Linux-Advocacy Digest #253, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 12:13:40 EDT
Contents:
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (David Faure)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Loren Petrich)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Loren Petrich)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Loren Petrich)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft ("Otto")
Re: cross-compile for SPARC? on x86? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: How does WINE work? (Stuart Krivis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:56:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Seeing as how a simple buffer overrun was mistreated as a "backdoor" that was
> purposely placed by Microsoft, I thought it was only fitting to see how
> Open Sores can fall victim to the same thing.
>
> http://xforce.iss.net/alerts/advise46.php3
>
> 'cept, it's not just a buffer overrun, it's an actual password placed in the
> product so that your linux box can be more easily used for DDoS'ing large
> eCommerce sites without having to mess around with actually hacking the box
> (not that that is harder or anything).
>
> "With this backdoor password, an attacker could compromise the web server as
> well as deface and destroy the web site."
Did you notice that there is a solution available already?
Microsoft would spend two months denying that the problem even exists,
let alone FIX the damn thing...
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:58:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
steve jobsniak wrote:
>
> i cant believe you peolpe... micorsoft is going down, taking the rest of
> the tech stocks down alogn with it, and you folks are
> *happy*!!! will you only be happy when the entire stock market
> crashess, taking the economy, your job, and preciuos apple with it???
The stock market is over-valued as it is.
It's an accident waiting to happen.
Price:earning ratios in the range of 30:1 to 200:1 do NOT make for a
ROBUST stock market.....they make for a stampeding bull headed for
a cliff.
> of course you'll change you're minds then, but why not change your mind
> now WHILE YOU CAN STILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE and keep it from happening?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:59:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brett Ryan wrote:
>
> Steve,
> The rest of the tech stocks will rebound, that is certain. Microsoft may or
> may not. It all depends on the DOJ and the true value of their products. A major
> question that is now being asked is that if MS looses the right and ability to
> persue the current business model of dictating preloads and similar actions will
> their products be competitive with the other choices? If preload deals are
>compleatly
> eliminated how will MS manage the market then? What about pricing? Competition
> from other OS and application vendors?
> At the moment anything can happen to MS. Because their business model depended
> on almost total control of the PC business from the standpoint of what gets loaded
> on the machines I don't think that they are in the best shape for working in an open
>market.
> What would happen if a small company produced a word processor that would load into
> a MS OS without any problems when compared to MS-Word. What if that product was
> smaller, tighter, faster, and could read and write to any format that you would
>need? What
> if that product cost 50% as much as the MS one that is in the box and on the shelf
>of the
> computer store. It would eat Microsoft's lunch! I believe that there are several
>companies
> lurking out there waiting to market their products that might just be capable of
>such a result.
>
You mean... what if Word Perfect was let back into the market place?
The mere mention of such an idea makes for nightmares in Redmond...
> Brett
>
> steve jobsniak wrote:
>
> > i cant believe you peolpe... micorsoft is going down, taking the rest of
> > the tech stocks down alogn with it, and you folks are
> > *happy*!!! will you only be happy when the entire stock market
> > crashess, taking the economy, your job, and preciuos apple with it???
> > of course you'll change you're minds then, but why not change your mind
> > now WHILE YOU CAN STILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE and keep it from happening?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:57:22 GMT
On 25 Apr 2000 15:53:17 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>For the machine to handle out of memory errors gracefully (i.e. not
>>require a reboot every time).
>How ? its out of memory ?
The best way is to allocate a pool of memory which can only be used
on the console, and wouldn't be used elsewhere. It would be impossible
not to log in this way. Some OS'es do this - Linux doesn't since it is
weak, fragile, primitiive, and toy-like.
>>>man rdev.
>>
>>You must be extremely new to Linux. rdev is an Intel-specific tool
>>for booting Intel kernels. I am running on an Alpha so that tool does
>>not work with my computer.
>Thanks for telling us, late info is not admissible, sorry, 0/10.
Huh? Late info? You are the one who __PRESUMED__ I was running on Intel.
If Linux is such the great multiplatform OS you are talking about, why
did you __PRESUME__ I was running on Intel (when I didn't indicate
__WHICH__ architecture I was running on)? Why is the fact that I was
not running on Intel consider __LATE INFO__ when I never indicating
which platform I was on to begin with?
>>It was my root partition. "VFS kernel panic: Could not mount root filesystem"
>>or some such cruft.
>Ahh you didnt write it down, and don't remember, I guess to a wintroll
>*any* Linux error will do ?
Sorry, Terry. I didnd't realize this was a Linux quiz show where just for
the Usenet post I had to recite every error message I ever got back
to masses verbatim. Sigh.
>>>Methinks hes replaced "Windows" with "Linux" in his post.
>>
>>Incorrect. I had to reinstall Linux because my root partition became
>>corrupted randomly.
