Linux-Advocacy Digest #170, Volume #26 Mon, 17 Apr 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Tim Mayer")
Re: Linux for a web developer (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Matt Gaia)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null (Leslie Mikesell)
simply being open source is no guarantee of security. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Vehical Comparisons (Leslie Mikesell)
who knows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (C Lund)
Re: Mandrake is listening! It's "Da Bomb"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ("Chad Myers")
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!! ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:06:37 -0400
"Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <DGoK4.2402$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shock
> Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
...
> >
> > Many Mac users do not realize that this is a decrease in productivity..
> > and
> > can not even *concieve* of the idea of being able to continue work
> > instead
> > of just "waiting".
>
> That's funny, my NT box at work behaves similarly, and we're talking
> about simple *Word* files here...
That's funny, my NT box at work doesn't do that. When I print a word
document, regardless of size, it returns almost immediately. If I want, I
can even watch and monitor the status of the background print job using the
status bar at the bottom as it counts through the pages being printed. Are
you sure you didn't disable background printing? (Check
"File>Print>Options")
Tim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: 17 Apr 2000 11:38:52 -0400
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:00:58 +0200, Mig Mig wrote:
>> Real web developers write all their code in perl.
>
>Do they?
>Then i must confess that i mostly use PHP and plain C. I even know people
>that use DreamWeaver on Windows for big sites (5 mio hits/week)... but they
>are probably not "real web developers"
DOn't be so literal. My point is that web development is really about
developing as in coding, not abgout using some click&drool tool.
>I think you should give HomeSite a try and then say the same. F. ex. Emacs
>is in no way near the speed or functionality (unless you code it yourself)
>of the combo DreamWeaver/HomeSite.
I have. And I stil say the same.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:43:06 -0400
> Now that I look at the headers, I'm hard pressed to find any place
> that this belongs. Setting followups to something appropriate.
>
Maybe it should go in comp.os.microsoft.exposed-illegal-acts?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:30:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:31:04 GMT, Pedro Ballester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Neither have I said that. Fully agree. Neither Windows NT
>> Workstation, nor Windows 2000 will do that; Windows 98
>> is another thing.
>
>W2K is a rip-off.
You might want to qualify that a bit. W2K actually fixes a lot
of problems that were sold to us in earlier versions of windows.
The rip-off is that most of the useful features require that
you have a W2K domain controller in the picture for no
obvious reason. Example: want scheduled directory replication -
can't have it without a domain controller.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:36:25 -0500
In article <8dekgp$nvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>About a year ago, I got to help (I was volunteered) to help with an
>>IT asset inventory of the entire company. We had PCs all over the
>>place in labs and offices that went back to early 386 machines.
>>We're talking up to 10 years old. They use these boxes for testing
>>phone systems and stuff. These are machines that are left on 24/7.
>>I don't know a lot of people that still have PCs they bouth that long
>>ago that still work. Sure, often they bought a new one (because the
>>newer version of windows needed so much more power/memory) but often
>>it was because they finally crapped out. Difference? The home PCs
>>didn't get left on all the time.
>
>Uhm, did your inventory include the 386 machines that did *not* make it
>through those 10 years? I mean, *of course* the 386s that are still in
>24/7 use at your company are reliable, otherwise they wouldn't still be in
>use.
One of the biggest differences I've seen in equipment lifespans
has been between things on a filtered UPS (as you normally provide
for equipment expected to be up all the time) and things plugged
into ordinary power lines. Newer equipment doesn't seem to
mind the power cycles as much as stuff from 5 years ago did,
but the filtering UPS still makes a difference.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:15:02 -0400
From: http://www.securityfocus.com/commentary/19
Wide Open Source
Is Open Source really more secure than closed? Elias Levy says there's a
little security in obscurity.
By Elias Levy April 16, 2000 11:59 PM PST
One of the great rallying cries from the Open Source community is the
assertion that Open Source Software (OSS) is, by its very nature, less
likely to contain security vulnerabilities, including back doors, than
closed source software. The reality is far more complex and nuanced.
