Linux-Advocacy Digest #183, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? Oops (Shane Phelps)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (mlw)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Jim Richardson)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:10:39 -0500
Giuliano Colla wrote...
> I got BSOD not only from copying files, but also from opening "My
> Computer" just after login.
My WinNT system suddenly shut down one day while I was working. Oh, my
daughter hit the UPS switch. I guess that one doesn't count eh?
If your WinNT system bluescreens when you open 'my computer', you're
having a nasty hardware or hardware driver problem. Fix it.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:13:29 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uicp5$5jq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Security doesn't refer simply to root exploits. For instance, one
> could
> > consider DoS vulnerabilities as security risks (or at the very least
> > reliability risks). There are several TCP vulnerabilities in kernels
> that
> > are less older than 6 months.
>
> Yes? List a few. I now that anouther of the "they must have security
> holes" Attached link pointing to Redhat security bugs and the ONLY bug
> that required that the kernel be pached REQUIRED sendmail If the
> sendmail was not on the sytem, then the kernel bug could not be
> exploited! Many web servers DO NOT have sendmail installed so it would
> not be an issue.
Sure. How about the TCP multiconnect hang that was fixed in 2.2.16.
http://www.linux.org.uk/VERSION/relnotes.2216.html
Also, at the bottom is listed a vague bugfix "Fix a crash on certain unusual
TCP retransmit patterns "
or the 2.2.14 patch for IP Header problems (it's listed under Security
Updates, and claims that it's not "believed" to be exploitable, but is fixed
just in case)
Also, 2.2.12 fixes the Solaris "food fight" exploit, which apparently allows
a UDP packet storm to create a DoS.
> > > Correct, but this also says a lot about the mentality of the people
> that
> > > "produce" security on Windows. Its not only the admins but also the
> > > programmers/developers that are on the same net.
> >
> > The people that lock down security at MS are not the same people that
> > implement security.
>
> so what.
So, the original statement claimed that somehow the people that define
security policy at microsoft.com are also the same people that create
security in Windows. That's wrong.
> > > The its amazing that only Windows shops seem to do that. Heavy
> volume
> > sites
> > > normally run on Solaris with Netscape servers or Apache. Why dont
> they do
> > > the same thing then?
> >
> > Because they wait for the machine to fail, then they lose millions of
> > dollars due to site unavailability. Ask ebay about single server
> failures.
>
> That is bad planing not a result of a server being able to stay up for a
> long time. A single server W2K setup would have the same issues. Still I
Indeed it would. That's why most medium to large shops do NOT use this
approach and do in fact perform routine maintenance.
> would rather have a system that can stay up for a year without being
> shut down backed up by anouther system that can stay up for a full year
> without being shut down, that have a server that is constanly being shut
> down for mantanaince being backed up by another machine that constanly
> being shut down for maintainace. Be cause when you have the one server
> shut down for mantanance the other is a SINGLE SERVER! And you want to
> shut down each of these machines every 2 months for how long?
You're not paying attention. You always have backup servers for failures.
Simply because you're perfomring diagnostics doesn't mean you can't put that
machine back in rotation at a moments notice.
> > I guess that depends on your priorities. If keeping your system up
> 24x7 no
> > matter what the cost is more important than 100% availability then
> sure.
> > The only way you're going to guarantee 100% availability is by doing
> routine
> > maintenance.
>
> The only way you are going to have 100% availblity is having reliable
> RELIABKLE systems that are NOT down every couple of months, backing up
> other RELIABLE systems that are NOT down every couple of months!
Strange that Microsoft seems to provide 100% availability with such
machines.
> Taking that server down for mantinance means that it is NOT AVAILABLE!
No, it doesn't. It means that it's currently not in the rotation, but could
be at any time if it's needed. Further, the chances of failure on machines
that have routine maintenance is much lower.
> The servers that are running for YEARS have been available all that
> time! That means that they only need a single backup incase of failure
> and not have to have 2 backups, one to provide backup services in case
> you have a failure while you are constanly doing maintenance on your
> machines.
No, it means those machines were lucky. They could have just as easily
failed.
> > No, it's probably just more likely that people that run those OS's are
> more
> > concerned with security and maintenance than the people running a 3
> year old
> > Linux system.
>
> That have NOT been hacked and have not had to be constantly serviced Boy
> that makes the Linux look REAL good!
You're using exceptions to the rule. I'm sure it's possible to find NT
machines that have been up that long. The problem is that NT4 only reports
valid uptime data prior to Serivce Pack 4. SP4 and 6 do not report uptime
data, and SP5 doesn't report it reliably according to netcraft. That leaves
out a huge number of NT servers that aren't reporting or not reporting
reliably. Add to that the fact that netcrafts survey is very small and
doesn't cover every site they track.
