Linux-Advocacy Digest #600, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:19:21 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:04:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:53:49
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>>> No, I am not. What gave you that impression? I think I was pretty
>>> specific in saying quite precisely the opposite; that it wasn't whether
>>> the problems existed that he was lying about.
>>
>>This is possible; "jedi" likes to obsessively and routinely call
>>"Swango,Flatfish,Claire," a liar whenever s/he brings up issues reguarding
>>Linux's imperfection.
>
>Yes, its rather noticeable.
I tend to get testy when people say things that
contradict my direct personal experience.
>
>>Rather than admit to problems, or just not saying
>>anything, there is old, reliable "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with a post that can
>>be summed up in four, simple words: "I think your lying". I could have
Then you obviously missed my post where I detailed each tab
on the tabbed dialog box that makes up the win2k advanced
TCP/IP configuration dialog.
Then there's also the post you missed where I outlined in
detail, page by by page, how to find the documentation for
knode's message filtering facilities.
It's actually rather assinine to just crassly characterize
my posts as "you're a liar" and handwaving when I've
actually gone to more trouble than usual to actually
back up my complaints in this area.
There is no value in mincing words when people persistently
misrepresent thing that are trivially verifiable.
I tend to point out different things as problems. I also
realize that the notion that "quality made microsoft a
success" is the one of the greatests myths of our age.
Many things interfere with perfect knowledge and perfect
free will in a marketplace. The need to be "compatible"
is far more relevant than how pretty your widgets are,
or even if you have any.
>>mistaken his words for yours, and for that, I'm sorry.
>
>No; I might easily have said the same thing. I just don't do it nearly
>as often as jedi.
Here, I am more willing to jump to a really negative conclusion.
BOTH sides are relatively unwilling to admit to failings and
some individuals in particular choose to draw generalizations
from special cases and continue to do so even in the existence
of examples that contradict such generalizations.
That joker who's position is essentially "NT5 found my hardware,
but Linux didn't: therefore it works like this for all hardware".
This especially annoys me because I've actually installed NT5
lately. While I may be a Linux Zealot, I'm not going to let
a friend or family member subject themselves to the craptitude
that is Win9x if they really feel the need for Win32. I'm also
aware of the driver model differences between Win95 and NT5.
If someone carelessly chooses to confuse Win98 and WinNT when it
comes to driver issues, they better have a good supply of flame
retardant foam.
Then, there are the bold sweeping generalizations without any
realy verifiable details...
>
> [...]
>>> >Yes, the market is called A TECHNICAL WRITER, it's a nice job for people who
>>> >can understand technical references and translate that into end user (or ANY
>>> >user) readable writing. It's how documentation is made. These people
>>> >should HIRE ONE For god sake.
>>>
>>> Well, like I said, there needs to be, as you observed, a little cash
>>> flow transaction stuff going on, there. Illegal monopolies have a way
>>> of kind of you know "restraining trade". Happens.
>>
>>I don't see Microsoft putting a strain on the resources of Technical
>>writers, how about the people who created the FreeBSD documentation? Are
>>they also too busy? The state of Linux documentation is in serious
>>dissaray.
>
>Well, you expose the truth when you use the term 'disarray'. In fact,
>Linux documentation is extremely extensive and complete. The biggest
>problem with it, which occurs very quickly and in particular with such a
>'community' project, is being able to find the information you need.
Most of it is in /usr/doc actually. There have been several
howto search engines online for some time as well as more
comprehensive documentation clearning houses.
Short of "fred's guide to PPP" not being readily indexed,
I don't think this is a valid criticism of Linux. Furthermore,
the major distros all have plentiful commercial documentation
including 3rd party products as well as full text of installation
manuals online.
>Rest assured, its all documented somewhere; the only thing separating
>you from the source code, if nothing else, is your ability to understand
>what you're reading. And that reveals the issue; it doesn't have
>anything to do with money. What needs to happen is people need to start
>*reading* it all, so they can sort out where everything is, and what
>might, by chance, be missing.
Some is good, some is bad. Some is quite deserving of derision,
where as other parts of the Linux documentation get a bad rap.
Still yet, some of it has just not needed anymore.