>Bullshit.
Then explain what happened? Suddenly my root filesystem becomes unreadble.
Sounds like corruption to me. What is your interpretation?
>>Been doing it 6.5 years. Never a hitch before.
>Doing what?
Compiling and installing kernels. For 6.5 years.
>>>You're a sad case mate, someone like you shouldnt be allowed within 50 metres
>>>of a production Linux box.
>>
>>Trust me - I wish I wasn't.
>With your lack of knowledge, your wishes may come true.
A pretty good part of my job is developing the Linux kernel. Unfortunately,
I am quite knolwedgeable about the Linux kernel.
>> But it is hard to avoid, and the Grand
>>Linuxification continues reaching influence in to literally every corner
>>of the industry.
>Really ?
>Maybe the DOJ has Linux in its sights now ?
I only wish.
>Nope, you're as clueless as ever.
>Floppies allow different configs and kernels to be tried easily, and quickly.
Not as quickly/easily as the hard drive.
>The floppy only needs to boot once, most linux boxes stay up long term, its
>*not* Windows you know ?
Strange as I have never seen a Linux machine stay up at home or work for more
than six weeks, yet my Windows machines has been up for five months.
>>My kernel is 1.5 MB compressed and wouldn't even fit on a conventional
>>floppy.
>What kernel ?
>What are the features ?
>Please dont expect me to *believe* you.
2.2.5-15
Has the basic device drivers, TCP/IP, AppleTalk, some other shit.
3734990 bytes uncompressed, 1511451 bytes compressed.
>> You are aware that Alpha code is much more spacious than i386
>>code, correct?
>Another incorrect assumption, I don't have an alpha, and unlike yourself,
>I limit myself to debates concerning my prior experience.
Sorry, I incorrectly presumed you had a clue. Since Alpha is RISC
it (a) has longer opcodes and (b) the opcodes do less so you need more
of them.
>>Oh yeah. My main workstation for 60 hrs/week of work.
>Hahahahahah then you're full of it mate!
>
>>
>This wintroll claims he has a NT workstation, he uses 60+ hrs a week
>thats been up since last November (iirc).
>
>What apps run on this "Workstation" ?
>
>Send us a list of processes and apps (unedited) ? I'm sure that I'm not the
>only one whos interested to see it.
It's mainly Exceed, Terminal Server, Outlook, IE, and some other shit. I
am not claiming it is the most used workstation in the world, but it has
been up for five months without a reboot. About triple the longest I've
ever seen a Linux workstation up for.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:00:18 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:39:54 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>sea_Dragon wrote:
>
>> Ah yes - the Linux way. It is so risky to install a new kernel and has such
>> a high probability of wiping out your hard drive that you are recommended
>> to install from a floppy, a media with is 100x slower. Nice.
>
>Yep.. no such thing as Windows "rescue disks" at all.
Sure there are. Windows makes you create one when you install it.
>Could've booted off a CD too.
No I couldn't have. I don't have a CD-ROM drive on that computer. Does Linux
support netbooting yet or is it still stuck in the 1960's?
------------------------------
From: David Faure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:13:15 +0100
David Steuber wrote:
> If you want to argue about which Corba ORB to standardize on, that is
> an entirely different ball of wax. I think that it would be good to
> have either one ORB or have Corba servers and clients work with all
> ORBs. Then you can drag a file from KFM and drop it on GIMP to edit
> it or whatever. Maybe you can already do that. I haven't tried it.
CORBA has nothing to do with Drag and drop. You can't drag from KFM and
drop on gimp, but you can drag from konqueror and drop on gimp, since
Qt 2.x / KDE 2.x use the XDND protocol.
--
David Faure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - KDE developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mandrake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Cramer Systems
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 05:20:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary Connors wrote:
>
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], laugh at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
> 4/16/00 1:07 AM:
>
> > Robert,
>
> > And with Linux growing to 35% of all servers and 10% of desktops this year
> > alone
> > (half of those being NT replacements), there won't be much of an audience
> > for any future releases of windows when and if they do make it out.
>
> If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world, NT is
> not a desktop OS.
Of course not. Microsoft keeps user's expectations low...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: 25 Apr 2000 09:19:13 GMT
In article <CSCG4.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ceo0k$2c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ActiveX, MS-CHAP, originally SMB, originally Lan Manager,
>> originally DHCP, and currently they are pushing for the
>> inclusion of OLE objects within XML.
>ActiveX is entirely documented by the Open Group (the same body that
>documents the X standard).
ActiveX != X-windows. ActiveX is M$-specific, and given M$'s
track record, it is not likely to be very well-documented.
>That must be why there are implementations of DCOM and COM for Solaris and
>HP/UX.
