Linux-Advocacy Digest #412, Volume #30 Sat, 25 Nov 00 13:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Jan Schaumann")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: KDE2 (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:00:30 +0000
In article <8vnubl$4ujgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LhJT5.2681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:pUET5.10217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You've been very fortunate in regards to the registry. I've experienced
>> registry corruption on two occasions. Both occasions involved drives in
>> pristine condition. Both were lockups that occured during service pack
>> updates. They were on separate machines that normally displayed quite sane
>> behavior.
>
>Two occasions, out of how long time using windows? On how many machines?
>
>
>
The interesting question is 'with linux, how many times has
your /etc directory been rendered unusable?
The correct answer is probably never in the whole of the
history of space and time for a production machine, but
maybe if you look really hard, you might find one, somewhere,
but it seems very very unlikely.
The registry is well renowned as a major weakness in the design of
windows.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:52:09 +0000
In article <5ZET5.10218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>> >> Wow, that's a new one. Is it just 98SE? And of course it begs the
>> >> question, "why isn't the shutdown always quick?"
>> >
>> >The longer shutdown method takes the time to save applications as well as
>> >explorers recent configuration changes.
>> >
>> So why does it hang so frequently at that point?
>
>That depends on what OS you're talking about. Often it's related to power
>management in 9x. Many drivers don't react well to power management and
>hang. 98 introduced the fast shutdown, which many drivers also do not like.
>If the driver doesn't follow all the rules it may work just fine in pre-98
>systems, or in 98 with fast shutdown disabled, but fail with fast shutdown.
>This can also cause problems with certain bioses as well.
>
>In NT 4.0 there was a bug in the spooler that was there for years that would
>cause a very long shutdown on some systems. This was fixed in 2000, and
>possibly SP6. The easiest solution was to create a batch file on your
>desktop to stop the spooler service before shutting down.
>
This is where you really pay the price of not being able to
access the source. The only possibility is to hack something
and wait until the provider gets around to fixing the problem,
if they ever do.
At least on Linux systems, you can patch it yourself, if it
troubles you enough.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:02:40 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>Tom Wilson wrote...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vnubl$4ujgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:LhJT5.2681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:pUET5.10217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > > Press shift when you click the OK button on the shut down screen,
>> > this
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > give you quick shutdown.
>> > > > > > BTW, ctrl+alt+backspace doesn't restart X, it terminate it, and
>> then
>> > > > start
>> > > > > > it, there is quite a difference here.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a
>> consequence
>> > > of
>> > > > > the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been you
>> > were
>> > > > > working on, but core processes other systems on your net might be
>> > using
>> > > > > don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't have
>> to
>> > > deal
>> > > > > with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
>> > > >
>> > > > To the average user, the GUI *IS* a core process, and usually the only
>> > > thing
>> > > > they care about on a desktop machine. Who cares if the telnet server
>> is
>> > > > still running if you just lost all your work in the 5 open X
>> > applications
>> > > > you had going?
>> > >
>> > > If said desktop machine was also host to a CVS repository that was
>> > currently
>> > > being updated or hosted a printer that was in the middle of a large
>> print
>> > > job, someone would, indeed, care if the machine were hopelessly locked
>> up
>> > or
>> > > rebooted.
>> >
>> > It's not an average desktop machine.
>>
>> The point remains that GUI sub-system failures need not bring down an OS -
>> As they frequently do under the Microsoft model.
>
>The point is, that this advantage is largely moot to an average desktop
>user.
I moot that the time wasted in first halting a machine that doesn't
want to stop and then rebooting (which takes longer than Microsoft's
quoted time), and _then_ getting to where the linux machine would have
been is very expensive from a business perspective, as well as very
frustrating for the poor unfortunate users, one of those being me.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:56:17 +0000
In article <pUET5.10217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Press shift when you click the OK button on the shut down screen, this
>> would
>> > give you quick shutdown.
>> > BTW, ctrl+alt+backspace doesn't restart X, it terminate it, and then
>start
>> > it, there is quite a difference here.
>>
>> The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a consequence of
>> the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been you were
>> working on, but core processes other systems on your net might be using
>> don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't have to deal
>> with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
>
>To the average user, the GUI *IS* a core process, and usually the only thing
>they care about on a desktop machine. Who cares if the telnet server is
>still running if you just lost all your work in the 5 open X applications
>you had going?
This wasn't my point, at least. My point was that _if_ I get a
problem with X (which is so rare I can't actually remember when
one might have been, but I believe it has happened in the distant
past), then I can kill it and it will restart momentarily under
the management of xdm.
With my win98 machine, it might take 20mins just for the machine
to stop, then I have to do the equivalent of an fsck, whether it
needs it or not if I got bored waiting and stopped it by hand,
then I've got to try to get back to where I was.
