Linux-Advocacy Digest #224, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity ("Bennetts family")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 05:57:34 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:uO2Q5.126335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > and moreover it
> > is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > teach anything?
>
> Not to run attachments. A knew that a long time ago. Nothing to do with IE
> though.
Isn't it still impossible to completely turn off active-x in IE?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:05:30 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9mWP5.126188$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
> > > >
> >
> > Where does it say that what it considers as a transaction includes the
> > data? I question this because I have seen other sources that said it
> > didn't.
>
> When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and undo
> information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information
allows
> NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if
necessary),
> and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
>
You are extremely gullible if you take that statement as saying that the
data is considered part of the transaction. I always assume the worst
out of habit when I see any such omission of details in a warm-fuzzy
description, especially from a certain large company, but I see someone
else posted the link to the admission that it doesn't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:07:39 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8up7c5$494$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, that's even worse then. A known kernel exploit exists and
> nothing is
> > done to patch it?
>
> No sendmail? no need! no remote access? no need! No compiler or file
> transfer capability? no need! The ability to exploit the hole is
> criticle and a point that you seem to miss over and over!
You're not listening. No official kernel patch exists for this supposed
kernel exploit, that means that Linus, Alan, et al are ignoring this serious
problem that effects anyone running a Linux kernel with sendmail. Why is
that? Perhaps because it's not, in fact, a kernel exploit.
In your zeal to say the opposite of whatever I say, you are missing the
content of the message.
Note, that I qualified my statement below as talking about official kernel
patches, yet you ignored this.
> > I searched Alan Cox's official kernel patches, and not a single
> mention is
> > made of this sendmail kernel exploit you claim. It doesn't exist in
> an
> > official patch, thus it must not be a real problem that the kernel
> > developers would take notice of. Since you claim the patch exists,
> why not
> > just provide a link to it. I don't believe that it is a kernel patch.
> > > You do not know that!!!!! Pure speculation!!!
> >
> > And you don't know that they do. It's pure speculation on your part
> as
> > well.
>
> The point is that you claimed that the record setting sites could not
> possibly be secure because they have been up so long.
No, I didn't. I said, and I quote:
"Sounds like a bunch of servers with security holes". That's not claiming
anything is impossible. That's simply saying "It sounds like..."
In your zeal to prove me wrong, you lie about what I said.
> I do not need to
> prove that they are actualy behind a firewall to prove that they can be
> secure even though they have been up for over 2 years. You have not yet
> proven *YOUR* claim that they can not be secured!!!!! The exploit you
> pointed out and the send mail bug can all be secured against without
> rebooting the system!
I didn't say they couldn't be. Stop lying.
> > I have no trouble believing that intel uses an advanced firewall, but
> > www.linux.de? I doubt it. Zope.org? Probably not.
>
> Any proof???????? or is this just more of you personal opinion????? why
> can't you ever backup what you claim?????
Look at the sites. They are not exactly swimming in money, and advanced
firewall hardware is very expensive.
I won't even go any further in this message because your argument is based
on the false claim that I said it was impossible to secure them. It's not
impossible. It's just not probable that most of those Linux sites are.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:41:02 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jerry McBride
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:21:28 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In article <8ubd0s$2ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:vE3O5.14127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >>> You haven't been paying attention. Linux with the 2.4 kernel has
> >>> won the latest tests, even that particular one contrived to exploit
> >>> the earlier weakness so there would be *some* contest that
> >>> NT could win.
> >>
> >>Beta yet, right?
> >>Enough said.
> >>No enterprise bussiness would put a beta product on an enterprise product
> >>machine.
> >>
> >
> >Odd you said that... they do it with WINDOWS... all the time...
> >
> >Windows, the evolving API... a moving target... never cast in stone...
>
> This may not be such a bad thing ... as long as it's well documented.
> (With Windows, that might be the problem.... :-) )
No other organization (be it corporate, or OSS community, etc) has
any documentation that rivals the thoroughness, navigability, timeliness,
and accuracy of msdn.microsoft.com. Any API changes (which are usually
extensions, not modifications to base API calls) are thoroughly documented
and are referenced to from the original API calls.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:44:15 GMT
"! !" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8up5m1$i8c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8uh91v$8mi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > : "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > : news:8zPO5.72271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > :> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:33:02 GMT,
> >> > :> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > :>
> >> > :>
> >> > :> >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
> >> > :> >techniques or special filesystems.