For instance, here are a bunch of sites that netcraft says they haven't
recieved enough data to list yet:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.numega.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.stingray.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.roguewave.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.troublewithsam.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.gsilumonics.com
And I could go on and on... simply put, there are literally hundreds of
thousands of NT sites out there that are not in this survey.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bottom line franky, you have no proof rottating servers for maintanace
> is the reason for the lousy record of NT and w2k, Infact, the barns and
> noble record and the zenith record seem to point to the instability. I
> doubt barns and noble was taking rotating out their servers every day
> for 5 months for HARDWARE work!
>
>
>
> Thanks for the great laugh! I always enjoy laughing AT YOU!
>
>
> Keep it up franky, you are the best thing to happen to Linux in this
> news group!
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:22:02 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QOgP5.18758$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uj0kg$viv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
> >
> > Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
> > Check NTFS first.
>
> I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
> you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
> real-world situations very well.
Really? How do you deny someone in an access group access to a single file
that all others in that access group can access without creating an all new
group to put everyone but that one person in?
That's a pretty common real-world situation.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? Oops
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:27:22 +1100
Shane Phelps wrote:
>
> 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:-(
A correction to the above:
NT 4 Server - Terminal Server is actually the first multiuser NT version.
W2K Server includes terminal server capabilities by default.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:32:46 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ukmvs$7nr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
No. It's a different version targeted at a different market. You can't
turn a professional Win2k into a server without a complete reinstall.
> --
> Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:33:32 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > "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?
> >
> > > Are all contractors programmers?
> >
> > Hell no. I do systems engineering and systems administration as
> > a contractor.
> >
> > checke out
> >
> > http://www.monster.com
> > http://www.dice.com
> >
> > > I think not.
> >
> > sorry, didn't notice that you were posting from Purdue.
> >
> > Purdue is overflowing with Unix-skilled people, and thus, the
> > local market value of such skills is nil.
> >
> > Go up to Chicago, and basic Unix admin skills are worth about $20/hour
> > at the very least.
>
> Come to the Boston area, a good UNIX guy can get $150 an hour. $450 an
> hour if you are an Oracle guru too.
>
That's because the cost of living is so high, that even a subsistance-level
income puts you in the 28% tax bracket.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:35:02 -0500
Mike wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I studied Computer Systems Engineering at Purdue University,
> approximately
> > > > 60 credit hours of Computer and Electrical Engineering, and another
> > > > 20 credit hours of Computer Science.
> > >
> > > Well this settles it. He is a plumber. No wonder he can't follow
> > > simple usenet netiquette. He's an embarassment that just won't go
> >
> > I have fulfilled or surpassed all of the core requirements for an
> > engineering degree. I'm a couple hours short in humanities electives.
>
> Hmmm, I think I'll add that to my list.
>
> A few slices short of a loaf...
> A few beers short of a six-pack...
> A few sandwiches short of a picnic...
> A few cards short of a deck...
>
> and now,
>
> A few hours short of a degree...
Really doesn't bother me, as I'm quite well read in the
humanities anyways.
>
> -- Mike --
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:36:16 -0600
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
Yes, of course they do. The one problem with telnet on NT4 though is that
only the user logged into the console's user.dat registry hive is loaded (or
whoever is logged in first). I think there are some versions of commercial
telnetd for NT that solve this problem though. Also, Win2k doesn't have the
problem either.
> > 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.
That's a license issue, not a technical one.
> 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:-(
Actually, they have Windows 3.1 clients as well as Win32 clients, not to
mention various CE clients.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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 20:50:44 -0500
Caldera OpenLinux User wrote:
> >
> >But the problem here is of informed consent. Do Windows users know enough
> >about shell scripts/programs to give informed consent?
>
> MS's software is designed by lawyers. The user consented when they opened the
> e-mail therefore it's not a design flaw but misuse of a wonderful product.
> There was no risk until the software was used and permission was given.
And could a thirteen-year-old girl consent to having sex by signing an EULA?
Colin Day
------------------------------
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:57:37 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote...
> > I got BSOD not only from copying files, but also from opening "My
> > Computer" just after login.
>
> My WinNT system suddenly shut down one day while I was working. Oh, my
> daughter hit the UPS switch. I guess that one doesn't count eh?
>
> If your WinNT system bluescreens when you open 'my computer', you're
> having a nasty hardware or hardware driver problem. Fix it.
Life is not as simple as that. Maybe you've noticed that in order to
fake a faster boot, icons do appear before they can be actually used.
