Linux-Advocacy Digest #325, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Win/userbase! (GreyCloud)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (Dave Martel)
Re: Linux Winning the War of Perception!!! (Rex Ballard)
Re: Virus Scanners... (GreyCloud)
Re: Is Linux for me? (GreyCloud)
Re: Is Linux for me? (GreyCloud)
Re: GREAT DISCOVERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (GreyCloud)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (GreyCloud)
Re: Virus Scanners... (Rex Ballard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:15:48 -0700
pip wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > All these virus scanners do is hopefully alert you of the
> > presence of a virus AFTER you've been infected.
> >
> > AFTER is the key word here. The damage is done.
> >
> > So therefore they are just simply worthless CPU wasting piles
> > of crap. AFTER is no good!
>
> I am no expert here as I have not run virus scanning software for some
> years - but take VirusScan from Mcaffee, it sits in your tool bar and
> claims to scan Email and exe's before you run them. Dr Solomon's had the
> same kind of function if I remember. So when you run an EXE it first
> scan's it (thus things slow down a bit), and I guess that the Email
> works via a pseudo proxy or something. I don't really know (or really
> care), but I think that is the general approach. If it only could tell
> you after you were infected then they really would not be worth much.
> But then, having said this, I fail to see why they did not intercept a
> simple VB script virus? I don't know, and that is why I simply don't run
> any anti-virus software and just follow a sensible policy. In other
> words, if they can't even protect clueless users from being stupid then
> they are indeed steaming piles of crap that waste cpu cyles.
I know what you mean... that is why I subscribe to a Linux driven ISP
that scans for viruses on their mail server before sending them on to
the user. So far for over a year now they've been successful. (knock on
wood!)
--
V
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:20:43 -0600
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:57:51 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:09:19 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> MS better start cracking the whip if they want to keep up with linux.
>> >
>> >A> Most of windows applications would work on IA-64 without even a
>> >recompile. They will be slow as hell, probably, but they will work.
>>
>> Kind of like linux users running Windows apps on VMWare? <g>
>
>No, that isn't a function of external software, x86 compatability is built
>into the hardware.
I was referring to the speed issue. It's hard to imagine bleeding-edge
users settling for applications that don't take full advantage of
their expensive new CPU.
>It'll likely cause problems, because it's slow, at least at the moment.
>Intel should've gone on software (more easily updatable, I *hate* dropping
>to DOS to update hardware) emulation, like Apple did.
>
>> >B> All that it need, in nearly all cases, is a recompile of the
>application
>> >to IA-64 to get it to work on it in reasonable speed. That application,
>of
>> >course, wouldn't take advantage of what IA-64 has to offer, though. But I
>> >don't think that many of SuSe's application does it either.
>>
>> Hard to know since I don't have an IA-64 or the 64-bit version of
>> SuSE. However, given the linux tradition of portability it should be
>> an easy port. If SuSE hasn't already done it, somebody else will bery
>> soon.
>
>If Linux can boot on IA-64 (and it can), then you can recompile the
>applications to the IA-64, same as you can do on Windows Xp-64.
Yup, but with Windows apps you don't have the source so you have to
wait until the developer gets around to it. Testing, packaging, and
distributing all those new products to the retailers is not something
that can be done overnight. It'll take six months to a year to get
retail applications on the shelves in any numbers. Bleeding-edge users
aren't going to wait that long for applications to catch up to the
hardware.
Also as Bob Hauck has pointed out, the transition of code for Windows
3.x to Windows 9x was not exactly a smooth one. From what I've seen of
MS development tools and the Windows API (not to mention their
operating systems <g>), I don't think that porting existing apps will
be as easy as a simple recompile.
>If you want to take advantage of the IA-64 features, then you have to
>rewrite the program, on XP64, that would be done using Win64.
>How would you do it on Linux?
I wouldn't have to. With all the different platforms linux already
supports, I bet it can *already* handle any IA-64 features worth
having. Just set your kernel options and go.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Winning the War of Perception!!!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:26:18 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============79A8C27CF2337D9292867C66
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Linux Admin wrote:
> >http://www.it-director.com/article.asp?id=1903
> >
> >Some great quotes:
> >
> >A recent IBM analyst conference in Stamford Connecticut last week,
> > saw a confident IBM parading some of its successes. One of these,
> > although it has to be said, only one of several, is its continuing
> >success with Linux.
At the Linux Expo, Sam Palmisano covered numerous IBM successes with
Linux.
Keep in mind that when Sam made that speech, there was still not an
"Official"
distribution which included the Linux 2.4 kernel.
> >" There are now only two obstacles standing in the path of Linux
> >dominance. One is the lack of applications and this is being addressed
> >faster than most people realise.
