Linux-Advocacy Digest #169, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Form@C)
Re: Why Hatred? (J Sloan)
Re: Why Hatred? (Donn Miller)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Form@C)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Form@C)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (J Sloan)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? (Donn Miller)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:09:08 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92pisu$ki8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> > > The answer is to not use Windows NT for these programs OR use NT in
an
> :> > > insecure way. Most users will choose to use NT in an insecure way.
> :> >
> :> > No, the answer is to use it the way it's intended to be used.
> :>
> :> That may be all well an good, but you can't argue, on one side, that
> :> Linux is hard to use because one sometimes needs to manually manipulate
> :> settings, and then argue that NT isn't for the same reason.
>
> : We're talking about two entirely different useages. Sure, in a
controlled
> : by IS situation, Linux would be perfectly fine for the desktop (assuming
> : that the proper applications existed for the users use).
>
> Funny you should mention that.
>
> Over the past year, Mozilla and Konqueror became usable, and
> StarOffice was finally freed.
>
> Hence, it's now possible to create a VERY reliable, functional, and
> cost-effective Linux desktop in a corporate environment for about a
> fifth of the initial cost of its NT equivalent, and with virtually
> zero ongoing support/maintenance costs. (There will be a one-time
> cost for retraining heavy MSOffice users.)
functional is a bit of stretch. I guarantee you that if you take any 100
office users and give them StarOffice, the majority will find StarOffice to
lack features they need to do their jobs.
You're also assuming that a typical office worker only has needs for those
programs. Most companies have Access databases, contact management systems
(ACT or GoldMine for instance. Nothing similar exists for Linux), custom VB
programs, etc...
> "What about custom VB/Powerbuilder/Delphi apps," you might ask? Well,
> in the short term, you can keep NT boxes around for these, and access
> them via VNC.
That won't work, because every user will then be sharing the same desktop.
Try putting 100 users on the same desktop.
> In the longer term, though, most of the kinds of apps
> these tools used to be used for are being redesigned and rewritten
> using an n-tier architecture, with thin (browser-based) clients being
> the preferred mode of access. There is no reason the app should know
> or care what kind of OS the browser is running on.
They're not going to rewrite those apps. VB allowed them to write a simple
app to do something quickly, they're not going to spend 100x more in
developer time to do something in C.
> : In a more
> : traditional windows environment though, say a home user or even small
> : unmanaged business then Linux is not something that is acceptable.
>
> That's changing too.
>
> It is very conceivable to me that within the next two years, 50% or
> more of games and home-oriented apps will be cross-platform.
Perhaps. That won't make Linux any friendlier to setup and maintain for the
home user.
> Even in a mostly Windows-dominated world, it makes sense not to tie
> one's code tightly to any particular version of Windows, since there
> are now dozens in widespread use, and they differ fairly substantially
> from the perspective of an application developer. It's much better to
> isolate the platform-dependent code behind some type of abstraction
> layer, *even* if most or all of your users use Windows. You then have
> most if not all of the platform-specific problems, bugs, and fixes
> confined to one relatively small section of your app.
Actually, windows is getting EASIER for the developer. Windows 2000
supports all the same API's as Windows 9x now, with DirectX, MAPI, Direct3D,
etc...
> But, once you've done that, it becomes possible to port the app
> relatively easily to other platforms.
No, those apps are still using Windows API's, they're just using common
subsets.
> Hardware support: this is a chicken-and-egg problem, exacerbated by
> pressure illegally asserted by Mafia$oft, but even so, we're seeing
> more chickens and more eggs all the time. I predict this will be a
> non-issue within those same two years.
I doubt it. Linux will never have those scaled down modems and other
hardware that OEM's love because they're cheap.
> Appearance: yes, we need better font rendering. XFree86 4.0.2 has it.
> The toolkits need minor adjustment to take advantage of the render
> extensions. That will be a done deal soon, with completely
> antialiased distros available probably midyear if not sooner.
Apart from fonts, they also need more standards between desktop
environments.
