Linux-Advocacy Digest #450, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (pip)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (pip)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Bagpuss")
Re: SMB.conf File ("Bagpuss")
Open Source & security holes (Pablo)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:20:12 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <19L76.1172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <uGd76.288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:93in2m$adklg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >The Windows setup files are all 8.3 conformant. We were talking
about
> >> >> using
> >> >> >a network card, not a modem.
> >> >>
> >> >> I thought we were talking about installing from the internet so both
> >> >> netcards and modems are relevent here.
> >> >
> >> >As if installing Linux via modem is feasible.
> >>
> >> Funny you should ask this.
> >>
> >> Debian will install over a modem and I just did this 2 weeks
> >> ago. I put potato on a rural PC on a farm for a farmer.
> >>
> >> The Debian install dials the phone, and the download takes
> >> over night. If the phone line disconnects it redials
> >> and apt-get restarts where it left off.
> >>
> >> It's totally hands free and it doesn't miss a single bit.
> >
> >Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were connecting
at
> >speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
> >there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
> >that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours.
Even
> >a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27 hours,
or
> >more than a day. Not "overnight".
>
> Total Bullcrap EF. They do!
>
> 56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
Ok charlie, you've just completely shot your credibility on this story (your
credibility is shot anyways, but on this story you're lying).
56K doesn't work with fiber lines. 56K works only on copper connected
directly to a CO because it takes advantage of the lack of analog to digital
conversion. If you've got fiber between you and the CO, you get multiple
A/D conversions and it totally screws your ability to get more than 33.6.
> And YES overnight. Believe it bad boy.
Liar.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:21:23 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> > >
> > > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> > > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> > > consider it?
> >
> > The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn
near
> > impossible.
>
> Not at all - X is way overkill for 95% of the users, who
> really don't need a network-transparent, client/server
> windowing system. A simple local GUI, similar to what's
> on a windows pc, would likely suffice.
>
> The intelligent design of Unix makes things like choice
> of GUI totally orthogonal to the rest of the system.
>
> Something like Quartz could be substituted for the X11
> based system without much trouble.
You're crazy. All existing GUI apps would not work with Quartz because the
existing apps use sockets to connect to the GUI.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:23:07 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> > >
> > > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> > > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> > > consider it?
> >
> > The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn
near
> > impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
> > they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
> > choice.
> >
> > Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would
work.
>
> The Mac OS/X GUI runs on top of X.
No, it doesn't. It uses it's own API and is incompatible with X, though you
could run X on top of Quartz.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:24:31 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Absolutely,
>
> OS-X on Linux.
>
> I'll try that.
What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:26:40 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> >>
> >> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> >> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> >> consider it?
> >
> >
> > The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn
near
> > impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
> > they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
> > choice.
> >
> > Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would
work.
>
> I don't see any obstacle for X running on top of quartz. It can already
> run on top of DOS, Windows (most flavours), MacOS and probably many
others.
No, of course not. X can run on Quartz, no problem. But you'd need a
totally new version of XFree86 to do so.
> If, however, Quartz ran on top of X (again, I see no insurmountable
> obstacle for this, seeing as Win32 (ish) can run on top of X) I wouldn't
> hesitate to use Quartz apps.
That would make Quartz a very poor performer, considering it already has to
go through display postscript.
> Then the quartz apps could be linked against quartz only libraries (ie
> not via X) for small devices. I think the number of people wanting to
> run apps on palmtops, but displaying on their desktops is fairly limited.
Yes, but those libraries would ultimately have to use X.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:59:48 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
"." wrote:
> Tons of reasons, not the least of which is that they didnt port the BSD
> kernel to PPC.
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/
I'm sure you didn't mean this, but NetBSD runs on PPC's. It would be
interesting to have a PPC, epecially running a non-Apple OS.
====== 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: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:28:23 +0000
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> So, lesse... a backdoor that perhaps one person could use or one that every
> script kiddie on the planet now knows about ... hmm... AND, the fact that
> the door stayed hidden so long as the source was kept closed then it too 6
> months of exposure to open source before someone found it and in the rush to
> their minute of fame spued it accross the net, damn the consequences...
> childish...
If you ever wrote a line of code then I'd be _very_ scared.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[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: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:33:52 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
> worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
> shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
> mean dittly squat.
>
Where did you work? At a gas pump?
> > This by definition must mean there is more experience / knowledge
> > required to set up a Linux system than any M$ equivalent.
