Linux-Advocacy Digest #730, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: i/o in linux ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2 ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Linux is awful ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
keeping a cynical gaze and a jaundiced eye on Big Brother's Little Helpers
("Jonathan Bazemore")
Re: keeping a cynical gaze and a jaundiced eye on Big Brother's Little Helpers
("Jonathan Bazemore")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: i/o in linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:38:49 GMT
Didn't we all say this two years ago?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Actually, this Mr. Swango is correct, the Linux Kernel is still "alpha"
> > testing (because Linux is ALWAYS in beta stages) support for this style
of
> > x86 hardware.
> >
> > Innovation and Linux are two terms that DON'T go togather. Your problem
is
> > that the SMP support your application would thrive under doesn't exist
under
> > the Linux platform. I suggest you look into the manufacturer of your
> > mainboard to see what OS they recomend (a commercial UNIX or Windows
2000).
> >
> > Linux does NOT hold a candle to native SMP support on any platform.
>
> Give it 2 years, and lets see.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:39:49 GMT
Because your trying to pass off this pathetic collection of free time
projects, half-finished school final's, and a lot of broken promises as a
computing platform, THAT'S why.
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:InZX5.40794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Swangoremovemee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 02:35:01 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >You said it didn't support USB. If you loaded a version that does,
> > >then why did you lie about it?
> >
> > You really DO HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO READ Les.
> >
> > This is the second time.
> >
> > I never said it didn't SUPPORT USB, I said NONE OF MY DEVICES WORKED.
> >
> > Please, learn how to read before you post erroneously.
> >
> > Swango
>
> Why are you blaming Linux for devices that don't work?
>
>
> > >I take it you own a lot of MS stock and are worried?
> >
> > I don't own any stock.
> >
> > Swango
>
> Then why do you think anyone cares if your choice of
> devices keeps you hopelessly locked into a monopolistic
> vendor's operating systems?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 19:45:47 +1300
<snip>
>> Sorry, I missed something; what does some hypothetical "spaghetti code" have
>> to do with the functionality and capability of the display system? Even
>> assuming the display system's code was an unmaintainable nightmare, as long
>> as it met the criteria provided - "decent, professional, control over it" -
>> it wouldn't matter; it would still meet the requirements.
>
>
> It fails on ALL of those counts, and more.
>
> Spaghetti code is a reliable indicator that the programmer who wrote
> it is not completely sure about what the fuck he's supposed to be doing.
"Spaghetti" code also cause's major problems later on when the piece of
software needs to be audited to check for bugs etc, or when "features"
need to be added. If the code is clean and logical, new code and
enhancements can be added alot easier, thus the reliability can be
maintained, whilst the versatility can be increased, something Microsoft
has yet to master.
kiwiunixman
<snip>
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:50:18 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > > Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:yyCX5.5940$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > RUNAS USAGE:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again, LoseDOS is about 15 YEARS BEHIND UNIX.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, your position is, basically, that if Windows lacks something, it
> > > > sucks,
> > > > > and if it gets that thing, it sucks for getting it too late. By this
> > > > > reasoning, even if Windows adopted _all_ the supposed benefits of Linux -
> > > > > open source, more solid security, increased configurability, whatever - it
> > > > > would still suck, despite having effectively the same functionality. Does
> > > > > that about sum it up?
> > > >
> > > > It would stop sucking if it had text files controlling all configurations so
> > > > you could use revision control systems on them, diff two different ones,
> > > > generate patches for automatic updates and the like, and if it could compile
> > > > and run most open-source and home-grown software developed over the
> > > > thirty-year history of unix systems. If OS-X pulls this off with a nice
> > > > GUI on top, why can't windows?
> > >
> > > Because OS-X was written by people with a decent education with the
> > > people, whereas LoseDOS was written by a bunch of high school
> > > hacks who think that "goto" is an sophisticated programming construct.
