Linux-Advocacy Digest #194, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Peter Hayes)
Re: Strange passwd (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Please don't laugh. ("Tommi L. Jensen")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Strange passwd ("Chaz")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Strange passwd (Marble Head)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:12:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard Steiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:08:28 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Here in alt.os.linux,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
>spake unto us, saying:
>
>>os2.advocacy removed from followups. (I wonder if anyone ported
>>X to OS2? Interesting thought, that.)
>
>XFree86 3.x has been ported to OS/2 for quite a while, as have a number
>of useful X programs like GIMP and XV:
>
> http://borneo.gmd.de/~veit/os2/xf86os2.html
Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. :-) And it's nice to see that
someone made the effort; X is near-universal in the non-Windows
area.
My father likes OS/2 (I can't say I do, but I haven't used it either),
and might go into Linux at some point. :-) As far as I know, OS/2
is much more stable than Windows 9x, and is probably more stable
than Windows NT.
I'm also given to understand that XFree86 3.x is ported to NT as well,
although I haven't tried compiling it. Sadly, Mi/X [*] has gone
shareware (http://www.microimages.com/mix), $25 per license, trial
run 15 days. Not bad, but I prefer free. :-)
[.sigsnip]
[*] not to be confused with Dr. Knuth's MiX machine, a theoretical
piece of hardware used to illustrate, implement, and performance
test his algorithms.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 93 days, 17:48, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:09:33 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:05:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:31:55 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> >>
> >> "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? :-)
> >>
> >
> >Actually, of all the OS's I've used, Microsoft is the "newbie"...
> >
> >So...my frustration with their low quality comes from over a DECADE
> >of using reliable systems before having been introduced to Microcrap.
>
> One could quibble here, admittedly.
>
> Unix: 1969 - 1970.
> v6 < 1980
> v7 1982?
> MIcrosoft: incorporated 1975?
Yes, making BASIC for the Altair. Microsoft didn't make any OSs until IBM
came along in 1981 looking for the OS for "Project Chess". Even then all
they did was modify Tim Paterson's QDOS.
> first DOS 1981?
> Windows 3.1 1985?
Win3.1 was 1992. Win1.03, the first official release, is dated 1986
> Windows 95 1995
> Linux: 0.01 1991
I thought Linus Torvald's first posting was in October 1991.
> 1.0.9 1994
> 1.2.13 1995
> 2.0.0 1996
> 2.0.38 1997
> 2.2.0 1999
> 2.3.99-pre9 2000 (development)
Peter
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Strange passwd
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:07:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I installed 2 Turbolinux at 2 separate machine A and B. I want to make
> some users who do not need a password when they are login.
>
Take a look at the Beowulf howtos and documentation.
Typically, you want a front-end or gateway machine with full security
and a back-end machine with less security (to make transaction
processing faster.
You can create rhosts and ~/.rhosts files on each user's home on the
back-end system.
You can also use NIS and Netgroups which will allow you to set up
groups which allow only specific users from specific machines to
issue requests without a full authentication. You can also set up
firewall software that will only allow connections from your gateway
hosts.
For a bit more transparent authentication, you can use Kerberos
and LDAP (the real ones not Active Directory) and have a security
server manage access control for all systems. The user establishes
an identity on the gateway server, and the back-end servers can
trust the identity (using Kerberos tickets) but perform access
checking on each resource before it is used (typically on the Open
or connect request).
You can have transparant security without giving up security. Again,
a review of the Beowulf and PAM documentation is in order.
The problem isn't that there is no way to do what you want. The
problem is that there are many ways to get the effect you want while
still having a secure system. You need to review the documentation
to see which is the best fit.
You may want to get a Linux Consultant or a UNIX security consultant
to assist you in this matter if one is available in your area. Some
may even be willing to consult via e-mail at a reduced rate. Some can
even do the configuration for you via remote connection (which you
will seal shut once he's done.
