Linux-Advocacy Digest #691, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (Loren Petrich)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (Loren Petrich)
Re: Salary? (Jan Schaumann)
Re: Setuid and Linux threads (Charles Bryant)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog (rm_rupert)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. ("David D.W. Downey")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (rm_rupert)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Mark Robinson)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (Mark Robinson)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog (abraxas)
Re: Salary? (Action)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jeremy Allison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 19 Mar 2000 03:22:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Calling peole like Stallman or Raymond pioneers as hackers is
>dubious, but calling them heroes of computer development in general
>is just plain offensive. Hailing Raymond as attaining any kind of
>technical achievement is just plain wrong.
They are important as politicians :-)
>>A rare few Windows programmers (usually the hardcore driver-writers
>>and system-programmers) read Petzold's mammoth "Programming Windows"
>>book, but almost none have dipped into The Lion Book, the Demon Book,
>>or the Dragon Book. (Or even know what those books are, or where they
>>can be found.)
>The very idea that people refer to these books other than by their
>title suggests that the whole culture is an elitist, "I am smarter
>than you", show-offy culture, rather than one which is simply interested
>in getting the most work done.
So what's wrong with using nicknames?
>Since it was written by Windows programmers, it was written by people
>who had no skill at debugging it.
>So it worked the first time it compiled?
Or more likely, has taken essentially forever to debug.
>I think Unix gives us a bad name even more. Unix continues to support
>the fallacious belief that it is OK if applications blow up in your
>face every five minutes, as long as the precious kernel never goes down.
Like how is that supposed to happen? Most Unix (and VMS and
VM/CMS stuff) I've used tends to be rock-stable. This is even true for
much MacOS software.
>Obviously you have not read "The Rise of Worse is Better" by Richard
>P. Gabriel. Add it to your little library, and it will tell you the
>true reason why Unix is evolutionally superior.
So Unix's victory is essentially a Microsoftian sort of triumph?
>Please add this book to your little library: _The Unix Philosophy_ by
>Mike Gancarz. I quote from page 27: (Chapter 3: "Rapid Prototyping for
>Fun and Profit":
> "Tenet 3: Build a prototype as soon as possible" ...
I've never read that guy's book, but that, to me, is naive at best.
> "This idea runs counter to what many would consider 'proper engineering
> methodology'. Most have been told that you should fully design an
> application before embarking on the coding phase. 'You must write a
> functional specification', they say. 'Hold regular reviews to ensure
> that you're on track. Write a design specification to clarify your
> thourghts on the details. 90 percent of the design should be done
> before you ever fire up the compiler".
Although doing design can certainly be taken to excess, I
nevertheless think that that's a Good Thing to do. One does not need to
do flowcharts; however, writing pseudocode is still a Good Thing.
>>Debugging is at least as important a talent as knowing how to code,
>>but among Windows programmers this is almost a lost art.
>I know a _huge_ number of Unix programmers who debug with printf's.
>I'm not kidding. ...
And what would be a better alternative?
IMO, the really-important thing is where to place your printf's
and what to put into them.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 19 Mar 2000 03:31:36 GMT
In article <8av5um$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>I know a _huge_ number of Unix programmers who debug with printf's.
>Really good programmers hardly ever need a debugger.
>A good tracing tool and loggin subsystem is much more valuable. And
>the best debugging tool is code review and good design.
I agree that it's best to get it right the first time. It's a
great reward for doing a lot of planning in advance :-)
>One sign of less experienced programmers is the large amount of debugging
>they do. Notice how good programmers seem to do little debugging. ...
However, with others' code, it's a practical necessity, since it
may be poorly documented. For me, the Marathon 2 engine code is an
excellent example of that -- I've had to fix numerous bugs in it, and the
source code is a hairball with disappointingly few comments.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Jan Schaumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:37:58 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 18 Mar 2000 17:58:59 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:00:43 GMT, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
> >>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:08:18 +0100, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >>>what is affirmative action again?
> >>
> >>"White males need not apply."
> >
> >Bullshit. Then again, what can we expect from someone who cites Howard
> >Stern in his arguments ?
>
> "Argument by kielbasa"? :-)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> ObLinux: Does Howard Stern use Linux anywhere in his organization?
