Linux-Advocacy Digest #652, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 11:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: C2 question ("Chad Myers")
Re: C2 question ("Chad Myers")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Sitaram Chamarty)
Re: C2 question (Donn Miller)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 16 Mar 2000 14:06:38 GMT
In article <_DUz4.2303$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ao7i5$gbi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <QsEz4.2127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >I have to say I feel Corel traded off stability for ease of use and
>> >> >stability IS the selling point of Linux.
>>
>> The post in which Ross made this statement
>> (http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=597058551)
>> gives no evidence for Corel Linux being unstable in any way.
>
>I did a simple reboot from the Login box and Corel would hang frequently.
>One time it locked and I had to do a reset (I'm not on a network so telnet
>was not possible) to reboot.
>Apparently that really screwed up the system and would not boot after that.
>I hadn't stressed Corel 1.0 up till that point, thus giving no reason to do
>that.
Ross appears to be saying that he rebooted the computer
multiple times, without synching the file system, until he'd
caused enough corruption that it would no longer work. How
clever! (But hitting it with a hammer would have been quicker.)
>I have done worse with NT and it's never done that.
You don't *have* to violate proper operating procedures to
make NT crash; running enough diverse programs and processes
on it will often bring it down.
>> >> >Corel 1.0 feels like a sad replica of Windows 9X now.
>> If Ross's criterion were applied to Windows 95, it would be
>> seen as a "sad replica" of Windows 3.1,
>
>Windows 95 looked nothing liek Windows 3.1
>
>and "not ready for
>> the desktop",
>
>I agree Windows 3.1 was never ready for the desktop and feel it was a
>nightmare I'm glad is over.
Ross is being purposely obtuse and deceptive here. In parts
of my post that he snipped out, he was quoted as saying that
Linux is not suitable for desktop use because it uses differ-
ent keystrokes to invoke functions than the most commonly
used OS, Windows9X, does. So I illustrated the absurdity of
that criterion by noting that Windows9X, Windows3.1, MS-DOS,
and computers in general all failed to behave the way the
previous and most widely used technology did, and so by his
principle they would all be declared unsuitable for use.
But Ross doesn't want to admit that his principle makes no
sense, because he formulated it in order to justify his
propaganda that Linux is not usable as a desktop system.
>> Windows 9X is an *arbitrary* frame of reference, which is
>> considered "excellent" by some people and lousy by others.
>> The fact that it's widely used at the present time doesn't
>> mean that it's good, only that Microsoft's (often fraudulent
>> and coercive) marketing techniques have been effective.
>
>Benchmarks are often done against something well know.
>Windows 9X has over 90% market share.
>Thus I would not use OS/2, or Commodore 64 to compare Linux with.
Again he's saying that software should be evaluated according
to its similarity to the most widely used software, which just
happens to be from Microsoft. Of course, he would never admit
to be propagandizing in favor of Microsoft.
>> Unquestioning belief that it's the right, proper, natural way
>> to do things, and the standard against which all operating
>> systems should be judged, is similar to the unquestioning
>> belief of religious fundamentalists in their particular dogma,
>> hence the use of that metaphor.
>
>I didn't say Win9X was good or bad, bad it's a starting point in reference.
>Like stability of Win9X to NT, or stability of Win95 to Linux for example.
>Here Win95 loses both times. Still, a good point of reference, as I know
>well how stable Win9X is, as does likely almost everyone.
That paragraph contains no reasoning in support of his claim
that MS-Windows is a rational reference point.
>> Jim Ross has trouble figuring out how to do something in
>> Linux, and for some reason doesn't want to request or accept
>> assistance. He then claims that therefore *Linux itself*
>> "isn't ready for the desktop"! This is like Jeff Szarka
>> and his bogus Linux installation scam all over again.
>
>Hey, it's my opinion. You can leave it.
>Other agree with me.
Those others being the same few pro-Microsoft spammers that
have been operating here for a year.
>I've struggled with Linux on the desktop and have not yet felt comfortable
>with it is that role.
>
>> Linux may not be ready for *Ross's personal desktop*, or,
>> more accurately, he may not be ready for it.
>
>Same thing right? My opinion, not fact, and no scientific studies were done
>by me proving it.
But *not* the same thing as his claim that desktop Linux is
not useful for anyone else.
>> But his minor
>> problems, and his strange refusal to accept help in solving
>> them, have no relevance to the suitability of Linux for
>> everyone else.
>
>I did accept help. I can now paste URLs in Netscape using middle button,
>and I could before.
Ross doesn't consider his articles worth reading before he
posts them; why should anyone else read them after?
>> >> This despite the fact that many millions of people are
>> >> already using them, often on desktop computers.
>
>That doesn't imply that it's ready for the general public.
>I think IDC gives that number is percentage as 4% Linux desktop market
>share.
>It doesn't sound that impressive now.
Ross is saying that even though millions of people are already
using desktop Linux, that doesn't prove it's usable, because
a lot more people are still using Microsoft Windows. That
makes no sense, but it looks like he's going to repeat it
over and over again.
