Linux-Advocacy Digest #668, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Jan Johanson")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Jan Johanson")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 (Ed Allen)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Kevin Ford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 23 Jan 2001 05:03:38 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<HC7b6.6557$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 22 Jan
2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> What do your DESIRES have to do with anything?
>
>What the end user likes is an intutive interface. This is why Windows
>Explorer & Apple Finder & Aqua are top in desktop's. The same with
>workstations, where Windows NT & 2000 is king. People like a nice,
>clean, and INTUTIVE interface.
Blah blah. Have you talked to the end user recently? They learn what they
need. I install computers often enough and they don't understand what a
mouse or the 'desktop' are. If I was to have set them up with unix,
they're learn it. Hell half the ppl just use it to Check email and load up
WinTeg (temrminal emulator) to connect to the HP (oh yeah running HP/UX)
>>> I can just see NOTHING getting done. No words processed, no print
>>> jobs printed because no one can
>> > figure out how ass backward UNIX GUI's are.
>>
>> Aster*x has been out there for years.
>> Word Perfect has been out there for a DECADE.
>
>> Star Office.
>
>1. I have corrected this line.
>2. Word Perfect for UNIX? Did I miss something?
Apparently , cause it is out there.
> Oh yeah, people prefered Microsoft Works (hint, the dos program with a
> GUI), and reveled when WP finally came to Windows.
Oh? MS Works is a POS. And Lots of ppl think so. Oh and do you know how
many users we have to fight tooth and nail to get them to give up thier DOS
WP 5.1 and get them to use MS Word? G'damn. Inuitive means shit, to these
ppl, they want what they know. They know WP fine. They don't see how
anything could possible be difficult about it because they have been using
it since version 2, or they are used to the WP app that ran on the old
PRIME system once upon a time. Ppl will learn what they need or they will
sink.
Besides wusses that demand a gui. psst. get WP 5.1 Plus, it had a tool bar
and mouse support as usefull as Works first go.
>3. StarOffice is about as user friendly as a double edge sword. I don't
>know many people who would be willing to put up with it, even if it were
>given to them for free.
Even if it were givin to them for free? Um. Does anybody pay for it? I
don't see where ppl are paying all this money for all this free software.
And Star Office isn't that awful.
Quit bein a spoiled brat about all your apps.
>> > The GOOD productivity is for Windows.
>>
>>
>> If you call crashing at 3:00 and losing all the work you've done since
>> lunchtime "good productivity", then you're OBVIOUSLY not speaking the
>> same dielect of English as the rest of us.
>
>I don't have this problem. I am a competent administrator. If a
>WORKSTATION crashes at 3:00, and I'm on my lunch break, I will ensure
>another workstation is available, and then conclude my lunch break, and
>repair the workstation that is non functional.
but what about the data that the end user just lost? First off they aren't
going to LET you finish your lunch break. They want to know why you can't
just make the data come back, and because of the encoraged ingorance of how
the machine actually works. This can prove difficult. They think you're
just lying to them. bleh
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 22 Jan 2001 23:06:53 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 22 Jan 2001 18:53:18 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
> >
> >MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
> >europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
> >
> >Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
linux?
>
> You mean besides RealVideo and Quicktime?
there is a quicktime streaming server? I thought linux couldn't play
quicktime?
Forgot about realvideo, it's a loser format...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:07:19 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan
2001 01:43:32 +0100;
>In article <94i3pb$d6l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Ummm...how exactly is NAT an overhead? How exactly do you scale your firewall
>> performance appropriately?
>
>Do I really have to explain this? With NAT, whether it is one to one NAT or
>hide NAT the firewal has to keep a table of which internal addresses belong
>to which connection. This takes cpu cycles believe it or not. The speed of
>the line is not the only criteria for deciding how powerful a system you
>need. Number of rules, NAT, routing table size all affect perfomance.
You were doing rather well until that last line, Roy. Don't confuse
routing tables with NAT tables; they aren't at all related. Likewise,
the firewall rules. These are three separate functions, NAT, router,
and firewall. They don't benefit from being munged together, and you're
going to find it easier to work with them, swear to god, if you keep
that in mind.
[...]
>> Maybe you need to read "TCP/IP Networking" again.
>
>Your worse than Max. Please don't argue about something in which you are
>out of your depth.
