Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Rich Teer)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Terry Porter)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Dave Martel)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
USENIX 2001 Annual Technical Conference (Tiffany Peoples)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:09:12 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the
> > latest RH 7.1 then?
>
> I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have to
> upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff?
>
> Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of the
> distro in order to see improvements?
You don't have to upgrade. And under windows upgrading is a waste of
money. Very little improvements in upgrading windows compared to
upgrading under RedHat or Others. Win2K would be a different matter...
XP I don't know about because I can't install it on my current hardware
anyway.. with Linux I can. Most of the improvements under linux is the
move to 2.4.x. Others are related to a faster X-server. And the rest is
whatever someone has contributed. The contribs are interesting to
explore... But the real big thing is that the cost is lower for the
average user than windows. Last time I was at Staples I saw Win2K going
for around $287 without upgrade. And for OEM install of WinME it was
around $150. Then you have to add more money for the windows compilers
if you want one.
Which is another reason some upgrade to the newest version,... to get
the latest compilers. I still have Caldera e-desktop 2.4... for me it
works great. When I decide to upgrade Sun OS it won't be for the OS...
it will be for the extra software that they provide, and for $75 it's
worth it.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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, 11 May 2001 13:28:36 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > No, VMWare is my example of loading another OS. What Mac OSX does.
> > Cgywin or Services for UNIX provides a *copatability layer*, this mean
that
> > you don't have another fscking OS beside the one that you already have.
> >
>
> Except that with VMWare is an app that lets you run a second OS UNDER
> the one you are already running. Just like MacOS X does.
Read carefully, VMware does what Mac OS X does, *bad idea*.
A better idea, provide compatability layer, like cgywin & Services for Unix.
Got that?
> > > > > > They should've done something like Linux does with WINE & DOSEMU
and
> > NT
> > > > > Why not? It works. Well.
> > > >
> > > > Horribly inefficent!
> > > > Would you accept a car that double its mile/galon ratio if you have
two
> > > > passangers in it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > ... and VMWare is different how?
> >
> > It isn't, it's my parallel example to what Mac OSX does with OS9.
> >
>
> You said VMWare was a better way to run apps of a differnet OS that the
> main one you are running. Now you are saying it is the same as MacOS
> X/Classic, but MacOS X/Classic is inferior.
> get your story straight.
No, I gave VMWare as an example on the PC of what MacOS X was doing.
I said it was a *bad* way to do it. Then I gave *other* alternatives.
WINE on Linux, Cgywin & Services For Unix on Windows.
Any of the above is *much* more efficent than using VMWare.
I *never* said that VMWare was a better way.
> > And even then, we are talking about general trend in *new* applications
> > being developped.
> > What Apple need to do is to discourage any further development on OS9,
and
> > porting everything to OSX.
>
> They are trying to do that very thing.
Not enough, you will still have plenty of legacy applications that would
need OS9.
And you'll have them for *years* to come.
> > It's bloody hard to do something like this. And users would *still* want
to
> > use old applications.
>
> They have a successful track record in difficult switchovers.
If this mean that users can't use their old applications *they won't
upgrade*, it's that simple.
And the way they choose to allow this backward compatability is *stupid*.
> > I did some work for an accountant that used an 8 years old DOS program
to
> > manage the accounts. He plans to keep using this program more or less
> > forever, there are plenty of people like him.
> > You won't see OS9 compatability going away any time soon.
> >
> > Check for other OS major upgrades for examples.
> > Dos -> Windows9x is a good example.
>
> A good example of what?
Of backward compatability demands.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:15:48 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2DZK6.15722$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dgl7a$mp5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > If so, there are still other ways this can be executed. And
> > > new versions of DLLs replaced by software installations can still
cause
> > > system degradation, even if the program isn't executed, because of
> > > changes to existing program functions. Programs can also automate a
> > > launch in other ways, though.
> >
> > I've not encounter a DLL Hell problem in about three years, maybe more.
>
> Once you learn what causes them and stop doing it, you won't have
> them any more. That doesn't mean the underlying problem is fixed.
Considerring that every once in a while I install couple of dozens
applications, I don't think that this is the reason for that.
