Linux-Advocacy Digest #619, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Another One! (2:1)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (2:1)
Re: Here is the solution (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Bill Sharrock)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! ("Otto")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (abraxas)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (abraxas)
Re: --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 --- (abraxas)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ("Otto")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 18:07:12 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 May 2000 05:00:02 GMT, David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore) writes:
>>
>>' The QPL requires software be free (as in free beer). It also requires
>>' you to submit any software you link with QT to them, even if it is not
>>' distributed and from the wording it seems that they want you to give
>>' them unlimited rights to even your own personal (again, non
>>' distributed) programs that you link to Qt.
>>
>>It requires your software to be GPL, if you use the Qt Free Edition.
>>Naturally, if you don't like that, don't use Qt.
>
> This alone makes the QPL more restrictive than the LGPL.
Of course. GPL advocates were the ones who pushed for this
change and they don't like the LGPL much.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another One!
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 14:36:02 +0100
Martijn Bruns wrote:
>
> Another virus like the recent 'ILOVEYOU' has been detected. Read
> about it here:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2572454,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
>
> Windows-users really have to watch their e-mail carefully these
> days. I wonder when it'll be our turn.
I remember the days of proper (well written and extermely clever)
polymorphic viruses. Inserting random gibberish is pathetic. Didn't some
of the old ones used to encrypt their own code or something, so that
only about 2 bytes were guarnteed to be the same from one version to
another?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 14:49:58 +0100
Perry Pip wrote:
>
>
> Message-ID: <8fmlur$i7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623294410
> __It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
> __very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
> __but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
> __possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
It's quite possible for any root process to bring Linux to its knees.
One would hope that X* is written well enough for that not to happen.I
think the same applies to other unicies, and certainly to other OS.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:17:08 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Leslie Mikesell would say:
>In article <OmvV4.74662$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> We seem to have very different concepts of networking. Mine
>>> is that you don't have to use any particular brand everywhere
>>> just because you used a certain thing somewhere else. So
>>> yes, I will use Linux some places, other things in other places.
>>
>>You can *insist* that networking is only networking if it uses
>>Unix's protocols, but nobody else is obliged to care.
>
>Please replace 'unix' above with 'platform independent'. In no
>case have I ever suggested anything should be limited to unix.
>It would make as little sense to say 'AS400' above, or Netware,
>or Cisco, or the names of any of the hundreds of specific things
>that interoperate with standard protocols. In fact most of
>the interoperable protocols were originally developed on
>platforms other than unix.
The notable "it might be a standard" that doesn't generally
"play well" with UNIX is IBM's SNA. Of course, not entirely
unlike "standards" that MSFT has tended to promote, what happens
with SNA is that just about all the workable implementations are
from IBM for IBM platforms.
SNA would have been the most likely candidate for "universal
protocol set" had TCP/IP not come along.
>>The main problem DOS had was that it was really bad
>>at handling printers. Arguably even *worse* than Unix,
>>but frankly even *now* Unix isn't very much better than
>>DOS, and is very much worse than MacOS.
>>
>>(NeXTStep excepted, of course.)
>
>From a technical perspective, postscript solves the
>same problem as a common text/graphic metaformat
>suitable for display and printing - better in
>a lot of ways. Microsoft won this one on two fronts
>price (compared to Adobe, but ghostscript demonstrates
>that it is possible to use the documented standard without
>duplicating the code), and development of fonts that
>looked good at the low screen resolution of the time.
>So this one is grunge work, not innovation.
I'm not sure you're seeing all the pieces here. All you
seem to be seeing is the imaging model of Postscript.
In order to have a "printing architecture" you need more than
what amounts to an "assembly language of printing."
You need:
a) Something that corresponds stuff being displayed with the stuff being
printed. If applications used Display Postscript, that would allow easy
rendering to PS. Unfortunately, DPS is not widely enough available,
and certainly isn't widely used. [Two "libre" DPS cloning projects are
under way now... <http://dps.sourceforge.net/> is a good place to find
the "Usual Suspects."]
The GNOME Project is proposing an imaging model for the
"Gnome Canvas" that renders readily to the gnome-print API so it
may be pushed out for printing.
In any case, Not There Yet, unless you're using NeXtstep.
b) Something that can join together the available printer capabilities
(on available printers) with the output from a) to allow print "jobs"
to be generated.
Things like determining printer-specific features, page layouts, and such.
