Linux-Advocacy Digest #180, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("mud")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: maximal mounts ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(.)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Uptimes ("JSPL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:46:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> Let me get it striaght, you've a NT box(s) that BSOD occationly, and you
>> remember those 3 AM BSOD especially because...?
>
>Getting up and driving to the office at 3 am does that -
>Gee, I'd have thought that'd be an easy concept....
>
>> Did you had to reset the machine manually?
>
>It isn't me, it's my poor nt admin co workers - I'm
>the lucky one, I admin Unix boxes, I get to sleep
>at night and have my weekends free.
>
>And AFAIK they had to reboot the blue screened
>windows pc server with the button...
>
>Surely you've heard the old saying that the number
>one remote nt administration tool is your car?
>
>jjs
>
>
>
>
My sentiments exactly.
Windows makes for nothing but a blue-screening
kiss of death for you weekends, holidays, important
cash cow company projects, you companies future and
security, your development costs.
And another thing it does which is sick! It makes
everybody in your company a systems administrator.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:50:32 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Please plonk me, asshole.
ok....
plonk
lintroll
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 23:51:01 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > I'd like to see someone steal Microsoft source then give it back to them --
> > Fully debugged. ;)
>
> Why not make some cosmetic changes, and SELL the debugged product.
>
> What kind of case would Microsoft have
>
> "Oh loook, they stole our code and fixed all the damn bugs! They must be stopped!"
>
Is this why you have said "DOS vedanya" to Microsoft OSes? :-)
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:55:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:30:59
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
> >> >> 14:53:53 -0700;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
> >> >> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers
of all
> >> >> >> stripes typically use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ah, yes. Let's not start without the obligatory personal attacks.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican as a
> >> >> personal attack;
> >
> >Now that's a rational attitude, isn't it?
>
> I'm afraid it is, yes. A sorry state of affairs, but politics is a game
> where CYA is the only strategy that makes sense.
Instantly assuming a Republican, or any person aligned with a particular
political view, comes out of the gate with a personal attack is most
assuredly NOT rational. My tone got ugly only after phrases such as
"classic bullshit, soft-headed (obviously a pet phrase of yours) and
transparantly moronic" entered the picture.
>
> >> >
> >> >You do have a choice, Max.
> >> >
> >> >> it is an self-preservation mechanism.
> >
> >Paranoid schitzophrenia?
>
> Subversive iconoclast.
No less rational than the prior description.
>
> >> >
> >> >It is a self-destructive attitude. It turns you mind off.
> >>
> >> Which is why I would avoid it, if I could. But the last time I ignored
> >> my instincts and supported Republicans, they screwed things up Big
Time.
> >>
> >> >> No; my definitions are derived from reason,
> >> >
> >> >No they're not. The choice you made (as stated above), created your
> >> >definitions.
> >>
> >> Blah blah blah. Next time, wait two sentences before sniping, if
you're
> >> this lost.
> >
> >How is he lost?
>
> That same way you are; you keep posting no-content messages, as if
> you're responding to my statements, but you never actually provide any
> reasonable response to my comments, almost as if the only reason you
> read my words is so that you can snipe and spout rhetoric, and you stop
> even trying to understand my reasoned and practical position.
I've responded calmly and rationally to several of your statements. The
foolishness began when you were pressed for an explanation of your views and
provided insults and lame condescension as a response. I read your words to
try and get a fix on where you're are coming from and whether or not you're
simply made of straw. Your replies seem rational enough when discussing
uptimes but they certainly seem less so when discussing politics.
>
> >> >> They are supported by reason and facts;
> >> >
> >> >No, they're not. You have not presented facts, you've made
> >> >unsupported accusations, used personal attacks, and in general
> >> >made no presentation of any reasoning what so ever.
> >>
> >> I didn't say I presented facts, I said my opinions were supported by
> >> facts.
> >
> >Which you convieniently neglect to bring forward...
>
> Look around. So far, you haven't refuted my position (in fact, you've
> strongly supported it by engaging in such mindless squirming in leu of
> refuting it with facts or reason) so if you have any facts which you
> believe can shed light on how accurate, consistent, or practical my
> argument is, feel free to provide them. Real facts, please, not simple
> Republican hyperbole and partisan thrashing.
Yes, your position has been refuted. And you, sir, have been asked on
several occasions for facts. Your response was the aforementioned
name-calling.
Any facts presented to you are instantly filed under hyperbole and partisan
thrashing.
