Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Nick Condon)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Tom Wilson")
Re: KDE Hell ("Tom Wilson")
Re: KDE Hell ("Tom Wilson")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Kevin Ford)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Kevin Ford)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Kevin Ford)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Kevin Ford)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Kevin Ford)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Kevin Ford)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Kevin Ford)
Re: I just can't help it! (mlw)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: The Server Saga (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (.)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (mlw)
Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?) (Ilja Booij)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: 19 Jan 2001 10:48:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
>>
>It has always been possible to write a linux virus. It's just Linux
>users are a bit more savvy usually, and take steps to prevent spread.
>So what?
>Nothing is virus proof, as long as people can write programs for it.
>
My calculator is programmable. Write a virus for that.
Idiot.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:58:13 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
> >>
> >It has always been possible to write a linux virus. It's just Linux
> >users are a bit more savvy usually, and take steps to prevent spread.
> >So what?
> >Nothing is virus proof, as long as people can write programs for it.
> >
>
> My calculator is programmable. Write a virus for that.
>
> Idiot.
And, for crying out loud it was a WORM, not a VIRUS! Pedantic point, maybe,
but let's keep our terms straight!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:03:43 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Jan 2001 17:13:15 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >I am unaware of any configuration change to windows that I can't do
through
> >the command line BUT I'll stress that I've very rarely tested that claim
>
> Where do we find documentation on the various commands? Do I have to
> sign up for MSDN or what?
That's pretty much a prerequisite, unfortunately. Especially from a
developer's standpoint.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:17:27 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but it's not
> > we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
>
> How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great for a lot
> of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never tried
> Python, but I've heard people say it can do the same stuff Perl can do.
>
> > But if you teach them, say, C (extreme example ;-), which is just
> > unsuited for OOP, you might get them to grok procedural, but you leave
> > them no escape route.
>
> Nah, you can do OO in C. You'd just have to use a lot of ugly pointers
> to functions, typedef structs, and other such kludges. Why do people
> even bother with such things, when they can do the same thing in C++?
> I'm sure there's some horrendous way that you can implement private
> member functions in C using const pointers to functions. It would be a
> scary sight, to be sure. (Even scarier than using packages in Perl to
> implement OOP.)
If you want a vivid example of that, just take a look at the JPEG group's
source code. I'm still debating whether the programmer was a genius,
masochist, or simply insane. (Contains all of the constructs you mentioned
plus macros three and sometimes four levels deep) Its' a few stages above a
Dobb's Journal Obsfucated Code contest entry.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:27:23 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6ML96.58896$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:11:00 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
> > >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent
anyway!
> ;-)
> >
> > I don't think that's a bad thing, in fact for beginners, it's probably
a
> > good thing if the interpreter slaps them when they don't indent
properly.
> > (I have students turning in code that just looks like cr*p because they
> > have no idea how to indent)
>
> The perl philosophy is that if a language prevents you from doing
> bad things it will likewise prevent you from doing good things. I
> agree, at least to the point that I would not expect any programmer
> who counts on the compiler to keep him from making mistakes to
> ever do anything great.
Were that all languages be like that.
Progammers tend to do better without a compiler's handholding. Forces them
to concentrate on what they're doing.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:27:24 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94514c$ij0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My predictions for Whistler include a study by MS that shows that
Whistler
> > is 4 times more reliable than W2K and Microsoft will say that W2K sucks
and
> > all problems are solved by upgrading to Whistler.
>
> My predictions for whistler are this:
>
> It will be as unstable and crash prone as its latest beta, and the
extremely
> restrictive licensing scheme will force both personal and professional
users
> to seek free and open alternatives.
>
> I know damn well that I'm not going to order one fucking whistler CD per
> workstation for OUR IT department. Thats insane. They can stay with W2K
> *forever* (or until the licensing changes to something far less
draconian),
> or they can choose something free.
We've pretty much decided not to utilize it OR develop for it.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:40:44 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kyle Jacobs once wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> What's so obsessive about it? It's no different than the various
>> sites out there specifically dedicated to similar tweaks for
>> WinDOS. He probably spent less time setting this up than the
>> average WinNovice takes downloading and installing a single
>> themepack.
>
>The fact that the END USER has taken the time, and effort to perform the
>task of programming to accomplish such an insignifigtant task of rotating
>the desktop background. Seems a tad obsessive.
>
Takes no time at all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:42:52 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven Brangers once wrote:
>> >Most of the software which runs on Linux will run on Solaris as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >The above probably applies to most commercial Unix versions, BTW
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I woldn't call Solaris especially reliable, right perl programmers?
>
>Tell me more: under what circomstances is Solaris unstable ?
>
when there are about two dozen different lengthy perl scripts running on
it every other minute.
