Linux-Advocacy Digest #338, Volume #29 Wed, 27 Sep 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the (Kevin Scholl)
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: programming languages and design ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:58:52 -0500
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:31:17 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>@>@> It's not a laptop. It's a desktop workstation.
>@>@
>@>@Again, if anything happens between the server and the desktops, the
>@>@cached profile comes in handy.
>@>
>@> And like I stated already, when the connection is down, we can't
>@>login anyway.
>@
>@That's nice. It's unfortunate they'd set it up that way.
>
> W2K, being as wonderous as it is, doesn't ask/warn/whatever//let you
>know that cached profiles are useless in that case?
Bryant, as I've been trying to tell you, every word out of my mouth is
information based on how it *COULD* be set up! I don't KNOW how your
admin staff has set it up. NT has a hundred different ways it can be
set up; which did YOUR admin staff use? You're sitting right in
front of the machine; why don't YOU tell ME how it works by unplugging
a network cable, changing a file or two in your profile, and then
logging in again? Wouldn't that answer at least one of your burning
questions?
>@>So does it keep copies of
>@>everything, or does it not?
>@
>@Define "everything".
>
> Profiles. Pretty easy to gather if you review the thread.
Yes, everything in \winnt\profiles\username is moved or copied,
depending on the situation.
>@>If it does, that's a horrendous waste of
>@>disk space and should only be available if explicitly requested.
>@
>@If you don't want it, turn it off. But it makes perfect sense from a
>@multi-user standpoint.
>
> No, it doesn't. From the miltiuser standpoint, n different profiles
>being left on a machine, where n is the number of unique users logging
>in, with no mechanism to free up space if too may profiles collect on
>the system, makes no sense in a multiuser environment. In fact, given
>that this is a network, with multiple clients, if a given machine is
>down, it stands to reason that most of the time, there will be another
>machine available, (note: my wschool is an exception) so cahcing is even
>more pointless. Further, keeping a different version of a profile for
>every single login from the beginning of time makes even less sense,
>since all these versions can get completely out of synch in a worse case
>scenario. In that case, finding out what version of your profile you're
>going to be using is nearly impossible.
So get management software that can automatically clean out profiles
every six weeks, if it's THAT much of an issue for you. Frankly, I
really doubt it is, but hey - the choice is yours.
>@>If it
>@>doesn't, the problem I describe above arises. Further, if there are
>@>multiple copies, what mechanism does the user loggin in have to retrieve
>@>an older profile?
>@
>@Just cut & paste; they're stored in winnt/profiles/%username%, after
>@all.
>@
>@Bear in mind I'm talking about roaming profiles - if you don't have
>@them, then you'll not see quite what I'm talking about.
>
> I can't see my C drive. So I can't see profiles, or %username%, or
>any verwsion at all of my profile. Further, why should I have to resort
>to cut and paste. Shouldn't the login prompt let me choose from a list
>which profile I'd like to use? Seems like that would make more sense
>than having a user muck around w3ith the directory structure.
Users can't be depended upon to always make the right choice; it's far
better to have a default choice that handles the decision that will be
correct in the vast, vast, VAST majority of cases. Hardware profiles
do exist, so if you have, say, a laptop with 2 NICs it's easy to
switch between the two; that's the typical use of the login "Which
setup do you want to use?" question. Bear in mind that's -completely-
different from user profiles.
>But, hey,
>what do I know?
Agreed. You have no or little experience with NT and managing a
network.
>@All of this really, really depends on what your admin staff did. I'm
>@telling you *one* way it can be done.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were telling me several ways it could be done?
One way in that paragraph. If you only wish to be difficult, don't do
it here. Instead, go see your desktop staff and ask them to fix it.
I promise you it will get fixed a lot faster than just bitching in
here.
>@Do you not understand what "guessing" means? That's all I'm doing.
>@You've essentially provided me with -zero- serious information; I am
>@simply guessing as to what could be one of many hundreds of reasons.
>
> Right now I'm trying to figure out what you;re saying. This started
>when you were trying to describe to me the way w2k handles profiles.
>You went on to contradict yourself.
How so?
