Linux-Advocacy Digest #424, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Recent denial of service attacks (Arjan Drieman)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Carrer Yuri)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA) ("Nils Stuart")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Anonymous Coward")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Geoff Lane)
Re: Day One (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: IE on UNIX (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: IE on UNIX (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arjan Drieman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Recent denial of service attacks
Date: 28 Feb 2000 11:12:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:49:57 GMT, Jaro Larnos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A Hacker, is the one who penetrates a computer
> system's login or some other way makes it through
> to the hacked system's shell to execute commands
> in. A hacker can also "hack" into databases and
> terminalservers, routers etc. etc.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/hacker.html
> One doesn't "crack" a server, but hacks it. Where
> have people gone this wrong??? I know the media
> loves the word "cracker" with not really even knowing
> what it means.
The media loves the word "hacker" without knowing what it means.
Guess it's time to change it back to its original meaning.
> There are two types of hackers, the ones who don't
> and the ones who do. If one has the knowledge to
> do so whether to hack into or even exploit a server
> he becomes a hacker it doesn't make him/her a
> criminal unless (s)he uses this knowledge to really
> attack and disable a server, or even a connected
> PC. Nevertheless neither of these is a cracker.
I consider Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds about the greatest hackers at
the moment. I'm pretty sure they consider themselves hackers too :P
Arjan
--
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:14:41 +0100
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
896ooe$iae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> I dont think its a better server as Solaris or FreeBSD.. its simply a
> better graphical workstation because developement of software happens on
> Linux... and the best tools for development exist on Linux.
Ah, ok. I was thinking on the server context, since that what's the thread
was about. :)
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:29:31 -0600
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >WDM is "Windows Driver Model". This is a new driver model that was
> >introduced into both Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (not compatible with
> >Windows 95). It allows driers to be targeted at both OS's without
rewriting
> >code.
>
> So if my question is:
> Is Win2K able to use Win98 drivers?
> What's the answer?
Maybe.
> On web sites I still see drivers that say Windows95/98 or
> WindowsNT (I use NT) -- but your answer seems to indicate
> that if a driver works in 98 it should also work for Win2K.
No. Notice that I sayd "Allows" a driver to be targeted at both OS's. That
means that if a vendor writes a WDM driver, then there is a strong
possibility that it will worki n both. But, Windows 98 can still use
Windows 95 drivers which are not compatible with Win2k, and certain kinds of
drivers are never WDM drivers (such as video drivers). There are also
certain cases where a driver cannot be binary compatible between Win2k and
Win98 (though it's source compatible, so they'll simply need to compile two
versions, one for 98 and one for Win2k).
> I'm considering moving to Win2K simply because of the
> lack of USB support in NT, but the hardware requirements
> have me thinking that my current dual-boot 98/NT setup
> is a better solution, especially since the driver issue seems
> to indicate that I would still need Windows2K drivers.
Depends on what your system currently is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carrer Yuri)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 28 Feb 2000 14:46:54 +0100
In article <897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
>>Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
>
>Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
>*does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
>spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
>
heh, MS will do a 2^32 cluster, with an address space of 2^32. It does 2^64 :D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 11:48:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:32:17 -0600,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If you mean something different when you say "highly customized",
> > please explain in what areas these customisations were done, and
> > how you got knowledge of it in the first place.
> > But then MS is rumored to have the sourcecode of both NT and W2K
> > ... and I hear tell they got programmers as well.
> Do you have anything useful to contribute, or do you just spout
> off useless bullshit and arrogant/ignorant ramblings about something
> you obviously know nothing about?
Funny, that same feeling about your FUD (see your pseudo-sig for
an example) comes to me most of the time you spout about Linux.
Thank you for formulating it better than I could.
> Are you so scared of Win2K that you must attack it in such an
> ignorant way?
You sure must be fearing Linux, then.
As to answer your question: No, why should I *fear* a system that
won't effect me much? I, however would prefer if people can make
an *informed* decision for (or against) Windows. If it works for
you, great. If it doesn't ... I'm sorry.
