Linux-Advocacy Digest #177, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S. (CR Lyttle number 2)
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ) (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (John Travis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:13:42 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > This is false. You can restore a Windows 9x registry, but Windows 9x is
> > just a DOS extender. NT, especially NT running NTFS, MSDOS does not see
> > the drive. There are third party applications that can read/write NTFS
> > from DOS, but if you do not previously have said program, it is hard. I
> > have never even seen a reference to an NT regedit running under DOS.
>
> The third party application is freely available (I think) from the Sys
> Internals guys. Of course, this assumes you used NTFS on an NT system.
One must buy the utility to have write access.
>
> On a workstation on its own, and running Windows 2000, what's wrong with
> FAT32?
What's the point of FAT32 if you have NT?
>
> > > > Anyone that does not see the fundamental problem with this system,
> > > > does not understand what makes a system maintainable.
> > >
> > > If what Erik said is true, then there's no problem.
> >
> > Erik is wrong.
>
> By your own definition, only partly wrong.
Depends on perspective.
>
> > > Did you backup the registry before you did this?
> >
> > Should someone ALWAYS backup the system registry when they install a
> > program?
>
> Depends what it is. WinCE development sounds like a major package. Would
> you install something major on Linux without doing a backup?
I back up my system regularly, but I wouldn't do a special backup just
for one package. Why should one expect that a program install would
cause a system to fail to operate?
>
> > > Did you try restore from last known good setup after this occured?
> >
> > On NT?
>
> This is a feature on Windows NT. You mean you've never heard of it?
The emergency boot disk only restores the last registry, usually the
state right after install.
>
> > > Did you try any of the above before you pulled the hard disk?
> >
> > This is NT, it is quite different from 9x. There are not many options
> > for an NT system which does not boot.
>
> Restore from last known good backup is an NT feature, not a Win9x one.
>
> > > If you have a Linux system on a floppy yes. If you don't and you don't
> > > have a Linux system handy, what then? If you're system won't boot, what
> > > are you to do?
> >
> > Boot off the installation CD.
>
> Which only works on systems that supported bootable CD's. I have one that
> doesn't.
You can usually boot Linux "-s" for single mode, this will keep from
loading any of the normal drivers and services. There are far more
options for resurrecting a Linux system than a dead NT box, which is
ironic, in that NT has these problems more often.
>
> > To restore from a backup, one has to have an operable system.
>
> I've already answered that one.
How?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:19:10 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Because they are afraid of change. They might have to learn something.
>
> About the only people I can see that are afraid on change are the Linux
> zealots.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API changes very often. Microsoft are
> adding new stuff to it quite rapidly (and not always wisely).
The magical mystery APIs of fashion, are not progress despite what
Microsoft would like you to believe. Deliberate, well designed, APIs
added as needed are far better than the Microsoft hack'o mattic crap
that gets changed every service pack.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle number 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S.
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 22:30:40 GMT
Glitch wrote:
>
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > C2 achieved when un-networked! once networked, ya might as well throw
> > the dandy little certificate out the door.
>
> what's the point of certifying an OS for security if you are certifying
> it when it's unnetworked? It's damn near pointless.
It gives MS marketing something to hype to people who don't know better. Most people
have no idea what C2 means. Most MIS types
will put that in a slide show for uppermanagement types who don't know that they have
an etch-a-sketch. (Classic Delbert
reference)
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 18:13:03 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
> >
> > Yes, it is.
> >
> > Routine batch-processing jobs (like data collection and report generation)
> > is something that I can routinely accomplish with 15-120 minutes
> > of script programming, and then a mere couple of SECONDS to type
> > the command thereafter.
> >
> > Meanwhile, in LoseDOS land, the same task will continue to take
> > several HOURS of my time EVERY WEEK.
>
> Any script you can write in Unix can be written for Windows as well. I
> don't understand your point.
Conceptually true, but not practically. Windows programs are not usually
designed such that they operate in this mode. So, you can script all you
want, but the things you would normally do can't be done.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:28 +0200
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 17:44:12 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
>>Flatfish
>>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Because its arguments fall flat. :-)
And his mother's minge smells of fish?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:30 +0200
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:30:01 -0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> > > It's not even funny?
>> > what I don't get is how the hell can somebody "steal" something that is
>> > given away for free???
>> What part of HUMOR do you not understand?
>now there's a big PKB! ....tell me, do you also laugh at "00100101"?
What? %?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:31 +0200
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:03:54 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)) wrote:
>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?
And they're so useful for "using" when they crash every 15 minutes,
and when they let a single program crash the entire system.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:33 +0200
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 12:05:17 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Peter K�hlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> And security patches come out for Unix systems weekly.
>At least they come. And its not that you need every patch yourself.
>Lots of the patches apply only in certain cases.
>And windows has become the defacto standard for security risks
>Ever heard of an IE without severe security risks?
>To make a windows system at least a little secure, you have to disable
>scripting, ActviveX, java and so on.
>And THEN you can't really any longer use the web. Catch22 I'd say
What are you on about? I use the web perfectly well without java,
scripts etc. Any site that needs fancy effects to function isn't worth
my time.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:36 +0200
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:59:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)) wrote:
>Peter K�hlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><92po97$epp$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> And security patches come out for Unix systems weekly.
>>At least they come. And its not that you need every patch yourself.
>>Lots of the patches apply only in certain cases.
><snip>
>As is the case with windows. We are not talking W2K/NT here - we are
>talking home/small business. Why would we need most security patches?
