Linux-Advocacy Digest #193, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 16:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux in Critical Systems? (Moderator)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
RE: Of course, there is a down side... (Mig)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Bob Hauck)
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup (Bob Hauck)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("JS/PL")
Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) (Se�n �
Donnchadha)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moderator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Critical Systems?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:27:49 -0500
"S. W. Davison" wrote:
>
> o US DOD weapons or combat support systems
They use Microsoft.
> o US NASA ground control systems
Pretty sure they run some type of UNIX. Someone told me it was Linux,
but I'm not really sure.
> o Medical equipment control
I think it's QNX.
--
-Moderator
"Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as
being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example."
-George W. Bush, New York Times, 7/2/2000
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:36:53 GMT
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> I don't know about you, but I control my associations and hence I'm the
> >> one determining which application is used and not the sender.
> >
> >How nice for you. If you would like to do the same for a few hundred
> >people in remote offices and check them after every program
> >install then I could be as safe as if they used a reasonable program.
> >If you aren't willing to do that, don't try to tell me it isn't a real
> >problem.
>
> Sounds like you've got a security problem - which is easily solveable.
> Just run Windows NT / Win2k and lock down the security on the
> workstations.
What changes would you make that would allow all normal email
messages to be safely viewed without encouraging the users to
save unviewed attachments to files? And again, please don't
say something is easy if you aren't offering to do it for all my
remote offices.
>
> >> Take for example, I associated .reg files with my text editor. Are you
> >> saying that if a sender sends me a file with a .reg extension with the
> >> intention of messing up my registry, that they will determine what
> >> application is used to run the reg file (regedit in this case)?
> >
> >Until you reinstall the OS, or a program that decides to make
> >itself the default handler for something.
>
> Can't be done if you apply the right security. Why haven't you done
> so?
As far as I can tell there isn't a 'right' association that correctly
matches
the differences between email attachments and files.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:37:19 +0100
Raul Sainz wrote:
> > "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.
Well not as much as Windows :-) When i used it, and i not nice to a OS, it
lasted for about 4 months. Then the registry got [too]big , probably due to
the fact that i like to test and install lots of programs ;- only thing
that really helped was to reformat and reinstall the whole thing. Then it
runned really nice and fast for about 2 weeks or something (depended on
what i had downloaded) .
I actually installed Win95 on an old Aptiva last week and was surprised how
fast a fresh Windows install can be :-)
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:43:41 GMT
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:50:54 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- No journaling
>- No support for >2GB files (patch exists but isn't widely supported)
For about the 100th time, this is NOT an ext2 limitation. It is a
limitation of the Linux 2.2 kernel. The exact same ext2 happily
supports larger files on 64-bit systems.
>- Poor reliability (mainly do to, among other things, lack of journaling)
NTFS journaling doesn't guarantee your _data_ either. All it really
does is ensure that you can boot up quickly after a crash without
waiting for a long disk verification process.
>- Poor performance
Since when?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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 20:43:43 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:03:06 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:46:35 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>> >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.
The people being interviewed probably don't know the true size of the
problem any better than you do. They know how it affected _them_, but
they can't know what percentage of customers were affected.
>They also totally distrust Sun to report the true size of the problem
>because of the non-disclosure agreements they made many customers sign.
Well, I don't trust Sun either, but nobody but them can know the true
percentages. That's one of the many "benefits" of proprietary systems.
But I don't trust you either, since you seem to have some interest in
making the problem seem as bad as possible.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:46:34 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Deliberately?
>
> Yes! The average user knows what will happen when he double clicks the
> file or they certainly hope it will happen .... i.e.... that it will be
> run. :-) You see, they don't know what's out there and what can be done
> to their machines. If they did, you'd see how quickly they start learning
> the necessary stuff to keep themselves protected.
Or they would just replace their OS with one that worked right in
the first place.
> > But does the average user?