This was actually shifted radically with the release of SuSE 7.1 and
the other
2.4 kernel based releases. Most were released with over 2000 packages
which
included nearly 1000 commercial packages available on a "try before
you buy" basis.
IBM has even released a "Linux Suite" of applications which is pretty
much distribution
blind. They charge about $1000 (with Distributors including their
distribution and
the IBM software. This package includes Websphere, DB2, MQSeries,
Lotus Domino, and
other applications. Typically, these are used for evaluations and for
limited scope
deployments. At the same time, IBM does offer enhanced services for
larger deployments.
For the price of 10 user Windows 2000 server, you get 100 user IBM
Suite.
Furthermore, Lotus 5.x client now runs quite smoothly under WINE, and
they even
have tools which allow the IGS consulting arm to reach their networks
and others.
> > The second is the adoption of Linux
> >by major corporates. And this too is happening.
SuSE has been very effective at bringing Linux to clients such as
Duetchebank. Caldera has
been winning over a number of franchises, and Red Hat is getting
rather popular in the
U.S. financial community.
> > Linux is slowly winning
> >the crucial battles in the operating system war and must be causing
> >serious concern for both Microsoft and Sun Microsystems."
Sun is somewhat concerned, because there is a much higher risk of
people
shifting to AIX when their server needs outgrow Linux. On the other
hand, Sun
also offers the Cobalt line, which is doing very well with ISPs.
> Since the choice from NT to W2k appeared, Linux has pretty well conquered
> most of the smaller companies.
Keep in mind that Microsoft has many competitors in the Database,
Groupware,
Office Automation, and Application software arena who were nearly
shut-out
by Microsoft when Windows NT was released. When Windows 2000 was
released,
Microsoft expected vendors to rewrite software to exploit MTS, MSMQ,
and
other "Windows only" technology. Instead, they opted to either offer
an "NT/2000" version, or they opted to use multiplatform software such
as switching to Apache servers, switching to MQSeries or Tibco for
messaging, and switching to CORBA and EJB. This made it much easier
for the customers of companies such as Siebel, SAP, Peoplesoft, and
Oracle, to switch quickly and easily to either Linux or UNIX.
Recently, as integration efforts have gotten more complex, it's
getting
to the point where vendors are faced with the choice of bringing 5
NT/2K PCs
to a demonstration, or one Linux box. Linux is gaining popularity as
a
laptop system, especially for consultants and developers. It's not
that they
go without Windows entirely, they just do more with "Crossover"
products such
as WINE, Win4Lin, and VMWare.
> W2k or NT to XP will bring us even greater numbers.
XP and .NET are being pretty much rejected. Corporate customers
aren't particularly keen on some
of the new "Features" of XP, and arent too keen on the pricing plan.
Consumers have already ignored
ME to the point where some of the big PC makers like Dell and Compaq
are resorting to layoffs and
production roll-backs. Meanwhile, most of the big players like
Oracle, IBM, and Sybase are switching
away from "Microsoft only" technology because they know that their
biggest customers will be wanting
to move most of their NT/2000/XP systems to Linux, UNIX, and OS/390
over the long run.
> I think Microsoft has to be given MORE credit for causing Linux growth.
This is probably true. Microsoft has burned so many bridges and made
so many enemies that the few companies
willing to bet their entire futures on Microsoft are looking more
obviously like "Puppets waiting for takeovers"
than real companies with high stakes financing.
Even USB peripheral makers have become more agressive in supporting
IEEE-1394 "FireWire". And the IEEE-1394
committee refused to accept plug-and-play unless Microsoft published
the "Plug-and-play" specifications to assure
that Linux, UNIX, and Mac users would have access to the same
features.
Add to that the regulations imposed on Microsoft by ECMA, and the
sanctions against Microsoft in Asia,
and those rarely played court appearances by Bill Gates committing
perjury in front of a federal judge,
then complaining that the judge was "unfair".
The appellate court will likely nullify much of the break-up order,
but they will probably uphold nearly
all of the procedural remedies and may even put them into effect
immediately. Meanwhile, with many OEMs
selling less than half of the ME licenses they were obligated to buy
in 2001, it's highly likely that
Microsoft won't have much bargaining leverage, probably not enough to
keep OEMs from putting Linux and
Windows on the same machines in a dual-boot or Win4Lin environment.
Microsoft may even begin selling
a "Windows personality package" for Linux that will attempt to
displace the WINE effort. Meanwhile,
Software Vendors are taking more steps to make sure that WINE and
their software works well together.
> If it weren't for THEIR actions with activation and encryption,
> MS's customer base would be more solid and tuffer to defeat than it
> is today.
