Linux-Advocacy Digest #469, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 06:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Neil")
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition ("doc rogers")
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition ("doc rogers")
Re: Windows on Linux? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition ("doc rogers")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Gregory Neil Bastow)
Re: w64k - the bugs are being found (Edward Rosten)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:40:36 -0000
"Nick Manka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89k6i4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <89jhp9$9c9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Only one active login per machine which is completely tied to the
> >> GUI console's context
> >
> > With vanilla NT, true enough.
> > NT TSE, or W2K with Terminal Services, slightly different.
>
> Too bad that's not what's actually be shipped to people in the
> general case.
But to be fair, in the general case, there's probably not that much "want".
For those that need it, there is an option.
> Regardless, user context is married to a GUI context
> unless you specifically write something as a service.
But isn't that what most scenarios would want?
> I have two completely separate instances of a program being run --
> if that program does not explicitly provide for that, it will step
> on it's registry keys.
As you've eluded to yourself, that does largely depend on how the
application has been coded to store it's configuration information.
TSE and Winframe (and other derivatives) before it, do make quite some
effort in this area. If poorly conceived, or not forward looking apps are
coded to be very narrow, that doesn't *necessarily* make it an OS flaw. The
same scenario could occur (to a certain degree) with apps run concurrently
on *NIX.
> I can't have Office installed twice. Moreover,
> there is an ungodly amount of per-user information stuck in HKLM
> and a bunch of user-irrelevant information stored in HKCU,
Again, though this is more an app thing. That said, I will concede that
there are Microsoft apps that are far from perfect, here.
> and
> without specific "session" support kludged into TSE, HKCU isn't
> unique because it's tied to a GUI context.
But isn't this unique enough? I'm not sure I quite understand your issue
with this "unique" concept, enough, could you elaborate a little?
> > Do you mean that different versions of say Office tend to use the same
> > hierarchy? 'cos some of that is version specific.
>
> But not all of it, and it certainly isn't instance specific. If
> NT was really "multi-user," you could do things like run multiple
> domains off a domain controller
Why would you want or need too? To consolidate hardware?
To be fair, the domain model is the fundamental security concept of a
machine, and it's resources. Would you really want this clouded or merged on
one machine? Plus there is always VMWARE.
> and be able to run multiple instances
> of services.
I know and use apps that pretty much do just this very thing. But again,
that would largely come down to application design and implementation, and
truly what you're trying to achieve with it. I don't fully understand why
you want to do these things, so if you could expand a little, I would be
grateful.
> >> A single flat event namespace in the kernel (they had to do major
> >> hacking on TSE to get around this, and still haven't, really)
> >
> > Can you elaborate on this a little?
>
> Find a book on the architecture of NT. _Inside Windows NT_ is oft
> recommended, but by no means complete. There is a flat namespace
> that kernel events exist in, which is why TSE has a horrid kludge
> to support "sessions" built into it.
But in practice, what is the downside to this?
And to be fair, the genesis of TSE probably hails from Citrix's
developments.
I would imagine the architecture of W2K, and terminal services may not be
quite so structured. And in reality, W2K is probably the reality here.
> >> More-or-less complete trust of the currently logged in user
> >
> > I guess that rather depends on the rights of the currently logged-in
user,
> > and ACLs on things that support ACLs.
>
> There is an assumption built into NT that the user at the console
> is special relative to any other user at any given point in time.
In what way? Access to the console depends on user rights. In terms of
applications run, priority or / of timeslice can be tweaked to either
favour, or ignore console derived apps.
> >> Expectations by programs that they are priviledged (more policy
> >> than than design, but still a factor if you actually
> >> want to run anything on your NT box)
> >
> > Surely this is purely an app thing? An issue with the app design, or the
> > vendor's implementation?
>
> Like I said, it's more a policy issue, but it still exists. That
> developers can solve the problem doesn't mean that users can.
I think this is largely an app thing. As an example, the Metaframe farm I've
implemented (much an evolution of a previous Winframe farm I deployed),
doesn't assume any higher rights to apps or user sessions. In fact users
have very little in the way of privelege, they cannot install apps -
basically due to restrictive ACLs on registry hives, and the machines local
filesystems (the part of the machines filesystems that users actually have
anything other than read access for, is \temp and even that could be
removed), and as I've made them use mandatory profiles, it wouldn't matter
if they did somehow manage to install an app, it would not survive (for
them) past the current session. They only get desktop shortcuts and
start-menu shortcuts that I want them to have (ie they don't get my
computer, network neighborhood, or anything like that, and very utilitarean
start menu), and the folders that make up the desktop and start-menu, are
stored centrally - read-only - so that can't be modified, either.
In app file dialogues, they only get to see certain drives / locations,
which although not perfect, or completely foolproof, means it would be quite
difficult for them to introduce anything new.
