Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #34 Thu, 17 May 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Graham Sumner")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS (Greg Copeland)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("fmc")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:09:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> Check this article out:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=IA64+author:kd5ob%40mmcable.com&hl=en&lr=&;
>> safe=off&scoring=r&rnum=3&ic=1&selm=39EE2DC8.B4F178FB%40mmcable.com
>>
>> He literally claims that HP has been selling Itanium for over a year (and
>> this was 8 months ago) in their "mainframes".
>
>I already know what he said, hence the reason why I said he (Charlie) was
>miss-informed about the status of the Itanium.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>
The HP-9000 isn't running on a risc based processor bone head.
I the HP-9000 is running on the 64 bit version of the Intel
chip. That isn't a risc based processor.
EPIC is not RISC you fucking meathead and HP isn't using
any motorola chips either.
It is the commercial version of the Itanium and it's been
in use for 1.5 years now.
There is no model of HP-9000 which runs on a non-intel
chip.
Thanks blockheads for playing!
If you were real computer professionals you would know this.
Intel won't release a chip into the market until MS says
it's time to go.
http://isearch.intel.com/scripts-search/search.asp?
isoCode=en&q1=risc&SearchCrit=ALL
&category=ALL&mh=25&MimeType=ALL
They call it the IA-64!
And I'd like to say the both of you are something worse
than mis-informed. You have your fucking heads up
your ass.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:14:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> Sure. IIS wasn't where the bug was, though. The bug was in the Front Page
>> extensions, which are maintained by the FrontPage team. Basically, it's an
>> add-on.
>>
>> In any event, code reviews don't review every line of code, they review
>> critical parts of code, and the particular code involved was something like
>> 5 years old.
>
>So in essence, its not such as big deal.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>
So in essence, its not such a big deal?
Only if you consider a hidden back door in every IIS server on the planet
which gives the user the capability to steal everything off the server and
run a muck across your intra-net no problem.
Of course if you didn't you probably also think Intel made risc chips
and thought highly of them...
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:18:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading FUD for
>> > > > quite a while now.
>> > > > But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly dated
>> articles
>> > > > ... and you still can't read.
>> > >
>> > > No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as new. If
>> you
>> > > notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
>> > >
>> > > This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a backdoor,
>> despite
>> > > MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying that the
>> > > message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the code
>> while a
>> > > buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
>> > >
>> > > Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess what?
>> It's
>> > > disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone, even
>> the
>> > > register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact, the
>> register
>> > > posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
>> >
>> > Then ya better tell that to Sun Microsystems then. They say its a new
>> > one!
>>
>> They do? I can't find the link. Please provide it.
>>
>> This is not the double decode bug that was recently discovered.
>>
>> Further, how much evidence does it take? Now you won't even believe the
>> register, the place so many of you Linux advocates love to use as your
>> source of information.
>
>I've read all of the previous links you have provided. It looks to me
>nothing more the MS spin doctoring.
>
>--
>V
That's all MS proponents ever seem to fight with.
They fight with MS backed links.
IT's the U.S.S.R strategy for backing the system.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:18:43 GMT
Jon Johansan wrote:
> > In general, scalability is not linear.
>
> In general that is true - there have already been several demonstrations of
> "near" linear scalabilty of Adv Server on a unisys 16 processor machine.
How can you determine linearity with one data point? <grin>
> > Don't ask me! I assume they are more concerned with performance
> > or with vendor relationships than with cost.
>
> Oh really? So now suddenly you acknowledge cost is meaningless when Linux vs
> W2K is discussed?
Use logic. That's not what I'm acknowleding.
> I'll remember that (shoudl be easy, I've always know
> that). Then again, their performance was less that the same per CPU on W2K
> so even performance is nothing to be proud of.
There you go with that linearity again!
> Perhaps but we're not interested in home user/tiny business caliber apps.
> I'm interested in serious computing power and applications.
Then perhaps we'd best skip past Microsoft and go to the
supercomputers and their specialized UNIXes. In any case, I've
not seen numbers for PostGreSQL boxes yet, and it would be nice to.
