Linux-Advocacy Digest #2, Volume #35 Wed, 6 Jun 01 04:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (Terry Porter)
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Kernel comparisions ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Terry
Porter)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("David Brown")
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Philip V Neves)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Philip V Neves)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition - (Philip V Neves)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 06:50:58 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:41:52 -0700, Paolo Ciambotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9fi5n6$89j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Not all windows advocates are bad.
>>
>> They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
>> believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
>> Myers).
>>
>> I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
>> change from nominating trolls).
>>
>> I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
>> like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
>> advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
>
> I can't believe nobody has yet nominated Aaron Kulkis.
I'm not nominating Aaron as a Winadvocate, he's a Linux advocate,
and an excitable lad!
Anyone who thinks Aaron is OTT needs more COLA experience :)
(Boris I still *don't* miss your potty mouth!)
>
> Well, anyway, I nominate Aaron as first runner-up in case the winner is
> unable to serve in his official capacity. Really, how many of the
> uninitiated here have wondered whether Aaron is actually a Winvocate in
> disguise?
Actually I haven't.
> Besides, I enjoy Aaron's subtle yet informative posts and think
> he should get some kind of recognition for all his efforts.
Hahahaha, have you kill filed him ?
>
> By the way, where the hell is the grin tag documented?
??
--
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: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:29:02 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fjk2m$jod$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > No, I meant it like it was written. It's a little trick in C that
> > will get you fired if you snick it into production code.
>
> And for good reason, too!
It does teach you a good lesson on how C works.
> > Why is it superflous?
>
> Cause you don't need it to demonstrate the funky thing that !! does.
> (You do for the funky thiung that [] does...)
I do !! to show people how a logical NOT differ from bit NOT.
And frankly, giving them just one example per program is boring.
They should *work* on this one.
I dig up those dirty tricks by using "don't do this" lists, mostly.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:30:44 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:05:47 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >A CL program can be written to do exactly one thing one way, or it can
> >> >have ten man pages worth of options. Similarly, a command in a GUI
> >> >application can do one hting with no options, or it can open a dialog
> >> >box sporting half a dozen checkboxes, radio buttons, and text fields
on
> >> >each of several tabbed panes.
> >>
> >> Yes, and that's nice and quick to use. Never mind typing "-t -y -e 45
> >> -p 78", which takes a second, you can type "ctrl+tab, alt+t, space,
> >> ctrl+tab, ctrl+tab, alt+y, space, ctrl+tab, alt+e, 45, ctrl+tab,
> >> alt+p, 78"
> >
> >And on the CLI you'll have to memorize all of this options, the GUI allow
> >you to just see them.
>
> Oh no, memorising a few little flags ONCE... With the GUI equivalent,
> it's good for the first few times, but after that, you just don't need
> it. Programs should be designed for long term use, not just the first
> few times.
You *are* aware that GUI programs can have command line parameters, right?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:32:13 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fji5d$hb1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Command history.
> >
> > Not needed because it's not in the GUI nature.
>
> Yes, it is needed ... In text editors it would allow multiple undos.
If you use the normal, MS-supplied text box, you *get* multiple undos.
Just one more reason not to role your own widgets.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:33:25 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:14:37 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >I use key strokes to control the GUI.
> >> >GUI doesn't mean "no keyboard".
> >>
> >> It does with a lot of programs.
> >
> >It doesn't with *good* programs.
>
> Well then, most programs aren't "good".
I don't know, I don't encoutner many programs that I have to use the mouse
for.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:35:27 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:44:23 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >Of course, you're also assuming that one will generally want to move all
> >files. In my experience, that's by far less common than moving just some
> >of the files.
>
> Yes, something like "*.doc" or "*.jpg" would be much more common.
Oh, of *course*, I would want to copy *all* my files, including the
sensitive & private ones to a disk I send to a client.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:36:10 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > So, I assume that you're application will use the 'dll and the 'dll
will
> > > in turn process the data and call the raw IO subsystem.