The apps that I deploy (Office 97 suite, Outlook 98, IE4, terminal
emulation, Oracle client (sqlnet), some Java based software), I can deploy
without the users needing anything more than effective read-only access for
the users, to the actual machines - so they cannot affect other users app
configuration, nor make and lasting modifications to their own application
configuration.
Much of the problems with apps on NT / TSE / multi-user NT do tend to be app
issues, and Microsoft apps aren't perfect here, but I do see them as mainly
app problems, rather than OS issues.
> >> Heavy use of needlessly exclusive locks coupled with minimal COW
behaviour
> >
> > Again could you elaborate on this? I'm aware of some of the compromises
of
> > necessity (well pretty much) within TSE.
>
> In a multi-user system, where multiple concurrent access to resources
> are the norm, you can't do what most Windows programs and NT services
> do, which is lock files exclusively (even if just for reading).
But why is this a need on multi-user NT? Multi-user NT does tend to (at
least attempts) to remove the need for this, 'cept for truly poor apps.
> That NT has virtually no copy-on-write support for most objects
> doesn't help any.
I'm not yet convinced of the need here, but am willing to be corrected. In a
multi-user NT environment, why would you need something like this?
> >> No user accessible global namespace and lots of indeterminable mappings
> >> of resources to namespaces within a user context
> >> (ie, network drives and printers)
> >
> > Can you give some examples of this ie the problems?
>
> Network drives and printers are a per user thing,
But surely most people want this?
> and there is no
> way to specify an absolute path to a generic resource. UNC paths
> sort of can,
Let's be fair, UNC's do. And in W2K, URLs or UNCs could be used.
In multi-user NT, some people spoof this sort of thing, by manipulation of
the environment, so that say: \\server1\share1\directory1\subdirectory1 is
mapped to say h:\, and relevant apps (say for example Office) point to h:\
(or a subdirectory) for it's configuration info. So many people point to
specific paths, using generic resources.
Whilst DFS was probably not tenable on NT4, it certainly does open up a
whole deal of options on W2K for this sort of thing.
> but once again the program has to explicitly support
> those by not using any of the hundreds of library calls that don't,
Not necessarily. Necessity is the mother of invention! ;-)
> and UNC paths aren't extensible to random backing objects.
Do they need to be?
> > I understand where you're coming from with some of this, but most people
> > implementing TSE (IME) knew well about this problems from previous NT
3.51
> > implementations (Winframe and the other derivatives), and already had a
> > workaround.
>
> Workarounds are bad. Workarounds mean the underlying problem still
> exists. I don't pay out the nose for software for the priviledge
> of working around its failings.
Practically every OS I've worked on, going back to my first days working in
a mainframe environment, to a good few years as a UNIX system programmer /
integrator / administrator, has needed workarounds, and technical effort to
integrate user needs - which tends to be the reason why techies are needed.
> These failings are present in both
> single-user NT and TSE, and are likely never going to go away.
I think the failings that you are considering here, on TSE, can simply be
turned off (in terms of problems with outstanding dialogue prompts).
> Don't get me wrong, NT is an acceptable if not particularly desireable
> desktop OS (especially considering the win32 alternatives are Win9x
> and WinCE), but not a thoroughly multiuser system.
I disagree, I've deployed, developed and managed reasonable sized multi-user
environments, which have by virtue of good design, and a fair degree of
technical innovation (IMHO), proved to be the most stable, less concerning
environments I've ever deployed. That said, it does demand solid technical
skills and innovation, but then so did my work in UNIX environments.
In short I'd say that multi-user NT isn't perfect, it can be highly
effective (depending on demands, and app suitability). Many of my problems
with it, have been mostly due to poor apps - sure there has been OS
limitations, but if there weren't issues or technical developments required,
techies wouldn't be required, and we could just have a scenario where users
simply by shrink-wrapped solutions or apps that need no techical work or
innovation to deploy. Which in fairness, will probably ultimately occur, on
way or another.
Neil
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:35:23 -0500
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't conspiracies by definition involve more then one
> person/orginzation?
That's necessary but not sufficient . . . for what it's worth.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:38:17 -0500
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I here by propose we all switch to exclusivly Tex, ASCII, and
> SGML file formats. All in favor, say aye.
Nay. I thought one of the objectives of the anti-Microsoft crowd was to
promote a climate of choice and competition?
I don't agree to exclusively using any particular file format . . . at least
unless I'm going to get paid for the exclusivity and I can basically opt out
any time I wish.
