Remember the thread is about home networking. To me, it seems that setting up the numerous services (NAT, DHCP, DNS, etc) to support a simple home network is way overkill. When you look at the Netwinder (which automates all of this), you're getting a full blown computer with full blown unix, which is a pretty complex system for your toaster.
I hesitate to suggest this, but NetBEUI seems to be a better fit for home networking. Fast (for 1Mbps lines), auto-configuring (no unix box in the corner) and non-routable (more secure). A simple box could connect with the Internet and transmit messages from TOASTER0123 to tracking.wonderbread.com or wherever. This box of course would need some intelligence to know how to handle messages, but I'm sure it could be worked out. --
Actually I think I misunderstood you and we are actually in agreement. (orthogonal does not equal incompatible).
My original point wasn't that it was difficult with a GUI system (it shouldn't be), just that it's difficult with the stew of text config files in regular unix.) --
I don't see any reason OS/X couldn't run a third party X Server - there were some available for NeXTStep, for example. (The "native" GUI does not run in X however.)
Specifically, I can't imagine that a XFree86 port would be impossible, given that the BSD API is there in Darwin.
You have a good point when you say The problem, says O'Dell, is that there is a "strong tendency for configuration files to become hopelessly corrupted" if users try to use both GUI tools and command-line direct intervention at the same time.
Tools such as linuxconf always have a "shaky" feel to them. Furthermore, other solutions to this problem (AIX, NextStep, Windows) always seem to involve a binary configuration database.
I don't know if any real work is being done in this department, but GUI's such as KDE are always going to be pure eye candy if you can't do any system configuation there.
The "North American" version of Notes/Domino does not have this supposed back door.
Note that the "back door" is so Lotus can export a 64 bit encryption version, only that the US government knows 24 of the bits, effectively making it 40-bit when the USG is trying crack you.
Lotus has documented this. Go to http://orionweb.lotus.com and search for technote 162546. --
True - I said "user level functionality", which means mouse-wielding WIMP users (Windows/CDE/Linux DE). For the record, I currently use telnet+Pine, Outlook, Netscape, and Lotus Notes on both Windows and Unix platforms. Different tools for different circumstances.
Unix mail certainly has more "functionality" - it's just not as accessible on the user level. But apparently "user" is a four letter word around here so give 'em ssh and mutt. --
There is about 50 posts here guffawing at Microsoft's crappy software and poor unix ports. Har Har.
But is there even one Unix mail program (commercial or otherwise) that comes even close to the user-level functionality of MS Outlook? And before anyone nominates KMail or Netscape Messenger, try using both side-by-side!
(Admittedly Outlook is a 30 MB install, but where I come from, mail is the #1 application by far. Of course, the PST format can go hairy, but again, so can Netscape's mail database.)
Although, how much CPU do you need to fill that ISA bus? My understanding is that by moving 10BT ethernet to a PCI slot on an older machine (like that guy's P120) could cut CPU usage by 50% or more. In ye olden days, moving the network from ISA to even EISA was a noticible improvement. --
Contracts written with lipstick on cocktail napkins have been ruled to be enforceable. In most states a verbal contract is 100% valid. Why make an expection for an electronic signature, when a non-signed e-mail message may legally be considered enforceable?
Think about it -- Right now you can call someone on the phone and give them your credit card number and verbal authorization, and that's an enforceable contract. Likewise with the Submit button on amazon.com, or even an eBay auction.
Wouldn't a digital signature system actually be less "immature" than these relatively crude (and easily fradulent) ways of doing business now?
A document describing top-secret military plans is speech too, but I'm not allowed to give it to a foreign party (and probably not allowed to pass it around within the U.S. too).
Actually, when the NY Times published the "Pentagon Papers" during the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court did rule that publishing these stolen classified documents was within the NY Times' free press rights. (I don't know if "exporting" came up - it certainly would now days with the Internet.) --
My understanding of the case was that the professor had won the right to publish encryption source code in a scientific article. (That is, that the law prevented him from his right of scientific expression.) It doesn't generally apply to computer code which isn't being used for illustrative purposes.