========================================================================
-
>
> In Machine A, I tried as following:
>
> >passwd -d user123
> >passed -S user123
> Changing password for user user123
> Empty password.
>
> (and I can login this user without a password.)
>
>
========================================================================
-
>
> In Machine B, I got something different as following:
>
> >passwd -d user123
> >passed -S user123
> Changing password for user user123
> No Password set.
>
> (and I CAN'T login with this user without a password.)
>
>
========================================================================
-
>
> Why this happened? The two machines are have same linux version and
same
> config, and I tried to delete the problem user in machine B, and
> recreate again, but problem still exists.
> Thanks for any helps!
>
> Martin.
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tommi L. Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please don't laugh.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 22:27:03 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'd like to look at Linux butthe only pc I can play with it on is a 25
> Mhz 486 with 4 meg of RAM and a 170 meg hard drive. Is there a free
> version of Linux that'll work on this and where can I find it?
it is possible to get something usefull from specs like that, however
don't expect to be able to run much on it, in my case it acts as firewall
before the ssh/telnet daemon died it took 1-2 minutes to spawn /bin/sh
from the time you logged in, but for packet switching, it will work fine.
if you really strip it down, you might even be able to run a mailserver
on it, or a khttpd, [non-dynamic httpd] but no apache or X that's for
sure.
one thing is for sure, it won't be easy
good luck.
--
Yours Digitally,
Tommi Jensen
^
/e\ There is no conspiracy
---
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 22:25:45 +0100
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> My father likes OS/2 (I can't say I do, but I haven't used it either),
> and might go into Linux at some point. :-) As far as I know, OS/2
> is much more stable than Windows 9x, and is probably more stable
> than Windows NT.
>
Yep, I had running OS/2 for several years as my main OS. I always had that
odd machine with Win9x, winNT and linux around, but OS/2 simply beat them
all (the WPS still does). But after IBM more or less decided to leave the
non-corporate custumers in the cold, i decided to switch. No i run linux on
several machines, with an odd...
------------------------------
From: "Chaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Strange passwd
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:32:05 -0000
He could sipmly make the appropriate changes to hosts.allow and hosts.deny
"Bill Unruh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92t94a$3ed$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ]I installed 2 Turbolinux at 2 separate machine A and B. I want to make
> ]some users who do not need a password when they are login.
>
> Why in the world do you want to do this? If those machines are connected
> to the net in any way, you have just made them a hackers dream. They can
> use them to launch attacks on others without fear of being found out.
> And you have opened yourself to liability lawsuits. Bad idea.
>
>
> ]>passwd -d user123
> ]>passed -S user123
> ]Changing password for user user123
> ]No Password set.
>
> ](and I CAN'T login with this user without a password.)
>
> Look at the PAM setup on machine B. You can set it up so that it will
> not work without a password.
>
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 02 Jan 2001 13:51:23 -0700
Sorry so late. Just got back from a two-week vacation....
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Not really. A casual look at the facts would reveal that liberals
> > > use deceit, lies, and misrepresented facts to prove their claim.
> > >
> > > This recent election debacle was a prime example of such actions.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> >
> > So?
>
> So? It's wrong. shouldn't we demand more from our leaders?
> Or are you saying that it's ok when liberals do it because they
> get away with it?
The 'So' was not intended to indicate that I don't care if I'm being
lied to by people running for office. I accept that as an unfortunate
fact regardless of the politician. Call me cynical if you want. I
said 'So' because you seem to be painting lies and misleading facts as
tools that only liberals resort to. That is utter rubbish.
> > Conservatives do it just as much,
>
> Hardly.
Please stop deluding yourself.
> > and for a prime example I submit Dubya's slandering of John McCain
> > in South Carolina during the primaries. This was one of the ugliest
> > smear campaigns I've ever seen, culminating in running an ad stating
> > that John McCain was against breast cancer research since he voted
> > against a bill that had a breast cancer issue tacked onto it. He
> > voted against that bill for other reasons, yet Bush's campaign chose
> > to use it to paint a picture of McCain as a guy who wanted to let
> > women die of breast cancer.