> > If SQL Server is really as good as DB2, then Microsoft is either giving
> > a hell of a deal, or dumping the software to penetrate the server
> > market.
>
> Perhaps they are following the lead set by companies like
> Borland/Interprise. Produce great software at a reasonable price (i.e., less
> than your competitors) to help get more people using it - more users/better
> support and community products -> more users... Maybe IBM should drop the
> price of DB2 by 60% and if it's the better product people will flock to it.
Could be a reasonable thing to do.
> There is no need to do that. This isn't a test of just software or just
> hardware. This is a test of a combination of the two. It's designed to pit
> _solutions_ against each other, not a single vendor against another.
Then why are the vendor logos so prominent?
> Sometimes you have to pay to play - it's just that way. Are you telling me
> there are no linux backers who've got $10K handy? Can't the guys from
> VALinux or Redhat fork over a few bucks or are their budgets strained
> supplying the bandwidth for "free" downloads of the products they work to
> produce.
That could very well be true. In any case, there are extra costs,
such as allocating admin and tech personnel to the testing process.
Let's face it, money is tighter in the free software market.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:21:22 GMT
In article <7_HM6.1166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>Taking you at your word that you remember this, you might be thinking about
>when I asserted it would be nearly impossible for a hacker to insert a
>backdoor even if they broke into MS due to the amount of interaction that
>would need to go on to achieve this.
>
>I never said a back door was impossible from someone on the inside.
>
Am I the only person here on COLA who when after reading statements
like this feel this is completely un-reasonable and assinine?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:12:29 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dvvea$gts$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What about binary distributed software? That is pretty much a big
> > problem, because some dist has different FS layout, and (at least AFAIK,
> > there is no
> > (standard) way to find about this layout).
>
> This really should not matter and the fault lies squarely with the
> application maker.
>
> The user should be able to (at his/her option) install either to a tree
> entirely dependent on the application in /opt, install it in to the
> existing bin,etc,lib,man tree in /usr or /usr/local, or whatever (these
> are only examples). If the application uses a shell script warpper, then
> the shell script wrapper can inform the app (by means of environment
> variables) where the root of its install tree is.
>
> I have no idea why this is not done more often.
*Shrug* never underestimate the stupidity of human being ;-)
Windows has RG_SZ_EXPAND, which does the same work.
> > As for "incredibly portable as standard libraries are used", that is
> > *pure bull*, if I use standard libraries, I can port code from windows
> > to linux to unix to VMS to Mac to whatever you want, as long as it
> > support the standard libraries (I mainly talk about C/C++ standard
> > libraries, are you talking about something else?). There is a limit to
> > how much you can do with those standard libraries, before you hit
> > performance & usability limits. (Usability means that you just *can't*
> > do some stuff using the standard libraries. Threading, GUI & networking,
> > to name a few.)
>
> I don't believe there is any completely portable way of doing OS
> dependent stuff between such vastly differing OSs short of using Java or
> a really cool toolkit.
Sure there is. Memory management and file I/O are done like this all the
time. And they are just as different.
You just need to standartise on some libraries. GUI is the real killer, I
admit. But it shouldn't be too hard to write cross platform API for
networking. The problem with threading is that you *need* to know what the
threading model that is used is, otherwise you can run into serious bad
stuff.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:22:03 +0200
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> > You are biased towards what you know and dislike what you don't. OK, I
can
> > understand that. But don't you think you are being unfair? how would you
> > know scripting is easier on unix than Windows if you've never done it,
> > really tried it seriously. I find scripting on windows to be effortless
but
> > don't often need it cause it's just as easy to fire up VB and write a
quick
> > app there as it is to use vbscript in wsh.
>
> Well, it depends on what kind of scripting you're talking about. You
> can still do the Bourne-shell and perl, sed, awk scripting on all Win32
> platforms via Cygwin 32. But see, Cygwin 32 is much like Wine on Linux
> or FreeBSD, i.e., you're trying to emulate another platform. Also,
> Cygwin is an open source compiler, so I find that I can still develop
> open source software on Windows, even though Windows itself is not open
> source.
