Linux-Advocacy Digest #225, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Marty)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Marty)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Marty)
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Bruce Schuck")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 06:35:38 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KCWP5.126190$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > NT 4.0 was great when it came out. And with SP6 it is pretty stable.
> Win2K
> > > is a lot better.
> >
> > You wouldn't say that if you ever tried to keep one running before sp3.
>
> I had no problem keeping an NT Server running from the beginning.
Then you had a very quiet network. No one else could.
> > Note
> > that current is sp6a and win2k needs sp1.
>
> All operating systems have updates and service packs -- although Linux
leads
> them all in root vulerabilities.
Semantics - NT leads in administrator vulnerabilities.
> > If the real thing would ever catch up to the promises it might be.
>
> WinNT was a very good OS. Win2K is a great OS. Isn't life grand when the
> tools we use get better?
But, if you had started from unix, going there would be getting worse.
> > > I try not compare Win2K to Linux circa 1995, but the Penguinistas love
> to
> > > compare Linux 2000 (wherever it is) to Win3.1 or Win 95 Or NT 4.0 SP
0.
> >
> > For good reason. If you bought Win3.1 and wanted something that worked
> > you would have been told to buy Win95, then 98, then ME, or
alternatively
> > NT 3.5, then 4.0, and then Win2k and you would still be trying.
>
> Total nonsense. They were all tools that were really useful at their time
> and kept getting better. Isn't is grand?
No, the people who have had to work around all their problems have
had a horrible time of it. Win2k appears to be somewhat usable but
it still doesn't mesh with network standards.
> I know the Penguinistas love to live in the past as if Windows should be
> stationary target so they can catch up even if kernet releases are now 2
> years apart.
Unix had things right a long time ago. Tuning for efficiency and adding
some oddball device drivers has been all it has needed for the last several
years.
> > With Linux, you could have started in 1993 or 4 and downloaded all the
> > updates free all the way to the current version.
>
> Linux is still a piece of crap in so many ways. And it was totally useless
> for most of its history.
That's really funny coming from a Microsoft shill. You should
dig up some of the old stuff that company actually sold to people and
try to run it.
> Win2K kicks 2.2's ass.
A match at best. I've had to reboot them all to put in sp1, where
the Linux boxes are still running.
> And 2.4 *might* be out for a month or 2 before
> Whistler. Very few home users would choose Linux over Whistler.
This is all a matter of apps and there are way more included with
Linux distributions - and now good enough to be all you need.
> > but you have to pay for it all
> > over again
>
> Chump change -for the great features and reliability -- if you upgrade.
Well, if you got reliability.
> > and if you need the advanced server it is pretty expensive.
>
> Not compared to the cost of the hardware you would run it on.
About equal - so double your cost of a Linux installation.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:35:58 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Very hard to make bindings to languages other than C++.
> Not true.
>
> extern "C" function(....)
True, but that may not be the point. Ie, if the interface is in C,
then it doesn't matter if the actual implementation is in C++ or
Fortran or something else. When people say "I wish this library was
in C++" they usually mean they want the library interface is in C++,
not implemented in C++ with an `extern "C"' interface.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:35:42 GMT
Bob Lyday wrote:
>
> Jacques Guy wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> >
> > > Allow me to interject some personal experience.
> > >
> > > My OS/2 emulation web site is hosted by the kind folks at VintageGaming.com.
> > > They gave me unlimited space and my own domain name. They were running on a
> > > reliable old Solaris box which never gave me one ounce of trouble.
> > >
> > > 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)
> > > 2. All of the CGI stuff I was using had to be canned, rebuilt, or replaced
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I tried both URLs and, in both cases, I got timed out.
>
> Me too. There was also a chart on the same site showing how Starbucks
> was rebooting its NT server on a daily basis. Just think how much
> money you would have lost if you were a business, Marty.
I'd rather not. ;-)
The downtime was bad enough that the owners of the more popular pages on the
site have banded together and launched a law suit against the maintainer of
the boxes. The web site is non-profit, but made some decent money through
advertising that they haven't been getting for weeks now.
------------------------------
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 22:42:56 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iv4Q5.20464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:uO2Q5.126335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > > and moreover it
> > > is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > > teach anything?
> >
> > Not to run attachments. A knew that a long time ago. Nothing to do with
IE
> > though.
>
> Isn't it still impossible to completely turn off active-x in IE?
Of course it's possible. And easy. And you can turn it on and off for
trusted/untrusted sites so you can leave it on for internal corporate sites
and turn it off for all others.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 14 Nov 2000 06:41:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "! !" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8up5m1$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.
Either these 'oracle DBAs' didnt know what the hell they were doing, or
you're lying
> Please cite cases where raw partitions are the norm and that using the
> filesystem is a rarity, as you claim.
Pretty much all of them, chad.
No need to reply to this post, you know im right, I know you're wrong.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 06:42:54 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Dw2Q5.126330$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Like UNIX, Windows supports the concept of raw files, which are basically
> unformatted disk partitions that can be used as one large file. Raw files
> have the benefit of no file system overhead, since they are unformatted
> partitions. As a result, using raw files for database or log files can
have
> a slight performance gain. However, the downside to using raw files is
> manageability since standard Windows commands do not support manipulating
or
> backing up raw files. As a result, raw files are generally used only by
very
> high-end installations and by Oracle Parallel Server, where they are
> required.