--doc
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows on Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:40:20 +0100
> > Otherwise, if most of what you want to run is on Windows, then VMWare on
> > Linux obviously makes no sense. Run Windows. Why spend more money?
well if you want to boot an other os within linux, you NEED vmware.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:42:45 +0000
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : proculous wrote:
>
> :> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
> :> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
>
> : Gee, all those applications, and Microsoft didn't even include TeX,
> : emacs and gcc. Yes, it's so hard to check the "Install Everything"
> : box during Red Hat setup.
>
> Egads, I wouldn't advise *that*. Red Hat installs best for me
> using the text installer (super fast) and the "custom" installation
> choice. Linux isn't likely to need reinstalling, so take the time
> to know exactly what you're putting on your hard drive.
> Just a few minutes saying "I don't need this, or this, or this..."
> can save a lot of space and keeps your system more secure -
> since you'll know which daemons and services you've got ahead of
> time and you can maintain them accordingly.
>
> And if you miss anything you wish you had, it's easy to pop the
> disc in again and add a few packages.
Likewise, its easy to use rpm to remove a package.
I can just about remember the day when I bought a shiny new hard disk
and for the first time installed Linux. Of course I checked install
everything. I had just increased my disk space 5 fold, ahd a new OS and
wanted to play.
Heck, its fun!
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:48:00 -0500
> >XML is a subset of SGML (isn't it?)
> Yeah, I thinks so. XML is actually more parseable (I think) because it is
> somewhat stricter. ( That would make it harder to write by hand but
> easier to parse with a program )
"XML is, in fact, a streamlined subset of SGML . . . XML is a simplified
subset of SGML. The subsetting was optimized for the Web environment, which
implies data-processing-oriented (rather than publishing-oriented), short
life-span (in fact, usually dynamically-generated) information."
--Charles Goldfarb, inventor of SGML and coiner of the term "markup
language"
--doc
> >| <nasty-visual-basic-code>blah blah blah</>
> >| As you can see, this would still cause some problems.
> >
> >I see, SGML can introduce incompatabilities. So maybe we should limit
> >ourselves to XML.
>
> Nope, you have exactly the same problem with XML. The problem is that if
> the vendor uses nonstandard technology ( like visual basic ), it can only
> help so much that they use xml for the actual format. In this case,
> the format is standard enough but the rendering engine is tied to
proprietary
> stuff.
>
> Having said all that, using XML or SGML is certainly a step in the right
> direction. BTW, Koffice seems to be doing this -- a koffice document is
> a tarball with xml files and supporting files ( like images and things )
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: Gregory Neil Bastow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 10:46:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Gregory Neil Bastow would say:
:>Just make sure you say GNU/Linux when you mean more than the kernel, boys
:>and girls.
: The observation that "Linux, the kernel" != "Linux, the system" was,
: and is, a useful observation.
Indeed. I think everyone but Mario had realised that since the outset of
the thread. Hence my sarcasm.
: The observation that "Linux, the system" depends on a lot of software
: that the FSF had some part in producing was also a relevant
: observation.
: Much of the "politicalization" (is there a good word for that?) of the
: issue has been "less clearly good." It looks more like RMS is begging
: for recognition, and if he had been a bit more gracious about this,
: there wouldn't have been the flame wars.
I think many people mistakenly think that RMS wants personal recognition
for the success of GNU/Linux. Everything he has ever said or done
suggests otherwise. The problem, as he sees it, (and I see it this way,
too) is that in the success of GNU/Linux, people are forgetting that the
Free Software Foundation (which is probably 75% responsible for the fact
that we have such a kick-arse system) is doing things a particular way to
prove a particular point and to allow people to use the software they need
without compromising the principles that FSF is trying to evangelise.
It is unfortunate that after finally succeeding in proving their point,
and succeeding in their 10-year-old mission the FSF have been robbed of
the chance to make people associate the success of the project with their
principles and their methodologies by simple whims of nomenclature.
Right though he may be, RMS's subsequent attempts to close the stable door
after the horse had bolted have done nothing but detriment his/our cause.
-Greg
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: w64k - the bugs are being found
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:52:49 +0000
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> well put!
That applies to you too, either advocate linux or... you know the rest
-Ed
>
> "pac4854" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ObTopic: I want to see Linux become a viable alternative to MS.
> > I really do. But this kinda shit is nit-picking. It's
> > counterproductive. There are workarounds for these. There will
> > be a service pack. And another. And all 63,000 "issues" will be
> > found (and posted here, no doubt - yucch!) and resolved. I'm not
> > necessarily fond of Microsoft, but this kinda crap is getting
> > old, tiresome, boring, and does not a goddamned thing to further
> > Linux. Give it a rest, fer $DEITY's sake.
> >
> > Geez, I'm half tempted to go out and buy (yes, for $$$$) W2K, not
> > that I'd ever use it, but I'm that fed up with all this juvenile
> > whining. Either advocate Linux here, or fuck off.
> >
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
> *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
> >
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
