Linux-Advocacy Digest #235, Volume #29 Wed, 20 Sep 00 14:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (sfcybear)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The Linux Experience ("Rich C")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Brian V. Smith)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (John Jensen)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:11:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(David M. Cook) wrote:
>>Yet another moron with minimal reading skills.
>
>My apologies. I only glanced at your post and missed the context. I don't
>read things c.o.l.a all that carefully, and I'm probably not going to start
>anytime soon, no matter how many times I'm called a moron.
>The XFree86 documentation may not be that good; it's a community project, so
>it depends on people taking initiative to fix problems rather than posting
>pissy rants on newsgroups.
>
>Dave Cook
Dave, you have MY apologies.
I had a look at your other posts, and I had no right to jump to that
conclusion. I was just getting tired of repeating myself, and I took it out on
you.
You are not in the same category as the recently killfiled Jedi.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:12:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(David M. Cook) wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:08:24 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>From XFree86's web site she found that TrueType support was introduced in
>>version 4. She knew she had 3.3.6. There was no hint that RedHat's
>>distribution of XFree86 wasn't standard, and she had no reason to suspect
>
>Does this not suggest to you that Red Hat is to blame for not making this
>clear, not the XFree86 folks?
>
>Dave Cook
Good point. Agreed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:17:24 GMT
<snip all>
Just a note: I'll avoid this thread now. I was unnecessarily confrontational
to the responses (except for Jedi, whose opinion I have exactly no respect
for).
My apologies to anyone else I labelled badly.
The story was one persons experience. I do not wish to be labelled anti-linux.
I use it myself (when not at work), along with a host of open-source tools -
that was not my intent.
My point was that the documentation suffers everywhere. We use XFree86, but
can't go to Xfree86 for documentation with any degree of reliability. We use
RedHat, but can't tell with certainty if an RPM will work, because the
documentation doesn't mention which distribution it applies to.
Lack of standardization is the culprit, but that lack is widely touted as a
"feature", when it leads to headaches for newbies and casual users.
That is my final point.
Thanks.
Jake
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:09:08 GMT
In article <8qanvj$sl4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8qakt5$r4e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8q20u8$e8e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > > 8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > >
> > > > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I
> > doubt
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > Huh, that's exactly is point. Windows users are expected to be
behind
> > > security patches, what's funny is that the supposedly smarter Un*x
> > admins
> > > aren't all current neither. :)
> >
> > Hmmm, you did not actualy address *MY* point. If patches are not
> > applied, then old exploites can be used against *ANY* OS. NOTHING
was
> > said about how smart the users are. I was talking about the OS.
>
> What has the OS got to do with whether admins are capable enough to
install
> current patches?
Oh, I see, it's down to insulting *groups* of people. That's called
prejudical. And that make you OS bigots that make judgments about
people's skills based on the OS they use.
My statement still stands. To have a secure system you need to keep up
with the patches no matter WHAT OS you use. There are bad sysadmins that
use Linux, Mac, Unix AND your religious holly MS OS. The fact that SOME
bad Linux admins left SOME Linux servers vunerable is NOT a refection of
*ALL* linux sysadmins OR the Linux OS.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:25:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Nathan Culwell-Kanarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I thought that OS/2 was IBM, not Microsoft.
Twas originally a joint venture, until M$ stabbed IBM in the back.
--
Jeff Gentry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"You're one of those condescending UNIX users! ...."
"Here's a nickel kid ... get yourself a real computer."
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:29:03 +0100
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qaqv2$277$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8qanvj$sl4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8qakt5$r4e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8q20u8$e8e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > > > 8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I
> > > doubt
> > > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Huh, that's exactly is point. Windows users are expected to be
> behind
> > > > security patches, what's funny is that the supposedly smarter Un*x
> > > admins
> > > > aren't all current neither. :)
> > >
> > > Hmmm, you did not actualy address *MY* point. If patches are not
> > > applied, then old exploites can be used against *ANY* OS. NOTHING
> was
> > > said about how smart the users are. I was talking about the OS.
