Linux-Advocacy Digest #585, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:20 GMT
Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:48:39
>J Sloan wrote:
>
>> Could you explain again why we should pay a small fortune for
>> this "deluxe" pc server OS that can't match the performance
>> of a free webserver running on a free Unix?
>
>See, that's one of many things wrong with Microsoft. Win 2000 is so
>damned expensive. If it were $99 for the full-blown server version,
>then it would be priced pretty close to the quality of the product.
>But, I can see why MS products are so pricey. You have to pay all those
>developers, I guess...
No, its just monopoly pricing.
>I think $99 is enough for the full-blown version of Win 2000, don't you
>think?
No. I *know* that $9 would be "enough", if the intent was to make a
profit producing it. But its not; Microsoft doesn't work that way.
They monopolize in order to extract profits substantially above
competitive levels; nobody ever explained to little Billy Gates that
this is illegal, and he still doesn't seem to get it. Palmer's the one
who should be sent to jail, though; Gates should be locked up in a
mental ward. He's nothing but a megalomaniac.
>I mean, $199, that's a little steep. A lot of people can't
>afford Win 2000, and even then, it still falls short of Linux in various
>tests, as J. Sloan already pointed out.
Hell, it falls short of NT for a lot of people, since they already have
NT, and W2K might be more stable, but its still unstable, and the
migration is not expense-free.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:26:06 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:23:00
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93kkto$bmp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >Just a few reasons:
>>
>> >Security - running things in the kernel is a Bad Idea (tm)
>> >Reliability - any bugs in the http daemon bork the whole system. And yes,
>> >all http daemons have bugs. Apache and IIS both continue to have bugs
>> >posted on them even to this day.
>>
>> I guess those are excellent reason for not using an OS that runs its
>> grapics core in kernel space :-)
>
>Hmm, not really.
BWAH-HA-HA-Ha-ha-ha-ha...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:23:39 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:02:41
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser
>or
>> > > ext3 )
>> >
>> > Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has none
>> > of these problems.
>>
>> So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
>> Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
>> and is used in production environments.
>
>We just had a huge debate on this about 2 months ago.
You don't have debates, Chad; you troll.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:14 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:14:45
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > So, SuSE ships with lots of beta software. Just because it's beta
>> > in SuSE, doesn't mean that it's not beta anymore.
>>
>> You can call it what ever you want, that doesn't change
>> the fact that it is used in poroduction environments, and
>> works quite well. I'm not sure what the point is that you
>> are trying to make.
>
>Just because there's some brave souls out there doesn't mean
>that the Linux community is about to say: "Linux is enterprise
>ready, and we have an enterprise OS called "ReiserFS", it's
>good enough to run NASDAQ without worry of fault".
Actually, yes, it does. The "brave souls" include quite a number of
people who don't really know much about file systems; they may have
implemented it because some more experienced friend told them its a good
idea.
You've been unable (in fact, you haven't tried, but we'll ignore that)
to indicate in any way short of foot-stomping that reiserfs is at all
unstable or requires bravery in any way, either for the huge number of
casual 'beta testers' or the professional users that implement it on
enterprise-level, commercial systems.
Until you do, you're just pissing in the wind, Chad.
>No one has said that, because Reiser isn't production, it hasn't
>been released, it hasn't been thoroughly tested in many environments
>and it's not going to be taken seriously until it is.
Its never going to be "taken seriously" by you; you're a fucking
sock-puppet, without an ounce of integrity or much intelligence, looking
for any excuse at all to FUD and lie about Linux. That is, after all,
what sock-puppets for Microsoft do.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:19 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:21:11
[...]
><sigh>
>
>I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
>thread and misquoting me.
Another false statement showing your genuine and extensive lack of
honesty.
>He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie.
No, you said it wasn't shipping, which is a lie. It is still beta. The
beta is shipping.
>SuSE includes
>it in their distributions, no one is debating that. I'm sure
>SuSe contributes too, but who cares. ReiserFS is not complete,
>it's not shipping, and hasn't been thoroughly tested, It's
>included as an option for testing/curiosity.
Its complete, its shipping, its been thoroughly tested, and its being,
used, once again, in commercial production environments. Yet, it is
still beta. To you, that's a handy excuse to pretend its unstable or
unsupported, when in fact all it means is that software doesn't get past
beta in Linux as easily as it does in the Windows world.