>I'm trying to find out what you
>really meant to say.
I think it's been very obvious to anyone with even passing knowledge
of 9x/NT.
>@> And why are they saving copis of my password all over the place?
>@
>@Sigh. "Copis" of your password aren't being saved anywhere except the
>@SAM database, a far, far more secure method than Win95's .pwl files.
>
> Sorry, tyop. What's a SAM database? Does each machine have one? I
>would assume so in your "laptop" scenario.
System Account Manager database. All NT boxes have 'em.
If you really want to learn, read a book like ExamCram's Windows NT
Workstation and Windows NT Server. They're small books, reasonably
cheap, and they go over the topic in enough detail that someone
familiar with computers already can learn quite a bit in a short time.
>@>@>@> I still can't see a good reason to let old data pile up on various
>@>@>@>machines. Sure, it can cache users' profiles so, if the server says
>@>@>@>nobody else has touched the data, the machine doesn't have to pull it
>@>@>@>all back over the network. But if the machine is getting full,
>@>@>@>inactive, partially active, or small profiles should be removed since
>@>@>@>there's a perfectly good copy sitting on the server.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@This is why NT SP3 (I think that's the SP) has quotas. The fact that
>@>@>@your admins don't use that functionality is THEIR problem.
>@>@>
>@>@> The system you ahve described to me wouldn't seem to benefit from
>@>@>quotas.
>@>@
>@>@Limiting user space or keeping it within defined limits wouldn't
>@>@benefit or do away with full hard drives?
>@>
>@> Not if you can keep adding users. You're telling me that a copy of
>@>the profile of every single user that logs in on a given machine is kept
>@>around. Indefinately. So, even if each user has a quota of one byte,
>@>enough unique users can fill up the system.
>@
>@Sure. Now, do you typically have thousands of users logging into a
>@single machine *locally*?
>
> No, just about thirty. Argument still holds, just with fewer users
>and more data per user.
> So, quotas don't help? Then why did you bring them up?
Quotas help. Do you not understand how quotas help? What part of
"quota" didn't you understand? Yes, too many profiles can overwhelm a
hard drive, but that's not a likely scenario at all.
>@>@>@> The "let shit accumulate everywhere" system is insane.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@The option to do so or not do so is completely up to the admins in
>@>@>@question - and isn't a fault of NT.
>@>@>
>@>@> So it can be configured to not accumulate shit on the local machine?
>@>@>
>@>@
>@>@Turn off caching profiles.
>@>
>@> You said it's off. Is it miracuously on again?
>@
>@How could I know? I'm -guessing- based on incredibly incomplete
>@information that you've been completely unable to provide. I'm simply
>@stating how it -can- work.
>
> I think I've been more than able to provide incredibly incomplete
>information.
> BTW, caching profiles, as you've described, is still insane.
..to someone new to the concept, sure. There are a lot of things that
are mysterious until you learn them and why they were made that way,
and then you say "Oh! That makes sense!" once you learn why and how
it works.
>@>@>Why isn't that the default?
>@>@
>@>@Because it's a bad idea in a multiuser, multimachine environment.
>@>
>@> Why? This exact setup worked fine under win 95/98 with no cached
>@>profiles. This is certainly a multiuser, multimachine environment.
>@
>@In a completely insecure manner, sure. Personally, I'd rather that
>@other people -not- be able to trivially read my profile information,
>@thank you.
>
> Did I say anything abnout security? Do I give a fuck about security
>when I can't even access my profile? Probably not. Of course, when you
>think about it, what could be more secure than a profile even the suer
>can't access?
Call your desktop support staff.
>@>@>It would make more sense. [i'm assuming
>@>@>the "let shit accumulate" system is the default since the labs are
>@>@>using
>@>@>it]
>@>@
>@>@Let me guess - you've never run a LAN/WAN of over, say, 5000 users,
>@>@have you? Or a LAN of any kind?
>@>
>@> Hmm, 5000 users. Let's see, I'm a college student......welll, NOPE!
>@
>@Do college students no longer have internships? Surely at least some
>@students must run UNT's domain structures, right?
