Linux-Advocacy Digest #679, Volume #30 Wed, 6 Dec 00 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS Installation Help? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Christmas Virus Warning (David Dorward)
Re: More money saved thanks to Linux ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS ("Dennis Popov")
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:39:18 -0600
<Doink> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:34:04 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How about setting your monitor refresh rate?
> >>
> >> Not even an option under MS LoseDOS, so why are you bringing this up?
> >
> >You're insane. Of course you can.
> >
> This isn't an option in the OS. It's an option if the Monitor maker
> allows the drivers to set the refresh. Has nothing to do with the OS.
You're also insane. You can tell Windows to show unsupported frequencies
and choose one at your own risk.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Installation Help?
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 06:45:05 GMT
An 80gig driver is only around $NZ1100 (around $US400).
kiwiunixman
JM wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:48:42 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
>> I'm expecting to get a new hard drive in the next few weeks :) Let's
>> say it's an 80 gig drive.
>
>
> Jesus Christ! How much is that going to cost?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:54:54 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >That is what mlw originally specified.
> >>
> >> Only because that's the only possible way to do it in Windows.
> >
> >Not true.
>
> A protestation does not an argument make.
I already stated specifically how you disable TCP/IP in NT4 without
rebooting, I don't have to say it again.
> [...]
> >> Now go back and reboot, even though they work. They won't work,
because
> >> its disabled, of course. Turn them back on. They won't work, until
you
> >> reboot.
> >
> >Not true. I tested what I said before I posted it. You do *NOT* have to
> >reboot. Do it yourself if you don't believe me.
>
> You don't have to reboot to enable TCP/IP, even though it wasn't enabled
> when you booted on any interface? Somehow, I don't believe you, but you
> might actually be right. Try one more time. _No_ TCP/IP at all
> installed, and then you add the TCP/IP protocol and assign an address to
> an existing adapter. It works, without rebooting?
Read what I wrote again. That is not what I said, nor was it what you
claimed.
Here it is again, in case you forgot:
>Same with NT. Under NT4, for instance, right click on Network
Neighborhood,
>choose properties. Select the Bindings tab. choose All Protocols from the
>Show Bindings for dropdown. Click on TCP/IP and choose Disable. Choose
Ok.
>It will rebind the protocols and ask you to reboot, however you don't have
>to (this is a long standing bug. NT asks you to reboot, but in almost all
>cases it's not necessary). Check your TCP connections, they no longer
work.
>Go back in and reenable TCP/IP, still without rebooting and they work
again.
We are talking about disabling TCP/IP on NT4 without removing it and without
rebooting, both which you claim cannot be done. I just explained
specfically how it is done, and how to prove it to yourself that it does in
fact work.
> >> The "bug", unbeknownst to Erik, is that they don't require the reboot,
> >> not that they put the window up saying they do. Imagine the hell your
> >> apps will have trying to figure out what's not working, when the TCP/IP
> >> connection has been disabled, but not removed. Being disabled but not
> >> removed, after all, isn't a state that the OS recognizes. As indicated
> >> by the fact that you need to reboot to turn it back on, _unless you
> >> haven't rebooted yet_.
> >
> >You do *NOT* have to reboot to turn it back on. I stated so
specifically,
> >and I've tested it before saying it.
>
> I think you missed what I wrote. Try to read it twice if you're
> confused. Reboot *first*, with TCP/IP removed. And *then* add TCP/IP,
> and assign an address to a card. See if it works.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about disabling a
running TCP/IP stack in NT4 without remove it or rebooting.
> >You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> No, I don't know precisely what you're talking about, because you don't.
> Once you can clearly elucidate what you've done, which isn't simply not
> having to reboot to turn it back on, then we'll both know what you're
> talking about when you tell me it works.
I already stated precisely what i'm talking about. You snipped context and
then conveniently "forgot" it.
> It just might; the DLLs are
> already there, supposedly they may be loaded, even though there is no
> TCP/IP 'installed', so that when you re-install it, it really only
> enables what's already there, and it might very well work without
> rebooting. But that would have to make sense, and Windows doesn't
> always, or very nearly ever, make sense.
One more time. Here is the sequence of events:
mlw says: You can't remove TCP/IP in NT without rebooting.
I say: You can't do that in Linux either. You have to reboot Windows NT to
remove TCP/IP.
you say: Because that's the only way to disable TCP/IP in NT.
