Linux-Advocacy Digest #234, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Marty)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Jack Troughton)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Kjetil Torgrim Homme)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Hoot Owl")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Hoot Owl")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Hoot Owl")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Hoot Owl")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Hoot Owl")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Hoot Owl")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:47:47 -0500
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
>
> > "Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
> > timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
> > point"
>
> Not to worry, only a clerical mistake. Should be 29.52 days, a lunar
> month, but they got pi wrong: 4.1316 instead of 3.1416 (approx), hence
> the 49.7 days. Hey, everyone can make mistakes! (How did they get a
> 49.7-day lunar month from pi = 4.1316? Search me. Probably another
> clerical mistake. Or two. Or three. Don't worry. A service pack will fix
> it in the more or less distant future, if you live that long)
Here's where 49.7 comes from:
Largest unsigned 32-bit integer = 4294967296
The uptime counter is an unsigned long integer measuring the
milliseconds of uptime.
So 4294967296 milliseconds is 4294967.296 seconds.
4294967.296 / (60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day)
= 49.7 days
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:50:35 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Then he should select MS powered machines, which crash
> > without need of hardware problems.
>
> Not the one I works with.
So all your claims are based on ONE box experience?
> And Microsoft doesn't black mail Sun users with
> non discosure agreements that essentially say: "We'll try harder to fix this
> problem if you keep quiet about it. Talk about it and we won't."
You're right. Microsoft doesn't fix the problem whether you
talk or not. More democratic.
>
> What a bunch of scumbags.
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:26:20 -0500
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Read the link again. It explains it quite clearly. NT4 simply
> cannot, in
> > > any circumstance, report an uptime longer than 49.7 days, even if
> the server
> > > has been up for 3 years straight. It can't make it into the top 50
> if it is
> > > incapable of reporting a time large enough to BE in the top 50, now
> can it?
> >
> > So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> > that what you're saying?
>
> uptime.exe
> >
> > > > And you never explained the graph that shows Starbucks rebooting
> their
> > > > NT 4 server on a daily basis for months and months on end.
> > >
> > > Again:
> > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
> > >
> > > "NT4 SP5 sometimes gives unreliable data, appearing as a "swarm of
> bees"
> > > effect on a graph."
> >
> > So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> > that what you're saying?
>
> uptime.exe
>
> >
> > > Notice how the starbucks NT4 results show no trend. One day it's
> an 18 day
> > > uptime, the next day it's 40 days, the next day it's 0 days, the
> next day
> > > something else. There is no way from *ANY* NT4 uptime result to
> know if
> > > it's accurate or not.
> >
> > So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> > that what you're saying?
> >
>
> uptime.exe
>
> > > > I thought
> > > > NT 4 was the end-all and be-all of server OS's, Eric? How can u
> > > > explain this anomalous behavior?
> > >
> > > I explain it by pointing out netcrafts own explanation. NT4's
> uptime
> > > statistics are not valid in any condition. Ever.
> >
> > So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> > that what you're saying?
> >
>
> uptime.exe. Of course, you can't run this over the net, but it's
> a "real world" way to measure the "reliability", as long as you define
> reliability to be uptime.
Well, I certainly wouldn't define it as the be-all and end-all of
reliability, but it's certainly an important factor. Let's say that
uptime is a necessary but not sufficient component of overall
reliability.
> > Well, seeing as you're telling us that there's no reliable way of
> > assessing NT's real-world performance on the internet, which facts
> > are we supposed to get straight? I mean, why would anyone use a
> > system that can't even track its own uptime properly? If one's going
> > to use a server system, I would certainly hesitate to use one that
> > is designed in such a way as to make gathering reliability
> > information impossible to gather in any meaningful way.
> >
>
> Uptime is a completely bogus figure when talking about the performance
> of a web server. The OS could be up, but the HTTP service could be
> crashed/down etc. Performance of a web server can only really be
> measured by how "available" a server is to users, not what the OS
> uptime is. This applies to any OS you care to mention. Of course,
> measuring availability is next to impossible, as too many other factors
> come into it. A mere uptime measure doesn't take into account
> operational procedures (e.g. a web site might have scheduled downtime
> on each box in their cluster every x days).
