Linux-Advocacy Digest #185, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS stability ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Keith Edward O'Hara)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Is there any limitation to the numbers of opening files? thanks ("David ..")
Re: Is there any limitation to the numbers of opening files? thanks ("David ..")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("PLZI")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Charles M)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux get new term? (Steve Mading)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:28:52 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Rarely is not never. You have to reboot to apply a kernel patch.
Not if the feature is modular.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Keith Edward O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 04:20:28 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote:
: Aaron R. Kulkis wrote...
:> At least he knows it's executable code.
:> And he has the OPTION of finding someone who can read the code
:> before executing it.
: Oh really now? Hahahahahaha. You really don't know what you are talking
: about do you? This is why you sound so ridiculously unrealistic in your
: arguments.
The person who sent the attached code will be able to explain it,
and probably did explain it in the body of the email ---
at least in any circumstance where the code _should_ be executed.
Perhaps the explanation would be along the lines of
"the attached script is a patch provided by the software vendor"
but my limited imagination cannot conceive a situation where sufficient
explanation of the code is not available from the sender.
:> So....what you're saying is....because some user's are not able
:> to properly evaluate scripts....ALL users should be penalized by
:> having scripts run for them without an opportunity for evaluation.
: All users are not. All users have the option to evaluate the script
: before running it in Windows.
Not easily.
The file-type .wsh has no view option as a right-click;
one must either start notepad.exe separately to open the file
or install a viewer in the "send-to" list
or associate a viewer with the file-type .wsh
or append .txt to the filename
(and with the file-type .shs, the last option is not available).
Is there an easy way to view these types of attachments?
=====
keith
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:55:18 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment?
>
> No.
>
> > My impression is that it is not. Comments?
>
> Claims that any Microsoft product is multi-user are pure fictions
> invented by M$'s marketing department.
That would be like your statement here. It should be quite easy to prove
your statement. What multiuser features are missing?
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.groupware.lotus-notes.admin,comp.groupware.lotus-notes.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there any limitation to the numbers of opening files? thanks
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:44:50 -0600
Nick Cheng wrote:
>
> Dear sirs, I've got a problem when I use server.load to test my Domino
> Server.
> In the console it tells me : too many opened files.
> It there any limitaion to the numbers for openning files? I'm using kernel
> 2.4.0.
> If you know it under 2.2.x, It's OK to me as well.
> Please help me on maximizing the number. thanks a lot!
cat /proc/sys/fs/file-max
Will tell you what it is on a 2.2.xx system.
The file max can be increased on a 2.2.xx system. Let me know if you
want info on how to do it on a 2.2.xx kernel since I haven't tried the
2.4 kernel yet.
--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538
Completed more work units than: 98.797% of seti users +/- 0.01%.
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.groupware.lotus-notes.admin,comp.groupware.lotus-notes.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there any limitation to the numbers of opening files? thanks
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:52:14 -0600
mlw wrote:
>
> The per process limitation requires a complete system rebuild, so don't
> even bother. The current limit is AFAIK 1000. (probably 1024) This is
> because of routines like "fdset" which must have prior knowledge of a
> limit.
I may be wrong but I thought it was just a kernel compile with a couple
of tweaks to the source?
--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538
Completed more work units than: 98.797% of seti users +/- 0.01%.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:12:31 +1000
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > No, you think that because you are using the concept of programs
acting
> > on
> > > > data files.
> > >
> > > Yes. And the blurring of that distinction by Microsoft is part of the
> > problem.
> >
> > If you're going to try and blame it on someone, blame it on Apple. They
did
> > pioneer the whole GUI thing, after all.
>
> And what the GUI have to with blurring the distinction between programs
> and data?
The whole _point_ of the modern GUI is to try and move away from the idea of
having a distinction between programs and data, towards just manipulating
the data.
I consider this a Good Thing. Why should I have to worry about launching
(the right) programs to get at my data ? Why can't I just open up the file
and work on it there ?
> > > Nope. This is why UNIX/Linux is good. Have different browsers for mail
and
> > > desktop, with the mail browser having no associations with shell
scripts,
> > > if one so desired.
> >
> > *shrug*. To each their own - I _like_ my UI consistency.
> >
>
> Windows users do prefer appearance to reality. I would not associate
> shell scripts with an interpreter in any file manager, nor would some
> users need to use more than one file manager, but options are good.
> Unless, of course, they threaten the One True Browser.
Would you like to get to the point, or do you have some more anti-Windows
rhetoric to blather ?
> > >
> > > But would the person have known that it was a shell script, or even
> > > what a shell script is?
> >
> > They would have known it wasn't the usual text file.