>
> The difference is, W. didn't lie, didn't mislead, merely stated the
> facts to let the people draw their own conclusions. Most of what W.
> ran against McCain was pointing out his rather liberal voting record
> on most issues. He had to establish that McCain wasn't conservative,
> nor really a Republican. He did it by providing hard facts that
> exposed McCain for what he was.
>
> Did W. lie? Answer that.
Not explicitly. He mostly misrepresented facts which you claimed
above was a tool of the liberals. I didn't say he lied, I said he
smeared McCain, and he had the backing of all the Republican political
machinery in South Carolina to help him.
I didn't even mention the push-polling that went on there, the
anonymous emails and whispers about how McCain fathered children out
of wedlock, had a 'black baby', and how his wife was addicted to
pain-killers. Do you really want me to go on?
And please tell me what McCain's liberal voting record is. He's
pro-gun, pro-life, and anti-taxes. He has the most conservative
voting record of any senator since he's been in office (moreso than
even Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond). You clearly don't have a clue
about McCain's record at all.
The Republican heirarchy fears him because of campaign finance
reform, not because he's a liberal in sheep's clothing.
> If it were liberals running that against McCain, they would've
> flat out said that he killed hundreds of women with Breast Cancer.
Speculation. Besides, the Bush ad practically said as much.
> Liberals did this against W. in Texas and Florida. They had
> mass phone call campaigns stating to voters that W. was responsible
> for thousands of elderly dying in Florida because he didn't
> support (he did, but they lied) a prescription drug plan. They said,
> and I quote, "George W. Bush killed my father because he couldn't
> the medicine he needed".
>
> What about the hate crime deal in Texas? They telephoned and rad
> television ads stating that George W. Bush was responsible for the
> young girl's Father's death because Bush didn't pass a hate-crimes
> legislation. The three criminals still got the Death Penalty, a
> penalty that wouldn't have been harsher with a hate-crime bill,
> but they don't tell you that.
I agree with you that these ads were atrocious. They were meant to
pander to people's basest emotions and instincts. Much like Dubya's
breast cancer ads.
> It's quite amusing that the same people who accused the Wrascally
> Republicans of the "Politics of Personal Destruction" were, themselves
> in full force destructing G.W.
I fully believe that Dubya will do a fine job destroying himself over
the next four years. He has neither the experience nor the intellect
to be an effective Commander in Chief. Being the fifth-highest
ranking official in the state of Texas (which is where the governer of
Texas ranks in that state) for 6 years does not qualify one to be
president.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marble Head)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Strange passwd
Date: 2 Jan 2001 21:25:55 GMT
Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I installed 2 Turbolinux at 2 separate machine A and B. I want to make
>some users who do not need a password when they are login.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In Machine A, I tried as following:
>
>>passwd -d user123
>>passed -S user123
>Changing password for user user123
>Empty password.
>
>(and I can login this user without a password.)
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In Machine B, I got something different as following:
>
>>passwd -d user123
>>passed -S user123
>Changing password for user user123
>No Password set.
>
>(and I CAN'T login with this user without a password.)
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Why this happened? The two machines are have same linux version and same
>config, and I tried to delete the problem user in machine B, and
>recreate again, but problem still exists.
>Thanks for any helps!
>
>Martin.
>
I agree with everyone else -- It's a terrible idea to eliminate passwords,
in nearly all situations. However, if you really know what you're doing
(which you probably don't, if you asked this question) then...
Simply edit your /etc/passwd file (or /etc/shadow) and remove the jibberish
that comes in between the first : and the second : characters.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:32:33 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Indeed it did. Yet, somehow a Windows NT machine that crashes daily doesn't
>> > have something wrong with it?
