Linux-Advocacy Digest #223, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (.)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Christopher Smith")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: OS stability (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:02:37 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EG2Q5.126332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:IIOP5.419$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:QeqP5.125604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:99nP5.19049$[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.
> >
> > The ability to quickly adapt to and eliminate such holes is yet another.
> >
> > I can understand the number of exploits on Linux systems, as designing
> > security requires a great deal more expertise than it does for, say, NT.
I
> > should know, I'm presently starting the learning process and have quite
a
> > way to go yet. (My last Unixesque experience involved SCO XENIX System
V,
> an
> > AST Six Pack, a 386-16DX (Double Sigma Stamped), and some 1200 BPS Wyse
> > terminals). What I've seen so far, tends to support the "stupid
> > administrator" argument. The tools are there. Understanding them fully
is
> > another matter. No nice radio buttons or "Are You Sure About This?"
> Message
> > Boxes. NT has Linux beat there, hands down.
> >
> > The one thing that sells me on Linux, as a programmer, is the source
code.
> > Proper string handling routines nullify buffer overflow exploits.
>
> And yet, when you check the security pages for Linux, it seems almost
every
> exploit is a buffer overlow one.
>
Sloppy programming + Clever Kids = Security Breaches
There's no way around the problem. And, if you think that problem belongs
soley to Open Source, then you're deluding yourself. Frankly, I don't
understand the OS vs OS argument where this is concerned. It boils down to
the admin.The OS is merely the tool he/she uses. The OS's all have their
strong and weak points and are equally subject to failure when implemented
improperly.
> > And as for
> > things I can't fix with a compiler, there's always a guru or two out
there
> > who has the answers. Their response times far out-do Redmond's and
that's
> to
> > be expected. Nerds don't have the scheduling and time constraints of a
> large
> > multi-national conglomerate.
>
> Because of the number of exploits I must assume that security is way down
> the list of projects that Linux programmers consider interesting.
Unfortunately, many programmers find nitty gritty details annoying. MS
suffers from this too (Memory leaks from orphaned pointers). Also, a lot of
programmers assume the user will be well behaved. A good exercise, one I
partake in, is trying your damnedest to crash your software. Imagine the
most stupid, brain-dead, bonehead thing an individual could do (consulting
experience helps here) then do it. It's very educational.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:02:41 GMT
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > As far as problems with Windows go, well *starts snickering*, I
probably
> > > shouldn't even go there. I'll just say that's it's included two full
> > > re-installs of 98 SE for various reasons, replacing a CMOS battery
after
> > > 2000 fried it, and my NT loader miraculously corrupting after
installing
> > > 2000 again. Oh, and a format of the 98/2000 drive from the NT Loader
> > > crash, which is why I'm glad I didn't let Mandrake near that drive.
And
> > > total cost of my Linux CD's: about $3 (one CD each for 6.1 and 7.0,
and
> > > 2 CD's for 7.2) And by the way, keep going and you might be in the
> > > running for my dumbass plonk of the year award. :)
> >
> > Ummm....CMOS battery...fried by an OS....
> >
> > (clearing throat)
> >
> > PLONK!
> >
> > --
> > Registered Linux User #194021
> It is possible. New computers are all still drawing power as long as
> they are plugged in. There are hardware functions still running even if
> the system appears to be turned off. It is possible that the OS set up
> hardware to keep doing some task (Network card trying to tell the
> network the computer is connected but off?). If the OS starts some
> hardware, then the hardware reverts to battery when main power is off,
> the battery will fry. Rechargables will discharg, reverse polarity, and
> get things all screwed up. CMOS batteries weren't designed for the kinds
> of loads they pull now.
>
Sorry, I really have to see a schematic before I believe that.
First off, the CMOS, unless things have changed radically, is either 64
or128 bytes of metal oxide semiconductor memory (with 2048 byte extensions).