> Microsoft detailed how it had to customized several areas of
> Slowaris, including (but not limited to) the TCP/IP stack which
> was underpowered for a web application such as Hotmail.
That's customized. "highly customized" is something different to
me. Maybe using a different file ssystem sounds like something
*neccessarily* big to you, but for Linux has quite some
filesystems to choose from ... and more are coming. With open
souce changing the source becomes rather trivial to a programmer.
> Several of these customizations were done before MS purchased
> Hotmail from the original owners. When MS took it on, the hotmail
> traffic increased, and so did the system's instability, thus
> requiring more customizations.
If you say that's the only reason ...
> -Chad
A signature delimiter is "-- " in a separate line.
> Friends don't let friends use Linux, except if you're planning
> on DDoSing a major eCommerce site, then it's pretty handy.
FUD, and you probably know that there is a "service.exe" (trinoo
trojan) for Win. Since the security of win9x is practically
nonexistent, the only reason it's not more widely used as a
DDoSing tool is it's "perfect" stability.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Nils Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:54:50 GMT
you can come to my establishment to see no pirate stuff
Honor has no price
But 2190 a year to micosoft does MSDN Level 3
"Jaro Larnos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> John Jensen wrote:
>
> > Looking back at my point a day later, I don't think that I properly
> > descended to the Wintroll level. What they typically say, is that they
> > met a Linux user who said such and such, therefore all Linux users are
the
>
> Yes I get a feeling sometimes that someone sees me as some
> kind of a communist-hippie type of person who sings Imagine
> and 8 Miles High, smokes pot and wears a peace sign. There's
> been those who think I worship the guy who invented Linux, or
> that he's a leader of a communist group called Linvocates. These
> Linvocates are all long haired pot smoking hippie-coders driving
> VW-beetles and writing "crappy" code. And yet the truth is so
> far from that it sometimes make me sick even.
>
> Many of the people I know using Linux and/or choosing Linux
> are working nowadays, getting decent salary go to the barbers
> for a haircut, do not smoke pot nor drive VW-beetles. We
> surely are not hippies, actually some Linux users are really
> far from being hippies, they seem like some kinds of neo-yuppies
> today. But the majority, as I like to count me in, holds mostly
> us normal types of guys and girls who enjoy life and live it
> happily with all those normal cash-flow problems and such
> that make our everyday-lives worth or not worth living. We
> are quite pleased with our success at work. Nor do we have
> extra expences resulting from software buys like OS'es or
> other programs. The Internet has became relatively cheap
> and it makes it possible for us to exchange knowledge and
> programs to and for over the net.
>
> So I must conclude these stereotypes might sound funny
> to some, but there are people that can consider them
> offensive. I for one don't like being called a communist
> for which there is no credit for after all. I do admit I am
> to some extent an idealist and revolutionalist but it doesn't
> give anyone an excuse to say I am something I'm not.
>
> > same. By that Wintroll logic, the fact that I've met people who
advocate
> > Windows while stealing their copies makes all Windows advocates a bunch
of
> > hypocritical thieves ... but, as I say, I can't quite sink that low.
>
> I couldn't agree more, I've yet to see someone who actually
> pays for his/hers Windows-based "homeapplications".
>
> > But the piracy angle is interesting. Based on a quick web scan(*), it
> > looks like the global software piracy rate is running somewhere around
> > %38. A little quick, rough, math ... with Windows usage at 90% (a
> > conservative estimate) and a rough assumption that Windows piracy will
> > match the general rate, 0.38 x 90% = 34%. Thirty four percent of the
> > market is comprised with pirated Windows!!!
>
> Pretty much:) I'm glad I'm not one of those 34% because I use
> 100% Linux at home.
>
> > What are Windows advocates doing worrying about Linux! With a market
> > share of somewhere around 1% it is a far smaller problem (I would think)
> > than Windows piracy. Even if I'm off by 100%, and Windows piracy is
only
> > at %17, it is still seventeen times more common than Linux usage.
>
> Software prizes do encourage piracy..
>
> > And while you're at it, get a life.
