Linux-Advocacy Digest #708, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Nigel)
Re: Does Code Decay ("Bennetts family")
Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (Steve Mading)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Johan Kullstam)
whois microsoft.com (Philip Van Hoof)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:22:43 +0000
> And the chances of finding it sitting in front of a LoseDOS box are nil.
>
I don't agree with this - many LoseDOS users are forced to use this crap
as part of their job - I am intelligent and have to sit in front of a
LoseDOS box at work all day. At home though I use Linux when it's
possible to do so ( anytime except when I need to read ms proprietry
file fomats or run windows games - hopefully with the help of Koffice
and Loki games I can reduce this to a minimum).
This reply was sent with Knode running on mandrake 7.2 / IceWM while
browsing the net with 5 copies of konqueror open and downloading
plex86 in a console using cvs, all on a P133 laptop with 32mb ram.
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:29:24 +1100
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a6f334c$0$21342$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
snip
> gee, perhaps cause unix is still ancient and hasn't advanced any in a
decade
> or more. Text mode is still text mode.
Pity Windows still hasn't come close to offering what Unix has for the last
30 years. Text mode rules. When I want to get things done under Windows, I
bring up a Bash shell, and work with things like DJGPP, GNU Emacs, Lynx, and
Pine/Pico. I've got much better functionality under the GNU stuff than I
have under Windows' excuses for basic utilities (call Notepad a text editor?
Ha!). There are exactly two reasons I still use Windows (on half - /only/
/half/ - of my 10Gb disk) - games, and my strange Via MVP4 mobo (which has
patchy driver support under Windows, too).
> > So why has Windows changed so much?
>
> because it keeps improving instead of staying stagnant like unix.
Unix could stay pretty stagnant for a very long time, with only bugfixes and
driver updates/additions) and kick the crap out of Windows for a very long
time. Windows is a lousy design, that needs to keep in touch with 20 year
old bodge fixes (FAT, etc). Unix did things a much better way right from the
start. I predict that in 20 years time, Windows will still be on a FAT
derived FS, and suffering miserably from it.
--Chris
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 24 Jan 2001 16:28:08 -0600
OK, lesse...
W2K:
Insert CD into a CD ROM and turn on computer. It boots and begins to
install. Enter your CD key, name and answer a few default prompts and
shortly thereafter you have the a very massively feature packed OS with a
familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock. HTTP, FTP,
Media Server, Journaling file system, DirectX hardware acceleration of every
device, OpenGL running at the right refresh for that autodetected monitor
and video card and the list goes on. Browser ready, wordpad ready,
mediaplayer supporting pretty much every format (and others are a codec
autodownload away), graphics editor and viewers, handicapped accessiblity,
communications programs, telnet, ftp, massive network support - the list
just goes on and you can just sit back and watch it load.
==========
ok, now, how to do a BAREBONES Linux 2.4 install, no real apps, just command
line crap:
==========
For the kernel (the latest stable at the time of writing is 2.4.0, and the
latest development version is 2.4.1-test8-10ac) go to kernel.org and start
downloading. You'll also need to update modutils and pppd, or as they are
formally called, modutils-2.4.0 and pppd-2.4.0. You can get both of these
via Freshmeat. You also better set aside some on-line time if you're a modem
user, since the kernel weighs in at about 20 MB in its most compressed
form.. While many users may be a little afraid of compiling the kernel or
programs -- I've found the kernel is much easier to compile than you may
ever guess. Odds are, all you'll need to know is about 10 commands at most,
and if that isn't even enough, here's a quick run-through of the kernel
compilation on an x86 Linux system. For a more extensive HowTo, check out
LinuxDoc.org, which has all sorts of HowTos.
1.. First, let's make a boot disk, and we'll also stick a backup section
in LILO just in case. To make a boot disk, type:
mkbootdisk --device /dev/fd0 x.x.x This assumes a couple things. You need
to substitute your kernel version for x.x.x. An example would be 2.2.16 for
a pretty stock distribution, or 2.2.17-21mdk for Linux Mandrake 7.2.