The whole user experience is a) awful and b) the subject a large
amounts of Dilbert style humour in our office.
>
>And corrupted file systems don't usually happen with NTFS since it's
>journaled.
I thought that was moot?
>And I have never experienced a corrupted registry except when
>the hard disk developed bad spots.
Can't say I've ever had a corrupted registry in Windows.
Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:12:35 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, neJ wrote:
> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:43:25 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Microsoft don't care two hoots about security - so of course this means
> >>nothing to them.
> >
> >And yet look at the number of security problems in *nix systems -
> >those infamous DOS attacks weren't lauched from Windoze platforms, now
> >were they??
>
> The number of security problems in *nix systems are few and far
> between compared to windows. Attacks are frequently launched from
> *nix machines because the of many advantages (better IP stacks,
> for example). I have had my router scanned by NT machines, though,
> so they're not all done from *nix.
>
The problems with eunics are neither that few nor that far between, NFS is a
primary case in point.
> Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:12:36 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >mark wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> Netmeeting phones home as well. It's kind of unsurprising that
Windows is
> >> >> so insecure - it needs to be in order to enable all these bits of
soft-
> >> >> ware to phone back to Microsoft Headquarters so they can see what
you're
> >> >> doing, or where you are, or who you are, or, well, what, exactly?
> >> >>
> >> >> Incidentally, last time I mentioned this someone responded very fast
to
> >> >> say that you could disable this behaviour, but I've not been able to
> >> >> see how. Maybe I need that MCSE :)
> >> >
> >> >And in today's MCSE lesson... how to make the fucking thing work the
way
> >> >you want.
> >> >
> >> >Tomorrow: How to stop your computers reporting your hard drive
> >> >contents and bank details to Microsoft.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> >What I think would be really amusing is to prove where the operating
system sends
> >banking information to Microsoft. Netmeeting sends your conversation
through
> >Microsoft servers only if you configure it to. Just like AIM and ICQ et.
al. If
> >you use your own server then, of course, it does not. The where an who
you are
>
> Er, no - that's wrong. The copy of netmeeting I'm looking at sets up
> tcp links to microsoft even though the server is within our intranet.
>
During setup it asks you if you want to use ils.microsoft.com as a directory
(read name) server. Say no and no connection to MS exists. This is also a
setting change IIRC.
> I still haven't seen anything to turn this off.
>
> I suspect you don't know what I'm talking about. It really _does_
> phone home.
>
> >data extends to geographic data for best routing and your handle and
fullname if
> >you provided it. Again much like the IMs. I don't hear anything about
this
> >behavior in the IMs yet when it's MS the standards and reactions are much
> >different.
> >
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:14:03 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <J4cT5.5264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Try publishing an "unhappy Microsoft experience" on company letter
> >> head, and watch how quickly Microsoft has your company in court
> >> for violating the EULA, which specifically states that the corporation
> >> MAY NOT publish *anything* disparaging about Microsoft's products...
> >> EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.
> >>
> >
> >Not true, I published a letter to the editor of PC week some 6 years ago
> >with a minor complaint about Microsoft and received a call from MS asking
> >what they could do to fix the problem, I told them and it was done, both
> >retroactive and made policy in their next release.
>
> I thought that the EULA was not enforcable 6 years ago, but might
> be now? Related to UCITA or DMCA or something?
>
> Would be interesting to see what happened now.
>
> Mark
Most likely the same, MS saw this as a PR/Marketing problem and did what
they do best, give the customer's what they want.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:13:44 -0500
* "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jason wrote:
>>
>> Must you quote the whole damn post?
>
> It is required.
It is not. Just quote what you reply to, snipp *all* unneccessary stuff.
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
-Jan
Fup2 als and cola (since the debating will take weird directions in those
groups that need not be xposted to other groups in which people wish to
discuss serious things)
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
Bob Barker: "Which one of these lovely womanoids will take home atomic tiara?"
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:18:39 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote...
> > >
> > > Uh, you can get a lot of this functionality in Windozzzzzzz using the
> > > shortcuts.
> >
> > No, you can't.
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > If I have 5 HTML documents, I can't associate each to be opened with a
> > different editor using shortcuts.
>
> Sure you can. Make a short cut for each, then manually edit the name of
> the program that opens them. You can add command-line arguments, too, if
> you want. I do it all the time.
>
> > > It is your choice.
> >
> > Thanks for that. Some would think otherwise.
>
> Well, I would still try to convince you about Linux vs. Windozzzzzzzz,
> but all it would get us at best is another Linux user if I succeeded.
> And it would probably be a lot of work on my part! Even though
> even Windozzzzzzzz 2000 bugs me (come on! 128 Mb just to use the
> thing in a normal Office environment, gimme a frikkin' break!), it
> does mark significant progress over Windozzzzzzz NT. Even if the
> bug count has blipped upward.