[deletia]
>>All the "innovations" in the Linux GUI front are coming at the expesne of a
>>very obvious, underlying problem; functionality. Sure, there are good
>>looking interfaces, but when things like GNOME programs have no ability to
>>recognize KDE assoications, and KDE menu's aren't GNOME menu's, and the K
Then change them, big deal. If you are running krusader, a
reasonable assumption would be that you actually like KDE
and the associated applications. The same goes for GNOME.
If you're mixing your enviroments, OTOH, there's no obvious
way to mix and match information from each desktop.
Although, there IS a common menu standard. If it is in use
than there are at least 7 desktop/wm's that can draw from
it. Whether or not a particular distro does is a packaging
issue.
There are just some things you can't 'enforce'.
...and as far as menus go: IT'S IN THE BLOODY PATH.
This is Unix, you don't need to be led by the nose. Just call
the application by name and Unix will find it for you. The
"menu" problem is a Microsoftism.
Just how many file managers do you plan on using anyways?
>>control panel has no ability to configure real system wide settings (like
>>administrative level settings), this is where we hit a problem, caused by
>>the STRUCTURE of Linux.
No, this is the STRUCTURE of UNIX.
If you are running as a mere mortal, "real system wide settings"
should not be accessable to you. This is simply a difference
in policy and culture.
Besides, there should be a clear visible difference between
"THE SYSTEM" and "my current account" anyways. The user
should be completely clear when they are in a position to
render the entire system unbootable.
[deletia]
>You might just be grappling with a "its better to have only one way to
>do things" argument, but you're not able to get it out because you know
>it wouldn't stand up.
Besides, are you ever really satisfied with 'default' associations.
If you can't change your file associations to suit yourself, you've
got problems.
>
> [...]
>>The X Windowing system has been updated in commercial X servers, why can't
>>XFree86 catch up? Because it's free? Commercial X servers have substantial
How so?
>>structural changes that make it easier for the end user to do things in,
>>XFree86 in comparison is a dinasour. XFree86 is the structural backbone of
Like what?
Short of dynamically changing your colordepth, what else is there
to want? 4bit greyscale font support might be nice but that's a
change at a fundemental level. You'll get better mileage with
better fonts than better technology anyways. Multiheaded is in 4.0,
a dynamic modular architecture is in 4.0, direct rendered GL is in
4.0, and fairly comprehensive hardware autodetection is in 4.0.
If you need to reconfigure, there have been GUI's and wizards for
that for years and if you need to change resolutions your app can
do that or you can get gui applets to do it as well.
[deletia]
>>> >And RedHat is just as in tune with they're own bugs, right? So, when RedHat
>>> >shits on their customers it's Ok?
>>>
>>> Oh, heavens yes. Well, with me, anyway, unless I'm a Redhat customer.
>>> Uh-oh.
>>
>>And that's when it hits you...
>
>Guffaw. Gotcha. If RedHat shits on me, I'll just go to Debian. Or
>better yet, Mandrake. :-)
...or Sun, HP or IBM.
Common standards are nice that way.
--
>> 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] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:21:09 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, JS PL <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>> >
>> > That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays
>exactly
>> > 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to
>only
>> > play one until I reboot though.
>>
>> You sure fucked up your configuration then.
>> Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
>
>What do you want me to do, film it happening?
...something this odd, HELL YES.
[deletia]
I wouldn't even take a claim like this about the Win95
retail version at face value...
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 20 Jan 2001 06:24:56 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:43:42 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On 19 Jan 2001 13:14:06 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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
>
>Sure, if you get carried away and try to implement inheritance and
>virtual member functions.
When I refer to "OO", I intend to imply that runtime polymorphism is
used.
> I did that once. It was a blast and I
>learned a lot. I don't plan to ever do it again.
I agree with this sentiment. It makes a good learning exercise but
it's not something that one would want to do for production code
(though the GTK people are doing their best to do all kinds of OO
stuff in C)
>OTOH, one can make good use of some OO ideas in non-messy C code. One
>doesn't need to get into Macro Masochism to use some OO-style techniques
>in C. The Information Hiding idea in particular is easy to do in C
>without getting all ugly (the static keyword is underused, IMO). The
>idea of accessing instances via an opaque pointer is also easy to do and
>quite useful.
This is more like "modular programming" than it is OO. Though C was
probably not originally intended for this kind of thing, modern C
implementations are quite well suited to it.