>
> >> I'm getting very bored with your sniping, though, and the
> >> supposition that I have no facts because you wish there to be no facts
> >> opposing the idea that Republicans are Good and Democrats are Bad is
> >> enough to make me give up this charade.
> >
> >Bye.
> >
> >
> >> I wish I could say "thanks for your time." I wish it would help.
> >
> >We've certainly wasted enough of it on you...and it obviously isn't
helping
> >anyone.
> >
> >Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say soon...
>
> To requote my own previous response:
>
> >> >> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
> >> >> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers
of all
> >> >> >> stripes typically use.
The phrase "Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say to you
soon" isn't an argument - Its' an insult.
I apologise for that...Spending New Years porting poorly written legacy code
from C to C++ makes me a bit cranky.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 23:57:45 -0500
"." wrote:
>
> As do I, from a myraid of operating systems. It may be worth mentioning
> that in my experience, linux is the easiest unix-type OS to interpolate
> with windows.
>
> All of those cute little dohickeys contained in linux that enable it
> to speak windows (file converters, word processors, etc) either do not
> exist, or are very difficult to get to work under most other unices.
>
> Try getting AIX to do it. Go on. I dare ya.
>
Of course. But why would anyone with AIX-class hardware want to
run Windows in the first place?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 05:13:42 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92pu5s$l0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Form@C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "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...
>
> curses.h, too.
> I'm assuming that the name givers thought that UI is the hardest part of
> most programs as well.
You tend to do a lot of cursing when working with it for the first time <g>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:14:18 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > is via consultation and support. It won't disappear from the server market
> > anytime soon because its' just too darned stable, flexable, and
> > cost-effective to do without. Its' a Godsend. Besides, being open source,
> if
> > all of the distro makers belly-up and die, the OS will continue to mature.
>
> See my other post. Without those commercial companies, Linux development
> will crawl to a halt. Do you think Linus would still be developing the
> kernel (even at it's 3 year snail pace) if TransMeta were not paying him to
> do so? He might, but probably nowhere near what it's being done at now.
>
> You can argue that others do most of the work, but when it comes down to it,
> nothing goes into the kernel unless it's been approved by Linus or Alan. If
> they weren't being paid to do this,
Linus is not paid to do this. Transmeta hired him for his knowledge of
the x86 design, not of Linux.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: maximal mounts
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:27:27 -0500
Bob Nelson wrote:
> /dev/hdd10 vfat 155532 109756 45776 71% /dos
> /dev/hdc14 ufs 49583 29734 15889 66% /freebsd/a
> /dev/hdc16 ufs 19815 936 17295 6% /freebsd/e
> /dev/hdc17 ufs 3548142 952648 2311646 30% /freebsd/f
>
How do you get /dev/hdc17? Ithought it only went up to 16
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:47:31 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> Microsoft is proof that P.T. Barnum was wrong. Barnum said you can't
> fool all the people all of the time.
That was Abraham Lincoln. Barnum has been (falsely) credited with
the maxim "There's a sucker born every minute", which may be more
applicable here.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: 2 Jan 2001 05:53:47 GMT
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> As do I, from a myraid of operating systems. It may be worth mentioning
>> that in my experience, linux is the easiest unix-type OS to interpolate
>> with windows.
>>
>> All of those cute little dohickeys contained in linux that enable it
>> to speak windows (file converters, word processors, etc) either do not
>> exist, or are very difficult to get to work under most other unices.
>>
>> Try getting AIX to do it. Go on. I dare ya.
>>
> Of course. But why would anyone with AIX-class hardware want to
> run Windows in the first place?
It depends on the application. Broadcast cable networks for example
often mix AIX and NT; AIX for highly critical satellite band management
and NT for some stupid crap that they probably dont need it for in
the first place. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:55:57 -0500
Jeepster wrote:
> You dont have to be so rude.
And what was rude about his response? Maybe you are too
sensitive to be posting here.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 00:57:52 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001 10:32:21 -0500;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> My apologies. I obviously did get hot-headed, and misinterpreted your
> >> remark. When you mentioned http headers, I presumed you were
> >> misrepresenting the issue, since http headers aren't related, it
> >> appears, to Netcraft's numbers (or Uptime's numbers).
> >
> >They are related and the sole source of Netcrafts information.
>
> You are, as always, incorrect.
>
> >The http
> >response to a HEAD request to the server at port 80 is the only data in
> >which Netcraft uses to come up with their uptime assumptions.