The Corel "printlib" project is working on this.
c) Something better than Berkeley LPD for _managing_ the printer(s).
LPD isn't a transactional system; it can't usefully report back
results to processes that need to know what it has done. (This
tends to be important if you're running a payroll system that
prints cheques where there needs to be _RIGID_ control over how
pages are managed...)
CUPS, using the IPP (Internet Printing Protocol), is working on
this part. Not There Yet.
>>Well, you are probably right. But I caution you against
>>assuming that the "more to the story" is necessarily
>>damning to Microsoft. Perhaps it was more that
>>IBM was shockingly stupid, than that Microsoft was
>>shockingly clever.
>
>Maybe - I was thinking more along the lines of someone high
>up at IBM having done something that exposed them to blackmail
>from someone at Microsoft. Maybe I've been watching too
>much TV.
Maybe there's a little bit of both.
In any case, it is highly usual for IBM divisions to charge one
another "market-list-or-higher" prices, thus meaning that it is
entirely plausible that license fees charged to the PC division
for OS/2 would vastly outweigh the fees MSFT was charging.
My brother was on a project at IBM where it proved "more economical"
for them to buy, _FOR AN INTERNAL PROJECT_, licenses for Dyalogic APL
rather than IBM APL2. I would surely think it more _sensible_ to "eat
their own dogfood," especially as APL2 was a well-regarded implementation.
But internal pricing provided another result.
>>[snip]
>>> >Well, I don't take taht sort of blanket claim seriously-
>>>
>>> It's true - and the reason I was using it. Dig out some trade
>>> magazines from the time.
>>
>>Advocates *always* say this about *every* tool. It is boring. :D
>
>OK, but I'm the one who used both Foxpro and Access, and the
>Foxpro advocates were right.
>
>>No competitor has ever beaten MIcrosoft because
>>MS *let* them; they did so because they out performed
>>Microsoft, when it happened.
>
>But MS did not outperform many of the competitors they put
>out of business. That is my real complaint, along with
>the issue of putting all of your eggs in one basket.
The Morris worm, way back when, only hit Digital Ultrix and
Sun SunOS systems.
Happily, ILOVEYOU "only" seriously affected MS Outlook systems.
Fortunately, Outlook wasn't all that widely deployed. If it was
more ubiquitous, things like ILOVEYOU would be harder to cope
with...
>>> >Aren't we presuming that MS has a monolithic opinion
>>> >on this?
>>>
>>> How many stockholders did it take for a majority vote
>>> at the time?
>>
>>No idea. Are stockholders opinions the only ones you are
>>interested in? I was under the impression that the decision
>>to abandon OS/2 was made at the top.
>
>Errr, the stockholders are the top.
This gets into Agency Theory; proposals tend to be made by
officers, who formulate them based on what's happening at
the "top" of the company. That doesn't necessarily have
to correspond to what shareholders would request if _they_
had information access.
Put it another way; the top elected officials are told
what is going on by the top _bureaucrats_. Between the
political filtering between "lower bureaucracy and upper
bureaucracy," and "upper bureaucracy to officers," and
"officers to those that elect them," there is rather a
lot of room for what the shareholders know to be "dumbed
down" horrendously.
>>> >I bet the feelings of the Windows development team
>>> >turned anti-OS/2 way earlier than those of, say, the
>>> >Word team...
>>>
>>> Same stockholder(s) in control of decisions.
>>
>>Are they really? Or do they let MS's management make
>>the decisions? If I were an MS stockholder, I wouldn't
>>be interfering much.
>
>In Microsoft's case, the top execs have always been the
>majority stockholders. For a long time Bill G. himself
>held the controlling interest - I'm not sure when that
>changed, but regardless, this decision was made by a
>small circle of friends with tight control over both the
>OS and the apps. The thing that made windows click from
>the start was the availability of apps, so you might say
>that the OS had an unfair advantage starting out, just as
>you might say the apps have it now. However, since they
>did not have monopoly control at that point, all we can
>complain about is the deception of everyone else.
I'm not sure that "majority" is the right term here.
More likely "plurality" is more appropriate.
Gates' holdings look to be on the order of about 25%. That's not
a majority. Of course, when ownership of the rest is fairly widely
dispersed, that means that a "mere" 25% can hold fairly dominant sway
over affairs.
>>> No, standards can be modified/updated/replaced. But
>>> a new standard doesn't happen because a single company
>>> makes secret modifications.