Usually if you click "My computer" too soon nothing happens. Apparently
there's a split microsecond when things are only halfway setup, and if
you just catch that moment you may get a BSOD out of a very innocent
operation. I was setting up networking and for each change I was
prompted to reboot, so I was acting faster than normal, after the umpth
reboot. I tried to reproduce the problem, and it was very hard to do,
but I succeeded at least once more. Since then I kept waiting that
everything has started properly, and it didn't happen anymore. Looks
more like a nasty software bug.
On the same box (HP Vectra) I subsequently installed Linux, and VMware
hosting NT. In this configuration Linux never had a problem (up to now),
and also NT playing in a safe sandbox behaves reasonably well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:57:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 10 Nov 2000 09:43:01 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
>> techniques or special filesystems.
>>
>> Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
>
>Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of database technology, in
>particular Oracle.
>
>I think I'll go back to work on my 80 gigabyte Oracle database which
>runs under Linux now.
In the words of Emily Litella -- "Never Mind". :-)
I'm also gratified to see that Oracle solved this problem for ix86 (you
didn't say what hardware you were using for your database, though).
It's almost trivial, really.
g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64 ...
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:02:01 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
skills is nil.
> > >
> > > Go up to Chicago, and basic Unix admin skills are worth about $20/hour
> > > at the very least.
> >
> > Come to the Boston area, a good UNIX guy can get $150 an hour. $450 an
> > hour if you are an Oracle guru too.
> >
>
> That's because the cost of living is so high, that even a subsistance-level
> income puts you in the 28% tax bracket.
>
Boston is very expensive, but just south of Boston, a couple miles,
prices are much more reasonable. Public transportation is available too.
It sure beats silicon valley.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:00:04 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > But many infected programs came from a trusted source.
>
> "TRUST NOBODY!" is not something that make people comfortable.
>
> > I expect Outlook not to associate any files with shell interpreters. Even
> > Netscape
> > somehow manages to not associate *.sh files with sh.
>
> On linux, it isn't.
>
> However, you save it to disk, and then what? The average user with just
> double click it.
Double click in what file manager/browser? In kfm, clicking a shell script
does not execute the script. To execute, the user would have to right click
and select Open With and then type in sh, or just type sh foo.sh at a
command prompt. But an "average" user would be less likely to do this
than to open a Visual Basic script.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:05:31 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9gmP5.7670$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any
files.
> > >
> > > Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
> > > Check NTFS first.
> >
> > I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
> > you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
> > real-world situations very well.
>
> Really? How do you deny someone in an access group access to a single
file
> that all others in that access group can access without creating an all
new
> group to put everyone but that one person in?
That is certainly a 'more arbitrary' choice as opposed to 'tighter'.
> That's a pretty common real-world situation.
Only if you don't make your groups match the group capabilities
you want. Why did you qualify your question so as to eliminate
the normal way of doing things?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 15:24:50 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:23:03 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:0n4P5.18413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8uilot$bvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> > > But what if the icon is generic or an unknown? Also, a lot of
>> executables
>> > > come with their own icons.
>> >
>> > If it's unknown, they it wouldn't be executed or even viewed, it will
>give
>> > you the open with window.
>> > As for executables, that is indeed a problem.
>>
>> What if they are just unknown to you?
>
>
>Not that many out there that can be executed.
>Save to disk, check in notepad.
>If binary, run regedit, check KKET_CLASSES_ROOT, check for the default
>actions.
>If I get it too often, build a program in 10 minutes that will do this for
>me.
>If code, read code, if unknown/dangerous code, don't run it.
>
And I am sure that Grandma finds this easy and intuitive...
--
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)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:41:58 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:31:03 -0800,
Bruce Schuck, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:21:42 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >Well...eMbedded VB 3.0 and eMbedded C++ are free. Except for shipping and
>> >handling.
>>
>> GNU tools are free too. And I can configure the same compiler and
>> libraries for dozens of different targets.
>
>Tell me about GNU VB.
>
>>
>>
>> >>, it isn't smaller, and it isn't any easier to program for.
>> >
>> >It is if you use VB (the #1 programming language in the world)
>>
>> Not for real-time and embedded systems it isn't.
>
>I won't argue real-time. My guess is the Microsft tools are used for the
>vast majority of software on WinCE machines.
Which are outnumbered by the Palm machines by 2 or 3 to one. Please note that I
can use GCC et al for developing for the palm
>
>> Can you write an
>> interrupt handler or device driver in VB? I honestly don't know.
>>
>> VB might be useful for the GUI portion, if there is one, but there are
>> plenty of solutions that are far more portable and will work just as
>> well.
>
>I don't think portability is that import now that the Ipaq is huge hit and
>SQL Server runs on WinCE devices.
rotflmao
--
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
******************************