BZZZZZZT Wrong answer, While Win2K does perform nicely with 128MB RAM it
performs rather well with a mere 32-48MB RAM as well.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Linux rocks
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:20:29 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vk5h8$4rkdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vk4ub$ori$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > This is just plain SUSPICIOUS.
> > > >
> > > > Change the setting of the shortcut in the quick launch menu.
> > > > That is likely the cause of this.
> > >
> > > A good try, but no... I always start IE with the quick launch icon...
> > > the shortcut is fine, it's IE that once in a while decides to connect
to
> > > MS.
> >
> > It's probably checking for newer versions of IE. Have a look under
> Tools ->
> > Options -> Advanced -> "Automatically check for updates".
>
> You mean there isn't a world-wide conspiracy after all?
>
LOL
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: KDE2
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:39:18 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 25 Nov 2000 13:53:33 GMT...
...and Xavi Solsona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think this piece of software (KDE2) will help a lot
> to bring several desktop Windows users to GNU/Linux.
> Welcome to new distributions with 2.4 and KDE2 by
> default (I consider GNOME inferior nowadays)
Why?
mawa
--
Brillentaucher!
Browserchatter!
Chiliverweigerer!
Collegeblock-mit-mikroperforierter-Ausreißhilfe-Benutzer!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:15:29 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>T. Max Devlin wrote...
>[...]
>> >Win2k offers a stable environment in which I may run my
>> >preferred apps, all of which are not from MS.
>>
>> Yes, it is a monopoly; we are aware of that. I think many may argue
>> about the term 'stable environment', but that's beside the point.
>>
>> >I'd be beside you saying the same thing if Win9x was all there was to use
>> >to run the apps I wish to run.
>>
>> Somehow, I doubt that.
>
>Mr. Presumptuous strikes again. I migrated from Win9x to OS/2 in 1996
>because I disliked Win9x. It was too damn unstable and OS/2 provided a
>better environment to work in. A better shell.
>
>I put aside all the Windows apps I was using and bought OS/2 equivalents.
>I learnt how to use them. I also learnt OS/2 itself.
>
>Linux provides a better solution today than OS/2 did in 1996.
>
>If Win9x were all that MS offered, I'd either be still running OS/2 or
>now running Linux. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind about that.
>
>Win2k irons out a lot of the hangups I had with NT. I installed it in
>January and am yet to experienced a system lockup or BSOD. Do I need
>better stability that this for my purposes?
>
According to your own history, you've not used NT, you used win9x, OS/2
and then Linux.
I recall someone predicting a few months back that we'd start to get
the 'I used to use Linux but now Win2k is out it really rocks'.
I really couldn't imagine making a rational OS decision on whether
I've _yet_ had a BSOD.
I'm fascinated by exactly what applications were available for
Win9x in 1996, OS/2 at the same time (or at least functional
equivalents), Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
available apps?
I'm kind of suprised you haven't worked Solaris in somewhere.
This is like one of those daytime TV quiz show questions:
Was it:
a) Norton commander
b) GNU Utils
c) Netscape Navigator
quickly now, and you must answer the question as a
question... :)
I'm finding this story a bit less than credible.
Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:29:53 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:59:04
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Wrong, Netscape sold it (for around $35, if I remember right) until
> >> M$ decided to crush their competitor.
> >
> >But it was available on multiple FTP Servers for free, infact, in direct
> >contravention of law, Netscape had exclusive use contracts with many
ISP's
> >that forbade the ISP from supporting any customer using IE. These ISP's
had
> >among their number large members such as Pacbell.net and AT&T.
>
> What laws precisely do you think this contravenes?
>
The very same ones that you accuse Microsoft of violating. It is an "Unfair
Business Practice" to limit support to customers because of the platform
they use when this is done by an exclusive contract. It equates to price
fixing...
> [...]
> >> The latest Mozilla project looks pretty promising.
> >
> >Still looking promising. Have they reached Alpha yet?
>
> TBH, I'm thinking more and more these days that Netscape sucks big dog
> dicks, almost as much as IE does. And just as with OSes, I'm not
> willing to go with Opera, although I'm very attracted to its
> functionality, simply because it is not mainstream, and I'm pretty
> conservative that way. I can use Netscape, of course, though I stick
> with an old 4.0x version of Navigator-only. Still, I think we'd have
> all been better off if Mr. Andreesen had taken fewer lessons in how to
> make software from Mr. Gates. The idea of using an application as the
> basis of middleware is as contradictory as the idea of using an OS as
> middleware. Meanwhile, we still have no decent middleware, and not just
> the OS but the web browsers suck, and are at a technological standstill,
> as well.
>
So Mozilla isn't to Alpha test yet? Opera is OK but I find IE most useful.