>
Doubt it - he is constantly having problems pulling up wbsites and his
computer crashes all the time,must be windows, then.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann
http://jschauma-0.dsl.speakeasy.net
------------------------------
From: Charles Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.programming.threads
Subject: Re: Setuid and Linux threads
Date: 19 Mar 2000 03:37:31 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dima Volodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:41:09 -0500, Dima Volodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> >> In Linux, the security context is changed only for the calling lightweight
>> >> process, I believe.
>> >
>> >What was the rationale for this feature?
>>
>> Something about ``threads the way God intented them to be'', attributed
>> to Linus Torvalds.
>
>Doesn't it suck when the Providence messes around with the OS design?
>
>Anyway, are there any plans to make the security context to be a shared
>thing among all the pthreads in a process? Something like if an LWP
>changes its credentials then junk all the other LWPs and create a new
>pool of LWPs from the only one left. Disclaimer - it's a pure
>speculation on my part as I have no clue about Linux's LWPs or about
>Linux's pthreads implementation.
The Linux approach seems to be that threads are just processes that
share memory, so the obvious solution is to make it possible for
Linux processes to share more state.
--
Eppur si muove
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:43:41 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
> It is a severe fallacy to suggest that FreeBSD is 'cathedral' when
> Linux is 'bazaar', unless the definition of the words is reversed.
Right. I think that both FreeBSD and Linux have traits of being both
'cathedral' and 'bazaar'. I've also seen (on the FreeBSD-current
mailing list) where non-developers have committed directly into the
FreeBSD tree. All they did was say "Jordan, please commit this", and
JKH gave his OK. This sounds a lot like how Linux does it, ie, some
user wants to commit something, and Linus approves it. So, FreeBSD
can be a lot like Linux in terms of development methodology. It's
just that both kernels and userlands come from different heritages.
Both share a little GNU in their source code tree, although Linux has
a lot more GNU blood in its system.
Generally, FreeBSD and the other BSD's like to avoid GNU stuff to a
certain extent, but it can't be helped, as certain GNU-licensed code
is essential to the open source movement. FreeBSD likes to separate
out the GNU stuff by putting it in /usr/src/contrib and /usr/src/gnu.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rm_rupert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 03:47:13 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:52:59 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8b12e2$9uf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I have *never* seen this kind of effect on a Sun Sparc/Solaris based
>> >> high volume email system. Ever.
>>
>> > Not that kind of blatant ignorance deserves any type of reply, but
>> > the "download-queue" is not anything to do with Windows2000.
>>
>> Interesting that you know exactly where the problem was.
>
>Jumping to biased conclusions is simply ignorant. Simply because
>B&N got overwhelmed and had a download queue that got exceeded does
>not mean that Windows2000 has a flaw. It's simply ignorant conjecture
>that you even propose that. You didn't say it in so many words, but
>your implied meaning was obvious.
>
It's just means that Barnes and Nobles was crippled using NT,
period. If a major ecommerce site goes down, something is
terribly wrong. No excuses, business is lost!
How come Barnes and Nobles hasn't migrated to W2K? I bet their
IT department is looking into Solaris this very minute. No
company enjoys suffering the embarrassment that Barnes and Nobles
has suffered.
--
Mr Rupert
.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 19 Mar 2000 04:25:49 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:05:48 -0500, John S. Dyson wrote:
>Linus has full control of Linux, and is indeed a single person
>cathedral
Hold on a second -- Linus has veto control over the Linux kernel. So if
you mean "the Linux kernel" when you say "Linux", maybe that's true.
However, Linux is more than just a kernel, as is FreeBSD.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "David D.W. Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:42:53 GMT
mr_organic,
Oh to hve your talent with the knife! hehe I couldn't have said it
better myself.
--
David D.W. Downey - Red Hat Certified Engineer - Cert# 806100581800665
Assistant Site Manager - http://www.linuxnewbie.com - Come join
us!
Resume available at http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=96113
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rm_rupert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 05:05:08 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:12:18 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:XZIA4.7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
>> >
>> > Not in the slightest. Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of
>this
>> > magnitude ever developed.
>>
>> Really? So what are you comparing it to? What would be the second most
>> thoroughly tested product of this magnitude? I hope you're not just
>> taking MS's word for it. Oh wait, according to MS there has never been a
>> product of this magnitude in software/OS history. Never mind.