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:18:40 -0700
Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Do YOU know any way to write
> > software that uses a library without using the library? (Aside from the
> > legally non-existent concept of an API, of course, an separate argument
> > I am even now pursuing. Feel free to pile on, but please don't beg the
> > question.)
>
> Copyright covers distribution, not using.
Copyright covers using. Using softawre involves making copies. Making
those copies, unless done in the context of the statutory exception,
require the permission of the copyright holder.
> To violate copyright you must have
> had access to the thing you are accused of copying.
This is not true if you are guilty of contributory (or vicarious)
infringement. (I personally don't believe there is any contributory
infringement in the particular RIPEM/GPL case, but that's a question of
the details, not a general element of copyright law.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:23:50 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > Actually, it really good to see that stuff. I'll tell you why. RedHat
> 6.2 does
> > > not have the 2.4 kernel, it has 2.2. Some major SMP performance
> improvements
> > > were done in 2.4.
> >
> > True, there were a number of bench marks 2.2 vs. 2.4 to prove that. It
> > would be nice to see UNISYS help get Linux to scale up to 32 CPU's and
> > give MS Datacentre a run for it's money.
> >
> > >
> > > So, if the best and newest that Microsoft can produce, Win2000
> Datacenter and
> > > IIS 5, is only 16% faster than a pervious distro version, and the older
> 2.2
> > > linux kernel without SMP improvements, that's cool. That means the 2.4
> kernel
> > > will kick its' butt with no problems.
> > >
> > > So, Pay for MS Win2000 Datacenter, or get a Linux 2.4 distro for free.
> Hmm,
> > > which should I choose?
> >
> > You want Datacentre? sorry, can't buy it retail, you have to buy a new
> > server, configured to Microsoft's specifications, and hardware
> > "approved" by Microsoft. So far Compaq and a few others have made the
> > tragic leap into the Microsoft DC camp. Compaq has an awesome processor
> > they obtained from Digital when they purchased it a couple of years
> > ago. What I would like to see is a 128 Alpha CPU based datacentre
> > running Digital UNIX and Oracle, that would give Microsoft a serious run
> > for their money. The problem is that Compaq can't market to save
> > themselves, and hides Alpha based machines at the back of there website
> > as if they are ashamed that they have beaten Microsoft.
>
> Strangely, CompaQ killed Win2K on Alpha, any idea why they did it?
More than likely they weren't selling enough Alphas equiped with Win2K.
Alphas are expensive and most prefer either Tru64 UNIX or OpenVMS.
These two O/Ses seem to be superior than Win2K. On speculation with the
business deals that Compaq may have done with Microsoft.... ???
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 23:25:22 GMT
On 11 May 2001, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> Hi, Rich.
Hi Igor,
> I do not know *roff tools a lot, I only read something about these
> powerful tools in the book "The Unix Programming Environment" wrote
> by Brian Kernighan and Robert Pike but at that time I was working
> with TeX for typesetting.
Writing my own man pages is where I got started with *roff years ago.
More recently (but still several years ago!), I looked at both TeX and
*roff (I've even read Knuth's "The TexBoo"). I decided in the end that
*roff suited my needs better.
I think Tex vs *roff is a bit like the vi vs emacs wars: both are good
alternatives. I'll never use emacs - not becuase I don't think it's
crap, but because I know vi VERY well, and it does all that I want it
to. So to, the extra effort I'd need to learn emacs far outweighs any
of the potential gains.
> I will try nroff and troff today when I arrive to home!
Have fun!
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:28:27 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dh75f$gok$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dh4m1$cmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >
> > >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > *me is reaching for a very large reality stick to beat the living
> > crap
> > >> > > out of Jan with*
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20001225-00092.html
> > >> > >
> > >> > > A IBM IBM eServer pSeries 680 running AIX, and using Zeus 3.3.7 as
> > the
> > >> > > server software. It reached a remarkable score of 8344, using 12
> > >Power3
> > >> > > CPU's. That doesn't include the benefits of the low power
> > >requirements
> > >> > > of the PowerPC processor.
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't understand this remark.
> > >> > It has 4 extra CPU, *twice* the memory, and it reached just barely
> > above
> > >> > Linux & Win2K on far inferior hardware.
