Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (Josiah Fizer)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Cihl")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Here is the solution (Josiah Fizer)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Programs for Linux (Dallas Times)
Re: What have you done? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
RE: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Mark Ritchie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:00:39 -0700
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <P0eS4.2252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alberto Trillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Let's begin assuming that from Java one can program whatever
> >one want, and since there are not only Windows JDK, but a lot
> >of compilers (like IBM, Symantec or Inprise to say some) targeted
> >to Windows, why should anyone want to use Windows undocummented
> >API calls when Java can just be used to everything.
> >
> > If you do not think Java servers for all, well, don't you think that
> >there
> >are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
> >you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
> >Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
> >of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
> >serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
> >applications ?
>
> What I want is a non-Microsoft replacement for the Windows 2000
> domain controller and active directory services that will provide
> full client functionality without requiring the Microsoft server.
> Is the protocol sufficentially documented to allow that?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
compatible. But it serves the same function.
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:08:15 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>
>>If it's so easy, why does unix require the #! syntax to identify scripts?
>
> This actually makes content based identification of files and
> general file types 'easy'. It is the sort of thing that negates
> the need for a registry.
>
Examining the file to determine type is just about the worst thing you
can do. It's unreliable and inefficient (requiring sophisticated
pattern matching that doesn't always work), and you're screwed if you
don't have read access.
>
> The file itself contains the necessary information so you don't
> need a centralized list of some kind.
>
The file doesn't always have the necessary information. For example, a
file may contain raw PCM data with no header. Besides, what is
/etc/magic if not a "centralized list of some kind"?
IMHO, when it comes to file typing, the Mac does it the best way, and
Unix the worst.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 10 May 2000 12:23:23 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
>> >you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
>> >Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
>> >of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
>> >serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
>> >applications ?
>>
>> What I want is a non-Microsoft replacement for the Windows 2000
>> domain controller and active directory services that will provide
>> full client functionality without requiring the Microsoft server.
>> Is the protocol sufficentially documented to allow that?
>>
>
>We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
>Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
>compatible. But it serves the same function.
Compatibility is the point. Every little thing in Win2k seems
to require active directory service for no reason other than
to force you to install a server. For example you can manually
sync remote files without one, but if you want to do it
automatically you need active directory services.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:28:27 -0500
"Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
> Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
> compatible. But it serves the same function.
NT Domain Active Directory?
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Which is it, NT Domains, or Active Directory?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:30:48 GMT
Lord Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
01bfba8b$bd437b40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Technically Solaris is more advanced especially in
> features for working on very large systems -- ones with dozens of
processors
> or even clusters of ones with dozens of processors. It "scales" much
better
> meaning that as processors are added performance goes up. This is never
> linear, i.e., 8 processors won't give you twice the performance of 4, but
for
> most operating systems, especially NT but now, anyway, still Linux, you
get
> zero additional performance after 4 for NT and probably the same for
Linux.
> Solaris is also much much more stable. Big Solaris systems attain what's
> known as "5 9's" -- 99.999% uptime. That comes out to 5 minutes of
downtime
> per year.
>
> Still Linux has some nice advantages of its own. It has lots of driver
> support. It easily outshines Solaris in support for the types of devices
> you find on PC's -- the myriad of boards. Someone somewhere has built a
> driver for just about anything you might have. It also has desktop tools
and
> utilities. Solaris has become mainly a server operating system so people
> aren't building office sorts of products for Solaris. There is some
activity
> in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available
for
> Windows, not even 1%. Solaris is free for individual use but it is not
free
> for commercial use which Linux is.
>
> However the downside is that there is no market value for anyone
programming
> in Linux or anyone administrating networks in Linux ( Its the same problem
with
> BeOS). However there is a great market value for Solaris OS platform
> programming and administration fields. Solaris programmers are more
sucessful
> programmers than linux programers, their pay salery is far greater.
>
>
> This info is %100 right!
>
> --
> Williams
>
Did anybody ever say that Solaris is not as good as Linux? A Solaris system
will always do the job just fine! But...
