The Keystone Predator
Ray Ingles
have a major influence on the ecology they hunt in. For example, sea
otters that eat sea urchins. The sea urchins in turn eat kelp beds. If
the sea otter population declines, the sea urchin population increases,
and the kelp beds start getting overgrazed. When that happens, lots of
other organisms that live in and on the kelp beds suffer.
Introducing new predators into an existing ecosystem can increase the
overall diversity as they become keystone predators. This effect is seen
even if the predator doesn't preferentially hunt the former dominant
species, though it can be amplified in that case. In extreme cases, the
former dominant species is replaced by other species, though the former
dominant species doesn't necessarily go extinct.
What does this have to do with Linux? The Internet has changed
significantly in the last few years. Broadband connections are
fundamentally different from dialup connections. First, obviously,
they are much faster. Second, they are 'always on'. As broadband has
spread, a new ecological niche has opened up - that of spyware/adware.
Even if it were just malicious teenagers writing these things, they'd
be a significant problem. But there's a business model now - (unethical)
people can make money with this stuff. Ads, selling demographic info,
redirecting referral clicks, spam, fraud and identity theft. Of course,
these guys are preferentially hunting Windows boxes right now. They're
the current dominant species, and tend to be easy to subvert.
I think spyware is going to be the keystone predator of the operating
system ecology. And I think we're going to see a lot more diversity
in that area in the future.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Improvements succeeded each other so rapidly, that machines
which had never been finished were abandoned in the hands of
their makers, because new improvements had superceded their
utility." - Charles Babbage, 1832
mlw
Philip Callan
> I think spyware is going to be the keystone predator of the operating
> system ecology. And I think we're going to see a lot more diversity
> in that area in the future.
>
So you figure by 2010, people will be running Mac OS XX, Linux 3.4, and
Klezhorn?
Remote Wonder
> I think spyware is going to be the keystone predator of the operating
> system ecology. And I think we're going to see a lot more diversity
> in that area in the future.
>
What bothers me is that nobody has really thought through writing
software to combat these things.
Yes, there are /defensive/ measures like firewalls, anti-virs, and
anti-spies
BUT
how about PC programs that
(a) collect and sniff out information about the perpetrators
(b) send reports to the proper agencies such as the FBI and IC3 (
identity crime)
(c) creates evidence for lawsuits against people
It's time for people to start using swords as well as shields!
Ray Ingles
Nah, *horn won't be out by then. Remember 'Chicago'? :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Windows 2000... will have lots of stuff you used to pay extra
for but is now built in for free, although none of it works."
- Eric Lundquist
The Ghost In The Machine
<sorc...@dmc22317.local>
wrote
on 15 Mar 2005 15:20:03 -0500
<slrnd3eh4t....@dmc22317.local>:
> In article <WSCZd.685618$Xk.678453@pd7tw3no>, Philip Callan wrote:
>>> I think spyware is going to be the keystone predator of the operating
>>> system ecology. And I think we're going to see a lot more diversity
>>> in that area in the future.
>>
>> So you figure by 2010, people will be running Mac OS XX, Linux 3.4, and
>> Klezhorn?
>
> Nah, *horn won't be out by then. Remember 'Chicago'? :->
>
Does anyone else remember "Cairo"? :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Peter Köhlmann
You mean that super duper OS/2 killer?
Which then appeared as the worst pile of shit ever to come from MS, namely
Win95?
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
Arkady Duntov
>> Does anyone else remember "Cairo"? :-)
>
> You mean that super duper OS/2 killer?
The object-oriented system that was cancelled long after its supposed ship
date.
> Which then appeared as the worst pile of shit ever to come from MS, namely
> Win95?
That was Chicago.
Peter Köhlmann
Yup, that was Chicago.
But all the time before MS talked about Cairo which would "make OS/2
obsolete"
With features they still havent come up with mostly, 10 years later
So shortly before Win95 was released, "Chicago" materialized out of "Cairo"
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
Linønut
>>> Does anyone else remember "Cairo"? :-)
>>
>> You mean that super duper OS/2 killer?
>
> The object-oriented system that was cancelled long after its supposed ship
> date.
>
>> Which then appeared as the worst pile of shit ever to come from MS, namely
>> Win95?
>
> That was Chicago.
My kind of town. Not my kind of OS.
Good thing Gates didn't use that name in the mobster days. He'd a been
sleepin' wid da flatfishes.
--
When was the last time you thought about
Microsoft, except in frustration or anger?
-- Michael S. Malone, Silicon Insider
billwg
>
> Yup, that was Chicago.
> But all the time before MS talked about Cairo which would "make OS/2
> obsolete"
> With features they still havent come up with mostly, 10 years later
> So shortly before Win95 was released, "Chicago" materialized out of "Cairo"
Cairo was the project that ultimately became Win2K.
Peter Köhlmann
Yup. After they removed most of the features.
And it still was the project they always mentioned in regard to OS/2 in the
pre-Win95 era. Then they delivered (because nothing of the promised stuff
actually worked) this pile of shit called win95. To be repleced by a
similar pile of shit called win98, which was itself replaced by an even
bigger pile of shit called WinME.
And would you care to tell us what features of Cairo made it (finally) into
Win2K? Short be easy, as that list is so short
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.
billwg
> begin virus.scr billwg wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>Yup, that was Chicago.
>>>But all the time before MS talked about Cairo which would "make OS/2
>>>obsolete"
>>>With features they still havent come up with mostly, 10 years later
>>>So shortly before Win95 was released, "Chicago" materialized out of
>>>"Cairo"
>>
>>Cairo was the project that ultimately became Win2K.
>
>
> Yup. After they removed most of the features.
> And it still was the project they always mentioned in regard to OS/2 in the
> pre-Win95 era. Then they delivered (because nothing of the promised stuff
> actually worked) this pile of shit called win95. To be repleced by a
> similar pile of shit called win98, which was itself replaced by an even
> bigger pile of shit called WinME.
Your attitude is showing again, Peter! But if you put it aside for a
moment, if that is at all possible, and focus on the actual events of
that era you can easily see that these events marked a complete
watershed of Microsoft directions and technologies and was the key move
that brought them to their present day success.
Cairo was the NT technology path project and Win95 was originally just
Windows 4.0 and MSDOS-7.0. IIRC, the command line even reported itself
as DOS 7 in at least the intial versions of Win95. The purpose of Cairo
was to put some real meat-eating server features into NT4 so that MS
could make a serious entry into the main server markets and also to go
after some of the unix workstation following up the product evolution of
NT4 in its workstation version.
The Win4 team began to see the synergy of merging Windows with DOS as
well as taking advantage of the then new 32-bit processor lines. A lot
of the Cairo UI and internet stuff got rolled into Chicago/Win95 and the
project got delayed a couple of years to compensate for the changed
direction.
Meanwhile, Cairo focused more on the server and engineering workstation
roles.
Win95 and its follow-on versions, Win98, Win98SE2, and WinMe were the
OS/2 killers on the desktop. OS/2 never really made it to the server
room in any useful way.
People talk of the superficial re-focus of Microsoft on the internet and
make jokes about Gates' early pronouncements dismissing the internet,
but at the end of the day, Mr. Bill managed to come to rhe right
decision and organized Microsoft to execute the new plans.
> And would you care to tell us what features of Cairo made it (finally) into
> Win2K? Short be easy, as that list is so short
The list is actually pretty long, and consists of everything in Win2K
that wasn't in NT4, but the most significant elements, IMO, that made
Win2K a real threat to Unix servers and that gave it the explosive
growth in this market were:
The enhanced NT file system that introduced multiple file streams and
journaling which were critical for both server and engineering
workstation applications.
The hierarchical file storage functions provided by Wang/Eastman under
contract to MS that gave Win2K a mainframe kind of archival capacity.
The archiving function itself, provided by Seagate Software, that
provided extensive and necessary self-protection for the Win2K server
features including the multiple file streams of the enhanced NTFS, the
journaling sparse files, Active Directory, and the single instance
storage (SIS) feature. It also worked with the archival media services,
finally referenced as RSM but intially as NTMS that was provided by
Highground Systems to allow multi-vendor use of expensive tape and
optical disk media drives.
A complete, server quality volume manager function, provided by VERITAS
and based on the same code as supplied to Sun Microsystems for the same
purpose.
Most of these things were not as flashy and not in the public eye, but
they gave Win2K the muscle to run effectively in the server room. It
took a huge amount of potential business away from Sun and the other
Unix RISC-based vendors and made Intel a real competitor for servers.
Now that is what happened and you can be as snide as you want, but you
cannot change history.
Sam Spade
message <<sM5_d.151882$qB6.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>>:
> Cairo was the project that ultimately became Win2K.
No, Cairo was the object-oriented operating system that was in serious
trouble from the start, and was scrapped years before Windows NT4 was
shipped. Microsoft was unable to produce Cairo in any way, shape, or
form and so they had to take a small public drubbing when, after
missing deadline after deadline, had to publicly announce their
failure.
billwg
Well, spin it anyway you want, sam! Cairo was used as a project code
long after that as the characteristics changed with time and the castles
that were built in the air by the MS architects became more mundane as
they came down to earth. That is just the nature of dreamers, after all.
I don't remember any deadlines being missed at all, just anticipated
alpha, beta, and gold dates slipping again and again. In one sense
Win2K was some 4 years late, but it was a world beater and it catapulted
MS to parity if not outright leadership in the server markets.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> begin virus.scr billwg wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yup, that was Chicago.
> >> But all the time before MS talked about Cairo which would "make OS/2
> >> obsolete"
> >> With features they still havent come up with mostly, 10 years later
> >> So shortly before Win95 was released, "Chicago" materialized out of
> >> "Cairo"
> >
> > Cairo was the project that ultimately became Win2K.
>
> Yup. After they removed most of the features.
> And it still was the project they always mentioned in regard to OS/2 in the
> pre-Win95 era. Then they delivered (because nothing of the promised stuff
> actually worked) this pile of shit called win95. To be repleced by a
> similar pile of shit called win98, which was itself replaced by an even
> bigger pile of shit called WinME.
> And would you care to tell us what features of Cairo made it (finally) into
> Win2K? Short be easy, as that list is so short
They're removing features from Longhorn pretty quickly now. It must be
getting close to market.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.