> > >> >
> > >> > What is there to be proud at?
> > >> take away the money saved from reduced power consumption and heat
> > >> dissapation, then you will see that it is fairly priced.
> > >
> > >You are going to put electricity bill into the equation? Strange, since I
> > >didn't mention $$$.
> > >
> > >I was asking why you can be proud of something that it much more
> powerful,
> > >but perform only a little better than a much inferior box.
> > >I would say that there are certainly some efficency problems here.
> > >
> >
> >
> > What do you mean by "more powerful" ? More memory is definitely "more
> > powerful", but how do these processors compare in clock speed and
> throughput
> > with those on the PC hardware? 12 CPUs is not more powerful than 8 if
> they
> > run at half the speed. (I don't know the speeds involved here - that's
> why
> > I'm asking, I am just guessing from the electricty requirements.)
>
> AIX run on 12 x 600MHz RS64-III
> Win2K & Linux run 8 x 700MHz Pentium III Xeon
>
> Conciderring that I've been told over & over that PPC CPU are twice as fast
> as Intel counterparts, I would think that the AIX should've been much
> faster.
I would expect the 12 x system to handle much larger data loads than the
8 x intels.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 11 May 2001 23:29:47 GMT
On Fri, 11 May 2001 21:33:52 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> Max is an excellent debater, I've admired his posts for years
>> so nyah, nyah!
>
> He's not debating though. He's baiting. That makes him a troll.
Heheheh, we all seek our entertainment in various ways ;-)
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
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 **
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 23:31:57 GMT
On Fri 11 May 2001 02:55, GreyCloud wrote:
[Snip]
>>
>> There are PCI cards and serial port devices that do this sort of thing,
>> not to mention that the Intel i810 chipset comes with a builtin true RNG
>> that
>> Linux natively supports to seed /dev/random. This sort of thing will
>> become very common over the next few years, I imagine. Most
>> consumer-oriented RNG hardware uses thermal noise, which is good enough
>> for all but the most paranoid (an attacker might be able to convince your
>> computer to use more electricity to process inbound packets, for
>> instance, and introduce patterns to the noise, but this is pretty
>> outlandish even for Jane Q Cypherpunk).
>>
>> BTW, radioactive decay and thermal noise ARE both truly random phenomena
>> according to Quantum Mechanics. Because scientists have been able to
>> build very basic quantum computers, we can be reasonably certain that the
>> Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is correct, and thus there are no hidden
>> variables (i.e. radioactive isotopes don't have an internal "alarm clock"
>> that determines when they decay, each one just has a small but finite
>> probability per Planck Time of randomly decaying).
>>
>
> A simple noisy carbon resistor can be used to provide a random noise
> source to provide a random number generator.
>
Yep, most of the thermal noise RNGs I found used either a noisy resistor or
a pair of noisy Zener diodes. With a little Googling, I even came across
one project that lets you construct a RNG that connects to your sound
card's Line In, runs off a single AA battery, and costs about $20 in Radio
Shack parts. True random numbers are *not* that hard to produce.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:32:50 -0600
On 11 May 2001 06:29:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
wrote:
>Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Also, I can freely copy and distribute the Slackware CD's to all the
>>people I'm helping to get into linux. You can't do that with SuSE
>>(read the license).
>
>It's been a while since I last read the YaST license, but IMO you are
>incorrect. It is allowed to give away copies of your SUSE (in fact YaST)
>distribution, but not to sell it.
Nope. This topic comes up often in the SuSE groups. Last fall a
university put the 7.0 CD's online for download, and SuSE made them
take them down. I think the way it works is you can do all the
installations you want off the original CD's but you can't copy the
actual CD's except for your own backup. You will also find it
impossible to locate online images of the full-featured retail
distribution CD's. There's only a "live" demo that can only be run
(slowly) off CD, and a stripped-down demo missing the very things that
make SuSE linux what it is.
>Still, I dislike SUSEs policy for using such a limited license for the
>main tool of their distribution, while OTOH riding the Linx bandwagon.