>
> No. Some of you argue as if anyone who uses Windows is at the mercy of
> these attachments. My argument is that this is certainly not the case and
> it's only those who choose to be ignorant and expect the computer to do
> things for them safely and securely without their having to learn
> anything that are the vulnerable ones.
Pehaps you can get that paragraph inserted as a 'consumer warning label'
on all Microsoft products.
> For every action there's a consequence. If ignorant users are using
> computers today, to get things done without having to call anyone for
> help often then default associations are necessary and these users are
> vulnerable.
However, it is not, and never was necessary to consider email
attachments to be identical to files.
> But it helps ignorant users remain ignorant and as a result make them
> vulnerable. The sad thing is that most of these users don't even have
> insight into the implications behind their ignorance. Some may feel that
> they're being exploited by MS. Weeeeellll, I wouldn't necessarily say so
> because if the UNIX type approach was all there is, computers wouldn't be
> so commonly used in the household setting. People would get frustrated
> because they'd actually have to learn to have fun.
They are being exploited by one of the many mistakes in the MS approach
of hiding details. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't hide details,
just that you can't hide the important ones like the difference in the
content of email attachments from an untrusted source and your own
files by pretending they don't exist.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 12:50:35 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zUBP5.19544$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:UIpP5.6$[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?
Then you are missing out on a tremendously productive OS. But you already
knew that.
> Or
> even if you do, what if it isn't the machine where you installed your
> licensed copy of the client?
You don't need to license the client. You get two Clinet Access Licenses. As
long as only 2 connections are active, you can run the Client from any PC.
Microsft even offers a web client ActiveX control.
> Do you have to sit in one place and wait
> for the need to do remote administration?
Nope. But you knew that as I've already explained it to you.
> 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.
WTS has a browser-based ActiveX control client.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:44:18 -0500
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Colin R. Day wrote...
> > > When you double click a file in Windows, you've chosen to execute it
with
> > > the associated application.
> >
> > No. If you double-click a text file, you have an editor (say Notepad)
execute
> > with the text file as an object. The same would hold for jpeg and mpg123
files.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. :-)
>
> > > > For example if you
> > > > want to type in the name of your program to run, or drag the
> > > > attachment to a program on the desktop, go ahead. What needs
> > > > to be disabled is the auto-executing something chosen by the
> > > > sender instead.
> > >
> > > Well, if a program is auto-executed that's bad. I'm not sure what you
> > > mean by auto-execution though. If you mean that once the message is
open
> > > the attachment does it's thing then that's bad. If you mean that the
user
> > > deliberately chooses to run the file and the associated application is
> > > started as determined by the extension, then I disagree.
> > >
> >
> > Deliberately?
>
> Yes! The average user knows what will happen when he double clicks the
> file or they certainly hope it will happen .... i.e.... that it will be
> run. :-) You see, they don't know what's out there and what can be done
> to their machines. If they did, you'd see how quickly they start learning
> the necessary stuff to keep themselves protected.
>
> > Does the average Windows user know the difference between
> > viewing a video clip and running a shell script?
>
> I'd say no.
>
> > Isn't Windows touted as
> > an OS that renders such knowledge unnecessary?
>
> Yes, and isn't this correct. Don't they play their video clips and run
> their scripts without having to know anything about interpreters etc? :-)
> Of course that's a sad state of affairs because they are now extremely
> vulnerable to malicious behaviour.
>
> > > > No - the lines should distinguish *what* you are going to execute.
> > > > Dragging the attachment to a program is going over the white line,
> > > > but that is your business if you crash.
> > >
> > > I see no difference. I set my file associations so that I don't need
to
> > > be dragging and dropping.
> > >
> >
> > But does the average user?
>
> No. Some of you argue as if anyone who uses Windows is at the mercy of
> these attachments. My argument is that this is certainly not the case and
> it's only those who choose to be ignorant and expect the computer to do
> things for them safely and securely without their having to learn
> anything that are the vulnerable ones.
