Linux-Advocacy Digest #648, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (rj friedman)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? (dakota)
Re: Another One! (John Sanders)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Se�n �
Donnchadha)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Craig Kelley)
Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX??? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Is the PC era over? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Another One! (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:26:59 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>It is if you mean to defend MS by making blanket statements about their
> >>having every right to shield off "internal data" from 3d party programs.
> >>If some programs _do_ have some business in that data, then your whole
> >>reasoning of shielding off and "private internal data" goes out the
> >>Window.
> >DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
> >Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
>
> (Then) Windows is not an OS. An OS runs without the help of another OS.
Gee, I guess DOS/VSE under VM isn't an OS then. I guess NeXT and MacOS X
aren't an OS then, since they rely on mach to function (actually there is
more than a passing similarity between the way mach and it's client OS's run
and the way DOS and Windows run.)
> DOS is an OS, and DOS+Windows is an OS. Windows without DOS is not, it
doesn't
> run (Windows NT excluded ofcourse).
And Darwin doesn't run without Mach either. mklinux doesn't run without
mach.
> Windows is as much an application as Borland C++ 3, Doom, GEOS, Dark
Forces,
> ... All are "DOS Extenders" (which I don't have to explain to you).
> Windows just has a pretty complete (but not always consistent) API that
> "happens" to be used a lot (which is where their monopoly comes in).
Sorry, GEOS was an 16 bit non-protected mode OS on the PC. Ran on an 8086.
It wasn't a DOS extender. Doom and Dark Forces arent dos extenders either,
they used DOS/4GW which was a DOS extender.
But, even so. There is a large difference between a DOS extender and what
Windows does. DOS extenders merely call DOS from protected mode. Windows
(while it provided an externder in the form of a DPMI server) actually
replaced many of the DOS services with protected mode versions.
> >An application can run on any system which provides the right API's (such
> >as WINE), the OS cannot.
>
> Oh? So VMware makes several OS's not an OS.
VMWare does a whole lot more than provide an API. It has to completely
emulate non-virtualizeable portions of the CPU.
> It's all just a question of which API you're providing (and how well).
> Anyway, OS/2 provides the right API's via its VDM (Virtual DOS Machine)
with
> its virtual device drivers and runs Windows. Hmmm... according to "Erik"
> Windows must not be an OS...
This also was a lot more than just providing an API. The VDM actually acted
as a complete 8086 PC capable of running any non-protected mode OS, much
like VMWare, but a great deal more primitive when it came to virtualizing
non-virtualizeable parts of the CPU.
> >Windows replaces many of the DOS API's with
> >protected mode callbacks. That's not the same thing as "every DOS
> >extender", which merely makes a real-mode DOS call from protected mode.
>
> That's *exactly* what a DOS extender does. Read "Unauthorized Windows 95"
by
> Schulman. Any DOS extender *replaces* the memory allocation API of DOS
with a
> 'protected mode callback'.
> You're in 'pedantic definition mode' again BTW.
I said "many of the DOS API's", to which you replied "That's *exactly* what
a DOS extender does" but only gave one API. A DOS extender manages memory
and provides real mode translation of DOS calls (such as disk access,
etc..). Windows, however, provides it's own disk management functions.
> >Untrue. MS is a large company that many of it's clients expect certain
>
> Just keep beating that strawman!
> Next you'll tell us that MS has to guarantee AutoCAD to run on Windows.
Then why do they get blasted everytime an upgrade breaks someones software?
And why is that called an example of their Monopolistic behavior?
Microsoft actually goes well out of it's way to protect compatibility with
apps. Unauthorized Windows 95 goes into a great deal of detail on that with
the compatibility flags.
> >things from. Additionally, since MS offered no-charge tech support at
the
> >time, support was a cost absorbed by MS.
>
> That must have been ages ago... :-\
>From my memory, the first company to start charging for tech support was
either Lotus or Wordperfect (I don't recall which, but I read an interesting
article at the time that talked about how this was a foreshadowing of tech
support to come. They were actually right). This was circa 1992.
Microsoft and the rest of the industry followed in the next year or two.
> >>The discussion is about their (alledged) right to *prevent* other DOS's
to
> >>run Windows (or feign incompatibility).
> >So, MS should just blindly run on whatever junk pretends it's MS-DOS and
> >let the buyer beware?
>
> Yes.
What you fail to realize is that MS is the one that will be blamed for
problems caused by the other code.