2.. Now, let's extract the kernel tarball. This is done like so:
tar -zxvf linux-x.x.x.tar.gz
Once again, for x.x.x, you substitute in the kernel version you
downloaded. Many of you will probably choose 2.4.0. I will assume your
kernel version is 2.4.0 for the rest of this HowTo. This command will
extract it to a directory called linux in whatever your working directory
is.
3.. Now, let's rename it and move it into the source directory.
mv linux /usr/src/linux-2.4.0
4.. Now, on my particular test machine, I needed to patch the kernel with
ReiserFS. Patches are applied with the following method:
cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.0
and then...
gzip -cd patchname.gz | patch -p0
OR
bzip2 -dc patchname.bz2 | patch -p0
What you use depends on the type of archive the kernel patch is, it will
be either .gz or .bz2
5.. Now, this might be the tough part. From here, you need to decide what
options you want. Never fear, although, because the kernel configuration
utilities have a lot of help included in them. One tip -- know your
hardware! You can compile a graphical utility or a text-mode utility like
this:
make xconfig (for a X11 version of the configuration program)
make menuconfig (for a command-line version)
This will also run whatever program you compile immediately after
compilation. Shuffle through those options and setup what you need. A tip
for NVidia users -- don't compile in agpgart, because NVidia uses nvagp,
which can cause problems with the NVidia closed-source drivers. At any rate,
you can load agpgart as a module, like it's done in many distributions. Now
that you've saved your kernel configuration, you'll be instructed to do a
make dep,
so let's do just that.
6.. Next, we need to clear out those temp files from the source, which
we'll want to keep on the system.
make clean
7.. Now, we need an image Linux can recognize.
make bzImage
This makes an image and places it under
/usr/src/linux-2.4.0/arch/i386/boot/bzImage .
8.. Now, we need to make our modules. Here's how we do it:
make modules
make modules_install
9.. Okay, the hard parts are done. Now we just need to move the image to
the right place and tell LILO where it is. Here's how you can do just that:
mv /usr/src/linux-2.4.0/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.0
Then, we need to edit the /etc/lilo.conf file to include your new
kernel -- don't worry too much, we have a backup kernel, as well as an
emergency boot disk.
vi /etc/lilo.conf
This allows you to edit your lilo.conf file with vi. Of course, there is
also ed, mcedit, emacs, and many more. Add the following section to your
lilo.conf right under the other section that looks the same:
image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.0
label=linux-2.4.0
root=/dev/sda6
read-only
There are, however; there is one thing we need to talk about. Under the
section root=, you need to modify it to tell it where your /boot partition
exists. You can find this out under /etc/fstab. The shown root is for a boot
partition on a SCSI hard disk, and hda6 would be the sixth slice of primary
hard disk on the first IDE controller.
10.. Now, we need to run LILO to make sure it knows about our changes.
Just run it like so:
lilo.
That's it! Reboot and you're set to go with your new kernel.
It is also widely known that things break in the first version of a new
kernel (even though there has been extensive testing) and all new features
may not be included in the latest kernel.
For example, ReiserFS is not included (just as it wasn't in 2.2), but it
will come along in kernel 2.4.1, which is now in a test phase. There are
also known issues with NVidia cards, which requires a patch to work with
kernel 2.4.0 -- go figure with NVidia.
=================
Sure - let's all do this, and make sure you don' mistype that mv
/usr/src/linux-2.4.0/arch/i386/boot/bzimage /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.0 - WHOOPS!!!
Didn't you see that capital "I" in bzImage wasn't a lower case L so it
didn't work - damn!!!
ahahahahahahahahaah - I love this ... Linux 2.4 for the masses - YEA RIGHT!
This is an upgrade?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:28:17 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> This is what you get for running Windows 9x. If you had any expierence in
> the enterprise market (which I seriously doubt you do) then you would know
> why Linux is unfeasable as a workstation platform.
A bold assertion. Care to explain it? What kind of workstation?
Business? Scientific? Graphic? Network analysis workstation?
> You would also know why
> Windows NT & 2000 is the prefered enviroment under such areas.