> >> > :>
> >> > :>
> >> > :> That is quite nonsensical.
> >> >
> >> > : How so? How do you get >2GB databases with Oracle on Linux?
> >> >
> >> > : Some here, from your camp, reported that Oracle uses a special
filesystem
> >> > : to deal with the discrepancy.
> >> >
> >> > You are either ignorant or lying when you claim a 2GB limit is the
> >> > reason for the use of the 'special filesystem'. Performance
> >> > is the reason for assigning a raw partition to oracle's use.
> >> > (And it's not a "filesystem" - Oracle just uses the partition
> >> > as raw blocks of bytes because that's faster than going through
> >> > an unneccessary filesystem layer (Since all Oracle wants to do
> >> > is have a huge array of bytes of permanent store, the indirection
> >> > of a filesystem is just fluff.) Even with access to a filesystem
> >> > that can make one file larger than 2GB, oracle setup guides *still*
> >> > reccomend that you use some raw partitions for oracle, for PERFORMANCE.
> >>
> >> Of course they do because ext2's performance sucks. However, on NT,
>
> > It's recommended on EVERY platform, dumbshit.
>
> Chad doesnt know this, because chad is faking his experience again. He
actually
> had no DB experience to speak of, no linux or unix experience to speak of, and
> only understands windows in the most rudimentary fashion.
Well, I've worked for two companies now that have used Oracle and in both
companies they have had long-standing and trained Oracle DBAs that did not
use the raw partition either on Solaris or NT when they installed it. We
rarely, if ever had problems (with uptime, at least, aside from the crappiness
of the Oracle product in general) with these database and performance was
good.
Please cite cases where raw partitions are the norm and that using the
filesystem is a rarity, as you claim.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:49:12 GMT
"!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8up4ar$dm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8unv68$ar4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> : Chad Myers wrote:
> >> :>
> >> :> "Andrew Suprun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> :> news:8MmO5.20966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> :> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ayende Rahien) wrote in
> >> :> > <8ubtp8$9cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> :> >
> >> :> > >> Microsoft: "MSDE doesn't limit the number of users who can connect
to
> >> :> > >> its database, but it is optimized for five users. For a larger
numbers
> >> :> > >> of users, you should use SQL Server 7.0."
> >> :> > >
> >> :> > >Not so.
> >> :> > >It's installed optimized for 5 users, there is nothing to prevent you
> >> :> > >from re-optimzing it to much larger numbers of users.
> >> :> >
> >> :> > MS Access is open sourced already?
> >> :>
> >> :> Contrary to popular Linux belief, not everyone is a C programmer.
> >> :>
> >>
> >> : And the point of you're repeating this old bromide is??????
> >>
> >>
> >> : clue for the fucking clueless
> >>
> >> : it doesn't matter if *you* personally know C or not...
> >> : as long as a large group of people who *do* can review it,
> >> : and you are able to hear/read their evaluation.
> >>
> >> Chad's view is like saying that you don't care whether or not
> >> your car's technical manuals are available to the public. After
> >> all, *you* don't know what to do with those manuals, so obviously
> >> it doesn't matter if they are out there. This naive viewpoint
> >> ignores the fact that it's kinda nice that your *mechanic* can
> >> get access to those manuals.
>
>
> > Mechanics have access to much more technical and accurate documentation.
> > The manual becomes irrelevant.
>
> > Developers get along just find without having the source to Access. People
> > have become very productive with Microsoft tools without requiring
> > the source. People can optimize, configure, and tweak the applications
> > to their specifications without the source because the software is
> > well designed in the first place, making having the source available
> > irrelevant.
>
> My god chad, youre the biggest fucking idiot ive ever seen in my entire
> life, dresden black included.
> Everything youve just typed is *completely* wrong. You'd realize it was
> wrong if you had any actual programming experience.
No it's not, and the reason you're in my killfile is because you don't
ever even ATTEMPT to make factual, or argumentative statements, you are
content to personally attack your opponents and then make wildly inaccurate
statements completely devoid of any technical explanation.
