Linux-Advocacy Digest #253, Volume #29 Thu, 21 Sep 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jason Bowen)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low (2:1)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Garry Knight)
IBM DB2 7.1 for Linux download ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Bob Hauck)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:02:18 -0600
>
> 1) Your manager or his is at fault. Microsoft would not come in
> un-announced to any such activity. They probably asked someone in
> charge at CU if Windows 2000 was deployed in the engineering lab and if
> it was OK to do some taping there. The wrong answer was given and the
> news was not passed down.
It wasn't unannounced. If there is a lab in Engineering with it it
isn't a public lab. I just wasn't notified till he showed up.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:25:40 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sfcybear wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <sS0x5.2269$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I
> > > doubt
> > > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > No, I think that there are lots of users out there under the
> mistaken
> > > > impression that they can install a Linux firewall and "forget
> about
> > > it"
> > > > because it "just runs".
> > >
> > > Yeah, Linux is more stable than MS's OS's
> >
> > No. It's not. The stability of both systems depends on their drivers
> and
> > configuration.
>
> Overall, My opinion is Linux is more stable, Even Eric (a windows
> supporter) stated that. I just agreed!
>
> as Eric stated:
>
> "No, I think that there are lots of users out there under the mistaken
> impression that they can install a Linux firewall and "forget about it"
> because it "just runs""
>
> The point he seems to be making here is that many users tend to forget
> about patching such a stable system as Linux
I don't think he was making that point at all. Instead I think he was
saying that many new linux admins are lulled into a false sense of
security by the linux security rhetoric and end up not taking the
required steps to secure any operating system.
> > > > I know people running firewalls on 2 or 3 year old
> > > > copies of Linux or FreeBSD. Never applying even a single patch
> > > because they
> > > > aren't Unix people.
>
> Wow 2 or 3 years of operation by someont that is NOT a linux user or
> Unix person???? I think that is a great Kudo for linux! Granted patches
> *SHOULD* have been added. But it is apperant that these firewalls did
> 'just run' as eric claimed above.
Left alone in a dark closet to do only a single job like that? I'm not
surprised they run like that especially with a static configuration. A
Cisco PIX firewall is essentially a Pentium 166 PC running a modified
version of UNIX. They can stay up months at a time too. So can a
Windows NT box. Systems at equilibrium tend to remain that way.
> They just installed the firewall on the advice of
> > > a
> > > > unix person that is no longer with the company.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And with MS OS's some clone that thinks he/she is and admin
> >
> > That's a bit categorical there buddy. The majority of Windows
> > administrators I know are highly individualistic. But maybe they just
> > "think" they are administrators. It's easy to see how they could be
> > fooled into thinking that what with those paychecks and all :-)
>
> Hey, Why didn't you bitch when a windows user made the claim that
> "windows users are expected to be behind in security patchs"?
Windows "users" are different than Windows "admins" you linux folks blur
the differences (intentionally I think sometimes) between Windows
NT/2000 and Windows 9x. Windows 9x using, NASCAR and WWF users :-) are
expected to be behind in security patches. Professional IT
administrators using Windows NT or 2000 are expected to be up to date.
I'm reacting to the fact that you are belittling Windows NT
administrators by calling them "clones" and inferring that they only
"think" they are and administrator. It was categorical and
inflammatory.
> I'm using
> statements that WINDOWS users have made somewhere else in the thead.
I didn't see anyone else calling people clones and casting aspersions as
you have done.
> >
> > > click a few
> > > ICONS and *THINKS* they have installed a firewall.
> >
> > Well haven't they? If you close the ports where the exploits are the
> > exploits cannot be used. I can go into Windows NT or 2000 TCP/IP
> > properties and disable all ports without any additional software.
> Just
> > try to exploit that machine :-)
>
> And how do *YOU* know if *they* closed the ports, many point and
> clickers don't understand the IP stack well enough to know what they
> did. Please follow the thead, we were talking about *some* admins. Not
> you, Miss. Center of the World.