>
> Life is free, the ones who make it expensive are the ones
> to suffer from it.
>
> I have a life, and I like it. :)
>
> -J
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 11:59:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:01:46 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It's highly customized Unix. No existing OS could run Hotmail out of
> the
> > > box.
> > Well, I presume since the other OSses don't have these wonderful
> > wizards and stuff which do *all* the work wrong, there must be a
> > few competent people setting up the machines. Like, configurating
> > them.
> I said customized, not configured.
You said "highly customized". As in NT/Win2K can't do it out of
the box, but UNIX needs (much more) work!
> > If you mean something different when you say "highly customized",
> > please explain in what areas these customisations were done, and
> > how you got knowledge of it in the first place.
> Yes, Hotmail runs on a completely custom file system and completely custom
> TCP/IP stack. These are not the stock componenets that ship with Solaris.
There are a lot of after market tools (like TweakUI and so on)
that don't come with NT either. And these tools are neccessary
for most people to make their systems usable.
There are some systems that come with usable and usefull tools.
Some with more than you'll ever need.
> > But then MS is rumored to have the sourcecode of both NT and W2K
> > ... and I hear tell they got programmers as well.
> And your point is?
They have the code and the experts ... they should be able to make
the neccessary modifications to NT of W2K. Unlike most of their
customers. So if they don't manage that ...
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 13:04:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:56:59 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:07:29 -0500,
> > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Actually - it's the other way around. NT is trusted in big companies
> where
> > > money matters.
[snip]
> > > You'll find apache and bsd in small ISPs where two things
> > > matter #1) low price and #2) bulk produced/mass packaged and managed
> virtual
> > > hosts.
> > I find http://www.netcraft.co.uk/Survey/ quite interesting in
> > that regard.
[snip a lot]
> > Thus:
> > Apache . . . . + . . . . + . . . .
> > Netscape . . . . +
> > IIS . . . .
> > Lotus-Domino . .
> > NCSA .
> > Solaris . . . . + . . . . + . . .
> > Linux . . . . + .
> > NT . . . .
> > AIX . .
[snip]
> > - Banks do not use NT on a larger scale for their WWW presence.
> > - Your claim that apache is found in "small ISPs" and not in big
> > firms is very wrong, according to my data. Please reveal your
> > sources.
> > as they say, the ball is on your side now ...
> German banks - not US.
You said:
"NT is trusted in big companies where money matters."
I offered you banks as an example where money matters. Since
you don't claim German banks don't care about money, you must be
claiming they are small. To be wrong on that scale you really
have to try hard. True, some banks are relevant just for a
small area (just like in the US), others are global players.
Thus follows: Your claim is wrong, at least in that absolute
form. Especially since you have been proven wrong about US
banks as well.
> I will grant you that there are more German banks
> using some form of unix for their external website than IIS.
Call that "Solaris". Or "Solaris and some Linux", if you want
to. The same Unix that (with some changes) runs MS-Hotmail's
webservers ...
Or say that *most* German banks use (some) Unix, with NT being an
outsider, a "sometimes (or seldom) used" OS.
> I can't address
> the topic of German OS choices very well. I was speaking of US banks.
And proven wrong, at least I haven't seen you reply: Well, bank X
and bank Y do use NT/IIS ...
> Also,
> consider the important transactions happen on SSL - take a look at your
> netcraft survey regarding SSL servers - overwhelming majority are IIS and
> growing.
That's because you are somewhat unexperienced.
First: the only statistical data aviable is from July 199*8*. The
data is severely out of date, getting newer Data means having to
pay a significant amount of money.
Second: You misinterpret the data. You ought to
know that Stronghold is a commercial Apache variant, which first
offered SSL.
Microsoft-IIS: 28.46
Microsoft-Internet-Information-Server : 0.30
--> ~28.76 %
Stronghold: 16.46
Apache: 11.91
Apache-SSL-US: 1.15 # aka Stronghold.
