Linux-Advocacy Digest #662, Volume #26 Wed, 24 May 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Svend Garnaes)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Damien)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Svend Garnaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:46:34 +0200
Johan Kullstam wrote:
> you will want to make a printer driver that inserts printer cursor
> positioning commands (like \r) in the appropriate places.
>
> unix text files have end-of-line marker LF. for terminals or printers
> LF means line feed, but leave the cursor in the same column. to get
> back to the start of the line, you need a carriage return CR.
> termcap and cooked mode does this for terminals. surely there is a
> method that works for printers.
In RedHat Linux you would use printtool to set the 'Fix Staircase'
option for the printer. It results in the file textonly.cfg in the
printer's spool directory containing the line CRLFTRANS=1, which
does the trick.
--
Svend
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:49:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 23 May 2000 19:00:30 GMT <8gekge$1bh2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> so you acknowledge that you are wrong about datacenter.
>
>No. Datacenter doesnt EXIST. It is betaware, and I challenge you to
>come up with solid proof that any of these "large online bookstores"
>are basing the core of their business on a beta copy of datacenter.
This thread appears to be turning into a philosophical issue, but
I for one would submit that beta software does exist.
Now vaporware, on the other hand... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MS was good at that (COOL?)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 May 2000 13:57:50 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 10:07:21 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
| > On Tue, 23 May 2000 20:28:27 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| > >
| > >Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
| > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > >> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:08 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > >> Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > [deletia]
| > >> The easiest way is to create a group for each resource. Then you
| > >> could modify your new user scripts to add all new users to all the
| > >> groups. Then if you want to deny a paticular user a paticular
| > >> resource, just remove them from that group.
| > >>
| > >Which means the system does nothing and the admin everything
| > >(writing scripts).
| > >
| > >I don't find this to be a good idea. The _concept_ of having one
| > >user group per resource is stupid. (I don't say your solution is
| > >stupid, because it seems as if it's the only one). But the concept
| > >itself is just plain stupid.
| >
| > Why? Presumably you're interested in an ACL for each shared
| > resource. A group is just another level of indirection.
| >
| No. NT's security logic is that you have people (users), which, as
| member of a particular organisation, or assuming a particular function
| (i.e. belonging to a group), have access to some resources.
| There are several problems to that group thing :
|
| * If you, as normal user, want to deny access to a resource of yours,
| you cannot do this on a per-user basis since all your choice will be to
| prevent your 'resource group' from accessing it.
I believe it's standard for each personto be part of a group that only
they are in. If you want to allow acess to one other person, just
step their group as group owner.
| * If you, as normal user, want to grant access to a resource of yours,
| you will not be able to do this, be it on a per-user or per-group
| basis, unless you ask your admin to create you the 'resource group' for
| it.
| * Besides, if you have 500 different resources, you will have 500
| different resource groups. If you have 3000 different resources.....
| In short, you will slow down the system in an amount proportional to
| the number of resources, and also influenced by the number of system.
| The NT ACL system may be slightly slower for each access, but not be
| very influenced (maybe not at all) by the number of users or resources.
How would having lot of groups slow down the system?
| The resource group is not a solution, it's a workaround of a design
| flaw. The design flaw which probably wasn't a flaw in its original
| context (i.e. slow processors, few resources available, etc...).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:58:23 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 07:29:06 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Doesn't tend to? Can it be configured to allow it? What's the default - I
>hope it's no access at all.
Linux distributions generally use the .Xauthority mechanism to limit
access to the display. The user must have access to a pseudo-random
"magic cookie" to connect to the display. The cookie is stored in
~/.Xauthority, with permissions of 0600 so it is not readable by other
users on the system. See the xauth man page for a not-very-clear
explanation.
Users connecting only to the local display as one user at a time don't
need to worry about this as it is handled automatically by the X startup
scripts. The default is to allow only the user who started the X server
to connect to it.
This is why if you su to another user in an xterm you can't run X apps
from that xterm. The oft-given advice of "use xhost +localhost" bypasses
the .Xauthority thing and allows other users on the system to connect to
your display. The secure procedure is to copy the .Xauthority info as
described in the xauth man page, but this is a bit cumbersome. You can
also use some thing like "ssh user@localhost" if you have OpenSSH
installed. This seems a bit more elegant to me.
Making this easy but still secure is a non-trivial problem because of the
network-oriented architecture of X coupled with the multi-user nature of
Unix. You probably do want to allow multiple users on the box to connect
to the display, except when you don't.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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, 24 May 2000 16:05:33 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>Which doesn't change the fact that MS uses the term OLE to refer to OLE
>>>2,
>>OLE, version 2.
>>>and not OLE 1.
>>OLE, version 1.