> Ease of installing new packages: Debian's apt-get and the *BSD ports
> collections solve this problem nicely. RPMs, even with GUI front
> ends, still need for someone to go out and fetch the required
> dependencies, and this process needs to be better automated. As Linux
> becomes more "mainstream," my guess it that it will be.
One can hope.
> :> The user will user a system with the least amount of work. Just because
> :> there are work arounds for this limitation, and it is a LIMITATION,
does
> :> not mean the average user will use the more complex solution. Most of
> :> the NT users I have seen just give themselves admin privileges.
>
> : And most Linux users i've seen run as root.
>
> I find that hard to believe, since I've never seen *any* Linux user
> run as root, but, if that's really the case, you should be able to fix
> that problem yourself with minimal effort. :)
It's easy to run as root. Most users don't understand the security issues.
When you don't run as root, you need to worry about file privs and such.
It's a pain to su all the time.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:03:54 GMT
Peter K�hlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<92pde5$q8i$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Flatfish wrote:
>
>> Not in this case, because I at least caught the attempt at humor. Most
>> of the others thought it was for real.
>
>
>Yep, all those with an IQ below 60, that is, all windows lovers
>
Perhaps "windows lovers" are more interested in actually using their
computers for something rather than maintaining their OS! Could it be that
they can actually see that computers were designed as tools to use, not for
running OSs on?
<stir-stir>
<grin>
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:05:38 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > John Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > So, it's ok for Linux users to hate Windows, but not Windows users to
> hate
> > > Linux? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
> >
> > Ok, you tell me. What reason would a windows user have to hate Linux? It
> > is not as if they are forced to use it. It isn't as if it is something
> > they even have to deal with.
>
> I can tell you why people I know who've tried Linux hate it.
>
> 1) Took them several days to get it to work out of the box. This has
> gotten better in recent distro's, but about 2 years ago it could be quite a
> challenge.
Yes, Linux used to be for experts only.
Now, my momcould install it in half an hour.
> 2) Overwhelming amount of work needed to acomplish even minor tasks.
Please explain -
To browse the web, you click on the icon
To get mail, you click on the icon.
To start the word processor you click on the icon
To play quake 3 arena you click on the icon.
How is this an "overwhelming amount of work"?
> 3) Lack of functionality.
Please explain -
Actually, I find windows lacking in functionality!
> 4) And mostly, becuse after fidling with it for a week they realize they've
> been wasting their time.
Doesn't sound like a realization to me, but rather an
uninformed opinion.
> > So again, why would a Windows user even have an opinion about Linux?
>
> The average Windows user wouldn't. But people that have tried Linux would.
I was a windows user, and I tried Linux.
Guess what? I now prefer Linux, and really don't like using
windows anymorel. windows now seems much too limiting.
Where do you think most of the 10 million Linux users came from?
jjs
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:07:20 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Oh, you're going to sit there and tell me that .Xdefaults is
> "well-documented with comments". Also, perusing through XF86Config I find
> lots of comments, but over half the entries are not documented. For
> instance, XkbKeycodes, XkbTypes, XkbCompat, XkbSymbols, etc...
Yeah, but that's just .Xdefaults. I was talking about the config files
sitting in /etc. Don't know about Linux, but FreeBSD's rc.conf is very
well documented:
Here's an example for /etc/defaults/rc.conf. This is from the CVS
repository, so hopefully it should come up.
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/defaults/rc.conf?rev=1.53.2.14&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:12:26 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Stop twisting words. What you describe is an abnormal NT situation. It
> > doesn't work that way for millions of people that use NT on dual
processor
> > machines daily.
>
> It is the windows experience that conditions people to
> accept frequent reboots, reinstalls of the OS, random
> lockups and the like.
You're still twisting words. You claim that a NT system that locks up in
the middle of the night every night is typical. It's not.
> > Your experience is abnormal, yet you're acting like it's the typical
one.
>
> It's all too common.
common is the same thing as normal. If it happens to .001% of the
population, that's still thousands and thousands of people, which could be
said to be common, but not typical or normal.
> Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
I'm a Linux user.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:12:00 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>>
>> now there's a big PKB! ....tell me, do you also laugh at "00100101"?
>
>Only an idiot would ask such a question.
