Linux-Advocacy Digest #192, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Linux in Critical Systems? ("S. W. Davison")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{ (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("PLZI")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "S. W. Davison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux in Critical Systems?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:10:16 -0500
Can anyone point me to published accounts of use of Linux in "critical
systems?" I'm particularly interested in examples of use in:
o US DOD weapons or combat support systems
o US NASA ground control systems
o Medical equipment control
Thanks for any help.
Stowe Davison
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.angelfire.com/md/swdavison
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 12:33:48 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I agree with you that it's a very unlikely thing to happen. Maybe it's
> related to other unlikely conditions. Perhaps you've noticed that in NT
> if you alter your network setting it turns out that your shared
> directories still appear to be shared (the icon is that of a shared
> thing) but actually they aren't. You must remove the sharing and then
> share again. At this point the folder or the drive is again visible
> netwise (rather crappy, but it works like that).
Actually, it's supposed to work that way. The folders *ARE* still shared,
they're just shared to a non-existing IP network binding. The reason for
this is that you might change or remove the network binding and then
re-install it (say, you're installing a second network card, and you want to
make sure it works before removing the other one, then changing the bindings
back to the first for the new card).
If you did that, all your network shares would be deleted. So it's a
give-and-take situation. Neither way of doing it would work for everybody.
It just turns out that the way you want it to work is not the way they
chose.
> I only mentioned it because Ayende appeared not to believe that a BSOD
> may come out of a drag-and-drop operation (which actually I too have
> experienced a few times). So I brought forward my experience of an even
> simpler operation which *may* produce a BSOD.
Are you talking about NT4 or 2000?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:38:14 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There is no way to defend against a wide-spread, distributed DOS
> attack under ipv4 without having some nasty firewall rules period. If
> someone wants to take you out, they can; it's only a matter of
> resources. While I agree that we should do everything possible to
> reduce the danger, it's silly to count DoS attacks as bugs (many of
> them are because a tcp/ip stack follows the rules!).
There's no way to defend against a DoS attack, but a DoS attack shouldn't
crash the machine. The fact is, those Linux machines that have been up for
over a year are susceptible to these attacks. A very short term one could
render the machine crashed or hung. If they handled the DoS properly, the
machine would be available again after the DoS had stopped and it wouldn't
need to be rebooted.
> > Strange that Microsoft seems to provide 100% availability with such
> > machines.
>
> .. except from Russian intruders? :)
Including Russian intruders.
> Every OS has bugs in it.
>
> Every ip stack can be DOSed.
>
> Open Source DOS attacks are easy to generate, but get fixed quickly.
>
> Closed Source DOS attacks are more difficult, but stay in operation
> longer.
But machines that have been up for years haven't been patched, and can be
identified as such quite easily now.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:41:31 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8um3k5$onk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Over all, it is basicly the same hardware. Or else Linux and UNIX users
> Know how to buy better hardware! You have NOT proven that the downtime
> for NT and W2K is because of HARDWARE maintenance! If any thing is
> forcing reqular maintenance of W2K workstations every 30 days It must be
> the software because It it is not required for Linux or UNIX.
It is in fact required for any computer running off the shelf hardware 24x7
> > 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?
>
> I don't have oil in my computer! I don't have ANYTHING that REQUIRES
> regular changing. Please povide documented evidance were a computer
> manufacture recomends changing ANYTHING the way car manufactures
> recomend changing OIL!
Sure you do. Hard disks have mean times between failure. If you don't
change them prior to the MTBF you're risks go up exponentially, just like
not changing your oil. Of course the MTBF on hard disks is quite high, but
that's taking into account that some drives fail after a week, some after 10
years. Doing routine diagnostics will help you identify that.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:56:16 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >fdisk?
>
> What's so hard about that?
> It's included. We were talking about what Admin tools are needed that
> are not included.
You buy a larger hard disk an want to copy your existing setup
over to it. How do you do it? With Linux you would connect
it up, 'cp -a' all your partitions to their new destinations, swap drives,
boot with a floppy and run lilo to be back in business. Cloning
an existing setup to a new machine is equally trivial.
> >If you add a disk, aren't you doing administration?
>
> fdisk is included.
How does that help with moving installed programs?
> >If you add hardware, ...
> Plug and play or USB trivial under recent versions of Windows. A
> nightmare under any version of Linux.
They very often are nightmares under Windows as well. I spend a
couple of days trying to get an ISA network card not to conflict
with anything else in windows even though I had allocated the
IRQ in BIOS to legacy/ISA. I've got a modem that just plain
won't work with win98 but it works fine in DOS and Linux. And
of course, there is now way to tell *why*.