Advocates derive their dogmatic faith in the implicit security of Open
Source code from the concept of "peer review," a cornerstone of the
scientific process in which published papers and theories are scrutinized by
experts other than the authors. The more peers that review the work, the
less likely it is that it will contains errors, and the more likely it is to
become accepted.
Open Source apostles believe that releasing the source code for a piece of
software subjects it to the same kind of peer review as a quantum physics
theory published in a scientific journal. Other programmers, the theory
goes, will review the code for security vulnerabilities, reveal and fix
them, and thus the number of new vulnerabilities introduced and discovered
in the software will decrease over time when compared to similar closed
source software.
It's a nice theory, and in the ideal Open Source world, it would even be
true. But in the real world, there are a variety of factors that effect how
secure Open Source Software really is.
Sure, the source code is available. But is anyone reading it?
If Open Source were the panacea some think it is, then every security hole
described, fixed and announced to the public would come from people
analyzing the source code for security vulnerabilities, such as the folks at
OpenBSD, the Linux Auditing Project, or the developers or users of the
application.
There have been plenty of security vulnerabilities in Open Source Software
that were discovered, not by peer review, but by black hats.
But there have been plenty of security vulnerabilities in Open Source
Software that were discovered, not by peer review, but by black hats. Some
security holes aren't discovered by the good guys until an attacker's tools
are found on a compromised site, network traffic captured during an
intrusion turns up signs of the exploit, or knowledge of the bug finally
bubbles up from the underground.
Why is this? When the security company Trusted Information Systems (TIS)
began making the source code of their Gauntlet firewall available to their
customers many years ago, they believed that their clients would check for
themselves how secure the product was. What they found instead was that very
few people outside of TIS ever sent in feedback, bug reports or
vulnerabilities. Nobody, it seems, is reading the source.
The fact is, most open source users run the software, but don't personally
read the code. They just assume that someone else will do the auditing for
them, and too often, it's the bad guys.
Even if people are reviewing the code, that doesn't mean they're qualified
to do so.
In the scientific world, peer review works because the people doing the
reviewing possess a comparable, or higher, technical caliber and level of
authority on the subject matter than the author.
It is generally true that the more people reviewing a piece of code, the
less likely it is the code will have a security flaw. But a single
well-trained reviewer who understands security and what the code is trying
to accomplish will be more effective than a hundred people who just recently
learned how to program.
It is easy to hide vulnerabilities in complex, little understood and
undocumented source code.
Old versions of the Sendmail mail transport agent implemented a DEBUG SMTP
command that allowed the connecting user to specify a set of commands
instead of an email address to receive the message. This was one of the
vulnerabilities exploited by the notorious Morris Internet worm.
Sendmail is one of the oldest examples of open source software, yet this
vulnerability, and many others, lay unfixed a long time. For years Sendmail
was plagued by security problems, because this monolithic programs was very
large, complicated, and little understood but for a few.
Vulnerabilities can be a lot more subtle than the Sendmail DEBUG command.
How many people really understand the ins and outs of a kernel based NFS
server? Are we sure its not leaking file handles in some instances? Ssh
1.2.27 is over seventy-one thousand lines of code (client and server). Are
we sure a subtle flaw does not weakening its key strength to only 40-bits?
There is no strong guarantee that source code and binaries of an application
have any real relationship.
All the benefits of source code peer review are irrelevant if you can not be
certain that a given binary application is the result of the reviewed source
code.
Ken Thompson made this very clear during his 1983 Turing Award lecture to
the ACM, in which he revealed a shocking, and subtle, software subversion
technique that's still illustrative seventeen years later.
Thompson modified the UNIX C compiler to recognize when the login program
was being compiled, and to insert a back door in the resulting binary code
such that it would allow him to login as any user using a "magic" password.
Anyone reviewing the compiler source code could have found the back door,
except that Thompson then modified the compiler so that whenever it compiled
itself, it would insert both the code that inserts the login back door, as
well as code that modifies the compiler. With this new binary he removed the
modifications he had made and recompiled again.
He now had a trojaned compiler and clean source code. Anyone using his
compiler to compile either the login program , or the compiler, would
propagate his back doors.