Preferred by whom?
> You would also know that Windows 9x is crap, always has been, probably
> always will be. Try Me, you have nothing (but money, and your time) to
> loose.
I agree, except don't bother with ME -- old technology.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:28:27 GMT
Said Roy.Culley in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:56:56
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan
>> 2001 02:18:19 +0100;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan
>>>>>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a convention, not a rule of routing or the IP protocol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is not a convention. Look up the appropriate RFC's. The private IP
>>>>>>>address ranges should never appear on the Internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what we call a convention. Notice the "should". Where as,
>>>>>> 0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1 *cannot* appear on the Internet. Get it?
>>>>>
>>>>>I 'should' have said must. Now tell me why '0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1
>>>>>*cannot* appear on the Internet'? It just takes a misconfigured router.
>>>>>There is nothing magical about these addresses. You really are clueless.
>>>
>>>I concede this point as I only recall seeing these addresses on local
>>>subnets (nmap can generate packets with these addresses).
>>
>> Well, see, here's where we get to learn something, Roy. Those weren't
>> on your "local subnets". They were on your local host. None of those
>> packets ever got out the interface and onto the Ethernet. TCP/IP stacks
>> won't do that, by design.
>>
>> But it is instructive in the dark arts of networkology that you'll see
>> them in nmap all the same. ;-)
>
>You obviously have no practical experience at all:
You obviously have little reading comprehension skills. Or perhaps
you're just a bit too impatient to prove what a big bad network admin
you are.
>Here I run nmap telling it to spoof the source address:
>
>nmap -S 127.0.0.1 192.169.5.5
>Starting nmap V. 2.53 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( www.insecure.org/nmap/
>) WARNING: If -S is being used to fake your source address, you may
>also have to use -e <iface> and -P0 . If you are using it to specify
>your real source address, you can ignore this warning. WARNING: -S
>will not affect the source address used in a connect() scan. Use -sS
>or another raw scan if you want to use the specified source address
>for the port scanning stage of nmap
>
>This is what tcpdump showed on the subnet:
>
>tcpdump -n -i eth0 host 192.168.5.5
>User level filter, protocol ALL, datagram packet socket
>tcpdump: listening on eth0
>12:54:23.326627 > 127.0.0.1 > 192.168.5.5: icmp: echo request
>12:54:23.334712 > 127.0.0.1.33992 > 192.168.5.5.www: . 2142240771:2142240771(0) ack
>2456394143 win 4096
>
>What were you saying again?
That 127.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.0 are not valid destination addresses for any
packet ever found on a wire. You may notice that, while your
nmap/tcpdump experiment works quite well, the traffic is rather
worthless, since 192.168.5.5 will NEVER be able to respond to you.
>I'm fed up arguing with you. You aren't worth the time or the
>effort. I have tried to help you but you are beyond help.
Yes, I have beyond your help since four or five years ago, at least.
Outside of the simian chest-beating, though, I do appreciate your
attempts. I did warn you I already knew this stuff.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:28:31 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:45:21
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:50:16
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:41:16 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Well, as much as I agree with you on the whole, here you are wrong.
>> >> >I know for a fact (because I worked for that company 14 years) that
>> >> >Honeywell / Bull produced Microchannel-machines AND boards.
>> >> >And they were not the only ones. IBM was NOT alone with MC, although
>it
>> >> >never was any good. The advantages were not good enough in the light
>of the
>> >> >diasadvantages compared to ISA (VLB / EISA). PCI incorporated many of
>the
>> >> >good things of MC.
>> >>
>> >> This is true, IBM did Licenses it's MCA to several other companies,
>> >> which produced MCA machines as well. They were way a head of their
>> >> time, technically, but the buying public just didn't accept them.
>> >
>> >The cost was just a bit too high for the benefits. If they had kept the
>> >costs down, they'd have had a better chance. I actually liked the
>> >archetecture. Very efficient.
>>
>> Obviously, IBM was hoping there were enough clueless people like you
>> that they could re-proprietize the PC platform. Luckily, they could not
>> bring the costs down enough, once again pointing out that 'efficiency'
>> isn't always what you expect it to be.
