Linux-Advocacy Digest #242, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Relax")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Goldhammer)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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 21:17:29 -0500
Pascal Haakmat wrote...
[...]
> >The problem with guys like you is that you love to stand outside looking
> >in, and criticize how MS designs applications for ignorant users to
> >meaningfully use and still remain largely ignorant. Find any other
> >application so designed for ignorant users and you'll see similar
> >problems, yet these other apps are not written by MS. The usual silly
> >answer to this is that these developers outside MS are following the MS
> >way. The amusing part is that these very developers dislike MS. If you're
> >going to develop for the ignorant, these issues will come up. The
> >solution is to educate to avoid these problems. OS's and applications for
> >the computer wary will never have these problems.
>
> To some extent, yes. But then the OS must allow for the user to educate
> himself -- not put up huge warning signs that say "DO NOT ACCESS THIS
> DIRECTORY".
Yes, I find that very amusing in Win98. :-) They're taking this a step
way too far and are paying dearly for it in the long term. The ILOVEYOU
virus is one way. ;-(
> >It's quite amusing to watch the techies criticize and if one were to put
> >them in MS's place they'd be doing pretty much the same things to make
> >the ignorant, in the privacy of their homes and not offices with helpful
> >sysadmins hovering around, use their machines with minimal effort.
>
> Much of the ILOVEYOU press coverage focused on the monetary damage inflicted
> by the worm on BUSINESS. To me, that says that the system is vulnerable even
> with "helpful sysadmins hovering around".
Hmmm. I concede this point to an extent. I concede it to the extent that
Outlook should never be so configured in a corporate environment. It's
not necessary. :-) Sounds contrary to what I've been saying before but my
views on the whole thing are a bit complex. It may be convenient for you
to just think that I lie on the side of MS, but you should be now
realising that this is not so. I support some of what they do and I
understand their general intention which is sound. It's just that
mistakes are being made along the way secondary to oversites and taking
their development model of ease of use too far.
> In fact it could be argued that it was exactly in business environments that
> the ILOVEYOU worm flourished most, and not in the private home. After all,
> the address book at the office is likely to be larger than the address book
> at home.
Indeed. I really cannot defend Outlook for being configured that way in a
business environment.
> >> Just of the top of my head, I can identify three issues where Outlook's
> >> knowledge turns out to be simply inappropriate for the domain:
> >>
> >> 1. Quoting.
> >
> >What about quoting?
>
> Quoted text should not be wrapped. Only new text should be wrapped. When
> replying, Outlook wraps all text regardless. Also, the cursor is placed on
> top, where arguably it should be on the bottom.
Ah, I see what you mean. This is one of the main reasons why I stay away
from Outlook( Express)? and many other Windows based e-mail clients.
Eudora is another guilty of this nonsense.
> >> 2. TNEF attachments.
> >> 3. ILOVEYOU.
> >>
> >> The ILOVEYOU security hole was caused by three decisions on the part of
> >> Microsoft. First, the decision that open-is-execute. Second, the decision to
> >> hide a file's extension. Third, the decision to allow a script easy access
> >> to a user's address book. Combined, they allowed the creation of ILOVEYOU.
> >
> >Why? They cater to ignorant users that use their machines at home. It is
> >*you* who aren't familiar with that domain. MS has been dealing with that
> >domain for close to 10 years. Ignorant users in the privacy of their
> >homes, comprise a very different domain when compared to the same
> >ignorant users in a controlled corporate environment where their machines
> >are administered by competent sysadmins and where help is close by.
>
> Yet those controlled corporate environments fell prey to ILOVEYOU just like
> everybody else.
Pity. This shouldn't be the case. In a corporate environment, there's no
reason why these settings shouldn't be changed. If Outlook doesn't
provide a means to do so, then move to another MUA.
> >> The "success" of ILOVEYOU has very little to do with ignorant, stupid and
> >> complacent users, as you suggest.
> >
> >It has EVERYTHING to do with them.