The reason his attack worked is because the compiler has a bootstrapping
problem. You need a compiler to compile the compiler. You must obtain a
binary copy of the compiler before you can use it to translate the compiler
source code into a binary. There was no guarantee that the binary compiler
you were using was really related to the source code of the same.
Most applications do not have this bootstrapping problem. But how many users
of open source software compile all of their applications from source?
A great number of open source users install precompiled software
distributions such as those from RedHat or Debian from CD-ROMs or FTP sites
without thinking twice whether the binary applications have any real
relationship to their source code.
While some of the binaries are cryptographically signed to verify the
identity of the packager, they make no other guarantees. Until the day comes
when a trusted distributor of binary open source software can issue a strong
cryptographic guarantee that a particular binary is the result of a given
source, any security expectations one may have about the source can't be
transferred to the binary.
Open Source makes it easy for the bad guys to find vulnerabilities.
Whatever potential Open Source has to make it easy for the good guys to
proactively find security vulnerabilities, also goes to the bad guys.
It is true that a black hat can find vulnerabilities in a binary-only
application, and that they can attempt to steal the source code to the
application from its closed source. But in the same amount of time they can
do that, they can audit ten different open source applications for
vulnerabilities. A bad guy that can operate a hex editor can probably manage
to grep source code for 'strcpy'.
Security through obscurity is not something you should depend on, but it can
be an effective deterrent if the attacker can find an easier target.
So does all this mean Open Source Software is no better than closed source
software when it comes to security vulnerabilities? No. Open Source Software
certainly does have the potential to be more secure than its closed source
counterpart.
But make no mistake, simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
===============
Elias Levy is CTO of SecurityFocus.com, and the long-time moderator of
BUGTRAQ, one of the most read security mailing lists on the Internet. He's
served as a computer security consultant and security engineer, a UNIX
software developer, network engineer and system administrator.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:56:08 -0500
In article <8d2q2a$g6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>nice try.
>
>however, most of the people DON'T have problems when running windows that
>are not solvable.
Most people buy windows pre-installed on hardware that has been
tested together with windows. Many people DO have trouble installing
new hardware themselves - but with windows there is nothing you
can do about it. For example I have an internal modem that I
can't use under windows95/98 but it works fine with Linux or DOS.
Another modem configured to use the same irq/ports works fine with
all.
>most of the people that run linux DO have problems running and installing
>linux.
The ones who buy it pre-installed have even less trouble than
with windows.
>linux apps crash more often.
Huh? Perhaps you mean more people run more experimental and beta
quality applications under Linux. Regardless, an application
crash almost never takes the whole machine down.
>i have yet to see someone that actually used source to fix some problem that
>he had with linux. "you have source so you can fix your problem" is a myth.
Browse through the CHANGELOG on any major program or compare the
sources from one version to the next if you care to learn how the
fixes come about. You'll find that it is not only common for people
to fix things, but also to contribute the patches back so others
don't have the same problem.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: who knows?
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:54:50 GMT
when nt 3.51 came out, i was in charge of a startup's network. they
were HOT for nt. i said nope - not ready - no security, who needs a gui
server anyway. sat back & watched the MARKETING hype (approaching fraud
seemed to me). NT 4.0 came out, the world rushed to it. i said no - no
security. M$ marketing said it was C2 certified. (only in a locked room,
with no network connection, and powered down!) what a concept. in fact,
NT 4.0 was not certified C2 until service pack 6a! (6a was a patch to
fix 6 when it wasnt conpliant)
Can we say that MARKETING, not technical excellence, rules???
who knows?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:07:01 +0100
In article <7IsK4.43281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that answers it: Mac OS is a hybrid of both document and application
> centric models.
>
> It'll be interesting to see how OS X does it, since that will tell us what
> Apple didn't like about their own OS.
I think an important factor in the GUI changes in OS X will be due to the
fact that when the MacOS was designed, the users weren't expected to be
juggling so many files and apps at a time as they are now.
And I think Apple should remove the "Mac" in front of OS X. It *isn't* a
Mac OS; it's something completely different.