> >
> > Aaron,
> >
> > You apparently fail to note that Microsoft hires preferentially from
> > Carnegie-Mellon and other such bastions of computer science.
>
> You're saying that C-M teaches their students to write spaghetti code?
I think you know the answer to that. But because it conflicts with your
delusion-causing hate of all things Microsoft you are understandably confused.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:51:05 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 02:02:46 GMT,
Mike V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:17:25 -0700, "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>posted :
>
>>You should have read the whole thread, I'll repeat:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Post
>>I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5 2000
>>Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I was
>>on their Y2K project).
>>
>>Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks.
>
>They weren't built right.
I read these kinds of contests every day and I wonder why people
are stupid enough to have them?
Here are the facts and I want to see if you can even REMOTELY make
a contestable issue from them.
Linux is Free W2k cost $350 for the full install $190 for the upgrade.
Linux has maximum uptime, hardly ever goes down. W2k slightly better than NT.
Linux offers apache web server, SSH tunneling and secure shell. W2k networking
limited to nmb type unsecure connections.
Linux distros have typically over 1,800 packages of free software of which
over half is considered usefull to EVERYBODY aside from sysadmins.
W2k has freecel and IE.
Linux can be installed as a workstation or a server or a combination of the two.
W2k desktop and W2k server are seperate products and W2k server is almost
$3,000 a throw for a modest sized seat arrangement. Linux is unlimited in
server services and can even replace the W2k server with samba, I'm doing it
now.
The next release of Windows will be $550 full install and the next release
beyond that one will top over $800 somewhere. Linux will still be totally
free to download off the net or for a modest price in boxed form at the
store. Linux has an actual manual in the box. W2k doesn't.
Linux has built in man pages which cover every command in the system.
W2k covers some user issues in their help system but no programmer issues.
Linux has dozens of compilers and a CVS archiving system. W2k doesn't.
Linux was the first to support ATA100 and the first to have a true
64 bit PC distribution tested and working. W2k is 32 bit and probably
supports ATA100 by now and whistler is going to be their 64 bit distro
when it get's out of the barn next year, 2 years behind Linux.
Microsoft OFFICE will set you back about $800 bucks. Star office
for Linux is free and you also have several other Word processors and
spreadsheets to pick from for free!
Linux can act as a firewall and a dhcp server. W2k server has some of
these capabilities.
Linux is being used extensively in the PDA and net appliance
arena. Windows has a bad pda OS known as CE and they have
NO net appliance capability.
Linux is ready for install on over a dozen PC platforms and several
mainframes. Windows is available on less than 4 platforms.
Linux runs circles around W2k anything in performance and also uptime.
A typical linux distribution is updated every 4 months. Windows product
releases attempt to occur at 2 year intervals with service packs inbetween
which do little to enhance the product.
In 9 years, Linux has grown so fast that it rivals Windows in features
and beats Windows in performance. Widows has been in development for
16 years at Microsoft.
Microsoft has 37,000 software people of which less than 5,000 are actual
software coders. Linux has almost 200,000 software developers working
on the project world wide. Nasa contributes to Linux as well as 50%
of the worlds most brilliant minds in the worlds universities. It is
considered an honor to work on Linux. Microsoft has NOBODY contribute
to their development effort as they are a U.S. Corporation.
When you examine these facts, it becomes clear that debating Windows
VS Linux is absolutely un-necessary! Windows clearly has a snowballs
chance in hell of surviving much past 2005 and Microsoft will become
an applications vendor past 2005.
Despite what you think of Windows, you can't tell me your stupid
enought to believe your company is going to PAY $850 a copy for
Windows for your PC? Are you really that stupid?
I know if your a Windows fan, you believe Windows will never disappear
from the market place but to have it creep over $1,000 a copy for
the full install and still think people will buy that,,,,, that's
the thoughts of a mad man.
I think Toyota and Home Depot and Burlington Northern, and Siemens,
and the others not counting the deluge of NET APPLIANCES and PDA's
comming out which are based on LINUX, are the people who are showing
you the future. Toyota is the largest car company in the world.
