Linux-Advocacy Digest #745, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Ray)
Re: The Linux Fortress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Let's whine about wine ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Ray)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Loren Petrich)
Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX??? (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:07:44 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> No. I am questioning your basic tenets. One of those tenets is that
> linux development is an engineering process, with objectives, plans,
> milestones, problem tracking and so on.
I think you're replying to someone else. I have never made any statement
espousing such tenets. In particular, I think OS's lack of schedules is
one of its biggest strengths.
> Once you accept that it is possibly not what you think it is
First you need to accept that you've gravely misunderstood my position.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:29:28 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Windows 2000 is $300.
> >
> > > Hardware and software are not the same. Manufacturing technology has
> > > improved; computer components are cheaper.
> >
> > Computer manufacturing requires billion dollar fabrication plants to
> > manufacture. Software cheap - there are not costs for duplication
> > software. Software is by far cheaper to manufacture - the cost of an
> > FTP site and a connection will generate unlimited quantities of
> > software.
>
> Yes; as you point out, hardware and software are different. Software
> manufacturing is very, very cheap compared to hardware manufacturing.
>
> But software design is very expensive, and the demands placed on it
> are growing faster than the demands placed on hardware.
So too is hardware design expensive and errors are less tolerable - one
does not download a harware patch.
A superior metric for pricning is profit margins. MS has the highest
profit margins and they are the ones give us consumers the least cost
reduction.
> > Hardware is programming logic and it too needs to be designed.
>
> Some of it is; CPU design is comparable. But most of a computer
> is simpler than that.
A computer CPU is very difficult because it not only has to be very
reliable, it has to be done cost effectively.
> Even a CPU is *much* simpler than a large software project, like
> Windows 2000. It's not *simple*, of course, but the really big software
> systems are just mind-numblingly complicated.
Still MS's profit margins are so excessive the argument is moot. If
they did have higher costs, it would show in their profits.
> Which may be a Bad Thing (tm); many have argued against such
> complexity. It's just that nobody has found a way to deliver the
> functionality that is in demand without it.
I would also argue MS's proreection of a monopoly makes their software
more costly, integration is bad software engineering.
> > It also
> > has to be orders of magnitude more reliable than a MS software product.
>
> No, actually, it doesn't. Most hardware is assembled by manufacturers,
> not end users; they have a fairly clear idea of what it will be working
> with,
> and can test the configurations they sell.
A CPU is better tested and more reliable than any stand alone MS
software product. They which often have need for repair without any
consideratons for 3rd party addons or any hardware specific defects.
> Software has to work, as if by magic, on practically any hardware
> and with practically any other software that happens to be there;
> and you do not get to test the configuration in advance.
Credit the CPU makers for doing a superior job of backwards
compatibility. MS doens't load CPU and platffrom specific codes to
correct for hardware differences.
> > Still prices are dropping, not increasing.
>
> However, functionality isn't increasing very much; computers have
> more storage and run faster, but don't offer very much in the new
> features department.
Functionality is increasing. The smaller size and power consumption are
features.
> They expect the software to do that, for the most part.
We do?
> A new Linux distribution is hardly a new OS.
Windows98, SE and ME are hardly a new OS. Even Win95 was a evolution of
DOS and Windows WFWG.
> My point, I think, remains unscathed: most of the software development
> technologies and techniques that have come out over the years do not
> apply to OS design.
Baloney. Even old OS/2 has a modular design and is mostly written in
C/C++. As MS defines the OS a vast majority of software does indeed
fall under these technqiues.
> There really isn't anything that can help you build,
> say, a VM subsystem in the way that Visual Basic will help you build
> a (simple) user interface.
Visual basic is a bad exmaple. I'm not sure many software packages we
use today are made in the crippled product visual basic.
> Hell, quite a few don't even apply to *shrinkwrap application* design;
> they are really for custom apps.