>
>Then perhaps you know of a product of this magnitude with more hours of
>testing? Over 10 million lines of test code was written for Windows 2000,
>and it was tested by more than 750,000 beta testers.
>
Do you even have a clue as to how Microsoft tests their OSs for
every hardware known to man? They use UNIX to simulate all
potential hardware configurations that their OSs may encounter.
That's right, Microsoft uses UNIX for testing their OSs.
Hold my hand and let's say it together... U-N-I-X.
>I can't prove that another project similar or larger doesn't exist (it's
>like proving that god doesn't exist) but I've never seen or heard of one
>that does.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 06:13:32 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> A transfinite number of monkeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:40:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > : There is no evidence to back up the assertion that MS has tried even
> once,
> >
> > What color is the sky in your world? For two months after MSFT bought
> > Hotmail, they tried in vain to do this. They've tried on at least two
> > other occasions that I know of. All miserable failures.
>
> Provide some proof of this. Any proof.
>
> > : normal users are restricted from making changes to network protocols or
> file
> > : shares. Why would you want your normal users screwing around with that?
> > : The idea of a normal user is that they aren't allowed to change any
> > : administration settings.
> >
> > Why would I want my mother to be able to change her Internet settings? So
> > I don't have to get in the car and drive over to do it for her? She's not
> > a retard or anything, and with all of these "wizards" that are supposed to
> > let the drooling masses do anything, surely she can more than handle that
> > task. That's why.
>
> Then make her a power user. You've deliberately restricted her access then
> you're complaining when she can't do stuff. This is YOUR fault.
>
> > : A Power user is not root. Hell, an Administrator is not root either, as
> in
> > : the Unix style.
> >
> > Oh? An Administrator can render an NT system completely unusable just as
> > quick as a Unix admin w/root access.
>
> But not quite as accidentally. If your permissions are set correctly, then
> doing a recursive delete in the root won't wipe out your system. In any
> event, this is beside the point. You could have given your mother
> permissions to do what she needed to do without giving her Administrator
> access.
>
> > : There is a much simpler solution. Remove the Video driver before
> removing
> > : the card, power down, remove card, power up, let Windows 2000
> auto-detect
> > : the video card. Done.
> >
> > Sure, but then I get to experience the *EXACT* same set of steps to
> replace
> > the Voodoo3 driver that MSFT ships in Win2k with the 3dfx driver that
> > supports OpenGL and Glide, rather than just DirectX. After all, I DO want
> > to exploit the full capability of the card.
>
> Well then, explain the steps to installing the latest Voodoo3 driver on your
> Linux system instead of using the stock one that comes with it.
rpm --rebuild tdfx-drm-foo.src.rpm
rpm -U /usr/src/RPM/RPMS/k6/tdfx-drm-foo.k6.rpm
rpm -U Glide*.rpm
rpm -U tdfx-drm-foo.k6.rpm
stop X
rmmod tdfx
insmod tdfx
startx
done. I'm not sure that you even need to do the rmmod/insmod because the
module loads itself on demand.
------------------------------
From: Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 06:16:08 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > TRUE, it costs over $300 a copy to get it.
> > >
> > > Who cares? The cost of the product is miniscule in it's Total Cost of
> > > Ownership, which includes training, support, maintenance,
> administration,
> > > etc..
> >
> > If another person tries to proof M$ products run at a lower TCO as Linux,
> I'm
> > going to crack...
>
> Ever heard of trimming a response?
>
> Are you trying to tell me that users do not need to be trained to use Linux?
> And are you claiming that such training costs less than Windows?
Why would it cost more? If the user was already indoctrinated in any one
system then all bets are off.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: 19 Mar 2000 05:30:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy rm_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How come Barnes and Nobles hasn't migrated to W2K? I bet their
> IT department is looking into Solaris this very minute. No
> company enjoys suffering the embarrassment that Barnes and Nobles
> has suffered.
And in actuality, theres absolutely not one thing that New
Technology Technology [sic] offers as a webserver that solaris
(or nearly anything else which can handle FP extentions and
coldfusion) cannot handle---as far as the end user goes.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Action)
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 06:38:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan
Rebbechi) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:09:01 GMT, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
>>On 18 Mar 2000 17:57:31 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>>How very tactfully put.
