Linux-Advocacy Digest #685, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Ed Allen)
Re: ouch! (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC? (Jeremy Allison)
Re: Dell Meets Estimates (cjt & trefoil)
Re: ouch! (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC? (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: ouch! (kosh)
Re: ouch! (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: ouch! ("Interconnect")
Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC? (kosh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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: Mon, 21 May 2001 21:59:22 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
> > > platform for making desktop applications of the
> > > conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
> > > platform for everything.
> >
> > I think that this flocking of developers to windows had a lot to do with
> > hardware/software costs versus other systems at that time.
>
> That is also a consideration, but I don't see that Windows
> had a very large cost advantage then.
>
> > MS C in 1991
> > was around $300 vs. VMS C for $6000 depending on how many users were
> > going to use it. C on Sun at that time was $2000... funny they haven't
> > increased it nor decreased its price.
>
> Well, yes, those platforms were very pricey; they also
> didn't have much to offer the desktop software
> developer.
>
> > A startup developer could enter into the windows market a lot easier at
> > a lower cost than any of the other systems then.
>
> Bear in mind that cheap DOS compilers were
> also available; and Mac compilers too. (But
> the Mac your customers would have to buy
> was not so cheap, and this is also a consideration)
>
> Unix and VMS aren't the only alternatives.
>
> > Today I see the developers landscape starting to change as Linux and
> > Solaris prices are now lower than windows... considering again the
> > hardware for solaris is now within the grasp of the entering developer.
>
> I do agree that this is a real factor; developers have
> budgets too, and if they ar egoing to insist that
> their users buy some OS, that OS had better be
> within the financial reach of their users.
>
> > Back in the 80's to get going in VMS would have cost a fortune... now
> > you can get a used VAX for next to nothing with only one glitch...
> > software licensing costs. Still a little high.
>
> Yeah. I'm not sure there's much reason for those
> to come down there.
>
> [snip]
> > > My argument for it at the time centered around
> > > printing support. Windows provides
> > > a device independant printing model that
> > > lets you redirect screen drawing commands
> > > to the printer. This makes WYSIWYG much
> > > easier, and it is a feature shared by the Mac,
> > > OS/2, and NextStep, but not by other Unixes.
> >
> > Unixes rely on Postscript as the default output. Drawings are output to
> > postscript printers directly without any user intervention. Using a
> > non-postscript printer requires the one-time set up of ghostscript. I
> > have no problems with my Epson 600 under Solaris.
>
> But it uses X for the screen display, and
> this is a pain for developers; they must try
> to create the same image in two very different
> ways.
>
> > > This puts those other Unixes out of the running
> > > for whole categories of apps.
> >
> > Not true. The problem for Unix so far is the price, which is changing.
>
> Unix is very cheap today and has been
> for several years. There really isn't any
> exodus of desktop application developers
> that I can see.
>
> Unix is still very largely used for servers,
> and this is no suprise; it provides decent
> services for such applications.
>
> [snip]
> > > NextStep used display postscript, which meant
> > > that printing on PostScript printers worked
> > > wonderfully, but all non-PostScript printers
> > > were reduced to printing bitmaps- and the latter
> > > printers are rather more common.
> >
> > Again, I have no problem printing any kind of graphics to my Epson 600.
>
> You can't take advantage of the Epson's
> built-in font that way. You can print much
> faster if you do.
>
All I have to do is add those capabilities in the filter that pipes it
to ghostscript.
> Though honestly with Epsons the results
> are so nasty that it's not such a good idea. :D
>
> But with PCL printers it's another story.
>
> [snip]
> > > The situation for printing is typical; Windows
> > > has the best tools for desktop app developers,
> > > OS/2 comes in second and is pretty close. Most
> > > others have serious gaps, and generic Unix
> > > tends to have almost no support for anything
> > > that desktop apps need.
> >
> > That too about UNIX is not true. There is plenty of support.
>
> I disagree. Having to compose your own
> postscript and stream it out is the kind of
> pain developers do not need.
I'm finding out that Sun has a program called application Builder. It's
sort of a click and drag like MS windows uses in the application
wizards. So far it has been fairly simple to get printer output. Text
---> PS ---> lp ---> filter ---> ghostscript.
Its not that hard actually. But then I'm still new in this compared to
VMS. I'm actually enjoying trying to try new things in Solaris, even if
it is slower than Linux. At least I have all of the on-line
documentation available along with on-line trouble shooting. Someday
I'll buy a sparc and try that out, but its the last thing on my list of
priorities.
>
> It's not just painful; you can't take full
> advantage of some printers when using
> PostScript.
Again that's where ghostscript comes into play.
>
> That puts you at a disadvantage, next
> to the app that was written for Windows.
>
> Of course, printing is only one area,
> but for desktop apps it tends to be
> an important one.