I'm looking foreward to it anyway.
> Tim
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mandrake is listening! It's "Da Bomb"!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 17 Apr 2000 17:31:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Cat) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 17 Apr 2000 08:48:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
>>My SB16 sound card still refuses to work and auto detection of my SCSI
>>controller (aha1522) seems to miss it, but I'm working on these.
>
>Did you try running Lothar? The SB-16 is one of the better supported
>sound cards under Linux.
I've never heard of Lothar but I'll take a look it later.
>My Adaptec 2940uw was recognized but it is a pci card. Is the 1522
>ISA?
Yep, ISA. It's the BIOS version of a 1510.
>You might have an IRQ conflict between the Adaptec and the SB-16
>cards.
I think both are trying to use IRQ 11. The SB-16 is ISA but it is plug and
play. I might flip back to my old trusty SB Pro.
>Try looking in the Mandrake news group for some assistance.
>
>alt.os.linux.mandrake
Ok thanks.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Date: 17 Apr 2000 16:50:21 GMT
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:15:02 -0400, Drestin Black wrote:
Drestin,. could you at least bother to spin your own FUD ?
>Is Open Source really more secure than closed?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no ( DUH! ) Anyone who tells you
otherwis is ignorant and narrow-minded.
> Elias Levy says there's a >little security in obscurity.
Which is true. There is little security in obscurity. However, obscurity
is *orthogonal* to security, not in conflict with it. Ie just because
you can't see it doesn't mean it's badly designed. However, obscurity
is no substitute for a good security model.
>One of the great rallying cries from the Open Source community is the
>assertion that Open Source Software (OSS) is, by its very nature, less
>likely to contain security vulnerabilities, including back doors, than
>closed source software. The reality is far more complex and nuanced.
Of course it is. The catch is that this theory only holds water if
there are a lot of interested parties looking at the code.
>Advocates derive their dogmatic faith in
I don't have "faith" and I'm not "dogmatic". This attack on OpenSource
advocates illustrates clear prjudices on the part of the author.
>Open Source apostles believe that releasing the source code for a piece of
>software subjects it to the same kind of peer review as a quantum physics
>theory published in a scientific journal.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's not true that it always *will* get a lot
of attention, but it's not true that it always wont. The author seems to
blindly assume the opposite of what the straw man he attacks is doing.
Ie he's no less a bigot than the straw man, it just so hapopens that
he's a differently aligned bigot.
>Sure, the source code is available. But is anyone reading it?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Obviously, this is an important question
to ask when evaluating openSource products.
>If Open Source were the panacea some think it is,
Here he goes with the straw man again.
>There have been plenty of security vulnerabilities in Open Source Software
>that were discovered, not by peer review, but by black hats.
So that means that the straw man is wrong, but it doesn't mean that the
author is right.
>vulnerabilities. Nobody, it seems, is reading the source.
Again, this is a load of crap. He's attempting to use one example to
prove that the straw man is wrong. Then, as his logic goes,
because the straw man is wrong, he is right.
>The fact is, most open source users run the software, but don't personally
>read the code. They just assume that someone else will do the auditing for
>them,
And often they do, eg OpenBSD
> and too often, it's the bad guys.
Again, the author is being simple minded. Yes, and no.
>It is generally true that the more people reviewing a piece of code, the
>less likely it is the code will have a security flaw. But a single
>well-trained reviewer who understands security and what the code is trying
>to accomplish will be more effective than a hundred people who just recently
>learned how to program.
I don't get the point. IOs he saying that the peer reviewers are lousy
programmers with OpenSource ? hmmm...
>It is easy to hide vulnerabilities in complex, little understood and
>undocumented source code.
Well yes, of course. OpenSource is not a substitute for good design.
>Old versions of the Sendmail mail transport agent implemented a DEBUG SMTP
Sendmail is a hairbal;l. It's a full featured hairball but a hairball
nonetheless.
>There is no strong guarantee that source code and binaries of an application
>have any real relationship.