- Bart Simpson
Ray Ingles
> The enhanced NT file system that introduced multiple file streams and
> journaling which were critical for both server and engineering
> workstation applications.
streams, I'm not aware of any major application that uses them to any
great effect. Oh, except viruses:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/19878/19878.html
(BTW, if you want to read all of the article, set your "User Agent"
to Googlebot. Lost of sites are fully readable that way... :-> )
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - Flakey and built to stay that way.
billwg
>
> Unix and Linux have had journaling for a while. As to multiple file
> streams, I'm not aware of any major application that uses them to any
> great effect. Oh, except viruses:
>
development timeframe, Ray, but you seem to have missed the point. The
issues regarding Linux and Windows servers are not in the "Mine is
longer than yours" category at all. What is significant about Win2K was
that it added a lot of horsepower to NT4 and enabled Windows to take
over a very large chunk of the business server market. Late as it was
by the original plan, these "Cairo" features were just in time for Win2K
to begin a massive takeopver.
If linux had sported these kinds of features in 1999, it might be the
leader in the market space rather than a plaintive "Me, too!" kind of
entry. But that is the price you pay for not having any product
marketing funtion looking to obtain a comparative advantage in a growing
market.
As to the multiple file streams, they may have some susceptibility to
viruses if left exposed, but their use in Win2K was the enabling
function to allow very rapid file system updates to large files and is
at the core of the ability to do enterprise class database functions and
data management for high end workstation tasks like CAD/CAM. Sun and
DEC along with ComputerVision and Intergraph lost an awful lot of
business to Wintel2K-powered Autodesk because of it.
You need to contemplate the forest rather than focus on the trees, Ray!
LOL!!!
Mark Kent
Paul Hovnanian P.E. <Pa...@Hovnanian.com> espoused:
>
> They're removing features from Longhorn pretty quickly now. It must be
> getting close to market.
>
Yeah - should be out in less than 4 years, now. Then SP1 will be
eight months later, SP2 12 months after that...
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
No matter how much you do you never do enough.
Ray Ingles
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>
>> Unix and Linux have had journaling for a while. As to multiple file
>> streams, I'm not aware of any major application that uses them to any
>> great effect. Oh, except viruses:
>>
> I don't think that linux had this kind of feature in the Win2K
Came in 2000. Just a bit after Win2K's actual commercial release.
> If linux had sported these kinds of features in 1999, it might be the
> leader in the market space rather than a plaintive "Me, too!" kind of
> entry.
Depends on the market area. Win2K et. al. don't have nearly the
penetration Linux does in, say, web servers. I notice that you can
acknowledge that a large part of Microsoft's current position is
due to marketing rather than any technical superiority.
> As to the multiple file streams, they may have some susceptibility to
> viruses if left exposed, but their use in Win2K was the enabling
> function to allow very rapid file system updates to large files and is
> at the core of the ability to do enterprise class database functions and
> data management for high end workstation tasks like CAD/CAM.
You talk a good game. Let's see some technical info. Can you give me
some links to back that up? All I've seen are problem reports:
http://www.alcpress.com/articles/ads.html
http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtntfsads.htm
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The combination of threads, remote-procedure-call interfaces, and
heavyweight object-oriented design is especially dangerous... if you
are ever invited onto a project that is supposed to feature all
three, fleeing in terror might well be an appropriate reaction."
- Eric Raymond, The Art Of UNIX Programming
billwg
> In article <d1B_d.124122$pc5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>>Ray Ingles wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Unix and Linux have had journaling for a while. As to multiple file
>>>streams, I'm not aware of any major application that uses them to any
>>>great effect. Oh, except viruses:
>>>
>>
>>I don't think that linux had this kind of feature in the Win2K
>>development timeframe...
>
>
> Came in 2000. Just a bit after Win2K's actual commercial release.
>
>
>>If linux had sported these kinds of features in 1999, it might be the
>>leader in the market space rather than a plaintive "Me, too!" kind of
>>entry.
>
>
> Depends on the market area. Win2K et. al. don't have nearly the
> penetration Linux does in, say, web servers. I notice that you can
> acknowledge that a large part of Microsoft's current position is
> due to marketing rather than any technical superiority.
>
to marketing rather than any technical superiority. I won't concede,
though, that Microsoft has any particularly difficult to overcome
technical inferiority. To my way of thinking the superior product is
the one that results in the most benefit to the world and a key part of
that is to be able to reach the consumer. Microsoft has been able to do
that more effectively than anyone else.
A lot of technically inclined folk do not give this aspect of commercial
life much credibiity and prefer to think of marketing and sales
functions as being a bunch of dissipated individuals wasting the company
coin on wine, women, and song. The sales side of the company may very
well over do some of this activity, but the reaching out and touching
the user is a necessary element to the user ever finding out about your
product. It takes a fair amount of money to manage to do that, which is
why the OSS model doesn't work all that well in real life.
>
>>As to the multiple file streams, they may have some susceptibility to
>>viruses if left exposed, but their use in Win2K was the enabling
>>function to allow very rapid file system updates to large files and is
>>at the core of the ability to do enterprise class database functions and
>>data management for high end workstation tasks like CAD/CAM.
>
>
> You talk a good game. Let's see some technical info. Can you give me
> some links to back that up? All I've seen are problem reports:
>
> http://www.alcpress.com/articles/ads.html
> http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtntfsads.htm
>
I find it kind of odd that people would immediately examine such a
facility to see how well it could serve the virus hackers! Even so, I
don't really see how file streams does much for the hackers, even, since
all of the AV companies know about them too and hiding a lot of code in
an alternate stream isn't any more effective than hiding in some other
obscure place, IMO. It would further result in a virus that caused some
kind of error message when attempted against Win98 or WinMe or even XP
where the user had not implemented NTFS. The error messages would lead
to more rapid detection of a new virus, since people would question the
illegal file activity.
As to links, I don't know of any offhand, and you can google as well as
I can. The general method that I have used is to keep tons of metadata
about the file in alternate streams, such as versioning info, so that
you can quickly browse document data files for key info when presenting
selections to the user. The file streams can be accessed directly and
individually, so a 100meg CAD model file can be browsed very quickly to
extract catalog info whereas a single stream file might require a lot of
serialized reading to obtain the same info. The user sees this as a
quick response. MS Word uses this technique for DOC files, for example.
Another advantage to this is that changes to files can be put anywhere
and some file map created and kept as an alternate stream so that the
entire file does not have to be re-written when a change is made. That
is an obvious advantage for database engines and for large files typical
of big CAD models.
Ray Ingles
>> Came in 2000. Just a bit after Win2K's actual commercial release.
>>
> Which was much too late for a non-leader.
Whatever you say. Linux is still the fastest-growing server OS.
> I might even say that almost all of Microsoft's curent position is due
> to marketing rather than any technical superiority. I won't concede,
> though, that Microsoft has any particularly difficult to overcome
> technical inferiority. To my way of thinking the superior product is
> the one that results in the most benefit to the world and a key part of
> that is to be able to reach the consumer. Microsoft has been able to do
> that more effectively than anyone else.
>
> ...reaching out and touching the user is a necessary element to the
> user ever finding out about your product. It takes a fair amount of
> money to manage to do that, which is why the OSS model doesn't work
> all that well in real life.
Funny, Linux's share (and growth rate) outpaces Apple's, even with a
lower marketing budget. Viral marketing can be very effective.
> I find it kind of odd that people would immediately examine such a
> facility to see how well it could serve the virus hackers!
Why is that so odd? To protect yourself, you have to be able to think
like your oppenents. The 'virus hackers' will certainly examine such
facilities immmediately. Sadly, your kind of thinking seems all too
common at Microsoft...
> It would further result in a virus that caused some kind of error
> message when attempted against Win98 or WinMe or even XP where the
> user had not implemented NTFS.
It's possible to check for such things before attempting it, y'know.
> As to links, I don't know of any offhand, and you can google as well as
> I can.
Sorry, I won't do your homework for you.
> The general method that I have used is to keep tons of metadata
> about the file in alternate streams, such as versioning info, so that
> you can quickly browse document data files for key info when presenting
> selections to the user.
[...]
> Another advantage to this is that changes to files can be put anywhere
> and some file map created and kept as an alternate stream so that the
> entire file does not have to be re-written when a change is made. That
And this differs in practice from an index file how?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Welcome to America, Land of the Free
(Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited.)
billwg
> In article <RNF_d.124151$pc5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>>> Came in 2000. Just a bit after Win2K's actual commercial release.
>>>
>>
>>Which was much too late for a non-leader.
>
>
> Whatever you say. Linux is still the fastest-growing server OS.
>
Windows servers grew "more" but not "faster". Linux most cannibalizes
the unix share of the server market. Absent linux, Windows might grow
even more, but Windows still grows in terms of absolute share, so it is
taking business from the others. It all depends where you draw the line.
I don't think that the OSS business model is hardy enough to see the
process through. Even now, the enterprise linux solutions, which are
the ones accounting for the growth, are substantially different in their
product characteristics than the historic OSS linux. Red Hat and Novell
charge a lot for their products, almost as much as Microsoft. They are
relying on "contributions" of sorts to keep the ball rolling and
whatever is "returned to the community" is effectively paying for some
of their development in kind. You can't use that to advertise, however,
and at the end of the day, that will be a telling factor.
>
>>I might even say that almost all of Microsoft's curent position is due
>>to marketing rather than any technical superiority. I won't concede,
>>though, that Microsoft has any particularly difficult to overcome
>>technical inferiority. To my way of thinking the superior product is
>>the one that results in the most benefit to the world and a key part of
>>that is to be able to reach the consumer. Microsoft has been able to do
>>that more effectively than anyone else.
>>
>>...reaching out and touching the user is a necessary element to the
>>user ever finding out about your product. It takes a fair amount of
>>money to manage to do that, which is why the OSS model doesn't work
>>all that well in real life.
>
>
> Funny, Linux's share (and growth rate) outpaces Apple's, even with a
> lower marketing budget. Viral marketing can be very effective.
>
I don't really thing that it does, Ray. Where do you get this info?
Certainly linux has a lot of server instances, whereas Apple is not a
server at all, but as a BMM desktop product, I don't believe that it
even gets near Apple at all.