Visual basic is a bad choice as an example. Powerful frameworks for
program development exist. MS used MFC for IE and IE is part of the
Windows OS. Sun offers SWING.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: 29 May 2000 17:29:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In article <8gp9f3$20h0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
: > *snip stuff about os/2*
: >
: > And BTW, why are you posting this to comp.os.linux.advocacy?
: >
: > You are most assuredly doing what you always swore you never did:
: > Trying to start a fight.
: >
: > May I be the first to say: Fuck off drestin.
: Sorry, you are not the first to say it. Still, Drestin if fun to
: torment. He gets so pissed when you ask him to back up his claims. Of
: course he never can. Then he tries some personal attack. So predictable.
Oh please! This is such typical "kettle" behavior. If anyone has an
inherent disability to post proof of wild claims, it's you, bright boy.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:16:57 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman) said:
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 17:10:45 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>=BBWhile in the confines of os2.advocacy you might get away with living =
under
>=BBthe delusion that OS/2 is somehow thriving...
>This is one more example of your "full-of-shit" debate
>tactics. You take your self-made ridiculous statements;
>write them in such a manner as to make it look as if the
>person you are responding to actually was defending that
>position; and then go on to defeat your self-made strawman.
>My position is, and has always been, that for the business
>user OS/2 cannot be beaten as the most productive,
>efficient, best bang-for-the buck OS/2 out there. OS/2 may
>not be "thriving" but it is a LONG way frome dead - or even
>dying - as you, in your bitter cup of rejection so often
>proclaim.
>OS/2 may be dead for Stardock products - not surprising
>considering the type of things you are interested in doing.
>OS/2 is not a game platform; and the freeware and shareware
>of today make your ages old desktop utility bundle look
>tired and overpriced.
>You want to say that OS/2 is dead as far as Stardock
>products are concerned? Fine. You want to say that in order
>to make a buck Stardock has to pander to the Windows market?
>Fine.
>You want to say that OS/2 is dead - in the face of a major
>refresh; a new client coming in the fall; and the awarding
>of a third party contract to provide a Warp value added
>package (the same kind of thing that you were rejected for -
>said rejection being your rationale for OS/2 being dead) - I
>say in no uncertain terms that you are poisoining the well -
>plain and simple - out of your resentment at having been
>rejected. The factors mentioned above prove that it was YOU
>that IBM turned down - not OS/2.
Well stated. Now if Brad would just get the idea that he doesn't have any=
thing
left to say that we are interested in hearing, maybe he will stop annoyin=
g us.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:07:32 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 07:52:54 +0100, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray wrote:
>>
>> One advantage of using a mailing list for
>> bug tracking is that it allows search engines such as deja to tie together
>> the development of various related projects (sane, alsa, apm, etc) in a way
>> that would be difficult with traditional bug tracking systems.
>
>I don't think that's really true. A search engine like DejaNews does
>sophisticated full-text searching of free-form text. Yes, it gives
>weights to terms found in titles (even though the titles may not even
>apply to the subject anymore), and is more clever than simply listing
>all articles where search terms appear. Nevertheless, it's inherently
>unstructured.
<SNIPED discussion of the enhanced searchability of a database>
But the projects I listed arn't even part of the kernel and in one case
isn't even Linux specific. How would a problem reported to the sane
developers ever even make it into the kernel bug tracking database? Are you
saying that a problem reported to the cdrecord developer couldn't
potentially be related to a bug in the Linux SCSI code? Couldn't a bug
fixed by the kernel developers potentially be valuable to the BSD folks?
Would Intels' recent recall of thousands of I820 based motherboards possibly
be related to an unexplained kernel panic? Do you see what I was getting
at?
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:16:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8gsa8l$pjo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Hmmm --- locate is your friend. Took me 2 seconds to find the files.
>And if they are not on my system, what then? Will locate find them for me?
No, of course not.
I have a 386SX here that I installed Win95 on. Its hard disk is barely large
enough to allow the install to succeed, so afterwards, I went through and
deleted all sorts of useless (to me) files.