>
> experience, perhaps, knowledge not really. You have to have some
> pretty extensive Unix experience to be able to work at all with Linux
> (unless all you want to do is be a skr1pt-k1dd13), but if you had
> knowledge, you wouldn't waste your time with Linux in the first place.
Yes, definitely your experience comes from gas pump.
Please fill it up, and check the oil please.
You may keep the change, boy.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:38:44 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Absolutely,
> >
> > OS-X on Linux.
> >
> > I'll try that.
>
> What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
..oh for posix compatibility... it all started so well
:-)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:43:17 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QhT76.31620$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Actually CLI's are from the mid 90's.
>
> ???
>
> > The term WinDOS isn't just an attempt to be cute. It's actually
> > an accurate and recent description of the state of things in the
> > Microsoft dominated novice computing market.
>
> WinDOS is fair enough, but LoseDOS isn't.
>
> > CLI's are only "from the 70's" if you were bold enough to ignore
> > Microsoft prior to 1995.
>
> Let me see, what was I using at EMI and Digital before then. Gasp! A CLI!
Liar! All pre-microsoft computing involved punch-cards and patch cables. ;)
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:34:40 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> >
> > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> > consider it?
>
> In that article on OS-X, J. Hubbard stated that it could benefit Apple
> if they made OS-X open source. He also said that it would allow Mac
> OS-X to run on the Intel platform as well, since there'd be so many open
> source developers into the porting effort. Also, think of what that'd
> do with driver support.
Somehow, I don't see that happening. "Open" and "Apple" are like "Oil" and
"Water."
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Bagpuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:39:10 -0000
<snip>
I don't know where the confusion arose from (maybe my late night posting
habit) but it's just to say I am more of a Linux person than anything. I
have used 2000 Server for a few days (only to decide I didn't like it after
it crashed the minute I touched it) and use Linux at work serving a group of
Win98 machines. The BSD part of it comes from home - it serves my home
network and is more of a general workhorse and tinkering machine.
So there you go - clear the confusion. I would much rather have Linux than
Windows...
--
Bagpuss
Your friendly cloth cat
Linux user 192745
Take the rubbish out before replying
------------------------------
From: "Bagpuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMB.conf File
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:28:21 -0000
"Moefresh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93r9rt$lm3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Does anybody have a edited smb.conf file (a copy) that will allow me to
> store files on my linux box. (Client system is NT Workstaton 4.0) I want
> to set it up as a file server so I can back all my data to that
> system. I can now see the Linux box but I can't copy files to the
> directory (/tmp) Any help is much appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Moefresh
> Email- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
I posted a copy of mine earlier at www.glasgownet.com/smb.conf
HTH
--
Bagpuss
Your friendly cloth cat
Linux user 192745
Take the rubbish out before replying
------------------------------
From: Pablo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Open Source & security holes
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:40:25 GMT
Hi!
I've found a lot of sites about Open Source Software, but I would like
to find a site that compare Open Source and commercial software. E.g
security holes, "Who get the patches first?" and so on. Anyone?
Curious
--
"Education is a good thing, but it ought to be
remembered that nothing which is worth knowing
can be taught."
(Oscar Wilde)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:59:57 GMT
So you are not denying anymore that SWC is a subsystem or driver executing in
the Windows 2000 kernel in kernel-mode, and that almost no (if any) IIS 5.0
code was executing during the benchmark. This was my point from the beginning
:-) Your claim is that SWC is caching full static HTTP replies. Then it's in
blatant violation of HTTP RFC's, IIRC the 'Date:' field for example has to be
generated for every request. I just digged RFC-2616 up, it says: "Origin
servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, except in these
cases: [... hardware has no clock ...].") So SWC 3.0 either violates the HTTP
RFC's (and thus Spec rules) in a spectacular way, or it generates HTTP fields
autonomously (and thus qualifies as a webserver). Pick your favorite.
Thomas
> content. It serves up cached copies of static pages. That's what it does.
> Period. It is impossible for SWC to produce a dynamically generated page.
> Period. The sooner you get over these facts the sooner you can rejoin
> reality.... sheesh...
>
> Then again - thinking about it... ok, so what? Say SWC is some mysterious
> here-to-unknown product MS has that no one has noticed until it went
> head-to-head with the linux kernel mode webserver and THEN, desperate for
> answers why linux only was a scant 2.7% faster the zealots had to go digging
> for some exuse. Amazing that no one else has noticed this interesting
> product that can do such miraculous performance and is tucked into the
> kernel yet multi-million dollar players have simply "missed" it - whoops,
> just like that. But mcnash spots it by his own mind-reading interpretation
> of the source code to a benchmark.