> If you think not, please tell us why you expected DOS apps to run on "OS"
> Windows and Windows NT (apps that just use the public DOS API)? Should
they
> refuse to run on "whatever junk pretends it's MS-DOS"???
That's their right. In fact, many apps DO refuse to run in a Windows dos
box.
> >You don't think MS has a responsibility to take a few
> >precautions against obvious stability issues?
>
> Certainly not when they're baloney or even counterfeit.
Novell admitted to a serious bug in DR-DOS that prevented it from running
under Standard mode Windows. Incompatibilities were not baloney or
counterfeit. They were real.
> It's not a question of 'run into a problem and mentioning it in a README';
> it's about going out and identifying something as 'not compatible' without
> even running into a problem. That's called pretending or lying, clearly
FUD.
Many of the pre-windows 2000 aware games would not run on Windows 2000
because they checked for the existance of NT and refused to install or run
if it was NT. They didn't bother to check if the API's they needed were
there, they just found it easier to assume NT was incompatible.
Are you suggesting that those people are part of a conspiracy as well?
> >As an example, car companies frequenly provide circumstances in which
their
> >warranty will be voided if they do things which can cause the product to
> >malfunction. Example, putting in unapproved motor oil. Since GM can't
> >modify their engines to prevent unapproved motor oil from being added to
> >their cars, their only choice is to void the warranty.
>
> Does GM sell (inferior) motor oil?
How does that relate to the DOS/Window example?
> Do they have a monopoly product that they can use to leverage anybody to
use
> their motor oil?
I believe that most of the major car manufacturers are heavily invested in
oil companies, which is why they usually reccommend a particular brand.
> It's more like someone selling a car radio using a certain pin-out (API)
that
> nevertheless automatically worsens its performance when it's put into a
> pin-compatible bay not belonging to a car made by the same manufacturer,
while
> the car-radio is a monopoly product and the car is inferior ('by several
> measured criteria' to use a good-old-days-of-Mike-Timbol quote).
No. Again, Windows and DOS are both OS's that work together. A radio is
not a vehicle. It doesn't even provide vehicle-like services (which if you
take the stand that Windows isn't an OS, you have to at least admit that it
provides OS-like services).
> >MS could probably have refused technical support if your an DR-DOS, but
why
> >make a customer angry?
>
> Screwing the customer out of money that needn't be spent (for 'upgrading'
from
> DR-DOS to MS-DOS), *lying* to him and denying him to make that choice for
> himself isn't going to make him angry????
There were legitimate and Novell acknowledge incompatibilities.
> >No. YOU quoted the above material, then responded specifically to that
> >material by stating that nobody should believe the material that was
> >quoted.
> >If you had intended the entire post to be referenced to that, you
wouldn't
> >have quoted that portion and made a response to it.
> >The only conclusion one can draw was that the text referred specifically
to
> >that text, thus you were stating that it was wrong.
>
> No, the quote was meant to 'isolate' your sudden upbringing of a different
> theorem, without actually 'quoting' the entire message.
Well, if that was it's intention, YOU should seriously consider your use of
the language.
I doubt anyone else saw the phrase your way.
> You tried to throw Joseph on a dead trail by starting about the marketing
of
> Win3.0/1, while the discussion uptil then had been about (the right of) MS
> putting in tests in Windows specifically meant to single out non-approved
DOS
> versions (that could otherwise be perfectly compatible products).
How a product is marketed is very much apropos to the intended purpose of
the product, which was to run on MS-DOS and PC-DOS.
If MS marketed the product as an add-on to DR-DOS and then caused deliberate
failures, that would be one thing. But it wasn't marketed for that, thus
the buyers use of an unauthorized co-package is not MS's fault.
> Which has nothing to do with the public face they happened to have put on
at
> the same time. If you were to do that, would you say "we're singling out
our
> competitor's product with this" or try to side-step it by lyin...eh...
> marketing?
MS's handling of the situation was poor in many ways.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 06:23:02 -0400
From: Joseph <[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
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I usually phrase my words very carefully. I mean them as I say them. I
> used the term OLE in the same way that Microsoft does, to refer to OLE 2. I
> develop under OLE on a daily basis. OLE simply is OLE 2 to anyone in the
> industry for the last 6 or more years. I have proven that MS uses the term
> OLE in reference to OLE 2, and not in reference to both OLE 1 and OLE 2,
> which was the original argument by Joseph.
Joseph only cares about two things 1) using real arconyms and 2) the
origin of OLE.
You've stopped using OLE1 and OLE2 - we have real progress here Eric.