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/are-free.html
Nothing prevents you from developing OSS on Windows.
Even if you use VC and the like.
> So, I believe that a happy medium can be acheived there. Also what I
> find interesting is the fact that gcc on Windows can generate both pure
> WinAPI code and code that contains a unix-emulation layer, linked to
> cygwin1.dll, or whatever the hell it is.
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#SEC82
cygwin1.dll contain the emulation layer, like winelib for windows->linux
programs.
> Actually, it depends on which distro. RedHat has that linuxconf tool
> for adding users, and as far as I know, it's just as easy adding users
> with that tool as it is with Windows NT, because it's 100% GUI driven.
No, it's not as easy. Linuxconf is the most twisted up tool that I've seen.
You put ten thousands configurations into one tool. It takes minutes just to
find the right node!
And it can't decided if it's a wizard base interface or dialog base or
something else.
They should've gone on something like the control panel on windows, not to
shove everything and anything under the sun into one tool.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:24:02 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e0eeo$qc9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Doesn't VB cost money? Also, VB is one language only. Every language has
> strengths and weaknesses and no one language is best at everything. UNIX
> bydefault comes with quite a few. A decent modern installation of Linux
> comes with loads. I can think of many taskls where VB would be totally
> inferior to AWK and many tasks where the oppersite would be true. For
> really good scripting a good choice is needed.
Windows comes with WSH, which come with VBS & JS support.
You can add Perl & Python from activestate.com (free).
C#, VB.NET comes with .NET beta, and there are also other languages that you
can hook there, I believe.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:11:40 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Applixware also does this. I have an embedded spreadsheet in a graphics
>> document. Any changes I make to the screadsheet are reflected in the
>> grahpics document.
>
> That's not embedding. That's linking.
>
True, but Applix _does_ allow in-place editing of documents within others.
It works with graphics in words, spreadsheets in words and graphics in
spreadsheets. I did not know you could edit spreadsheets in graphics as
well (I never found the need to endeavour such a feat).
And since Applix comes with an extremely capable macro/programming language
(ELF), one could write new applications that use the same functionality.
Applix also has several nifty real-time hooks built in that bring new
meaning to in-place editing.
And then there is Anywhere Office, which (reputedly) allows you to edit
your documents even from a Palm organiser a couple of continents away from
the home server(I have _got_ to try this one out one day!).
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb - No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!"
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:55:55 +0000
~�~ wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>> Just imported a Access table into Pardox without any problems. Quattro
>> Pro is handling MS Excel with any formatting issues, and Wordperfect is
>> as stable as the pope. Please, yet again I stress, where are the
>> so-called features that MS Office has that Wordperfect hasn't.
>
> Not to get into a pissing match over features here, but uh, it's obvious
> that your spreadsheet doesn't have anything in the beyond standard
> formulas. It couldn't have:
I don't know the feature list of Quattro Pro (the spreadsheet Matthew
uses), but here goes for Applix Spreadsheets:
> VBA macros
Applix has ELF, which beats the living daylights out of VBA. Applix also
comes with Builder, a RAD tool that would make MS Office power users
(assuming such creatures do exist - there are no confirmed sightings as of
yet) drool if they knew it existed.
> OLE
Applix has both linking and in-document editing facilities, not to mention
that it comes with real-time tools as part of the standard package.
> Excel Pivot tables
What are Pivot tables?
> Complex 'what if' scenarios
Applix Spreadsheets has projection tables, which are a lot more powerful
than Excel's what-if tools.
> I could go on and on ..
>
Somehow, when people use that phrase, they always seem to mean the exact
opposite...
> The point is, that, if it is a standard "works for dummies" spreadsheet
> (which I'm thinking it is), then no problem. If it's something used in a
> professional capacity, such as a Real Estate business that puts everything
> into Excel workbooks, then forget it. You're not doing your Advocacy any
> favors by perpetuating this sort of blatant BS. Just tell it like it is:
> Corel for Linux will handle the importing of MS office files if said
> files don't include any of the more advanced features of that software.