>>
>> Nothing that could be fixed by an army of onsite MCSE
>> and microsoft reps. And I didn't say it crashes daily, I
>> said it crashed at inopportune times, and the consensus
>> from the microsoft experts was a daily therapeutic reboot.
>
>Perhaps these people were padding their time, trying to milk the job for all
>it was worth.
Somebody else's fault. Can't be Microsoft's, just because their product
is crap.
>> > > 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.
>>
>> my aren't we paranoid.
>
>You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and then
>refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
Its hardly common sense to believe that a reasonable person would
disagree with your claims, so long as they were reasonable, unless that
person had specific information to refute them. Presuming that
reasonable claims are false unless they can be corroborated is, indeed,
paranoid.
[...]
>> No, they will blue screen at other times, but it's the
>> 3 AM blue screens that stick in ones memory.
>
>Of course.
Indeed.
>> > Sure, however there are still far fewer of those than all NT (including
>> > Workstations).
>>
>> Since over 60% of the webservers on the internet are Unix,
>> and 75% of the mailservers are Unix, and 80% of the high
>> end databases are running on Unix, where do you get the
>> idea that unix is outnumbered there by windows nt?
>
>Where do you get those numbers from?
He made them up, probably. Do you consider them unreasonable, and have
some specification information to refute them?
>The only stats I know of about web server useage is Netcraft, and Netcraft
>doesn't count sites. It counts hostnames.
And what is a "web site" but a web site address?
>My website has 5 hostnames in
>the global DNS and it's a single server. The numbers do not state what you
>think they do.
Only if you presume that there aren't sites with five servers under a
single hostname, in rough proportions which would balance out the
statistics to where a reasonable estimate can be made.
But you abhor reasonable estimates, because they make arguments from
ignorance so hard to sustain.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:32:34 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 02 Jan 2001
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Indeed it did. Yet, somehow a Windows NT machine that crashes daily doesn't
>> > have something wrong with it?
>>
>> Nothing that could be fixed by an army of onsite MCSE
>> and microsoft reps. And I didn't say it crashes daily, I
>> said it crashed at inopportune times, and the consensus
>> from the microsoft experts was a daily therapeutic reboot.
>
>Strange, that was an old UNIX therapy. AT&T used to recommend that their
>System V be restarted weekly to defragment swap. Guess old habits die hard.
Oddly enough, the frequency has _decreased_ over the years. Go figure.
>What exactly was hanging? Was it the database (Oracle Perchance?) or the
>Network access, the printers, this seems rather extreme to me and unusual
>as I've not seen the need for it in my experience.
Is there any real-world argument you can provide for assuming that it
would help anyone get someone to correct the problem to know? Real
world, not imaginary. What are the odds that troubleshooting down to
the crapware is going to have any profitable returns?
[...]
>> Since over 60% of the webservers on the internet are Unix,
>> and 75% of the mailservers are Unix, and 80% of the high
>> end databases are running on Unix, where do you get the
>> idea that unix is outnumbered there by windows nt?
>
>Got any sources for those statistics.. 'Though seems to me that a few
>months ago the claims for UNIX were somewhat higher.
Is there any (again, real-world, reasoned, not assumed and imaginary)
reason that it would matter?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:32:36 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 02 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> That's bizzare, I'd holler to my vendor long, loud and hard about
>> >> that one - do you have a hardware support contract for the
>> >> system in question? What distro and kernel? What kind of
>> >> hardware?
>>
>> I grinned at that, of course, because I often take MS apologists to task
>> for winging into "troubleshoot mode" as soon as someone mentions a
>> problem they have on Windows. I ridicule them for doing this, long and
>> loud, because its really just empty posturing. Generally, the point is
>> to find someone to blame other than Microsoft.
>
>Yeah you would since you were afraid to discuss your past problems, afraid
>that they might be soluable.