> FWIW, Starbastards managed to achieve something that many *nix heads
> say is impossible and kept Windows 2000 for a reasonable length of time.
Just out of curiousity, what's a reasonable length of time?
When looking at web services, there are a hell of a lot of factors
that go into assessing the success or failure of any given solution,
and there're no hard fast rules for making that assessment.
The main point I was making was that Erik couldn't see how his <koff
koff ahem> 'rebuttal' destroyed the very point he was trying to
make. I mean, his response was so close to nonsensical as to be
comical. As far as real world metrics go, netcraft is about as good
as it gets right now; it measures performance of systems in the
field. Unfortunately, due to the dearth of remote-admin facilities
on NT systems, their performance/reliability cannot be measured in
any meaningful way in the field. This fact alone makes me leery of
NT as a server.
FWIW- we have an NT file/print/proxy setup in my office. We
generally have to reboot it once every month or so, usually because
it loses the com port the modem is attached to. More specifically,
it regards the modem as in-use and unavailable when in fact it's
not. For the role it plays here, that's not that big of a deal; just
wait until lunchtime or after work and reboot it and it's good to go
again for another month of so.
The system is adminned by Compaq under contract. They haven't been
able to fix it <shrug>.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:56:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sfcybear wrote:
> >
> > Yeapers, but the point is moot unless you are making the case that
NT
> > has better uptime performance the lousy W2K performance.
>
> He can't do that without contradicting his party line that W2K is more
> reliable than NT.
I know! This has been fun! I remember back when the Mindcraft tests were
the hot topic all the winusers were saying what a great configuration a
single server with 4 ports was, while the Linux people were claiming the
a clustered appoach with smaller servers and linux would be more stable
and chaeper! Now, all of a sudden the winusers are claiming that the Big
single server is NOT the way to go! Kinda makes the the mindcraft test
look a bit silly!! I know they will claim well, you could cluster....
But that server was overkill and overpriced to begin with! A larger
cluster of smaller servers would STILL be better!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:12:58 GMT
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Read the link again. It explains it quite clearly. NT4 simply
> cannot, in
> > > any circumstance, report an uptime longer than 49.7 days, even if
> the server
> > > has been up for 3 years straight. It can't make it into the top 50
> if it is
> > > incapable of reporting a time large enough to BE in the top 50, now
> can it?
> >
> > So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> > that what you're saying?
>
> uptime.exe
> >
> > > > And you never explained the graph that shows Starbucks rebooting
> their
> > > > NT 4 server on a daily basis for months and months on end.
> > >
> > > Again:
> > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
> > >
> > > "NT4 SP5 sometimes gives unreliable data, appearing as a "swarm of
> bees"
> > > effect on a graph."
> >
> > So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> > that what you're saying?
>
> uptime.exe
>
I wasn't aware of its existence on the NT box (I only had
used it on *nix), but as soon as I read your posting, I
tried uptime on our file server box (NT4 sp4) and on the PC
on my desk.
Server result:
C:\>uptime
The name specified is not registered as an
internal or external command, operable program or batch
file.
The PC on my desk runs NT4 sp4 Italian version, so the
message was in Italian, but the content was exactly the
same.
It appears that MS isn't so eager to have users measure
uptime of their stuff, isn't it?
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:06:34 GMT
In article <8urmg7$4da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you sure you are exiting kppp cleanly?
I don't see any error messages when I do.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: 14 Nov 2000 19:20:31 +0100
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I hope that the two projects merge in the future in a language less
> > sucky than either C or C++.
>
> Agreed. They should write it in Java. That way, KDE and GNOME
> could run on an array of embedded applications (such as the Palm
> pilot). We'll see a lot less of Windows CE. I'm tired of seeing
> Windows CE running on embedded applications.