>
>>I find it kind of odd that people would immediately examine such a
>>facility to see how well it could serve the virus hackers!
>
>
> Why is that so odd? To protect yourself, you have to be able to think
> like your oppenents. The 'virus hackers' will certainly examine such
> facilities immmediately. Sadly, your kind of thinking seems all too
> common at Microsoft...
>
You mean thinking about how to make things more useful and work better?
I guess that is the sad case! Let the hackers worry about how to
screw up the world, then. People will get tired of them soon enough and
we will start to see some really harsh punishments doled out to them.
I like the Star Wars sort of initiative that Symantec and Cisco are
cooking up to isolate the sources of viruses sent over the internet.
That may shine some light on the cockroaches who enjoy this sort of
thing. Perhaps they could link to the local Navy carrier or AF base and
send a smart bomb or cruise missile at the primary hacker sites.
>
>>It would further result in a virus that caused some kind of error
>>message when attempted against Win98 or WinMe or even XP where the
>>user had not implemented NTFS.
>
>
> It's possible to check for such things before attempting it, y'know.
>
>
>>As to links, I don't know of any offhand, and you can google as well as
>>I can.
>
>
> Sorry, I won't do your homework for you.
>
You were the one who asked for them, Ray. It is not my homework.
>
>>The general method that I have used is to keep tons of metadata
>>about the file in alternate streams, such as versioning info, so that
>>you can quickly browse document data files for key info when presenting
>>selections to the user.
>
> [...]
>
>>Another advantage to this is that changes to files can be put anywhere
>>and some file map created and kept as an alternate stream so that the
>>entire file does not have to be re-written when a change is made. That
>
>
> And this differs in practice from an index file how?
>
Efficiency for one thing. Think about it.
The net result for Unix has been extreme loss of market share in their
bread and butter areas.
Philip Callan
> but the reaching out and touching
> the user is a necessary element to the user ever finding out about your
> product.
So doing everything in your power to ensure there is no choices offered,
charging extrordanairly high margins (office & win), and then through
obscene EULA terms, deprive people of any and all rights some drone in
Legal thinks they can squeek past people, all the while disclaiming any
liability.
Here's a hint billwg, the only time MS 'reaches out' to the user is to
pick their pocket for another 'upgrade' or to /LIE/ to them about their
security vulnerabilities:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21891
[Microsoft's advisory for flaw MS05-010 claimed it was not remotely
exploitable on Windows 2000 Server SP3 and 4 without authentication,
it's claimed.
Aitel alleges that the Vole is being economic with the verity, and that
the bug is remotely exploitable in Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP 3 and
4 without authentication.]
Hmm, MS lying about the vulnerability of their products, no big suprise,
that once again it allows a remote party to 0wn your data without
authentication is just the 'One Microsoft Way'
billwg
> billwg wrote:
>
>> but the reaching out and touching the user is a necessary element to
>> the user ever finding out about your product.
>
>
> So doing everything in your power to ensure there is no choices offered,
> charging extrordanairly high margins (office & win), and then through
> obscene EULA terms, deprive people of any and all rights some drone in
> Legal thinks they can squeek past people, all the while disclaiming any
> liability.
>
religion or even politics here. Do you think that linux can ever be a
force in the market without following the principles of how to market a
product? I don't think so, myself, but I'll listen to what you have to
say. But all you folk seem to say is a bunch of garbage about how evil
Microsoft is and how they are so oppressively mistreating their
customers who are all somehow unable to take their business elsewhere.
The only people capable of saying no to Microsoft are the cola commandos
who have found linux through exercise of their superior intellects!
That is downright laughable and you look like a fool for standing up in
public and saying tripe like that. I bet your wife would kick your butt
if she saw you doing that around her friends.
> Here's a hint billwg, the only time MS 'reaches out' to the user is to
> pick their pocket for another 'upgrade' or to /LIE/ to them about their
> security vulnerabilities:
>
Here's a hint, Phil: The only way that linux is going to be able to
sell itself to the mass market is for it to develop something worthwhile
and then convey the news to the computer consumer. Otherwise you are
just, as the UK contingent seems to frequently say, wanking off.
Mark Kent
Philip Callan <call...@shaw.ca> espoused:
> billwg wrote:
>> but the reaching out and touching
>> the user is a necessary element to the user ever finding out about your
>> product.
>
There's no point in replying to this kind of marketing stuff, because
it's kind of meaningless in the first place, but designed to sound
somehow really squashy and nicey nicey.
Of course, saying 'telling the user' wouldn't sound anywhere near
so squashy and sexy...
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
How many "coming men" has one known! Where on earth do they all go to?
-- Sir Arthur Wing Pinero
Ray Ingles
>> Why is that so odd? To protect yourself, you have to be able to think
>> like your oppenents. The 'virus hackers' will certainly examine such
>> facilities immmediately. Sadly, your kind of thinking seems all too
>> common at Microsoft...
>You mean thinking about how to make things more useful and work better?
> I guess that is the sad case! Let the hackers worry about how to
>screw up the world, then.
It is possible (and in these days, necessary) to make something both
useful *and* secure. Microsoft doesn't work very hard on the latter.
Look at, say, IE and Outlook Express.
Ironically, the NT kernel has features that could make it roughly
as secure as the various Unixes. But thanks to hisorical practices,
they seem to have given up on actually implementing such things.
> People will get tired of them soon enough and
>we will start to see some really harsh punishments doled out to them.
Punishments aren't enough. As I have noted *numerous* times,
organizations like the Russian mafia are involved in the malware trade
now. The prospect of punishment doesn't deter them from all kinds of
other activities (with some very harsh punishments), why would it stop
them in *this* arena?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - The Cutting Edge of Obsolescence.
Ray Ingles
>>> As to links [supporting the idea that Alternate Data Streams are used
>>> by commercial apps in any significant way], I don't know of any
>>> offhand, and you can google as well as I can.
>> Sorry, I won't do your homework for you.
> You were the one who asked for them, Ray. It is not my homework.
I asked you to substantiate a claim. You appear to be unable to do so.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"...those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost
liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists..."
- John Ashcroft
"John Ashcroft scares *me* with notions of lost liberties." - Me
Ray Ingles
> The net result for Unix has been extreme loss of market share in their
> bread and butter areas.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm
In servers, IDC predicts Linux' market share based on unit sales will rise
from 24% today to 33% in 2007, compared with 59% for Windows -- essentially
keeping Microsoft at its current market share for the next three years and
squeezing its profit margins. That's because, for the first time, Linux is
taking a bite out of Windows, not just the other alternatives, and is
forcing Microsoft to offer discounts to avoid losing sales. In a survey
of business users by Forrester Research, 52% said they are now replacing
Windows servers with Linux.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"There is no limit to the good you can do if you don't care
who gets the credit." - George C. Marshall
Ray Ingles
> I don't think that the OSS business model is hardy enough to see the
> process through. Even now, the enterprise linux solutions, which are
> the ones accounting for the growth, are substantially different in their
> product characteristics than the historic OSS linux. Red Hat and Novell
> charge a lot for their products, almost as much as Microsoft.
But they are charging for *support*. The thing about OSS is allows the
customer to determine how they want to allocate their money and time.
You can spend little to nothing and take on all the support costs
yourself, or pay a company to do the support for you, or any of a
range of options in between.
> They are
> relying on "contributions" of sorts to keep the ball rolling and
> whatever is "returned to the community" is effectively paying for some
> of their development in kind. You can't use that to advertise, however,
> and at the end of the day, that will be a telling factor.
Right now, a good deal of IT infrastructure carries a tax for having
to come from Microsoft. It's like an entire country where all the roads
are toll roads. OSS allows the infrastructure to be held in commons,
so to speak. But, since software is endlessly reproducible, there's no
"tragedy of the commons" effect.
In "The Road Ahead", Gates expressed displeasure that the Internet
had no global billing structure. Nathan Myrhvold, Microsoft's Chief
Technology Officer, stated: "Our plan is to make the pie really big
and take a little slice out of each transaction."
There are circumstances where toll roads work well. When they are
the only way to get somewhere, however, they become a bottleneck and
cut off development in other areas.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Anyone else notice that the U.S. military did a bang-up job
protecting Iraqi oil wells, but no one told them to make
hospitals a priority?" - Me
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@dmc22317.local> espoused:
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm
>
> In servers, IDC predicts Linux' market share based on unit sales will rise
> from 24% today to 33% in 2007, compared with 59% for Windows -- essentially
> keeping Microsoft at its current market share for the next three years and
> squeezing its profit margins. That's because, for the first time, Linux is
> taking a bite out of Windows, not just the other alternatives, and is
> forcing Microsoft to offer discounts to avoid losing sales. In a survey
> of business users by Forrester Research, 52% said they are now replacing
> Windows servers with Linux.
>
This does offer some significant explanation of why the turfing here
has reached such epidemic proportion, as well as why there's been so
much pressure on the EU to adopt the software monopoly patent approach
as used in the US. If this carries on, Microsoft might end up having
to work with normal, non-monopoly, profit margins. They might even end
up having to produce some decent software...
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
A kind of Batman of contemporary letters.
-- Philip Larkin on Anthony Burgess
billwg
>
> It is possible (and in these days, necessary) to make something both
> useful *and* secure. Microsoft doesn't work very hard on the latter.
> Look at, say, IE and Outlook Express.
>
its truth, then? You can, of course, lock down Windows and make it ever
so much more secure, but you make it much, much more inconvenient to
use, particularly for the casual purposes that have lured millions into
being the victims of the social engineering that hackers ply for the
purpose of compromising peoples computers.
There is nothing except lack of features and lack of users that prevents
the same people from doing the very same thing to linux.
It is also incorrect to say that Microsoft does not work very hard on
making things more secure. They are obviously spending billions of
bucks on R&D to bring about that very thing. If you really knew of a
solution to the problem, you could get very, very wealthy showing them
how to do it and would presumably be doing the world a wonderful favor
at the same time. Of course you don't have any answer and are just
taking cheap shots at Mr. Softee as they try to solve the problem, but
even so, it is incredible that you would make such a statement.
> Ironically, the NT kernel has features that could make it roughly
> as secure as the various Unixes. But thanks to hisorical practices,
> they seem to have given up on actually implementing such things.
