 1024 cylinder problem. Make sure you install the LILO
boot loader on the disk's MBR and not a partition's boot sector (eg.
/dev/hda and not /dev/hda1).
Also, make sure the parititon containing the /boot directory is not too
far up on the disk. Tghe best thing is to create a small partition - say,
64 MB - right at the beginning fo the disk and configure linux to mount
this as /boot. That way, the kernel is below the 1024 cylinder limit.
Steve
------------------------------
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 18:41:47 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
> > >You may be right, but in all honesty Apple has had
> > >the *worst* trouble trying to deal with their software's
> > >backwards compatibility baggage.
> > >
> > >I hope they overcome it too, but history does not
> > >encourage me in this.
> >
> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Honestly, Apple has NEVER had the kind of trouble
> > with 'backwards compatibility' [sic] that Microsoft does! Guffaw.
>
> Until now, they've never got far enough to deal with
> the problems Microsoft has had.
>
> They have been unable to product the 'next
> generation' product, or unwilling to commit
> to it, or unable to get developers on board.
>
> So Macs apps today are built to the same
> Toolbox they were in 1983, despite it's
> well know defects.
What defects are those? Multitasking? It does that pretty well for an OS
that was never designed for it. Protected memory? It does pretty well
for an OS that was never with it.
Try again.
BTW, you fail to give credit for Apple's move in switching CPU's. They
did that. They will move to an new OS base fairly smoothly.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 May 2001 22:36:28 GMT
On Wed, 09 May 2001 16:51:01 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>To get the same things under Windows, I would have needed to spend
>>>$10,000 plus.
>>
>> You do circuit board layouts or something of that nature I believe?
>>
>> That more than likely means you have a need for highly vertical
>> applications like AutoCad etc, which are also extremely expensive.
>
> You'd probably be better off wit a Sun or SGI.
If I was doing 3d stuff, no doubt about it!
I've seen design apps on Sun workstations that would make an x86
user drool. Complete with real time rotations, so smooth ...
and the resolution!
Luckily for me, a old 686/300pc does my pcb, multi layer, 2d
stuff easily.
>
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
>
> u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Oracle bubble beginning to burst
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 22:40:21 GMT
Corporations are finally realizing they're being ripped off by Larry & Co.:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5875033.html?tag=cd_mh
Sucks not being able to rely on those clueless,VC-burning Dot.Coms for growth.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 22:36:07 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>I bring it up to try to drag us back to the point. You seek to derail it
>>because you're losing the argument. Shame on you!
>
> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>
> So is THAT why you started dragging up this point; you seek to derail it
> so you can pretend you didn't already lose the argument? Guffaw!
Is that the best that you can do? Take my response, turn it around and
attempt to make it your own? Nothing original then.
--
Pete
------------------------------
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 18:45:07 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
> > >> No, Judge Jackson says there are quotes from MS executives to support
> > >> this.
> > >
> > >Jackson isn't here to argue about it. I daresay Jackson
> > >thinks the quotes support *his* conclusions, rather
> > >than Ricks.
> >
> > Ricks "interpretation" WAS Jackson's. Doh!
>
> Jackson didn't preside over the Caldera case.
>
> He may, I suppose, share Ricks, um, opinions- but
> I don't think he's said so publicly.
Judge Jackson thinks micro$oft is a predatory, anti-competitve monopoly.
So do I.
Judge Jackson thinks the DOJ should have made a much harsher penalty
request. So do I.
His opinions are prtty much in the public record. So are mine.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:59:36 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 9 May 2001 11:05:46 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 09 May 2001 00:03:21 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
20:25:59
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> > >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did
everything
> >he
> >> >> > >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a
> >minute.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
> >> >> > milliseconds' is more precise.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of
data.
> >I'll
> >> >> give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and
the
> >keys
> >> >> value is 1.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> What is it going to take to make you understand that you're not using
> >> a 1-bit key? You're key also includes a translation table.
> >
> >A translation table is not part of the key, it's part of the algorithm.