Why do I personally have to care? Administrators are paid to know what
they are doing on both platforms. Has nothing to do with the OS
really. Linux admins DO NOT have a monopoly on computer and networking
knowledge, in fact I know NT admins that are quite a bit more well
rounded than some of these young self-taught linux admins.
> > > The point I made
> > > still stands. If you do not keep up with patches you are asking for
> > > problems no matter wich OS you use.
> >
> > Agree. A server with *no* ports open is no much of a server. You
> just
> > need to have *only* those ports you need open and have properly
> patched
> > server software behind them.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:23:52 -0400
Richard wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Sure I can. It's a well-known fact in OS circles that a
> > > single uniform interface is a fundamental principle of
> > > good design.
> >
> > A tendentious claim at best. We want variety.
>
> The world is full of variety. It isn't an operating
> system's job to distract you from it.
Nor is it an OS's job to just support "The One True Interface".
If you can't deal with multiple GUI's, don't expect too much
respect on this newsgroup.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:24:41 GMT
> The title says it all:
>
> 1. I'm back!
> 2. This group has sunk to a new low.
>
> Coincidence?
Mabey...
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). He got there before Von Neumann too| eng.ox.ac.uk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:02:13 GMT
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:09:19 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : Reference please? In order to perform a remote exploit that involves a
: : buffer overflow, you MUST have a *connection* to the victim machine. In
: : the case of a SYN flood, you *never* have a completed connection. Only
: : one-third of the TCP connection handshake is sucessfully completed in a
: : SYN flood.
:
: Correct, syn flood is used to cause the buffer overflow. A second pc, with
: connection to the victim machine, is used to actually insert the malicious
: code.
Ok, great, like I said before, reference please?
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: Garry Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:44:05 +0100
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>El jue, 21 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>Have you ever written anything in machine language.
>Z80 machine language inserted in a REM statement in a Sinclair 1000
>(ZX81 clone) counts?
I remember sitting in my local launderette building a Forth-based OS for the
Spectrum by writing opcodes into a pocket notebook (which, of course, in those
days was made of paper). Ah, the good ol' days... :o)
--
Garry Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IBM DB2 7.1 for Linux download
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:10:03 GMT
The latest evaluation copy of DB2 Universal Database Version 7.1 is a
fully Web-enabled relational database management system. It is scalable
from single processors to symmetric multiprocessors to massively
parallel clusters. DB2 Universal Database features multimedia
capabilities with image, audio, video, text, spatial, and other
advanced object relational support. With Version 7.1, DB2 Universal
Database delivers even more powerful support for e-business through
Java, XML, and mobile solutions as well as new built-in support for
business intelligence solutions.
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/aw.nsf/html/devtoolbox?
open&l=253,t=gr,p=devtoolbox
========================================================================
=====================================================================
Here's a list of Guest Level Linux downloadable software resources you
can get from the IBM DeveloperToolbox.
-- IBM DB2 Universal Database Enterprise Edition, Version 7.1 for
Linux
-- IBM DB2 Universal Database Personal Edition, Version 7.1 for Linux
-- IBM WebSphere Application Server, Standard Edition V3.0 for Linux
-- IBM WebSphere Homepage Builder Version 4.0 for Linux evaluation
-- IBM WebSphere Performance Pack for Multiplatforms, V3.0 Getting
Started
-- IBM Linux for WebSphere and DB2 servers
-- Servlet and JSP Programming with IBM WebSphere Studio and VisualAge
for Java
-- IBM HTTP Server V1.3.6.2 for Linux
There are lots of XML and Jave tools you can get for free as well -
this is worth a look.
Regards,
Shailendra
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:04:54 GMT
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:13:24 GMT, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:21:09 -0500, Mike Byrns
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >KDE is *not* a clone of CDE. CDE more closely resembles Windows 3.1,
>>
>> CDE has programs in "drawers" that pop out of a Panel that looks a lot
>> like the one in KDE that has menus of programs.