I say: Yes you can just disable it if you like, and explain how.
you say: you're wrong, you have to reboot or you can't reenable it and will
get weird errors.
I say: That's not true, you can disable it and reenable it all without
rebooting and that I tested, inviting you to test it as well.
you then come back and try to claim that this has something to do with
installing TCP/IP. You're off your rocker.
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Christmas Virus Warning
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 07:00:23 +0000
Nigel wrote:
> Our IT dept. have received a Virus warning this morning.The virus
> appears as a file attachment called Navidad which is part of an
> e-christmas card.
> If you receive such an e-mail please do not open it!
Why? Does it affect Linux users?! :)
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More money saved thanks to Linux
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 07:08:10 GMT
No more rubbish than the spin-doctor material that the naive mass's soak in
everytime Microsoft releases an "enhanced version of Windows".
kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:41:03 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >yeap, Linux saves money!
> >
> >
> >http://www.slashtco.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/01/1142208
>
>
> A perfect match made in heaven, Linux and a bunch of eggheads. I'll
> bet they have kernel compiling parties where they get together and sip
> fine wine while they watch the compilation messages go by.
>
> In reality though, this really is a perfect use for Linux and this is
> where Linux should focus itself instead of making a half assed attempt
> at the consumer desktop.
>
> claire
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 02:09:37 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| >| But you don't get it in return if you copyright it and wrap it in a
| >| trade secret, either.
| >
| >Oh, but it's this return that drives the software industry as it largely
| >is today.
|
| Quite true. That's why people (like me, I'll admit) get incensed about
| the current state of affairs. Its also what drives the move to the GPL.
| So if you don't like GPL, then don't do it. We know that'll never work,
| and the GPL software will eventually take over the planet, but its only
| fair to warn them.
Let's see what happens shall we?
| [...]
| >| Same with commercial software; you don't make the money you invested
| >| back, unless you sell something to make a return on the investment. You
| >| seem to be treating development of a product as if it were manufacture
| >| of a commodity. Microsoft, of course, encourages such mistaken
| >| thinking, very much.
| >
| >If the developer and producer wish simple monetary compensation for
| >their efforts then it *is* like a commodity. This *is* the situation in
| >which a lot of software is produced.
|
| Actually, no it isn't, at all. People don't buy software as a
| commodity; they buy licenses to run software as a commodity. Making
| monetary compensation on software code itself, rather than a license to
| use it, is what GPL is all about.
This will depend on the type of software code in question and who the
intended customers or users are of said code. There is software who's
users will depend heavily on support services and software where the
majority of users will not need support or seek it charitably. In one
setting there's great profitability (OSS works) for the developer and
producer, in the other setting there's minimal profitability. The user
then has to hope that a developer will come along and offer software
code with this low profitability to the community that will suit his
needs.
| >I do, however take your point that this doesn't always have to be and
| >certainly isn't always the case.
| >
| >| And while obviously this would be a more lucrative arrangement for
| >| software producers, your *assumption* that this is necessary or else
| >| software cannot be produced is, as I've mentioned, a specious argument.
| >
| >The reality is that *if* the ISV isn't happy, there'll be no software
| >produced by them.
|
| Fine; there'll be others who are more competitive.
It should be interesting to see where the pendulum swings in this
regard. If the majority of users do flock to the OSS model (of course
this would be the natural thing to do if what you want is what you'll
get out of it) then the ISV's will certainly have to shape up or ship
out. Will it get to that stage? We'll just have to see.
| Yes, but the question isn't whether there is profit to be made; we know
| there is. The question is how much profit there is to be made.
Indeed. There'll be quite a bit to be made in some instances and next to
none to be made in others.
| And the
| fact is, a free market works to minimize the profit in the face of
| competition, by allowing producers to maximize profit through
| efficiencies.
Agreed.
| It is true that software producers are making exorbitant profits, but
| that's because they're profiteering, not because they're extremely
| efficient.
Hmmm. I'll concede that this is the case in many instances but not all
instances by any means.
| >If one
| >production paradigm is more profitable, the producer will usually choose
| >the more profitable method .... unless of course, the motivator is not
| >just merely monetary profit.
|
| Indeed. Which is why I proffer the anti-trust argument; staying out of
| jail is a useful controlling motivator. Locking in customers is
| anti-competitive.