/proc goes a bit weird, load avg reports seem to halve and certain
commands just stop working.
Perhaps we should upgrade to 2.7, but can't be arsed with the change
control mechanism here. 6 monthly reboots fix it :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:49:50 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Did I read this correctly?
>>> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
>>> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
>>> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
>[snipped: The Register's article]
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop *IS*
>> shutdown at night.
>
Not in large corporations it isn't. How are software updates rolled
out??
ps. talking of software updates. Just how flaky is SMS 2.0????
My God they seem to be getting worse not better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:58:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ayende Rahien once wrote:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > 2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
>> > were making videos. Breaking up the already whole videos is
>> > just ANOTHER step we'd have to go through to reach the final product.
>> > All because of Linux's poor design. That's not a valid excuse
>> > when there are plenty of better choices out there.
>>
>> Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues with the
>> limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT or
>> NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that doesn't
>> mean it doesn't have its limits).
>
>The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file creation when
>dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
>
Apart from the 18 month self destruct cycle.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:52:45 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] once wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
>>
>It has always been possible to write a linux virus. It's just Linux
>users are a bit more savvy usually, and take steps to prevent spread.
>So what?
>Nothing is virus proof, as long as people can write programs for it.
Exactly, go back to mainframes I say, no bugger can write decent code for
them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:02:16 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin once wrote:
>
>Is easier to install than Windows? No it isn't!
>
I don't understand this argument. To me how easy it is to install an o/s
is about 100 times less important than being able to trust it to stay up
and be reliable and efficient.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:09:53 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you mean incompetent system architect for choosing NT.
Kyle Jacobs once wrote:
>If you have to reinstall Windows NT or 2000 more than a few times when
>"something" goes wrong, you are an incompetent administrator.
>
>
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9481dp$8c0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Lewis Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >>We're talking about workstations here. I wouldn't trust IIS on ANYTHING
>> >>that even closely classified as "enterprise". Or do you have another
>> >>definition of "workstation"?
>> >
>> >Right, but we're talking about Linux. Linux is a server OS. Through and
>> >through. So that's why we keep coming back to this point. Workstations be
>> >damned. you have a problem with a workstation, you don't even try to fix
>> >it. You grab the image file off the server and reimage the machine. Bam
>> >it's just like new. That's how to fix a Windows workstation.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The point made here for the CLUELESS is that Windows spent the
>> time to make their REINSTALL effortless. WHY you ASK?
>>
>> Because you HAVE to re-install Windows MANY times over the life
>> of your MACHINE. That's because Windows is a peice of shit!
>>
>> Linux is always, install it once, use it, upgrade it when
>> upgrades are available, but you never have to re-install it
>> unless you've just lost your hardware.
>>
>> Or your mind.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>
>
--
---
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:47:38 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE* shut
> > > down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about
> > > how their
> >
> > No they aren't. Typical Windows desktops maybe. Does typical mean
> > Windows in your world? I take it that you, like Microsoft, think
> > these are good results?
>
> Typical desktops are shut down to conserve power. Only recently has power
> management become useable in Linux and other OS's.
You keep saying this, but I doubt that it is true. I see many people
just turn off their monitors when they go home.
>
> A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
> electricity bills.
The time it takes to start up a system, especially Win2K, probably costs
more in productivity than the electricity a computer uses over night.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:50:52 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, fine, I'll stop complaining, if all the Linux advocates stop telling
> me Linux is better than Windows, Linux is great etc.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy? You want people to not express their
satisfaction with Linux in a group specifically dedicated to this
purpose?
Are you for real?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:02:15 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it only were about personal preference.
Isn't it? Are you claiming that you are speaking with some kind of
objective authority when you say you can't get stuff to work for you,
and that others who can't get similar stuff to work with Windows, are
not?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:14:06 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:17:27 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
>If you want a vivid example of that, just take a look at the JPEG group's
>source code. I'm still debating whether the programmer was a genius,
>masochist, or simply insane.
Probably all three. And the same is true for pretty much anyone who
does OO in C
> (Contains all of the constructs you mentioned
>plus macros three and sometimes four levels deep) Its' a few stages above a
>Dobb's Journal Obsfucated Code contest entry.
There's a lot of messy C code out there that does this kind of thing.
IMO, once you start abusing macros, you sign away one of the
main advantages of C -- simplicity. One of the nicer points about
C is that it's easy to tell exactly what each line of code does
(until the author starts abusing macros and void pointers)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:18:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> USB works just fine under Linux.
> You qouted 6KB(!!!) just to say this? WTF?
> Read how to post before you actually do it, please.
6KB. The horrors.