>
>The desire for a better performing system make me clueless...
Yes, if you are too brain-dead to recognize that the 'better
performance' comes at the price of more expensive and proprietary
hardware. If you weren't looking for a competitively priced open
architecture commodity machine, why on earth were you buying a PC?
>I must be a damned idiot then for putting together the new PIII 733
>system...
I don't see that re-introducing a proprietary architecture to the PC
platform. What is it that you're not getting?
>I guess i'll seek enlightenment and grab the KayPro out of the closet...
>
>Thanks for the clue Max!
Keep looking, Tom. There's always a chance you'll notice it on the
second pass.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:28:32 GMT
Said . in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 24 Jan 2001 05:23:10 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter.
>> Word will open the document, I'm not sure how it does it, but it doesn't do
>> it by the extention.
>
>Actually, it does in some cases.
>
>> If you try to open an RTF document with doc extention in word, it will open
>> it just right.
>> Try & you'll see.
>
>I understand this.
>
>> The reason for this is that extention is quite easily changable.
>> That is why most programs relies on file contents to identify the data
>> format the document is stored as (document mean here anything that is inside
>> a file).
>
>Changing the extension of a natural .doc file will not change its format or
>encoding.
>
>By your logic, you could change an .mp3 to a .rm and be able to see a movie.
Not entirely. Ayende is somewhat correct (it doesn't work in all
situations) that if you change the extension to .doc, that will be
enough to get Windows to launch Word when you 'open' the file from the
desktop. Once Word is opening the file, it will identify the format
and, hopefully, convert it or suggest a converter. Changing the
extension does not change the file format, you are correct, but its
enough to get Word to launch, which is the goal.
I have, in fact, done the same thing with some video clips, changing the
extension to something which does not match the encoding format, in
order to get them to load into a program which will then identify the
actual format and decode the video.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:28:34 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:24:27
>"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > If you really would've looked, which I know is a stretch for you,
>> > you would've seen that that site keeps statistics for several hundred
>> > other sites. I realize that this may not be a scientific sample, but
>> > it's at least in the ball park +/- 5% I would say. So, giving Linux
>> > the benefit of the doubt, Linux is still 5%, so what?
>>
>> Exactly. So what? Windows has been shipping installed on pc's in
>> stores for as long as it has been available as a product, and we already
>> know that Linux is ususally bought and installed as a server OS.
>
>I don't get you guys some time.
>
>We argue and argue
>
>Chad: X is Y!
>
>Penguinista: You're an idiot! X is Z!
>
>Chad: No X is Y!
>
>Penguinista: Of course X is Y, but R is S! So HAH!
>
>Chad: <sigh>
>
>Can't you guys follow a thread for more than 1 post?
>
>People on your side have been claiming that Linux is taking over
>the Desktop market and that MS should be scared, which, as you know,
>is a big pile of BS. You just reiterated my statement, for the most
>part.
What a buffoon you are, Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: 24 Jan 2001 22:28:44 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT;
:>
:>Actually, I think the reason for it is that the only reason Windows
:>is popular at all is because of all the applications that are only
:>released for Windows and nothing else, not because the OS itself is
:>all that spectacular. Therefore, porting the OS to other platforms
:>would be usless unless MS could get all the third-party application
:>developers to make all of their software for non-intel platforms
:>also. If ONLY Windows and maybe Office ran on platform Foo, but
:>nothing else did, nobody would want it. MS discovered this, and stopped
:>trying to support other platforms. Of course they falsely attributed
:>this to people being uninterested in other platforms, when in fact
:>they *would* be interested if the Windows world hadn't been
:>monoplatform for so long that all the app developers forgot how to
:>program cross-platform code. (Consider how Corel ported WP 2000
:>to Linux - by using Wine instead of actually doing a real port.)
:>
: Coincidentally, immediately after Microsoft bought a big stake in the
: company, IIRC.