>There isn't anything to be secured against! OK, there are malicious java
>bits and, in particular, VB scripting - which I won't allow. VBS is just
>too silly and disabling it doesn't prevent you using most web sites. At the
>end of the day though, at worst you will kill a machine and need a complete
At worst? You say that as if it's not that bad. Do you realise how
inconvenient it is to have to reinstall windows?
>re-install. Providing you keep a backup of your latest game saves, home
>finance spreadsheets, whatever, even that isn't an enormous problem. The
Not an enormous problem? You think that having to back up ALL your
data isn't an enormous problem? And to do it regularly? Are you MAD???
>windows install is usually no worse than a Linux install nowadays.
Except with Linux you can just change certain parts instead of the
whole thing.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:37 +0200
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 02:06:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>> > AN operating system is only as good as the programs that run on it.
>>
>> wrong. An OS is only as good as it's kernel. New Programs can be
>> developed in parallel by anybody who has a copy of development tools.
>> But the kernel can only be improved by a rather limited group of
>> people.
>Gees, I always found an OS without the software as a washing machine
>without a program: Rather useless.
But here we're discussing operating systems, not the software.
Speaking of which, why the fuck does Windows allow single programs to
crash the entire system?
>> > Therefor, Linux sucks.
>> Linux will beat LoseDOS (in all forms) decades before Microsoft
>> ever puts out a decent kernal that doesn't crash at the drop of a pin.
>?????? Tell me of a OS that crashes on it's own!!!!!!!!!!! Moron...
Tell me of an OS that allows a normal user's program to crash it?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:38 +0200
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 21:55:17 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>
>> It is. Once you are used to an OS that does not crash, is reliable, and
>> has all the features that Linux has, working with Windows feels like
>> shaving a balloon.
>But Linux does not have the features I want, so I'm stuck between Windows
>and Linux.
Well why don't you give it the features you want instead of just
expecting everyone else to do it for you?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:39 +0200
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:38:00 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
>> Misinformation?? Where?? You're the one with six years Windows
>> experience, a week of Linux experience...claiming Linux is not as
>> good.
>I see misinformation here all the time. People report that Windows is so
>unstable it crashes with an hour or two. Yet, the machines I use do crash
>but not as often. Someone claimed a machine would not stay up beyond a
>month - I had a web server that lasted two months. That kind of
>misinformation!
>
>And the misinformation you're spouting about my using Linux for a week! HAH!
Misinformation? As far as you know, they may have been using Windows
machines that crash all the time. I for one have come accross some
Windows programs that can crash the entire system.
As far as we know, YOU may be the one emitting "misinformation".
No-one can prove a thing accross the Internet.
>> Insults?? Like your thread about renaming this newsgroup? Your entire
>> presence on this NG is about your frustration with something that is
>> new and different.
>Rubbish!
>
>How about "shithead" or "liar" or "Wintroll". Those are the REAL insults!
Or "linsux" or "Penguinistas", or swangomoree's infamous 500 line
"Linux sux the big wazoo!".
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:42 +0200
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:02:05 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("John Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>So, it's ok for Linux users to hate Windows, but not Windows users to hate
>Linux? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
It may have escaped your attention, but this is a LINUX advocacy
group.
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I can understand why Linux users hate Windows, it is something we are
>> too frequently forced to use even though it, as an operating
>> environment, is terrible at best.
>>
>> What I can't understand, is the bitter hatred and resentment that some
>> of the Windows zealots have. They have freedom of choice, they can use
>> their environment to their hearts content, they can buy almost any
>> software for it. Why spread FUD and criticize a different environment?
>>
>> The only reason I can come up with is fear. They must be afraid of
>> Linux. The only reason they would have to be afraid is because Linux is
>> better than Windows. They have to know this, else they would not be
>> afraid.
>>
>> --
>> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:44 +0200
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:27:05 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 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.
>
>2) Overwhelming amount of work needed to acomplish even minor tasks.
>
>3) Lack of functionality.
>
>4) And mostly, becuse after fidling with it for a week they realize they've
>been wasting their time.
So? If they didn't enjoy it, all they had to do was uninstall it and
go running back to windows. Linux users on the other hand end up
having it shoved down their throat one way or another. (Note: that
should be having WINDOWS shoved down their throat, before you get any
filthy ideas.)
>> 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.
But they'd leave it at that, without having it forced fed them.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:03:46 +0200
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:28:24 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> 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.
How many Windows users had to install it themselves?
>> > 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.
After you've configured DUN.
>> To get mail, you click on the icon.
>After you figure out how to configure the mail program.
As in Windows.
>> To start the word processor you click on the icon
>After you figure out how to install it.
And suppose it's preinstalled as on Windows? Or do they just give you
a point-and-click installer which might end up giving you a spying
program as well.
>> To play quake 3 arena you click on the icon.
>I've never seen a distro with quake 3 arena installed.
Or with Windows?
>> 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.
1/2 an hour? Maybe for a 5 year old.
>> > 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?
And I suppose the functionality of an entire operating system revolves
around CAD and cheap-sounding sound files.
>> > 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.
A week? For a pre-installed system?
>> 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?
Having it pre-installed on nearly all computers would be a good start.
And the way MS like to choke off the competition.
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 23:50:04 GMT
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:18:37 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
:> So here it is the new year and no new Linux kernel yet. Goes to show
:> that Linux's due dates are no better than anyone elses.
:
:What due dates?
:
:2.4 is ready when it's ready.
:
:BTW the 2.4.0-prerelease hit the ftp sites Dec 31 2000.
:
:jjs
Huh? I thought it was still at test12? Don't tell me I have to wait for
the reiser patches for a new kernel :-). Or are you talking about a RH
kernel release...
jt
_________________________________________
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