Take a look at Qt Embedded. It looks very promising, and porting KDE
applications to it should be doable. Applications need to be designed
differently when screen estate and RAM is so precious, though. A
friend has it running on an iPaq with Linux, it is quite usable
already.
Kjetil T.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Nov 2000 11:29:36 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > In article <xP5Q5.126446$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I quoted:
> > > >
> > > > "Internally, all Oracle8i file I/O routines support 64-bit file
> > > > offsets, meaning that there are no 2GB or 4GB file size limitations
> > > > when it comes to data, log, or control files as is the case on some
> > > > other platforms."
> > > >
> > > > "some other platforms" have 2GB or 4GB file limitations.
> > > >
> > > > Linux and Unix would be examples.
> > > >
> > > > NT does NOT have a 2GB or 4GB file size limitation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Whether or not you can use >2Gb or >4Gb Oracle
> > > datafiles on NT depends on:
> > >
> > > 1. Your version of NT
> > >
> > > 2. Your service packs
> > >
> > > 3. Your version of Oracle
> > >
> > > 4. The DBA policy at your site. Some sites implement
> > > a policy of outright banning the usage of such large
> > > files.
> > >
> > > In any case, don't think life is going to be
> > > so rosy for a DBA who plans on designing a database
> > > around a tablespace with one massive 32Gb Oracle datafile.
> > > In many cases, it's quite possibly the dumbest
> > > design decision one can make.
>
>
>
> > Yes; especially when one of those drives goes down and you have two
> > 18GB spares ready to put in the machine.
>
> But a multitude of <2GB files is preferable?
Sure; and easier to move around to optimize things.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:36:53 -0600
"Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The main point I was making was that Erik couldn't see how his <koff
> koff ahem> 'rebuttal' destroyed the very point he was trying to
> make. I mean, his response was so close to nonsensical as to be
> comical. As far as real world metrics go, netcraft is about as good
> as it gets right now; it measures performance of systems in the
> field. Unfortunately, due to the dearth of remote-admin facilities
> on NT systems, their performance/reliability cannot be measured in
> any meaningful way in the field. This fact alone makes me leery of
> NT as a server.
Then you should be leery of Linux, recent releases of FreeBSD, HP-UX, and
Solaris as well. Not to mention the OS's that don't report uptimes at all,
such as OS/2, OS/390, SunOS4, NetWare...
Linux, recent FreeBSD's, HP-UX and Solaris also cycle back to zero as well,
just at a higher rate (497 days). In fact, the #2 and #3 positions on the
current longest running sites will drop off the list in in a few days.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:37:53 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > uptime.exe
>
> I wasn't aware of its existence on the NT box (I only had
> used it on *nix), but as soon as I read your posting, I
> tried uptime on our file server box (NT4 sp4) and on the PC
> on my desk.
> Server result:
>
> C:\>uptime
> The name specified is not registered as an
> internal or external command, operable program or batch
> file.
uptime.exe is part of the resource kit.
> It appears that MS isn't so eager to have users measure
> uptime of their stuff, isn't it?
Why should they be?
------------------------------
From: "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 14 Nov 2000 12:45:33 -0600
You are an idiot.
"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You've obviously never heard of hardware probing, have you? Any OS will
> probe whatever hardware is on your system to see what is on there (like
> your BIOS, etc.) By your previous posts, I can probably assume that you
> don't have any knowledge of it besides maybe seeing the word "probing"
> on your screen during a Windows setup, if you can even do your own setup
> that is.
>
> So now who's credibility is shot?
>
> > An operating system fried your CMOS battery?
> >
> > So much for your credibility :(
> >
> > claire
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 14 Nov 2000 12:47:30 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > As far as problems with Windows go, well *starts snickering*, I
probably
> > > shouldn't even go there. I'll just say that's it's included two full
> > > re-installs of 98 SE for various reasons, replacing a CMOS battery
after
> > > 2000 fried it, and my NT loader miraculously corrupting after
installing
> > > 2000 again. Oh, and a format of the 98/2000 drive from the NT Loader
> > > crash, which is why I'm glad I didn't let Mandrake near that drive.