I really don't have any personal need for the commercial distro's but
don't mind their trying so long as free alternatives exist. IMO all
the commercial distro's are getting a bit greedy for their own good,
but that's not _my_ problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 May 2001 18:09:11 -0500
On Fri, 11 May 2001 22:42:57 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>
>>>>You still haven't defined gaming OS.
>>>
>>>Umm... an OS with which one can play games. [1]
>>
>>So the fact you can buy good quality games for Linux completely undermines
>>your argument. Or are you just arguing the absurd for arguments sake? If you
>>take your statement above then Linux *is* a gaming OS.
>
>Aw, pull the other leg. There is a paucity of Linux games available
>and it is untruthful, and indeed absurd, to suggest otherwise.
>
The definition you provided did not specify a large quantity of
available games. It simply specified available games. Since there
are games available, by your definition Linux is a gaming OS. You're
the one who provided the definition, not us.
>>>[1] Of course, the premise being, there are games available.
>>
>>Which there are.
>
>ROTFL. Next Linux comedian please.
>
You're not very smart are you?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:20:19 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the
> > > latest RH 7.1 then?
> >
> > I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have
to
> > upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff?
> >
> > Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of
the
> > distro in order to see improvements?
>
> You don't have to upgrade. And under windows upgrading is a waste of
> money. Very little improvements in upgrading windows compared to
> upgrading under RedHat or Others. Win2K would be a different matter...
> XP I don't know about because I can't install it on my current hardware
> anyway.. with Linux I can. Most of the improvements under linux is the
> move to 2.4.x. Others are related to a faster X-server. And the rest is
> whatever someone has contributed. The contribs are interesting to
> explore... But the real big thing is that the cost is lower for the
> average user than windows. Last time I was at Staples I saw Win2K going
> for around $287 without upgrade. And for OEM install of WinME it was
> around $150. Then you have to add more money for the windows compilers
> if you want one.
lcc is a free windows compiler.
There are a couple of others.
I don't think that there is much free Unix/Linux software that doesn't have
a free equilent on Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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, 11 May 2001 14:45:36 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JS PL
> <hieverybody!>
> wrote
> on Fri, 11 May 2001 01:51:23 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Today is truly a sad day in our nation's history. Never before has our
> >government so viciously pursued a company that has done so much good for
not
> >only Americans, but for people worldwide. Microsoft, the driving force
> >behind the booming U.S. economy, has revolutionized how we communicate,
how
> >we educate our children, and how we live. It is clear that the
government's
> >lawsuit and Judge Jackson's decision ignored the basis of anti-trust law.
> >Congress passed anti-trust laws to protect consumers, not competitors.
> >Ironically, it is the Department of Justice that has harmed consumers."
> >US Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA)
>
> Lessee. What has Microsoft given us?
Good list, thanks.
Going to answer some of your points.
> - Clippy, the talking paper clip. Such technical innovation!
> And now they've given him a home life and a personality, as well!
> He even tries to drink beer -- not too successfully.
> http://www.microsoft.com/office/clippy/
> (Go figure. "All your paper clips are belong to us", maybe?
> I hope they paid Gilbert Gottfried well. No, I'm not kidding.)
At least they show that they have a sense of humor.
> - Absolutely horrid TCP/IP stacks on DOS/Win3.1.
They *had* one? I don't really think so.
> - Backslashes and single-letter drive names! They could have at least
> implemented something like the Amiga's logical names, which could
> take almost anything left of a colon.
> - Just what is a zone, anyway?
> - "cd C:\Documents and Settings\username\Desktop" actually works
> in COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE. (The mind reels.)
Command.com ?
C:\>command.com
Microsoft(R) Windows DOS
(C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-1999.
C:\>cd C:\Documents and Settings
Too many parameters - and
On cmd it works, though
> - .LNK bodgery. Why not use soft/symbolic links like everyone else?
> If I open a .LNK file from within a program, I get -- a .LNK file.
> Whoopee. And you can forget about the hard stuff.
> (One has to use "The Shell" to do it right.)
Because they had to get some way to have shortcuts on a FAT system?
> - We're going to bury the icon image file deep within the executable.
> That way, when we rebuild the desktop, you can actually see it
> going painfully slowly, opening each and every file, and refreshing it.
