Linux-Advocacy Digest #182, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Mig)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy? (Donn Miller)
keyboard humor (Glitch)
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
RE: Of course, there is a down side... ("Raul Sainz")
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup (Bob Hauck)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Shane Phelps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:30:44 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pinball comes with Windows 2k. But the point is that there ARE many
> games available for Windows and virtually none for Linux, excepting
> Loki stuff. I didn't bring up the games issue, the other guy did.
> Personally I'd buy a Playstation 2.
You have to buy them to get those games. I was thinking of the games that
come 'out of the box', which is what I thought you were referring to.
> It's fine for reading Readme files which are about the only text
> files the average home user is going to get involved with.
Try reading a 100k log file that Windows created when it booted, esp. if
you're trying to work out why it didn't work. Notepad will refer you to
WordPad.
> I still don't know what needs to be Administered on a home system?
> Dfrag/scandisk/recoverydisk/add an ip address/change the dialup phone
> number...All trivial to do without any real admin tools.
fdisk?
Is that available as a GUI tool on Windows 95/98/ME? It is on NT/Win2k, but
not those others.
If you add a disk, aren't you doing administration?
If you add hardware, ...
etc.
> Nope...Linux ain't ready for the home.
> You're on the Linux bandwagon now, and that's fine, but how long it
> last's remains to be seen.
I'm still trying it out. So far nothing particularly serious.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:34:10 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
> >Well if Windows GUI is consistent you should be able to predict exactly
> >what will happen in the following scenario.
> >
> >I have two open folders on my desktop. Each of them is a folder I found
> >somewhere which can be opened just by clicking on it.
> >I drag and drop an Icon from one folder to the other.
> >
> >Now please tell me if the effect will be:
> >Copy to destination folder
> >Move to destination folder
> >Create a link on the destination folder
>
> You forgot:
>
> Blue Screen O' Death.
>
[...]
I didn't forget, I was merely speaking about design consistency. Your
points are about implementation. By this point of view your list,
although quite rich, is far from being exhaustive.
First point coming to my mind missing from your list is having
destination file time stamp offset of one hour with respect to source,
on a random basis (NT only)
I'm afraid that the universe projected life isn't long enough to permit
a testing of all the possible permutations of 63000 bugs.
Given current estimate of big bang having occurred some 50 billions
years ago, (roughly 2^64 seconds) should someone have started at big
bang testing bug combinations, one per second, today he'd only have
tested the first 64 bugs, with 50 billion years more required to test
the 65th in combination with all the previous 64.
I'm afraid universe will not last 2^63000 seconds. I'm pretty sure
Windows will last much less.
For that reason I didn't take implementation into account.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:50:42 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ujtov$7en$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
> it is not. Comments?
Your "impression"? What is that impression based on?
Yes. It is.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:51:02 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Blue Screen O' Death.
>
> From copying files?
Where have you been living during the last 5 years? Perhaps only using
MAC OS?
I got BSOD not only from copying files, but also from opening "My
Computer" just after login.
>
> > Lock destination window with "copying progress" dialog box, then hang.
>
> On what circumstances?
Using crappy windows.
>
> > Put up a "Can't copy to itself" (if you're lucky).
>
> Why? If you are trying to copy a file to the same path, that is the error
> you get.
No, sometimes you get a nice new file called copy_of_oldname. Depends on
weather I'd say.
>
> > Try to copy to itself and wipe out the item (if you're not).
>
> No, it doesn't do that. It gives an error message.
Please rephrase: it *should give* an error message. Sometimes it does.
Now I'm pretty sure. You've been using MAC OS or Unix or OS/2 or some
other honest non MS OS during last 5 years!
[snip the rest because the witness didn't witness the crimes]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:52:19 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
> > it is not. Comments?
>
> It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need to spend a
> bunch of money on add-on products to make it so.
Untrue. All versions Windows 2000 ships with a telnet server that allows
multiple users to log-in using their own priviledges. Windows 2000 Server
also provides Windows Terminal Services for remote graphical logins. This
is not an add-on product.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:53:43 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SZhP5.13506$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
> > it is not. Comments?
>
> It isn't, in that you can't have two users logged into one machine.
> However, it is, in the sense that 'services' aka 'daemons' can run under
> different users accounts. However, this is nothing like the ability to
> allow multiple users to login.