And
> > > total cost of my Linux CD's: about $3 (one CD each for 6.1 and 7.0,
and
> > > 2 CD's for 7.2) And by the way, keep going and you might be in the
> > > running for my dumbass plonk of the year award. :)
> >
> > Ummm....CMOS battery...fried by an OS....
> >
> > (clearing throat)
> >
> > PLONK!
> >
> > --
> > Registered Linux User #194021
> It is possible. New computers are all still drawing power as long as
> they are plugged in. There are hardware functions still running even if
> the system appears to be turned off. It is possible that the OS set up
> hardware to keep doing some task (Network card trying to tell the
> network the computer is connected but off?). If the OS starts some
> hardware, then the hardware reverts to battery when main power is off,
> the battery will fry. Rechargables will discharg, reverse polarity, and
> get things all screwed up. CMOS batteries weren't designed for the kinds
> of loads they pull now.
>
Errrrrrrrr! Wrong answer, please play again.
CMOS batteries, by design, only power... come on, guess... The CMOS! Woo
Hoo!!
There is not even a physical connection between the CMOS battery and
anything else. It's literally impossible to power anything else.
------------------------------
From: "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 14 Nov 2000 12:49:22 -0600
"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And that is why, I'm not saying any further on this topic. :) I know
> it's happened, since it did on my computer and I have seen it on a few
> other occasions, mostly from W2K upgrades. Claire, Tom, if you don't
> want to believe it happens, don't.
>
ERRRRRRR - wrong-o troll-boy.
Document for me any case of "OS-probing" that can "fry" a CMOS battery.
AND, even if a divine miracle occured (or you soldered the cmos battery to
something else for some unknown reason) ... um, change the $1.19 battery? I
really can't believe how broke linux users are... sad...
------------------------------
From: "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 14 Nov 2000 12:53:19 -0600
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8uhk0h$kk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In using Windows, there is a downside... like this for example.
> > >
> > > Dealing With OS Decay: Rebuilding Your Windows System from Scratch
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2531288,00.html
> > >
> > > I really don't think Linux has this problem, does it?
> >
> > Linux has one big advantage, those who use it knows what they are doing.
> > I've a computer which *still* has the original OEM of win95, I bought it
> > several months after win95 was out. (early 96, I think)
> > It's in a working condition, BTW.
> > It's doing its works (word processing and some emails now & then at the
> > moment, before, it was used as a home computer, which include games,
> > installing & uninstalling all kind of programs, the normal stuff)
> > I don't plan to reinstall windows on it again, in the case of a total
> > failure, it's going to be linux, but I don't expect any problems with
it, as
> > it is the most well-behaved computer that I've seen.
> >
> > I don't know how long a linux box would be able to survive if clueless
> > people (with root access) would start fiddling with it.
> >
>
> at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
ERrrrrrrr!!!! Wrong answer, play again.
#1) Under Windows NT or 2000 you can protect files and directories from
anyone even the administrator (who would have to manually take ownership
back and then continue to delete the file and at that point you can't blame
anyone but the person who dileberately did it)
#2) Two words: Recycle Bin
#3) A journaling file system prevents from file lost or damage even due to
sudden power loss...
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:32:55 -0000
>> Let's see..which is more productive.
>>
>> A) A Lose NT server that can handle 2, maybe 3 services one machine, or
>
>Dozens of services a lot cheaper than one overpriced spontaneously crashing
>Sun Box.
>
>> B) A Unix server that can run 30 services one machine
>
>And crashes spontanously and costs 100 times as much as an NT box?
>
>Win2K please.
>
Or the same box running either FreeBSD or Linux running 30 services on the
same box
and costing a lot less than spontaneously crashing NT on the same hardware.
>Yup. In the Win2K world we know how much cheaper it is to get a great OS
for
>alot less money than the spontaneously crashing Sun boxes!
>
Must be using windows calculator then - $300 per machine is less then almost
$0 per
whole company.