BS. The author should educate himself about "trusted sources",
"PGP signatures" and "MD5 checksums"
>The reason his attack worked is because the compiler has a bootstrapping
>problem. You need a compiler to compile the compiler. You must obtain a
download the compier from a trusted source, complete with the MD5
checksum. Compile your new compiler wewith the old compiler.
[ snip more baseless fud ]
sorry, but this guys spend s the whole article attacking a straw man,
but actually the fact that the straw man is wrong does not mean that
a position antipodal to the straw man's is correct. T5ry again.
And hey, spin your own FUD for a change.
--
DOnovan
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:48:54 -0500
"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Now that I look at the headers, I'm hard pressed to find any place
> > that this belongs. Setting followups to something appropriate.
> >
>
> Maybe it should go in comp.os.microsoft.exposed-illegal-acts?
Or, more appropriate comp.os.microsoft.rumors.and.proven.falsehoods?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: 17 Apr 2000 16:52:04 GMT
On 17 Apr 2000 08:39:35 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
Pete, sometimes it's better not to respond, especially to these kind of
tacky insults. Just put him in your killfile.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:50:35 -0500
"Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8df93m$hj2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That's funny, my NT box at work behaves similarly, and we're talking
> > about simple *Word* files here...
> That's funny, my NT box at work doesn't do that. When I print a word
> document, regardless of size, it returns almost immediately. If I want, I
> can even watch and monitor the status of the background print job using the
> status bar at the bottom as it counts through the pages being printed. Are
> you sure you didn't disable background printing? (Check
> "File>Print>Options")
If you disable spooling, you will get this lockup. However, spooling is enabled
by default, so one would have to make a conscious effort to screw this up.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:43:46 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8df4sr$2q07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Considering that MS had dick to do with these unreleased and possibly
even
> > completely untested non-whql certified drivers,
>
> Idiot, the NT 5.0 drivers exist on STB's site. They only worked
*margianally*
> better than the natural TNT chipset drivers that come with W2K
professional.
>
> Neither one of them allow directX to function in its full capacity.
>
that is why you need to download the official release candidate drivers from
nVidia - they allow DirectX functionality as well as OpenGL hardware
acceleration.
> > where the fuck do you get a
> > comment like that? You might want to try pulling your head out of your
ass
> > before you try to read usenet messages next time.
>
> I get it from experience.
>
need more experience :)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:46:21 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8df50k$2q07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ddan8$1k8d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy TiMOiD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > The Win2k TNT2 drivers (5.14) are still sucky... 5 minutes after a
> > restart,
> >> > oooh look a lovely BSOD. damn huh.
> >>
> >> Indeed they are. They are absolutely the worst things ive ever seen.
> > I thought you never ran W2K
>
> I never said I never ran W2K. You simply assumed that I never did. :)
ok
>
> >>
> >> They also absolutely prohibit directX taking full console control (full
> > screen
> >> mode). They are a half-assed attempt at BEST.
>
> > On your machine, perhaps, but as I've been playing Unreal Tournament
with
> > them for some time now I'd say it's definately not the case for
everyone.
>
> No, not "on my machine, perhaps", on every machine which has the same
> NVIDIA chipset that mine has (at least two types of cards).
>
> Unreal tournament works fine, directX is lovely....in window mode.
I am speaking of the literally 1000s of people running unreal tournament in
DirectX mode full screen at this second that we speak. Not to mention the
10000s of people running Q3A in hardware accelerated OpenGL mode right this
second.
You are using the wrong drivers. Run to nvidia's site and download the
official release candidate drivers (3.78) OR you can use any of the "leaked"
drivers (up to 3.84 or 5.14 (5.xx series includes S3 texture compression and
full screen anti-aliasing)) to gain even more speed and functionality. STB
is way out of date.
>
> >>
> >> Thanks microsoft, for yet more innovative and world changing code.
>
> > these drivers have NOTHING to do with MS whatsoever. Don't you even know
> > what you are talking about?
>
> I switched to these drivers the day that I realized that microsofts NVIDIA
> support was nearly (but not quite) nonexistant.
why would you expect that Microsoft would have anything to do with nVidia,
support or otherwise?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