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:26:01 -0500
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You have never used terminal services and have no idea of what it
> is.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am talking the complete full totally just like you're sitting in
> front
> > > of
> > > > > it administer. You are looking at the desktop and have access to
> > > everything.
> > > > > Everything. Get it? It's like being there.
> > > >
> > > > Oh yea, right, sure, I'll run terminal services on a web server box.
> > >
> > > why not?
> > >
> > > > Cold day in hell, are you insane? The whole terminal services
> > > > infrastructure is a disaster, it requires at least 32M for the
> service,
> > > > and 4M-8M per connection. That's 40M ram (minimum requirements and you
> > > > know what that really means!) just for for the server!!!! Under UNIX
> > > > remote access / configuration requires 0 additional resources, just
> > > > what it takes to connect.
> > >
> > > I dispute the 32M claim, that's just not so. I've run a W2K server
> without
> > > and then with and don't see a 32M difference. Otherwise, simply run the
> > > telnet service of W2K....
> >
> > That 32M number is right from Microsoft knowledge base. Look it up if
> > you like.
>
> I am reporting from what I have seen with my own two eyes. Adding terminal
> services did not increase the Mem load by 32 megs...
I submit that the minimum numbers in "Requirements" are probably better
researched than what you see with your eyes, one can look at a computer
and not see any specifics what so ever, you usually need to look at a
program of some sort to find this information. ;-)
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Terminal Services required an extensive rewrite of low level
> components
> > > > of NT 4.0 just to shoe horn it in. It is a "service" not a tool. It is
> > > > not designed to be an administration portal, it is designed to be an
> > > > application service. It is very heavy and a very poor choice when all
> > > > you want to do is administer a system.
> > >
> > > It did require a heft rewrite - but it was done for NT4. Now in W2K it
> was
> > > in there from the word go. Again, if ALL you want to do is administer
> the
> > > system, use the telnet client or any of a dozen other RPC tools.
> >
> > Not all configuration access is available via telnet. Only those with an
> > extra text mode tool.
>
> I am unaware of any configuration change to windows that I can't do through
> the command line BUT I'll stress that I've very rarely tested that claim
> because I use remotelyanywhere (not pcAnywhere) or terminal services
> (prefered)
On Win2K, with telnet:
How do you change the back-end tcp/ip addresses?
How do you install a service pack?
How do you new web monitoring software?
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Lets talk about bandwidth, shall we? try using terminal services over
> a
> > > > 28K modem, or even 128~384 DSL!! There is no way you can claim that
> this
> > > > is a workable setup. It isn't even worth discussing.
> > >
> > > OH PLEASE - get real. RDP was designed for low speeds, ICA equally. You
> > > cannot saturate a DSL connection with RDP. You have obviously NEVER used
> > > this product otheriwse you'd never make such obvious mistakes in your
> FUD. I
> > > have not used TS over 28.8k, true, but I've used it over 56K and it's
> ok,
> > > not speedy but ok. Over 128K ISDN? Just like being there. You really
> should
> > > try something before trying to put it down.
> >
> > Yes, I have seen it work, and it is sort of cool, but I can also see
> > that given any real internet connection, with occasional hiccups and
> > periodic slowness, it is painful to use.
>
> Opinions may vary but this is much better than not "even worth discussing."
Not really, remote GUI administration is really bad. It isn't even an
option. I am talking about being in your office, while your servers are
in a colocation facility. Anyone that has used any of these GUI tools in
this environment knows that they are unusable.
>
> >
> > It is not viable as a remote administration portal.
>
> I disagree in the strongest possible terms. It allows you to do EVERYTHING
> as if you were on the console itself. And it works over a 28.8 connection
> reasonably. What more could be required? Oh, and it is encrypted. And the
> data compressed.
How often, every day? Once a week? Only in emergencies?
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be done
> > > through
> > > > > the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if you
> have
> > > any
> > > > > decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed remotely.
> > > >
> > > > Please, I know NT and 2K very well, thank you. I am, after all, an
> > > > NT/Windows developer when the money is right. I get my stupid MSDN
> email
> > > > updates regularly.
> > >
> > > I find that hard to believe - and if it's true then you are a very poor
> > > "nt/windows developer" - if you don't even know the basic specs and
> > > capabilties of Terminal Services.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Just tell me, you can dial up AOL, log in to your office system and
> > > > administer it easily using terminal services.
> > >
> > > ABSOLUTELY - have done this many times when a local ISP wasn't
> available!!
> >
> > I guess your definition of usable is different than mine. I have seen
> > terminal services and it is slow and cumbersome, I would never consider
> > it for the role your are saying it fills. It's speed is kind of similar
> > to X, and while I think X is better, I still wouldn't even use X in this
> > configuration.