>> getting help
>> for any problems they encounter certainly *does* make it
>> usable (and thus non-sucking).
>
>It doesn't change the out-of-the-box experience, which isn't up to par in my
>opinion.
By his own admission, Linux wouldn't be satisfactory to him
unless it was exactly like Microsoft Windows. And for some
mysterious reason, he feels obliged to post lots of articles
in this newsgroup trying to make others think the same way.
>> >Fonts are known by everyone to be a problem.
>>
>> Which can easily be fixed by following Donovan's HOW-TO,
>> as has already been explained here.
>
>Maybe someone should tell the distribution people about it then, so fonts
>get fixed a handful of times, and not millions of times.
>
>> >I want people to be damn clear before they start what the issues are.
>>
>> Ross's "issues" are the result of his belief that Microsoft
>> windows is the "excellent frame of reference" by which all
>> operating systems should be judged.
>
>Well said. Yes.
>Of course an excellent frame of reference doesn't say anything about the
>excellent of said benchmark OS.
>It's just a starting place. Maybe just Mark doesn't understand this
>concept.
Maybe Ross doesn't understand that he's contradicting himself
within a single paragraph. If you compare X with benchmark B
and say that X is no good because it's not like B, then there
is an implied assertion that B *is* good.
>bench�mark (benchm�rk)
>n.
>
>Often bench mark. A surveyor's mark made on a stationary object of
>previously
>determined position and elevation and used as a reference point in tidal
>observations and surveys.
>
>To measure (a rival's product) according to specified standards in order to
>compare
>it with and improve one's own product.
This proves nothing except that Ross can read and type,
although not neatly.
>> Those whose goal is actually using Linux (rather than per-
>> suading others not to), and who read the manual and seek and
>> accept the public user support, are generally pleased, not
>> disappointed.
>
>I did no suck thing.
8^)
>I mentioned what problems I thought there were with the out-of-the-box
>experience in using Linux as a desktop.
>I'm sure you're not saying people don't have minds of their own.
No, but Ross was, by telling everyone that Linux was useless
as a desktop system because *he* couldn't figure out how to
copy and paste.
>> >I clearly have some issues with Linux on the desktop.
>> >I use Linux on the server myself, where it's best suited.
>>
>> Perhaps that's where it's best suited for Jim Ross,
>
>I do.
???
>but his
>> generalization to everyone else is without merit.
>
>I did no such thing. I talked about my personal experience.
He's lying; he said that, as a result of his personal
experiences:
"I don't feel Linux is ready yet for the desktop."
That's a general statement applying to everyone, not just
to him.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 16 Mar 2000 14:10:15 GMT
In article <1EUz4.2304$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > BTW, XFree86 4.0 was released yesterday and does multi-monitor support
>> > > or will
>> > > spread a single desktop over several monitors.
>> > >
>> >
>> > nice that xfree has caught up...
>> >
>>
>> To be fair to Linux, it took *much more* time for Windows to get close
>> to Macintosh in this respect than it took for Linux to catch up to
>> Windows.
>>
>> Edward
>
>Does it count if XFree86 4.0 hasn't been integrated into the distributions
>yet?
It only counts for people who are capable of downloading
a file from the Web.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:42:01 GMT
"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've read recently that in its current form, Linux not only isn't C2
> compliant, but that it cannot be C2 compliant because it doesn't
> have Access Control Lists and auditing on ACL's -- it only has file
> based permissions.
>
> Further, C2 certified Unix implementations have been "Trusted"
> versions; i.e., no standard off the shelf Unix OS's have been C2
> certified, as is the case with NT (various versions)
>
> I know that file permissions are the basis for the security model
> in Linux, but I thought it also had ACL's.
One of the major C2 criteria is that the OS have DAC (Discretionary
Access Control) which consists of many things, one of which is
ACLs on files and other resources (like the Registry, printers, etc).
Linux uses the archaic ROOT/GROUP/EVERYONE security style that
does not offer fine-grained access control, nor does it afford
implicit DENY which is another sub-requirement of the DAC requirement
for C2.
NT has been certified off-the-shelf. By that, I mean that you can
download freely available service packs and a hotfix that do not
affect the common functionality of OS and end up with a C2 compliant
box.
There are no major hacks or derivations from the off-the-shelf product
as is the case in serveral "Trusted" versions of UN*X products.
It has been roffered that NT is not C2 compliant, a very limited
scope of a specific NT installation has been certified.
This is true, for the most part, but you'll notice on the EPL
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/epl-by-class.html
That they rate software by OS, Network Components, and Trusted Applications.
It _IS_ the OS that is being tested, and therefore the OS is the main
factor in determining whether a given system is C2 compliant or not.
You'll notice that NT was tested on several systems, mainly the Compaq
Proliant 6000 and 7000 servers, which are among the most widely used
servers in the industry for NT installations. It's not a very limited
scope test, it was tested with frequently used hardware in a frequently
used environment with frequently used settings and configurations.