Do people use Oracle in situations where they don't want a 'high-end'
installation?
> On the other hand, Oracle on NT has advantages:
But none of the things you listed were NT specific.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 06:45:04 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > What does that have to do with exchange? I'm talking about having
> > exchange deliver a single message with 10,000 remote addresses
> > by itself - fairly often. Sendmail can do that although it appreciates
> > having a front end chunk the list up first so some deliveries will run
> > in parallel.
>
> SMTP Server is a SMTP server that comes with IIS.
> If it can handle this, I assume exchange can too.
No, they would have nothing at all in common. SMTP is
a fairly lightweight operation and a server just needs to
know how to queue and retry. Exchange is a monster.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:46:29 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uo9tp$cva$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <g7IP5.19730$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The obvious way is to provide your own DNS, given that you have
> everything
> > you need and more than one machine. Make it primary for your own
> > domain (which can be made-up) and number ranges, and either a generic
> > caching nameserver or a slave to your ISP. If that seems too
> complicated
> > for 2 machines, put everything in /etc/hosts.
>
> Then there's the Windows way of doing it - the DNS is assigned to the
> Dialup entry setting, and not to the system. Windows used to do it the
> same way as Linux and made it hard to have two networks, but that was
> fixed a while ago.
>
> Now what was it I said, "Linux lags behind Windows"?
The windows way is the wrong way for more than a single machine.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:53:21 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EG2Q5.126332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > 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.
And likewise on windows. One of the zillions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS00-087.asp
>
> Because of the number of exploits I must assume that security is way down
> the list of projects that Linux programmers consider interesting.
Odd you think that when windows almost always tops the
bugtraq stats for exploits.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:53:17 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "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.
So it was the maintainer's ignorance that caused him to change from the
world-wide standard "index.html" to "default.htm"? If not, then why would the
default be set to something non-standard and conforming to 8.3 notation?
> > 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.
Right. But every page on the site had to do this, and what have we gained
from it?
> > 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.
I've discussed the situation with the owner of the most popular page on the
site. They are having software difficulties. The web site has been up with
Win2K and came down shortly thereafter. While it was up, I noticed less
throughput and my uploads for getting the site back online were slower than
usual, but I'm sure this will be dismissed as circumstantial.
> 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.
They've taken down the link to work on the box.
> > Needless to say, I'm less than impressed.
>
> Perhaps if you looked into things, you might find out what's wrong.
I figured that being in personal contact with the folks who are working
directly on the problems and the folks who are most affected by it would be
considered "looking into things". Aside from that, there's nothing I can do
because the box is offline.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:54:50 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> 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"
OS/2 has the same "feature". I've seen it happen several times on my own
system.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 06:59:36 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yQ1Q5.253$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> When it serves your purposes, Linux is a unified and singular term,
> when it doesn't serve your purposes, Linux is this multi-headed beast
> with each head doing something completely different from the rest.
>
> When you're interested in being adult about this and debating on
> the merits of Linux as a whole (not the minute changes from one
> distro to the next) please come back. Until then, please direct
> all your posts to alt.child.psychology
I'll play this game. Just as soon as you are willing to lump all
Microsoft products together as a whole. They are really all
the same aren't they?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your initial claims are false, regardless of what trickery you
> wish to pull to seek your ends.
>
> People are able to find holes in MS software just as easy as without
> the source. Many more people look at MS software than do Linux and
> many do so with malice towards MS. If _THEY_ can't find many holes,
> then many holes do not exists. There are several security firms
> which MS has hired who have full access to the source and have
> find only a few security holes.
>
> There are many people with access to the Linux source, yet holes
> are still found and are being exploited.
>
> Your statements are not backed by commonly obtainable facts, nor
> be reason itself.
>
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:03:12 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3R4Q5.20467$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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,
They are being found at the rate of 1 every 3 days (to use Redhat as an
example). So in the next year, approximately 120 will be found.
Those 120 already exist and have yet to be found.
> unlike your favorite system where someone else may have
> discovered admin exploits and still be using them.
Very unlikey. Root exploits are much rarer in Microsft OS.
>
> > > 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.
The latest copy in stores is 6.2. It's full of root exploits. Even if they
had found a copy of 7.0 it has had 10 security bugs so far since release.
The fixes aren't in the package on the shelves.
> 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.
Those update RPM's aren't in the box in the store.
And the average home user will not be downloading 30 RPM's for 6.2 even
though they should.
>
> > Many many root exploits. You can check if interested.
>
> Not on my boxes.
Since they get "discovered" at the rate of 1 every 3 days or so, dozens, if
not hundreds are already there. Someone has probably already dsicovered some
of them.
>
> > > 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?
Not very long at all. Windows holes get lots of immediate publicity.
>
> > > 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.
Ditto with RedHat. But there are less root exploits for Win2k to worry
about.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