>
And you really think that acronyms such as "GNU" and "YAST" were devised
without a sense of humour? There *is* humour in unix/Linux but it can be
strangely warped...
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:18:06 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Oh, you're going to sit there and tell me that .Xdefaults is
> > "well-documented with comments". Also, perusing through XF86Config I
find
> > lots of comments, but over half the entries are not documented. For
> > instance, XkbKeycodes, XkbTypes, XkbCompat, XkbSymbols, etc...
>
> Yeah, but that's just .Xdefaults. I was talking about the config files
> sitting in /etc. Don't know about Linux, but FreeBSD's rc.conf is very
> well documented:
That depends. I'd say it's not well documented. What if you don't know
what a default gateway is, or what multicast routing is, or what an NIS
client is? What exactly ARE the "Flags for rwhod"? or the named flags?
Yes, there are comments which mention something, but I'd hardly call that
"well documented".
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:14:17 GMT
"Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>its really sad that you think that those attributes of the human
>language can be adequately expressed in a written forum.
>
for God's sake don't say that in alt.humour.* groups!
:-)
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:16:29 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I said no such thing. I did say that I've had a linux machine that crashed
> daily, but i've also had linux machines stay up for months.
Didn't that tell you there was something very, very wrong
with the machine that crashed?
> Both my Linux and NT4 boxes stays up an average of 30 days between reboots.
30 days? That's abominable.
>
> I've already queried google, and couldn't find anything like that. I also
> searched at the zd site, still no luck. That's why I asked for the link.
I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
will see if I can locate an online reference.
> You claimed you were only running standard things like DNS and web services.
and sendmail and ntp and database.
The windows machine that only runs the database needed
to be reboted nightly. That's also standard practice at web
server farms where they have "green acres" windows nt
installations to try to provide uptime even though individual
nt boxes blue screen at various times. It has been found better
to do a therapeutic nightly reboot at a scheduled time rather
than have windows nt lock up at some random and possibly
inconvenient time.
> If you had an office full of Linux machines, I'm sure you'd also have your
> share of issues.
I maintained labs full of Linux and windows machines.
The windows machines were 95% of my workload,
even though there was about an equal amount of
Linux and windows systems.
> Interesting that as soon as there is a problem with Linux all you can do is
> blame the hardware, yet when people blame the hardware for NT you won't
> accept that.
Because I've worked with Linux and other Unices,
as well as windows, for years. I know how they behave
in everyday, real life production environments. and I'm
telling you, the Linux systems (and FreeBSD and others)
let me sleep solidly. The windows systems are the ones
that blue screen at 3 AM.
> NT runs on an order of magnatude more systems than all Unix combined, thus
> you're going to have an order of magnatude more problems.
You might need to brush up on your statistics there
And BTW, I'm not talking about home desktops, I'm talking
about production environments, data centers, ISPs.
This sort of environment has a decidedly Unix flavor.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:19:31 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
>
> I'm a Linux user.
I'm afraid there's some strange agenda at work here -
I just don't see a Linux user making a career of
windows cheerleading. If you do use Linux, I suspect
it's just to search for ammunition in your advocacy.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:21:02 GMT
"Form@C" wrote:
> Perhaps "windows lovers" are more interested in actually using their
> computers for something rather than maintaining their OS! Could it be that
> they can actually see that computers were designed as tools to use, not for
> running OSs on?
That's very ironic, for it's the windows users who
have to spend the most time fiddling with their OS.
reboots, service packs, reinstalls of the OS...
the fun never ends...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:28:24 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > John Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So, it's ok for Linux users to hate Windows, but not Windows users
to
> > hate
> > > > Linux? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
> > >
> > > Ok, you tell me. What reason would a windows user have to hate Linux?
It
> > > is not as if they are forced to use it. It isn't as if it is something
> > > they even have to deal with.
> >
> > I can tell you why people I know who've tried Linux hate it.
> >
> > 1) Took them several days to get it to work out of the box. This has
> > gotten better in recent distro's, but about 2 years ago it could be
quite a
> > challenge.
>
> Yes, Linux used to be for experts only.