There's not a whole heck of a lot there to drain a battery. Particularly,
one dedicated to it only. The battery is only enabled to refresh this RAM if
no power is being sent to the Mainboard (0v PowerGood). This is a HARDWARE
circuit. I fail to see how an OS, even a Microsoft OS, can be responsible
for discharging a CMOS battery. Especially since the circuit is inaccessible
to it.
Playing devil's advocate, perhaps there're extensions to Advanced Power
Management that override this behavior and are software controlled. A
brain-dead concept, granted, but I put nothing past Silicon Valley. <g>
Holy cow, I just thought of something!
I have an older ABit SM-5A motherboard that sometimes used to go apeshit -
CMOS emptied of everything including CPU speed settings. I found that it was
improperly mounted and occasionally, when cards were added/yanked, would
ground out momentarily. Restoring it involved shorting the CMOS Clear
jumper. Mayhaps that's your problem... Worth a look, anyway.
End of rambling post :)
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:11:06 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Slow? You must have it confused with the windows help system. It
> > isn't slow.
>
> Slow, yes.
> I'm not talking performance wise, I'm talking reading wise.
> You get the point?
> I can pull things out of my memory much faster than a page or a screen.
Maybe, if it hasn't changed since you memorized it - and this is
exactly the same version.
> > It doesn't hurt to remember them, but it isn't necessary on Linux. How
> > many versions and their variants can you remember at once, or do
> > you insist on only working on machines that you already know?
>
> You were the one that insisted that you don't need to learn anything to
> handle computers.
You don't and generally shouldn't if you want to be able to work
with a variety of machines and different versions of things. You
just need to know how to quickly find the details for the things
you may never have seen before. On unix-like boxes, the man
pages usually provide exactly that. On of the reasons I dislike
windows is that there is no equivalent, so for windows machines
you are probably right that you do have to learn a lot of stuff before
doing anything.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:14:26 +1300
> > > Create a shortcut with any command line flags you want in windows.
> > >
> > > Easy. Intuitive.
> >
> > Every script needs a shortcut? That's bad.
>
> Scripts don't NEED shortcuts.
No... you can always drop to the command line and invoke the script
interpreter manually. Not quite as useful as being able to attach the
command line to the file to be executed, is it?
> The shortcut feature is wonderful. It allows the logical grouping of
> executables and scripts and ducments.
Feel free to explain how creating a shortcut to one file helps you
'create a logical grouping' of many different types of file...
> So what do you do? Type ls at the comand prompt to search for you the script
> you want to run and then type in the name of the script with the command
> line switches every time?
No... were you not paying attention? The command line can go in the
script itself. The only command line arguments you would type would be
optional (ie: important to the operation you're trying to perform, such
as which file to operate on).
> Sounds down right archaic.
'archaic' is a relative term... in a few years, your windows GUI will be
labelled 'archaic' by people who still wont know any better.
Face it, the command line has its place... there are things you
absolutely CANNOT DO with a mouse pointer, unless you're willing to take
forty times longer to do your work. To label something so useful
'archaic' just shows your own ignorance.
Why do you suppose MS has finally come out with a telnet server?
Because the CLI is too valuable to lose.
> > > Put it on the desktop if you want.
> > > Or in the quick launch toolbar so its always visible.>
> > > In Win2k you can also set the security.
> >
> > Is there something unique here?
>
> Just explaining the wonderful qualities of Win2k.
These are the same 'wonderful qualities' I saw in NT4... I could have
shortcuts on my desktop and QL bar (with IE of course) with permissions
set on them...
> > Yech - you mean gunk shows up on your desktop whether you want
> > it or not?
>
> No. Usable programs show up for other users when Administrators want it too.
> Great feature. Doesn't Linux have that one? Pity.
Are you somehow trying to imply that linux isn't able to share apps
between multiple user accounts? Do you believe linux users reinstall
every piece of software for every new user?
> > > Powerful stuff.
> >
> > None of that needs special case handling under unix/linux.