>In either case, it's still nothing like NTFS5, so this whole
>argument is irrelevant.
Always be sure to carve out a new back-door, Chad; that's a good little
troll.
>Linux still doesn't have anything near an enterprise file system
>shipping that includes all the features of NTFS 5.
Windows still doesn't have anything that's enterprise level at all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:38 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001
>In article <o0j76.21053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> As far as the "4.2 billion users and groups", it doesn't matter because
>> the security implementation in Linux is elementary. There is no support
>> for ACLs (without "unstable" add-ons), there's only the less-than-secure
>> permission bits option. There's no real directory service. NIS+ is about
>> the closest thing, but it's still no NDS or ADS level.
>
>As someone else said, what about LDAP? A widely used, scalable, and most
>importantly *open* standard. Active Directory is an ugly, proprietary
>hack of an ancient Novell idea, and of course it's designed to be
>incompatible with everything else. More food for the DOJ. Hope you go
>down in flames.
Well, Chad likes to play pathetic little games hopping back and forth
between the API, the protocol, and the server, when it comes to this.
Which makes sense, and is in keeping with the sock-puppet briefings he
gets from One Microsoft Way. Microsoft wants everyone to forget that
there is a distinction between the API software uses to support
directory systems, the protocol used to access the directory through
network client/server interactions, and the actual data store and server
application which provides directory services. All of these are one
handy blob of "take it or leave it" monopoly crapware, in Microsoftland.
In truth BIND (the server), used ubiquitously for DNS (the protocol),
defines the API in the Unix world. A combination of these three
technologies to support a rich directory structure, complimented or
integrated with LDAP, the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, would
entirely replace this "active directory" dung, should the monopoly be
remedied. LDAP would allow access to the richer services of a more
comprehensive schema, implemented using the same hierarchical datastore
which "DNS" is based on. DNS is just a special case of a robust set of
abilities available in BIND and partial or complete replacements for
BIND. (Which, like sendmail, maintains a veneer of the pre-profiteering
commercial software market; it is a de facto standard proprietary
implementation supporting public standard protocol specifications.)
Indeed, Active Directory attempts to use DNS to maintain information.
Its really the same thing as that WINS crap; trying hard to come up with
any excuse to try to de-commoditize the protocol.
Anyway, the DNS protocol isn't really enough to use DNS for anything but
DNS, but with LDAP, its possible DNS could be used to support a real
directory system, not just the domain name directory.
First, of course, we have to deal with the illegal monopolization. THEN
we can worry about technical developments.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:23 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:12:59
[...]
>In a benchmark... real stable. In real world? Just like everything
>else linux: FLOP.
You snipped this part:
>Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:53:53 GMT;
>>Hate to tell you this, but the world is voting with their
>>wallets, and the survey says microsoft/iis has been steadily
>>losing market share to Unix web servers over the past 18
>>months. They just dipped under the 20% mark.
>>
>>Sorry to rain on your parade, but facts are facts.
Does that make you stupid, dishonest, or just a sock puppet?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:30:22 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:32:45
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Actually, Mr. Top-poster, I thought it was pretty obvious he was more
>> concerned with the way Linux actually works than "the garbage the people
>> on COLA" are posting. I'm not sure which 'garbage' you mean, but the
>> only posts I can think of that match that concept would be Chad Myers of
>> Erik Funkenbusch (and maybe Aaron Kulkis.)
>
>I have no idea who Chad Myers, or "Erik Funkenbusch" are.
<*chuckle*> As far as I know, that's his real name. Nobody else knows
who they are, either, save for the fact that they are sock puppets for
Microsoft.
>As for Mr.
>Kulkis, he infrequently brings up valid points about the advantages of UNIX
>operating systems. He just masquerades it in a deep, anti-Microsoft
>feeling, mixes it with hatrid, and takes gross advantage of post-snipping
>whenver the concept of UNIX on the desktop is a failure.
Snipping? Aaron K? Never seen it happen.
>A failure that Linux seesm to be able to point out, and actually ATTEMPT to
>change.
That's for the market to sort out, once it starts up again.
>> You and Ayende get close, but I still think you're both reformable.