>>Nobody is denying that version 2 is meant when MS nowadays speaks of
>>"OLE".
>Not just "nowadays", but has since 1994.
For the sake of Erik "pedantic" Funkenbusch, I'll rephrase (normal thinkers
can skip this):
'Nobody is denying that version 2 is meant when MS speaks of "OLE" since some
unspecified time'
>And in fact, Joseph is claiming that MS doesn't mean version 2 when they
>say "OLE" in this quote:
>"The Acronym OLE refers to an API that includes V1.0 and V2.0. References
>to the origin of OLE refer to Version 1.0, not Version 2.0."
Rubbish.
He says (quite literally) that OLE is an API that has had 2 versions, and you
yourself have proven it with your quote from an MS Press book where they
explicitly state they are stopping referring to those two versions because
they don't want to imply there will be another, because version 2, the one
you're so gung-ho about to just call "OLE", purportedly offers any necessary /
desirable means to extend it (no doubt, until someone has successfully cloned
the entire version 2 API...).
>>>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.
>>Ah! Now I get it. They ignore it ... except for the part where they
>>don't...
>Yes, there's documentation still on MS's website about OLE 1, but I'd
Then they're not "ignoring it", "trying to forget it", "act as if it didn't
exist".
Another patented Funkenbusch reversal.
>challenge you to find any documentation on it written after 1993.
So what. Product 'X' version 2 has an origin in product 'X' version 1. Just
like Joseph said. An API is a product too. Just because that version 1 is
"ancient" and/or version 2 is "pretty different" doesn't make it different.
>Do you know what the definition of ignore is?
"Switch pedantic mode on"
>Main Entry: ig�nore
>1 : to refuse to take notice of
>2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded
> synonym see NEGLECT
>In other words, something that exists, but is neglected and no longer
>noticed.
Having documentation on the website isn't "refusing to take notice".
Not actively promoting isn't "refusing to take notice"
You're not good at using being pedantic as a strawman...
>>>It says exactly what I'm saying. OLE without a version number means OLE
>>>2.
>>You said it shows they ignore version 1.
>No, I didn't. I said Microsoft ACTS AS IF OLE 1 doesn't exist.
Specifically *mentioning* version 1 isn't acting as if it doesn't exist.
>I didn't say it showed anything other than OLE means OLE 2.
And you are wrong, it only showed (said so *literally*) there will not be a
version *3*.
>>The quote shows them specifically *mentioning* version 1, and telling you
>>and us they won't be having a version 3.
>>Sounds different too me...
>That does not contradict what I said. After the quote from the book, I
>made the comment:
>"Note how MS dropped the 2 moniker, prefering to act like OLE1 never
>existed."
Mentioning something isn't "acting like it never existed".
Your quote _only_ says the '2' is dropped so as not to imply a forthcoming
'3'. *Any* statement about other reasons (even including "we want OLE to mean
_only_ version 2 from now, not version 2 and/or 1") is conjecture.
>>>There is no imagined hidden meaning. All I said was that MS pretends
>>>that OLE 1 doesn't exist when they refer to OLE. That's not a hidden
>>>meaning, that's a statement about how they act. That's my opinion.
>>You can have an opinion, and so could Joseph BTW (but ofcourse it's fine
>>for people to demand 'proof' for his opinion while they themselves can
>>opine everything they want when any proof runs out).
>Joseph wasn't claiming it was opinion, he claimed it as fact.
Fine, then you have claimed your opinion (how you feel they are acting) as a
fact too.
You can't have it both ways.
>>But *you* tried to "prove" your opinion "they ignore version 1" as fact by
>>producing a quote that specifically *mentions* version 1 and explicitly
>>states that they won't be using the _version_ number 2 anymore because it
>>falsely implies there will be a version 3.
>No, I was making a comment on the statement when I said they *ACT* as if
>version 1 did not exist. I chose that word carefully. I didn't say they
>completely ignore it, I said they act as if it doesn't exist by removing
>the versioning from the name.
"All I said was that MS pretends that OLE 1 doesn't exist when they refer to
OLE" was just a few lines ago.
I think we can find some more in previous mails. No carefully chosen word
'act'.
>>It's not our fault if you come up with pertinently wrong evidence.
>What do you call removing the versioning from the name? And how does it
>disambiguate the versions?
The stated reason to stop implying a version 3 is forthcoming is perfectly
enough reason to remove the versioning. Are you now casting doubt on the
truthfullness of your own evidence???
>>>The fact is that MS when MS says OLE, they mean OLE 2.
>>Which isn't what was being contested...
>Yes, Actually it is.
Not at all.
Someone dared to say OLE version 2 (or in your pedantic mode "OLE") has its
roots in OLE version 1, and you took exception to that.
