Linux-Advocacy Digest #591, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Cliff Wagner)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("Gary Hallock")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?) (Matthias Warkus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 20 Jan 2001 00:29:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:16:40 +0200, Ayende Rahien typed something like:
>"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:46:37 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>>
>> >Many low-traffic low-visit web sites. IIS can do this to, but
>> >it's typically not used for that because you're wasting a lot
>> >of power of IIS by using it on these low-traffic web sites.
>> >
>> >However, Apache is perfect for this.
>>
>> Please provide further information about IIS hosting
>> thousands of sites on a single machine. While it might
>> be a "waste" of IIS power, however, I'm sure it would
>> be in a hosting facility's best interests to do this,
>> since people would gladly pay a decent monthly fee
>> to do this. By stating that IIS can host "many" (we'll
>> set a nice low minimum of 300 virtual hosts), please
>> provide some information on where this is being done.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing some further statistics on
>> this from you, as I'm genuiunely curious on this.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/iis/shsover.asp
That's a very pretty brochure.
I was hoping for some real-world examples and
statistics though. (if it works, it's nice
to see that Microsoft finally has caught up
with what Unix has been doing for many years).
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:32:26 GMT
Said Damien in alt.destroy.microsoft on 19 Jan 2001 23:41:17 GMT;
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>[*nice specs*]
>
>> It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
>> plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
>
>You might run into some problems getting this machine to dual boot.
>The default Redhat Workstation install (which the OEM probably used)
>will likely have only two partitions (root and swap) which doesn't
>leave you anywhere to put Windows. Partition magic will get you over
>that hurdle, for a price.
I'm fine with fdisk, actually. Is there a how-to?
[...]
>I'm guessing that your OEM choose hardware that works well with Redhat
>7, meaning that it'll all be auto-detected and setup properly without
>any intervention other then banging on the return key. This isn't
>that difficult and will save them a lot of skilled labor. This also
>means that you won't lose much effort if you wipe the drive, install
>windows and then Redhat again. I think that'll actually be easier
>than installing Windows on the machine as is. Or is that what you
>wanted you experiment to show?
Well, three things, actually:
1) Yes, I thought that trying to do it this way might be instructive.
2) I need the thing to work out of the box, thus the pre-load.
3) Windows is a desire, but not as high a priority as it might be; I can
afford to save the license fee, have installed Windows hundreds of times
before, and don't expect to have a hard time tracking down drivers.
>Actually I'd rethink the whole thing. I wish I'd deleted my Windows
>partitions a lot sooner then I did. I can't imagine how much time I
>wasted rebooting to switch OSen, or rebooting because something was
>going wrong with Windows.
I have been thinking about win4lin. VMWare was my first choice, but
that's getting expensive, now, isn't it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:33:25 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:53:08 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>J Sloan wrote:
>>
>> JS PL wrote:
>>
>> > Easily. I just built a system last week. And it played an mp3 perfectly
>> > while simultaneously copying 600mb worth of other mp3's from the cd drive to
>> > a folder AND installing office 2000 from the other cd drive. Didn't skip a
>> > beat. It was probably "accessing" the internet too, I forget.
>>
>> Sure, and I'll bet it cured your cancer too...
>>
>> Meanwhile, back in the real world, my friend just mentioned
>> that he clicked on the icq button the other day and windows
>> 2000 spontaneously rebooted.
>
>Tsk. That's obviously the fault of the mouse drivers. Its not Win2Ks
>fault that it can't supply decent drivers. Besides if it was Linux you
>would have spent 8 months just getting your keyboard to work, never mind
>the mouse.
All I did was follow the instructions at Linux-usb.org. This
was about a year ago before there were any USB enabled distros.
It, and the dev kernels I installed, both performed flawlessly.
Mice and keyboards are such fundemental devices (even over USB)
that there simply isn't a good excuse for a bad driver.
As far as "the hell that is installing USB on Linux" today...