> >
> >> In fact, very much the opposite. Clearly
> >> many of the targetted people were curious and inquisitive to know what was
> >> in the TEXT FILE entitled "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT", especially since it
> >> came from a KNOWN SENDER.
> >
> >But this is exactly the point.
>
> How can you fault a user for making the effort to open a TEXT FILE from a
> KNOWN SENDER?
If they're ignorant, I can't. :-) This is the inherent weakness of the
system designed to be used by the ignorant.
> How is this ignorant, stupid and complacent?
The file was not a text file. It was a .vbs file. It wouldn't be
associated with a text file icon. A knowledgeable user would see the
problem right away.
> Why is the fault
> not in the fact that the file appeared to be a text file, or in the fact
> that it came from a known sender,
This is by malicious design and cannot be faulted.
> or in the (apparently) vague wording of
> the warning message about executing attachments,
apparently vague to the ignorant.
> or in the fact that
> attachments can be executed at all?
Well, yes. This is a fault of course. This is the drawback on making
things easy.
> >> If Outlook had been written/reviewed by somebody with in-depth knowledge of
> >> the problem domain, then that somebody would probably have figured that the
> >> default settings conspired to form a security hole, and the product would
> >> never have shipped in it's original form.
> >
> >And how would they do that and not let the ignorant user become
> >frustrated and introducing extra learning and concepts to confuse the
> >user who apparently doesn't need to learn anything? I am yet to hear a
> >good *workable* solution to that from any of you during this discussion.
> >I keep hearing technocratic, competent user based solutions that simply
> >will not work in an ignorant *home user* setting. I'd sure love to hear
> >your brilliant solution.
>
> Just disable extension hiding and the ability to execute attachments. Why is
> that so hard? What do extension hiding and the ability to execute
> attachments add that make it so much easier for the home user?
I don't see the need for extension hiding. That's ridiculous.
If you disable the ability to execute attachments, it leaves the user the
work of executing it themselves. They'll have to learn what file types
are executed by which application/s on their system. They'll have to
learn how to go about executing the file after they have learnt which
applications do it.
> >What an obnoxious statement. :-) They're however, the successful ones,
> >while UNIX and like great professional OS's remain in the deep fringes. I
> >wonder why that is?
>
> Because the deep fringes are where it's at :)
I'm sure. :-)
There are deep fringes in the Windows world as well. :-) We're discussing
the bad parts and why they exist as they do today.
> >Answer ... [insert your conspiracy theory here, and never that MS
> >actually has good insight into what their users want and what they
> >respond to or prefer.]
>
> Well, you could say the same about Mac Donalds. Still I don't eat there
> often. I see no problem with that.
:-)
> >> Finally, it doesn't concern me that you do not think Outlook is the problem.
> >
> >I didn't expect you to.
> >
> >> What does concern me is that Microsoft issued updates to FIX the problem.
> >
> >That's an inevitable reaction on MS's part which should make them
> >realised that they cannot yield to the ignorant as they've been doing. It
> >has its repercussions. There's a subtle but fundamental difference in our
> >impression of Outlook and how it deals with attachments.
>
> Again, I fail to see the added value of hiding extensions and being able to
> execute attachments. I just don't recall ever receiving an executable
> attachment. As for extensions -- the Mac seems to do fine without them.
It avoids extra learning. See above.
> So I don't see how those features "yield to the ignorant". Hiding extensions
> just covers up some historically bad design, while being able to execute
> attachments is nothing but a marginally useful feature.
It's a very useful feature to the clueless.
> >If MS's mission is to make Outlook easy to use by ignorant novices
> >without them having to learn much then they're doing fine. The problem is
> >that security becomes an issue. MS is using the glitter on the surface
> >principle to lure users to their platform. The glitter is "you can use my
> >OS without learning any complicated stuff". However, what lies beneath is
> >poor security as a direct consequence.
> >
> >If MS's mission is to make Outlook secure to use, then the ignorant
> >novices have some learning to do. The two situations cannot and will not
> >ever exist for the foreseeable future. MS realized this all too long ago.