As a result, the help system now doesn't provide any help anymore. You see,
the help files were both big and useless, so I deleted them. They are no
longer on my system.
Now, if someone was to use this machine and complain about the non-working
help system, who/what should they blame?
a) MS?
b) Windows help system?
c) The authors of the Windows help files?
d) me?
OK, similar situation. Someone provided you with a ready-to-install linux
CD. You ended up with a system not containing important documentation, either
because the docs weren't on the CD, or because you chose not to install
them.
In either case, should you blame
a) Linus?
b) Linux?
c) The documentation writers?
d) The distribution packager?
e) Yourself?
Bernie
P.S.: And there is always the option of typing "ENCRYPTION.txt" into
google, and hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" link. Works perfectly.
--
Computers are useless.
They can only give you answers.
Pablo Picasso
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:16:18 GMT
Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>No, please don't even suggest the GIMP. Jeeeezuschrist. I just made a
>25MB blank image in TheGIMP, and filled it with a gradation from black
>to white, diagonally, across the whole image. Took 30 seconds to do
>that, and it takes PhotoShop about 1 to 1.5 seconds on NT....
>I have a gig of RAM, so it's not the RAM requirements that are choking
>it.
Might still be a ram issue --- because it seems that the Gimp, by default,
uses only 10MB for its tile cache, and thus would be happily shuffling the
25M image from and to disk even on your 1G machine.
You can change that value in the "preferences" menu. Let us know whether
it makes a difference.
Also --- it's always good to make sure you are comparing like to like.
The Gimp gradient tool seems pretty versatile to me (an absolute ignoramus
when it comes to such tools). Does the PS tool you compare to offer a
similar level of versatility? If one or the other tool is much more generic,
that tool is usually at a disadvantage in a raw speed comparison.
Bernie
--
I never vote. It only encourages them
Elderly American lady quoted by comedian Jack Parr
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Let's whine about wine
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:16:19 GMT
fjuy@op writes:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>
>>So, I should move from Linux to Windows huh. Wine isn't really good enough
>>for me, I'm afraid.
>
>No forces you to move to linux. if windows does what you want,
>stick with it.
But then, one could reasonably ask how well the linux emulator (argh! no,
the linux runtime environment ;-) for Windows works.
Let's see --- on my Win98 box, I type
line nn
to start my newsreader. It says something about bad command or
filename. Ah, yes, that's true --- it can't read the ext2 filesystem,
so it can't find "nn" Let me quickly copy nn over. Now, let's try
again:
line c:\tmp\nn
Hmm, still says the command or filename is bad. But the filename is good,
I checked it..... What does that say about the command?
Bernie
--
Everyone is quick to blame the alien
Aeschylus
Greek tragedian, 525-456BC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:16:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (efw) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>OK, next question: I have a PCL5 printer, and a PCL5 file. How do I get one
>>to print on the other *under Windows*?
>Drag the file to the printer?
Nope --- "the file does not have a program associated with it for performing
this action".
What Windows does in case of dragging a file on a printer is to try abd
start the app that is supposed to be handle files of that type (determined
by the file extension), and tell it to print (which in turn will go through
the GDI). If your file has an extension Windows doesn't know, you get
the above error message (like I did for file.pcl5). If Windows *does*
think it knows what to use, the error messages will come from the app
and probably be more creative ;-)
Bernie
--
Wherever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship
Harry S. Truman
US President 1945-53
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:16:22 GMT
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In comp.os.linux.misc h3$[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: Think engineering, not just coding. coding takes only about
>: 15% of the resources and effort (even if that) on a large
>: software project. The rest is specification, design, requirments,
>: source control, bug tracking, test suites, regression testing, QA,
>: maintainance, and many other tasks not related to coding.
>Ask yourself WHY you think that's necessary. Think profoundly, because
>a lot of very clever people have already considered it, and you are
>going to have to produce a sophisticated rationale.