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
> > As I said, the whole proccess is user & application trasperent.
> > You can use fopen(), an it will happen.
>
> So how does the OS know how to use the wizzbang encryption fopen() and
> not the standard fopen() ? (ok I am being facetious here - but read on
> and you'll get my point)
(Disclaimer: I know the general layout of the I/O model, but I never delved
into it deep enough to have a good understanding of the technicaleties.)
I believe that the driver tells the I/O Manager to call it on certain files.
This mean that if you do an fopen() on a compressed file, the I/O Manager
will call the uncompression driver, which will hand the uncompress data you
you.
(As a note, default NTFS compression isn't as good as normal (zip, rar,gzip)
compression, because it takes into account access speed, so it break it up
to tiny pieces.)
Same for encrypted files.
> > > If so then could you
> > > not take the SAME argument and apply it to Linux ?
> >
> > No. I don't think that Linux has layered i/o.
>
> Hmmmm. Is this not semantics ? If the module has the same *interface* as
> the standard *interface* they why is there *any* difference. With a
> modular system you can therefore produce a layered system (I refer you
> to page 437 of Linux Core Kernel Commentary "So, Is it Layered, Modular
> or what" : basically saying that Linux can be made to produce either
> paradigm for the programmer).
>
> What matters to the programmer is a clean and consistent interface. So,
> the central issue is that given that I have shown that this is possible
> with the simple use of dynamic modules, how is this totally substandard
> to the way NT does it ? As a programmer, what advantages does the NT
> model provide which I could not DO in the Linux model - or do so as
> easily ?
I don't think that you can't do it in Linux.
I think that you can do it more easily/cleanly in NT.
And it also depend on what kind of stuff you program.
If you program applications, then you use the same interface that you always
used, ReadFile(), OpenFile(), fopen(), fiostream, etc.
If you'll give me some more details about it, I may be able to answer well.
> BTW: you have not provided any other arguments other than this IO
> layering to back up your initial bold clam - so you still stand by it ?
I didn't *have* any other claim.
I said that I think that NT's I/O is a better design than Linux because it
offer more flexibility.
Did I say anything else that I'm not aware of?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:36:43 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:27:37 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)) wrote:
>
> >Eh? for *existing* address space? Nope.... I think you must have misread
my
> >post or replied to the wrong one! :-) We arn't on IPv6 yet (well, most of
> >us anyway!).
>
> Why not? When is ip6 'coming out'?
When MS makes it the default configuration in its OSes.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:37:31 +0200
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fk506$7ae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In msgid <9ffnfg$jjv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote: on
> Monday 04 June 2001 04:19
>
> >
> > "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:31:17 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> > Why would you want to use PSP to do a screen capture? Windows will do
> >> > it
> > for
> >> > you automatically.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which Windows Ayende, I dont recall Win95 having a screen capture ?
> >>
> >
> > I think that it has it since Win95.
> > You use Print Scrn button to do this.
> > Or Ctrl+PrintScrn to capture just the active window.
> >
> > Very useful for backing up encrypted PDF. Like "Snow".
> > Phew!
> >
>
> Why not just pipe the output to an unencrypted pdf? oh, right, windows...
> sorry... :)
It wouldn't let you do it.
Wouldn't even let you *print* it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:53:29 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Except if you get a call from a guy with a Linux system <grin>.
> Actually, the techs were even a little bit leery about installing
> @Home on my NT system. But getting Linux to work with @Home made
> it real easy to get Win 2000 working with @Home.
>
> What the heck is RA anyway? A warez tool?
You send the tech support guy an invitation.
Telling "Help! I need your help now!" And the OS add "You've an open
invitation for 30 minutes", in which he can get into the computer in a
remote session and control it.