> >
> > What has the OS got to do with whether admins are capable enough to
> install
> > current patches?
>
> Oh, I see, it's down to insulting *groups* of people. That's called
> prejudical. And that make you OS bigots that make judgments about
> people's skills based on the OS they use.
I didn't insult anyone. I said what OS an admin runs makes no difference to
whether they are competent enough to install patches. If an admin is
incompetent, they're incompetent, regardless of what the OS might be.
>
>
> My statement still stands. To have a secure system you need to keep up
> with the patches no matter WHAT OS you use.
Correct. But you said you were talking about the OS, not the users. I just
pointed out that the OS has little to do with it, and the admins have
everything to do with it.
>There are bad sysadmins that
> use Linux, Mac, Unix AND your religious holly MS OS. The fact that SOME
> bad Linux admins left SOME Linux servers vunerable is NOT a refection of
> *ALL* linux sysadmins OR the Linux OS.
Correct.
Feel free to take the following or as a personal insult if you wish, but
it's not intended as such. You need to work on your comprehension skills,
and also to realise that people aren't trying to attack you all the time.
Essentially my post *agreed* with you, but you still chose to call me an OS
bigot. I'm afraid I don't quite understand why that must be the case. Feel
free to read my previous post again to see if you can explain why you chose
to fly off the handle.
Stu
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:30:53 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >Yeah, but the point is RH DOES support truetype....they just don't
document
> >well the fact that they do.
>
> ...and they "really" go out of their way to hide it too. I mean,
> just how obscure can you be? An end user would have to go so far
> as to enter truetype on Redht's support page. Geez, talk about
> end user abuse.
>
> </sarcasm>
I didn't say it was especially obscure either. All I said was a casual
search on the RedHat site (not the support site) didn't turn up anything
obvious.
>
> No, the problem this time was bad advice.
I agree wholeheartedly (see my original reply.) One shouldn't make blanket
statements about a distro, unless (s)he has direct experience with the
specific distro. Even derivative distros (like Mandrake) aren't always the
same as their parents.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:31:23 GMT
In article <UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> I couldn't find 'em.
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
>
<snip>
I can understand this decision. Intel hardware is available in lots of
configurations, including aerospace-certified versions. (I presume this
is so. I had heard that no version of Intel's processors were certified
for mission-critical aerospace applications, but either this has changed
since then or someone's bending the rules.)
And unlike Linux, Windows operating system software actually has
responsible, professional quality assurance behind it.
It would be interesting to find out what modifications they make to the
OS they load on these computers. What systems do they disable? Do they
have that stupid paper clip popping up during landing to ask whether
Internet Explorer should be the default browser?
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:34:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeremy Harbinson
<"Jeremy Harbinson"@users.tbpt.wau.nl> wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the Shuttle uses three computers for
> certain operations and then, democratically I suppose you could say,
> implements the majority decision. If they are using an MS OS that
> would indeed appear to be a wise strategy.
Those three computers were designed and programmed in the late '70s.
They do not use an MS OS, for they do not use Intel chips. No matter
what OS you're using, for this application, that's a wise strategy.
>Also, I remember a
> Hewlett-Packard advertisement claiming that the Shuttle Captain had
> an HP programmable calculator mounted on the leg of his/her
> flight-suit which he or she depended upon for some critical
> calculations (during re-entry I think). I always wondered why they
> just didn't use their computers for this, but now that calculator
> makes a lot of sense
The calculator is the backup in case all three computer failed. (And
this is no ordinary fourbanger. It's an HP-41CV, a pretty hefty piece of
work. When I was in college, we all dreamed of owning one of those.)
>all the best, Jeremy Harbinson
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: 20 Sep 2000 17:40:39 GMT
In article <8q8t84$rp5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
|> jabali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>
|> > You are mixing up hardware with software. All operating system
|> software are
|> > proprietary (excepting Linux of course) - single source product.
|>
|> Not true. Originally most operating systems were free, and came with the
|> source code.