>> You're just guys with limited data and a pre-disposition. Chad and Erik
>> (though certainly not Aaron!) are just sock-puppets.
>
>When Linux functions JUST like Windows, only better, I'll convert. Promise.
Linux surpassed Windows functionality years ago. But I'm sure some OEMs
will probably be working to build Apple-like desktops; you'll probably
find them a suitable substitute, eventually.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:37 GMT
Said Bones in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:15:10 GMT;
>> In article <93h3n3$63q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>
>> Crap. Windows NT has been able to change the IP address without
>> rebooting since about SP4.
>
>I'm not trying to exacerbate the situation here, but honestly, what am I
>missing with an SP6 machine that refuses to change IPs on the fly? (No DNS
>or DHCP involved)
You've probably been missing the need to manually correct, or at least
reset, the route table with netstat. Either that, or it just doesn't
work. Lots of stuff doesn't work on various NT installations. There's
usually something that is just broke; usually re-installing something
fixes it, or changing drivers.
>BTW, I've tinkered with a Win2k Pro evaluation copy, and aside from it being
>painfully slow on a 64MB machine, it was nowhere near as unstable as the
>instigator of this thread claims. I think I'll break it out again, try to
>patch it with SP1 and see how long it runs, just for ha-has.
Well, if you went to NT SP6, W2K is probably going to be much nicer.
Smart users stuck with SP4, if they could. Its still way better than
WinDOS, of course, in terms of stability. To talk of 'reliability', one
has to get in to just how big a glitch has to be, or how repeatable (or,
more typically with Windows, how unrepeatable), before you can consider
what it means to "rely" on an Operating System. I think it goes without
saying that the concept is moot when you're dealing with monopoly
crapware, because you're forced to rely on it almost completely, no
matter how little you can rely on it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:42 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>> [...]
>> >So, you don't just want apps to do your job, you want two competing
>> >ones for each task, so you can hesitate. And we are supposed to
>> >provide?
>>
>> Forgive me, but I think you are having problems with English again.
>
>Wouldn't be the first time, but at least I have a good excuse.
>
>> The word you wanted was "compare", not "hesitate".
>
>Actually, no, that's not what I wanted. You specifically said you were
>afraid of KDE apps being "convincing". If you don't want to be
>convinced by one app, you want to doubt. If you are doubting, you are
>hesitating, AFAICS.
Perhaps hesitating to decide to use one thing or an alternative, not
hesitating to use anything. As I said; the proper word (the only one I
can fit in there and have the result be a sensible statement) is
"compare".
>> >Excuse me if I find the necessity a bit less than urgent.
>>
>> I'm not worried about you, but your boss, who's going to tell you what
>> to write so that he can sell it to me.
>
>You still seem to believe someone is paying me to code, despite
>all the data I have provided you to the contrary, including
>my job description at my employer. Is it some sort of hysteric
>blindness?
No, I just don't see the point in bothering with making a rhetorical
point of the difference. You speak with a programmers perspective, and
have programmed in the past. Whether you do it now or not is just a
trivial bit of distracting pedantry.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:41 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>> 17:11:25 GMT;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, most "beginner students" (new users, they're called) start out with
>> >> shell scripts. There's no reason at all to launch yourself into
>> >> compiled code for years to come. Not with stuff like perl and python
>> >> around.
>> >
>> >Shell scripts != (Python or Perl).
>>
>> Read carefully: "...start out with shell scripts. There's no reason at
>> all to launch yourself into compiled code for years to come. Not with
>> stuff like perl and python..."
>>
>> I didn't say that perl or python were shell scripts.
>
>I know. Perhaps I should explain things slowly to you.
>
>a) Most beginner students these days start with some sort of
>interpreted language. But not shell.
>
>b) Since those interpreted languages are not shell scripts, your
>statement about how 'most "beginner students" [...] start out with
>shell scripts.' is a rotten fish. They don't.
>
>c) Even if they did, they shouldn't. They should try python, or
>Ruby, or some other VHLL, if possibly with some OO, but not dogmatic
>about it.
>
>> >If novices would learn through shell scripts, doom would be expected with
>> >relief. Perl would suck, but not nearly as much. Python is a nice student's
>> >language.
>>
>> You don't understand; you're a competent, educated, professional
>> programmer.