>
> Yes, they do, but they don't have a lot of power or responsibility.
>A high esitmate of the number of w2k machines at UNT would be 1,000.
So it's a small to midsize campus. That's fine; it's still a good way
to get some experience.
>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
>@>
>@> Yes.
>@
>@At what, exactly?
>
> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two machines.
>Two users: root, and me.
> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something that
typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no or a
very light technical skillset; administrative experience would be
doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week, setting
up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP, and
other 'stuff' day in and day out.
By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up OS X
beta. That's silly.
>@>@No? Thank you. Please stop calling established systems' methods,
>@>@essentially, "shit".
>@>
>@> Why? It isn't working. What we had before did. It's a big waste of
>@>space. It's slower. It's more goddamn money UNT pissed away. Some of
>@
>@1. It isn't working because DT Support hasn't fixed it. We don't
>@know why - for all we know, the hard drive went bad and NT's superior
>@disk management is shielding you from seeing the massive cluster
>@failures on the disk. In short, every time you open your mouth,
>@you're guessing.
>
> "NT's superior disk management...." What, w2k can't even report
>errors in a sane manner? It has to tell me the disk is full, and that's
>somehow preferable to telling me the disk is damaged?
Are you the administrator on that machine? No? So there are some
things you may not be able to see. Your hostile attitude has become
annoying. I'm trying to give you some ideas of the many things that
could have happened.
> Didn't you say you were the one guessing?
Yes. That is just a guess, but it is a (remote) possibility.
However, given that you're unable to have desktop support look at it,
that's about the best we've got.
>@2. Win98 and "working"? C'mon. I want privacy and security in a
>@multiuser environment; Win98 doesn't offer that.
>
> I want to edit my report during class instead of 7:00 AM. To hell
>with what you want.
Then it looks like you'll have to talk to those desktop support folks,
won't you?
>@3. Waste of space? How so?
>
> It takes at least as much space as 95/98, but doesn't work.
How do you know that? Are you prepared to guarantee that the machine
is configured *exactly* the same way? No? Then stop guessing.
>@4. Slower? Sure, on machines without enough RAM. Otherwise, it's
>@fine.
>
> WTF? It's logging into a server, showing a GUI, and running Word.
>Just how much more memory would be reasonable?
NT needs RAM. Boy...take a hint, and don't look at OS X anytime soon;
you'll have a heart attack; it makes NT svelte in comparison.
>@>that money is/was mine. I can't get any work done in class. I have to
>@>come in at odd times to do something I should be able to do in class.
>@>But last semester, before this "upgrade" nobody had to deal with this.
>@> So, since it's having a direct, measurable impact on me, I am more
>@>than qualified to call it a piece of shit.
>@
>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
>@'shit'. Since you have no idea what's wrong with the machine, any
>@other analysis you could make would be silly.
>
> 1. My support staff IS shit.
That, folks, is the root of the problem.
> 2. They did just fine with 95/98.
Immaterial. See #1.
> W2k caches profiles. By caching we mean copy all the data from the
>server to the local machine on login if it's possible/required.
It can do this, if roaming profiles are turned on, yes.
>If
>there is not enough space on the harddrive because too many profiles
>have accumulated, the login fails.
Maybe.
>If the local machine cannot reach
>the server, and a profile is already on the local machine, it is used.
Maybe, depending on configuration.
>On logout, the profile information is copied back to the server, where
>it is stored along with all previous versions of the profile.
Maybe, depending on configuration.
> In the case where an older profile is used, it either isn't copied
>back to the server, or it is, but kept separate from older versions.
Maybe, depending ...
> Old profiles must be removed manually; there is no automated
>mechanism in place for removing old/rarely used/small profiles, even
>though that's perfectly OK since there's a server around with every
>version of every porofile ever.
Not in NT itself, but third party tools exist.
> Quotas will not alleviate this problem as eventially it is possible
>for so many profiles to accumulate that the machine still runs out of
>space.
See immediately above if that's an issue for you.
> The local machine might or might not also host multiple versions of
>profiles. From the info you've given, I would think so, but I don't
>want to assume.