Microsoft is in the precarious position of having to generate revenue
to keep investors happy, while still
failing to meet expectations in both 2000 and 2001. Windows 2000
sales were less than stellar, and Windows ME
was also problematic.
Many corporations are now looking at the Windows servers and simply
trying to decide whether to switch
to Linux or directly to Solaris or some other brand of UNIX. Linux
has the advantage as a stepping stone
because there are so many kids coming out of high school and college
with solid Linux knowledge. Since this
knowledge includes scripting languages, administrative practices, and
security procedures, even the
OSF vendors are now finding ways to incorporate Linux-like features in
their offerings. In fact, some,
like IBM, offer the ability to run Linux on OS-390. One of the IBM
reps at the New York Linux expo this February
(2001) said that they had successfully put 50,000 Linux engines on a
single OS/390 system. When combined with
the DB/2 databases, MQSeries, and interfaces to CICS, any scalability
problems become a bit moot.
> --
> Charlie
> -------
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============79A8C27CF2337D9292867C66
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:973-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:IBM Global Services;EAI National Practice
adr:;;491 Valley Rd;Gillette;NJ;07933-2111;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Cons IT Architect
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============79A8C27CF2337D9292867C66==
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanners...
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:29:05 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <9gevou$fej$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> >> If XP is so secure then what will you say
> >> to a new computer with XP pre-installed and
> >> another Virus Scanning program also installed?
> >
> >Whats the relation to Linux?
>
> Linux has none nor will it ever have a virus scanner.
> Linux doesn't need a virus scanner.
>
> If you design your OS correctly you don't need such
> nonsense.
>
> Yet when you examine Windows and look back over time,
> they are probably celebrating their 15th anniversary
> of virus scanners and they still don't have a clue
> here.
>
> That's the relation.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
That is pretty much what Nortons' people told me. I asked them last year
if they sold a virus scanner for linux... "No, linux appears to not need
a virus scanner and no one has ever asked for a virus scanner".
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:39:41 -0700
Rotten168 wrote:
>
> Jack Tripper wrote:
> >
> > I'm seriously considering moving my computer over to linux. I thought
> > maybe redhat, since a fair number of people seem to use that and there
> > would be plenty of support. I see good reasons why I should and
> > shouldn't go to linux.
> > I should because:
> > I really don't like Windows. I'm tired of upgrading and upgrading and
> > watching my computers get less and less stable.
>
> Well, maybe the reason isn't Windows? If it was Windows it would
> probably have started out unstable.
>
In his case he more than likely has an out of the box computer that had
win95 pre-installed. The real big problem isn't so much with the o/s is
with upgrading the o/s and not also being able to upgrade the necessary
drivers for that particular computer. That is why I think it is better
in the long run to just roll your own with good known solid products.
That way you can always check their website for driver updates. Then on
an o/s upgrade and a particular card starts giving you trouble and you
can't get an upgrade, it is cheaper to replace the offending card that
will work with the current o/s. Otherwise, it is going to be a pita.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:43:37 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Jack Tripper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Please shorten your sig.
> 4 lines is considered the maximum polite limit.
Hmmmm.... are we being trolled again??
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GREAT DISCOVERY!!!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:50:46 -0700
drsquare wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:37:34 +0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (UNO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Have a look at www.drho.com is a live casino with its REAL dealers over
> >video and REAL
> >live games - no more playing against the random number generators or the
> >computer.
> >
> >And from 6 July to 8 July, www.drho.com also offers the internet's first
> >world BlackJack
> >tournament and US$10,000 is waiting you to be won. It's fun to play and
> >easy to win!!!
> >
> >So enjoy your visit to www.drho.com!
>
> And probably rigged.
Most of these outfits just want you to visit their website. Every visit
on the bean counter makes them some money from whoever is supporting
their site. Its a common trick these days.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:58:10 -0700
LShaping wrote:
>
> "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:28:22 GMT, LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>>"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >>>> My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows
> >settings
> >> >>>> are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power switch in
> >> >>>> certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows technical
> >> >>>> problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to use
> >my
> >> >>>> computer's power switch to do so.
> >> >
> >> >>>That's not Windows fault, it's to do with the ACPI BIOS I believe.
> >> >
> >> >>And what entity dictated that standard?
> >> >
> >> >Nevermind. Highly likely that was Microsoft's doing, but it does not
> >> >matter. Windows could unconditionally send a shut down signal to the
> >> >mainboard. Instead, Windows polls itself to see if shutting down is
> >> >OK. I have a macroer running which has something to do with it. The
> >> >same thing happens when I do Start - Shut Down. Probably has
> >> >something to do with the macroer's hooks. But the system is
> >> >controlled by the operating system. Therefore, it is Microsoft's
> >> >fault. My computer is supposed to shut down when I tell it to. What
> >> >would you think if you hit the power switch on your TV and for some
> >> >internal reason, it failed to turn itself off? This is another fine
> >> >example of blunderware from a monopoly OS maker whose only concern is
> >> >increasing profits and keeping appearances.