Not true. Multiple users can be logged in simultaneously. For instance,
Win2000 ships with a telnet server that allows multiple people to log in at
the same time, each using their own user profile and priviledges.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:07:05 -0600
"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What Aaron & Les refuse to understand that anyone who can read
VBS/VBA/JS
> > (some of the simplest in existance) can understand basic safety
measures.
>
> Others stubbornly refuse to understand that system designs that rely on
and
> blame humans for failures are defective.
>
> So there's this OS targeted for the common user which relies on technical
> knowledge and luck to be secure. The vendor crams in features with little
> regard about the implications - they jury-rig a dialog box designed by
> lawyers - click yes to open and any damage is your fault.
Security has never been an issue in single-user computers. Take a look at
all the popular single-user OS's of the last 2 decades. None of them have
security. OS/2, Amiga, Apple II, Windows, DOS, BeOS, etc...
Security tends to inhibit single-user OS's. It confuses users and causes
more support problems. I'm unsure about the level of security of Whistler,
but I personally don't think it should have any. What happens when
someone's 10 year old kid accidentally changes all the file system rights to
make it impossible to log-in? Do you really think the average person will
set up accounts for their kids that will prevent that? I doubt it.
Now, imagine if Linux were the prevelant OS. Chances are, everyone who
wasn't a technical expert would be running as root. Then, all it would take
is someone to send an email with an encrypted attachment that says "Want to
see something cool? Just type this command into your mail program [and it
goes on to list commands for different mail programs]." Now, all it has to
do is tell them how to execute the attachment by piping it through several
commands to unencrypt it and pipe it to the script interpreter. Very
simple, and 90% of the non-technical crowd will fall for it, allowing it to
do whatever it wants to do.
Security is always able to be circumvented when you have unknowledgeable
users. And frankly, that's the vast majority of computer users.
> > Those who can't...
> > Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
> > I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
>
> LOTUS MAGELLAN, a 1980's technology allowed users to view files like DOC,
> LXS, C, FORTRAN and etc. I recommend that old technology. Or better yet
I
> recommed you ask the vendor to fix the problem.
It doesn't exist anymore and certainly wouldn't be able to read today's file
formats.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:04:39 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is
> > > that
> > > it is not. Comments?
> >
> > It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need to spend a
> > bunch of money on add-on products to make it so.
>
> Untrue. All versions Windows 2000 ships with a telnet server that allows
> multiple users to log-in using their own priviledges. Windows 2000 Server
> also provides Windows Terminal Services for remote graphical logins. This
> is not an add-on product.
But isnt the Server version not a add-on to the Professional version?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:11:10 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oy4P5.18443$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You still don't understand the difference between opening and
> executing something, do you? If the mailer can let you view
> the contents without letting it take control it should go ahead
> and do it without any silly warnings. If it can't, there is a
> pretty good chance that you shouldn't execute it under any
> conditions unless you were expecting to be sent a program
> from someone you know.
There isn't a clear definition between executable and non-executable
content. Scripts do not run on their own, they need applications to process
them. Scripts are just data. Similarly, there are versions of Netscape
which can execute arbitrary code from viewing a JPG with properly modified
comment records.
> I think it is much more reasonable to recognize hex code than
> it is to know what a vbs icon means, but neither one should
> be necessary to view your mail.
If the icon is not a text icon, or an icon you recognize, you probably
shouldn't open it.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:15:02 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Rose Bowl bound (why couldn't they play like that when I was there????)
Iowa. Sucks, I know, but not as bad as losing to scummy Michigan 4
years in a row.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:21:00 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: keyboard humor
The labels on my CTRL ALT and DEL key on my Windows keyboard have been
rubbed off from using them so much. The reset button is also real lose
from being used so much.
My Linux keyboard however still has the labels on the keys. Don't ask
about the reset switch on the Linux computer......I haven't used it yet
and don't know where it's at. This case may not even have one for all I
know.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:18:43 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yw1P5.18333$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:h0XO5.7562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Sorry, but I would *MUCH* rather take a server down for regular
*HARDWARE*
> > maintenance every so often, than risk a spontaneous failure, which will
> > leave my site unavailable and losses of data since the last backup.
>
> Do you have to polish up those disk platters once in a while or what? I
> just copy things over to a new machine every 4 or 5 years.