Solaris is also *MUCH* more expensive than Linux for businesses or
otherwise. It's very expensive, as far as purchasing and licensing are
concerned, as well as for personnel salaries. :-)
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:30:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2000 at 09:00 PM,
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > > Care to explain the encryption?
>
> > Or the flurry of e-mails about how they were going to explain it?
>
> Oh, they will find some way to spin them. MS has plenty of practice in
> lying and repeating the lies over and over until they seem to be the
> truth. Furher Bill learned his lessons from Goebbels well.
>
> BTW, Peter, you must be one lonely fellow. You are the first intelligent
> person I've seen from Cornell on the Internet.
Thank you for the somewhat backhanded compliment, but Cornell is an
excellent school with extremely bright and motivated students and
faculty members, and I am proud to be among them.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:39:01 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
> > Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
> > compatible. But it serves the same function.
>
> NT Domain Active Directory?
>
> Do you even know what you're talking about?
>
> Which is it, NT Domains, or Active Directory?
>
> -Chad
Sorry, Domain slipped in there. NDS for NT allows the NT domain to
authenticate users to the NDS database. NDS also suplies Active Directory like
services.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 17:40:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
:>>
:>>If it's so easy, why does unix require the #! syntax to identify scripts?
:>
:> This actually makes content based identification of files and
:> general file types 'easy'. It is the sort of thing that negates
:> the need for a registry.
:>
: Examining the file to determine type is just about the worst thing you
: can do. It's unreliable and inefficient (requiring sophisticated
: pattern matching that doesn't always work), and you're screwed if you
: don't have read access.
Eh? Examining the file is the *only* 100% reliable way of telling
what the file is. file(1) is quite capable of figuring them out
both quickly and accurately - and often you don't need the whole file
either. Any other method (like suffixes or resource forks) is just
taking someone else's word for what the file really is.
:> The file itself contains the necessary information so you don't
:> need a centralized list of some kind.
:>
: The file doesn't always have the necessary information. For example, a
: file may contain raw PCM data with no header. Besides, what is
: /etc/magic if not a "centralized list of some kind"?
/etc/magic (or /usr/share/magic) is just a list of "sophisticated
pattern matching" data that works. Most data files require
a specific layout in order to be valid (PNGs must start with
0x89 0x50 0x4E 0x47 0x0D 0x0A, for example) which makes figuring
out who's who pretty easy.
: IMHO, when it comes to file typing, the Mac does it the best way, and
: Unix the worst.
The Mac way is not significantly better than the DOS way.
Both methods require you or the machine to take someone else's
word for what the file actually is rather than putting that
burden on the machine itself. If someone changes a suffix
or a fork, apps that rely on such data to be valid are screwed.
The best way is to ignore such "hints" and figure out the
file on your own because labels can't be trusted. In other
words, just because someone says an attachment is a love letter
doesn't make it so...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:41:07 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Cihl wrote:
> Did anybody ever say that Solaris is not as good as Linux? A Solaris system
> will always do the job just fine! But...
>
> Solaris is also *MUCH* more expensive than Linux for businesses or
> otherwise. It's very expensive, as far as purchasing and licensing are
> concerned, as well as for personnel salaries. :-)
Yep - gotta agree here. Solaris does have its advantages when it
comes to extensive SMP support, and maybe some other things. But, for
a small number of processors (<5), I'd consider running Linux or
FreeBSD. I think Slackware, Debian, or FreeBSD would boot faster and
be much faster and more responsive than Solaris with uni- or two-
processor machines.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Dallas Times <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:39:31 -0700
You might have a look at mySQL (http://www.mysql.com). In most applications
it's free even for some commercial work.
Can't help with the assembler compiler, but someone suggested 'gas' (should be
part of the compiler distribution set or downloadable from the net).
- Ken
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:30:13 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Full Name wrote:
> Any of you people done any programming? A novice programmer almost
> always starts writing programs which read and write text files. As
> their expertise increases they move on to binary files.
ROTFL.
Do you believe yourself? Someone like Donald Knuth is a novice programmer
by this definition.
"Any of you people done any baking? A novice baker almost always
starts with bread. As their expertise increases they move on to pies."
html-processing, xml, compilers, text processors, editors, spell
checkers, msdos.sys, windows scripting host, ...
Bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 12:45:43 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) wrote:
>
>>
>>Now Microsoft Outlook offers you *auto-execution* of e-mail content
>>*without sanity checking*, and Erik Funkenbusch tells us that until
>>Linux offers this "user-friendlyness" it will never "play in the same
>>game" as Windows? (<mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) I think it's a
>>good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
>>couple of decades.
>>
>
>What purpose does it serve to propagate the lie about Outlook
>auto-executing e-mail attachments? I mean, what purpose other than the
>obvious FUD?
What does happen if you have active-x or vbs components in attachments
and you have auto-preview turned on?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 12:41:04 -0500
In article <FzgS4.724$ds3.865@client>,
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This actually makes content based identification of files and
>> general file types 'easy'. It is the sort of thing that negates
>> the need for a registry.
>>
>> The file itself contains the necessary information so you don't
>> need a centralized list of some kind.
>>
>But it also leads to its own problems with Trojan attacks. If I can get
>access to a script I can change the interpreter for that script to something
>I want you to run,
Think about this for a second... If you have access to a .vbs script
(or just about anything that is interpreted) you can make it
do anything you want without changing the interpreter.
>if necessary I could easily cover my tracks by also
>execing the correct interpreter for the script. No system is perfect. The
>difference between the #! approach and the Windows approach is the ability
>to define associations on a per file basis, but from a security context both
>are just as suspect.
Yes, the important thing is to isolate untrusted content from any
kind of general purpose interpreter.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:56:57 GMT
> zero additional performance after 4 for NT and probably the same for
Linux.
Why probably ? Based upon what ?
> Solaris is also much much more stable. Big Solaris systems attain what's
> known as "5 9's" -- 99.999% uptime. That comes out to 5 minutes of
downtime
> per year.
Do you find GNU/Linux unstable ?
> Solaris is free for individual use but it is not free
> for commercial use which Linux is.
Just a Sun strategy to capture GNU/Linux trainned people (specially young
persons). They fail to understand open source meaning. We do not want
Solaris free, we want it open source (if at all) or just do not want it. Me
myself
have installed Solaris 8 for Intel x86 free edition and find it enormously
limited
compared to my GNU/Linux. Have you ever tried GNU/Linux at a Sun hardware ?
I have done. And it runs as well as Solaris does. Come on, the first thing
sysadms
do with Solaris is to install GNU software. Let's have GNU Os too :-)
Solaris
and related products costs are a robe. Compiler and firewalls are too
expensive,
and the OS by itself is not as great. Good SMP support ? And ? GNU/Linux is
improving at that quickly, in fact, GNU/Linux is improving quickly at every
thing,
and is the guilty of Unix returning and even conquering lands where it had
never
thought it would be : desktop, home, little networks. Why does SCO offer
a lxrun library to run GNU/Linux software when 4 or 5 years ago was
GNU/Linux
the one who needed such a thing ? :-)
> However the downside is that there is no market value for anyone
programming
> in Linux or anyone administrating networks in Linux ( Its the same problem
with
> BeOS). However there is a great market value for Solaris OS platform
> programming and administration fields. Solaris programmers are more
sucessful
> programmers than linux programers, their pay salery is far greater.
> This info is %100 right!
There are nothing 100% :-) ... something I can't remember about Quantum
Mechanichs ...
------------------------------
From: Mark Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:01:01 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <391985be$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 05/10/2000 at 01:48 PM,
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> ROTFLMAO.
>>
>>> So all they had to do was walk 3,000 miles carrying a year's supply of
>>> food on their backs.......
>>
>>If they lived in Hong Kong, all they had to do was board a boat.
>>
>>Even if they lived 3,000 miles from the nearest border without the wall,
>>why would they have to carry a year's supply of food? You sound like a
>>typical wintroll.
>
>LOL! Joe Ragosta is a wintroll? Now I've seen everything!
What?! You've never seen a drunken rant before? Do you live in a
temperance colony?
--
Mark A Ritchie
http://members.home.net/knowbodies/index.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