> (Mac did it right, although they had to extend the file system
> to include data and resource fork support to do so. Amiga
> used separate .info files and didn't bother to auto-update the desktop.)
Again, FAT system problem + users.
You can do what you describe on NTFS, though.
The problem is transferring the data whole, something Macs users are
(painfully) familiar with.
> - Click on [OK] to terminate or [Cancel] to debug. (Can we, like,
> click on [Terminate] or [Debug], maybe, instead?!?! AAARGH!
Stupidity!!)
Try VC when you get an assert() error.
Press abort to abort the program, press ignore to debug, press cancel to
ignore.. or something like that.
> - "std::". Once again, Microsoft did it right. Everyone else
> did it conveniently. (This is a C++/STL issue. I'll admit
> they did do it right, but it's still a pain...)
Okay, what was the problem here?
> - Kerberos. Not that I've used it myself, mind you (I'd like to) but
> apparently Win2k "embraced and extended" it.
No, it didn't.
There is a field in Kerberos for vendor spesific info, it's Kerberos problem
that it's not complete, not MS'.
> - The J++ "delegate" keyword. (At least Microsoft got sued for
> that one, among many other flaws in their JVM.)
No, that wasn't the reason.
J++ was used because they couldn't use Java. They got sue for allowing Java
programmers to extend their programs over the standard, and talk directly to
the OS. If you used that, your Java program because unportable.
Of course, that is what JNI is *all* about, but that apperantly didn't
matter to Sun.
> - Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it looks like
> Microsoft is trying to imitate Sun with its .NET line of products,
> "embracing and reimplementing" it.
No, that is the *other* way around.
J2EE imitate MS' MTS, which evolved into .NET
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:46:41 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2DZK6.15721$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3afb334d$0$78413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > So don't buy licensed software who's terms you don't agree with.
> Simple.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would be a reasonable statement in a legally competitive
> > > environment where the user would have a choice about the
> > > matter. We all know that doesn't exist.
> >
> > Unless you live in an alternate reality from the one the rest of us live
> > in - you have more than a few choices.
> >
> > Use Linux if you don't like the licensing deals other software offer.
Then
> > again even Linux has the GPL but apparentely communism is prefered over
> > capitalism with that bunch...
>
> As far as the OS itself goes, we could all get along fine with Linux or
> the less-restricted freebsd. However, for this to work all the major
> applications vendors would have to treat the platforms equally, including
> the one(s) illegally intimate with MS-Windows.
*Less* restricted FreeBSD? In what way Linux is less restricted then
FreeBSD?
------------------------------
From: Tiffany Peoples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: USENIX 2001 Annual Technical Conference
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:51:04 -0700
2001 USENIX Annual Technical Conference
June 25-30, 2001
Marriott Copley Place Hotel
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix01/
==============================================
REGISTER BY May 25, 2001 and Save up to $200!
==============================================
Join peers, research and industry leaders in Boston at the USENIX Annual
Technical Conference.
FEATURING THIRTY professional-level tutorials, SEVENTEEN brand-new!
Herešs a sampling:
Running Web Servers Securely Internet Security for Linux Sys Admins
Network Security Profiles UNIX Network Programming
Network Programming with Perl Inside the Linux Kernel
Building Linux Applications Large Heterogeneous Networks
Practical Wireless IP Security Exploring the Potential of LDAP
Wireless Networking Fundamentals Configuring & Administering Samba
Servers
* KEYNOTE ADDRESS by Daniel D. Frye, Director of IBM Linux Technology
Center.
* INVITED TALKS on WAP, IP Wireless Networking, Security Aspects of
Napster and Gnutella, Security For E-voting in Public Elections, Virtual
Machines, Online Privacy, Active Content and Secure DNS
*NEWLY ADDED CLOSING SESSION with Cynthia Breazeal, researcher from the
MIT media lab, currently developing robots that can duplicate human
facial emotions.
*VENDOR EXHIBITION featuring innovative companies, products and
services.
For more information on exhibiting, please contact Dana Geffner at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more information and to register, visit:
http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix01/
=====================================================================
The 2001 USENIX Annual Technical Conference is sponsored by
USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association. www.usenix.org
=====================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