When asked about the origin of OLE you have to refer to OLE Version 1.0,
not OLE Version 2.0.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 23 May 2000 13:24:56 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 18:41:26 "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
�Or they could just tough out this DOJ PR railroad case...
The United States of America says that you - with your howls
of "I am innocent" - full of shit. The criminals that you
pimp for got caught - now they are going to pay.
� and win with
�real justice in the appealate courts...
Won't be so easy this time around - now that the judge with
the MS stock holdings is no longer sitting on the bench. The
case stands a lot better chance of being heard on the merits
- not some judge's pocketbook.
Besides - even if he were, how are they going to refute the
fact that MS' case was so dismal that they had to resort to
bringing falsified evidence into a federal court and got
caught at it - TWICE!
Forget about it! Their sorry ass is going to get hung out to
dry - and all your whining and snivelling about "railroad
case" ain't gonna save it from the wringer.
�and forget about this whole thing
�and watch their stock rise higher than before this whole BS?
Ah - so all this posturing is about nothing more than
petulant restentment over your your stock investment. In
that case, I hope everything that has happened to date has
given you a good case of heartburn.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:49:12 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Joseph only cares about two things 1) using real arconyms and 2) the
> origin of OLE.
>
> You've stopped using OLE1 and OLE2 - we have real progress here Eric.
> When asked about the origin of OLE you have to refer to OLE Version 1.0,
> not OLE Version 2.0.
For someone so hung up on the correct spelling of things, you can't even
bother to spell someones name correctly.
I think that about sums it up.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 09:00:33 -0500
One thing you might consider is looking at your local bookstore for a
book called Linux Kernel Internals or something like that. It has what
your looking for and about anything else you want to know about the
Linux kernel. Of course, it also has a lot of source put in the book
with descriptions of what that particular piece of code is doing. It is
a big book, and a little spendy, but well worth it if you really want to
get cozy with the way the kernel does its thing. I'm not sure if the
new version is out (for 2.2/2.3...). The last one that I saw was for
the 2.0.x series kernels.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lurch wrote:
>
> Well that got your attention !
>
> Honestly, I get a little worried when I see 300 - 400 replies to
> a Post on the lines of Linux Sucks etc and most of the posts
> seem to be by only 2 or 3 people, oh well everyone needs a
> hobby, but I digress...
>
> I'm evaluating a move to Linux & I wold like to learn more about
> the memory architecture and workings of the kernel etc. Anyone
> know where I can find this. I had a quick look in kernel.org but
> this is mostly (? all) just posts between the developers about
> what they are doing.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> [ I have my asbestos mouse glove on & the blast shield is in
> place on the monitor ;-) ]
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 07:08:30 -0700
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is Hotmail still using FreeBSD and Solaris? I know NT 4.0 is
>being
>used in there someplace, but I don't know where. People who
>know me
>in here know that I love FreeBSD. Some people hate me because I
netcraft claims that its running Apache 1.3.6 with mod_ssl/SSLeay
running FreeBSD.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another One!
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 09:11:02 -0500
2:1 wrote:
>
>
> 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
Maybe it is time for VisualVirus for the 'would be' and unskilled
internet terrorists. Could be one of the spin offs from the MS break
up.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:28:50 -0400
The worst bug I've ever dealt with in my entire career was one where
the X server slowly consumed system resources, brought the machine to
its knees, and eventually crashed it. This was on a DEC workstation
running Ultrix. This was the worst bug ever because it took like 6
hours to reproduce it. It turned out that the X server's deep color
image code had a mild memory leak. DEC denied the bug's existance. To
fix it, we had to rewrite a major portion of our app to use only
monochrome images, which it turned out was all we needed anyway. So
the bug was a triple whammy: it took forever to figure out what the
problem was, the fix was far from trivial, and it wasn't even our
fault to begin with!
In any case, X - because it runs as root on most systems - can most
definitely cause kernel crashes. I've also seen it happen on early
Solaris 2.x systems.
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 23 May 2000 15:33:11 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-lyKlK7H8PjmR@localhost...
> > > The version of Windows used by OS/2 is modified to work correctly with
> OS/2.
> > >
> > > According to Andrew Schulman, the code that causes problems with DR-DOS
> also
> > > causes problems with OS/2's VDM.
> > >
> > See Marty's reply. I tried - for fun - if I could make a
> > non-integrated Windows 3.1 (bought from a store) version to run in a
> > DOS VDM on a red spine Warp 3 that didn't have WinOS/2 installed.