Netscrape hasn't had a decent version since 3.5 (that's why IE became the
market leader BTW). as for middleware COM and COM+ are moving along rather
well I really have to disagree about the technological standstill as that
only applies to those stuck in the eunuchs world or think the bastard
stepchild (Redheaded or redhatted?) Linux will take over the world.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[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: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:33:09 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > The nice thing about Unix is that the defaults are relatively safe,
> > > and offer NO opportunity for one person to remove another's files.
> >
> > Interestingly, it's a nice thing that windows (on NTFS) can do as well.
>
> Unix had this from the Very Start.
>
> Why did it take Microsoft over 15 years to come up with similar
functionality?
>
Because in the bad old days, none of the systems were connected to others
nor were they connected to the outside world, such functionality was not
needed.
> PS: The code for Version 6 Unix has been public domain since the late
1970's,
> so Microshaft has no excuse.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
<banwidth saving snip>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:23:18 +0000
In article <VwQT5.18617$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"neJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:43:25 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Microsoft don't care two hoots about security - so of course this means
>> >nothing to them.
>>
>> And yet look at the number of security problems in *nix systems -
>> those infamous DOS attacks weren't lauched from Windoze platforms, now
>> were they??
>
>Nor were the majority of computers that the attacks were launched AGAINST
>running Windows.
>
Beg to differ massively. All the scans I see (and I see 2-3 port-scans
an hour) are _all_ looking for ports used by windows trojans.
I see thousands of scans for windows machines. I don't see any for
unix machines.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 25 Nov 2000 17:36:51 GMT
On 25 Nov 2000 02:16:21 -0800, mitch@dontspam wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>Completely baseless claim. It's considerably safer than say C
>
>It is hard to say it is safer than C, when the same basic data
>types is common to both.
It is not hard to say so at all, because one can encapsulate dynamic
allocation inside automatic structures. You don't have to free your
pointer every time you use it, you just do it once and only once
inside a destructor.
>>THe amount of manual memory management required is fairly minor and easy
>>to encapsulate in automatically managed data structures.
>
>in theory.
This is typical of the C++ bashing posts in this thread -- unsubstantiated
claims.
Not only in theory, but in practice ! In C++:
(a) You only need to manually manage memory when you require polymorphism,
(b) other memory management can be isolated inside destructors.
>>Hahahahahaha ... no thanks. I write programs to do statistical analysis on
>>brainscans, and the last thing I want is an ugly interface and dog slow
>>software.
>
>for the majority of software,
"majority of software" is a pretty vague statement. What type of software ?
> portability and
Java is not cross-platform, it runs on one platform, a proprietary platform at
that. And java is only as portable as that platform. My C++ code compiles and
runs on OpenBSD. What about java ?
> robust software are more
See below. One might even question java's "robustness".
>>That's funny, where's all the java software ?
>
>it is everywhere. go out more and you will see it. go to DICE
>and type Java and click return.
C++ software is also everywhere. C++ is used for different things to Java.
We're not going to see people writing high performance applications or
end user applications (eg word processors) in java any time soon.
>again, for many many applications, a robust and bug free application,
>is more important than slightly faster, and more buggy application.
>
>Java speed for most applications is more than sufficient.
"most", "majority" ... empty generalisations. The problem is that most of
the ugly C++ and error prone code that uses things like pointers is going
to be written like that for performance reasons. If you don't mind having
something that performs as slowly as java, then you can throw out your
dangerous code.
>It is true that compile-time checking is better than run-time checking,
>but so far, having used Java collection classes for some time, I see
>no problems with run-time checking.
Besides the fact that it's more error prone than runtime checking.
> many languages use run-time type
>checking, such as smalltalk.
And they have all the same issues as java.
> No one is claiming Java is perfect, but
>it is a better language than C++, that is for sure.
More empty generalisations. Better for what ?!?!?!?
It's clearly not better for writing video games for example.
>>Better choice for what ?
>
>I assumed for writing software?
"Writing software" is yet another empty generalisation.
Writing what kind of software ? Video games ? Object oriented application
development frameworks ? End user applications ? Backends for webpages ?
Network clients ? Network servers ? Operating systems ?
There are several different kinds of software and writing them requires
different tools. To push one tool as the superior choice for all of them
is not sensible.
> May be that is why C is used for
>almost all system software, and C++ is not. With C++, one spends
>more time fighting the language itself, and its complexity.
What is "system software" and what is an "application" ? Is there some
middle ground ? What about an "application" that requires fairly high
performance ?
Take a look at something like GTK+ and compare it to Qt, then tell me which
one is more "complex". Programming with GTK is like brain surgery.
>People are more productive using simpler languages. I have programmed
>in both C++ and Java, and I am much more productive in Java than C++.
>And many programmers I know also found the same effect after switching to
>Java.
>
>For system programming, use ansi C.
>For applications, use Java.
What, so you'd write word processors in java ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