>
> > What are the defaults?
>
> The bad ones. :-) The ones where the user doesn't have to decide
> anything. Everything will be done for the user because the user doesn't
> know anything about what is happening. He sees the computer as an
> appliance and a computer is certainly nowhere near being treatable as
> such once information exchange is a part of that computers use. I don't
> know how my TV actually works, I just hit the on switch and things
> happen. The same should happen with the attachment.
>
> Bad attitude to have. MS however sees the resistance to learning and
> capitalizes on it. UNIX therefore remains in the hands of professionals,
> while Windows reaches the homes of the masses with children using it.
>
> For every action there's a consequence. If ignorant users are using
> computers today, to get things done without having to call anyone for
> help often then default associations are necessary and these users are
> vulnerable.
>
> > > How so. Are you speaking only about .vbs files? If so, then we're on
the
> > > wrong track. I'm speaking about all file types that may be obtained
> > > through e-mail attachments. Windows associations default to certain
apps
> > > depending on what's installed. However, the user pretty much has full
> > > control over file associations via folder options.
> > >
> >
> > But shouldn't an association with a shell interpreter be off by default?
>
> I think it should be. But if it's off, this creates a great inconvenience
> for the ignorant user at home, who apparently should remain that way
> (ignorant). They won't be able to run legitimate scripts.
>
> > > I fail to see how my argument is system specific.
> > >
> > > > It is like advocating that
> > > > people learn to drive only one peculiar kind of car.
> > >
> > > You're misunderstanding me.
> > >
> > > > > Please show me where you think I said that people are dumb and
I'll
> > > > > clarify for you. I'm not interested in being a part of the
'jumping
> > > > > hoops' team trying to find ways of protecting users who refuse to
learn
> > > > > from themselves. I do admit that it's a necessary evil in a
corporate
> > > > > environment where one has to give systems to these types of users
to use.
> > > > > I however, don't advocate it as how it should be for me or other
users
> > > > > willing to learn as they should.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you advocate systems that don't impose this sort of
problem
> > > > on you in the first place?
> > >
> > > Because running away from a harsh reality by masking it from users
will
> > > not help one bit.
> >
> > Really? It helped make Bill Gates the richest person in history (so
far).
>
> But it helps ignorant users remain ignorant and as a result make them
> vulnerable. The sad thing is that most of these users don't even have
> insight into the implications behind their ignorance. Some may feel that
> they're being exploited by MS. Weeeeellll, I wouldn't necessarily say so
> because if the UNIX type approach was all there is, computers wouldn't be
> so commonly used in the household setting. People would get frustrated
> because they'd actually have to learn to have fun.
The next Outlook will block most file attachments by default. The problem
will be gone and all those who can't get their frog in blender attachments
will have to find another distibution route.
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:01:51 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I thought they only journal the metadata, not the file contents.
>
I've heard this claim a bunch of times and am puzzled by it (I am not
an expert in file systems). What exactly would be the point of the
file system journaling the file contents? After all, as long as the
metadata is properly journaled, the file system can always be
recovered to a valid state in case of a crash. As for file contents, I
don't see how the file system can guarantee anything. For example, if
an app requires two file calls to save its data in a valid state, then
there's nothing the OS can do if a crash happens after the first call
but before the second. I suspect I'm missing something, though.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:04:04 -0500
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> CC'd mail from ignorant user:
>
> "Hey guys, I got this nice little file off the net that does so and so.
> It's wonderful. Just double click and run it." He doesn't know about the
> trojan/virus planted there. He doesn't even mention where he got it.
> Aferall that's irrelevant info in his ignorant mind. His fellow ignorant
> buddies don't even ask either. This a way too common situation.
Future Outlook.net user
"Hey guys, you sent me this attachment but my mail reader says it's been
blocked and I should see the system administrator. What are you trying to
do, get me in trouble!? Knock it off!!"
This will be the way too common situation.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