>
> Features. Lots of features in Win2k. Great OS. Much more advanced than
> Linux!
Well fuck me! You've swayed me completely with that logical reasoning...
I see it all now! Win2k... great os, more advanced than linux! *slaps
forehead* Why didn't I see this before?
> How do you list them and find them? ls ? Slow and archaic. How do you group
> them logically by project or function and store them a different way?
ls, find, apropos, which. And combinations, but I guess combinations of
commands wont make a lot of sense to you.... it's a linux (rather,
unix) feature that 2k doesn't support so well.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:16:54 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > > You've a *lot* to learn before you can "make it up as you go along"
> > >
> > > Sometimes you need to know how to read a man page. Where do
> > > you find the equivalent concise, fairly complete reference for
> > > everything under windows without having to wade through an
> > > intermingled tutorial about all the stuff you don't want to change?
>
> windows' help, MS' MSDN, MS' knowledge base.
> Much deeper and complete than any documentation that I've seen for *nix.
You miss the point. I don't want a tutorial mixed with the concise
reference.
I want to see a tutorial once if at all, then I want it out of the way so
I can see nothing more or less than what the options are. You don't
read a man page to decide what you want to do, you read it to see how.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:17:06 +1300
> > and moreover it
> > is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > teach anything?
>
> Not to run attachments. A knew that a long time ago. Nothing to do with IE
> though.
Show me a machine without IE that's vulnerable to ILOVEYOU.
It may be OE that handles attachments, but it's the IE 'technology' that
allowed the problem in the first place. HTML-mail, followed by MS
insecure scripting languages in HTML, followed by a lot of surprised
people.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:18:37 +1300
> Have you seen the new OS X beta now that is easy, pretty, and more stable than
> Win2K even though its beta.
Be gentle... Win2k is still beta... they're only up to the first
service pack.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:25:12 +1000
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > and moreover it
> > > is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > > teach anything?
> >
> > Not to run attachments. A knew that a long time ago. Nothing to do with
IE
> > though.
>
> Show me a machine without IE that's vulnerable to ILOVEYOU.
> It may be OE that handles attachments, but it's the IE 'technology' that
> allowed the problem in the first place. HTML-mail, followed by MS
> insecure scripting languages in HTML, followed by a lot of surprised
> people.
ILOVEYOU has nothing whatsoever to do with either a) IE or b) HTML-mail.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:26:48 +1000
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:wh4P5.18400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > > > However, you save it to disk, and then what? The average user with
> > just
> > > > > double click it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Guess what? On unix programs don't execute unless you make them
> > > > executable. Somewhere not very far down this road, the user is
> > > > going to realize that they have a program, not a greeting card on
> > > > their hands.
> > >
> > > Explain to me how that feature would prevent the joe user from
infecting
> > > his system.
> >
> > The same way that painting lines down the middle of the road keeps
> > the cars from running into each other. You don't need a concrete
> > wall, you need something to point you in the right direction. If
> > you have to make something executable, you have a pretty good
> > idea that it is going to execute. If you 'open' something, you don't.
>
> You're saying someone who can't recognise an icon is going to understand
> what the command "chmod a+x filename" does ?
>
> I hope you're not trying to be serious.
>
> > > If he does have the knowledge to use such a feature effectively, then
he
> > > wouldn't really need the feature in the first place, because in
Windows,
> > > he would simply view the file with his favourite editor (not notepad
> > > because he's no longer a Joe user) by simply right clicking the file
and
> > > selecting to do so.
> > >
> > > If his ignorance remains as it is now, he'd simply make the file
> > > executable and go about the business of infecting his system. See? The
> > > problem remains between chair and keyboard. Neither Windows or Outlook
> > > are at fault here.
> >
> > First you think the people are too dumb to follow instructions. Now you
> > think someone can tell them a dozen steps to make a program run and
> > they will get them all right but not notice that this isn't the way they
> > usually read their mail.