>
People want to be able to use things automatically. If a sociopath uses
them malevolently, you complain about giving them the opportunity, but
there would be far less use of computers in general if they were as hard
to use as a linux machine, for example.
It used to be very convenient to get on an airliner and go to Las Vegas
but some sociopaths took advantage of the ease and wrecked the NY Trade
Center and Pentagon in a malevolent use of the facilities. As it turned
out, it was possible to make an airliner secure, too, but it has taken
much of the fun out of going anywhere.
The virus writers and other hackers are doing the same thing to personal
computing that the Muslims did to air travel. We shall see where the
hens come home to roost.
>
>> People will get tired of them soon enough and
>>we will start to see some really harsh punishments doled out to them.
>
>
> Punishments aren't enough. As I have noted *numerous* times,
> organizations like the Russian mafia are involved in the malware trade
> now. The prospect of punishment doesn't deter them from all kinds of
> other activities (with some very harsh punishments), why would it stop
> them in *this* arena?
I don't know that the Russian mafia has any involvement with spreading
e-mail viruses. How do they profit from that? I would more likely
suspect the AV software companies, but I don't really believe they are
involved with creating viruses.
>
billwg
> billwg wrote:
>
>
>>The net result for Unix has been extreme loss of market share in their
>>bread and butter areas.
>
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm
>
> In servers, IDC predicts Linux' market share based on unit sales will rise
> from 24% today to 33% in 2007, compared with 59% for Windows -- essentially
> keeping Microsoft at its current market share for the next three years and
> squeezing its profit margins. That's because, for the first time, Linux is
> taking a bite out of Windows, not just the other alternatives, and is
> forcing Microsoft to offer discounts to avoid losing sales. In a survey
> of business users by Forrester Research, 52% said they are now replacing
> Windows servers with Linux.
>
But the store is inconsistent on its face. If Linux "share" goes to
33% in 2007, and Windows stays the same at 59%, where is the loss of
share obtained by linux. Not Microsoft's loss, since they stayed even.
Not Linux's loss, since they grew. The only candidates are Netware,
IBM mainframes, and traditional Unix. Unit sales of mainframes is
minuscule compared to Windows or even unix machines, and Netware is very
low to start with, so that only leaves unix as the big loser. If
Windows loses so many battles with linux that 52% of its customers try
at least some linux as replacement for Windows, then Windows must be
gaining some share from somewhere to compensate, since they are destined
to stay even.
OSDL's own study from IDC doesn't go that far, either, showing linux at
some 20% of server unit volume today increasing to some 26% in 2008, a
great amount short of the BW cite.
But, as I have said before, it hardly matters if you are focused on a
realistic goal.
billwg
>
> But they are charging for *support*. The thing about OSS is allows the
> customer to determine how they want to allocate their money and time.
> You can spend little to nothing and take on all the support costs
> yourself, or pay a company to do the support for you, or any of a
> range of options in between.
>
slice it up. Microsoft does the same. You can only install Red Hat ES
on a single machine with a single license and you get support. You can
only install Win2K3 on a single machine with a single license and you
get support. Where is the difference?
Peter Köhlmann
If you would actually read the license, you'd know
Philip Callan
The difference is with RH ES, you can LEGALLY /install/ that software on
as many machines as you like, /however/ support is only honored for the
original installation.
With Windoze products, you cannot LEGALLY /install/ that software on
backup servers, or in the event of a hardware failure, on the
replacement system, its tied to dead hardware, and the license dies with it.
Ray Ingles
> Well, you have been at that thought before, Ray, what is the essence of
> its truth, then? You can, of course, lock down Windows and make it ever
> so much more secure, but you make it much, much more inconvenient to use
Does your place of employment allow the sending of raw executables in
email, or do you have to zip them up? If the latter, how many tears do
you cry when you must uncompress something to use it?
> There is nothing except lack of features and lack of users that prevents
> the same people from doing the very same thing to linux.
Name three features Linux is 'missing' that prevent malware writers
from 'doing the very same thing' to Linux. I don't think you actually
know anything about Linux.
> It is also incorrect to say that Microsoft does not work very hard on
> making things more secure. They are obviously spending billions of
> bucks on R&D to bring about that very thing. If you really knew of a
> solution to the problem, you could get very, very wealthy showing them
> how to do it and would presumably be doing the world a wonderful favor
> at the same time.
I'm far from unique in my contempt for the security practices at
Microsoft. See, for example, these:
http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/WindowsVsLinuxSecurity.html
http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/security/uw.html
The main problem is that Windows evolved from a single-user perspective
with no access control (not even protected memory or file permissions),
relying on file extensions rather than file contents for ID, and no
concept of 'secure' vs. 'non-secure' operations. Microsoft has tried
hard to maintain backward compatibility, but that means that they
have to support the lowest common denominator.
Think about all the software that has to run on both Win98 and the
WinNT family. File permissions are not available on Win98, so most
apps don't use these in any meaningful way. Some portions of the
system cannot be usefully secured with file permissions (e.g. the
registry) and therefore require separate security mechanisms. Such
complexity means that security is typically ignored or an afterthought.
And different mechanisms can be bypassed in different ways (e.g. a
limited user on XP that can't install software off CD but can still
infect a PC with spyware by visiting a malicious website).
I don't have any news for Microsoft they don't already know. They
have grown a complicated, creaky system that is exceedingly difficult
to make both secure and useful. Fixing this would require breaking a
lot of backward compatibility. They've chosen not to bite that bullet,
and the current flood of malware shows that decision has come back to
bite them.
> People want to be able to use things automatically. If a sociopath uses
> them malevolently, you complain about giving them the opportunity, but
> there would be far less use of computers in general if they were as hard
> to use as a linux machine, for example.
ActiveX gives another website a huge amount of control over your local
machine. It was designed to trade off security for speed and easy of
development. But things like Java and even Flash show that security
isn't inherently in opposition to ease and usefulness.
> there would be far less use of computers in general if they were as hard
> to use as a linux machine, for example.
You have demonstrated no experience with Linux that would justify a
blanket statement like this.
> It used to be very convenient to get on an airliner and go to Las Vegas
> but some sociopaths took advantage of the ease and wrecked the NY Trade
> Center and Pentagon in a malevolent use of the facilities. As it turned
> out, it was possible to make an airliner secure, too, but it has taken
> much of the fun out of going anywhere.
Actually, this is a *beautiful* illustration of my point, thanks!
The searches and such are window dressing and do almost nothing to truly
secure air travel.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-23-tsa-strained_x.htm
The main solution is having the *passengers* take responsibility for
their security. Look at Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber'. He wasn't stopped
by searches or air marshals or locked cockpits. He was stopped by the
*passengers* of the plane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
Fortunately, this attitude is very common nowadays. Too bad about this
guy, but I feel a lot more secure getting on planes now:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150972,00.html
> I don't know that the Russian mafia has any involvement with spreading
> e-mail viruses. How do they profit from that?
http://www.mobmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?c=230&a=5474
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/09/russian_mafia_uses_nt_flaws/
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1237772,00.asp
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb."
- Anonymous
billwg
> In article <EnJ%d.230564$JF2.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>
>>Well magazine flacks will try to stir any old pot that comes along, eh?
>
>
> dismiss it. Not that you present any real data in opposition.
>
>
>> But the store is inconsistent on its face. If Linux "share" goes to
>>33% in 2007, and Windows stays the same at 59%, where is the loss of
>>share obtained by linux. Not Microsoft's loss, since they stayed even.
>
>
>
>
>>If Windows loses so many battles with linux that 52% of its customers try
>>at least some linux as replacement for Windows, then Windows must be
>>gaining some share from somewhere to compensate, since they are destined
>>to stay even.
>
>
>
A market size > 100%! Mirabile dictu!
>
>>OSDL's own study from IDC doesn't go that far, either, showing linux at
>>some 20% of server unit volume today increasing to some 26% in 2008, a
>>great amount short of the BW cite.
>
>
> Different methodologies of the studies. OSDL has an interest in being
> conservative.
>
Figures lie and liars figure?
Ray Ingles
> Well magazine flacks will try to stir any old pot that comes along, eh?
Yeah, pretty much what I expected. I present actual data, and you
dismiss it. Not that you present any real data in opposition.
> But the store is inconsistent on its face. If Linux "share" goes to
> 33% in 2007, and Windows stays the same at 59%, where is the loss of
> share obtained by linux. Not Microsoft's loss, since they stayed even.
As stated, Microsoft has to work *harder* to maintain that share.
> If Windows loses so many battles with linux that 52% of its customers try
> at least some linux as replacement for Windows, then Windows must be
> gaining some share from somewhere to compensate, since they are destined
> to stay even.
Growth in the market size?
> OSDL's own study from IDC doesn't go that far, either, showing linux at
> some 20% of server unit volume today increasing to some 26% in 2008, a
> great amount short of the BW cite.
Different methodologies of the studies. OSDL has an interest in being
conservative.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I never said, 'Thou shalt not think.'" - God
billwg
> In article <e2J%d.163546$pc5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>>Well, you have been at that thought before, Ray, what is the essence of
>>its truth, then? You can, of course, lock down Windows and make it ever
>>so much more secure, but you make it much, much more inconvenient to use
>
>
> Does your place of employment allow the sending of raw executables in
> email, or do you have to zip them up? If the latter, how many tears do
> you cry when you must uncompress something to use it?
>
employees, files are relayed via network shares on the lan. Most
everyone has a few thumbdrives in their pockets, too, for personal
copies of things. If I want to send someone an exe of some sort, I do
it from home.
>
>>There is nothing except lack of features and lack of users that prevents
>>the same people from doing the very same thing to linux.
>
>
> Name three features Linux is 'missing' that prevent malware writers
> from 'doing the very same thing' to Linux. I don't think you actually
> know anything about Linux.
>
I'd start, of course, with VBA, which is the culprit in many cases as
well as the reason why companies cling to MS Office, having invested a
lot of time if not money too in customizing office automation systems.
>
>>It is also incorrect to say that Microsoft does not work very hard on
>>making things more secure. They are obviously spending billions of
>>bucks on R&D to bring about that very thing. If you really knew of a
>>solution to the problem, you could get very, very wealthy showing them
>>how to do it and would presumably be doing the world a wonderful favor
>>at the same time.