--> ~29.52 %
Somehow that's not a "overwhelming majority". And Apache's
growing as well, if I can read the data presented ... and by much
the same *absolute* rate as IIS. Note: that data is from the
very old data at
http://www.netcraft.com/surveys/analysis/https/1998/Jul/CMatch/Ccnt_all.html
Anyone got a newer/better URL?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Anonymous Coward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:20:57 GMT
Sorry but Hotmail was running on Solaris when bought, now its on FreeBSD.
So the opportunity was there to migrate to NT but MS chose an open source
alternative. Can't have been a licencing issue so must be lack of faith in
NT!
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> OK, my reply at the top because there is no point in replying line by
line.
>
> Look, you are trying to say that simply because MS has not ported
> hotmail.com to NT that NT is a failure.
>
> Can you not see the stupidity of that remark? What does one site have to
do
> with the quality or success of NT? When you know that 1000s of other
sites,
> many of which are much bigger than hotmail are running NT - what is the
> point of bringing up hotmail again? NT is capable of handling MORE than
> hotmail - but hotmail was bought in a working state by MS. "If it ain't
> broke, why fix it?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 13:27:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Look, you are trying to say that simply because MS has not ported
> hotmail.com to NT that NT is a failure.
The argument "if it's not broke, don't fix it" is perfectly valid reason to
leave HotMail alone.
However, M$ is attempting to sell W2K as an "enterprise" level OS.
Something that large sites should run their business on. It would have been
such a huge publicity win to announce W2K and the conversion of HotMail at
the same time that not to do it leads people to think that it's not
possible within a reasonable budget.
--
Geoff. Lane. |
The truth is a virus.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Day One
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:32:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, ndg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:30:27 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>If one were starting computing at day one and wanted to learn Linux;
>what advice would you give?
>Get a computer science degree? Take a unix os course?; don't know if
>colleges offer linux courses.
Methinks you doth assume too much. Linux is easy to use. (Of
course, it's quite different from Windows, which will no doubt
be a bit of a learning curve, but start at ls, 'man man' and
/usr/doc/HOWTO, and one can probably get pretty far. Gnome
and KDE help, too.)
>I mean, it's nice to learn on your own, but a little direction would
>really cut down on the proverbial time factor; like on sci-fi.
>Can't wait to start sliding.
>Just scanning around briefly I see the linux community thing and free
>and all that; but aren't most of the gurus employed as unix system
>administrators?
>Who says there's no money in linux?
>Sys adms make beaucoup bux; but are in a world of their own (little jab
>waiting for reactionaries there).
Well, there's a career choice that might be useful. :-)
>
>Seems it takes a lot of energy and time, preferrably uninterrupted time.
>Myself, I have so many distractions and battles going on with punks in
>the neighborhood and the local streets, it's sometimes difficult to keep
>a focus. I go out for a bike ride to relax and think about it, and
>someone's wanting to test how tough I am. Just got one of those faces.
Unless you're planning on putting a computer on one's bicycle,
or facing out of a large bay window onto a busy street where
passers-by like to stare into your living room :-), I for one
am not sure I see a major problem here, although I can appreciate
what you're saying since I seem to have so many irons in the
metaphorical fire myself I don't get to do what I like to do.
Sigh. Blame it on the good economy. :-)
(Side point: there was a news report about a character on a
recumbent bicycle who had a wireless Internet connection. :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:37:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:24:01 -0600 <aequ4.2174$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:52:54 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>> >> They were already doing that anyway. 99% of the drivers available for
>> >> Windows 95 were also available for NT...(discounting USB, for obvious
>> >> reasons).
>> >
>> >99%? What world do you live in? I would rate it more like 40%, and then
>> >mostly video, network and storage drivers. How many Video Capture cards
>> >work in NT? only a handful. How many Winmodems? How many Windows
>> >Printers/scanners? How many TV Tuner cards? How many Sound cards?
>>
>> I don't know that much about Win2K, especially the new driver model.
>> Is Win2K able to use Windows95/98 drivers? Is that what WDM refers to?
>
>WDM is "Windows Driver Model". This is a new driver model that was
>introduced into both Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (not compatible with
>Windows 95). It allows driers to be targeted at both OS's without rewriting
>code.