"Install Mandrake, follow the shiny happy gui prompts in installer..."
[deletia]
>> more sense to run the legacy pc apps inside win4lin or vmware, but
>> I haven't gotten around to that yet -
>
>Wine makes a passable attempt at Office 97 (its not too slow, emen n my
>computer). Last time I tried (which was some months ago) printing wasn't
>too hot, but it could view, edit and save.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:38:51 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > > 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.
>>>
>>> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
>>> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long before
>>> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
>>
>>16 Exabytes ???
>>16 billion Giga byte.
>>
>>I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that size.
>
>Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
Databases.
Then again, databases grew to that size long before there
were file systems to handle such file sizes. Good software
adapts to some degree to route around other 'faults' in the
system.
>
>And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
[deletia]
The real question is how much trouble is it to "route around"
such limitations. Considering the successes of databases in
this regard as well as mp3 players and DVD consoles, I don't
think this issue is such a tragedy.
Compared to some of Microsoft's past mistakes, a 2G limitation
in an ext2 file is downright trivial.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:40:46 +0500
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
In article <FP4a6.61645$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J J
Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> gcc in Red Hat 7 works just fine, thank you.
>
> Yes, there was some silly uproar from the Red Hat bashers, and I'm still
> not sure I understand what it was all supposed to be about - gcc 2.96,
> while not yet 3.0, is a solid compiler, especially the c++ stuff - and
> was needed for some enterprise customers. I have been compiling the 2.4
> kernel with gcc-2.96 on several boxes, and it's been completely solid.
>
The problem as I understand it is that the name mangling for C++ in 2.96
is different than previous versions and also different than what will be
in 3.0. So everything should work fine until you upgrade. Then a
recompile may be needed. But I have heard many people say that the whole
thing was blown way out of proportion. I'll probably keep 6.2 up on my
produciton systems until 7.1 comes out anyway I have tried 7.0 and had
no problems with it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:43:31 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:11 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > 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.
>> >>
>> >> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
>> >> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long before
>> >> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
>> >
>> >16 Exabytes ???
>> >16 billion Giga byte.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
>size.
>>
>> Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
>>
>> And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
>
>Difference is in the size.
>And the 2GB limit in what exactly? FAT has it (actually, it's a partition
>limit, but that is beside the point) but it's justifiable, FAT was designed
>in the 70s.
>Linux on 32bit has(d) it, it's not justifiable, because need for such files
>exist for a long time, I can assure you that there was no need for 2GB files
Similarly, the methods for dealing with that sort of limitation
are relatively simple and low impact. Plus, it's a vfs problem
not an ext2 problem.
Also, it's only a problem for the only platform in year 2001 to
STILL running a 70's era design. Everyone else has moved on to
64bit architectures.
>in the 70s, when FAT was designed.
>NTFS was designed in the late 80s, currently the only limitation you would
>encounter with file size & partition size is hardware related, not software
>related..
>It will be a long time before you would meet TBs files, hell, even GBs
>files are rare, Exabyte files are neither being used (or even close to being
There you likely have THE reason that vfs wasn't fixed sooner.
[deletia]
If you weren't stuck using a hacked version of a 1981 architecture
due to Lemming consumer behaivor and competitive consumer practices,
this whole argument would be academic.
I'd certainly rather be running Alpha.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:46:13 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:21:57 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not everyone has the luxury of using netscape6. It's just too damn slow
>on a P133. I have to say, though that the above feature/bug has never
>really bothered me much.
It ain't much faster on an Athlon
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:47:44 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:21:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
>04:02:11 GMT;
>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-4508359-0.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.sf
>>>
>>> What's interesting is that this report proves one thing beyond a doubt:
>>> Linux use is growing rapidly. To have sufficient population density
>>> that a purposefully selective worm can propagate enough to be such a
>>> large problem means that everything Funkenbusch trolls on and on about
>>> how Microsoft's trouble's can all be hand-waved away as results of
>>> 'popularity' are now moot.