Why am I wrong? How do you know that I don't have any programming experience?
You make no attempt to debate the facts I've stated, even the obvious ones
like "people get along just fine without the source to Access", you are
content to call me a "fucking idiot".
> Sorry about jumping out of your killfile there, pal. Someone had to
> say it.
Welcome back to my killfile, "fucking idiot"
I hope the folks in COLA see you for what you are and denounce you as
one of the idiotic minority that plague their, and our groups.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:55:26 GMT
"Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8up2jl$7hq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> yadda") is that it is very hard for third parties to identify bugs
> >> without access to source.
> > This is a false presumption. People are finding bugs at a rate almost
> > as frequent as Linux, although it's waning now in the past few months.
> I happen to know there are people who routinely walk on the rope as a
> show in circuses. Still, the action can be considered very hard.
>
> > Ah yes, the old "Linux is just a kernel" copout. I'm sick of you guys
> > changing the goal line when it suits your purposes.
>
> - Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
> - Erm ... you know ... that question has builtin false assumptions ...
> - Stop changing the topic, we're talking about human freedoms here!
You realize your statements are false, your arguments are baseless, and
your conjectures devoid of reason, the only way you can see to "win"
a debate is by changing the target and subject so as to make your
opponent look wrong.
When it serves your purposes, Linux is a unified and singular term,
when it doesn't serve your purposes, Linux is this multi-headed beast
with each head doing something completely different from the rest.
When you're interested in being adult about this and debating on
the merits of Linux as a whole (not the minute changes from one
distro to the next) please come back. Until then, please direct
all your posts to alt.child.psychology
Your initial claims are false, regardless of what trickery you
wish to pull to seek your ends.
People are able to find holes in MS software just as easy as without
the source. Many more people look at MS software than do Linux and
many do so with malice towards MS. If _THEY_ can't find many holes,
then many holes do not exists. There are several security firms
which MS has hired who have full access to the source and have
find only a few security holes.
There are many people with access to the Linux source, yet holes
are still found and are being exploited.
Your statements are not backed by commonly obtainable facts, nor
be reason itself.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 02:59:32 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8up1nu$2dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >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?
>
> Since MS has a total monopoly on NT (obviously), what exactly is the
> difference between "MS doesn't ship them" and "it's not there" ?
I never said that "it's not there", nor did anyone else.
Claims were made that somehow because NT isn't shipping, in a box,
for PPC, that somehow NT doesn't support it or the technology isn't
there.
I think any intelligent person (yourself included) would reasonably
conclude that NT certainly has the ABILITY and the TECHNOLOGY to
run on those platforms, or most any other, it's just that MS doesn't
have a financial incentive to do so.
I was merely combating the unintelligent claims that somehow because
MS isn't shipping them, that NT has lost this ability.
> There are older systems out there running NT on non-x86 platforms,
> but for all practical purposes (such as setting up a new system),
> NT is x86-only.
But that doesn't mean that NT could only run on x86, wouldn't
you agree?
>
> >
> >NT has always had >2GB file support on every platform it's yet been
> >ported to:
> >
> >IA32
> >MIPS
> >PPC
> >ALPHA
> >SPARC
>
> I did not know that MS ever got NT running on a SPARC.
During internal tests. This is according to Dave Cutler who is most
likely a trustworthy source.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:09:38 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uqcdh$448$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:10:35 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
> >
> > >> I don't consider adding to a glorified pissing contest to be a
> > >meaningful
> > >> or valuable exercise.
> > >
> > >
> > >then why did you do it?????
> >
> > 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
> are doning NOTHING BUT INSULTING PEOPLE!!! JUST BECAUSE THEY USE CAPS...
> WHAT ARE YOU YOU GOING TO WHINE ABOUT NEXT? SOME ONE DOES NOT USED MORE
> THAN THREE PERIODS FOR A CONTINUANCE.......?????? HMMMM LITTLE BOY
> DIDN"T YOUR MOTHER TEACH YOU HOW TO PLAY NICE?????
Kind of makes all that effort worthwhile when you get thanks like this, Eh
Donnovan?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:11:41 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Every machine I have worked on for the last several years has been
> keep powered up continously for years, unless there was a failure
> on the motherboard.