>
> Now, my momcould install it in half an hour.
I doubt that. Don't you think she'd be on the phone to you after about 3
steps? "What's a mount point? What do I set these partition thingies to?
What's a server? What's a workstation?" There are tons of questions in
there that most Windows users, (including your mother unless she's some kind
of computer wizard) would not know how to answer, even in simple distros.
> > 2) Overwhelming amount of work needed to acomplish even minor tasks.
>
> Please explain -
>
> To browse the web, you click on the icon
After you've configured PPP.
> To get mail, you click on the icon.
After you figure out how to configure the mail program.
> To start the word processor you click on the icon
After you figure out how to install it.
> To play quake 3 arena you click on the icon.
I've never seen a distro with quake 3 arena installed.
> How is this an "overwhelming amount of work"?
Install something from a tarball? Unless you already know the syntax to
tar, you'll spend an hour figuring out how to do it. Then you'll spend an
hour trying to figure out what you're supposed to do afterwards.
> > 3) Lack of functionality.
>
> Please explain -
>
> Actually, I find windows lacking in functionality!
Ok, contact management software. Where is it? CAD software equivelant to
AutoCAD or other high end CAD tools? What about MIDI tools?
> > 4) And mostly, becuse after fidling with it for a week they realize
they've
> > been wasting their time.
>
> Doesn't sound like a realization to me, but rather an
> uninformed opinion.
If you just spent a week trying to figure something out, and you're not much
better off than you were when you started, that's not an uninformed opinion.
> > > So again, why would a Windows user even have an opinion about Linux?
> >
> > The average Windows user wouldn't. But people that have tried Linux
would.
>
> I was a windows user, and I tried Linux.
Oh, so that means all Windows users that try Linux have the same opinion. I
understand now.
> Guess what? I now prefer Linux, and really don't like using
> windows anymorel. windows now seems much too limiting.
What do you do with it?
> Where do you think most of the 10 million Linux users came from?
Lots of places. Where did the 200 million Windows users come from?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:29:37 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
> >
> > I'm a Linux user.
>
> I'm afraid there's some strange agenda at work here -
>
> I just don't see a Linux user making a career of
> windows cheerleading. If you do use Linux, I suspect
> it's just to search for ammunition in your advocacy.
No, I use Linux because it's the right tool for the job I use it for,
however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the lack
of standardization between distros.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:28:08 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
"Form@C" wrote:
> All very true. The problem is that the Windows approach has become a
> standard (of sorts) by sheer weight of numbers, in spite of being a closed-
> source system.
Very well put. Microsoft had been a standard for many years, esp. 1994
and before, because it was the only operating system on the table for
the Intel platform. The exception may have been Xenix, but hell, who
wanted to run Xenix? Anyways, I remember the days when MS Windows was
the only OS out there. Just as a data point, I'm talking about my
experiences in 1993. It was simply horrid. But, Win didn't HAVE to be
good, because it was the only OS out there for the PC, and MS was taking
advantage of the whole PC explosion. As long as sales were good, MS had
no reason to improve the reliability of their OS. Also, I, as many
other computer users must have thought, assumed that when Windows (3.1)
crashed, it wasn't because the OS was bad. I assumed it was something I
was doing wrong, had something configured wrong, or maybe there was
something wrong with my computer.
When Linux came upon the scene and started eating into MS's sales, MS
saw that users were getting smarter, and that people were realizing that
yes, maybe Windows IS unreliable. So, I suppose a big issue was
improving the reliability come the next release of Doze, which at the
time was Win 95. Of course, there's only so much you can do to improve
the reliability of an OS that is based on DOS.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:35:18 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > I said no such thing. I did say that I've had a linux machine that
crashed
> > daily, but i've also had linux machines stay up for months.
>
> Didn't that tell you there was something very, very wrong
> with the machine that crashed?
Indeed it did. Yet, somehow a Windows NT machine that crashes daily doesn't
have something wrong with it?
> > Both my Linux and NT4 boxes stays up an average of 30 days between
reboots.
>
> 30 days? That's abominable.
Well, i'm glad you can judge others needs from your own.