That is probably one of the main reasons linux is where it is now --- both
in the positive and the negative sense.
Linux is written by geeks for geeks. Geeks like the 15%, and are not
particularly thrilled by the other 85%. So they tend to divide their
time something like 85/15, rather than 15/85.
As a result, a *lot* more coding gets done. Sometimes the resulting code
is crap --- so what, scrap it, redo it from scratch, with what you have
learned from the mistakes you made the first time around. You can do
that four times, and *still* get the good version before the person who
does 15/85.
Of course, such programming behaviour is completely impossible in a commercial
environment, where you have deadlines to meet and the client wants progress
reports all the time. You can't go to your client and say "Well, you know,
the program version we demoed to you last month --- turned out we had
made some fundamental mistakes at the start, so we are restarting from
scratch". It just won't do. The client would think you wasted your time,
and their money.
The scary part is that quite often, the paying customer would be far
better off if you *could* say that. I know of a project that has cost
many millions of dollars already, and which will cost many millions more,
be late, and never work quite reliably. That's because they made a
fundamental mistake in the way they designed their database, right at
the start. But you can't say that to a client after the client spent
millions of dollars, so instead they continue putting band aids everywhere,
and the project is limping along.
The nice thing about linux (as well as university studies ;-) is that there
is no shame in admitting you screwed up. Last year, I completely rewrote
the program for my PhD thesis --- as a result of running into limitations
of the original design. I am now starting to run into the limitations
of the current implementation, so if I wanted to take this thing any further,
I would probably look at what I learned, and rewrite again.
The thing, however, is --- I could never have come up with the design for
even the current implementation, let alone the next one, when I first started.
It takes time, experience and experimentation to find out what one might
*want* to do. And sometimes the new ideas on what one wants to do do not mesh
with a design that predates them. Such is life. You try to avoid it, you
try to design everything as generic and versatile as you can, but sometimes
some later ideas cannot be accomodated in the design.
Bernie
--
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others
George Orwell
English novelist, 1903-50
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:16:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Arclight from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 14:38:00
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:28:40 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
>>1. Did it not occur to you that Microsoft could have added the patches to
>>the CD in a later issue? Please see my prior response to your similar
>>posting.
>
>Well they must have added the patches within two months of releasing
>office, because I got it two months after it was released.
I think that could be correct; two months is sometimes a very long time.
Since this was when the industry was caught up in the very midst of MS's
most blatant upgrade circumstances (from the release of 95 to the
release of 98 was a whirlwind of anti-competitive positioning,
particularly in Office and, of course, IE), two months was six months
too long to have import filters, let alone export filters. And I
believe the export filters (the far more critical end if your goal is to
avoid a forced upgrade due to workgroup infiltration) lagged by much
longer than two months, but I could be wrong.
>>2. Just because you have a GCSE and and a A-level and can write software
>>doesn't mean you have a clue.
>
>Actually you'll find that it does mean I have a clue.
Not reliably, I'm afraid. It may not conflict with your having a clue,
but it certainly can't be taken as substantial evidence. One can have
many more credentials than that and still be clueless.
>>3. I just looked at your web pages. You don't have a clue (IMHO).
>
>and your HO is wrong, plain and simple.
This would hardly be for you to judge, Arclight.
>>"Arclight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> you can say that but it doesn't make it true,
>>> I have a GCSE in Computer Science,
>>> I have an A-Level in Computer Science,
>>> and I'm doing a degree in applied computer technology so I must know a
>>> thing or two about software, and if you don't believe me, go check out
>>> my website, and try explaining how I could write the software I have
>>> if I'm as clueless as you are accusing me of being.
>>>
>>> TTFN
>>> Arclight
>>>
>>> Web Site:
>>> http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Well, based on your program work, you certainly "know a thing or two",
thought I'm not going to assume these are what we might call "clues".
The most clueless people are often the ones with a great deal of
accomplishment within a certain specialty. It is the lack of
perspective, not the lack of ability, which engenders cluelessness.