>
> But it is not the http response, but the TCP packets containing this
> response, which provides both the OS and the uptime indication.
>
> >Now, if you
> >look through the rfc's on the standard, industry accepted header fields
> >you'll find that there are none which pertain directly to "time since
last
> >reboot" or anything even close. Therefore netcraft is using some kind of
> >unsupported method which is apparently impossible to duplicate.
>
> Not at all. I'm pretty sure I know precisely how they are doing it.
> The TCP packet contains a sequence number for packet ordering. The
> number simply has to be unique, what is called pseudo-random. As often
> occurs in computer engineering, most OSes use the system timeticks
> value, and counter used as an uptime continuity indicator, as the value.
> Firewalls, under the general belief that any information is too much
> information to let someone else have, provide true randomized (but not
> necessarily random) numbers.
"Pretty sure" doesn't cut it.
>
> None of this has anything to do with HTTP, other than the fact that it
> uses TCP and the intent is to measure uptime for various web sites.
Some of it has everything to do with HTTP. I'll take the liberty of posting
the HTTP interaction I've recorded last month for three seperate servers.
Note that in each case all of the information that Netcraft uses to discover
OS and Server is passed through a simple GET request. And I have had
netcraft query my own server and an HTTP HEAD request is all that shows up
in the logs.
data sent by my browser:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg,
application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint,
application/msword,
*/*
Accept-Language: en-us
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
Host: www.sauder.com
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: WEBTRENDS_ID=209.19.167.16-2946713232.29383533;
sauder=Visits=1
server response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:55:49 GMT
Content-Length: 7639
Content-Type: text/html
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDGGGGQKAU=HMHHAIPAIMIACDFAKJNIECIN; path=/
Cache-control: private
Connection: keep-alive
<html code>
data sent by my browser:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg,
application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint,
application/msword,
*/*
Accept-Language: en-us
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
Host: www.redhat.com
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: Apache=209.19.167.18.5951975852238404
server response:
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:05:55 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_ssl/2.7.1
OpenSSL/0.9.5a
Content-Type: text/html
<html code>
data sent by my browser:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg,
application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint,
application/msword,
*/*
Accept-Language: en-us
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
Host: www.microsoft.com
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie:
MC1=V=3&LV=200011&HASH=05D9&GUID=90D2D905858946E489D806D948C5ABA3
server response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Location: http://www.microsoft.com/Default.htm
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 17:38:20 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Last-Modified: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:15:48 GMT
ETag: "259467fd5bc01:86e"
Content-Length: 21401
Connection: keep-alive
<html code>
>
> >I suspect
> >that their method wouldn't stand up to independent analysis, which is why
> >they do not release their method.
>
> I'm afraid this is an argument from ignorance. Looking at independent
> correlation of their results, we find them to be accurate, consistent,
> and practical.
The only thing I've seen are either an inability to display uptime or
wildly impossible to believe number such as 13 or so pollings on a server
showing time since last reboot to be "zero". (sauder.com). Or the assinine
assumption that Netcraft is the only entity on earth that seems to be aware
of all these popular sites going down every few days.
I will admit that they are very accurate in the area of what OS and server
sites are using. Probably because it's the only part of their information
gathering that is practicing accepted and duplicatable standards, instead
of some secret info gathering technique that no one on earth can seem to
duplicate, and on the surface appears VERY shaky at best.
> >Uptimes.net purposely puts a header field
> >in which indicates time since reboot on participating machines which
makes
> >it much more accurate if it weren't for the fact that the field can be
> >forged by the client at will.
>
> Uptime.net uses a client. The uptime value cannot be forged; the number
> of previous counter wraps can be initialized. But that only invalidates
> the very first indication provided by a system. On the very first
> reboot, the use of a counter as a continuity indicator makes continued
> fudging impossible. Sure, after rebooting you could say the system was
> just "wrapping" for the 35th time. But the server watching the
> continuity indicator can tell it wasn't a wrap, so your baseline starts
> at the current counter value, not the number of previous wraps
> indicated.
You better look into the facts then because they themselves admit that the
information can be easilly faked.
http://www.uptimes.net/bottom.html?show=faq#4
Then there's this:
http://www.uptimes.net/stuff/protocol.html
Which states:
"Faking
Now you know the protocol, it's easy to write a client that fakes the
uptime. Personally, I think hosts running Linux 2.2.x with uptimes over 3
years are not cool. Maybe you think different."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