Look, I've been through all this before, please. Calm down. Nobody's
"out of their depth". Yttrx was right about a few things, and I've
always understood where you're coming from, though you seem to have
presumed I don't. But that's the point, you see; you just stepped in
it, and now you're going to have to back out and wipe your shoe off, or
stomp around smelling like shit. Your choice.
[...]
>>> Listen I administer several checkpoint fw-1's,
>>
>> The second worst firewall this world has ever seen. (can you say UDP
>> denial?)
>
>All firewalls are vulnerable to DoS attacks.
All anything are vulnerable to denial of service attacks. TCP/IP
stacks, including those in firewalls, among them. Yet some might be
more vulnerable than others, under various circumstances real and
imagined. But my comments about firewall-1 are not as harsh as some.
>If the originator has enough
>bandwidth there is not much you can do except pull the plug. Checkpoints
>support is the worst I know but their firewall is far superior to most. If
>I were to install a single firewall to protect an Intranet it wouldn't be
>fw-1 (it would be my second choice though).
>
>>> Sun's sunscreens
>>
>> The absolute worst.
>
>This statement can only be made out of total ignorance. The EFS3.x in stealth
>mode is the most secure firewall I know. With the introduction of the 3.x
>series it has all the funtionality of fw-1. I have never heard of a single
>security problem related to any sunscreen firewall from the spf100 to the
>EFS3.x. In stealth mode it doesn't even use any of the IP/TCP stack from
>Solaris and hence is not vulnerable to bugs in them. Another advantage of sunscreen
>is that you can configure it from the command line (the hotjava gui for EFS3.x is
>crap though - from a performance point of view. It is so slow).
Oh, I get it. You just wanted to having a pissing match with attendant
chest-beating about who's got the biggest DMZ, huh? I'll bow out
gracefully, then. You go about your business, son.
[...]
>No, it is clear you do not know what you are talking about. You are even more
>ignorant than Max.
[...]
Don't look at me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 22 Jan 2001 23:08:09 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:h9mh6tk6jajl34me0arbgqpk395ouacolu@news...
> > > On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:13 -0600, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Notice the troll drops a big steamy one and then is nowhere to be
> > > heard when people follow-up to his article.
> > >
> >
> > Unlike linux geeks - I have a social life and a paying job - hence, I do
not
>
> I have a VERY high paying job and an INTERNATIONAL social life.
Translation: I actually make money which makes me, in comparison to linux
programmers, VERY highly paid (but compared to windows programmers, a street
mime).
Translation2: Uncle Sam sends me overseas without any say so on my own part.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:10:03 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on 23 Jan 2001 04:15:26 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you need to read "TCP/IP Networking" again.
>
>> Your worse than Max. Please don't argue about something in which you are
>> out of your depth.
>
>"you're".
"your". ;-)
[...]
>The only reason to use a firewall instead of packet filtering on the router
>side is to lock down your employees and watch them attempt to access porn
>sites. I have an ethical problem with this.
That's not entirely true. In theory, anyway.
>>> By your experience, you should have known full well that the "internet" will
>>> not believe a node advertising itself as 0.0.0.0
>>>
>>> But you didnt. Something is amiss.
>
>> What the fsck has it to do with the Internet? Have you ever used nmap?
>
>Yes, and my comment has to do with you not knowing what the hell youre talking
>about. Your information is faulty.
That's true. And its a sorry state of affairs, isn't it, when Roy is
the typical firewall administrator. And he is; I know.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:26:28 +0800
W2K Advanced Server is an excellent choice for this application.
nuxx
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:30:42 GMT
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94j2hc$pef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Yes, actually, you of all people are totaly unfamiliar with the type of
> >suffering that would occour. It's called USER INTERFACE, and UNIX
> >inherently has poor ones. The average user isn't in the mood to learn
> >the in's and out's of CDE or GNOME/"E". They like Windows explorer.
> >They like Apple finder. Both of which may look totaly different, but
> >they can claim one, unified thing:
> >
> >They are inutitive.
>
> Umm.. no. Apple, is actually far from intutive. Esp if you are smart. If
> you already have a concept of how a file system works. Etc. The more you
> understand how a computer works, the worse off a Mac seems. MacOS is hands
> down POS. and shouldn't even be mentioned among other OSs.