>
>
> I'm far from unique in my contempt for the security practices at
> Microsoft. See, for example, these:
> http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/WindowsVsLinuxSecurity.html
> http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/security/uw.html
>
A couple of linux losers with time to whine, nothing much more than
that. Find me an article written by an IT manager at GM or Ford or
Boeing. In short, find me an article that is from someone interested in
solving the problem rather than knocking MS.
> The main problem is that Windows evolved from a single-user perspective
> with no access control (not even protected memory or file permissions),
> relying on file extensions rather than file contents for ID, and no
> concept of 'secure' vs. 'non-secure' operations. Microsoft has tried
> hard to maintain backward compatibility, but that means that they
> have to support the lowest common denominator.
>
Not XP, which is the subject today. You linuxers are forever lost in
the past, which is how OSS runs, but not how you can be successful.
> Think about all the software that has to run on both Win98 and the
> WinNT family. File permissions are not available on Win98, so most
> apps don't use these in any meaningful way. Some portions of the
> system cannot be usefully secured with file permissions (e.g. the
> registry) and therefore require separate security mechanisms. Such
> complexity means that security is typically ignored or an afterthought.
> And different mechanisms can be bypassed in different ways (e.g. a
> limited user on XP that can't install software off CD but can still
> infect a PC with spyware by visiting a malicious website).
>
> I don't have any news for Microsoft they don't already know. They
> have grown a complicated, creaky system that is exceedingly difficult
> to make both secure and useful. Fixing this would require breaking a
> lot of backward compatibility. They've chosen not to bite that bullet,
> and the current flood of malware shows that decision has come back to
> bite them.
>
With few exceptions, the "current flood" is no different than the
previous floods. Sociopaths sending mail bombs to the unwary. The
regular people don't use linux where it is very difficult to make that
strategy work, but that is the seed of its own destruction.
>
>>People want to be able to use things automatically. If a sociopath uses
>>them malevolently, you complain about giving them the opportunity, but
>>there would be far less use of computers in general if they were as hard
>>to use as a linux machine, for example.
>
>
> ActiveX gives another website a huge amount of control over your local
> machine. It was designed to trade off security for speed and easy of
> development. But things like Java and even Flash show that security
> isn't inherently in opposition to ease and usefulness.
>
ActiveX? Get up to date, Ray! Think .NET!
>
>>there would be far less use of computers in general if they were as hard
>>to use as a linux machine, for example.
>
>
> You have demonstrated no experience with Linux that would justify a
> blanket statement like this.
>
I am at the least a user of PCs since I got my company at the time to
order a PC (with 64K RAM and dual 160K floppies for a total of more than
$4K) instead of another AppleII. And I have continuously been in work
situations where I am constantly exposed to various computer industry
trends and technology shifts. Linux has, until fairly recently, been an
oddity and rarely considered for any serious role.
IBM changed that a lot with their use of linux to duel with Sun
Microsystems in the Unix server niches. But that is a server kind of
thing and linux remains an oddity on the desktop. I have used linux
enough to know that it is not oriented towards personal use. I have
enough product marketing knowledge to know with a certainty that it
doesn't have a prayer of success in the PC desktop client market in its
current configurations. The same product marketing knowledge tells me
that it is a losing proposition to try to unseat MS Windows in that
space and I also know that no one interested in promoting linux has
anywhere near the money required to make a viable product promotion
using it. Technical types don't believe this, of course, and will make
all kinds of noises about such an idea.
However they cannot answer the simple question of how will they tell
some half a billion people about linux to the point where they can
overcome the mass market perceptions about and attitudes toward Windows
and any would-be competitors.
>
>>It used to be very convenient to get on an airliner and go to Las Vegas
>>but some sociopaths took advantage of the ease and wrecked the NY Trade
>>Center and Pentagon in a malevolent use of the facilities. As it turned
>>out, it was possible to make an airliner secure, too, but it has taken
>>much of the fun out of going anywhere.
>
>
> Actually, this is a *beautiful* illustration of my point, thanks!
>
> The searches and such are window dressing and do almost nothing to truly
> secure air travel.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-23-tsa-strained_x.htm
>
> The main solution is having the *passengers* take responsibility for
> their security. Look at Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber'. He wasn't stopped
> by searches or air marshals or locked cockpits. He was stopped by the
> *passengers* of the plane:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
>
From discussions with pilots, the locked door is a pretty effective
measure when coupled with their orders to not give up the ship. My
belief is that any new hijacker will fail and will be severely punished
for the attempt to the result that no rational person would ever try. I
think the same can be done with the hackers and, while some incidents
will occur, your computer on-line will be as safe as your BMW in the
stadium parking lot.
> Fortunately, this attitude is very common nowadays. Too bad about this
> guy, but I feel a lot more secure getting on planes now:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150972,00.html
>
>
>>I don't know that the Russian mafia has any involvement with spreading
>>e-mail viruses. How do they profit from that?
>
>
> http://www.mobmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?c=230&a=5474
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/09/russian_mafia_uses_nt_flaws/
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1237772,00.asp
>
I still don't know:
"Incidences of Russian hackers breaking into e-commerce sites abound,
but it is unclear whether they are tied to the Russian Mafia."
Also,
"An ANZ spokesman said organized crime was suspected to be behind the
websites while an industry source pointed the finger at the Russian
mafia. The source said setting up a fake website and spam e-mail was not
something that could be done on the cheap."
I guess the ANZ has not seen the latest presentations on Visual Web
Developer Express! LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
> With few exceptions, the "current flood" is no different than the
> previous floods. Sociopaths sending mail bombs to the unwary.
to *subvert* them, in order to make money by:
1. Sending spam and hosting spam websites
2. Displaying advertising, and generating fraudulent 'clicks'
3. Redirecting referrals
4. Phishing and pharming to commit identity fraud
5. Performing DOS attacks (both to thwart competition/regulation
and to perform extortion of webmasters)
Malware has a *business model* now, and that makes it vastly more
attractive to a whole new class of sociopath (e.g. organized crime).
And makes it vastly more common.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Physicists have pretty much thrown in the towel on unifying
gravity with the other elemental forces, so now we have the
Standard Model, which says that everything works together in
intricate harmony except gravity, which is on holiday in
Tasmania and need not concern us further." - John Caroll
Ray Ingles
> employees, files are relayed via network shares on the lan.
But... but... convenience is more important than security! How can you
*stand* it?
>> I'm far from unique in my contempt for the security practices at
>> Microsoft. See, for example, these:
>> http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/WindowsVsLinuxSecurity.html
>> http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/security/uw.html
>>
> A couple of linux losers with time to whine, nothing much more than
> that.
Ah, yes, who would really expect you to actually address the arguments,
ad hominem is so much more 'convenient'.
> Find me an article written by an IT manager at GM or Ford or
> Boeing. In short, find me an article that is from someone interested in
> solving the problem rather than knocking MS.
Many of the security problems are fundamentally unsolvable, e.g.:
http://security.tombom.co.uk/shatter.html
> ActiveX? Get up to date, Ray! Think .NET!
This doesn't differ fundamentally from Java. A sandbox for code to play
in. If you let the code out of the sandbox to do interesting ('convenient')
things, you give up the security of the system... on Windows, anyway.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"No, Ah better not look... Ah just *might* be in there."
- Foghorn Leghorn
Ray Ingles
>>>to use as a linux machine, for example.
>>
>> You have demonstrated no experience with Linux that would justify a
>> blanket statement like this.
>>
> I am at the least a user of PCs since I got my company at the time to
> order a PC (with 64K RAM and dual 160K floppies for a total of more than
> $4K) instead of another AppleII. And I have continuously been in work
> situations where I am constantly exposed to various computer industry
> trends and technology shifts.
Handwaving. Nothing specific. Figures.
> I have used linux enough to know that it is not oriented towards
> personal use.
Please describe your experiences. Specific distributions used and
the timeframes would be very helpful. I assume you are capable of
*some* kind of specifics.
> I have enough product marketing knowledge to know with a certainty
> that it doesn't have a prayer of success in the PC desktop client
> market in its current configurations.
You have shown no evidence of actually being aware of Linux features
and capabilities. Indeed, you have shown definite ignorance about
the multiuser and network features that Linux has possessed for more
than a decade. Forgive me if I find your opinion in this matter to
be of dubious worth.
> However they cannot answer the simple question of how will they tell
> some half a billion people about linux to the point where they can
> overcome the mass market perceptions about and attitudes toward Windows
> and any would-be competitors.
Viral marketing and word-of-mouth can be very effective when the
product has actual merit. Look at Firefox. They've taken a big chunk
away from IE with essentially no advertising (okay, one ad in the
New York Times). That's part of it.
Another part is larger companies using Linux more and more. They
have incentive to push Linux so they aren't so vulnerable to pressure
from Microsoft (see my signature). The more exposure Linux gets, the
more chances for "Pepsi Challenge" style comparisons. I know what
your opinion is, but I think Linux can win such challenges.
Microsoft's apparent inability to create really robust security is
going to put a great deal of pressure on them as the increasing
prevalence of malware takes its toll (remember the post that started
this thread?) on their customers.
I'm heartened by the historical progress of Linux. A few years ago,
people like you were saying Linux "wasn't ready for prime time" and
would never make any serious inroads in the server area. Now not even
you can deny Linux's prevalence in that arena.
I don't expect Microsoft to topple overnight. Nor do I expect them
to completely disappear. But they are in for interesting times, in
the Chinese curse sense.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"When your [profit] margins are more sensitive to Bill Gates'
pricing whims than they are the price of oil, that's an
untenable position for a large company to be in."
-- John Chapman Sr., BP Amoco Technology Executive
Ray Ingles
>> their security. Look at Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber'. He wasn't stopped
>> by searches or air marshals or locked cockpits. He was stopped by the
>> *passengers* of the plane:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
>>
> From discussions with pilots, the locked door is a pretty effective
> measure when coupled with their orders to not give up the ship.
A locked cockpit helps, but would not have stopped Reid at all. It
*cannot* protect against a bomb. But the passengers on the plane were
able to stop it...
> My belief is that any new hijacker will fail and will be severely punished
> for the attempt to the result that no rational person would ever try.