Hardware failure in PC components is in excess of 10% a year. If you have
100 machines, 10 of them *WILL* fail within a year. You can either scramble
to fix a dead machine after a failure, or you can be proactive and monitor
the machine for potential failures before they do. Most components will
show signs of impending failure. Power supplies begin to have erratic
voltage levels. Hard disks begin to get CRC errors. CPU's begin to make
calcuation errors. Memory will occasionally return incorrect bits.
Diagnostic programs and hardware tools can identify many of these failures
before they happen.
The cost of maintenance is miniscule compared to the cost of unexpected
downtime.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:23:10 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uibbf$4d6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Are you blind or just stupid? Hardware failure has nothing to do with
> the
> > OS.
>
> Well, then the great uptimes linux injoys must be due to the OS because
> linux runs on the same hardware and is performing better than NT and
> 2000. IF this is not the case and the MS users are <snicker> doing the
> monthly hardware rotations you <more snikers> suggest <rolling on the
> floor laughing> then there is something that the MS users do not trust.
> Frankly, Franky, I think that MS has you so convinced that all of the
> problems are hardware related that you're not seening the real problem
> and that is the MS OS. Linux runs on the same hardware and does not have
> the same problems as Windows, so it MUST be the MS OS that is demanding
> that the sites be taken down.
No, it's not the same hardware. It may be the same type of hardware, but
all that shows is that Linux admins do not perform regular maintenance.
That's to be expected from non-professionals.
I've worked with computer hardware for 20 years. It fails, and it fails
often. I guess you consider fleet services like GE Capital Fleet Services
to be stupid for doing routine maintenance on their vehicles as well.
Frankly, you're stupid if you put mission critical services on a computer
with a greater than 10% chance of failure without doing preventitive
maintenance.
I suppose you don't change the oil in your car either. The whole Oil
Changing thing is a ruse designed to sell more oil and is completely
unneccesary. Right?
------------------------------
From: "Raul Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:20:44 GMT
> "Of course, you must realize that OS decay is actually a natural
occurrence
> that results from heavy use of your system. You could look at the OS decay
> problem much as you would an aging automobile?no matter how well you take
> care of it, eventually, you're going to have to buy a new one."
>
> You poor poor guys :-)
To be fully honest we must admit that even a god system suffers from
this,
be it libraries, be it disk fragmentation or memory one. Slow, but it occurs
on
each OS of the planet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:23:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:38:06 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Clifford W. Racz" wrote:
>>
>> > Why are you unable to make any money with Unix skills? Especially
>> > in this market...where the market rate for Unix administration is
>> > 2x to 3x that of Windows...
>> /*
>> */
>> > Aaron R. Kulkis
>> > Unix Systems Engineer
>> > ICQ # 3056642
>>
>> Who said I was a programmer?
>
>Not me. Is there a ghost in here?
You rang? :-)
(Mind you, I have not said anything regarding Mr. Racz's
programming ability.)
<relurk>
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random ghost here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:43:55 GMT
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:46:35 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:rocfu8.dee.ln@gd2zzx...
>> You keep stating this. The url given earlier said it affected less
>> than 1% of the systems with the dodgy dram.
>The article disputes it:
>clients have reported problems with as many as several hundred Sun
>servers."
Did you flunk math? That sentence does not address, much less dispute,
the 1% claim since it dosen't say how many servers Sun sold during the
period in question.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:05:27 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
> > > it is not. Comments?
> >
> > It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need to spend a
> > bunch of money on add-on products to make it so.
>
> Untrue. All versions Windows 2000 ships with a telnet server that allows
> multiple users to log-in using their own priviledges.
I think sshd and the WSU telnet server allow multiple concurrent shell
logins on NT 4 Workstation as well.
Can you confirm that Erik?
> Windows 2000 Server
> also provides Windows Terminal Services for remote graphical logins. > > This is
>not an add-on product.
W2K server allows a single account via Terminal Services, and also has
a timebombed 5 CAL. I don't know what US pricing is like, but the CALs
are horribly expensive here in Aus, as is W2K TS.
It's not an add-on in the strict sense, but full multi-user capability
certainly isn't part of the base version.
W2K Terminal Services use Winframe technology licenced from Citrix,
but for some reason uses Microsoft's own protocol (RDP?) instead of
ICA, and supports a very limited set of client platforms (Win32 only?)
I've played with W2K TS a bit, starting with the Hydra Beta. It looks to
be quite good, but a bit of a resource hog. It's a pity the price is so
steep and the range of clients so limited:-(
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