> And explorer can be a pain. Why is it when I think I've changed the file
> assosiation in one part of explorer, later a completely dif program will
> open it? I know I usually fix that by just jumping into the Registry. But
> as you would say, that is far from intuitive.
The registery is not intiutive. It's the back-end. It's for the "advanced
operation". Fortunatly, it's not the default method to perform tasks. And
why isn't Apple's finder interface intuitive? It provides everything needed
in quite a clean, friendly look AND a functional, and integrated one as
well.
Near as I can recall, that IS the computer definition of intuitive.
> >And USERS like that.
>
> Bah, screw the users. The users are sheep and will use what IT gives them
> for the most part. They won't always like it, but they Will adapt.
This is disgusting thinking. The USERS have preferences. The USERS are
also the people who have to LIVE with decisions made by IT. If trial runs
of something new aren't liked, they are scapped. Especially when the "new"
interfers with the ability to do work that the "old" had.
Users like intuitive. IS likes stability. Guess who won out there.
> >> > UNIX on the desktop isn't pretty.
> >>
> >> Neither are stock cars...yet they beat the pants off normal street
> >> cars.
> >
> >Do you see America driving down the highway in a stock car? They don't
> >BUY stock cars. They buy gas guzzeling monster SUV's because of one,
> >simple factor; They like how they LOOK. But most importantly, they love
> >how they look in them.
>
> And? This is a good excuse for windows? Ignorance? Sorry but we need to
> find these ppl who think like this and have them either enslaved or shot.
> We don't need ignorant yuppies running around anymore. Now ignorant
yuppies
> who are puppets.. They can stay depending on who thier owner is.
Go back to administrator hell.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:43:31 GMT
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94j3ba$pef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Blah blah. Have you talked to the end user recently? They learn what they
> need. I install computers often enough and they don't understand what a
> mouse or the 'desktop' are. If I was to have set them up with unix,
> they're learn it. Hell half the ppl just use it to Check email and load up
> WinTeg (temrminal emulator) to connect to the HP (oh yeah running HP/UX)
You MIGHT be able to implement a Linux soulition here. But you can't,
because the users WILL complain. Hell, so will you when network wide policy
can't be set remotely.
> >1. I have corrected this line.
> >2. Word Perfect for UNIX? Did I miss something?
>
> Apparently , cause it is out there.
Sure, NOW. Corel did the "buy and port" thing. Frankly, WP2000 is a shell
of it's potential self. It wouldn't be so bad IF it were a native Linux
program.
> > Oh yeah, people prefered Microsoft Works (hint, the dos program with a
> > GUI), and reveled when WP finally came to Windows.
>
> Oh? MS Works is a POS. And Lots of ppl think so. Oh and do you know how
> many users we have to fight tooth and nail to get them to give up thier
DOS
> WP 5.1 and get them to use MS Word? G'damn. Inuitive means shit, to
these
> ppl, they want what they know. They know WP fine. They don't see how
> anything could possible be difficult about it because they have been using
> it since version 2, or they are used to the WP app that ran on the old
> PRIME system once upon a time. Ppl will learn what they need or they will
> sink.
> Besides wusses that demand a gui. psst. get WP 5.1 Plus, it had a tool bar
> and mouse support as usefull as Works first go.
People prefered Works. Eventaully. Word Perfect was everything BUT until
it finaly came to Windows. Even then, Microsoft Office & Works was pushing
it off the desktop. Hmm, wonder why so many people prefered Works over WP?
Could it have been PRICE?
> >3. StarOffice is about as user friendly as a double edge sword. I don't
> >know many people who would be willing to put up with it, even if it were
> >given to them for free.
>
> Even if it were givin to them for free? Um. Does anybody pay for it? I
> don't see where ppl are paying all this money for all this free software.
> And Star Office isn't that awful.
> Quit bein a spoiled brat about all your apps.
What are you talking about? Downloadable doesn't mean free. That box
sitting on the shelf at your local computer store isn't free, neither is the
40 hours needed to download it over a modem. BROADBAND doesn't make
everything free.
And is it so terrible that I demand quality software from makers?