You've ASSumed so much all along; why stop now? :)
> Caching is enabled by default.
Local caching, yes. Roaming is completely up to the person that set
you up as a user.
> Since I don't know everything about w2k, I have no right to complain,
>even though all the above information indicates that I should.
Look, you have no IDEA what the problem is! It could be a bad hard
drive for all you know. Get over it.
> Hangon, I just realized something. I don't think profile cachine,
>regardless of how stupid it is, is the problem. Because I used that
>machine before without any problem, and I didn't login anywhere else
>before I got that error, so the profile sitting on that machine was
>up-to-date. IOW, it didn't need to be copied. So now I have absolutely
>no idea why the machine's screwed up. Unless it has a massive logfile.
>Maybe.
Stop guessing, and call DT support.
------------------------------
From: Kevin Scholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:22:37 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Malmat) wrote in
<uMaA5.4594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Axiom: Real operating systems do not lock up all the time.
>Fact: Windows locks up all the time.
Hmmm...your "fact" does not apply to all, or even most, people. Since by
definition it takes only one dissenting example to disprove a fact, your
statement can hardly be considered a "fact".
For example, Windows locks up on me about...oh, roughly...once every
several months. I have a hard time equating that with "all the time". If
that be the case, I would have to say that the Macs I've dealt with, and
even a few NT boxes at work, contain significantly less of an OS. :)
>Conclusion: Windows is not a real operating system.
Whatever....
*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***
========================================================
Kevin Scholl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.cavtel.net/kscholl/
========================================================
Screw you guys...I'm playing softball.
========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:09:21 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:34:27 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>> "unrestrictive licence" is an oxymoron.
:>
:>I differ. The dictionaries I've looked at appear to support me.
: A licence has no other purpose for existing.
A licence is: ``a permit from an authority to own or use something [...]
do something [...] or carry on a trade.''
[according to The Concise Oxford English dictionary, ninth edition.]
In other words, a licence exists to *permit* things which would otherwise
be forbidden - *that* is its "purpose for existing".
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:36:31 +0100
>
> It's especially difficult for them to fix the problems when they don't hear
> about them. I would reckon that most problems with MS products go
> unreported, and the machine simply gets rebooted. That's not to say that MS
> doesn't get to hear peoples reaction to products like Win98, I'm pretty sure
> they do, but if you're trying to reproduce a bug in the lab, you need to
> pretty accurate information - not just "it froze".
It's all well and good saying that people perhaps ought to report, and
give more accurate info on bugs, but who has time? If I reported every
time win98 needed rebooting, I'd never be off the phone!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:44:17 +0100
Richard wrote:
>
> Roberto Selbach Teixeira wrote:
>
> > Why is it? C++ is a very well designed language. Unfortunately, some
> >
> > compilers make a *very* bad implementation. Even worse, those
> > compilers are popular.
> >
> > However, I still believe C++ is a wonderful language for software
> > development.
>
> C++ is a "hybrid" language. Most people forget though that hybrids
> rarely exist in nature for a very good reason and that while mules
> are a seamless mix of horse and donkey, a "hybrid" language is more
> like Frankenstein's monster.
>
> But delude yourself away.
That's not really what is wrong with C++. The crux of it was the
attempt to enforce backward compatability with C. This lead to a
language that (in contrast with one of C's best features) was HUGE.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:29:15 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.lang.java.advocacy D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : Freedom to always have access to the source of any work based
:> : on original GPL code. Where is the hypocricy? It only becomes
:> : hypocricy if you attribute a different meaning to the word "free"...
:> : a menaing other than what the GPL specifies.
:> It's the GPL that's misusing the word "free".
: No - it have qualified what they mean when they say "free".
"Redefined" would be closer to the truth, IMO. Everyone knows what
freedom means. When an organisation calling itself the "Free Software
Foundation" puts code about, you'd expect it to be unrestricted.
Instead the Free Software Foundation imposes a string of restrictions on
what you can do with its code.
I regard their use of the term "free" as a marketing exercise - the code
is free - provided you're prepared to distribute this advertisement with
our name on it with anything you build from it, and force your users to
do the same.
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