They didn't get that way by being idiots...
I think that anybody who looks at this message with their Windows
OS and still thinks Windows has some kind of future is a complete
fool. How much evidence do you need convince you your wrong?
Will you just wait for the price of windows to climb so high
you can't afford it anymore? Will this be your rallying cry
to finally learn Linux so you can keep going?
Do you plan on moving to Mac OS X? Do you wonder why
Apple built it's latest OS on the FreeBSD FREE OS?
Do you believe the people at APPLE have lost their minds?
Are you idiotic enough to think that buzz terms like .NET will
make the difference in Windows future?
If you were offered a WEB surfer which did your E-mail and
had an office package like Star Office to do spreadsheets
and Word processing for $147, and this unit had a risc 66mhz
cpu with 10 gb of storage and 64 mb of ram and ran Linux
as the underlying OS, would you pick W2k on a PC for $2200
over it for home use?
This is what you will be facing in just 3 months time.
I just saw a risc based PDA for $147 also!
How about a MP3 player and video recorder with DVD player
and VHS tape back for $250! Runs Linux also! Even
has a built in keyboard and web browser and E-mail
which works off the TV set!
Microsoft and Windows simply can't compete in this kind of
world and this world is just 3 months away now.
I saw a virtual replacement for the PC for $350 which
had the DVD player and 30 gb hard drive, risc 66 mhz
and 64 mb of ram, infrared keyboard with mouse, stereo
out, worked on monitor or HDTV or TV, built in 10/100,
no floppy, modem was an option. Ran redhat or debian.
Upgraded over the internet for free just like you
would a PC. You could use this for a WEB server,
a samba server, a workstation, you name it. I could
buy 4 of these things and make a server farm for myself.
It was about as large as my kids atari on the T.V. set.
Again, Windows has nothing of this caliber and isn't
likely to develop one before they go out of business.
Seeing a future for Windows is just totally absurd.
And you might even say this of the common PC after
this is all over.
And the elimination of the PC from the home is something
I never thought would happen but it's looking like this
will be a real possibility also.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:37:26 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wm_X5.6221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9uPX5.6696$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:YP9X5.677$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > A buddy of mine is doing some Windows programming today.
> > >
> > > Hack/Crash/Reboot
> > > Hack/Crash/Reboot
> > >
> > > I emailed your little diatribe to him and he told me to tell you to
fuck
> > > off.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think he liked it ;)
> >
> > Funny; I do Windows development regularly, and I don't have that
problem.
>
> I don't have near the problems he does as I run NT as a development
> platform. He's sticking with Win98. And don't tell me you haven't had
> VStudio go up in flames on you before...
Sure - VStudio. Not the whole system, not requiring reboots.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:53:58 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:yyCX5.5940$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > RUNAS USAGE:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, LoseDOS is about 15 YEARS BEHIND UNIX.
> > > >
> > > > So, your position is, basically, that if Windows lacks something, it
> > > sucks,
> > > > and if it gets that thing, it sucks for getting it too late. By this
> > > > reasoning, even if Windows adopted _all_ the supposed benefits of Linux -
> > > > open source, more solid security, increased configurability, whatever - it
> > > > would still suck, despite having effectively the same functionality. Does
> > > > that about sum it up?
> > >
> > > It would stop sucking if it had text files controlling all configurations so
> > > you could use revision control systems on them,
> >
> > Export the registry node you are interested in.
> >
> > > diff two different ones,
> > > generate patches for automatic updates and the like,
> >
> > Double click the .reg file for automatic update.
> >
> > > and if it could compile
> > > and run most open-source and home-grown software developed over the
> > > thirty-year history of unix systems.
> >
> > When there are more user friendly Windows programs that do all the same things?
> >
> > > If OS-X pulls this off with a nice
> > > GUI on top, why can't windows?