> >They also realize that people prefer not having to learn how to do
> >anything and to just do it. They realised that if they could improve on
> >ease of use they could lure users to their OS. This has been central to
> >their very successful development model.
>
> I'll concede that there is always some conflict of interest between
> ease-of-use and security. The problem with Microsoft's approach to
> ease-of-use is that it makes learning so difficult. They have created a
> system that is completely opaque.
It depends on how much one needs to learn in order for them to
competently do what they need to. I'm not a sysadmin nor a programmer. I
don't need to know more about Win9x/Me/2k than I already do at present.
It would be largely useless knowledge for me. Why do you find it so
difficult to see this. Most people don't need to be exposed to the
innards as you sysadmin types need to be. They are therefore not as
frustrated as you are with Windows. I use Win2k to run my apps. I know
how to get around it for my purposes and now spend most of my computing
time running apps and not trying to learn the inner workings of Win2k.
I've never had a problem learning anything I need to or want to and
believe me, I'm waaaay above average in terms of interest in learning my
OS as a non-techie.
> I do not agree with your contention that this is the inevitable consequence
> of making something easy to use. I think the Mac OS demonstrates pretty
> elegantly that this need not necessarily be the case (although it is also
> going that way).
You're darned right it's getting that way and for the same reasons I
outlined.
> Now, a completely opaque and tightly integrated system is fine, as long as
> it works. But computers simply have not reached that "utility" level yet,
> and I doubt if they ever will.
I agree completely.
> >Many of you skeptics choose to
> >credit their success to good advertising. Yes, it was important, I agree,
> >but ease of use and cost (Apples problem) were even more important.
>
> Just so you won't snip everything I've written :), let me state for the
> record that I think Microsoft's products are very good in very important
> ways, and that this has been a deciding factor in establishing it's dominant
> position.
>
> >> >Amazingly you're the same guys advocating that they use an OS like Linux.
> >> >Gee.
> >>
> >> I wonder what you'll snip this time.
> >
> >It's not the snipping that's the problem.
>
> Funny. :)
I never thought this type of exchange would happen in this advocacy group
after reading stuff from Kulkus and his ilk (what a guy). I enjoyed it
immensely and have learnt a lot from your ideas and opinions.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: 14 Nov 2000 20:29:13 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Jacques Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > 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"
> > >
> > > Not to worry, only a clerical mistake. Should be 29.52 days, a lunar
> > > month, but they got pi wrong: 4.1316 instead of 3.1416 (approx),
hence
> > > the 49.7 days. Hey, everyone can make mistakes! (How did they get a
> > > 49.7-day lunar month from pi = 4.1316? Search me. Probably another
> > > clerical mistake. Or two. Or three. Don't worry. A service pack will
fix
> > > it in the more or less distant future, if you live that long)
> >
> > Here's where 49.7 comes from:
> >
> > Largest unsigned 32-bit integer = 4294967296
> >
> > The uptime counter is an unsigned long integer measuring the
> > milliseconds of uptime.
> >
> > So 4294967296 milliseconds is 4294967.296 seconds.
> >
> > 4294967.296 / (60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day)
> > = 49.7 days
The 49.7 days issue it true if you use GetTickCount(), however, the
documentation for this function clearly states:
"Windows NT/2000: To obtain the time elapsed since the computer was started,
retrieve the System Up Time counter in the performance data in the registry
key HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA. The value returned is an 8-byte value. For more
information, see Performance Monitoring"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:51:07 GMT
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:30:10 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Goldhammer wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:00:03 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
>> >a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
>> >compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
>> >are probably bad form anyway.
>> In comp.lang.c, the question "is C++ a superset of C" has been
>> discussed to death, and the result is a unanimous "no".
>> For more information, please check out some of the posts
>> by Kaz Kylheku on Deja, especially the thread with Bjarne.
