Linux-Advocacy Digest #663, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 03:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("tony roth")
Re: In the middle of it all... (Kool Breeze)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open Software Reliability (Edward)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Terry Murphy)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Rex Riley)
Windows Users (not propagandists) Are Our Friends (was: My Windows 2000 experience
(Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Don Waugaman)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Martin Kahlert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:20:20 GMT
Good response Rex.
Steve
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:50:44 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Snipped cause it was very long.
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:01:02 -0800
mlw as usual making blanket statements, without a lick of proof! Let me see
I have 2k plus users maybe .005% run as power user or above!
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > Here you go:
> >
> > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> >
> > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
there -
> > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's impossible
to
> > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these binaries.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> Riddle: When is a virus not a virus? When it requires the informed
> consent of the user. The virus requires root access to infect the
> system, unlike WIndows, where ANY piece of code can infect your system.
> In Windows NT, where most people run as, at least, power user, any piece
> of code will infect NT as well.
>
> In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
> task.
>
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 05:00:18 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:39:54 +0100, "Gabriele Del Giovine"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> For up to 50 simultaneous users:
>> We run our 6 Linux based applications on ONE PII 350 with 128Mb RAM.
>> There ONE application requires 6 (yes SIX) NT servers to run.
>
>Boy, i believe that you have not undestand nothing of NT services
>programming.
>
>
>Bye.
>
>
In case anyone is still checking this thread...
There are several NT Services developed for the NT product.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:49:01 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
tony roth wrote:
> mlw as usual making blanket statements, without a lick of proof! Let me see
> I have 2k plus users maybe .005% run as power user or above!
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > Here you go:
> > >
> > > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> > >
> > > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
> there -
> > > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's impossible
> to
> > > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these binaries.
> > >
> > > Enjoy!
> > Riddle: When is a virus not a virus? When it requires the informed
> > consent of the user. The virus requires root access to infect the
> > system, unlike WIndows, where ANY piece of code can infect your system.
> > In Windows NT, where most people run as, at least, power user, any piece
> > of code will infect NT as well.
> >
> > In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
> > task.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mohawk Software
> > Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one of the
many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access rights.
Another thing - User ends his/her day at work. Shut down the system - but
forgets the stiffy (infected with a boot virus) in the drive. Next day comes,
power up - but - oops... Infected disk in drive a causing a new fresh boot
virus on the hard drive.
Of course this is also a threat to Linux users.
The bottom line?
All end users need to educated and be made aware of the possibility of virii -
irrespective of the platform they are running on. Hell - I know users that use
PC's every day but they hit a blank when you ask them which Operating System
they use! We in the IT field take for granted the level of knowledge we have. I
think we should all concentrate more on Virus prevention and end user training
then biting each others heads of over which system is best protected. Windows
have anyway a very bad reputation concerning the subject.
Cheers
Nico
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 05:52:07 GMT
David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <38d091fc$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >In article <38cf141b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> HEY EVERYONE --- Standby for McCoy to tell us how the sex was with someones
>> >> mother. Its his standard MO.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> >Weenie.
>>
>>
>> McCoy you asshole, crawl back into the hole you came out of and this time stay
>> there.
>>
>Strong words, weenie. The loudest rhetoric often comes from the most
>cowardly of weenies.
>Like you.
McCoy you asshole, would you like me to re-post all of your messages where you
talk about how good the sex was with someones mother? -- Get out of here you
scumbag!
____________
>> Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:00:19 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) wrote:
> I have worked on the development of two different high speed
> microprocessor projects for two different companies in the past three
> years (one of which was Alpha, for DEC, which is the HIGHEST speed
> microprocessor). In neither company was Unix the primary operating
> system; at DEC all Alpha design is done in VMS, with some verification
> work done on Unix, and most documentation work done on Windows, but all
> circuit design and simulation was done on VMS. In the other company we
> used Windows.
I *do* work on the development of high speed microprocessors -- in this
case the Willamette -- which will eclipse the Alpha as the fastest
microprocessor within the next year. All design, simulation, or
verification was handled in UNIX. Additionally, the legacy CISC
architecture Intel has had to pack along with them on this project most
likely has made this processor an order of magnitude more complicated
from a project standpoint than anything DEC has attempted.
<snip>
> Alpha is the fastest microprocessor in the world and is designed on
> VMS. Most of the other microprocessors are designed using Unix and are
> slower. Coincidence? Since VMS is a better, more reliable system, it
> not doubt is more productive to the engineers who use Unix, which is
> constantly crashing and has case sensitivity issues.