Hijacking, sure... but not because of punishment, but because that barn
door has been closed. People used to cooperate because they thought that
offered the best odds of survival. Since 9/11, that's obviously not valid.
There's no point in a terrorist trying to hijack a plane now.
As to bombings... since when have suicide bombers been *rational*?
> I think the same can be done with the hackers and, while some incidents
> will occur, your computer on-line will be as safe as your BMW in the
> stadium parking lot.
Tracing a cracker and performing extradition is expensive and very
time-consuming. Especially if they move through a series of bots,
and use worms to automate the subversion of large numbers of
computers. We have a hard enough time tracking and extraditing mass
murderers, even after 9/11. Computer crime will never get that kind
of attention.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Rushing to pummel Iraq after 9/11, Bush officials ginned up
links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They made it sound as if
Islamic fighters on a jihad against America were slouching
toward Baghdad to join forces with murderous Iraqis. There
was scant evidence of it then, but it's coming true now."
- Maureen Dowd
Jesse F. Hughes
> But they are in for interesting times, in the Chinese curse sense.
Don't know if you care, but there is no Chinese curse involving
"interesting times" as far as I can tell. It seems to be wholly
made-up.
--
"I have to break the code of how [mere humans] work, and I have made a
lot of progress over years of effort, and I feel like I am close to
figuring out all the inner details of human wiring."
-- James S. Harris on the extra problems of conveying his research
Mark Kent
Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org> espoused:
> Ray Ingles <sorc...@dmc22317.local> writes:
>
>> But they are in for interesting times, in the Chinese curse sense.
>
> Don't know if you care, but there is no Chinese curse involving
> "interesting times" as far as I can tell. It seems to be wholly
> made-up.
>
It's a Terry Pratchett book title/joke, for sure.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
It'll be a nice world if they ever get it finished.
billwg
>
> Malware has a *business model* now, and that makes it vastly more
> attractive to a whole new class of sociopath (e.g. organized crime).
> And makes it vastly more common.
>
opportunity to make any money this way. It makes for a popular idea and
people will readily believe arcane technical stories, but how do the bad
guys manage to actually collect?
They have to somehow get the cash out of the system and that isn't very
easy to do. Transferring bank deposits has to terminate at another bank
and there is a trail. Regardless of Rush Limbaugh and other reactionary
pundits, the world's banks have some interest in the integrity of the
system and cooperate to catch criminals. With all the cyber crime said
to have been committed, where did the money go?
I think that most of the hackers are simple vandals, getting some kind
of psychotic thrill out of trashing other peoples' goods.
billwg
>
> But... but... convenience is more important than security! How can you
> *stand* it?
>
very well paid for our inconveniences. Besides, we can RDC to our home
systems for any such fun.
>
>
> Ah, yes, who would really expect you to actually address the arguments,
> ad hominem is so much more 'convenient'.
>
user. If you have a logical theory, why not try to express it rather
than waving your hands at things that you probably don't even
understand? If you can articulate it, then maybe it can be discussed.
>
>> Find me an article written by an IT manager at GM or Ford or
>>Boeing. In short, find me an article that is from someone interested in
>>solving the problem rather than knocking MS.
>
>
> Many of the security problems are fundamentally unsolvable, e.g.:
> http://security.tombom.co.uk/shatter.html
>
the functionality that we will be needing. I have written a small
application called Shatter which implements this functionality. You'll
also need a hex editor that is capable of copying binary data to the
clipboard (I use UltraEdit), and a debugger (I use WinDbg)."
I don't think that I would need all that myself, Ray. If I have that
kind of access to a machine, a simple Phillips screwdriver would suffice
to take the hard drives home with me for scanning at my leisure!
>
>>ActiveX? Get up to date, Ray! Think .NET!
>
>
> This doesn't differ fundamentally from Java. A sandbox for code to play
> in. If you let the code out of the sandbox to do interesting ('convenient')
> things, you give up the security of the system... on Windows, anyway.
>
It differs from Java in terms of the amount of use that it is getting
for one thing. For another, the need to keep arbitrary code away from
the WinAPI is also satisfied. Longhorn will go a long way to make this
all happen. It seems to me that, in spite of the doom sayers in the
linux ranks, Windows just gets better and better and is used by more and
more people every day.
You notice how the hourly BSD claims seem to have blown away in the
recent past? It looks like the cola nuts have managed to notice that
they looked more than a little silly to the rest of the world! The same
thing is happening to the security scares. Microsoft is spending
billions to fix things and they are gradually fixing things after all.
People will wait because the linux stuff isn't very attractive as an
alternative to the problems that Windows may have. That's a fact, Ray,
and you need to give it some thought.
billwg
>
> Handwaving. Nothing specific. Figures.
>
You have to get you head out of the box, Ray, and think about it. You
don't like my attitude, certainly, but how did I arrive at it? I work
in the industry, I have technical degrees from notable universities, and
I've been exposed to Windows and Linux. Do you want to think that I am
being paid to post by Microsoft?
>
>>I have used linux enough to know that it is not oriented towards
>>personal use.
>
>
> Please describe your experiences. Specific distributions used and
> the timeframes would be very helpful. I assume you are capable of
> *some* kind of specifics.
>
I have a lot more experience with linux than the average person in the
street. I am not at all impressed and don't bother with it much anymore.
>
>>I have enough product marketing knowledge to know with a certainty
>>that it doesn't have a prayer of success in the PC desktop client
>>market in its current configurations.
>
>
> You have shown no evidence of actually being aware of Linux features
> and capabilities. Indeed, you have shown definite ignorance about
> the multiuser and network features that Linux has possessed for more
> than a decade. Forgive me if I find your opinion in this matter to
> be of dubious worth.
>
Find what you will, Ray. Continue to believe that the failure of linux
to get out of the chute is due to some malevolent conspiracy perpetrated
by Microsoft.
>
>>However they cannot answer the simple question of how will they tell
>>some half a billion people about linux to the point where they can
>>overcome the mass market perceptions about and attitudes toward Windows
>>and any would-be competitors.
>
>
> Viral marketing and word-of-mouth can be very effective when the
> product has actual merit. Look at Firefox. They've taken a big chunk
> away from IE with essentially no advertising (okay, one ad in the
> New York Times). That's part of it.
In the first place, they don't have anything to show for all their
effort beyond the questionable admiration of you cola nuts, Ray. They
took a lot of time to duplicate IE and do they have any ability to
sustain the effort down the road? IE is free and Firefox is free and
both are being used on Windows anyway.
On top of that, Firefox has been hyped as having so many advantages over
IE. Linux has none of that.
>
> Another part is larger companies using Linux more and more. They
> have incentive to push Linux so they aren't so vulnerable to pressure
> from Microsoft (see my signature). The more exposure Linux gets, the
> more chances for "Pepsi Challenge" style comparisons. I know what
> your opinion is, but I think Linux can win such challenges.
>
> Microsoft's apparent inability to create really robust security is
> going to put a great deal of pressure on them as the increasing
> prevalence of malware takes its toll (remember the post that started
> this thread?) on their customers.
>
> I'm heartened by the historical progress of Linux. A few years ago,
> people like you were saying Linux "wasn't ready for prime time" and
> would never make any serious inroads in the server area. Now not even
> you can deny Linux's prevalence in that arena.
>
I'll continue to deny that linux has any presence in the desktop market.
It has a fair presence in the server market due to IBM's adoption of
it as a counter to Sun's Solaris. One fallout of this has been the
disappearance of "free" as in beer as they say when applied to these
linux distributions. They are as restrictive in terms of limited use as
anything sold by Microsoft.
Maybe some benefit has accrued to the hobbyist, Ray, but linux has had
to substantially change its image to even get as far as the server room.
Whether it can get to the desktop is very questionable and the main
question is "Why bother with it?". The best answer so far is that linux
is almost as good as Windows and does almost all that Windows does
almost as well. At $50 or less, the consumer is not going to be interested.
> I don't expect Microsoft to topple overnight. Nor do I expect them
> to completely disappear. But they are in for interesting times, in
> the Chinese curse sense.
>
I have confidence in their ability to adapt.
billwg
>
> A locked cockpit helps, but would not have stopped Reid at all. It
> *cannot* protect against a bomb. But the passengers on the plane were
> able to stop it...
>
incident failed, according to what I have heard, mostly because Reid
forgot which shoe was which. If he had lit the right one on the first
match, we'd have another poster child for the Bushites.
>
>>My belief is that any new hijacker will fail and will be severely punished
>>for the attempt to the result that no rational person would ever try.
>
>
> Hijacking, sure... but not because of punishment, but because that barn
> door has been closed. People used to cooperate because they thought that
> offered the best odds of survival. Since 9/11, that's obviously not valid.
> There's no point in a terrorist trying to hijack a plane now.
>
> As to bombings... since when have suicide bombers been *rational*?
>
>
>>I think the same can be done with the hackers and, while some incidents
>>will occur, your computer on-line will be as safe as your BMW in the
>>stadium parking lot.
>
>
> Tracing a cracker and performing extradition is expensive and very
> time-consuming. Especially if they move through a series of bots,
> and use worms to automate the subversion of large numbers of
> computers. We have a hard enough time tracking and extraditing mass
> murderers, even after 9/11. Computer crime will never get that kind
> of attention.
>
throws up his hands and tells the world they're on their own, there are
armies of busybodies who will be searching and seeking. How about the
Cisco router sniffers that can be programmed to isolate the sources of
viruses? Do you think that will help make the job of catching them easier?
Ray Ingles
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>
>> Malware has a *business model* now, and that makes it vastly more
>> attractive to a whole new class of sociopath (e.g. organized crime).
>> And makes it vastly more common.
>>
> Maybe, Ray, maybe not. I don't see where there is all that much
> opportunity to make any money this way. It makes for a popular idea and
> people will readily believe arcane technical stories, but how do the bad
> guys manage to actually collect?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/06/2334250
For advertising and click spam, the traffic is designed to appear legit
so there's no reason for the companies not to pay. Spammers are past
masters at getting money out of a short-lived website. For DOS extortion,
as many ways as more traditional extortion has.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"We've got no place in this outfit for good losers.
We want tough hombres who will go in there and win!"
- Admiral Jonas Ingram, 1926
Ray Ingles
> You notice how the hourly BSD claims seem to have blown away in the
> recent past?