NT passed and implementing NT in a fully C2 compliant configuration is
not a difficult task at all.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:47:11 GMT
"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:17:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >AFAIK, there is no such thing as "of the shelf" C2 compliance. An
> >install, as built, may be evaluated to be C2 compliant, a precise
> >specification of an install may result in a C2 compliant system, but a
> >software package, in a box is not. So, no, Windows NT is not C2
> >compliant "off the shelf." A particular installation of NT may have been
> >evaluated to be C2 compliant, but NT as a whole can not be.
>
> I know that, but it doesn't matter anyway... I was looking at the
> wrong section of the http://www.radium.ncsc.mil class ratings.
> The trusted versions of Unix are used for _B2 & B1_ ratings...
> a rating which no version of NT has achieved.
Note that the only OSen listed are versions of Trusted XENIX.
It takes a special OS to make B2, as it requires things like the kernel's
ability to detect and prevent inserting opcode, or code to derivate from
it's originaly intended path of execution, etc.
Don't ask me more, because I don't know :) But I just know that B2 is a
special system that would only be used in some of the highest levels of
government guarding grave secrets of national security. It is not taken
lightly (not that the C2 is, but...) and it's pretty much the case that
these systems are written specifically for the NSA to serve one or two
highly specific purposes. They would not be very useful in the private
sector.
-Blah
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 16 Mar 2000 14:56:31 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:34:17 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>themselves. They were like the old COBOL coders I used to know,
>simply plugging in code chunks by rote and staring slack-jawed at the
>screen when something went wrong.
I take moderate and half-joking offense at two things in your
post. One is emacs-versus-vim, so we'll let that go :-)
The other is your above statement. I realise you qualified it
with "I used to know", but I have to wonder. I have been working
in COBOL conversions most of my working life (which means writing
C/lex/yacc, and more recently perl, code to convert programs en
masse from one dialect to another - I have had a fair amount of
experience at that).
All this necessitates dealing with many COBOL coders. One of my
more recent customers, for instance, is 55+ and what he doesn't
know about (a) MF COBOL, (b) AIX hardware/installation/sysadmin is
probably not worth knowing or known only inside MicroFocus and
IBM. Plus he's really an all-rounder - he knows stuff I wouldn't
imagine if I had that same stereotype in my head.
There are many others like him in my past. COBOL does not protect
you from the real world of the computer within which it runs, like
$LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL in your post apparently does. (Ever used a
failing tape drive whose auto-threader had failed and you had to
manually thread the 9-track tape just the right way? :-) (OK I've
kind of dated myself - but so what?)
More than that would cross over from righteous indignation to
severely off-topic so email me if you like :-)
PS:
http://www.dimensional.com/~sitaram/cobol/stereotypes.html for
another post, in another day, on another group.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:22:59 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question
Chad Myers wrote:
> Linux uses the archaic ROOT/GROUP/EVERYONE security style that
> does not offer fine-grained access control, nor does it afford
> implicit DENY which is another sub-requirement of the DAC requirement
> for C2.
Yes it does, actually. You can create a bunch of groups, and invite
certain users into each individual group and lock out others. And,
it's not ROOT/GROUP/EVERYONE. It's owner/group/others. Root is
usually the owner of important system files. Each file or directory
specifies owner/group. Then you can have a logical OR of read, write,
executable of each category, owner, group, others. Root belongs to
group "wheel", or at least on BSD root does. This means that a given
user must be invited into group "wheel" before he can su root. So, I
believe unix systems do have fine-grained access control.
The others field is just all others that don't fit into the
owner/group specified. If you want to, you can just set the others
field with permission 0, which denies access to "others".
In the real world, most unix systems seem to have good enough
security. I don't know too much about C2 certification. But, I think
that a lot of certification is highly overrated. For example, NT is
posix compliant, and it's not even unix -- so much for using posix
compliance to determine how good of a unix an OS is.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:03:36 -0600
"mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you learn
> it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor out
> there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything I
> do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
> web-surfing and news reading.
A matter of hours?
I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
There's probably a few, if not more, things that Emacs does that TextPad
doesn't, but I would probably never be able to find them, let alone
master them in Emacs anyhow. The time it would take me to find and practice
them in Emacs, I could just do it manually in TextPad.
I'm not sure, though, it's possible TextPad has much more than Emacs, which
is an equally likely case.
However, I think it's ludicrous for you guys to consider it acceptable that
I have to learn and train to use a text editor for some of the most basic
things when, in a GUI, I can be using them in seconds with little training.
This specific case, a GUI is much better than a CLI. I don't want to start
that debate, but you have to admit, that, in this one specific case, GUIs
are just simply more intuitive and have a lot less learning curve.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 16 Mar 2000 11:06:31 -0500
"mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He said: "What's Emacs?"
>
> I said: "Out of my office, infidel."
Glad you weren't around when I was learning. Or would it have helped
that I didn't know Windows?
I did read a lot of man pages, etc. But I also asked a lot of
questions. Looking down on your coworkers won't better your situation
at all. Teach whoever will learn.
--
Bruce R. Lewis <URL:http://web.mit.edu/brlewis/www/>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