Based on your belief in moon cycles, chakras, the occult, and astrology,
I would have to conclude that you are clueless. It seems even more
extraordinary that a computer sciences student would believe in
astrology than a biological or physical sciences student, at least to
me. But I guess they don't stress the scientific method much in
programming school, despite calling it "Computer Science".
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:18:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 29 May 2000 15:48:43 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 18:15:59 poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>�Why does the judge not know what he's talking about? The issues in the
>�case involve business and economic practices, not technical questions.
>�He doesn't have to be a software engineer to know about competition in
>�the SW industry.
>�
>�Guess what? Neither Gates nor Ballmer are engineers.
>
>Ballmer is nothing but a soap salesman. He got hired at MS
>because he and the brat went to school together.
Are you implying that Microsoft has been trying to brainwash us
for a decade or so? :-) :-)
[.sigsnip]
Followups trimmed back.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- actually, that makes a weird sort of sense
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:21:27 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 07:35:57 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>I guess that depends on your background. I learned to read and type
>>long before I'd ever seen a mouse.
>
>You had to learn to read and type did you not. Before that, did you not
>recognised simple objects and associate actions with them?
Sure but those are hardly the only skills required to configure anything In
Windows.
>That's what a GUI can do for you, if it's designed right. Typing implies
>you know what you're doing, whilst a GUI tells you as you go along.
>
>>If you can't read & type then your
>>use for a PC is probably fairly limited.
>
>Sounds like another insult to me.
It certainly wasn't intended as one. I was only pointing out that nearly
all PC users have the skills needed to edit a text file and therefore text
based configuration really isn't the great barrier some make it out to be.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 29 May 2000 18:40:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Ballmer is nothing but a soap salesman. He got hired at MS
>>because he and the brat went to school together.
>Are you implying that Microsoft has been trying to brainwash us
>for a decade or so? :-) :-)
Actually, the emBallmer had worked for awhile at Procter and
Gamble, and IIRC, he had thought of an interesting way to squeeze out
competition: make the boxes wider so that competitors had a hard time
fitting.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX???
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:54:10 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 23 May 2000 17:03:16 GMT,
Bob Hauck, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 23 May 2000 08:40:03 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[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.
>
>Neither has RH 5.x.
of course it has...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:57:23 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:13:13 GMT,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>How do you configure a share with Samba. You edit the smb.conf file.
>>
>>Yuppers, and it's simple to do, too. Requires one text editor and one
>>brain.
>
>See later.
>
>>>How do you configure a share with Windows. Here's one way - right click
>>>on the directory, select Sharing... and pick the settings you want.
>>>This way is much more intuitive.
>>
>>This is so sadly limited. Tell me, how do you access a hidden share (a
>>shared resource that is *not* in the "Network Neighborhood") using this
>>method?
>
>Go onto Explorer and type on the prompt line \\server\hidden.
>
>>>Is KDE's kfm going to offer functionality like
>>>this, or is the KDE desktop going to remain in the depths of the past
>>>and still rely on config files?
>>
>>Oh. . I get it now. What you want is a free Windows Clone. Well, just in
>>case you have not heard, Linux _IS_NOT_ Windows!
>
>Oh please, like duh.
>
>I'm not looking for a Windows clone, I'm trying to point out to you that
>Linux/KDE has a few problems with 'ease of use'. The way I've described is
>a more intuitive 'desktop object orientated' way of doing things.
>
>The users sees an object in front of him, and he has access to all the
>tools to do with that object there and then. He doesn't to go somewhere
>else (where he would have to learn that 'Samba' is the right service to
>twiddle with).
probably the same way he knows to go to IE and type \\server\hidden
>
>I'm sitting at the bottom of the Linux tree and shaking the base, yelling,
>"HEY GUYS! WAKEUP!".
>
>Pete
Hey Pete!. We're over here, getting work done...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