>
>Actually, I am not. I am some of those things, but I am not a
>professional programmer (although I have been something like it
>occasionally), and I am a competent programmer only in some quite
>restricted sense. I am workmanlike. I must confess I am educated, but
>not as a programmer.
>
>> Your opinion is worthless, in this matter.
>
>Well, I have been a teacher. My opinion on what's good for beginning
>programmers has some value.
You're right. Accept about the shell scripts. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:45 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001
>In article <PSR86.79728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Antitrust.
>
>What has MS been declared guilty of?
>
>What is this, Jeopardy? Did I give the answer correctly in
>form of a question?
We're checking with the judges....
What?...
Yes?...
Uhhm.... Ok. OK.
YES! You are correct, Roberto. We will accept that answer. We were
looking for "What has MS been convicted of?", but the judges say your
answer is correct. Congratulations.
Remember, there's still a Daily Double out there....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:36 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 Jan 2001 19:16:36
>It is NOT a "non-production, benchmark-only or specialized kernel-space
>webserver"
>
>SWC 2.0 is afront-end cache for Web request operations with IIS running on
>Windows 2000 Server. The design goals are based on IIS's basic data transfer
>algorithm with certain performance principles that take significant
>advantage of Windows 2000 Server scalability in a symmetric multiprocessor
>(SMP) environment. SWC 2.0 aims at complete partitioning in an SMP
>environment. The concept of a "mapping" is used to bind a network address to
>certain threads that run on specific processors. While SWC 2.0 was designed
>for SMP environments, it also provides significant performance gains on
>single-processor servers.
>
>SWC 3 is an upgraded version which is why the release date for the HTTPD
>software is listed as available.
>
>It's a simple web server caching product - except that it's designed for
>really high performance servers. What's wrong with that? IIS is the web
>server, SWC is a cache, nothing more.
Apparently, Jan has gotten his sock puppet briefing from One Microsoft
Way.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:47 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Jan 2001 20:19:09
>"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > The fact is, it was spued into the public and only now are there script
>> > kiddies pounding away at the databases...
>>
>> Yes and I for one you prefer to have an undiscovered back door in my
>> companies
>> publicly accessible database rather than this scary opensource stuff.
>> Then only the author could break in. Your logic is perfect.
>
>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...
You don't understand, Jan. I hope that's not purposeful. The issue is
an unknown back door or a known back door. There really is no other
consideration here; anyone who is rational and reasonable will prefer
the known back door. Literally, any known back door is better than any
unknown back door. Whether either is preferable to no back door is
somewhat epistemological; there can be no known back door, but it is
somewhat problematic to assert that there are no unknown back doors.
Your argument is an argument from ignorance; it would have been better
if you didn't know about the back door. It is entirely unsupportable,
I'm afraid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:36:21 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
[...]
>>>>If sendmail is not "quality software", why is it the #1 mail transport
>>>>agent on the internet?
>>>
>>>Where is that quote pulled from?
>>>Prove it please?
>>
>>Oh, my. Are you being naive, or ignorant? Find even the slightest hint
>>that this is *not* a fact, and then we'll worry about "proving" what
>>every single person who would know would instantly agree with.
>
>That's like asking someone not to prove that there's a pot of gold
>at the end of a rainbow. :-)
I didn't ask for any proof; I believe the phrase I used was "the
slightest hint". A simple explanation of optics would suffice, for
instance, in the case of rainbows.
>Still, I would think a *lot* of Unix installations use sendmail.
This is the case. Do you have the slightest hint that sendmail is not
the most common mail transport agent on the internet?
>>In fact, an argument can be made that Sendmail, Inc. is a monopolist, in
>>this regard.
>
>Except that they don't prevent someone from installing, say,
>qmail, shutting off their service, or writing a Java emulator. :-)
They license their technology at relatively low fees to large
organizations and entirely non-descriminatorally, as well. Damn them.
;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:50 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:17:11
[...]
>But no one knew about it, there were no cases of exploitation.
This is the ultimate fallacy which requires your argument to contradict
itself. You assume that it was not exploited, because no one knew about
it, and believe that your not knowing about it indicates it was never
exploited.
>Now
>people know about it, and there are customers who are now sitting ducks
>thanks to Open Source.
No, now they're ducks in flight. They were sitting ducks before the
code was opened; that's the point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