Your (alleged and nonspecific) experience with Linux at some unspecified
time in the past applies now and forevermore.
> People will wait because the linux stuff isn't very attractive as an
> alternative to the problems that Windows may have. That's a fact, Ray,
> and you need to give it some thought.
A fact, eh... really? What units is it measured in? To how many decimal
places?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced." - Anonymous' restatement of Clarke
Ray Ingles
>> Handwaving. Nothing specific. Figures.
>>
> You have to get you head out of the box, Ray, and think about it. You
> don't like my attitude, certainly, but how did I arrive at it?
I don't know, and you've given no information about it, despite my asking
you repeatedly and specifying the kind of data I'm looking for.
>> Please describe your experiences. Specific distributions used and
>> the timeframes would be very helpful. I assume you are capable of
>> *some* kind of specifics.
>>
> I have a lot more experience with linux than the average person in the
> street. I am not at all impressed and don't bother with it much anymore.
You can't even be bothered to remember the name of a single distribution?
Not even *one* specific detail? Not even a year, much less a date? I'm
having difficulty figuring out a way to express how underwhelmed I am...
> On top of that, Firefox has been hyped as having so many advantages over
> IE. Linux has none of that.
Linux wins on security, reliability, customizability, support (both in
terms of technical support and support of diverse hardware), price,
usability, etc. Clearly you've never tried it, or you'd know that.
>> I'm heartened by the historical progress of Linux. A few years ago,
>> people like you were saying Linux "wasn't ready for prime time" and
>> would never make any serious inroads in the server area. Now not even
>> you can deny Linux's prevalence in that arena.
>>
> I'll continue to deny that linux has any presence in the desktop market.
I know you'll continue to deny it. I have confidence in your inability
(or, at least, unwillingness) to adapt.
> One fallout of this has been the disappearance of "free" as in beer as
> they say when applied to these linux distributions. They are as
> restrictive in terms of limited use as anything sold by Microsoft.
And that is a baldfaced lie. How many servers can you install a copy
of Win2K3 on? Can you move that seat to a different machine? If you
want to take a copy home and experiment with it, can you legally do
so without buying another copy of Win2K3?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Novice electrician:
Why should I waste time and money getting the right color wire?
The electricity doesn't care.
Experienced electrician:
Electricity is color-blind. Electricians are not.
-- unknown
Novice programmer:
Why should I waste time commenting code? The computer doesn't care.
Experienced programmer:
The computer is comment-blind. Programmers are not.
-- Dr. Robert J. Meier 1980
Linønut
> In article <K3o0e.251885$JF2.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>> You notice how the hourly BSD claims seem to have blown away in the
>> recent past?
>
> I know, I know. In your world, Windows improves, but Linux doesn't.
> Your (alleged and nonspecific) experience with Linux at some unspecified
> time in the past applies now and forevermore.
>
>> People will wait because the linux stuff isn't very attractive as an
>> alternative to the problems that Windows may have. That's a fact, Ray,
>> and you need to give it some thought.
>
> A fact, eh... really? What units is it measured in? To how many decimal
> places?
You're being tholenized.
--
Reinvent yourself!
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@dmc22317.local> espoused:
>
>> One fallout of this has been the disappearance of "free" as in beer as
>> they say when applied to these linux distributions. They are as
>> restrictive in terms of limited use as anything sold by Microsoft.
>
> And that is a baldfaced lie. How many servers can you install a copy
> of Win2K3 on? Can you move that seat to a different machine? If you
> want to take a copy home and experiment with it, can you legally do
> so without buying another copy of Win2K3?
>
This is why I chose to plonk billwg. The man is disingenuous to a
fault (!). But, just in case anyone's confused, you can get
your free debian here:
It is, in spite of the claims of billwg, completely free, it is
also completely covered by GPL or GPL compatible licences, so
the user is fully protected, and has total access to all source
code, and can make whatever use they wish of it, including
making and using multiple copies.
lol!"£$!"£%£.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
My favorite sandwich is peanut butter, baloney, cheddar cheese, lettuce
and mayonnaise on toasted bread with catsup on the side.
-- Senator Hubert Humphrey
William Poaster
Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Ray Ingles <sorc...@dmc22317.local> espoused:
>> In article <ymo0e.251956$JF2.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>>
>>> One fallout of this has been the disappearance of "free" as in beer as
>>> they say when applied to these linux distributions. They are as
>>> restrictive in terms of limited use as anything sold by Microsoft.
>>
>> And that is a baldfaced lie. How many servers can you install a copy
>> of Win2K3 on? Can you move that seat to a different machine? If you
>> want to take a copy home and experiment with it, can you legally do
>> so without buying another copy of Win2K3?
>>
>
> This is why I chose to plonk billwg. The man is disingenuous to a
> fault (!).
I'm not surprised, I did it ages ago. "bilge" aka LOLboi!! was just an
idiot who'd post any lies. Maybe he's D00Fu$'s brother, the one they
keep in the attic with the "!!!" problem. ;-)
> But, just in case anyone's confused, you can get
> your free debian here:
>
> http://www.debian.org
>
> It is, in spite of the claims of billwg, completely free, it is
> also completely covered by GPL or GPL compatible licences, so
> the user is fully protected, and has total access to all source
> code, and can make whatever use they wish of it, including
> making and using multiple copies.
Yes, quite true. I have Debian 3.0r3 on another machine, & passed copies
off to friends to try it. :-)
> lol!"£$!"£%£.
Heh.
--
"Hit any button to continue...
Heeey? Where's "Any" button?"
- Homer Simpson -
billwg
> In article <ymo0e.251956$JF2.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>>> Handwaving. Nothing specific. Figures.
>>>
>>
>>You have to get you head out of the box, Ray, and think about it. You
>>don't like my attitude, certainly, but how did I arrive at it?
>
>
> I don't know, and you've given no information about it, despite my asking
> you repeatedly and specifying the kind of data I'm looking for.
>
>
>>> Please describe your experiences. Specific distributions used and
>>>the timeframes would be very helpful. I assume you are capable of
>>>*some* kind of specifics.
>>>
>>
>>I have a lot more experience with linux than the average person in the
>>street. I am not at all impressed and don't bother with it much anymore.
>
>
> You can't even be bothered to remember the name of a single distribution?
> Not even *one* specific detail? Not even a year, much less a date? I'm
> having difficulty figuring out a way to express how underwhelmed I am...
>
My first bout with linux was with RH5 that I got in a boxed set a number
of years ago. It couldn't find my CD with my entering a hex value for
the device address. It didn't tell me that I had to add 0x in front of
the hex either.
I gave up on it after a while and later got RH7.2 from some place called
Cheapbytes or similar that was selling copies of the RH install disks
for $2 each. That worked better, but the GUI was total garbage. After
that, I got RH9.? from the Duke University mirror since the download
from RHAT direct was always corrupted and never passed the MD5 tests.
RH9.? was pretty good and worked a lot like Windows, but it didn't do
anything better and it had a lot of problems with the network shares
sort of packing up and hanging after a time.
I am going to replace that with the ersatz RH Enterprise that I have
saved off the reference to somewhere. That distribution is supposed to
be the same as the pay-for version but is downloadable for free (as in
beer). It's not a pressing issue anymore, though, and I keep putting it
off.
I also have tried the Corel version that was supposed to install as a
giant file in the Windows space and be runnable from Windows. It acted
like it was trying to work, but crashed a lot and I erased it from my
hard drive. That was about 4 years ago.
I downloaded the Mandrake 8.? install disks and did install them in an
old computer. They looked like the RH 9 and there wasn't any point in
it, so I never did anything with it.
>
>>On top of that, Firefox has been hyped as having so many advantages over
>>IE. Linux has none of that.
>
>
> Linux wins on security, reliability, customizability, support (both in
> terms of technical support and support of diverse hardware), price,
> usability, etc. Clearly you've never tried it, or you'd know that.
>
Wins what?
>
>>> I'm heartened by the historical progress of Linux. A few years ago,
>>>people like you were saying Linux "wasn't ready for prime time" and
>>>would never make any serious inroads in the server area. Now not even
>>>you can deny Linux's prevalence in that arena.
>>>
>>
>>I'll continue to deny that linux has any presence in the desktop market.
>
>
> I know you'll continue to deny it. I have confidence in your inability
> (or, at least, unwillingness) to adapt.
>
Consider that I have no need to adapt, either. That may be a common
characteristic of most computer users in the world. At least I think so.
>
>>One fallout of this has been the disappearance of "free" as in beer as
>>they say when applied to these linux distributions. They are as
>>restrictive in terms of limited use as anything sold by Microsoft.
>
>
> And that is a baldfaced lie. How many servers can you install a copy
> of Win2K3 on? Can you move that seat to a different machine? If you
> want to take a copy home and experiment with it, can you legally do
> so without buying another copy of Win2K3?
>
What are you calling a lie? I have the same use restrictions on my game
company's copies of RHES as I would on Win2K3.
Ray Ingles
>> You can't even be bothered to remember the name of a single distribution?
>> Not even *one* specific detail? Not even a year, much less a date? I'm
>> having difficulty figuring out a way to express how underwhelmed I am...
>>
> Good grief, Ray! Of course I can remember, but what importance is it.
Let's see; Red Hat 5 & 7.2, Corel Linux. Ancient stuff. I'm sure you'd
be all over me if I complained about NT 3.5.
> RH9.? was pretty good and worked a lot like Windows, but it didn't do
> anything better and it had a lot of problems with the network shares
> sort of packing up and hanging after a time.
So, you got something 'pretty good' with all kinds of extra apps and
such for *free*. And when you had a problem, well, I can't find any
record of a 'billwg' or 'Bill Weisgerber' asking for tech support
anywhere related to Linux. Doesn't look like you gave it much of a
shot.
Give Knoppix a try. You don't even have to touch your hard drive. If
Linux is so terrible, if nothing else you'll get more ammo for this
newsgroup, right?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Sunday blamed mistakes in data
collection, not political considerations, for a "very embarrassing"
State Department report that said terrorist attacks worldwide had
decreased in 2003 when, in fact, they had risen significantly.