>
> A dozen steps ? 5 I'd estimate - about the same it takes to save an
> attachment in outlook an execute it.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:36:18 -0600
http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
"Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
point"
Windows 2000 hasn't existed long enough to be on the list.
"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>
> Note that in this survey of the longest uptimes, every single one of
> them is running some form of Unix. Not even one single one is running
> any Microsoft OS, even Windows 2000, which ZDNet just stated is the
> best webserver of all in a recent issue.
> --
> Bob
> "Nigeria is a continent." "Trade with Mexico is not foreign trade."
> "Is our children learning?" People from Greece are called Grecians."
> "Social Security is not a federal program." George Bush, Einsteinian
> genius, ex-con, ex-cokehead, ex-adulterer, ex-drunk and popularly
> defeated Presidential candidate, demonstrating his stunning
> intellectual breadth and encyclopedic knowledge.
> Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:39:17 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uob8d$b8i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> : No, you are as far wrong about that as you have been about
> : everything else. I said the developers work on windows and
> : I do the linux stuff myself. Perhaps you were confused when I
> : said the CVS repository of their work resides on Linux. The
> : developers use wincvs or their native command line program
> : in client/server mode and don't know/care where the source
> : really is.
>
> Side note - something there caught my eye.
>
> Whoah - "wincvs"? That sounds like something I could use where
> I work. Is it some sort of windows CVS client? Does it have
> to use the client/server CVS technique or will it work writing
> directly to a CVS archive on a Samba share? For the windows
> projects up until now I've been asking people to transfer the
> code to one of the unix machines and run cvs from there to
> commit their work. It sounds like I don't have to do that
> if this wincvs thing is what it sounds like.
Yes, it is what you want it to be, and will work with shared drives
or client/server (client only, I think). There are the normal command
line tools that you can script in a build procedure and a GUI for
interactive use. One group here has gone to the extreme of committing
the compiler versions and other tools needed to build their product
over time, so you can start with a nearly bare machine with cvs installed
and tell it to build any revision from any point in time and it will
assemble
the right set of tools and source and do it. They also make a point of
building their final version on a different machine than initial development
with everything passed through cvs so they are sure they don't miss anything
necessary. Another group has used the same build machine for a couple
of years and thought they had everything committed but they lost a drive
recently and when they restored the data back in a slightly different place
they ended up having to hunt around for about a week to find all the
little scripts and batch files needed to make the build work. I think
they'll
go the same route when they get caught up again.
Anyway, see: http:/www.wincvs.org .
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
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: 14 Nov 2000 05:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curtis wrote:
>Les Mikesell wrote...
>> Every mailer that lets the attachment content execute it's choice of
>> interpreter whether it is a program known to be safe or not is broken.
>> That just happens to be the kind that Microsoft wrote.
>
>But how can that happen? Outlook opens the file using the default
>associated application as defined by the user of the system. The file
>cannot determine what opens it. That's ridiculous.
Just FYI, to some extent that is exactly how it works on the Mac.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 14 Nov 2000 05:42:44 GMT
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:43:45 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> I'm not "adding to it". I'm complaining about your conduct.
>
>Your right, you are NOT adding to the discution, you are whining. you
Call it what you like. I call it a legitimate complaint. Obnoxious
behaviour puts people off.
>Now as you can see I can be as insulting as you have been. now what is
>it with you that your refuse to discuse the topic?
Sorry, I can't parse that.
> Don't have anything
>positive to say, and the debate going a way you don't like and you can
I'd hardly call it a debate, it sounds more like a shouting match.
And I don't know where you come up with this nonsense about me
supposedly being on the "Windows" side of the debate. Look, unlike
you, I have contributed to Linux in a way that is independently verifiable.
Unlike you, my contributions have some substance. Acting like a clown on
COLA does not count as a "contribution".
All you've done is make Linux users look bad by conducting yourself in
a manner that is an embarrassment to the Linux community.
>not use any legitimate arguments so you throw personal insults?