The overwhelming majority of commercial ISV's making good profits are
not monopolies.
| >The profit may be gained from other
| >developers input in the further development of the software. Their may
| >be no desire for a profit at all and just social rewards.
|
| There may indeed be no *need* for a profit at all. Social rewards
| themselves may more than make up for the great bulk of software
| development necessary, outside of the "form over substance" software
| industry of today.
:=)
The user then uses what the community uses and not what he wants to use.
| [...]
| >What's wrong with trying to make a living? What's wrong with requesting
| >remuneration for your efforts in return for the customers increased
| >productivity using your software?
|
| Requesting? Or demanding?
Well, unless you're a monopoly, you can't demand anything of the
customer.
| An just how do you wish to measure the
| increase in productivity using your software, over a competitor's
| product or any bog-standard freeware?
If someone wishes to develop software and distribute it freely then
that's their prerogative. The difference between great freeware and
great commercial software is always quite evident.
Note that I'm aware that most mainstream commercial software in use
today are not good and their success hinges largely on the ignorance of
the users where the existence of better solutions are concerned.
| >Take an interesting parallel. Industrial equipment can be extremely
| >expensive. This extreme expense cannot only be accounted for through
| >production costs. A huge chunk of that charge is based on the fact that
| >the equipment manufacturer knows that you'll be using the equipment he
| >sells to you to make money.
|
| Actually, a huge chunk of the *cost* is based on that fact; you need to
| make sure that equipment works well, and continues to do so
| indefinitely, or you're liable for the customer's lost revenues due to
| negligence.
|
| Unless, of course, you make software.
This is indeed true, and a very disturbingly anti-customer oriented
aspect of commercial software license agreements.
| >His equipment is therefore of a lot more
| >value to you than the simple value of the manufacturing and assembling
| >of its parts. Equipment that is a lot simpler than a car in concept and
| >technology is far more expensive.
|
| And to such manufacturer's get away with extortion because of this fact?
There are standard going charges.
Equipment manufacturing is a highly profitable business. One cannot deny
that. Profiteers pursue this sort of thing just as software vendors do.
| Of course not; unless you have a patent, you are faced with competition
| (and often even then, as alternatives don't necessarily infringe).
Patents .... keeping source closed .... similar in aim.
| >It's the same for software. There's nothing wrong with wanting returns
| >on your efforts and returns on the profits people make off your efforts.
|
| Yes, I'm terribly sorry, but this is wrong. You don't have any claim to
| the profits people make using the software. You only deserve profits
| from the software. If you want the profits made by using it, then go
| ahead and use it yourself.
I disagree. I'm not saying that they should demand a percentage of
profits being made using the software.
However, if I make software that people use to make a living, I'll
certainly charge more for it. When I watch what my buddy does using
Adobe Photoshop and in the process making a lot of money, the $600 he
forks over to Adobe is a drop in the bucket and he willingly does so.
| But don't expect your competitors to not
| replicate your software; they have a legal right to do so.
Sure, but don't expect me to just hand over the code.
| >| As I've described several times (and if Professor Lessig might actually
| >| have the opportunity to read this and the time to respond, I would
| >| humbly ask for his comments, public or private, on the matter) it is not
| >| possible to compete with an anti-competitive company (monopolist). You
| >| have to "_out-anti-compete_" them.
| >
| >Leave the monopoly argument for a moment. We're just speaking about
| >software development and production in a commercial setting as opposed
| >to a OSS setting.
|
| I know of no such "settings". Only the real world, stripped of as much
| perception-based obscurement as possible. If you are discussing
| commercial issues, then you can't ignore that the industry is dominated
| by a monopolist.
*You* can't. I'm sorry about that.
| >| So the direct result, more or less,
| >| of treating software as copyright-wrapped-in-a-trade-secret-license, is
| >| that the GPL has been created. And adopted, more and more, by the very
| >| programmers that you insist will be put out of work by it.
| >
| >The fact that programmers are adopting this model, doesn't by any means
| >mean that all are or ever will be attracted to it. This model will work
| >for a segment .... no doubt about that.
|
| And your logical argument why this 'segment' wouldn't be the vast
| majority of all software used by typical consumers is....
Your initial comment:
� Social rewards themselves may more than make up for the great bulk of
� software development necessary, outside of the "form over substance"
� software industry of today.
A typical elitist comment that will not do the OSS community any good.
