Linux-Advocacy Digest #619, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (SoneoneElse)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: Windows 2000 Datacenter Server does support the "five nines" (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Re: Some things are easier in Linux
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:11:56 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:54:43 -0100, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>Everyone goes on about how Linux offers me the 'choice' of which desktop I
>>can use, unlike Windows. However, choice here does not equate to consistant
>>style.
>>
>>If I want all my file save/open dialogs to all look the same - like the KDE
>>style, or MOTIF or Gtk, can I do that with the Linux desktop? No I can't -
Sure. Just restrict yourself to one desktop.
That is infact all you are doing when you run Windows.
There exist no competing toolkits for Windows save those
ported from Unix.
>>my choice is restricted here to whatever toolktip the application is
>>created with.
>>
>>If I restrict myself to KDE only applications then I lose certain system
>>configuration tools as there isn't one written for KDE (that's certainly
>>true of the Mandrake distribution). Linuxconf is one example, it can run in
>>text mode or GUI - but uses the Gtk toolkit.
Considering that you can use linuxconf to really fubar your
system, the fact that it looks odd could turn out to actually
be a GOOD thing.
What makes you think a lookalike that is subtly different is
actually beneficial. If an application is put together by a
group of coders with a distinct outlook, that should be as
obvious as possible to the novice.
This way, when they see butt ugly athena widgets they know
to use the 3rd mouse button for scrolling.
Still, if the best complaint you can muster is "well, my
control panel looks ugly" then you are infact a better
Linux advocate than any Zealot here.
>>
>>It is true that on Windows, application do use different styles of file
>>open/save dialogs - however, there is a system wide _standard_ that 99% of
>>applications use. Unfortunately, you can't change this standard - like have
This is likely an exageration.
Even if it isn't, this assertion may not hold true for the
particular collection of applications that some random
user might want to use.
>>different shapes buttons etc. (and this is what I would call a "choice" -
>>not the varying standards Linux offers).
No, you are simply redefining choice.
[deletia]
Developers are free to tweak the standard dialogs and have been
doing do for at least 7 years ago when I was in a win16
development group that was in the habit of doing just that.
Compared to that potential, TWO standard file selectors
is downright trivial.
Besides, it's all just WIMP anyways. It's not brain surgery.
It's not even an rcfile with it's own little odd format. All
the elements of ANY universal selector should be familiar
enough to any GUI user such that moving from one to another
is trivial, and not any sort of practical issue.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 23:12:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT
<YPia6.2990$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[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.
>>
>> No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
>>
>> I still don't, especially after you've broken down
>> the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
>> of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
>
>Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
>5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
>the entire clip and work with it as a whole.
It depends on the clip. Were I a moviemaker (I'm not), I would
not want to have a single gigantic file until the very end, during
final assembly; prior to that, I'd want scenes.
I know just enough about movie editing to get into trouble with the
Director's Guild :-), but in any event, a movie shoot does not
proceed in chronological order. (I suspect the logistics can get
quite hairy, especially during post-production when the various
effects are added.)
>Breaking it
>up just to accomodate a poor choice of a poorly designed
>OS only adds time and steps to a process that wouldn't
>ordinarily be there.
True, but not necessarily relevant; it depends on the size of
the subclips. However, I'm curious as to how many moviemakers
use NT for their video editing -- I suspect there are a few, but
I also suspect that there is more widely utilized equipment
as well.
>
>The only reason in this process to break up the videos
>would've been to accomodate Linux. The time it takes
>to break up the videos is a.) Unnecessary and b.) Costly.
>
>There is no reason to break them up, period.
That's assuming that they were fully assembled to begin with.
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:03h:37m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: Truthteller
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:52:34 +0200, "Ayende Rahien"
<Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
><SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:24:46 +0200, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> > If he will install windows, he will need a LILO boot disk, because RH
>> >> > wouldn't boot because Windows will overwrite the MBR.
>> >> > He will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR if he wish to use Linux.
>> >>
>> >> Or make a Linux boot file using the dd command, and putting on a
>floppy,
>> >> installing windows, then putting the linux bootfile somewhere and
>adding
>> >> it to the list in boot.ini.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Thanks, I remembered that this can be done, but not how.
>> >However, wouldn't this work on NT only?
>> >
>> Yes if you are making an entry in boot.ini.
>> Boot.ini is used by the NT bootloader and generally not installed win
>> Win9* ( unless you use NT too).
>
>Generally? You mean that 9x can actually use it if you add it manually?
>I thought that only NT boot loader did it. I assume that if I add boot.ini
>to 9x it would be ignored.
>
Generally meaning it is installed with NT.
BTW you can install NT then remove all the files installed by NT
except the bootloader and have the same effect.