>
> [snip]
--
V
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:01:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So, as an educational exercise for the reader, I submit the question.
>Of the three categories:
>
>A) Analytical; relating to the correspondence of fact to numbers
>B) Rhetorical; relating to the correspondence of words to facts
>C) Metaphorical; relating to the correspondence of meaning and purpose
>to words
>
>Which category, in contrast to the putative assignments I've already
>made, should Chad Myers be placed in?
>
Bravo. Pinned like deer in a headlight.
Pete even pretended not to understand to confirm his place.
I think Chad's refusal to quit repeating after having it repeatedly
explained to him during the "OpenSSH has a vulnerability" thread
places him squarely in in the flatfish category.
--
Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:01:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 09:51:59
>>
>>3D sound support is of interest to me since it is my job. So it's not
>>that silly.
>
>It is not silly to you. That doesn't stop it from being pretty silly,
>in its own right.
>
Since writing 3D sound drivers is what you do, Linux not having
drivers is partly your fault.
Are you wanting someone else to do your job and give the software to
you ?
Are you complaining that no one has written a Linux driver that you
can copy ?
Does your boss know how you work ?
--
Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: ouch!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:06:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>tony roth ([EMAIL PROTECTED])wrote:
>>
>> My friend (name to be withheld since he's a real freak hacker) found a nice
>> little bug in a very very popular OSS package he was quite grateful for the
>> open source code since he did not have to do any reverse engineering. This
>> bug is another stack overflow with root potential. He's just sitting on it
>> waiting for a rainy day! btw it still has not been patched.
>>
>> bs from mlw snipped
>
>When it gets exploited, the FBI will come to you.
>
>You've just admitted that you know of criminal activities, and have
>not reported it. thus, you are aiding and abetting a criminal.
>Since most "freak hacking" is FELONIOUS, you are aiding and abetting
>felonies....and liable to be charged as such yourself.
>
>Now....either YOU turn over the bug within 24 hours, or *I* call the FBI.
>
>
>Is any of this getting through to you?
>
You have never been all that bright and you keep proving it!
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
Subject: Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC?
Date: 22 May 2001 05:00:47 GMT
In comp.protocols.smb Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: Recently, I upgraded all the workstations in the office to Win2K in an
: attempt to get some semblance of stability in place. I've run Samba as a
: login server, and the release of Samba 2.2.0 coincided nicely with my plan.
: For the last month, I've had Samba running as a PDC for my domain in a (for
: Windows, at least) fairly smooth manner.
: However, earlier today I installed the recently released SP2 on one of the
: workstations. The machine immediately had trouble with authenticating
: against the PDC, enumerating the domain users, etc. I figured I would try
: to re-add the machine to the domain since maybe the upgrade threw some
: obscure authentication token out of whack. I switched the machine to a
: workgroup member, did a "smbpasswd -m -x MACHINE; smbpasswd -m -a MACHINE"
: on the server, then tried to join the domain again. After a pregnant
: pause, an error dialog popped up, saying something to the effect of
: "Operation failed: Remote procedure is out of range." I tried a few more
: times, going so far as wiping out my existing domain completely and
: re-adding all my workstations, but the only machine that wouldn't re-join
: was the one with SP2. I, stupidly, had elected not to save the information
: required to undo the update. I am currently reinstalling Win2K SP1 from
: scratch on the machine in question.
: Is anyone else seeing this kind of trouble? Sounds like business as usual
: in Redmond.
Yes, an "interesting" change was made to W2LSP2 in which it
makes a call that NT4.x doesn't know and expects an exact
error code on return before proceeding with joining the domain.
The good news is that I fixed it in the 2.2.x CVS tree and it'll
be in Samba 2.2.1 (due to be released soon).
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
--
========================================================
Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:15:41 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > Sun isn't very competitive in the low end server market, and their volumes
>
> define "low end server" in a way that does NOT mean "providing a service
> (such as printing)" which can't be handled on THE SAME MACHINE which is
> providing high-end services?
>
><snip>
The print servers I encounter these days are usually just a card in the back
of the printer, anyway. Look how well HP is doing and decide whether you
even want to play in that market.
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ouch!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 07:13:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interconnect wrote:
>
snip
>
> Yeah, and I'm the Queen of England.
>
snip
>
No. That's me.
--
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:17:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <9eaihp$hfu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> One of Pete's favourite pastimes is snipping people to distort their
>> meaning to prove his point.
>
>Got any examples of that?
>
>--
>Pete
Light travels at different speeds thru different medians.
For instance, if you looked into Pete's ear you wouldn't
see any light as the median is much too dense for light
to escape.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC?