>
> I do see that by examining the files dell submitted for the tux results that
> there is a line that reads: "interact with the TUX kernel subsystem" - there
> we have it, proof that tux is running in the kernel space. There is
> documentation for how to access it from user space too. So, there you have
> it... tux in the kernel... whatever...
>
> silly
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93q1j7$nhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Contrary to your assertion, SWC is in the kernel, it's visible from
> > user-space as a Windows 2000 device. Proof is Microsoft's own submitted
> > source code:
> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001212-TWC.zip -
> unpack
> > it and open the twc.c C-sourcecode file. Search for 'SWC', it gives this
> > comment: "// Open Kernel SWC device": Q.E.D. Moreover, try searching for
> > 'IIS' or 'ISAPI' in the whole source-code package - you will find only
> one!
> > You will find many references to 'SWC' (Microsoft's in-kernel webserver)
> and
> > 'TWC', the API to this in-kernel webserver. You will even find some
> interface
> > definitions in twc.h. If you ever programmed dynamic applications (ISAPIs)
> > under IIS, you'll immediately recognize that in this benchmark no IIS was
> > used for the dynamic requests. (maybe IIS was used for the 0.005% CGI's
> > SPECweb99 generates.) Calling the test-results 'IIS 5.0 + SWC 3.0' is most
> > likely a boldfaced lie, or at best an extreme exaggeration. In reality it
> was
> > a "99.99% SWC 3.0 + 0.005% IIS 5.0" test. Thomas
> >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:93mbpa$p17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's very
> likely
> > > a
> > > > duck. Microsoft's own in-kernel SWC 2.0 web page (the outdated SWC
> > > version)
> > > > at http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp says that this
> 'front-end
> > > > cache' accepts and answers web requests, logs those requests into its
> own
> > > > separate binary logfile, and supports only the HTTP 1.0 protocol. The
> > > > Microsoft SWC 3.0 SpecWeb99 submission webpage (I couldnt find
> information
> > > > about SWC 3.0 anywhere else) at
> > > >
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
> > > > says that SWC 3.0 has its own dynamic API as well: "TWC 3.0". If this
> > > > in-kernel web-thing accepts web requests, serves web requests, logs
> web
> > > > requests and provides ways to write dynamic webpages, then it's what?
> A
> > > > webserver. Surprisingly, the SpecWeb99 benchmark (check out the
> functional
> > > > specification at http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/) needs these webserver
> > > > features, little more. I repeat, from the submission page it's pretty
> > > clear
> > > > that little if any IIS 5.0 code was running in this test - nothing
> makes
> > > this
> > > > more apparent than the fact that no IIS 5.0 tuning was done at all on
> this
> > > > system! For example compare it with the IIS 5.0 tunings done in the
> > > > following, much much slower 4-CPU SPECweb99 Windows 2000 / IIS 5.0
> result:
> > > >
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000612-00049.html
> > > .
> > > > This submission page is full of IIS 5.0-specific tunings, while the
> SWC
> > > 3.0
> > > > submission has none at all! IIS 5.0 was probably just taking away some
> > > space
> > > > on disk and RAM, and was idling around - this was probably the best it
> > > could
> > > > have done to help get a better result ;-) Obviously this is not what
> > > > Microsoft PR wants us to believe though :-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are really dense aren't you? SWC is a web CACHE - do you know what
> the
> > > word cache means? Do you understand how a web cache works? Obviously
> not.
> > > Where do you think the pages the cache is supplying were generated?????
> Do
> > > you think the cache created the pages??? HELLO???!!! Doh!!! IIS5 created
> the
> > > pages and if a static (keyword) page was requested again and it hadn't
> > > expired it was served by the cache and not by IIS, all the dynamic pages
> > > were served by IIS5 time and again.
> > >
> > > I mean, really - you enter a technical conversation without any
> > > understanding of how a web server and/or cache works and expect us to
> read
> > > that crap? Gee - did you think that no one at specweb would notice
> something
> > > clever like, gee, they didn't use a web server, they just served up
> > > pregenerated and cache pages (amazingly they have time travel worked out
> so
> > > they could pregenerate even the dynamic content to serve up from the
> cache).
> > >
> > > And, SWC does not run in the kernel, neither does IIS5.
> > >
> > > (not that I care really, I only make fun of Tux being in the kernel to
> > > remind linux loosers about how much they tried to give NT advocates
> grief
> > > because NT runs speed critical components in the kernel - nice to note
> that
> > > tux/linux is merely acknowledging the NT method of doing things as the
> best
> > > and copying it, like they have copied everything else).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