AFAIK it is not distributed with Win9x.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:19:30 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:36:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
>>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, "JS PL" <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
>>
>>>What do you want me to do, film it happening?
>>>I didn't do anything to the configuration. It's the default install. It
>>>plays an MP3 ONCE.
>>
>>Can't say I've ever seen that one before. I do find the players
>>pathetic looking though compared to Windows players.
>>
This is a flaming pile of bat guano.
All of the major mp3 players support skins. Some even support
skin datafiles from WinDOS mp3 players. Plus, there is an
mp3 or two just plain common to both platforms.
>
>What a load of splooge. I do find that its kind of unimportant what a
>media player *looks like*, as it is a functional program (unless its on
>Windows, of course), not a piece of art. The only thing that's supposed
>to 'look good' is the media content, and, of course, Linux trumps
>Windows entirely and easily, again, on that one.
...plus, it's an entirely subjective thing too. How do you
test against such a thing? How do you fully specify such
a thing?
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:31:03 +0100
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> I have, until today, only encountered _one_ PC operating system with a
> thoroughly consistent user interface, and that was the OS/2 Warp family.
> And even there, some programs 'chose' not to follow the rules and do it
> their own way (StarOffice happens to be one of them, at least in their
> post-3.1 incarnations).
>
> What I have seen of Windows 9x, gave me the impression that someone tried
> to copy the 'look and feel' of the WPS (*), without bothering with the OO
> foundations. The result was utterly frustrating for someone who had
> actually used an OOUI (Objext Oriented User Interface), since the Windows
> 9x desktop is littered with inconsistencies.
>
> I really did miss the WPS when I switched to Linux, but at least I don't
> have to wade through a half-arsed copy of it if I don't want to. I stick
> to IceWm (+) and run the apps I need, be they GTK, Qt, Motif or whatever
> based.
>
Well spoken, I too miss the WPS. It was the nicest GUI ever. If IBM just
had stayed on more to OS/2, I would still run it (did so until 1 1/2 years
ago, now only 1 machine for testing purposes, as some of our customers
still run OS/2 and are willing to do so for the forseeable future).
If only KDE or GNOME could evolve into something which resembles the WPS,
it would just be great. I don't have the time to do much (programmer-) work
on linux and/or KDE myself, otherwise I would try to bring it closer to
that.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:19:42 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > Maybe you should, just for a change, *read* the magazine you are
> > criticizing?
>
> Please show me an article in c't that is favorable to Microsoft.
>
> Just one.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -Chad
>
>
Well, for starters lets take issue 25/2000 (begin of december 2000).
It contains an article named "Neuanfang -- Whistler - was die n�chste
Generation bringt".
I'll translate it for you, chad, as you are certainly unable to speak
german, you barely manage to understand english, as your refusal to answer
to posts with facts show clearly.
This article says, in essence, that whistler is quite good, as it unifies
microsofts system to 1 platform, which is good for the customers. Also they
say, that in their test the OS ran fairly well. No real criticism, not more
than EVERY OS, linux also, would get from them.
In fact, I know of no other computer magazine which tries to be that
impartial as c't.
But I can understand why you don't like them. They were the first to say
what the mindcraft "test" was all about, how it was squewed and why it had
nothing to do with the real world. That just squarely said for all to hear
how Microsoft wanted tests conducted, namely unfair and partial.
------------------------------
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 23:26:12 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[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.
>>
>> No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
>>
>> I still don't, especially after you've broken down
>> the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
>> of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
>
>Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
>5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
>the entire clip and work with it as a whole. Breaking it
Why? Do you do operations on the whole 15 minutes
at once? I severely doubt it. You work on single
scenes at a time or over very small periods of
time. Even if you hit a file barrier, you should
be able to just continue a fade or whatnot on
the next file.
[deletia]
Video editing is the essence of 'pulling apart and
pulling back together many disparate pieces'.
Divide and conquer is a very fundemantal part of computing.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Datacenter Server does support the "five nines"
Date: 20 Jan 2001 16:30:31 -0700
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Craig,
>
> > I'm sure it uses clustering to do this (no big deal).
>
> It does. Does this mean so long as at least one machine is running in the
> cluster it doesn't count again 99.999% availability if one machine has to be
> rebooted, etc?
You got it!
Impressive, no?
> So as an extreme example, if you rebooted a different server in the cluster
> each day you could still quote 99.999% uptime?
By their logic, yes.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:32:07 GMT
On 20 Jan 2001 22:47:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
wrote:
>Also, this is an aesthetic point, not a usability point.
>vi if much fuglier then vim when editing any sort of
>source code, but that hardly makes it unusable.