Wow. Every machine you've ever worked on has been continuously powered up
for years. That's amazing. You not only completely beat out every
statistic known to man, but have never applied a kernel patch either. Ever.
Now we know what kind of an engineer you are. One that has never done his
job.
------------------------------
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 22:12:20 -0800
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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.
Or write a BAT or CMD file. Or a WSH script.
> Not quite as useful as being able to attach the
> command line to the file to be executed, is it?
Thats called a shortcut. Flexible enough to attach any number of command
line switches to the same executable if you want to.
>
> > 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...
Lets say you have a project that requires the same scripts or executables to
be used. Create shortcuts to each and drop them in a folder. Use the Task
bar to make that folder a new toolbar so all the scripts or executables are
a click away.
Then there is no need to drop to the command line from the gui.
Much nicer than use ls to find your script in Linux/Unix.
>
>
> > 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.
So you have the same command line for the script? What happens if you want
to run the script with different options and save those options? Do you have
to have the full script for option? Sounds awkward.
A shortcut is perfect for that. You can have a shortcut for each way of
calling the script.
Or you can use WSH to prompt for the options you need.
Linux sounds kind of awkward to use.
> 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).
Oh. In Windows we can make a shortcut for each different scenario and point
at the same executable or script. It's nice to automate your options.
Too bad for Linux.
>
>
> > 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.
You are right. They will be using Blackcomb or .NET.
>
> 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.
I label it archaic out of knowledge. I found Unix to be archaic when I had
to use it. Besides, if I want to script and command line, I prefer DCL on
VMS. Now thats an OS. Much securer than Linux too.
I even used to program in TPU. Once upon a time I liked to program my own
editor.
>
> Why do you suppose MS has finally come out with a telnet server?
So Unix/Linux users can be converted to the darkside Luke.
> Because the CLI is too valuable to lose.
It never went away in WinNT or Win2K.
>
>
> > > > 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...
Yup. The quick launch toolbar and toolbars based on any folder I choose.
Love it.
>
>
> > > 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?
Can it?
> Do you believe linux users reinstall
> every piece of software for every new user?
Don't they?
>
>
> > > > 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?
I love it when someone sees the light. :)
>
>
> > 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.
If I wanted Linux on Win2K I'd buy the Unix add-on. Hell, I can even get
DCl-lite for Win2k if I want.
Can you do VMS emulation on Linux?
I know that KDE and Gnome are attempts at Windows emulation.
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:16:08 +1100
"mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:w32Q5.195570$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A Microsoft exec dubs Windows 2000
> "the most important computer program in the history of humanity"
> (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2000/nf20001113_046.htm)
>
> Although this strikes me as ridiculous and somewhat offensive, I can't
> think of any other computer programs that really deserve the title,
either.
A few weakish suggestions: Lotus 123, Wordstar, Mosiac.
--Chris
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:20:47 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:C1XP5.126203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > I chose one with a much better record than anything from Redmond.
>
> No you didn't. You chose Linux. Root exploits discovered every few days.
And fixed, unlike your favorite system where someone else may have
discovered admin exploits and still be using them.
> > You
> > can make up any contrived numbers you want by including the zillion
> > apps in a typical Linux distribution
>
> Yup. The "typical Linux distribution" the average home user buys has been
> sitting on the shelf for months. It's problably got 30 or 40 root exploit
> fixes pending that might or might not have fixes on the RedHat site (or
> whoever). Maybe 50 or 60 or 70.
No, the average home user is probably still running that paragon
of security, Win95. RedHat users, on the other hand, have
no reason not to pick up the very latest copy. Note that only
the x.0 versions have many update rpms, and either you need
a course in remedial counting or you have counted the improvement
rpms along with the bugfixes.
> Many many root exploits. You can check if interested.
Not on my boxes.
> > while it is months between service pack releases;
>
> Which collects any fixes between Sp's. But the fixes are there if you want
> to apply them.
But how long has someone else known about the problem before you
can get the fix?
> > meanwhile
> > somebody knows what brokenness they fix but you don't.
>
> Sure I do. Windows Critical Update is a service that tells me if I need to
> fix something. It doesn't happen very often. But when it does, I can go to
> the Microsoft site and download it.
They tell you what Microsoft wants you to know.
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
******************************