I'm not certain if the user see what the remote does or not, I think he
does.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 06:55:57 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:58:30 -0700,
Mike Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ha! Well said. When -- eons ago -- I was faced with paying several hundred
> dollars to get a Windows server license for my house, I looked for better
> options. (Not to mention, I would have had to buy new hardware to run it.)
>
> That was about the time I found Linux and MASQ. In fact, still today I'm
> writing this on the connection provided by that HP Vectra. 90 Mhz and
> almost a year of uptime.
>
> Microsoft is having a hard time competing with Linux since I can go and
> buy a boxed set for $30 and run comparable services for years with fewer
> reboots than it takes to configure basic networking under Windows.
>
> Sure Windows runs things right out of the box. All the user has to do is
> pay the fees, choose the right options with the mouse, reboot, and they
> get the functionality they want. Sure, installing a MASQ server meant
> recompiling the kernel for me.
>
> But even recompiling a kernel is nearly idiot proof these days (I was
> pretty green when I did it), and coupled with the excellent step-by-step
> directions provided by various How-Tos, one can't fail.
Nice post Mike, I'm sure all the lurkers loved it too :)
>
> How do you compete with that?
Easy, you d/l a single floppy Linux router/firewall/ipmasq disto
and put it in the floppydrive of your old 486, answer a couple
of questions, and yer in business, cost is only the d/l :)
No nasty Flatfish nightmares of kernel compiling.
www.freesco.org
>
> - Mike Johnson
> Network Administrator
<snip>
--
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: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:02:16 +0200
stevekimble wrote in message ...
>No, but I've got one about the Brits capturing the Enigma machine on Uxxx
>(can't
>remember it's number - sorry) and not the Yanks, as per the movie. A good
>story
>it is too, probably something to do with it being based on fact. Sorry for
>being
>totally off topic, Chad, but I've been desperate to get this one in
>somewhere; you
>know how it is with us in the Old World, always trying to put one over you
>ex-colonials......
>
Most of the bits of the Enigma brought out of Germany to the UK came
directly from someone working in the Enigma factory - he smuggled it out
piece by piece. The bits were recovered by the British, and put together
back in the UK. The Americans had absolutely nothing to do with it (in WW2,
the Americans were renowned for their military strength and numbers - I am
not trying to downplay their part in things, but it was the British who did
the intelligence work). That American submarine movie is no better than the
worst communist propoganda during the cold war.
By the way, has anyone seen Pearl Harbour yet? I'm curious as to how far
from the truth it is (they probably even claim that the attack was a
surprise).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 07:08:16 GMT
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:51:06 +1200,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:45:34 +1200,
>> Gees even Stuart Fox is being helpfull on COLA!
>> So my vote for Winadvocate of the month must be,
>> in the following order :-
>>
>> 1/ Ayende
>> 2/ Eric Funk
>> 3/ Stuart Fox
>
> Thanks .... I think?
>
>
Welcome:)
It's a honorable position, being Winadvocate of the month.
Wintroll of the month is another matter!
--
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: Philip V Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:11:29 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> "Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 11:42:17 -0500, "Chad Myers"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Windows XP will change all that, though. MS is going to quickly
>> > >fade out Win9x because of all its shortcomings and failings,
>> > >not to mention it's a support nightmare.
>> >
>> > It's deja vu all over again!
>>
>> How?
>>
>> XP includes a slick little applet called *Remote Assistance* that lets
>> the user allow anyone (from Microsoft to the smart techie next door
>> neighbor) to help troubleshoot their PC.
>>
>> I do tech support for a living (level 1 CAE/TSR for Comcast Online) and
>> RA alone is going to make my job tons easier.
>
> Except if you get a call from a guy with a Linux system <grin>.
> Actually, the techs were even a little bit leery about installing
> @Home on my NT system. But getting Linux to work with @Home made
> it real easy to get Win 2000 working with @Home.
>
> What the heck is RA anyway? A warez tool?
>
> Chris
>
Boy all this talk about how great windows XP is really makes me think about
all the empty promises that Microsoft prommised over the years. Like
windows was going to be more reliable with windows 98 which didn't happen.