> >
> > Microsoft certainly could. If they wanted to or really thought that anyone
> > wanted them to. Truth is UNIX is hard to use. X is clunky and the
>
> Really?
>
> I spend more time fire-fighting on ONE Windows box than on a whole
> 50-machine department of Unix boxes at work.
Take some courses. You apparently either don't know how to configure / maintain a
Windows server or are running some really shitty software on it. And don't go
claiming that user mode apps can't crash UNIX systems because I just dealt with that
today when our credit decisioning system took AIX down on both S80s. Thank god for
test labs -- had this new config been running in prod we'd have all been cooked.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:53:49 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0g%X5.3314$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:q6_X5.6219$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The 3 system heaps in 9x are kept in non-pageable memory. Their
maximum
> > > size is 64K. What you're suggesting is just not possible. If the
heaps
> > > were huge and pageable, then larger allocations and management would
be
> an
> > > issue, but 64K, no matter how fragmented is virtualy instantaneous.
> >
> > That's what I've always been told. It doesn't explain away the situation
> > described above, though. And, yes, the only memory leaks in my code were
> > dropped GDI handles. Win9x does a better job than Win16, for certain,
but
> it
> > isn't perfect. Nowhere close.
>
> In over 10 years of programming Windows, I've never seen this slowdown
from
> drained resources. If your app is slowing down, there is some other
reason.
I've exhausted every other possibility. I'm only telling you what I
experienced. I've been hacking Windows since its' inception and this is the
first time something like this has happened - (I'm ignoring the instances of
this under Win3.11, BTW). As I said though, cleaning up dropped GDI handles
eliminated the behavior.
>
> > > That's simply not true. There are gotcha's to using MFC that, if
you're
> > > aware of them, don't cause any problems. For instance, if a resource
> > (such
> > > as a bitmap or pen) is selected into a DC when the MFC wrapper goes
out
> of
> > > scope, it won't delete the resource and you'll have a leak. MFC does
> have
> > a
> > > few leaks, but they are one-time leaks and fairly small, thus they do
> not
> > > grow and are taken care of by the OS when it exits.
> >
> > I wish it weren't true. It would have made things so much easier. The
> second
> > I started encapsulating Win32 myself, memory leaks mysteriously
vanished.
> > There is something WRONG with those classes. My experience isn't a
unique
> > one, either.
>
> You can look at the source code yourself for those wrappers. It's very
> simple. There isn't anything that can go wrong, other than leaving an
> object selected in a DC and allowing it to go out of scope. I would bet
> your code was virtually identical (perhaps barring some excessive asserts)
> to the MFC code. I think this is simply a matter of you changed the way
you
> programmed and thus did not fall susceptible to those problems anymore.
I've looked at the source. My immediate opinion is that Hungarian notation
is a crime that should be punishable by death.
My wrappers were, in comparison to MS's, stripped down to be sure.
As far as my programming style and method, I just follow the KISS principal.
Never fails!
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:03:07 GMT
<snip>
> The other disadvantage: none of your usual tools can manipulate it. Of
> course windows users aren't used to having decent tools for automation
> anyway so most don't understand the loss - at least until they have to
> pay for some special package to do it.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is why software companies like Network Associates and Symantec have
become so sucessful, they are addressing Window's short falls, esp. in
the area's of security, stability, speed, and reliability.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:51:53 GMT
[snips]
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <XdPX5.6686$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kelsey
Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The original quote I was responding to: "But even if you're a new user,
it's
> >still worth taking the time to learn how to use the command line."
> >
> >Now, what benefit does the command line offer Grandpappy, as a new user?
> >Answer: it doesn't do a thing for him that he isn't already doing, via
the
> >GUI, in a manner he's comfortable with, so there is absolutely no reason
> >whatsoever for him to learn it.
>
> That is not a reason not to learn it though. Becoming more familiar with
the
> workings of your computer is always worthwhile.