> >
> > Lo and behold.
>
> Did you run MS-DOS in the VDM? Or were you using the OS/2 DOS?
>
Don't you think I would have mentioned it if I had used the "boot to
DOS" feature?
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 23 May 2000 14:33:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/23/2000 at 11:53 AM,
> Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I guess you haven't yet considered that a possibility, your own writing
>> skills (or worse) being the/a problem...
> The problem is Illya that Erik Fuckingliar writes in MicroSpeak.
> MicroSpeak is written by the same folks who produce such meaningful words
> as General Protection Fault Error, Start to mean shut down, etc.
Much as youd like to think otherwise, bob, you actually arent helping
anyone here. You're simply actively appearing to be a fucking lunatic.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 23 May 2000 14:34:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/22/2000 at 08:56 AM,
> "Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> MS does act like OLE 1 never existed for the most part. Yes, they
>> acknowledge it for backwards compatibility, but the mere fact that no
>> documentation that refers to OLE without a verion number shows this.
> Doesn't change the fact that you were caught in a flat out lie.
And THIS doesnt change the fact that you are in dire need of medication.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 23 May 2000 14:35:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/22/2000 at 11:49 AM,
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
>> Windows was an environment - other 3rd parties had the opportunity to
>> add their own environments on DOS in competition with MS windows.
>> At a later date MS turned Windows into an OS...and Caldera sued them.
>> DR DOS was an alternative technoology to MS DOS for running windows
>> 4.0/Win95.
> Josco, you are quite correct. I have decided to no longer respond to
> Fuckingliar's crap. It is arguing with a creature which sheds his skin and
> swallows small animals whole.
How about if you go a step further and no longer respond ABOUT his
crap? I think youd be making pretty much everyone very happy.
Because the ramblings of a lunatic make alot of people uncomfortable.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 May 2000 08:34:56 -0600
Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:12:59 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
>
> >Go read the long description by an Open Source Advocate about the
> >interesting improvements in Windows 2000 that he claims makes it faster
> >than NT.
> >
> >Pete
>
> Oh I agree that W2K is 'slightly' faster than NT4. It seems to access
> VM more efficiently and task switching seems to be a bit better as
> well but compared with Linux or any Unix system, W2K multi-tasking
> sucks.
Hmmm. Windows 2000 seems *much* slower on a 64MB machine than NT4
did.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX???
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 May 2000 08:40:03 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
> On 22 May 2000 22:53:32 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Does any body know where to find exploits for RedHat 5.x??
>
> http://www.rootshell.com/
... which hasn't been updated in months.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: 23 May 2000 14:41:11 GMT
In article <8fudfo$20ou$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What "the world needs," perhaps, is to have I/O managed via a set of
>> asynchronous buses.
>
> Why does a typical PC need anything but a fast video card a bunch
> of RAM, and a 100M ethernet interface? There are already 'appliance'
> file servers, printers have had network interfaces for years, cheap
> modem/routers are coming around, hubs/switches are cheap. The
> advantage of this approach becomes obvious as soon as you plug in
> the 2nd PC. When you can get the 100M for less than $20, why not
> just build the chips into everything and only have one kind of
> connector to worry about?
Because 100Mbit ethernet can only realistically shift around 10MB per
second and that would tend to get flooded very easily with the sheer
quantity of data you'd end up slinging about. And you *really* don't
want to swap over a network (I really don't want to remember it!) The
words "bad idea" really fail to encapsulate just how horrid this is.
Local HDDs make a big difference to machine speeds (especially app
startup times) so you'd need to put some storage in locally, and
100BaseT just isn't fast enough. ATM and FDDI are better, but much
more costly and more difficult to install IIRC (ATM is also less well
suited to internet traffic and TCP is better routed directly over ATM
instead of having IP as a separate layer in there between, since you
are then using a stream protocol over streaming hardware.)
Another problem with using networking for all interconnects is the
amount of contention you get. Or is it acceptable for the printing of
a document by machine A to block the loading of a program executable
by machine B? Avoiding this sort of problem as a network grows in
size seems to be a major issue. Maybe smart hubs can handle this. I
don't really know...
Donal (not a networking guy.)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Another One!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 May 2000 08:51:59 -0600
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2:1 wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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?
>
> Maybe it is time for VisualVirus for the 'would be' and unskilled
> internet terrorists. Could be one of the spin offs from the MS break
> up.
It'd give Dr. Watson something to do.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