Uptime on my workstation is 2 years plus and I log out and then back in
again maybe once every month or two -- longer if I'm really busy. For
me UNIX is about as steady as it gets.
Your faulty logic about (VMS->fastest processor) is better described as
(uncomplicated RISC design -> fastest processor). And as I alluded to
earlier: faster for now.
Edward
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:04:56 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:31:37 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I never refuse help to larval-stage hackers; without guidance, they'll
>never tread upon the True Path. What bugs me (mightily!) is that many
>WinCoders, fresh from a week-long course in $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL,
>are arrogantly sure they are masters of the craft and _do not need_
>help. Only when $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL barfs out obscure errors do
>they realize their mistake.
Just a heads up - using environmental variables in news posts is Unix dweeb
rule number three, surpassed in pure annoyance only by using "fsck" as
a swear word, and calling "X Windows" anything besides "X Windows".
>Don't get me wrong -- arrogance is a phase all larval-stage hackers
>go through. But many WinCoders mix this arrogance with an astounding
>ignorance of their programming tool, which I cannot abide. They will
>only learn what they must and no more. This is laziness, and when
>they come crying for "help", what they really mean is that they want
>their problems solved for them. A simple RTFM usually suffices; failing
>that, STFW will work.
I have met EXTREMELY ignorant Unix programmers also. I have even met
one or two Unix programmers who do not even know assembly language on
the machine which they work on (I swear to god I am not kidding).
>Too many WinCoders have given up on careful software engineering --
>they have been seduced by the "easy to use!" drool spouted by the
>marketroids at M$ and (I'm sorry to say) Borland. They don't have any
>idea how to actually _design_ software -- if their pretty ActiveX control
>or .ocx component breaks, they are adrift and completely stuck.
If this is true, why is so much Windows software demonstrably superior
to its Unix counterparts?
For example, the Microsoft C Compiler, which is a Windows application,
and by your claim is programmed using careless software engineering
by programmers who do not know what they are doing using primitive
development tools, produces code which is demonstrably approximately
20% faster than GCC, which is a Unix programmed and developed using
Unix principles. How do you explain this? If the Unix programmers have
superior tools, why are Windows programmers able to produce significantly
higher performance software?
Additionally, most Unix equivalents of desktop programs are considered
to be far inferior to their Windows conterparts. For example, Netscape
under Linux is considered considerably more buggy than the Windows
version. Why is this? Star Office is considered much more fragile and
crash-prone than Microsoft Office. If Unix programmers have superior
tools, why is this?
>To be sure, there is much ugly code in Unix, but it is often ugly for a
>reason. Further, the _average_ quality of code is much higher in a
>typical Unix installation than on a Windows box.
I have examined the source code of several Unix programs, including GCC,
GIMP, and the GNU file utilities, and I found the code to be of amateur
quality. None of these packages handled dynamic memory allocation errors
properly. Some didn't even check the return code of malloc, and those
which did simply exited if the condition occurred. Even the X Windows
server does not properly handle failed allocations, and simply exits
(bringing down the entire desktop along with it) when the condition
occurs.
I have additionally even met some Unix programmers who do not even
KNOW how to handle the out of memory condition properly, and do not
even understand the types of conditions which cause it. Again, as
difficult as it is to believe, I am serious. One of them worked for
Sun, also (which makes the problem all the more scary).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rex Riley)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:25:27 GMT
In <8as7e1$fev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
> On the subject of Michael Paquette's commentary,
> Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : And just when I was beginning to think that I was the only person in the
> : world who couldn't understand what the self-proclaimed "Free-Software
> : Advocates" (not to be confused with the *real* free-sofware
advocates--you
> : know, the ones who actually contribute to the movement) were bitching
about
> : when someone refused to personally hand over a copy of their source to
> : every script-kiddie and 3L3373 d00d just so they could burn it on to a
CD-R
> : for their "archives".
>
> : *sigh*
>
> : Pardon my rant.
>
> Of course you are pardoned, when you rant politely. (I've said "pardon me
> while I go off", and some people still had the poor taste to complain ;-)
>
> I think I read the Paquette post on two levels. On the surface it is an
> obvious statement, that begging or demanding anything is silly-at-best and
> demeaning-at-worst, and that the most straightforward thing to do is write
> some code.
>
> I couldn't help think though, that there was another level below the
> surface of that essay. The strong feeling Paquette feels towards some who
> might share QuickTime code might be overdone. Especially in light of the
> open source software being consumed in the creation of MacOS X.
>
> If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got our
> Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat in
> your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go for
> all that commie stuff."
>
>
The <rant> in MP's post had an aire of frustration at the obvious. MP
reframed the solution everyone was making for a QuickTime problem - that
wasn't.