>Oh, and standard install of mandrake 7.2 running konqueror
>looks just fine to me. Browsing sharky extreme using
>my cordless _wheel_ mouse to navigate while listening to
>MP3s and licq running off to the side. Yups, my linux install
>is unusable. Maybe Microsoft can tell me where I want to go
>today so that I know what I should be doing.
If you want crappy applications, like web browsers that can't properly
handle certificates (Konqueror), and a wheel mouse that doesn't hover
correctly, listening to mp3's with a program that can't even remember
it's own song directory all for the joy of running Linux that's fine
with me.
As far as where you want to go today, all I can say is that I run
Mandrake 7.2 right along side of Win2kpro and if you like the Linux
version of the applications you've mentioned, IMHO the only place you
can go is forward.
Microsoft is so far ahead of Linux in those area's it's not even a
race.
>But back to the point....
>Your claim of "scouring the net for hours" either makes
>you a liar or an idiot, since it would take the average
>user all of 1 minute to find it on the net.
Assuming you know what you are looking for.
I will say that entering "ugly+fonts+linux" with Google produced
12,300 hits. But of course, it looks fine to you so I guess there is
no problem...
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
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 23:33:44 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:10:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>>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.
>
>Actually, Jedi, in this case, that's not true. A video stream is not at
>all similar to a discrete data store. The very concept of 'structure'
>is different, in fact, and there is, despite your claims, some
For compressed digital video there is some truth to this.
HOWEVER, compressed digital video is quite successfully
spread across multiple files on a regular basis.
>reasonable validity in requiring a mass store, just the way Chad is
>trolling about. I agree with you, that his presentation of the case is
>largely fabricated, but one must admit that the 2G limit was, in some
>cases, factual, and the lack of availability of a >2G file on Linux
>would have been a disincentive to use it for certain scenarios in video
>work. Chad probably is lying entirely when he pretends that he would
I think it's most likely completely irrelevant.
The inavailability of Adobe Premiere on Linux x86 is
probably a much larger issue than how small your
VOB files have to be.
[deletia]
>>>The real issue is how trivially correctable it is. There are already
>>
>> Just buy an Alpha. '-)
>>
>> Besides, it has unmatched FPU performance.
>
>If they were supposedly professional video processors, you'd expect that
>they might consider that idea. But Chad said they wanted 'cheap', so
I can't imagine skimping on the FPU performance (or even
the disk subsystem) would get them anywhere in the long run.
>that generally means going with Windows. It might be more expensive
>than Linux, but regardless of whether its crapware, its still monopoly
>crapware. And so it doesn't really matter how much more expensive it
>is, its still more expensive in the end to try to avoid it.
[deletia]
The real question is HOW cheap?
Are we talking about the bargain bin stuff that I would
give my mother-in-law or serious workstations that would
NOT be cheaper than faster Alpha hardware?
As long as we're indulging in conjecture, why not wonder
why they didn't consider an Altivec system? Digital video
is probably one of the few areas where the inflated
performance claims of MacOS cheerleaders actually hold up.
Those too (Macs) should not be uncompetitive when compared
to a serious video editing workstation.
I am a nitpick and suspension of disbelief was not achieved.
--
>> 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 :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:36:50 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:19:30 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> ...plus, it's an entirely subjective thing too. How do you
> test against such a thing? How do you fully specify such
> a thing?
I dunno, ask Microsoft or Winamp. They managed to make their players
attractive looking, while xmms looks dreadful, no matter what skin you
use.
It's a mess even on a 21 inch monitor at 1024x768 32bpp.
Can't even remember it's own song directory....
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 23:40:04 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:00:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>>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.
>
>Again, your knowledge seems sound, but your understanding is flawed.
>There are no subnets 'reserved' for anything, unless you're dealing with
>a full-blown firewall (which by nature breaks all those rules about how
Or routers.
There are certain addresses that aren't meant to be routed.
To do so will cause name collisions.
[deletia]
No matter how you are connected to the net, there WILL be a
local router somewhere that's not supposed to forward traffic
with certain destination or source addresses.
These are defined in RFC 1597.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:41:23 -0000
On 21 Jan 2001 04:00:55 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> Also, there was VERY popular network hardware that wasn't immediately
>> recognzied under Win98 either. It's only a function of how old the
>> vendor support is relative to how old the OS distribution is.
>
>Heck, stick an old RTL8139 card into a PC, install Win98 --- and hope that
>you have internet access without that card, because otherwise you won't
>get it working when the vendor CD is not handy.
Mind you, I'm not talking about old stuff but things that
are still onsale at CompUSA or OfficeMax.
[deletia]
...dunno about the RTL8139.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