>
>I'm sure I'm not the first to call him a jerk.
>
>>>You would have been wiser not to cite him.
>>
>>Why, because you don't agree with him?
>
>No, because he is not an authority on the subject at hand. He is just an
>obnoxious jackass. Citing him simply shows that your sources are not terribly
>credible. You may as well cite Homer Simpson.
>
>>>I will assume that you are merely faithfully conveying Mr Stern's ignorance.
>>
>>You mean you disagree? You believe that advantages should be given to
>>a person merely because of their skin colour?
>
>In terms of scholarships, I believe that it can be beneficial to help the
>minority communities. Giving these people scholarships has the end result
>that there are more scholars in that community, and their communities will
>hopefully become better educated as a whole as a result.
>
>I object to your claim that it's just about skin color. It has more to do
>with the environment that these communities have lived in. How many white
>Americans are descendents of slaves ?
Lurking through this thread, I thought it'd be wise to make a point here..
how many Americans (white, black, latino, etc..) can claim their descendants
WEREN'T slaves??
Only since the industrial revolution 150 years ago, has the practice of taking
the losers of a war as slaves, regardless of color, lose a following...
I'm as sure my descendants were at some point slaves as Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr was sure of his descendants when he was with us.
a better agruement could be used here..
>
>>When did I say that poor white people are the only ones who should be
>>helped? I was merely stating that assistance should be given to those
>>in need, rather than those with a particular skin colour.
>
>I say there's also a good argument for purely needs based scholarships.
>Of course, the ideal situation would be one where there were enough funds
>to help everyone with both the needs and the ability.
>
>>Racism, just as sexism, are both two way streets. It is my belief that
>>we as a society are over-compensating for years of injustice. I say the
>
>Well I don't see white males suffering too much as a result. I don't
>naively asume that AA always works, but for scholarship funds, I believe
>it has some merits.
>
>>playing field should be leveled -
>
>That's all well and good, but if you dispossess one group, *then* level the
>playing field, it's not really helpful, and it's not really sufficient enough
>to get the dispossessed group back on track.
>
>And your "level playing field" theory totally ignores the fact that
>institutionalised racism does exist, and conveniently avoids questions
>as to how to address this.
>
I believe the race card is too generously tossed about, by all sides of the
racial spectrum... after all, how would KKK members or Louis Farakhan (sp?)
have a job if everyone were living happily ever after? in my experience, a
claim of racism is a very self-fulfilling prophecy.. thats my two cents.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 19 Mar 2000 07:09:15 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I do understand the technical facts.
Obvoisly you do not, as you are repeating what you
have been told in marketing material, not what you
can verify programatically.
>You're saying a root user doesn't have full access to everything? Or are
>you saying that the NT Administrator does?
Both root on UNIX and Administrator on NT have full access to
everything on the machine. Everything. What part of that
don't you understand ?
>> Please explain to me why my Windows NT "chown.exe" (Win32
>> subsystem code) that does *exactly* this works then please :-).
>Because your permissions aren't set right.
Hahahaha :-). Do you *really* believe that ? Have you
*read* my seclib code (available under LGPL) ?
>You can remove the Administrator account from the permissions to modify your
>system files and remove ownership. And then the administrator cannot do so
>unless they take ownership first. This prevents something like a recursive
>delete from wiping out your system.
You are repeating what you have been told. You do *not*
understand the technical facts as you are demonstrating
here. Lookup the SE_RESTORE_NAME_ privillage in your
msdn (if you have ever even *read* the msdn docs :-)
and *think* about how an Administrator has to restore a
filesystem......
Then maybe you will understand how an NT administrator
can read *all* your files and do whatever they wish to
them *WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEGDE*. Just like root on UNIX
in fact. Removing access is a trivially stupid thing to
circumvent as Administrator. It's like hanging a label
on a file saying "Please don't delete me" :-). It provides
no security.
>Yes, they are functionaly equivelant, but not identically equivelant. NT
>provides features to further lock down your system, so that even
>Administrators cannot accidentally do something. You have to deliberately
>do so.
The actions of root have to be deliberate also.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