He's no less familiar with "the workings of the computer" than any CLI
wizard is. The CLI wizard is more familiar with a _particular set of
tools_, which is a different matter; by that criterion, one could call you
an incompetent weenie if you didn't know the workings of whatever random
piece of software one cares to dig up.
> File operations are often
> easier on the command line, especially in your example of an elderly
person.
> Holding down Ctrl and selecting multiple files and moving them to another
> directory can often be quite fiddly, I'm 26 yet still find myself having
to
> select the files all over again as I made a slip up with the mouse. I
dread
> to think what trouble Granpappy would have. Far easier to type what you
want
> to do at the command line.
>
> mv *.txt ../newdir
Click to sort by type, click to select the first, shift-click to select the
last, copy... oh, wait, did I create the folder? Nope. Damn. Create
folder. Hmm, let's check free space... yes, okay, lots of free space. What
was I doing? Oh, yeah... right-click, paste.
move *.txt ../newdir^C
mkdir ../newdir
free
move *.txt ../newdir
Your way accomplishes the same thing... without the flexibility... at the
expense of about 30 extra keystrokes, as opposed to about 6 mouse clicks.
How is your way better?
> As opposed to a series of point and click operations that are very liable
to
> mistakes. Also, by learning the command line you can learn to create
scripts
> to automate the tasks you do often.
Which is fine if you even _have_ such tasks. His typical day consists of
opening Word, loading a document, editing it, firing up a web session to do
some research, back to the document to edit it some more, save it, maybe
print a couple pages...
Which parts of that are worth scripting?
> There's no reason why the command line should solely be the preserve of
> programmers. Seeing as five year old kids can handle it if you give them
the
> chance, this attitude that the command line is some aloof ivory tower is
> inappropriate.
However, the assumption that it is either universally useful, or that not
using it is somehow being less than competent, is silly. He can do all the
things he needs to from the GUI, easily, rapidly, and with a high degree of
flexibility; what benefit does the CLI have for him? None.
> People should be encouraged to get as much out of there computers as they
can.
Sure - but learning the CLI is so totally irrelevant to that purpose, I
don't see why you even mention it in that context.
> That Granpappy stuff is just stereotyping anyway, I know Granpappy's and
> Granmama's who are old school hardcore programmers.
Sure; mine's not, however. He is a copious writer and diehard researcher,
though, and does that quite well without ever seeing a command line. Hell,
if I thought there was any benefit in it for him, _I'd_ teach him how to use
it. He's a bright guy, should pick it up in no time. However, I can't see
any benefit of it to him.
------------------------------
From: "Jonathan Bazemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.2600,alt.privacy,misc.comp.os.linux.help
Subject: keeping a cynical gaze and a jaundiced eye on Big Brother's Little Helpers
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:29:41 -0700
Linux7.0
There's a service called up2date, package 2.0-4, which does the following:
Description:This is a daemon which handles the task of connecting
periodically to the Red Hat Network Services servers to check for updates,
notifications, and PERFORM SYSTEM MONITORING TASKS according to the service
level that this server is subscribed for.
It was set to start up and run automatically, and I didn't subscribe to
anything.
Excuse me, isn't that just a long way to say back door?
------------------------------
From: "Jonathan Bazemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.2600,alt.privacy,misc.comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: keeping a cynical gaze and a jaundiced eye on Big Brother's Little Helpers
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:31:53 -0700
No offense the Red Hat guys are ok, but I was just wondering thanks
Jonathan Bazemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90pv2u$566$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux7.0
>
> There's a service called up2date, package 2.0-4, which does the following:
>
> Description:This is a daemon which handles the task of connecting
> periodically to the Red Hat Network Services servers to check for updates,
> notifications, and PERFORM SYSTEM MONITORING TASKS according to the
service
> level that this server is subscribed for.
>
> It was set to start up and run automatically, and I didn't subscribe to
> anything.
>
> Excuse me, isn't that just a long way to say back door?
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