> >> >LShaping
> >>
> >> So employ the power switch. It's the rocker on the back next to the
> >> power inlet. With an ATX board and a "power" switch that goes to the
> >> motherboard, you are at the mercy of the BIOS, and the OS.
>
> Must have an IBM PC-XT, from over ten years ago. Modern personal
> computers have only one power switch and typically do not have a
> rocker switch on the back next to the power inlet. Not in the United
> States.
>
My IBM has a nice red rocker switch on the back.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:59:24 -0700
LShaping wrote:
>
> >> "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >so disable windows drivers for ACPI.
> >> >if it can't use them it can't control them.
>
> Thanks for the lead. I disabled ACPI and APM in the BIOS. I do not
> use Windows power management since it is dysfunctional, always has
> been. In the most advanced consumer version of Windows (Millennium),
> it shuts off my monitor while I am watching Internet TV.
> :o/
> After doing the BIOS, Emmy redetected the system devices. Then I
> reinstalled the video card drivers and disabled the VIA ACPI device in
> Control Panel. That should do it. If not, I will take your lead
> farther.
> C ya,
> LShaping
Ouch! There is your problem... VIA.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanners...
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:00:59 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============3F7C8D113C74D467184AE0B9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > Linux has none nor will it ever have a virus scanner.
> > Linux doesn't need a virus scanner.
Actually, Linux does have certain built-in virus control measures.
E-mail can be scanned for the usual
high risk attachments and blocked or registered in advance.
> If it ever becomes popular on the desktop, it will need one.
Keep in mind that when used properly, Linux users have very limited
ability to do damage. There are some
precautions that need to be taken, such as not running as "root", or
it's equivalent. The result is that
Linux users have to take unusual efforts to do serious damage.
Furthermore, Linux puts the user directories
in protected areas such as the "Home" partition. You can quickly back
up this partition without having to
back up the entire system. I've frequently used the strategy of
backing the /etc and /usr/etc directories into
the /home/root directory and then reformatting the root and usr
partitions to install new distributions. I
sometimes need to create a new user to find out what the new desktop
is supposed to look like. When I log in
as my old identity, I still have my chosen configuration.
I back up the two directories because they usually contain details
such as routing and DNS information that
I don't like to have to regenerate with each installation. Some folks
like to back up
the /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults directory as well.
> > If you design your OS correctly you don't need such nonsense.
Keep in mind that Windows 9x and ME have almost no true security, and
Windows NT/2K don't have a subuser
capability. As a result, 9x/ME users can accidentally execute code
that can do anything from rename files
to send their password and cookie files then reformat the hard drives.
Many corporations have begun to adopt the practice of "locking down"
workstations, revoking all privelidges
on the machine, even to the point of making it impossible to install
your own software. In many cases, when
this is done, consultants quit, work doesn't get done (because it
can't be done), and people try to "look busy"
by focusing on "bean counting" rather than actual productive work.
> Are you so blind, Charlie?
Charlie probably isn't even aware of some of the antivirus measures
built into the system. But it is still
very likely that as users do more work on Linux, that McAffe and
Symantic will provide measures appropriate
to Linux. This may include things like scanning e-mail and files for
the classic hacker "signatures".
It's not that Linux can't be "cracked", but Linux uses all five
security methods to prevent break-ins,
to identify the perpetrator and his patterns, and to create
non-repudiatable evidence linking the perpetrator
to the break-in. More sophisticated systems have "traps" designed to
"sting" the perpetrator, often long enough
for law-enforcement officials to actually catch the perpetrators in
the act.
Keep in mind that Microsoft has always made it a point to put "bugging
devices" into Windows 9x and NT. They
claim that this will help them monitor piracy activity. Of course, if
being an informant for the CIA, FBI, or NSA
gets the FTC to look the other way a few times, that's just a bonus.
When MSNBC began breaking the Lewinski story, it was as if MSNBC was
reading Ken Starr's mail. The leak was
eventually traced to someone's computer, but then it was discovered
that the computer had been tapped through
trojan horse software. Since there were no mechanisms to trace the
perpetrators, the source couldn't be identified.
> --
> Pete
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============3F7C8D113C74D467184AE0B9
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:973-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:IBM Global Services;EAI National Practice
adr:;;491 Valley Rd;Gillette;NJ;07933-2111;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Cons IT Architect
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============3F7C8D113C74D467184AE0B9==
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