Most likely for infiltration purposes. However, M$ has yet to
release Linux or *BSD versions of these; most likely because the free
Unixes are a much bigger threat than payware Unixes that run only on
expensive, idiosyncratic hardware.
[on sending explore-zip-encoded documents...]
>> As a result, you would have to send an open standards document,
>> either RTF, HTML, XML, or line-feed delimited ASCII text.
>No, most likely the system administrator would be out of a job, since the
>users WANT to be able to do those things, and CEO's and Presidents are
>users.
However, if one can create open-standards substitutes that do
what these users want...
>> Publishers were aware that they had to stick with Kosher HTML,
>> but Microsoft attempted to demand that they include ActiveX controls,
>> FrontPage Extensions, and VBScript on their pages - knowing that
>> this content would not be processed by IETF compatible browsers
>> including Netscape, Hot Java, Mosaic, Arena, and Cello/Viola.
>There's no such thing as a front page extension to HTML. ...
However, M$ has been trying to create a sort of M$-HTML.
>Tell me, how does Microsoft "demand" that web pages contain ActiveX?
By threatening not to support an ISP that will not support
ActiveX; since ISP's must have M$'s help in supporting many of their
customers, M$ had effectively gotten them by the family jewels.
>The customer buys what they want, and what they want is Windows. Thus the
>OEM must buy Windows. Microsoft is dependant upon customer wants any way
>you look at it.
Or feels stuck with.
>> Windows 2000 supports Posix level 1, but not Posix Level 3.
>If Posix level 3 were important, I'm sure MS would support it. It's
>available in a variety of 3rd party add ons.
>> Microsoft still refuses to support X11 (Linux distributors
>> are now including complementary X11 servers).
>X11 is an entirely different GUI than Windows has. ...
Supporting Posix 3 and X11 would make Windows (Windoze?) too
Unix-like, and would tempt developers into always assuming that they are
present. Thus, developers would write easily-ported apps instead of apps
that had lots of M$-specific stuff.
>> Microsoft still refuses to support NFS.
>NFS is a Sun proprietary protocol.
It may have been invented by Sun, but it's an open standard.
Again, if M$ makes Windows too Unix-like, it will be too easy for
developers to avoid M$-specific stuff.
>> They have chosen to do their
>> own "Active Directory" instead of X.509/LDAP.
>Which is LDAP compliant.
In what way?
>> They have
>> chosen to promote VBScript instead of PERL.
>I wasn't aware that PERL was an international standard. ...
But VBScript is M$-specific and Perl is not.
>> They have
>> chosen to stick with IIS instead of supporting Apache.
>Apache isn't an international standard either.
However, IIS is M$-specific and Apache is not. It's interesting
to note that Apple, long known for its taste for Apple-specific
"standards", is supporting Apache in MacOS X.
>> The success of the internet is almost entirely due to UNIX. Microsoft
>> didn't even have the Internet on the radar screen until after
>> UNIX had built up a market 10 times larger than any other "Windows
>> Only" service.
>The success of the internet as we know it today is most certainly due to
>Unix, but it's also due to Microsoft, since without Microsofts support of
>it, it would not be anything as ubiquitious as it is today.
M$ got into the Internet business because it was in danger of
being left very far behind. MSN had flopped, and most other proprietary
online services were either going broke or positioning themselves as
Internet Service Providers. The original big online service, CompuServe,
got bought by one of its imitators, AOL.
>Wait a minute here. Aren't you the one complaining about how microsofts
>minor extensions to standards is the evil of the universe, yet it's OK to
>have proprietary versions of Unix OS's that can be as much as 10%
>incompatible with other Unix OS's?
Because the Unix versions are usually much better documented.
>you could have 10,000 domains on a single machine and that would be counted
>as 10,000 installations of both Unix and Apache, when it's just one.
Which says something about Apache's scalability, if nothing else.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 05:22:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jianmang Li wrote:
>
> Gary Connors wrote:
> >
> > in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], laugh at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
> > 4/16/00 1:07 AM:
> >
> > > Robert,
> >
> > > And with Linux growing to 35% of all servers and 10% of desktops this year
> > > alone
> > > (half of those being NT replacements), there won't be much of an audience
> > > for any future releases of windows when and if they do make it out.
> >
> > If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world, NT is
> > not a desktop OS.
> I'm always puzzled when people calling Desktop and server. From software
> point of view, what is the different. MS had difficulties to let Windows9x
> offering network services so it call it Desktop. In Unix world, if you got the
> right hardware nobody stop you offering network services from your "Desktop" -
> they are the same.
Because people from Microsoft land can't imagine the peer-peer model.
> --
> Jianmang Li
> Stachanov
> Phone: +31-72-5646664 +31-6-22977904
> Fax: +31-72-5627410
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: 25 Apr 2000 09:25:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Grinnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If Windows had not embraced the internet as it did then Windows market
>share would be much less than it is today. It may even be another OS
>that sits on the majority of home desktops.