> > I've already queried google, and couldn't find anything like that. I
also
> > searched at the zd site, still no luck. That's why I asked for the
link.
>
> I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
> and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
> will see if I can locate an online reference.
You made the claim. Back it up.
> > You claimed you were only running standard things like DNS and web
services.
>
> and sendmail and ntp and database.
Alright.
> The windows machine that only runs the database needed
> to be reboted nightly. That's also standard practice at web
> server farms where they have "green acres" windows nt
> installations to try to provide uptime even though individual
> nt boxes blue screen at various times. It has been found better
> to do a therapeutic nightly reboot at a scheduled time rather
> than have windows nt lock up at some random and possibly
> inconvenient time.
And you know this how?
> > If you had an office full of Linux machines, I'm sure you'd also have
your
> > share of issues.
>
> I maintained labs full of Linux and windows machines.
> The windows machines were 95% of my workload,
> even though there was about an equal amount of
> Linux and windows systems.
I'm sure the Windows machines were 9x based. Right?
> > Interesting that as soon as there is a problem with Linux all you can do
is
> > blame the hardware, yet when people blame the hardware for NT you won't
> > accept that.
>
> Because I've worked with Linux and other Unices,
> as well as windows, for years. I know how they behave
> in everyday, real life production environments. and I'm
> telling you, the Linux systems (and FreeBSD and others)
> let me sleep solidly. The windows systems are the ones
> that blue screen at 3 AM.
Always in the middle of the night. Strange, isn't it?
> > NT runs on an order of magnatude more systems than all Unix combined,
thus
> > you're going to have an order of magnatude more problems.
>
> You might need to brush up on your statistics there
>
> And BTW, I'm not talking about home desktops, I'm talking
> about production environments, data centers, ISPs.
>
> This sort of environment has a decidedly Unix flavor.
Sure, however there are still far fewer of those than all NT (including
Workstations).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:36:05 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Form@C" wrote:
>
> > Perhaps "windows lovers" are more interested in actually using their
> > computers for something rather than maintaining their OS! Could it be
that
> > they can actually see that computers were designed as tools to use, not
for
> > running OSs on?
>
> That's very ironic, for it's the windows users who
> have to spend the most time fiddling with their OS.
>
> reboots, service packs, reinstalls of the OS...
>
> the fun never ends...
And security patches come out for Unix systems weekly.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:40:57 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Form@C" wrote:
>
> > All very true. The problem is that the Windows approach has become a
> > standard (of sorts) by sheer weight of numbers, in spite of being a
closed-
> > source system.
>
> Very well put. Microsoft had been a standard for many years, esp. 1994
> and before, because it was the only operating system on the table for
> the Intel platform. The exception may have been Xenix, but hell, who
> wanted to run Xenix? Anyways, I remember the days when MS Windows was
> the only OS out there. Just as a data point, I'm talking about my
> experiences in 1993. It was simply horrid. But, Win didn't HAVE to be
> good, because it was the only OS out there for the PC, and MS was taking
> advantage of the whole PC explosion. As long as sales were good, MS had
> no reason to improve the reliability of their OS. Also, I, as many
> other computer users must have thought, assumed that when Windows (3.1)
> crashed, it wasn't because the OS was bad. I assumed it was something I
> was doing wrong, had something configured wrong, or maybe there was
> something wrong with my computer.
In 1993 there were quite a few other OS's. OS/2 2.0 was released in 1992,
Novell's UnixWare was available that year, there was also SCO and a few
other PC based Unix OS's. Linux was even available, though in larval form
still. NT was released in 1993 as well.
> When Linux came upon the scene and started eating into MS's sales, MS
> saw that users were getting smarter, and that people were realizing that
> yes, maybe Windows IS unreliable. So, I suppose a big issue was
> improving the reliability come the next release of Doze, which at the
> time was Win 95. Of course, there's only so much you can do to improve
> the reliability of an OS that is based on DOS.
Windows 95 was a stopgap measure, designed to move users to Win32 based
applications. MS wanted people to move to NT as soon as possible, but it st
ill took them another 5 years to start the migration in force.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