>>
>>Admittedly. In *this* case MS didn't do that- they talked to
>>the MIT people and got their modification into standard.
>
>Does that mean it is documented well enough for others to
>use?
Unfortunately, there does not seem to have been a mandate to provide
interoperability information for the Kerberos extensions. Microsoft
is surely the first _to get their hands slapped_ for implementing
incompatible Kerberos extensions; I expect there have been proprietary
extensions before that few got excited about.
>>But it does make it relatively easy for non-MS clients
>>to use MS Kerberos servers. They just ignore the
>>(irrelevant to them) domain info.
>
>Standards go both directions.
If, without the extensions, the non-MS clients cannot respond
properly so as to be authenticated, that winds up providing
"less than satisfactory" behaviour.
>>I don't know what clients you consider "standard"; I suspect
>>your opinion differs from that of the business users, most
>>of whom see Windows as the standard.
>
>Explain how anyone can consider one vendor's offering as
>a standard, unless they don't know the meaning of the word.
"De facto" != "De jure."
>>> Historically they have been responsive only to competition.
>>
>>Oh, I don't know. DirectX met their users demands; as
>>far as I know it had no competition then. (Now it does,
>>in the form of Apple's GameSprockets, but I think
>>DirectX came first)
>
>When did OpenGL come along?
Indeed :-).
--
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off indefinitely.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:17:43 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <PmvV4.74663$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > Yes, she does: She doesn't need to address my claims
> > if she can make it a my-company-is-bigger-then-your-company
> > thing.
>
> It had more to do with how well Apple and Microsoft support their
> developers,
Why'd you bring up my employment then?
> and how well the OSes support applications running on them.
> By the way, I'm a he, not a she.
Whoops. Sorry. For some reason "Woofbert" just
made me think you were a she.
[snip]
> > I prefer to naively suppose that anyone interested will
> > notice that "I work for Macromedia" doesn't really
> > address the poor quality of MacOS's app support in
> > any tremendously obvious way.
>
> Tell me which of these answers goes better with the given question:
> Q. "Which major software company do *you* work for as a software
> engineer?"
> A1. "Macromedia"
> A2. "The Mac OS has better support for multimedia because its sound
> drivers allow multiple simultaneous channels."
*You* were the one who asked *me* who I worked for.
> Business management and accounting software? Wow, that's really
> state-of-the-art. Man, oh, you really need the very latest integrated
> browser, multimedia, high-quality sound and video, and streaming
> internet data pipes for that. Wow. I'm so impressed.
You don't sound impressed. You sound rather, well,
ignorant.
Windows does provide better support for *our* stuff than
MacOS does, certainly. Crucially, it provides decent
memory management, and you aren't going to have
serious database without that. This *is* old hat,
of course, but still MacOS does not measure up-
even to Windows 95's rather underwhelming
standards.
There's more. Windows 2000 provides support
for distributed, transacted objects as a standard
feature. This is just the sort of thing *we* need.
I'm sure you don't know anything about it. You
probably think business computing hasn't budged
since the days of COBOL. It's not what you do, after
all.
Now, if you want to say that MacOS is somehow
better at the "integrated browser, multimedia,
high-quality sound and video, and streaming
internet data pipes" stuff, I'm willing to listen-
but "multiple channels" isn't exactly unique
the Mac.
But even if MacOS *has* the edge here, somehow,
I will still insist that the basics *do* count,
even if they *are* boring to you.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:18:49 -0500
From: Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Boy, thoughtful choice of newsgroups to get help from. Not.
If you are seriously looking for technical help I suggest you do a
search on comp.os.linux.* and find something appropriate.
--
I know life's a bummer baby
But that's got nothing at all to do with me - Monster Magnet
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:22:45 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > "...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
:
: No. This is an untrue statement.
Really? You obviously haven't used Netscape on KDE lately. Before you start
to talk about good ol' times, it happens presently on Caldera's version 2.4
E-desktop. Never mind the fact if Linux can't contact the DNS server at
bootup time, then it takes 4-5 minutes to time out the search for the DNS
server.
: > This statement is true. It's true, because such occurrences have been
: > documented, and presented. The reason why this has happened is because
: > The X Window System runs as a privelged root process. If an X server
: > suddenly decides to misbehave, X can lock up. As others pointed out,
this
: > does not necessarily lock Linux up, but it can make it impossible to get
: > to Linux locally.