- L. A. Times, June 14th 2004
billwg
>
> So, you got something 'pretty good' with all kinds of extra apps and
> such for *free*. And when you had a problem, well, I can't find any
> record of a 'billwg' or 'Bill Weisgerber' asking for tech support
> anywhere related to Linux. Doesn't look like you gave it much of a
> shot.
>
any beneficial purpose. Furthermore, when I found it deficient I didn't
complain as most of the linuxers say they do, I just went back to using
Windows.
> Give Knoppix a try. You don't even have to touch your hard drive. If
> Linux is so terrible, if nothing else you'll get more ammo for this
> newsgroup, right?
>
Well, tell me why I should. I don't need any more rocks to throw at you
folk, you are continually supplying more than enough opportunity
yourselves. I don't disagree that linux is capable of doing most of the
Windows things with some facility. I suspect that it cannot serve in
some of the extreme backwaters of use. For example, it does not seem to
have an ActiveDirectory kind of domain management and doesn't offer the
resultant convenient networking of Windows. It doesn't apparently have
a set of storage APIs used for on the fly backups and things such as
provided by Windows and the VxFS used by Solaris and AIX.
On the desktop, it is probably fully sufficient for most people to use
if they wanted to do that. But there is little reason to do that. Most
people I know don't have any bad feelings about Microsoft, so they are
not out to do anything necessary to avoid using MS.
Bob Hauck
> Ray Ingles wrote:
> For example, it does not seem to have an ActiveDirectory kind of
> domain management and doesn't offer the resultant convenient
> networking of Windows.
What's ActiveDirectory based on? Kerberos. Where did Kerberos come
from? Unix. Golly, ya think it might work on Linux too?
Maybe that NFS thingy or that AFS thingy can do some networky stuff too
so we can, like, log into any machine on the network and have exactly
the same environment. Yeah, that would sure be convenient. Oh, wait,
we do have that stuff. Cool!
> It doesn't apparently have a set of storage APIs used for on the fly
> backups and things such as provided by Windows and the VxFS used by
> Solaris and AIX.
Actually, it has a Logical Volume Manager with snapshot facilities, very
similar to Solaris. On-the-fly backups work fine.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Ray Ingles
> Well, I'm rue to my philosophy, Ray. I have never used linux myself for
> any beneficial purpose. Furthermore, when I found it deficient I didn't
> complain as most of the linuxers say they do
What, exactly, do you mean by this: "I didn't complain as most of
the linuxers say they do"? Are you saying that asking for help resolving
a problem is a complaint, or what?
> I just went back to using Windows.
And you've never asked for tech support for Windows, right? You'll
attend an expensive conference on Windows, but won't post a query on
a newsgroup about Linux?
>> Give Knoppix a try.
> Well, tell me why I should.
Ah, I get it. I was assuming, against evidence, that you were
intellectually honest, that you felt the need to have a basis for your
beliefs. Apparently you don't actually care about that. My mistake.
> I suspect that [Linux] cannot serve in some of the extreme backwaters of
> use.
Not that you've, y'know, checked or anything. Both of your points have
been dismissed elsewhere. Active Directory was preceeded by NIS and is
based on Kerberos with a few (deliberately incompatible) tweaks. Windows
has only recently gotten an AFS client and has nothing resembling Coda.
(DFS - Microsoft's Distributed File System, not the cola troll -
*finally* gives something resembling the mount points Unix has had since
its inception, but has nothing approaching local caching and coherence.)
> On the desktop, it is probably fully sufficient for most people to use
> if they wanted to do that. But there is little reason to do that.
How far we've come! I remember when people said Linux would never be
more than a toy. Then they said it was capable of some neat things, but
would never be used in a business. Then they said it could be used for
small things in a business, but it'd never scale to the high end. Then
it would be fine in a server role, but would never be any good as a
desktop.
Now it would be "fully sufficient" as a desktop, but people won't
*bother*. They can't even come up with a technical argument anymore.
> Most people I know don't have any bad feelings about Microsoft, so
> they are not out to do anything necessary to avoid using MS.
I got these in email as part of those mass mailings people sent to
their friends:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.htm
http://straight.fromhell.com/~wams/bghell1.html
They were from non-techie friends who just used computers. Nobody
I've met has any great love of Microsoft. An alternative like Linux
that is less expensive, more open, and more capable has a pretty
good shot, I think.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you
missed the point. - Brandon S. Allbery
billwg
> In article <ebI0e.45$vd...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>
>>Well, I'm rue to my philosophy, Ray. I have never used linux myself for
>>any beneficial purpose. Furthermore, when I found it deficient I didn't
>>complain as most of the linuxers say they do
>
>
> What, exactly, do you mean by this: "I didn't complain as most of
> the linuxers say they do"? Are you saying that asking for help resolving
> a problem is a complaint, or what?
>
can pick up on it, so I am always surprised when someone seems to miss
the humor in it! A few weeks back there was a thread regarding what
constituted support for developers of OSS products and I was certainly
of the opinion that mere reporting of defects was insufficient
participation by the user group. Does this help your understanding?
>
>>I just went back to using Windows.
>
>
> And you've never asked for tech support for Windows, right? You'll
> attend an expensive conference on Windows, but won't post a query on
> a newsgroup about Linux?
>
I have had an MSDN Universal Subscription for quite a while, Ray. When
I do have a real problem, I just call Microsoft. I am quite honestly
impressed with the high quality of support and accuracy of answers that
I get when doing this.
>
>>> Give Knoppix a try.
>
>
>
>>Well, tell me why I should.
>
>
> Ah, I get it. I was assuming, against evidence, that you were
> intellectually honest, that you felt the need to have a basis for your
> beliefs. Apparently you don't actually care about that. My mistake.
>
A crocodile tear to be sure, Ray! You want to say that I do not want to
have a basis for my beliefs due to my failure to "give Knoppix a try" on
your unadorned say-so? That is kind of arrogant and shows that you are
one missing the point. My statement was to the effect that linux offers
nothing to motivate someone to give it a try. Your response is for them
to try anyway. Kind of circular and nothing more than a false hope. If
everyone were to try anyway, then perhaps your problem would be solved,
but that tries to evade the work of trying to convince someone to give
it a try by making some showing of benefit that would accrue to the
person from the attempt.
You can try to shame me, but you have to be a lot better at it than you
have been so far! LOL!!!
>
>>I suspect that [Linux] cannot serve in some of the extreme backwaters of
>>use.
>
>
> Not that you've, y'know, checked or anything. Both of your points have
> been dismissed elsewhere. Active Directory was preceeded by NIS and is
> based on Kerberos with a few (deliberately incompatible) tweaks.
> Windows
> has only recently gotten an AFS client and has nothing resembling Coda.
> (DFS - Microsoft's Distributed File System, not the cola troll -
> *finally* gives something resembling the mount points Unix has had since
> its inception, but has nothing approaching local caching and coherence.)
>
>
>>On the desktop, it is probably fully sufficient for most people to use
>>if they wanted to do that. But there is little reason to do that.
>
>
> How far we've come! I remember when people said Linux would never be
> more than a toy. Then they said it was capable of some neat things, but
> would never be used in a business. Then they said it could be used for
> small things in a business, but it'd never scale to the high end. Then
> it would be fine in a server role, but would never be any good as a
> desktop.
>
You are beginning to understand, Ray! You will always get an excuse as
to why something is not being done.
> Now it would be "fully sufficient" as a desktop, but people won't
> *bother*. They can't even come up with a technical argument anymore.
>
They don't need a reason not to do something, silly. They need a reason
to do something different. You are not supplying any. Your best effort
has so far been to attempt to shame me into looking so that my knowledge
is somehow more complete, but that is not going to work with me because
I have other more interesting things to do with my time. It is not
going to work with the hundreds of millions of Windows users who do not
have any reason to even look either. It is up to you to create a reason
and you have failed to do so.
>
>>Most people I know don't have any bad feelings about Microsoft, so
>>they are not out to do anything necessary to avoid using MS.
>
>
> I got these in email as part of those mass mailings people sent to
> their friends:
> http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.htm
> http://straight.fromhell.com/~wams/bghell1.html
>
People laugh a lot. They laugh at Bush, but he gets re-elected because
the alternative wasn't demonstrably any better. They laugh at the
Clintons, but they elect Hillary to the Senate when she didn't even live
in the state prior to running. Go ahead and pin your hopes on this, but
don't blame anyone but yourself when you are disappointed.
> They were from non-techie friends who just used computers. Nobody
> I've met has any great love of Microsoft. An alternative like Linux
> that is less expensive, more open, and more capable has a pretty
> good shot, I think.
>
Well, I say you are wrong. So far the results are in my favor.
Ray Ingles
>> How far we've come! I remember when people said Linux would never be
>> more than a toy. Then they said it was capable of some neat things, but
>> would never be used in a business. Then they said it could be used for
>> small things in a business, but it'd never scale to the high end. Then
>> it would be fine in a server role, but would never be any good as a
>> desktop.
>>
> You are beginning to understand, Ray! You will always get an excuse as
> to why something is not being done.
"Excuse"? You willfully misunderstand. The above is what *detractors*
of Linux, like yourself, have been saying for years.
>> Now it would be "fully sufficient" as a desktop, but people won't
>> *bother*. They can't even come up with a technical argument anymore.
>>
> They don't need a reason not to do something, silly. They need a reason
> to do something different. You are not supplying any.
You are lying. I have provided many reasons, and you have pretended
to miss all of them.
1. Vastly better price/performance.
a. Better use of existing hardware
b. Reduced frequency of necessary upgrades
c. Extended life of older hardware
2. Absence of DRM and other semi-legal hassles
a. Can use, backup, and share software without fear
b. Can use all of the features that hardware supports
c. No need to 'check in' with central authorities
3. Service available from multiple sources
a. Like cars, don't *have* to go to the dealer
4. A greatly increased resistance to spyware and adware.
The last one is, I think, the one that will push most people into
checking out alternatives. Firefox's adoption, for example, illustrates
this.
>> An alternative like Linux that is less expensive, more open, and
>> more capable has a pretty good shot, I think.
>>
> Well, I say you are wrong. So far the results are in my favor.
We're still in early days. As I said, I look at how far things have
come already and I see no reason to despair. The detractors have been
wrong every time so far... the results are in *our* favor. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I never said, 'Thou shalt not think.'" - God