Really? Which ones were those that came with the source code?
--
===============================================================
Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
as it needs to be.
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:48:29 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> I couldn't find 'em.
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
>
> (click on a few of the links/screenshots on the left)
>
> They even use Windows (NT apparently) to control
> life-support systems including warning and
> monitoring systems:
It's not certain that these pages really refer to NASA software. But,
assuming they do, the systems described are NOT flight software for
controlling and operating the space shuttle systems. All of the
software appears to be applications that are installed on an IBM
Thinkpad 760XD that Nasa calls the PGSC (Payload and General Support
Computer). Here is what is on a linked page:
"The Payload and General Support Computer (PGSC) is a service used to
support Shuttle and Payload on-orbit operations. The primary functions
are command and display of non-critical payloads and additional crew
information services."
Basically, the apps listed appear to be non-critical support apps
installed on the official astronaut laptop computer for the astronauts
to use while in orbit. If their laptop locks up, they can just reboot.
If the laptop system quits working, they can just pitch it out the
airlock where it would be another satellite and get information relayed
up by radio and telemetry from mission control. This is exactly the
kind of role one would expect for Microsoft Windows software in the
manned space program. It would take a pretty high guts-to-brains ratio
to blast into space under the direct control of a Windows system *laf*.
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/cautwarn.html
>
> Here's an example of one of the three network diagrams
> they have for the space shuttle and space station:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/106.LAN.nominal.html
>
> At least a few of them are windows, but, judging by the
> software it says the no-named-OS computers are running,
> it appears they are Windows as well.
>
> No mention of Linux, MacOS, or *laf* OS/2
>
> Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: 20 Sep 2000 17:47:22 GMT
Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I can understand this decision. Intel hardware is available in lots of
: configurations, including aerospace-certified versions. (I presume this
: is so. I had heard that no version of Intel's processors were certified
: for mission-critical aerospace applications, but either this has changed
: since then or someone's bending the rules.)
: And unlike Linux, Windows operating system software actually has
: responsible, professional quality assurance behind it.
I think you've missed six months (or so) of changes. To name a couple:
Jim Ready has a long and respected background in mission-critical realtime
applications. He is now doing "Hard Hat Linux":
http://www.mvista.com/
Another long-tinme embedded systems company (Lynx Realtime Systems) is now
Lynuxworks, selling "BlueCat Linux":
http://www.lynuxworks.com/
BTW, discussions of what is hard and soft realtime often appear in these
groups. This roundup at www.linuxdevices.com might intrest some of us:
http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT3524337625.html
It starts:
"The idea and ideal of real-time has become very important to Linux
developers. Linux has grown into a full-featured operating system,
suitable for many embedded applications. One area that has received a
great deal of attention is the potential for using Linux, RTLinux,
and RTAI in mission critical applications."
John
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:55:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Hey Max. How fast do you type?
Pretty fast, obviously. :-) Its not really typing speed, so much as
how fast I *think*, that enables me to keep up with a dozen random
trolls at once, and still have time for a serious conversation or four.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:02:01 GMT
On 09/19/2000 at 03:00 AM,
Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Jason lad, don't you wonder why not a single person has agreed with
> > anything you post?
> Egad you're stupid, I've had several people agree, your newserver must
> be broke. Are you the admin for it, that might explain it.
There is nothing wrong with my newsfeed which I do not administer. I have
read every message on this subject and not one agrees with you.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:06:00 GMT
On 09/19/2000 at 09:58 PM,
Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In light of being unable to support your claims you name call. I'm not
> suprised, when unable to provide proof for claims the loser usually does
> resort to name calling. It's a sign of gross immaturity. If you were
> half the person you claim to be you'd be able to admit when you've been
> wrong. You obvious lies call into question the validity of any claim
> you make.
Been looking in the mirror, I see. Good for you.
It's a true shame you have diminished the reputation of the University of
Colorado to the point where our local guidance counsellors no longer
recommend it to our high school seniors. They were truly appalled when
they read the last 60 of your posts.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