:
: IF it were the truth it wouldn't require wordy explanation of logic.
: It is not true.
Been there done that, X locked up and there was no network to access the
Linux box from. Reset was the only option and we all know how well Linux
handles that. Takes forever to reboot.
: > Also notice that I said "it's quite possible". I didn't say "it will".
:
: No, it's not possible either.
Just because it hasn't happened to you it doesn't mean that it's not
possible.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 20 May 2000 23:23:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8g6q6g$9im$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > OH please! Stephen want's proof that NT or W2K blue screen.
>>
>> Although I have no hard evidence (I didnt take pictures), the second
>> time W2K professional bluescreened on this very desktop machine,
>> I let linux finally eat its partition in favor of a nice devel
>> ext2fs.
>>
>> My S.O.s laptop (running W2K professional as well) has now
>> bluescreened 4 times, twice while trying to quite RealPlayer.
>> (trying to quit IE was what did it the first time on my desktop
>> machine). Luckily the last couple of bluescreens on that laptop
>> havent been as bad as the first (when I horror of horrors, plugged
>> a USB mouse into the machine) which resulted in a 'NO KERNEL FOUND'
>> (or something very close to that) error apon reboot.
> I always find it amazing that this sort of thing:
> a) *Never* happens to anyone I know
You must not know too many people, because I happen to know that it
has happened to people that *I* know who happen to be NT administrators.
:)
> b) Always seems to happen to faceless people on usenet who spend most of
> their time cursing Microsoft.
I dont spend most of my time cursing microsoft actually, I spend most
of my time on usenet talking about tattoos and body piercing.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 20 May 2000 23:26:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>It doesnt die, and its really good at multimedia.
> BeOS is probably one of the most tragic OS stories around. If
> companies like NewTek, and Matrox had taken it more seriously
> (as I think they should have), it might have given WindowsNT
> one hell of a run for its money, in the multimedia niche.
> --
Agreed. I've paid in full for every single copy of BeOS ive owned,
hoping (beyond hope, admitted--but it makes me feel good) that I
can make just a little bit of difference.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 ---
Date: 20 May 2000 23:29:07 GMT
Alright, I have to admit---as much as I think Stephen S. Edwards is a
tard, I really do love these. :)
Therefore, I shall quote it in full in case anyones incoming spool
missed it the first time:
=====yttrx
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 ---
> From: the office of Stephen S. Edwards II
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject information:
> Name: Claims to be Charlie Ebert.
> SMTP E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> NNTP Posting host: 24.94.254.132
> Gender: Claims to be male.
> Age: Claims to be somewhere around his late 30's;
> behaves as if he is approximately 13-14 years
> of age.
> IQ: Approximately 3 points below that of an eggplant.
> Hobbies: Nose mining, eating modeling glue, burning things.
> Newsgroup(s) being frequented by subject:
> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
> comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
> comp.os.linux.advocacy
> Subject's social characteristics [please check all that apply]:
> [X] Arrogant little worm
> [X] Delusional lunatic
> [ ] Paranoid conspiracy theorist
> [X] Anti-Microsoft imbecile
> [X] Blithering zealot
> [X] Immature wanker
> [X] Annoying troll
> [X] PEZ dispenser for various forms of plant life
> [X] Mouth-breathing simpleton
> Allegation(s) against subject [please check all that apply]:
> [X] Displaying an annoying elitist attitude
> [ ] Feigning the rational human thought process
> (note: the above applies only if thought is actually
> attempted.)
> [X] Intellectual bankruptcy and emotional instability
> [X] Exuding a very limited attention span
> [X] Conduct unbecoming of a chimpanzee
> [X] Professing expertise while displaying cluelessness
> [X] Displaying the cognitive level of a sackfull of lawn shavings
> Reason for placing subject into newsreader filter
> [please check all that apply]:
> [X] Subject has an apparent history of being a complete fool.
> [X] Subject displays a constant avoidance of interesting discussion
> or debate.
> [X] Subject is incapable of presenting a logical argument.
> [X] Subject is incapable of conveying anything but vulgar insults.
> [X] Subject continuously references his/her own supposed L33TN355.
> [X] Subject continuously mutilates the English language.
> (note: this only applies when subject's native dialect is English)
> [X] Subject refuses to reference proof for his/her outrageous claims.
> [X] Subject displays a gratuitous amount of ignorance, stupidity,
> blatant hypocrisy, or all of these three attributes.