> but what about the data that the end user just lost? First off they aren't
> going to LET you finish your lunch break. They want to know why you can't
> just make the data come back, and because of the encoraged ingorance of
how
> the machine actually works. This can prove difficult. They think you're
> just lying to them. bleh
I haven't ever expierenced anyone who didn't understand that "the data's
gone, because the computer is off." Second, my situation requiring a lunch
break is as such; uninteruptable. I ensure my legaly protected breaks are
enforced, and penalization for respecting that time period is not tolerated.
See, it pays to work your employer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:00:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11
[...]
>>You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out why
>>multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so poor
>>as to be non-existent.
>
>But you are mistaken; I am not misunderstanding you, I'm disagreeing
>with you. I am merely pointing out that the reason multi-platform
>support is poor is because of illegal behavior, and that alone. Your
>attempts to rationalize it as 'appropriate behavior under certain
>circumstances' is a thinly veiled apology for a monopolist.
>
I would like to inject here that I think the reason, though they
would deny it, that M$ dropped the other ports of NT and never even
attempted a port of WinDOS was that adapting to other hardware
forces a rationalizing of interfaces which would have made cloning
like WINE easier.
M$ seems to think that doing things in intricate, convoluted ways
shows how smart they are. It is really just being clever. Being smart
is doing things as simply and efficiently as possible which
competitors do but monopolies do not.
Their clever hacks do not cross over to other platforms well. I
suspect that is why it took them ten years to go from 16 to 32 bits
and why Linux which does things simply and logically outperforms
both WinDOS and NT.
This may also explain why they have been unable to merge WinDOS and
NT after so many years of claiming that they are trying.
--
"Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
- George Bonser
"No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
- Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:51:10 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perry Pip once wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:28:55 +0000,
>Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I play games on my computer. I always have. I've never owned a console,
>>> I think a PC does better graphics than a console.
>>
>>I have to agree with Pete here. After all, how many consoles do
>>graphics at 1024*768? And how many can perform anti-aliasing at that
>>resolution?
>>
Consoles run on TV's, which can't do that resolution. But the AA is nice
on my Dreamcast.....
>>
>>> The fact that there is a lack of games on Linux is important to me.
>>
>>Same here. In fact, I have Windows for the sole reason of games. If
>>all my games were available for Linux, I'd dump Windows in an instant
>>(As soon as I got a GeForce2 since Voodoo5 drivers for Linux are crap).
>>
>
>I for one wouldn't recommend a GeForce even for playing games under
>Windows. Basically, the card is designed for benchmarks and that's
>about it. The GeForce2 might get your more frames per second, but a
>Voodoo5 provides a much higher image quality. Once you've got so many
>FPS's the game is smooth enough, quality of the rendering is what
>becomes most important.
>
I wouldn't buy anything but GeForce these days. The VSA100 was out of date
by the time it hit the shelves. The 6000 is only just about adequate for
the average machine (if it fits!) by which I mean ~600Mhz. Voodoo still
relies too heavily on the processor.
>Now granted, you won't get much of that quality under the current
>Linux drivers. However the Linux drivers are open source and the
>hardware specs are published, and VA Linux is paying developers to
>work on the drivers. With regards to Nvidia, I purchased a TNT2 card
>two years ago becuase they advertised on their web site a commitment
>to open source. Well they never released usaable open source drivers,
>nor hardware specs. Instead they realeased their closed source drivers
>long after the TNT2 card had become obselete, meaning my money was
>wasted. AFAIC they decieved me. Currently, Nvidia is publishing closed
>source drivers under the excuse that publishing source code and
>hardware specs would violate their contracts with other technology
>providers. But they won't specify who or why. And then there's this
>X-box partnership with Microsoft....hmmm...this was announced right
>around the same time they said they would close source the drivers..
>
The drivers are close source because parts of the OpenGL stuff is licensed
from SGI.
I'm using the Linux drivers right now.... if I upgrade most of my system I
would expect to maybe have to reinstall the drivers.... but the fact is I
don't... so long as I avoid the packages that it overwrites. Plus it only
takes 2 minutes anyway.
>Nvidia's current Linux drivers require you install files that will
>break Linux package management, i.e. whenever you upgrade your RPM or
>debian packages, it will clobber your Nvidia driver and you'll have to
>reinstall them.
>
>So if you want purchase a GeForce2 go ahead. Enjoy it!! But don't call
>yourself an open source advocate.
>
better than calling yourself one and having a crap card / drivers.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