>
>I have read them, and I have debated this issue. Still:
>
>#include <stdio.h>
>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>{
> printf ("Hello World\n");
>}
>
>Works in both environments. How is C++ NOT a superset of C? You say it
>isn't but offer no reason.
Actually, I didn't offer my own conclusion on the matter, rather,
I referred you to the writings of others.
>I do not know of a single important construct
>that is in C and not in C++. That seems like the perfect definition of
>"super set."
Perhaps. But for a long time, the statement "C++ is a superset of C"
led to the question: "what is C++?" After all, C is defined by
standards, and there were no equivalents for C++ until fairly
recently. If there was no standardized language definition for C++
then it seems strange to say that it is a superset of C... where
could it be shown that the C standards-specification is contained in
the standards-specification of C++? With the onset of standards for
C++, perhaps arguments of this nature can be made... Just a side
question here: does the C++ standard contain the complex data type?
>You speak of a "psychological perspective" and this is exactly what I
>mean, it isn't a reasonable choice,
I would tend to agree more if you phrased it as being an emotionally
influenced choice, or a choice based on preferences, based on
negative experiences in the past. We all react that way toward things
in life. But saying "it isn't a reasonable choice" sounds a bit odd.
>especially when you look at
>disasters like GTK where they attempt to write their own OO framework
>that could be much cleaner and more efficient if the got over their
>irrational hatred of C++.
I remember reading bits and pieces of a book on GTK programming.
The author mentioned the C vs C++ issue and gave his own explanation:
the guys involved in the early days of the project were just way more
comfortable programming in C. So it stuck, and things followed from
there.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:56:28 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First you have to figure out how to make wine work.
>
> claire
No, first YOU have to get a brain. Installing wine using rpm is trivially
simple.
Gary
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:00:40 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > I use Linux all the time, I think it is a great system. I maintain a
> > Windows box, but it is never used except as a TV or for Lego Mindstorms
> > for my son. At work, I am fortunate in that I can use Linux.
> >
> > The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is this sort of
> > emotional dislike for C++.
> >
> > I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
> > a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
> > compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
> > are probably bad form anyway.
> >
> > This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a software
> > engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue this point
> > many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make sure the
> > right decisions are made.
> >
> > Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
> > (excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> Easy. It isn't an emotional dislike. C++ just isn't suitable for the
> job. C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude (almost as slow as
> Java).
This is completely false, and its inaccuracy can be proven by comparing
the assembly language generated by both C and C++, you will see when
similar constructs are used, similar assembly is emitted.
> It is difficult to manage any sizable project in C++.
I find the opposite to be true.
> Multiple
> inheritance and friend functions are just two reasons.
In projects that I run, inheritance of multiple equi-leveled parents is
discouraged without damn good reasons. The only exceptions are code-only
classes which do not have any data.
> C++ is almost
> impossible to maintain.
Again, I have seen the opposite.
> C++ has all the weakness of C and none of its
> advantages.
What advantages does C have that C++ does not?
> I can think of any number of alternatives to both C and C++.
> But C does have the history behind it.
Alternatives to C++ are for alternative types of development.
It is your sentiment and opinions that I find curious, what makes you
think C++ is any slower than C doing the same things? It is not based on
any facts that I have ever seen, and even the casual developer can prove
that this is not true by dumping out the assembly code.
Why is C++ any harder to manage than C?
Object oriented development has its own challenges, but makes large
projects easier to manage if designed correctly, but that isn't strictly
a C++ issue.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:09:34 -0500
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:30:10 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Goldhammer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:00:03 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
> >> >a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
> >> >compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
> >> >are probably bad form anyway.
>
> >> In comp.lang.c, the question "is C++ a superset of C" has been
> >> discussed to death, and the result is a unanimous "no".
> >> For more information, please check out some of the posts
> >> by Kaz Kylheku on Deja, especially the thread with Bjarne.
> >
> >I have read them, and I have debated this issue. Still:
> >
> >#include <stdio.h>
> >int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >{
> > printf ("Hello World\n");
> >}
> >
> >Works in both environments. How is C++ NOT a superset of C? You say it
> >isn't but offer no reason.