> >
> > And if they didn't, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
ANd if it happened on any other platform, it wouldn't have made a difference
anyway.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:13:01 +1000
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>
> > > Would you let your family or friends
> > > that you trust not to damage anything intentionally use outlook on
this
> > > machine?
> >
> > "Rm" will do a far more effective job of accidentally damaging things
that
> > outlook will. Should we take out rm ?
> >
>
> Rather funny, in almost three years of running Linux, I have never
accidentally
>
> removed a file.
Rather funny, in all the time I've been using Outlook, I've never been
burned by a virus.
------------------------------
From: "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 05:16:36 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<delurk>
> Why does Microsoft need 3rd party software for full remote administration?
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Please define "full remote administration"? On Terminal Server Client, you
get the server console. TSC is a part of W2K server. You get two concurrent
licenses. So, if I see the server console before me, what am I missing from
"full remote administration"?
And of course, the answer to your question is: There is no "why". It does not
need it. Yes, there are remote admin software packages available for W2K. For
example, TSC does not have inbuilt scripting language of it's own (like for
example the NetSupport has), but this is besides the point- TSC is an
automation object, and the features (say, connecting to 20 servers one by one
and retrieving some data through the remote admin package, automatically) may
be implemented through WSH, VBA, VB, C++, take your pick. Of course there are
fundamentally different ways of tackling this given problem, ftp, any c/s
software of your own, webdav... but this is besides the point.
> What the fuck is wrong with Microsoft that they can't figure out
> how to do this?
Of course, you have never even seen or used the TSC/W2K. By the way, does
your favourite *nix have one, shared, consistent clipboard? Across the remote
and local machine? Can you select a file, picture (say, from your web
browser) or text from you remote desk, and copy/paste it into the local
machine? Or vice versa?
- PLZI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles M)
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 05:47:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:55:18 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > My impression is that it is not. Comments?
>>
>> Claims that any Microsoft product is multi-user are pure fictions
>> invented by M$'s marketing department.
>
>That would be like your statement here. It should be quite easy to prove
>your statement. What multiuser features are missing?
>
>
>
>
I'm not aware of any way to log on and then log on as another user without logging off.
Yes, there are some limited abilites to execute a single command as another user,
but is there any way to actually, on a single machine with no network connections,
log in twice simultaneously?
CMM
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 21:54:38 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:99nP5.19049$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:OdeP5.125412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > >
> > > > Now that thats out of the way, when will Linux stop allowing root
> > exploits
> > > > so easily?
> > >
> > > Only if you memorize all the icons and logos for all the programs
> > > you find at freshmeat.net.
> >
> >
> > As I suspected. Linux root exploits forever!
>
> Just like that Other OS... except you don't have to wait 6 months for a
> service pack that will break something else you run.
Easy root exploits are a Linux specialty.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 22:00:29 -0800
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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
Wow. But how many address books do Palm users need?
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:03:06 -0800
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
The people being interviewed dispute the size of the problem.
They also totally distrust Sun to report the true size of the problem
because of the non-disclosure agreements they made many customers sign.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 12 Nov 2000 06:22:31 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:25:05 -0500, Colin R. Day wrote:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>Do you know of any UIX/Linux file managers that by default send *.sh
>files to sh?
It wouldn't matter if they did, because files aren't saved as executables
by default...
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 12 Nov 2000 06:29:10 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:22:02 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:QOgP5.18758$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>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.
Sure. It's the kind of feature that you use everytime you're involved in
a usenet pissing contest.
For the most part, the NT systems I've seen are set to the extremely lax
default configuration, and the users have no idea what ACLs are, and don't
care a great deal about granular access control.
The reason that viruses do a lot of damage is largely due to the fact that
no one bothers to secure their files properly.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Linux get new term?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 06:27:17 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:> like that, no way the oh-so-nice Repubs would ever think of it. You're
:> deluded if you believe that. Both the major parties are corrupt
:> enough to want to pull it off. Or were you just making a comment
:> about the technical prowess of the average redneck, and saying that
:> the Republicans wouldn't succeed at the attempt?
: I'm just looking at which party has a history of voter fraud.
Wrong. You're looking at the history of *detected* voter fraud.
A successful voter fraud would be one that doesn't get detected,
so we can't tell how many successes there have been, and who
committed them. All I am saying is that BOTH parties have the
immoral makeup such that I wouldn't be surprised if they did it.
The Democrats have Chicago, the Republicans have Watergate. They
both have a history of underhanded behaviour.
[snip assinine sig]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:52:41 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "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.
>
Translation . Lose2k "Professional" is deliberately crippled.
What else would you expect from Microshaft?
> > --
> > Cheers
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