>>We could just as well say "when MS says 'Word', they mean 'Word 2000 for
>>Windows'". So what.
>Actually, when MS says "Word" they refer to the product known as word in
>general, and they use specific version numbers when referring to specific
>implementations. This is different from what they do with OLE, which is to
>use the term OLE without version number specifically to mean OLE 2.
They did the same with OLE, until they decided there wouldn't be another
version because the then current one provided all necessary means for future
enhancements and wanted to signal this removal of implication.
If the latest Word version were to have become self-extending, they could do
the same. It's just a little difficult because it's not an API.
But some MS advocates (maybe even you) said that now the .doc format of Word
has become extendable (finally, no truly, really, cross-my-heart!) so that
next versions of Word won't have be changing the format itself anymore. That's
more like an API, and if you attach version numbers to the .doc versions, they
could pull the same trick with ".doc version 9 == .doc from now on" (or 2000
instead of 9).
>>>Didn't you notice the statement above where it says "One must read
>>>statements in context", which states that he I didn't say what he says I
>>>did, but rather that he's implying it based on his idea of the "context".
>>>I can't control what other people want to see.
>>I already agreed with that. I'm just saying that there must come a point
>>where one has to wonder whether or not constant 'misunderstandings' or
>>'misinterpretations' of what one meant to write is because the writer puts
>>it the way he puts it.
>I usually phrase my words very carefully. I mean them as I say them. I
Until you deny or contradict them...
>used the term OLE in the same way that Microsoft does, to refer to OLE 2. I
>develop under OLE on a daily basis.
Ah, the usual "I use it more than you, nyah nyah" 'argument'.
Is someone who drives his car everyday a qualified car mechanic?
>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.
No, which is what you *wanted* his argument to be. You wanted people not to
read more in what you say than you said, so stop doing it with others.
>>I guess you haven't yet considered that a possibility, your own writing
>>skills (or worse) being the/a problem...
>Even you choose to ignore very obviously chosen words such as "Act" in a
>sentance.
Yeah, especially if it wasn't there in the first place...
>Saying that someone "Acts as if it doesn't exist" doesn't mean it
>doesn't exist or that nobody recognizes it. It means that for all intents
>and purposes, in every day activities, the behavior is to ignore it. By
>choosing to take the extremist view of the phrase of "always ingores it",
>you have changed the meaning of the sentance as it was written. That is
>your fault, not mine. I wasn't ambiguous, nor did the sentance lack
>clarity.
You 'act' like you can't think logically or like you are being paid by
Microsoft. I'm not saying you are(n't) and it's just my opinion.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:05:36 GMT
jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, so in a Linux advocacy group only Linux advocates are allowed to
> post ? Sounds boring to me. Troll ? Don't think so. The original post
> advertises the availability of a book for users more familiar with *nix
> than Windows. What's wrong with that ? If you're a Windows guru, don't
> buy the book.
>
No you twit, it's a question of apropriateness. Post a Jello tip in
a alt.games.checkers group and you will get the same reaction. There's a
reason why this group is not called comp.os.allsystemsplease.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
See my work at http://www.geocities.com/sierra_tigris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:07:10 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 10:41:00 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>People in this group complain about NT security. However if you
>examine the way people try to attack NT systems it is almost always
>from a Unix machine using something like Samba.
That's because NT doesn't allow interactive network logons unless you go
out of your way to make it so. If we removed that feature from Unix, it
would go a long way toward preventing this kind of abuse, but would also
remove one of the major advantages Unix has over NT.
If I strip a Linux distro down to the services that NT Workstation
provides out of the box, you'll have a damn hard time breaking in from the
network. I do, in fact, advocate that this be the default setup for Linux
distributors to ship.
>Earlier this year there was an attack on a machine on a neighbouring
>network to the where I work. The source was apparently an IP address
>on our subnet. The machine owning the IP address turned out to be an
>NT workstation in a secure location. We immediately dismissed it as
>some sort of IP spoofing.
But what if it wasn't? There are "rootkits" for NT that will give an
attacker a remote shell. Read BugTraq sometime. There have been numerous
buffer overflow exploits (mostly in IIS) published that would be usable
for this. Then there is Back Orifice. If you can trick an admin into
installing that, then NT makes a great platform for attacks. And of
course someone has developed a DDoS tool for NT that can be used as a
trojan.
We won't even go into the possibility that you have an employee working in
that secure location who is hacking other systems.
Assuming that your NT machine is secure simply because it is NT is stupid.
>However had the source machine been a Unix box we would have
>immediately taken it offline and given a thorough examination.
By not investigating what's up with the NT box you are acting
irresponsibly.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