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:28:34 GMT
On Tue 22 May 2001 12:00, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> In comp.protocols.smb Chronos Tachyon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[Snip]
> : .... I, stupidly, had elected not to save the information
> : required to undo the update. I am currently reinstalling Win2K SP1 from
> : scratch on the machine in question.
>
> : Is anyone else seeing this kind of trouble? Sounds like business as
> : usual in Redmond.
>
> Yes, an "interesting" change was made to W2LSP2 in which it
> makes a call that NT4.x doesn't know and expects an exact
> error code on return before proceeding with joining the domain.
>
> The good news is that I fixed it in the 2.2.x CVS tree and it'll
> be in Samba 2.2.1 (due to be released soon).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremy Allison,
> Samba Team.
>
Kewl, you Samba folks rock! :-) In the meantime, I'm just finishing
installing the last of my apps on the workstation in question, which is now
behaving like a good little client again.
--
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: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ouch!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:27:59 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul E. Larson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>tony roth ([EMAIL PROTECTED])wrote:
>>>
>>> My friend (name to be withheld since he's a real freak hacker) found a
>>> nice little bug in a very very popular OSS package he was quite grateful
>>> for the
>>> open source code since he did not have to do any reverse engineering.
>>> This
>>> bug is another stack overflow with root potential. He's just sitting on
>>> it waiting for a rainy day! btw it still has not been patched.
>>>
>>> bs from mlw snipped
>>
>>When it gets exploited, the FBI will come to you.
>>
>>You've just admitted that you know of criminal activities, and have
>>not reported it. thus, you are aiding and abetting a criminal.
>>Since most "freak hacking" is FELONIOUS, you are aiding and abetting
>>felonies....and liable to be charged as such yourself.
>>
>>Now....either YOU turn over the bug within 24 hours, or *I* call the FBI.
>>
>>
>>Is any of this getting through to you?
>>
> You have never been all that bright and you keep proving it!
>
Umm actually Aaron is correct in this case. Knowing about someone intending
to break the law but not reporting it is prosecuteable.
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ouch!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:35:27 GMT
On Mon 21 May 2001 11:07, tony roth wrote:
[body snipped]
Suffice to say, if a "freak hacker" (a.k.a. script kiddie) can find a
security bug in the source code, so can just about anyone familiar with the
language.
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Blatant troll, not even a cursory attempt to appear credible. 'nuff said.
--
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: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ouch!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:49:26 +1000
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ecr6s$ok1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4ulO6.108$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > My friend (name to be withheld since he's a real freak hacker) found a
> nice
> > little bug in a very very popular OSS package he was quite grateful for
> the
> > open source code since he did not have to do any reverse engineering.
> This
> > bug is another stack overflow with root potential. He's just sitting on
> it
> > waiting for a rainy day! btw it still has not been patched.
> >
> >
> This is a Wintrol that somehow is trying to prove that because a piece of
> software is open source, that it is easy to find cracks. Sorry mate, its
> not going to work, so go back to your 386 loaded with Windows 95 and
> Winnuke, and annoy someone else.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
How many pairs of eyes are looking at OSS as opposed to closed source?
Assuming OSS has more people engaged in such activities, guess who has the
greater chance of finding and fixing bugs? It's a known fact that OSS is
more robust and bug free as a direct result of it's openess!
Therefore one can only assume that this *BUG* relates to the NEW Windows
(TM) ( look at me we're open source too...) open source initiative.
:D
------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
Subject: Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:31:54 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> Recently, I upgraded all the workstations in the office to Win2K in an
> attempt to get some semblance of stability in place. I've run Samba as a
> login server, and the release of Samba 2.2.0 coincided nicely with my
> plan. For the last month, I've had Samba running as a PDC for my domain in
> a (for Windows, at least) fairly smooth manner.
>
> However, earlier today I installed the recently released SP2 on one of the
> workstations. The machine immediately had trouble with authenticating
> against the PDC, enumerating the domain users, etc. I figured I would try
> to re-add the machine to the domain since maybe the upgrade threw some
> obscure authentication token out of whack. I switched the machine to a
> workgroup member, did a "smbpasswd -m -x MACHINE; smbpasswd -m -a MACHINE"
> on the server, then tried to join the domain again. After a pregnant
> pause, an error dialog popped up, saying something to the effect of
> "Operation failed: Remote procedure is out of range." I tried a few more
> times, going so far as wiping out my existing domain completely and
> re-adding all my workstations, but the only machine that wouldn't re-join
> was the one with SP2. I, stupidly, had elected not to save the
> information
> required to undo the update. I am currently reinstalling Win2K SP1 from
> scratch on the machine in question.
>
> Is anyone else seeing this kind of trouble? Sounds like business as usual
> in Redmond.
>
Hmmm this sounds familiar from OS/2 with the win32s thing. Fscking
basterds. I hope they all burn in hell.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