It's pretty clear that in vibrant areas of the OSS community where all
or the majority of OSS users will have to use, i.e., Linux and its
Window managers esp. KDE, your statement is ignored. There's a lot of
'form' in KDE. :=)
Form *is* very important but disturbingly lacking in the OSS I've tried
and a lot of the Win32 freeware that I've encountered as well. Note that
a lot of OSS have Win32 versions.
| >| The free market does always win in the end. The only real question is
| >| whether it gets tougher for the producers, or the consumers, during the
| >| transition. Since GPL represents "free software",
| >
| >They don't have to pay .... lovely. I'd sure love not having to pay for
| >anything. :=)
|
| Not much need to pay for something that costs nothing to produce.
I don't think *any* developer will agree with you that developing
software costs nothing. You disregard their time and efforts when you
say this. You disregard the time it took them write the code and you
disregard the time and effort they invested in accruing the knowledge
necessary to write the code. If a developer wishes to charitably give
away his/her code for free that's up to him/her, but don't use that act
as a reason for arguing that all developers should give away their code
or to make the erroneous conclusion that writing code is done at no
cost.
If I'm a doctor and someone comes in my office. I use no equipment
except my hands during the consultation. Are you saying that I shouldn't
charge for the consultation because I used no materials? Hmmm?
| >| and the alternate
| >| approach represents "rented permission to use",
| >
| >One has to pay, as they do for most other things in life that doesn't
| >appear out of thin air or through natural phenomena.
|
| Everything in life is a natural phenomena. In a free market economy,
| you pay of some particular thing, not on general principle, but because
| it cost money to produce and has value. One or both of these is lacking
| in software.
It costs money to produce software!!
| >| I think its obvious
| >| which causes more pain to the consumers, and it is no surprise that you
| >| are arguing this point from the perspective of the producers (or, as you
| >| inaccurately refer to them, the programmers.)
| >
| >Well, one has to have a balanced outlook.
| >
| >Both paradigms fall under two full swings of the pendulum.
|
| So you agree Microsoft should be broken up, rather than entirely
| dissolved?
I don't share the agreement that breaking up MS as is planned is the
solution. I don't see where this will make much of a difference at this
point.
| [...]
| >| You misinterpreted my contention. I said that "support" means technical
| >| support (your "advanced question"), not newbie help. As you've pointed
| >| out, this is a valuable service, quite capable of supporting a profit
| >| margin, since there aren't that many questions that you can get an
| >| answer to on the web.
| >
| >Here, it depends on the type of software.
|
| Not at all. It depends on the type of user. Which is to say, it
| depends on the customer, not the product.
The type of software will determine the customer.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:03:43 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> reflect's Erik's own argument, that you can't 'remove' TCP/IP, like you
> can in Windows. Erik undermined his argument, of course, by pointing
> out that 'removing' TCP/IP doesn't remove it, but merely disables it,
No I didn't. I said you *CAN* disable it if that's all you want to do.
Simply click the Disable button rather than the Remove button. And I said
that this disables without requireing a reboot. And also clicking the
Enable button enables without requiring a reboot. This is different from
removing the stack, which does remove it, not just disable it.
> but that's beside the point. In Windows, you can 'remove' TCP/IP as if
> it were a driver or a service, and you can't on Linux. All you can do
> is disable it. This would be the equivalent of "removing the bindings"
> on Windows, which corresponds to the Unix concept of assigning IP
> addresses. Remove all IP addresses from all cards on Unix, and you've
> 'turned off' IP. But on NT, there's an extra thing; removing TCP/IP as
> a protocol, since its not built in to the kernel.
No, Binding a protocol to an adapter is not the same thing as adding an IP
to that adapter. And removing the bindings is not the same thing as
removing it.
> What happens when you remove TCP/IP as a protocol, and then reboot, is
> that you have to reboot again in order to use any TCP/IP, so it sort of
> *like* being built into the kernel, but I think we've been through that
> part.
But you can *DISABLE* the protocol without rebooting. That's the point.
And you can enable it when it was disabled (not uninstalled) without
rebooting.
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 07:01:54 GMT
MH's OS SOUND OFF:
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
windows, windows, windows, windows, windows,
kiwiunixman
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90it22$pr2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Do any of you guys realize _just_how_silly_this_looks?
>
>
> I didn't think so.
>
>
> > So from the time you first got any kind of PC forward,
> > SOUND OFF.......
>
> {massive snippage of someone in need of a college comp course to relieve
> their writing pangs}
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:07:27 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ahh. Such a reasoned response, complete with factual arguments to back
it
> > up.