> >
>
> Please use your algorithm to communicate with another party and allow us
> to observe the encrypted communications.
I already did. I sent my encrypted data to anyone reading this newsgroup.
If you think you can figure it out over time by watching dozens or hundreds
of communications, I can change the algorithm each time (and in fact it
changes every time it's used and every character that's encrypted is done so
differently, which is why the same letter does not repeat the same encrypted
character very often).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 18:02:35 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 8 May 2001 23:15:25 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
> >
> > 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
>
> Anybody can make an unbreakable code if you only need to keep one line
> of data secret.
Thank you. This is exactly what I was saying. So long as the algorithms
are secret, the size of the key or any other value is irrelevant, it's
effectively unbreakable.
> The problem comes with trying to use the code to
> encrypt lots of data over a period of time. Relying on a secret
> algorithm is just horribly bad practice, no matter how good you think it
> is. It takes only one disgruntled former employee to destroy your
> scheme.
It's not a matter of how "good" it is, it's simply a matter of how "secret"
it is. If your disgruntled employee cannot access the encryption algorithm,
they can't leak it. That's why the military uses black boxes for
cryptography. They're kept secure and only a tiny few have access to their
internals. You just pump data in and out.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 18:04:13 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
20:25:59
> > > >> [...]
> > > >> >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did
everything he
> > > >> >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a
minute.
> > > >>
> > > >> The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
> > > >> milliseconds' is more precise.
> > > >
> > > >Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data.
> > I'll
> > > >give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and
the
> > keys
> > > >value is 1.
> > >
> > > Give it to the NSA, lamer. Guffaw!
> >
> > In other words, you can't back up what you claim. If it is so insecure,
it
> > should be quite easy for you to crack. Here's another hint, it uses and
> > extremely simple encoding mechanism.
>
> Well then, you go right ahead and sell your "secure" coding scheme. I'm
> sure your customers will be very happy about the security it offers.
No, that would expose the algorithm to people with disassemblers, making it
no longer secret.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:13:16 +0100
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> pip wrote:
>
> > Greg Copeland wrote:
> >>
> >> I have a buddy that is a Java nut whom told me that some of the fastest
> >> JVM's are on Linux.
> >
> > Erm - he can dream on!
> >
>
> No, he is right. Espacially the IBM-JVM is very fast.
OK, I admit - I have not tried any JVM from IBM only their very good
Jikes compiler. I may stand corrected and slapped on the wrist :)
> >>Keep in mind he's a windows guy, mostly. Likewise,
> >> I have seen lots of benchmarks that show this to be true.
> >
> > really?
> >
> >>It seems that
> >> not all JVMs are created equal. I would guess that the OS has little
> >> to nothing to do with the performance of a JVM, rather, the bulk of the
> >> responsibility squarely falls on the JVM implementor's shoulders.
> >
> > ..and the OS does have a fundamental role as in all programs!
> >
> No, not really. After JVM and program arre loaded, it depends mainly on
> processor-slice the two get.
Erm, no. The performance of the OS effects all aspects - how threads are
implemented, networking stack, scheduling - ipc - everything. The
"virtual" machine can only be as good as the real machine.
>Don´t start this crap about WinNT / W2K
> scaling better, they don´t, and it has about nothing to do with
> Java-speed.
Oh er. Was I going to? I don't give a shit if WinNT/W2k "scales" as I am
only interested in uni or duel processor boxes. But even then it does
actually matter. As the OS and how well it performs is essential for
performance then this WOULD matter. Of _course_ jvm optimisatrion is FAR
more important, but Java - just as any other process relies on the OS to
provide a fast, stable system, clean threading model and all the above.
> I´ve tried Java on linux and windows (self written apps)
> Speed depends *very* heavily on the JVM utilized.
> But the fastest Java I´ve seen runs on OS/2.
:) Your one of 'em aye? Well I am glad that people still enjoy something
M$ programmed :-) (ok only joking - partly programmed)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