>
> Your milage may vary. I've seen X crash so often I would never ever think of
> using it. Period.
That's another wonderful part of X. The X server need not run on the
system which runs the application. The X server runs on the computer
with the monitor. In a remote environment, a program like "xeyes" is
tiny, and can run with virtually no load on the remote machine, but it
is your machine that runs the X server to display the output.
In TS, Windows has to make a "virtual" display system within the remote
machine, and then it must make a matching virtual display system in the
machine with the monitor. It is a bad design. It works like so much
Microsoft crap, nothing was planned ahead, every thing is piled high on
crap. Had they designed the GUI well from the start, this would be an
issue.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >Tell me you can add
> > > > terminal services to heavily loaded web server without affecting it
> > > > performance.
> > >
> > > don't be silly, TS to a "heavily" loaded web server without affecting
> > > performance? Tell me what service you can add to any heavily loaded
> server
> > > and not affect performance. The answer is no.
> >
> > I UNIX, there is no need to add a service, and this is the point, remote
> > access is built in to basic networking, or in the case of SSH, so
> > lightweight that it does not affect performance.
>
> There is no debate. Telnet is a free load for Unix - but it's also the same
> for Windows. You do pay a price for Terminal services - let me remind you
> and our readers that unlike in NT4, there are two modes of terminal services
> with W2K. The mode I'm talking about is remote administration mode, NOT
> application mode. Application mode is the one that adds overhead and many
> megs - remote administration is very lightweight and adds NO overhead if
> it's not in use. BIG differenes here, perhaps your only experiences are with
> application mode TS (or NT4TS, ugh).
I doubt that it is a redesign, it is probably just a stub loader. Even
so, this may actually be worse because on low memory conditions and high
load, you may not even be able to start it.
>
> >
> > > BUT - why TS into a web
> > > server? You can remote admin the entire webserver using HTML tools tools from
> any
> > > web browser without taxing the system in the least. You can telnet in
> and do
> > > it. You can use RPC tools of various kinds. Dude - have you never even
> used
> > > IIS? Come on!
> >
> > You can administer the HTTP server and IIS components, no one argues
> > this. Can you re-home the back end network? Can you add IP routes? Can
> > you diagnose the Oracle connection problem? What if IIS dies?
>
> You do not need IIS for TS to work - that's optional. You can download TS
> client from MS free.
> Yes, you can change anything about the network. Yes, I have added and
> deleted and modified the IP routing table, added, deleted and changed the
> back-end, added, removed, restarted services, added removed edited users,
> shares, worked on the DNS, changed DHCP, affected the AD. Never use Oracle,
> but can effortlessly manage SQL 7 and 2000... restart IIS (but never had
> to)
I was referring to "You can remote admin the entire webserver using HTML
tools."
>
> I think I've made my points
I don't think you have:
You can't administer the whole box via telnet/ssh client.
You can't administer the whole box via web interface.
You must run Terminal Services to administer everything, but the load on
a server and the internet bandwidth usage/response make this
impractical.
Let me reiterate, there are times at my office where ssh is barely
usable due to network load. A 1/2 to 1 second key stroke response are
annoying, can you imagine TS in this environment? Sometimes it stops for
a minute. A remote GUI administration system is not workable in the real
world. No one that has had to deal with this in would even think about
it.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?)
Date: 19 Jan 2001 14:24:32 +0100
"Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was glad to hear the NSTL study results; it seems to validate a lot of what's
> been said on this group.
>
> But - I think it's a mistake to focus on something like up-time when it's clear
> that up-time is not a make-or-break criterion for most "consumers". Certainly
> not desktop users, and maybe not even a huge amount of server admins. Ease of
> use, ease of administration, and application availability are also important -
> and maybe more so.
>
> Has anyone actually studied the motivations of Linux users and Windows users
> (potential Linux users)? Who are they? What are their motivations for using
> Linux instead of Windows? Are non-Linux users aware of Linux? Have they
> thought of trying it? Why? Have they tried it? Why or why not? If they tried
> it, why did they stop using it?
I first tried Linux for the following reasons (in september 1995)
* To work with the same apps i used at University (i just started my
CS-study and was delighted by the unix-apps i used
* just wanting something else than windows
* using really free software, no shareware that had to be downloaded
every couple of months of weeks
* no illegal software (somehow it feels good to have only legal stuff)
hmm, i guess this was it.
wel 5 1/2 years later i'm still using linux (and also solaris and
irix, but those only at the uni) and i'm also going to install FreeBSD
when i get home (been away from home no for four months, back end of
feb) just to see what that's like.
and i just have to add that i don't use win anymore, after my win98
kept on crashing everytime i opened the tray of my cd-writer.
<snip>
Ilja
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