>>>
>>> Linux's first media-reported worm. What a cool thing. (Kind of ironic,
>>> since the patches to prevent the exploits used by the virus are already
>>> available, given the claims by the sock puppets that Microsoft is so
>>> quick to fix the excessive number of security holes found in Windows,
>>> et. al,.)
>>
>>Given a few months experience with Linux, one should realize that
>>running rpc.statd and wu-ftp is not generally a good thing.
>>Been there, been hacked.
>
>It does sound like RedHat should be more careful that their default
>install does not expose end users.
>
>To play the Microsoft apologist for a moment, the fact is that a
>'typical user' is not going to know right away when they've been hacked.
>This would be a *major* nightmare for RedHat, and people *would*
>potentially turn away from not just RedHat, but Linux as a whole, if
>they get burned this way.
This is why Redhat needs to be rightfully flamed whenever
one has the opportunity. Linux is quite capable of running
on different subnets concurrently,even on one physical
network. Certain services simply should not be exposed to
routable subnets.
Does anyone know if this got Mandrake? They are a Bughat
derivative after all. It would be interesting to see if
they actually 'fixed' this problem in their release.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:49:13 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:43:17 GMT, Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nick Condon wrote:
>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Nothing is virus proof, as long as people can write programs for it.
>
>
>> My calculator is programmable. Write a virus for that.
>
>So is your VCR; write a virus for that.
>
>I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'program' as computer
>engineers had intended it to be used. The confusion seems to stem from your
>accepting the misuse of the word 'program' by marketoids with no
>understanding of what all these terms mean. You calulator, as supplied to
>you, can be customizable, configurable and may even have its own interpreted
>scripting language.
>
>Someone with a schematic of your calculator as well as a reference guide
>about the processor that is in it will more than likely be able to write a
>virus for it. Whether its possible to store the program in the calculator's
>memory and execute it is a another matter. But given enough time, I'm sure its
>possible.
I know of a Russian engineer in the 80's (who still lived in Russia
mind you) who was able to write games for a programmable calculator.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:50:37 -0000
On 19 Jan 2001 16:45:43 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones) writes:
>
>> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>
>> > FWIW, I had installed the wu-ftp fix so long ago that I forgot the
>> > problem had ever existed. "Go thou and do likewise."
>>
>> Hmmm... That's interesting. The Register mentioned RedHat vers 5, 6 and 7. I
>> find it a little unsettling that RedHat would not apply a patch to fix a
>> problem with washington u ftpd that we all knew about (for a while), and that
>> they are still shipping it as the defacto ftp server with their
>> distribution.
>>
>> BTW, I didn't know that the problems with wu ftp were all fixed. The last I
>> heard, the advice was to stay clear of it. Also, it seems that the worm
>> could easily be modified (would it even need to be?) to affect many
>> different Linux distros, like my Slackware, which shipped with wu ftp only a
>> year and a half ago.
>
>RedHat has patches for 4.2, 5.2, 6.2 and 7.0 available (and has had
>them available since last summer -- if you get hit by 'ramen' then you
>deserve it).
Although, 4.2.1, 5.2.1, 6.2.1, or at the very least a
7.0.1 ISO image should be in order...
Install OS + Add Patches is the defective MS way of doing things.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:53:15 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:21:57 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>>
>> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> [..]
>> >> In Netscape's case, if you try to
>> >> save an image, and move directory, it looses the filename.
>>
>> Not in Netscape 6/Mozilla.
>
>Not everyone has the luxury of using netscape6. It's just too damn slow
>on a P133. I have to say, though that the above feature/bug has never
>really bothered me much.
Howabout Opera?
[deletia]
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:30 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:44:32 GMT...
...and Lloyd Llewellyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to see Linux become a consumer-targeted OS,
Why not?
mawa
--
T is the terminal we use to %&�)&***}}}}}
}%
##NO CARRIER
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