I'm remembering the pattern maching bug that has been in windows since the
early eighties that microsoft never fixed. You know the bug that requires
you to say "copy *.*" instead of just "copy *" like you do in linux. The
fact is Microsoft rarely delivers what it promises. As for remote
assistance we've had PC Anywhere for years and it hasn't made anyones job
easier.
I've been hearing alot of reports about XP lately and from what I hear it
is going to do more to help the Linux cause more then anything else. The
first thing is that they will require you to register the software before
you can use the OS. Which means every computer that has windows XP is going
to have to be internet capable. Another thing is that windows XP will only
be allowed on one computer. That means if you decide to upgrade your
machine to a newer one XP won't work on your new machine and you will have
to buy an new copy of windows. The third thing I've heard about XP is that
its software Licence will only be good for three years and then you are
going to have to purchase a new license. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I
don't think this is going to make anyones life easier.
------------------------------
From: Philip V Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:25:44 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <l10T6.7283$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> How would you propose that it be kept in the public domain without
>> >> some
>> >> form of restrictive licensing? Publically funded research
>> >> automagically becoming public domain is a myth as far as I am
>> >> concerned.
>> >
>> > Huh? Once it's in the public domain, it's always in the public domain.
>>
>> Ohmygawd. This is so wrong I don't really know quite where to begin.
>
> Perhaps with a valid argument.
>
>> "... some 73 percent of the science papers cited by U.S. industry patents
>> were public science - authored at universities, laboratories, and other
>> organizations primarily funded by public resources."
>>
>> http://www.chiresearch.com/nltviii1.htm
>
> This has nothing to do with published code.
>
>> Intellectual property does not enter into the public domain simply
>> because
>> it was publicly funded. That is a myth and a misconception, and I stand
>> by my original statement.
>
> I didn't say otherwise. I simply said that once it is in the public
> domain, it can't be re-copyrighted (after a copyright expires, for
> instance) or
> copyrighted. The Public Domain work is still public domain.
>
>> >> If you want a modern day corollary, just look at what Microsoft did
>> >> with Kerberos. Kerberos development was publically funded, but
>> >> through the simple addition of an extension to the standard, it became
>> >> copyrighted Microsoft intellectual property. So even though Microsoft
>> >> Kerberos was primarily developed with public funds, you will have to
>> >> pay to use it.
>> > No, you are mistaken. The only thing MS copyrighted was their
>> > extension, not Kerberos itself. Further, the Kerberos team actually
>> > created the extension field themselves specifically for uses like this.
>>
>> From Microsoft's original Kerberos agreement....
>>
>> "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows
>> 2000 Operating Systems, April, 2000; Copyright 2000 Microsoft
>> Corporation. All rights reserved. "
>>
>> Do you see any attributions there? I don't.
>
> Why? It's the specification of the authorization data, not the kerberos
> protocol. The authorization data is what goes in the extension field of
> the kerberos ticket.
>
>> And in reality, Microsoft has every right to copyright the entire
>> content. Ideas are not copyrightable (Judge Learned Hand again), and a
>> specification such as Kerberos is merely an idea. Microsoft's
>> implementation, if completely re-written to implement the idea being
>> copied, and without plagiarizing from any other source, is lawfully
>> copyrightable "en toto". This is one of the legal precepts that allow
>> projects like Samba to thrive. If you want to deny Microsoft this right,
>> then you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> Then they have the right to copyright the implementation, not the
> specification, unless they make significant changes to it.
>
>> > It would help if you didn't distort the facts.
>>
>> It would help if you had some facts.
>
> It would help if you used the right argument.