> >I'm still trying it out. So far nothing particularly serious.
>
> I liked Mandrake 7.0 / 7.1 but after using it for several weeks I
> found that the ordinary tasks I do under Windows are more of a pain in
> the ass with Linux for me. As an example reading news. I had to set up
> 4 different programs (leafnode, slrn and the editor and spell checker)
> then I had to fire off leafnode to retrieve messages.
What's wrong with Netscape or Knode?
> Printing was another problem.
> I was stuck with a monochrome printer.
Odd, no one else is.
> The permissions thing
> was another pain, su'ing to root all the time to do things is just
> extra steps.
Just like admin under NT/Win2k only easier because you don't
have to kill all your other windows and logout first.
> My wheel mouse half worked in
> that the wheel worked but you had to click on the window first where
> as under Windows it hovers and knows what window you want to scroll.
Hmmm, are you really complaining about the lack of mouse configurability
in the window manger? I think you know better.
> I know there are valid reasons and work a round's for most of these
> problems, but to me it's not worth it. I'm not the type that wants to
> set up cron jobs to do all my fetching at night etc. I tend to jump
> around in programs and under Windows my News reader picks up right
> where it left off. One click and I can look at past messages in one
> group while downloading current ones in another. it's very easy and
> user friendly.
Which news reader does that?
> Finally I realized that I was spending too much time fiddling with
> Linux to customize to work as easily as Windows does for me and that
> is why I dumped it.
Tell us - how long did you work to find something to complain about
this time? Takes longer and longer doesn't it?
> If you can perform all of your functions as easily under Linux as you
> can under Windows then by all means use it. For me it wasn't even
> close.
Since your 'functions' seem to be finding something to complain about,
I can understand why that is easier in Windows. You really
do have to spend a lot of time to find them in the current Linux
distributions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:58:43 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8umfcc$l8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You claim that REGULAR maintenance is the reason for the poor uptime
> performanc of W2K, Then you do you explain this?
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.bn.com
>
> A daily hardware maintenance schedule???
>
> Shure haven't seen anything as bad as this from Linux or Unix.
How about
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.free-dvd.org.lu
The 93 day max was clearly something screwy by looking at the graph, it
jumps from about 15 days to 93 days in one day then drops back down.
An average of 13 days.
Or this one:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=decss.htmlplanet.com
There are only 6 samples, but by looking at it, you can tell it's been
rebooted a lot more than you can see on the chart because the graph does not
have a steady incline.
and how about this site?
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=tuxrache.de.st
8 days average uptime.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:00:22 -0600
"Charles M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ulau7$4n4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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?
Telnet, Windows 2000 Terminal Services, FTP, Remote Console (done locally)
and several others.
They can all be done locally on the same machine without a network
connection using only local loopback.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:02:34 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > That would be like your statement here. It should be quite easy to
prove
> > your statement. What multiuser features are missing?
>
> Two or more simultaneous users,, each with their own PRIVATE data space,
> both in memory, and on disk, each user having their own UNIQUE user
> id, which is persistent from login to login.
Yup, Win2k has all those features. Clearly you have no clue about it or you
would know this.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:04:17 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Ammendment: It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need
> to spend a bunch of money on add-on products to run any off-the-shelf
> software; and even then you have to be choosy about which
> off-the-shelf software to run (ie, Office97 needs significant tweaking
> before it will run under the Terminal Server and other packages just
> won't work at all [like OmniPage, for instance]).
That's true for NT4 Terminal Server, not for Win2000. I've run Win2k WTS,
and have never needed a special version for any software for it. It all
just works.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:04:37 GMT
You're over my head on that one. Sounds like you have your work cut
out for you.
claire
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:32:03 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>That didn't take long :)
>
>Oh it gets worse.
>
>I noticed that smb: works just fine when I was connected to the Internet
>via dialup. I checked and found that the DNS addresses from my dialup
>were somehow the system DNS (very good for a setup with no DNS and just
>two nodes!). I tried to configure the network with no DNS (which is how
>I set it up on installation) and now a whole bunch of KDE apps are broken:
>
>klipper (actually when KDE starts)
>konqueror
>terminal
>knode
>kbabel
>katalog
>kmail
>
>Konsole the KDE crash handler
>-----------------------------
>
>(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
>(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
>(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
>(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
>0x40c2ee39 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6
>#0 0x40c2ee39 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6
>#1 0x40c8f8e0 in __check_rhosts_file () from /lib/libc.so.6
>#2 0x4049b4d0 in KCrash::defaultCrashHandler () from
>/usr/lib/libkdecore.so.3
>
>#3 0x40bcc008 in sigaction () from /lib/libc.so.6
>
>Seems like network configuration has blown away a major section of KDE 2.0.