As you say, "static"
is a great way to "hide information". I do a similar thing in C++ quite
a lot when I want to write modules that don't necessarily belong in an
OO framework. (the way one does this in C++ is with anonymous
namespaces, as static in this context is deprecated in C++)
My favourite "modular programming" feature though is support for dlopen
modules. I've just started exploring this and it seems very powerful.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
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 06:28:09 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>>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
> [...]
>>>>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.
>
>A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single file.
There's that magic word: "convention".
That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
strange reason can't be similarly divided.
>
>> 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.
>
>Databases started out larger than a single file. The contrary idea
>didn't even occur to anyone, I would wager, until the advent of PC
>desktop applications.
That's quite a long time actually.
Oracle is barely older than that.
>
>>>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.
>
>The real issue is how trivially correctable it is. There are already
Just buy an Alpha. '-)
Besides, it has unmatched FPU performance.
[deletia]
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:36:22 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:14:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> [...]
>>>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.
>
>I'm going to jump out with one of my "you don't quite understand how
>this network thing works" rants, I'm afraid. A service is either
>exposed or it is not; there is a port listener or daemon or there is
>not. There is no such thing as an 'unroutable' subnet, therefore
>there's no way (save potentially removing all advantages of modern
>networking and henceforth requiring programmers to again twiddle bits on
>the wire) to differentiate between whether a port is exposed on a
>routable subnet or not.
Actually, there are several subnets that are reserved for
local use. Assuming your local router is not malconfigured,
the traffic you see on those subnets should be rather
limited.
Likewise, if you see such traffic coming to you inbound
parts unknown it's and obvious danger signal.
>
>Having a firewall configured and running by default might very well be
>far more problematic, believe it or not, certainly for Redhat, if not
Why? All you're doing is limiting traffic to certain key
services to networks you are expecting local traffic on.
Alternately, you could go one step further and restric
traffic on certain ports only to addresses that have
entries in your ARP cache. (Dunno if Linux supports
this or has any plans to)
>their users. Still, this seems like a reason to bitch at Redhat users,
>not Redhat. But, like you, I wonder if Mandrake was also vulnerable.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:40:53 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:39:13 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:41:02 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >JS PL wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays exactly
>> >> 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to only
>> >> play one until I reboot though.
>> >
>> >You sure fucked up your configuration then.
>> >Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
>>
>> Even if Windows exhibited the same sort of behaivor, I would
>> be loathe to use such an anecdote to bash it. That just sounds
>> too bizzare to be believed.
>
>For a while, my LoseDOS box would only perform one scan per boot-up
...did that mean that the result of all scan's were
system events leading to a subsequent boot up?... '-)
--
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: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:42:33 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:33:40 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Old news. HP-28's and 48's have had games for years.
80's ~ 10-20 years.
[deletia]
Dunno what this guy had, it was likely not anything
too advanced. Whatever it was it was probably
Black Market and cost him a small mint.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:36:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, JS PL <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
> >
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> JS PL wrote:
> >> >
> >> > That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays
> >exactly
> >> > 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to
> >only
> >> > play one until I reboot though.
> >>
> >> You sure fucked up your configuration then.
> >> Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
> >
> >What do you want me to do, film it happening?
>
> ...something this odd, HELL YES.
>
> [deletia]
>
> I wouldn't even take a claim like this about the Win95
> retail version at face value...
But then, Linux + sound (usually)= nightmare that is,
if you manage to get it working in the first place.
OTOH, Sound + Win95 was a no brainer and always seemed to
work, even with odd-ball sound cards.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 06:38:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> >>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
> > [...]
> >>>>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.
> >
> >A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single file.
>
> There's that magic word: "convention".
>
> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
I never said it couldn't, I merely said it would be incredibly
wasteful and stupid to do such a thing.
Like I said, (at least four times now) it would double or
tripple the time / video for processing.
All this, because of brain-dead Linux. No thank you.
>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Databases started out larger than a single file. The contrary idea
> >didn't even occur to anyone, I would wager, until the advent of PC
> >desktop applications.
>
> That's quite a long time actually.
>
> Oracle is barely older than that.
>
> >
> >>>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.
> >
> >The real issue is how trivially correctable it is. There are already
>
> Just buy an Alpha. '-)
>
> Besides, it has unmatched FPU performance.
Sounds like the kind of answer you hate MS for.
Oh yeah, and Alphas have unmatched prices.
Why not buy a PC and buy Win2K, it's far cheaper than Linux + Alpha,
plus you get so many more features with Win2K.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