>
>
>
>
That's not the point. The point is that although code that is publicly
created is then extended by companies like microsoft to create a closed
copywrited standard. Although Kerberos was a publicly funded project and
the code can't be copywrited the extension library can and with a company
like Microsoft implementing it the extension quickly becomes part of the
standard. However it is a standard that is no longer public. He was using
the right argument you just misunderstood him.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:28:42 GMT
In article <9fkk9c$leu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do !! to show people how a logical NOT differ from bit NOT.
> And frankly, giving them just one example per program is boring.
> They should *work* on this one.
Made me work ... I had to dig out K&R and read between the lines. }: )
> I dig up those dirty tricks by using "don't do this" lists, mostly.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:33:05 GMT
In article <9fkdei$1ep0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:43 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >
> > >Proof: Windows can run GUI as well as CLI, and both have facilities
> > >that
> > >allow you to thoroughly hose your filesystem.
> >
> > Yes, but Windows' CLI is a piece of crippled shite.
>
> Which you haven't qualified with examples yet. Windows GUI is as
> good or as bad as the tools you run in it. Bash is almost completely
> useless without all the little tools and utils that you need to run
> it, same applies to cmd.exe
>
> Give me an example of how it's crippled?
* DEC CLIs parse parameters for you; DOS makes the CLI program parse
them by itself. Thus DEC CLIs establish a standard way to specify
filename parameters and options; in DOS there was no such standard.
* DEC CLIs have the command history turned on by default. DOS makes you
run a special program to make that work.
* DEC's command language (DCL) naturally created a scripting language
for Cl programs; DOS made you jump through some strange hoops now and
then to make things work right.
The various UNIX shells (which seem to me to have been inspired by DCL)
are even better than DCL.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Philip V Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition -
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:48:12 GMT
Andre G- wrote:
> Please be rational:
> rumors or assertions like MACOS is better or worse do not help anyone.
> Be as specific as possible, every one win.
> Clean facts ==> better competition.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the only desktop OS manual that I have ever read
> explaining security issues an holes, and also how to test it is SUSE
> Linux.
>
> For Linux / Unix there is also security test suite (called Satan) than you
> can use for free. Could you make a specific comparison with other OS'es?
>
> Even if you do not appreciate Linux, and do not use use it, you benefit
> largely from the Linux dynamic.
>
> Microsoft has to enhance its Windfows OS'es to be able to compete: Windows
> users get a better product... and so forth.
>
> BTW: Apple used a free OS kernel (MACH) for the base of theur new finally
> multitasking OS.
> AG-
>
> Philip Neves wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Don't forget security, of which the MacOS has none.
>>>>> >
>>>>> This must be the reason why there are thousands upon thousands
>>>>> of virii for the Mac.
>>>>
>>>> There probably aren't thousands of active ones, but the Mac
>>>> has virii.
>>>>
>>>> The reason it doesn't have as many is because it's a niche OS
>>>> and virus programmers go for the largest potential user base
>>>> for maximum effect. This is pretty elementary, perhaps you
>>>> should pay attention more.
>>>>
>>> Sure, there are Mac-virii.
>>> I should guess about 1 per 1000 win-virii.
>>> As there are about 1 per 10000 win-virii on the linux-side.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you shouldn´t forget security. One of MS´s biggest plus, I guesss.
>>> No one managed more. More virii, more trojan horses, more buffer
>>> overflows. MS for sure knows how to do security.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> The MacOS has the best security in the world. A group tested it in
>> England. If the person who posted that that OS has no security then he
>> doesn't know much about the MacOS. I'd put the MacOS's security up
>> against Linux any day of the week. It will even stand up to Free BSD's
>> securty. As for windows on the otherhand, well that company never has
>> concerned itself with something so small as security.
>>
>>
>
>
If you don't believe me that the Mac OS is the most secure operating system
then take it from these guys.
http://www.13idol.com/mac/macfacts.html
The specific quote that I'm talking about is as follows:
"After a well-publicized hack into their website, The U.S. Army abandoned
NT servers in favor of the Mac OS. The Army's web site administrator
stated, "It is more secure than its counterparts." "
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