>
>(Yes I have logged this as a bug with bugs.kde.org).
>
>Ho hum
>
>Pete
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:05:46 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bAsP5.14094$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Oh yes I forgot about that. However, you can't actually do a great deal
can
> you? If you run notepad, it pops up as a window on the main screen!
No, it doesn't. Try running an X program from a telnet login, what happens?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 19:08:15 GMT
"PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UIpP5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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"?
What if you don't run windows on your desktop/laptop or whatever machine
is in front of you when you need to remotely administer something? Or
even if you do, what if it isn't the machine where you installed your
licensed copy of the client? Do you have to sit in one place and wait
for the need to do remote administration? The only reasonable tool
I've found to deal with remote windows is VNC installed as a service
because you can run the java client in any browser if you don't happen
to have the client loaded wherever you are.
> 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?
The X clipboard has always worked across windows and there has never
been a difference between local and remote window access. Why
should that even be an issue?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:09:37 -0600
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:36:16 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> : 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.
>
> Of course, this now begs the question.. What is there for these people to
> DO once they've managed to telnet to a Win2k server? Start/Stop services?
Just about anything you can do under Unix via telnet. Ports for most
programs exist for Win32. Elm, Pine, bash, tin, etc...
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 19:17:42 GMT
"PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VUyP5.130$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > In unix, I can have remote xterms logged into the administration account
> > on 15 machines simultaneously...and 14 other admins ALSO remote logged
> > into each of these 15 machines...
>
> You're playing a very interesting game called "who's doing what". 15
persons
> administering one server? All of them at the SAME TIME? You must be
joking.
Try reading that again. He is administering 15 machines from one spot.
That's
typical for me as well, and although there are only a couple of us here
doing
it, many of the machines keep logins open to each other so if you happen to
physically be near one of them you can check anything on the others.
> What do they do? In my days with the Big Blue, MVS, DOS, VM/S, JES2/3, TSO
> and all that, we got along with three admins - and back in those days we
> still Had To Do Something (tm).
They are likely in different physical locations - possibly different
countries.
> But of course. If you by the way happen to have that all-free SSH client
fot
> OS/370, let me have a copy. Or for MVS, that will do also. I'll be more
than
> glad to have a tape copy. Telnet, of course, is never an option. Too
> unsecure.
Telnet is just fine over your own leased lines or frame relay or encrypted
VPN's.
> If your computers need more than too people at once actively administering
> them, then there is somenthing very wrong with your computer, or with
> yourselves.
If your machine can't do enough different services at once that different
people need to control them there must be something wrong with
your machine or OS.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:17:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>You're over my head on that one. Sounds like you have your work cut
>out for you.
Nah. Just wipe and reinstall. Just like Windows!
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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 19:45:46 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ge2P5.18348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >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.
> >
> > Lock destination window with "copying progress" dialog box, then hang.
>
> Another good one is when you wiggle and release the mouse and it
> duplicates the entire tree with 'copy of xxxx' files. I once had a user
> do that to a web server directory samba-mounted from a unix machine
> for convenience. Nothing like user-friendliness...
>
Under Edit (menu), just select 'Undo copy' (or Ctrl-Z) and the remove the
files you just copied. Just knowing the menus make screwup easy to fix,
alot of times.
------------------------------
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 19:52:05 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Agreed, and the previous poster was mistaken.
> There is a wide variety of scripting languages for your choosing.
> VBS, JS, WSH, even perl, if you like it.
Sorry for being a bit unclear - what I meant was, that the TSC does not have
scripting *of its own*, like the netsupport or pc anywhere. Of course you can
use WSH to your heart's content in the remote machine being administered, or
outside in the client machine. You can even automate the TSC with the
client's WSH (or VBA or VB or C++ or Perl or Rexx, anything with COM
capability gets the job done), but TSC does not have a scripting environment
in itself. All this, of course, is irrelevant - the point is always in the
definition what needs to be done, and what are your tools doing it. Which, in
my honest opinion, are truly great in Win32 platform - these days. Gotta love
those consistent APIs everywhere. Nothing on *nix platform comes even close
in the ease of use and the selection of languages.
- PLZI
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