I know you meant "drivers", but I do have to ask whether washers,
ranges, and entertainment centers will be supported, too.... :-) :-) :-)
I do wonder what was wrong with the old driver model.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:43:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 27 Feb 2000 22:08:48 -0600 <89cscg$17ls$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <kvgu4.2620$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>What does this have to do with ext2 being a crappy filesystem and it's
>>needing to be replaced/overhauled?
>>
>>NTFS will work fine in just about every situation, whereas, ext2 will not
>>due to major, glaring limitations.
>
>Ummm, try letting that NTFS fill completely with subdirectories
>of tiny files. Then delete them and wonder why you don't get
>the space back...
And it fragments like crazy, directories can't move while defragmenting,
and the control area will grow and grow and grow unchecked during
the aforementioned filling of the file system with tiny little files.
(Diskeeper Lite is a useful tool... :-) )
To be fair, it should be possible to put an ext2+ file system (the
+ is because NT needs ACLs) on NT. It would require some sort of
DLL (of course). The main problem here is documentation; I've seen
'fsdext2' for Windows which allows read-only access to ext2 partitions.
I also wouldn't mind seeing a fragment display on Linux, as well.
It might give the NT folks something to compare to. :-)
The only glaring limitation of ext2 -- and it's only a problem on
32-bit machines, but the majority of machines are 32-bit -- is that
it can't handle files bigger than 2 gigabytes. As I understand it,
this is being worked on.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- wondering if 2.4 will have ext3
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:48:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 28 Feb 2000 04:10:12 GMT <89csf4$2e4s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Not really. Most unix-to-unix migrations (bsd/bsd, sysV/sysV) are
>>> pretty straightforward and simple.
>
>
>> as if you'd know... ha!
>
>I would know actually. You on the other hand, clearly wouldnt.
I'll admit, I get surprised on occasion. I didn't even know
that there *was* an rfork(). (This routine is tested for in the WinE
./configure file. There are also a few other issues; <time.h> and
<sys/time.h> not working together? Yipes; on Linux almost
everything works together. :-) Most of the time, anyway.)
>
>> but most "migrations" are from unix to nt these days anyway...
>
>Do you have a source for this assertion?
A migration from Unix to NT is unfortunately a one-way trip.
This is mostly because of the various interesting compiler
extensions and encouragement by various factors of using COM/DCOM/ADO,
etc.
After all of this muck is spewed into the program, porting it
back is not exactly trivial, though the pain can be minimized by
careful design of the port (Netscape, for example, places all of
the GUI cruft into a subdirectory).
>
>
>
>
>p0ok
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 13:50:25 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:32:26 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> > > But they don't have to share it with us. They'd be within their rights
>> > > to just shut the mall down.
>> >
>> > Absolutely. Just as software developers would be within their rights to stop
>> > developing software.
>>
>> Well, there's the answer. Let's just have everyone stop developing software
>> except for OpenSource software. Then we can all use LaTeX and Emacs.
>
>Are you really this silly?
I don't see what's so silly about this. You are proposing to remove
a good deal of financial incentive and compensation from the software
industry and as a justification, you say "no one is forced to enter that
industry". Well you're right. No one is forced to do so, and once
the notion that workers in that industry are entitled to compensation is
attacked, more people will exercise their right not to enter that industry.
The result is that we'll be left with an industry driven by volunteers,
and we'll only have Open Source software. Which would make RMS happy. But
those who don't want to use Latex and Emacs for the rest of their life
will be less amused.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 13:55:53 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:27:55 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Hardly. I wasn't clear on this, but cosource is based on the idea of a
>package receiving *sufficient* support from advance sponsorship, not all of
>its support. Users who use a package and feel the developer should be
>compensated are still free to voluntarily support the developer after the
>fact.
This is hilarious. Would you take a job where the employer said that he'd
pay you "voluntarily", when he "felt like" paying you ? Why should
developers be forced to panhandle for their supper ? How many desirable
career paths can you name where payment is voluntary ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