>
> Actually, I didn't offer my own conclusion on the matter, rather,
> I referred you to the writings of others.
I have read the writings of others, and seldom do they make a good
point. I started this thread to hear/debate opinions.
>
> >I do not know of a single important construct
> >that is in C and not in C++. That seems like the perfect definition of
> >"super set."
>
> Perhaps. But for a long time, the statement "C++ is a superset of C"
> led to the question: "what is C++?" After all, C is defined by
> standards, and there were no equivalents for C++ until fairly
> recently.
C was not standardized until ANSI. I programmed on K&R C, and remember
the phobia started by ANSI standardization.
> If there was no standardized language definition for C++
> then it seems strange to say that it is a superset of C... where
> could it be shown that the C standards-specification is contained in
> the standards-specification of C++?
Do you know of any significant difference in the implementation of C
constructs in C++? There aren't any. There is more difference in C
implementations across platforms than there is C/C++ by the same vendor.
> With the onset of standards for
> C++, perhaps arguments of this nature can be made... Just a side
> question here: does the C++ standard contain the complex data type?
Does C? Is it important?
>
> >You speak of a "psychological perspective" and this is exactly what I
> >mean, it isn't a reasonable choice,
>
> I would tend to agree more if you phrased it as being an emotionally
> influenced choice, or a choice based on preferences, based on
> negative experiences in the past. We all react that way toward things
> in life. But saying "it isn't a reasonable choice" sounds a bit odd.
By "reasonable" I arrived at by reason, not emotions.
>
> >especially when you look at
> >disasters like GTK where they attempt to write their own OO framework
> >that could be much cleaner and more efficient if the got over their
> >irrational hatred of C++.
>
> I remember reading bits and pieces of a book on GTK programming.
> The author mentioned the C vs C++ issue and gave his own explanation:
> the guys involved in the early days of the project were just way more
> comfortable programming in C. So it stuck, and things followed from
> there.
And it is the worse for it.
>
> --
> Don't think you are. Know you are.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:08:27 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So how about addressing the original topic was "same old Linux". How
> come the same problems keep coming up over and over again despite
> Linux versions changing faster than Windows?
>
> If you look back a year or more ago you will see the exact same
> questions being asked in the Linux groups and they are not fundamental
> questions that may or may not just be difficult concepts, like fdisk
> (Windows or Linux) or CDROM mounting or permissions. They are basic
> install and operating problems like :
>
> 1. Why doesn't my modem (scanner, printer, wheelmouse, video, audio
> etc) work with Linux?
>
Because your an idiot. My modem works fine. Even my winmodem works
fine. I recently picked up an Epson 880 printer for $150. It works
perfectly on Linux. And color photographs come out looking better when
printed using gimp on Linux than from Windows. I don't have a wheelmouse,
but I have heard many people say that they are quite easy to get working on
Linux. Audio works fine for me - on every machine I have installed,
including a couple of different models of thinkpads, an aptiva, and
netfinity. scanners - plenty are available that work with Linux. You can
get cameras that work fine with Linux..
>
> 2. How come PPP is always timing out?
>
Mine works fine. Did you ever try adjusting the timeout value? It's right
there in the kppp setup menus. Some ISPs take a while to respond.
>
> 3. Why can't I connect to my isp?
>
> And so forth.
>
Because ppp timed out because you didn't configure kppp properly.
>
> Why does that guy whose plight I posted have to go through all of that
> crap to get his mouse to work? And for those of you who made it work
> why not give him some help. Why doesn't a Token Ring card work in my
> IBM Laptop?
I have never had any trouble with mice on Linux. Plug it in and it works.
What token ring card? Is it a pcmcia card or internal?
>
> Why is everything seem like such a pita running Linux?
>
Only for you.
>
> It's the same old Linux from an end users point of view.
>
No, it's the same old story for you because you are an idiot.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