I disagree; here's what I suspect would have been more likely:
The makers of Trumpet for Windows and other non-M$ TCP/IP
implementations would have done *very* big business, though Windows's
hairball nature would have made it harder to configure than a built-in M$
version would have been.
However, that would likely have boosted OSes with cleaner TCP/IP
implementations.
--
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)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Date: 25 Apr 2000 09:33:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8e3cn0$4sa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> [M$ stock going down and some other tech stocks following...]
>> To me, stock is a sort of adult trading cards, consider baseball
>>cards and Pokemon cards.
><http://www.theonion.com/onion3610/stock_chart.html>
ROTFL.
The analogy to trading cards may be overstated, but when one sees
grotesquely high stock-market valuations of companies that lose money,
one has to be suspicious.
--
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] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Apr 2000 12:18:43 +0100
Terry Porter wrote:
[snip talk about rpm and dependancies on SuSE]
>>What an absolutly stupied design.
>What a clueless remark.
>
It's a perfectly valid remark and a failing that someone has to deal with,
namely SuSE. RPM is good a good thing, but evidently it doesn't work well
with SuSE altough it's _supposed_ to.
[snip lots of rants]
This may be a Linux advocacy group, but long flames like that just isn't
necessary, nor very good for expanding the user base.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] � http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ � [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Ripley: These people are here to protect you. They are soldiers.
Newt: It won't make any difference.
/Aliens
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:07:12 GMT
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >If that's all what it takes someone from trying another OS, then so be
it.
> >Anyone can freely install other OSs, it's up to the end user and not
> >Microsoft. For that matter Linux is supposedly is free and yet most of
the
>
> That's extremely disengenuous. For one, one is stiffed for
> 'the original OS'. Then, one has to have the desire to do
> the gruntwork one's self. That has typically never been the
> case in even the WinDOS market and Monopolysoft has exploited
> that fact.
One would be stiffed for the 'the original OS', if the person has no
interest in any other OS. There are other platforms, like Apple, Linux, etc,
available pre-installed next to Windows. Not to mention the fact that one
could buy a PC without any OS pre-installed. However, most people don't have
the desire or time to tinker with alternative operating systems.
> >> Linux doesn't have to spread FUD to keep it's users around,
> >> because the number of users is already rising every day!
> >
> >And pretty soon it'll reach the market share of Windows3.11. WOW, big
@#$%
> >deal!!!!
> [deletia]
>
> It's NTs marketshare that Linux is most likely to overtake.
The area where Linux gaining market share is the server market at the
expense of Unix and Novell. The latest pecking order from IDC, NT, Linux,
Unix, and Novell, seems to confirm this fact.
Otto
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: cross-compile for SPARC? on x86?
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:21:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ronnie Corny) writes:
> I want to set up my sparcstation 10 as a pure server (running redhat
> 6.2) and so would prefer not to put compilers and dev tools on it,
> however, I do need to be able to update the kernel and other apps...
> what's the best solution? Is there a way to compile the sparc-bins
> on my x86 computers running slackware... if so, are there any faqs
> or docs for me to consult? I've searched around the faqs and don't
> see this mentioned at all... maybe people who use ppc or alphas
> would have similar situation?
you can build a cross compiler. do web search on "gcc cross compiler"
on google. to build anything useful, you'll need all the sparc
libraries on your x86 machine too. also afaik you won't be able to
generate 64 bit code from a 32 bit platform.
cross-compilers are for when your target has some problem supporting a
native compiler. most of the time it's for an embedded system which
barely has an operating system, too little memory and no disk, weak
I/O to a user and therefore cannot support editing files let alone
compiling. the other case is where you want to generate binaries for
windows and cygwin is painfully slow on NT.
however, i would what everyone else does. just break down and install
a compiler. it won't steal resources when you're not using it. (well,
except for disk space but that's cheap enough these days.)
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: How does WINE work?
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:17:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:41:28 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Same with WinE. The calls are a bit muckier, in that X and
>Win32 are very different environments (I think OS/2 and Win32
>are a bit closer, although not having used OS/2, I can't say
>for sure).
>
>Threading is a problem. :-)
>
>(OS/2 also had the advantage of having a Windows version
>specifically for it -- or perhaps a patch; I don't remember now.)
They actually licensed the code and modified it a bit, then compiled it with
their own compiler. It ran better than MS's Windows 3.1 :-)
The really neat thing was the version of OS/2 that was designed for use with
your own copy of Windows.
Win 3.1 is a DPMI server, as is OS/2 in "DOS" mode. So, they loaded the
Windows kernel and patched it in memory to become a DPMI client like all
other apps. It solved the problem and avoided modifying MS code permanently
on the HD.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