Learn the difference between a "complaint" and an "insult".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:47:08 -0800
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > and moreover it
> > > is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > > teach anything?
> >
> > Not to run attachments. A knew that a long time ago. Nothing to do with
IE
> > though.
>
> Show me a machine without IE that's vulnerable to ILOVEYOU.
Show me a copy of Linux on the store shelves without a root exploit.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:47:08 -0600
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Recently, they decided it would be a great idea to take this smoothly
working
> setup and install Win2K as the web server in its place. I now had to
change
> my content in two ways:
>
> 1. My index.html page had to become default.htm (requiring changes in all
> of the sub-pages that link back to this page)
Not true. What the default html page is admin defineable. They could have
made your default page default.htm if you had asked them to.
> 2. All of the CGI stuff I was using had to be canned, rebuilt, or replaced
You'd have to do that if they moved to Solaris on an x86 box as well.
> If that was the extent of the trouble, it would have been inconvenient,
but
> tolerable, but it wasn't. Take a look now at where
> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com is now. Or even
> http://www.vintagegaming.com. Can't reach it, can you? It's been like
this
> on and off for 2 weeks. It has been down more than it has been up by a
ratio
> of 100:1.
Have you asked them why? Maybe they're having hardware troubles.
Doing a traceroute, I find that pings aren't getting outside of alternet.
It's dying even before it gets to the subnet that emuos2.vintagegaming.com
is on. Sounds like a network problem to me.
> Needless to say, I'm less than impressed.
Perhaps if you looked into things, you might find out what's wrong.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:52:31 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_Z1Q5.20438$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:jPWP5.126195$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > I don't think that relates to local delivery - even thousands of
local
> > > copies shouldn't be much of a problem on a machine designed for
> > > that many users.
> >
> > Nope. The problem definitely was local delivery. You put the staff of a
> > medium sized university onto 4 or 5 mailling lists of 300-800 each. If a
> hot
> > and heavy email discussion gets going it generates 20-50 messages a day
> > going out to all those users.
> >
> > Guess what. The Unix admins tell people to stop discussing. They tell
them
> > to use other methods.
>
> They have done something wrong then.
It helped convince me that Unix wasn't that useful.
>
> > Sendmail can't handle it.
>
> No, it is the particular machine configuration.
It is the design of the mail system.
>
> > > Does anyone run large lists on exchange?
> >
> > Writing to an optimized database is quicker.
> >
> Yes, I don't doubt that exchange can handle the
> local side of a list.
Yup.
> Can it manage a large
> remote list?
Most of the mail at large organizations is internal.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:55:54 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ouSP5.11882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I never said this. I was implying that this is how it's
> typically done. Most people don't need to use a raw partition because
> their FS is up to the performance job, however, with ext2, it's
> almost a necessity because it's so slow.
Don't be silly, it isn't slowness that is ever the problem with
databases on filesystems, it is the fact that good filesystems
like ext2 do read-ahead buffering to accelerate normal file
access. Databases have a very different access pattern than
normal files so the read-ahead is counterproductive. If NTFS
were well tuned for nomal files it would also be a bad place
to put a database.
> NT has, and always will have support for multiple platforms. Just because
> MS doesn't ship them, doesn't mean it's not there. You are smart enough
> to realize this, aren't you?
We are smart enough to realize that even MS has a limit to the number
of bugs it will try to sell - and that Intel bit/byte order is inherent and
documented in all the windows structures.
> NT has always had >2GB file support on every platform it's yet been
> ported to:
>
> IA32
> MIPS
> PPC
> ALPHA
> SPARC
OK, now let's talk about the real numbers. What percentage of
all Microsoft products (actual sales, not by product) support
>2G files?
> Linux, however, took the cheap route and only supports it on specific
> 64-bit platforms which illustrates the design brain power deficit.
>
> -Chad
And those other MS products? The ones nearly everyone is stuck with...
When
can we expect to see the free patch to fix their problems?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