I got a copy of Corel WP 2000 for Linux *before* MS bought that
large sum of stock in Corel.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:31:10 GMT
Said ono in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:58:50 +0100;
>
>
>> Still, borrow C++ Builder and try my simple scenario, Doctor Octopus.
>You should probably gett a better dev. environment. (like Visual Studio)
You should probably stop trying to make a name for yourself as a troll.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:31:42 GMT
Said ono in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:12:24 +0100;
>> "The tests that produced the greatest failure rates are the random Win32
>> message tests. In the normal course of events, these messages are
>> produced by the kernel and sent to an application program. It is
>> unlikely (though not impossible) that the kernel would send messages
>> with invalid values. Still, these tests are interesting for two reasons.
>> First, they demonstrate the vulnerability of this interface. Any
>> application program can send messages to any other application program.
>> There is nothing in the Win32 interface that provides any type of
>> protection. Modern operation systems should provide more durable
>> firewalls."
>
>We're talking about os failures here, not about badly written applications.
>btw: The person who made those tests is full of it!
And you know its true, because he put an exclamation point at the end.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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?)
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:33:45 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
> "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 agree. linux should move to 64 bit size_t for files regardless of
processor. linux-2.4 will do large files, but C is a cranky beast
sometimes and updating software can be cumbersome.
> I can assure you that there was no need for 2GB files
> in the 70s, when FAT was designed.
unix style filesystems with the inodes &c were also designed in the
70s. however, it's not the age of the filesystem design. it's the
also competence of the design and the goal of the design. FAT was
made for floppies and tiny systems. unix filesystems were made for
hard drives and larger systems. it's still MS's fault for keeping
such a bad design as FAT and trying to keep it going where it doesn't
belong, but age is not the issue.
> 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
> needed to be used, by a factor of six at the very least) nor are going to be
> used in the near.
> In 5 years we might see TBs disks become common, I still doubt that anyone
> would need a TBs file for *anything*, and Exabyte files is simply ridicilus,
> even if you look further into the future, say 20 - 30 years ahead.
>
> In conclustion, any file size limitation in NTFS is purely theoretical.
>
>
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: whois microsoft.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:35:07 GMT
For some this is old news :). But todays set is pretty funny :)
bash-2.04$ date
Wed Jan 24 20:33:27 CET 2001
bash-2.04$ whois microsoft.com
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.LIVE.FOREVER.BUT.LUNIX.SUCKS-BYBIRTH.ARTISTICCHEESE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.SE.FAIT.HAX0RIZER.PAR.TOUT.LE.ZOY.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.OWNED.BY.MAT.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.N-AIME.BILL.QUE.QUAND.IL.N-EST.PAS.NU
MICROSOFT.COM.MUST.STOP.TAKEDRUGS.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SOON.GOING.TO.THE.DEATHCORPORATION.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TERRORISTS.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOTHING.BUT.A.MONSTER.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NO.MATCH.FOR.THE.UEBER-GEEKS.AT.JIMPHILLIPS.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.GOD.BUT.LINUX.SUCKS-FOREVER.ARTISTICCHEESE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.BORING.COMPARED.TO.TEENEXTREME.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.AT.THE.MERCY.OF.DETRIMENT.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.INSPIRES.COPYCAT.WANNABE.SUBVERSIVES.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.NO.LINUXCLUE.COM
MICROSOF.COM.HACKED.BY.PSYKOJOKO.ON.A.ROOT-NETWORK.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
MICROSOFT.COM.GUTS.NL
MICROSOFT.COM.FAIT.VRAIMENT.DES.LOGICIELS.A.TROIS.FRANCS.DOUZE.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM.ER.IKKE.NO.I.FORHOLD.TIL.LATHANS.NET
MICROSOFT.COM.AINT.WORTH.SHIT.KLUGE.ORG
MICROSOFT.COM
To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them
up
with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:55:29 EST <<<
The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.
bash-2.04$
--
Philip van Hoof aka freax _/_/_/
http://www.freax.eu.org _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Microsoft OS are bad, and _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/
their morals are even worse _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
(Linus Torvalds 8 Sept.1996)_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