> [X] Subject is irrationally biased, and hopelessly jaded.
> [X] Subject has a very annoying false sense of self-importance.
> Other reasons not specified above:
> Subject is an asshole.
> Additional comments about subject:
> Subject also appears to be abnormally fixated on other people
> performing the act of masturbation. Such negative connotation
> of said self-service would suggest that he is experiencing a
> significant amount of guilt due to his own indulgence in such
> activity. In addition, subject appears to have falsely drawn
> the conclusion that this applicant is employed in the field of
> artificial intelligence software engineering, apparently because
> of the intently witty remark in my .signature file. This further
> demonstrates the subject's tendencies towards idiocy.
> Conclusions about subject:
> Subject is clearly inept, and completely devoid of rationale,
> intellectual thought, or initiative. It is urgently requested
> by this applicant that said subject be placed into the newsreader
> filter for the sake of sparing the viewer from the completely
> spineless and pointless posting of said subject.
> Filed by: Stephen S. Edwards II
> Date of filing: 05/20/2000
> Date of *PLOINK!*: same
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This form is provided as a means of humor, as well as for the mere
> purpose of chronologically filing USENET's worst idiots. Copies
> of this form can be obtained in WordPad format from:
> http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/losers/morons/killform.doc
> A full archive of USENET's morons can be found at:
> http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/losers/morons/
> This form is (c) 2000 Stephen Edwards. Use of this form against
> the original author, or any participating authors will be viewed
> as pathetic, and completely devoid of initiative. All perpetrators
> will be scoffed and laughed at hysterically, and possibly put on this
> same report. This form may be modified freely, as long as this entire
> statement remains in place.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:42:46 +0200
Yannick wrote:
> Okay, so I thought :
> "I have a problem with the file access permissions on my linux webserver.
> This, of course, come from the over-simplisitic permissions in linux, always
> thought I'd eventually come to problems with them. Only I had not expected
> so soon. Now, there's a lot of people here saying good of linux, and many
> of them saying the access permissions of linux are sufficient. So surely
> they know how to solve my problem..."
>
> So, here is the problem. I have one solution, which is a five-legged sheep.
> I will not tell it to you so that you start from a clear view of the problem.
> I want to know what would be your solution for the problem.
>
> * The files discussed here are part of a website. The server machine serves
> several websites, so major changes to the configuration of httpd are not
> a good idea. Httpd is running as "nobody/nobody".
>
> * The website uses PHP. The PHP scripts may need to create, next to each
> html file in the website, a sort of "translated" version of it. This file
> is regenerated when target is older or missing.
>
> * Several users have access to parts of the site as authors. They may want to update
> the site, and possibly remove the translated files generated by the server,
> using FTP, and, possibly, telnet. There is no restriction to how the
> user accounts must be : they will only be used for that job.
>
> So there are files that the user must write and read and the server read,
> and files that the server can create and read and the user remove.
>
> Who has got a solution for my problem ?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> I still regret Windows NT's ACLs.
>
> Yannick.
I see a solution, but maybe I didn't understand all the implications, because it's a
very simple one. I would create a specific group, and I would declare as members of
this group all users, remote and local which must have read/write access to the
folder(s) where the files reside. I would make owner of the folder(s) the local user
(root?, depends on how your local process is started). Setting the appropriate GUID in
the folder should make the trick. You'd have your files with --rw-rw--r permission.
Only root, owner if different and group members would have read/write access, while
all others would have read-only access. Speaking in theory because I haven't yet done,
but it is what I'm planning four our project files.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:48:30 GMT
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >The man in black theory again :)? Nobody was/is forced to use Windows.
:
: What else were the PC VARs offering them?
Make your own offer, the last OS what I bought with PC was Windows3.11. And
that was by choice.
: >Oh yes, the arrogant Apple at that time. They didn't care about the
personal
: >use of the PCs since they had all of the of the fat government contracts.
Do
: >you see now why Windows became popular?
:
: No. The Apple ran circles around DOS kludge klones. Compare like
: brand name hardware and the prices weren't even THAT different.
All it proves that price isn't the only concern for the end users, if your
statement is true.
: If anyone should have won the market 'based on price' it should
: have been Atari or Commodore.
Let's see.... Usability, applications, etc might've done them in.
: Apples still manage to outperform DOS kludge klones when it comes
: to end user usability.
Hardly true now days, but then again that's just a question of opinion.
Otto
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