>
> Any idiot can write GUI code that simulates an idle screen, then the
> logon screen, then accepts a response and logs it, thus saving the
> password. It doesn't even need to be installed in admin mode.
Yes, but the difference is that in order to logon to NT, you have to do a
C-A-D. In order to simulate a logon in NT, you have to somehow capture
C-A-D to display the logon box. Since C-A-D is a controlled sequence,
unaccessible to user-mode programs, you can't just simulate it.
> Of course, for greater realism, you can write it as a service and install
> it as an administrator. You can intercept the the Ctrl-Alt-Del sequence
> using the Win32 API.
You can't intercetp C-A-D in a user mode program. And again, installing it
as a service requires administrator privs.
> I said "bullshit" because your statement was patently false as to
> be incredible! Would you prefer I called you a "ninny"?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
------------------------------
From: "Dennis Popov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 02:08:30 -0500
looks like a 100% troll to me, so here it comes:
((((!!!!PL0NK!!!!))))
Enjoy!..
the_blur <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1BkX5.9967$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Yes and I bet you believe he will be PENNY LESS after this,
> > joing the church and become a nun in India!
>
> Of course not, but charity being what it is, and capitalism being what it
> is, never forget that he's giving a hell of a lot more than we are and
> helping a hell of a lot more people than we are AND HE'S NOT OBLIGATED IN
> ANY WAY TO DO SO. Get it? He gives because he's a nice guy. Trying to
> dehumanize him because you don't have his money/power or whatever it is
you
> covet changes nothing. 21 billion is a large sum of money, no one said you
> had to make yourself pennyless to be a charitable person.
>
> You can attack Windows all you want, but character assasination is
assinine
> and juvenile.
>
> > The fact he has this money from the sale of this crap
> > just makes my stomach turn. Can you believe he made
> > that much money off people selling Windows?
>
> Who cares? That's not the point. Besides, Windows isn't bad, if it were
we'd
> be using something else. I use Linux man, I know "Linux is the Right Thing
> To Do �" but even I can see the glaring bugs in it. Ask me about using
Linux
> for graphic design someday so you can learn how unready for me linux
really
> is. Even Windows 98 / MacOS (cooperative multitasking and NO memory
> protection) can beat Linux to a pulp in color calibration, postscript
> output, imagesetter support, Graphic Design Application support,
multiformat
> cutting and pasting and most of all STABILITY in the desktop.
>
> > It's messages like this which only leave me to conclude
> > that the U.S.A. is utterly doomed.
>
> I'm Canadian =)
>
>
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 07:18:18 GMT
<www.snip>
Now your statements are made clear. To clarify your confusion I said the
> upgrade cycles were driven by the hardware manufacturers not the software.
> As a case in point Windows NT4 was originally released for 486 and Entry
> level Pentium class machines. Business still upgraded these systems year
> after year with no, that's right none, change in the software.
Upgrading hardware and software is driven three areas, the naive consumer
who demands more feature than they use, a more "up to date" version of an
OS, however, from what is seen in the market place, the next version of a
piece of software is always bigger, but no always better, a bit like the
anacdotal story that only a big car can give real performance. The
consumer then finds that their OS/Application does not load as fast, so they
upgrade their hardware. So as an end result, the push for fast hardware,
and so-called "more feature rich" applications comes from the naive
purchasing power of the first time computer buyer.
kiwiunixman
<snip>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:26:38 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iKaX5.683$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:PS0X5.1752$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
>
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > No, actually, it's part of the C2 security requirements. You need a way
> to
> > initiate a login which cannot be masked by a user mode program. On a
> > typical unix or Linux machine, you need only run a 10 line program that
> > clears the screen and prints login: to steal peoples passwords. That's
> not
> > possible under NT if you don't have administrator privs.
>
> Say what!?
>From the TCSEC orange book manual:
"The TCB shall support a trusted communication path between
itself and users for use when a positive TCB-to-user connection is
required (e.g., login, change subject security level).
Communications via this trusted path shall be activated exclusively
by a user or the TCB and shall be logically isolated and
unmistakably
distinguishable from other paths."
In other words, you must have a way to login that you cannot simulate with a
user program.
Under NT, a user program cannot capture C-A-D, thus any program (such as the
login) that does react to C-A-D can be reasonbly trusted to have been
installed by someone with administrator privs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