>
>Those just looked like extra start menus to me :-)
Well, I suppose now that MS has added the "unfurling" feature to their
menus there is a bit of a resemblance. There's some innovation, yes
sir!
>> It also has multiple
>> workspaces that are selected by buttons on the panel, as in KDE.
>That functionality is the realm of video drivers and shareware on Windows.
Yes, I know, I use multidesk. So that feature of KDE didn't sure come
from Windows. Neither did the option to double-click on the titlebar
to "roll up" a window (that came from the Mac).
>> It also offers a Motif look & feel.
>
>Motif's widgets are much closer to Windows 3.1 than to Windows 95.
I think Motif's style is really pretty different from both. Uglier
than both too, IMO. KDE lets you have either, or you can go crazy with
themes.
>> >KDE window frames and button placement are virtually identical to
>> >Windows 95.
>>
>> You can change the button placement in the KDE Control Panel. You can
>
>> also change the window frames if you have the Theme Manager installed
>> (on 1.1.2). Win95 doesn't offer those features IIRC.
>
>Try Windowblinds. Same thing.
I find it amusing that you keep citing third-party addons to prove that
KDE is copying Windows. And what is now Windowblinds started on OS/2
anyway.
>Multiple workspaces are a video driver fucntion.
Not on Unix. It _shouldn't_ be on Windows either, IMO, but they didn't
ask me.
>You *can* move the taskbar around and even add new bars to it.
In which Windows? I think KDE may have beat them to that one. OS/2
did for sure.
>KDE 2 is the best desktop environment I've seen for UNIX but it's still
>not up to par with Windows 2000. Sorry.
That's ok. I use Blackbox most of the time anyway, so you can see how
much I actually care about "desktop environments". I do have a wife
and kids though, and they seem to be able to navigate KDE just fine.
>> KDE has borrowed from several places. CDE is one, Win95 is one.
>
>Right, no real innovation.
KDE had shaded titlebars before Windows did. Is that the sort of
"innovation" you are talking about, or are you talking about the kind
where new ways of doing things are invented? Windows has a lot of the
former, maybe more than KDE, but not much of the latter. Really nobody
has had all that much of the latter of late.
Somehow this doesn't bother me overly much.
>> >Or they may be failing to innovate, preferring rather to ride on the
>> >coat-tails of Windows UI success.
>
>> As Windows rode on the Mac's coat-tails?
>
>All this desktop metaphor crap shoulda been hard patented by Xerox when
>they invented it.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that Windows isn't largely derivative. It
is, probably to a similar extent to KDE. Your argument that KDE is
more derivative than Windows is a hard one to prove I think. Proving
that there is a usability difference is even harder.
>> >I'd like to navigate into folders like I walk into a room
>> >in Unreal Tournament.
>>
>> Someone actually wrote a program that allowed you to navigate through
>> the Linux filesystem that way.
>Where's that link? I'm sure it was just another half-baked attempt.
I don't seem to have it any more, sorry. You might be able to find it
on freshmeat.net, but it was probably two years ago that I saw it. It
was interesting but, yeah, not finished.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:04:58 GMT
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:02:14 -0500, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think that like items need to coalesce on their own perhaps
>only as representations of the real storage so that I can "fly" into a
>cluster of word processor documents and see all of them that I can
>access, no matter where they are as easily as I can "fly" into a a
>folder.
I'd rather have a full-text search engine automatically index all of my
documents, including text fields in non-text documents. Or perhaps
they could be classifed by subject matter and context so that I could
retrieve them later by asking for, say, "all the documents that were
touched while I was working on bug report foo", or "documents relating
to meetings about two months ago".
I want the computer to do the work for me rather than making it easier
for me to do things manually.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:05:00 GMT
On 21 Sep 2000 12:49:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Practically all Linux and *BSD distributions are
>expected to incorporate KDE 1.1.2 in future releases."
Quite a few of them *are* shipping 1.1.2. Even so, 1.1.1 was not
"betaware" by any means.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