I didn't read any elitist whiner "we got ours - now here's how you get yours"
posturing. It's disengenious packaging BSD+Gnu with MP's observation making
Apple out the moral hypocrite.
Any *attitude* ... was the temerity of condemning Apple closed source when it
suits Linux philosophy and ignoring Apple open source when it doesn't.
-r
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Windows Users (not propagandists) Are Our Friends (was: My Windows 2000
experience
Date: 17 Mar 2000 06:36:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Mar 2000 14:10:15 GMT, Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <1EUz4.2304$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, XFree86 4.0 was released yesterday and does multi-monitor support
>>>>>> or will spread a single desktop over several monitors.
>>>Does it count if XFree86 4.0 hasn't been integrated into the distributions
>>>yet?
>>
>>It only counts for people who are capable of downloading
>>a file from the Web.
>
>That leaves out a lot of Windows users... <snicker>
Jedi, nothing personal -- you post a lot of great stuff, but
I think this is counterproductive. Lots of intelligent people
use MS-Windows, either because they don't know about the
alternatives, or the company they work for requires it, or
some particular application they need hasn't been ported to
Linux yet, or they're not yet aware of the dishonest,
coercive, and harmful practices of Microsoft.
We shouldn't confuse the millions of current Windows users
with the half-dozen dedicated liars who propagandize this
newsgroup on behalf of Microsoft, even though the latter
force themselves on us every day.
The attitudes and motivations of the two groups have nothing
in common; many Windows users would welcome cheaper and more
reliable OS and apps. They are all potential Linux users,
so we should welcome them.
The urge to insult them comes from seeing the flood of lying
pro-Microsoft propaganda in Usenet, but that comes from only
6 to 10 individuals, with either mercenary motives or emotional
problems. This tiny gang may *want* us to be hostile toward
the great mass of Windows users, but we must resist the urge,
which would be elitist, and would alienate our future customers.
>--
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
I love this!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Don Waugaman)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 17 Mar 2000 00:07:33 -0700
In article <8arstm$npf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) writes:
>>Last summer eBay had a major outage for almost a whole day, and as
>>a direct results, the market capitalization dropped by around $2 billion.
>>The reason was due to a bug in Solaris. There were Sun engineers on site
>>to fix the bug. This was one of the two or three most expensive industrial
>>disasters in history - all to blame on Sun.
>I would disagree. The most "expensive" industrial disaster
>in history was probably the Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India.
>Expensive that is, in human life, which *matters*, rather than
>expensive in money, that ultimately does not.
Particularly not in "market capitalization", which is a rather
funny-money measure in that any losses or gains due to the outage were
all on paper until realized in a transaction.
In terms of real losses, I'd be surprised if eBay lost more than $1 millon
for one days' outage. What was their revenue over last year, anyway?
(Heck, I've heard it pointed out that most dot-coms that go down for a
day end up losing *less* money because of their outage than they bleed
out during a normal day's operations...)
--
- Don Waugaman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) O- _|_ Will pun
Web Page: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/dpw/ | for food
In the Sonoran Desert, where we say: "It's a dry heat..." | <><
If tin whistles are made of tin, what are foghorns made of?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:26:51 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>In article <38d091fc$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>@David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>@
>>@>In article <38cf141b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>@>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>@>> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>@>>
>>@>>
>>@>>
>>@>> HEY EVERYONE --- Standby for McCoy to tell us how the sex was with @>>
>>someones
>>@>> mother. Its his standard MO.
>>@
>>@>Weenie.
>>@
>>@
>>@McCoy you asshole, crawl back into the hole you came out of and this time
>>@stay
>>@there.
>>@
>
>> Maybe you should change your name to Hackfield?
>> Followups set.
>
>And your point is? -- McCoy is loony who jumps in and out of different news
>groups with nothing of value to state, and who, when he begins to lose the
>argument starts into a tirade about having sex the other fellows mother.
Ed Letourneau is a loony who jumps in with nothing of value to state,
and who, when he begins to lose the argument, starts into a bigotted
tirade about homosexuality
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Kahlert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 07:22:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pjtg0707) writes:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:03:01 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> I wonder if Microsoft will be far behind should such massive migration
> takes place. They can probably buy everyone out.
I don't think so: the main difference between Borland and M$ is, that
M$ sells an OS competing with Linux (actually it's a bit the other
way round ;-)). Their main chance to hinder Linux is to suppress the
porting of as many apps to Linux as possible.
I assume, M$ earns a lot of more money selling Windows
than selling compilers!
Bye,
Martin.
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