Some users here are happily running Linux / FreeBSD with decent performance
on hardware
which cost less than your overbloated overpriced operating system.
Lets see - Home user wants a cheap secondhand PC to learn computing and
spends $300 on
a budget secondhand PC. Who is going to tell them that it will cost them The
same again for a version
of windows that will crash several times per week or just under 1/3 of the
cost of their machine for a version
which will crash several times per day or they can chose an operating system
they can get for free and will rarely crash, if ever, and learn a lot more
from the experience. Which would you chose in this situation?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > Or
>> > > even if you do, what if it isn't the machine where you installed your
>> > > licensed copy of the client?
>> >
>> > You don't need to license the client. You get two Clinet Access
>Licenses. As
>> > long as only 2 connections are active, you can run the Client from any
>PC.
>> > Microsft even offers a web client ActiveX control.
>> >
>> > > Do you have to sit in one place and wait
>> > > for the need to do remote administration?
>> >
>> > Nope. But you knew that as I've already explained it to you.
>> >
>> > > The only reasonable tool
>> > > I've found to deal with remote windows is VNC installed as a service
>> > > because you can run the java client in any browser if you don't
happen
>> > > to have the client loaded wherever you are.
>> >
>> > WTS has a browser-based ActiveX control client.
>>
>> Translation: Another goddamned Security hole.
>
>From the man who thinks buffer overflows disappeared from Unix in 1998
thats
>hilarious.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 14 Nov 2000 12:57:26 -0600
"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:11:15 -0800, "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:bl6P5.18721$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> >> > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any
files.
> >> >
> >> > I'm so sorry. You are wrong. When you compare nix to win you gotta
> >> compare lin
> >> > to nt4 or w2k. Both have secure journaling file systems.
> >>
> >> I thought they only journal the metadata, not the file contents.
> >
> >Yes they journal the file contents.
> >
>
> NTFS does not journal the file contents.
>
> From the Win2k Res kit:
>
> "NTFS is a recoverable file system. A user seldom needs to run a disk
> repair program on an NTFS volume. NTFS guarantees the consistency of
> the volume by using standard transaction logging and recovery
> techniques. In the event of a system failure, NTFS uses its log file
> and checkpoint information to automatically restore the consistency of
> the file system. "
>
> ie metadata
>
I do not see your "ie" mentioned anywhere - that's your incorrect
conconclusion not fact. W2K is a journaled transaction based file system.
Every file update is performed within a transaction, if that transaction is
not completed, upon reboot or rebuild it's rolled back to the last known
good state - there is no distinction of what type of data it is that's being
written. Every cluster is protected equally by this system. And the data
performing these operations is physically mirrored. This was true as far
back as NT 3.51!
(http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP) and it's
better in W2K.
------------------------------
From: "Hoot Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: 14 Nov 2000 12:59:17 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:g0KP5.19757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:MGIP5.125975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The thing you are missing is that journaling does not mean you
won't
> > > > > lose anything, it means that the operations are ordered so you can
> > > > > always recover to a consistent state. Journaling metadata means
that
> > > > > the directory structure and free space tables are always
consistent
> > > > > or at least recoverable even though any particular file's contents
> > > > > may not be correct. Journaling everything usually requires
writing
> > > > > changes to a log, performing the real update, then clearing the
log
> > > > > so that incomplete operations remain in the log and can be
completed
> > > > > during recovery. Making this set of steps come close to the
speed
> > > > > of non-journaled operations is non-trivial.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like NTFS does it.
> > > >
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
> > >
> > > There is really not enough information in that article to tell whether
> > > the log is just metadata or not, and I doubt if the omissions were
> > > accidental.
> >
> > It is exceptionally clear (and note this was NT 3.1 so it was in NT from
> the
> > beginning)
> >
> > When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and
undo
> > information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information
> allows
> > NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if
> necessary),
> > and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
>
> Where does it say that what it considers as a transaction includes the
> data? I question this because I have seen other sources that said it
> didn't.
EVERY cluster is protected, it doesn't matter what type of data is there.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