And as a troll you will feel free to repeat this lie ad infinitum, as
"proof" of itself, because I am not at all interested in, yet again,
watching Microsoft apologists go into a tizzy of blame-casting in leu of
troubleshooting. I happen to be a much better troubleshooter than you
presume, and have no need for random opinions from people who can't tell
the difference between monopoly crapware and reliable computer systems.
>> It occurs to me now, of course, that J is doing essentially the same
>> thing, but there is a fundamental difference. It makes perfect sense to
>> find "someone to blame" other than Linux, since Linux isn't a producer,
>> but a product. Obviously, it makes sense, in fact its necessary, to
>> reduce the fault domain to a single vendor, in such a situation. Kind
>> of ironic, though.
>
>Linux is a product now. Two days ago you described it as a service. Which
>is it?
Software.
[...]
>> Only if its a pile of crapware.
>>
>
>Sound logic that.....
Indeed, it is, and rather irrefutable, if colloquially presented, yet
still falsifiable. Feel free to have a go at providing evidence to the
contrary.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:32:37 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001
>"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:92pop8$uln$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the
>> > lack of standardization between distros.
>> >
>> I what way does that (even if it were true) interfere with the distro you
>> use? Or do you (out of habit from windows) do your daily reinstall
>routine?
>
>Trying to find a program for my particular distribution has become a pain.
I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps you're referring to some
library dependencies? Yes, being a knowledgeable consumer in a free
market does require a bit more effort than accepting whatever crapware
the monopoly shoves at you.
>Updating has become a pain.
Updating what? There is no law, you know, that says you have to have
the newest version of everything; that's a Microsoft myth.
>In trying to upgrade XFree86 4.0.1 to 4.0.2, I
>completely lost the ability to start new programs because the dependancies
>got out of whack. Things needed to be installed in specific orders and it
>took hours to figure out which files had to be installed first.
Yes, we know how that goes. You're apparently attempting to replicate
Windows-like problems on Unix, and having some success. The trick is to
understand how the library references actually work, and then just fix
them, rather than remaining ignorant (as you're forced to do, in
Windows) and trying to use an "install order" to arbitrate conflicts.
What was it in the 4.0.2 version that you needed, specifically?
[...]
>Just one power outage can kill your whole filesystem under ext2.
In theory, maybe. But a UPS can make that even more unlikely, and it
does provide a performance advantage.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:32:39 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 02 Jan 2001
>"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:92peee$pbb$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
>> > Period.
>> >
>> it is a fact (for me at least) that 2 different machines (each with 2
>> processors, ECC-memory, all SCSI) just locked up on win NT4 while simply
>> doing nothing at all (during the night), no screensaver, no nothing, just
>> waiting there. One machine was trashed so badly, that it could NOT be
>> rebooted again.
>
>Did you determine what happened. Doing nothing at all sounds far too much
>like the typical response a help desk gets when asking someone what they
>were doing when their problem developed.
Indeed, Microsoft has gotten everyone so swamped with problems and so
used to not being able to resolve them, but simply waiting and hoping
they'll go away in the next version, that nobody even bothers much.
Kind of like throwing away a clock radio, because its going to be far
more expensive to repair it. But the company that runs the radio
stations just keep shoving new ones at you for free, making commercial
clock radios too expensive to produce while controlling which stations
you can pick up.
>Idle computers don't crash as a
>general rule unless hardware fails, if it couldn't be rebooted that seems to
>be a hardware failure on the surface.
A more specific rule, somewhat contrary to the general one, is that a
computer running Microsoft software more often crashes when its idle
than any other.
Obviously, a computer which wouldn't boot may well have had a "hardware
failure", and we'll never precisely know what actually happened. But
rather than supporting an argument from ignorance, and saying we
therefore cannot learn anything from the experience, because we cannot
troubleshoot the system to the level of detail necessary, it makes more
sense to take an empirical, albeit inductive, approach. Chances are,
its a Windows glitch; too bad you can't replace the OS with a commercial
substitute to figure out where it might be.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