> Your manure is getting thick, as is your lack of knowledge on concepts
> such as OLE.
I do my business accounting with Applix Spreadsheets. A friend of mine
manages his investment portfolio with it (he has a live link to the 'net to
do live feeds into his workbooks; he expressly switched to linux because
that operating system would not crap out on him in the middle of a feed.
Guess which operating system used to do exactly that thing?).
I do not know any real estate company (at least not one that is worth
mentioning, and I know quite a lot of them, since our company is in the
real estate business as well) that is foolish enough to use a spreadsheet
program to manage its accounts. Hint: a DBMS is used for that stuff,
because even for low-volume companies maintaining a spreadsheet is just too
much overhead.
And as far as importing foreign formats go, Applix seems to do most of them
nicely. I can not say that I have ever used the MS import facilities
myself, since I am in the eviable position that I can usually bully people
into sending me stuff in the format that I want.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb - No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!"
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: "Graham Sumner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:39:32 +0100
Well said Pete but I doubt whether anybody as inarticulate as Kulkis
will be able to understand your post.
Graham Sumner
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Doesn't the above summarise your problems? Your bias? Your sexism?
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 06:49:01 -0500
Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<>The best analogy I can think of is that sexuality is sort of like eye
<>color. I have brown eyes and I always will. No matter what happens, I
<>will always have brown eyes, and nothing anyone else does can make my eyes
<>become blue, short of plucking them out.
You are of course, entitled to believe that. However you should express it as
an opinion as there is no evidence that this is the case. Personally I don't
care whether its a choice or not and I don't care what type of sexual behavior
you choose to engage in. my beef has always been with those who feel their
sexual behavior should be treated as equal to and protected as race, gender and
country of national origin.
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 May 2001 07:50:11 -0500
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I've never seen a clean port of C written code to another platform.
> Its always something tugging at you.
>
I have done this without problem before. The only catch that I've run
into has been on Microsoft platforms that didn't implement some of the
library calls correctly or simply had bugs. I can't tell you how many
"application bugs" we hunted down that turned out to be Microsoft
c-library bugs. Worse yet, some even odder bugs that happen when
you have C++ applications making use of some of the c-libraries. As
for other platforms, I rarely have problems as long as an eye is turned
toward addressing portability issues at the beginning.
I've written code that worked well on Linux, SCO, OS/2, and Win32
platforms equally well. It can be done.
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:55:57 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <TlqM6.31157$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, fmc wrote:
> >
> >Take a look at Slashdot May 14, 2001:
> >http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/14/1858201 , the same posting
that
> >someone claims proved this was a recent event. That page now explains
that
> >it was old news, and even has a link to it:
> >http://slashdot.org/articles/00/04/14/0619206.shtml
> >
> >
> >fm
> >
>
> Well you would have to be a Microsoft Systems Administrator then.
No, though I suppose you think that's a putdown. I take it an ad hominem
comment is the best you can do?
>
> Humm. Well I guess Yahoo and Sun are both in alot of trouble then.
I don't know. The physical page is still there, but no sign of the story
now, just white space between the heading and the copywrite notice. You
don't suppose the WSJ told Yahoo to cut the crap, hmmm?
And what's Sun got to do with it? Another blank page?
>
> Nope, sorry. I can't let this go. It is a new event sir.
A blank page is an event? Your link is worthless. Then there's this:
"More than a year after it was originally reported, the "Netscape engineers
are weenies!" security hole in Microsoft software made a brief comeback
Monday and Tuesday on Yahoo's Small Business portal. "
And:
"Yahoo apparently removed the article around 9 a.m. PDT Tuesday, but a Yahoo
representative could not immediately explain the report. "
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/entrepreneur.html?s=smallbiz/articles/2001051
4/microsoft_ackno
You were saying?
fm
> You can quit banging your head against the wall here for us.
>
> Thanks anyway.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