So this might apply to binary code, if a bunch of hex was published in a scientific journal. It also might apply to a download which accompanies such an article, but it certainly doesn't remove cryptography restrictions, or technology export laws (esp. with govt. contracts, which probably have additional wording).
Your argument is baloney from a legal perspective (IANAL), in that your "rights" to practice polagamy are not any more restricted than anyone else's. I'm sure if you practiced human sacrifice, you'd also find your "freedom of religion" impinged. Furthermore, nothing is preventing you from having a church-sanctioned 3-way, just as you mention, you just can't file tax forms to that effect and so on.
A better argument would be the ban on same sex marriage, which regardless of your moral opinion, obviously does limit certain people's marriage rights wrt others. --
The hardware may not favor Linux, but a Quad Xeon with 1 GB RAM is really not that out of the ordinary.
You sound as if you are ready to conceed the party line that "Linux is better than NT" and admit that "Linux is only better than NT on boxes with less than X RAM and Y CPUs and Z NICs". If that is in fact the case, then Linux is "broken" in some respects.
The Outlook Express encryption appears to be standard SMIME, so I doubt there's special backdoors.
If you owned a company, and you were deploying a certificate infrastructure, wouldn't you set it up so that you had a back door to the data that you own? The user has a "certain feel of safety" against other users and other companies, but any user who wants his/her corporate e-mail to be totally private is just plain ignorant of the law and of technology. --
Yes, but the ironic thing about the "I bet the farm on Linux" contest is that a foolhardy few have bet the farm on Windows NT. They might not be too happy about it, but it's been tried.
2) Long winded eloquent restatements of the Linux Advocacy party line.
3) Anything by Bruce Perens (I think this is automatic)
4) Long winded expositions of the greatness of Free Software in general and Linux in particular.
5) Thoughtful comments of other types.
6) Not so eloquent restatements of the Linux Advocacy party line and other Linux testimonials.
7) Random comments, responses, etc.
8) First Posts, Hitler stuff, etc.
Not that this is so bad, just that the moderation is getting predictable. It was more interesting when the scores were more dynamic (ranging from -1 to 10 rather than -1 to 4.)
Regardless of what Ken Thompson thinks, Unix can compete in the area where Windows "won"...
Well, Linux's big commercial market (excluding the hobbiest factor) is low-end servers, and neither Windows nor Unix nor Novell has "won" that market yet.
On the desktop, he might have a valid point. After all, IBM still does own the Mainframe market (which is irrelevant to the tune of several billions of dollars a year!) The question is, can any other "personal computer" enviornment dislodge Microsoft's grasp on the desktop. Somehow I'm pessimistic - if people really didn't want Microsoft, they could buy Macintoshes today rather than waiting a few years for the Linux desktop to firm up.
Instead, look at how many ways the PC approach is fundementally broken, especially in it's target market, the corporate desktop. The Linux desktop projects seem only intent on continuing the PC tradition of making every user the king of his own CPU, and not necessarily to introduce an enviornment that is easier or more managable or more network-aware. Sooner or later something is going to come along and make both Windows and Linux irrelevant on the desktop, whether that be JavaStations, or Star Trek computers that talk back to you, or brain implants, I don't know. --
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the thread is about home networking. To me, it seems that setting up the numerous services (NAT, DHCP, DNS, etc) to support a simple home network is way overkill. When you look at the Netwinder (which automates all of this), you're getting a full blown computer with full blown unix, which is a pretty complex system for your toaster.
I hesitate to suggest this, but NetBEUI seems to be a better fit for home networking. Fast (for 1Mbps lines), auto-configuring (no unix box in the corner) and non-routable (more secure). A simple box could connect with the Internet and transmit messages from TOASTER0123 to tracking.wonderbread.com or wherever. This box of course would need some intelligence to know how to handle messages, but I'm sure it could be worked out.
--
I believe that someone does sell a full POSIX subsystem for NT, even including the "UNIX" trademark.
--
The OS/2 Mantra: Resistance is Futile, You will be Emulated.
Which is nice because the native applications market dried up years ago.
--
Actually I think I misunderstood you and we are actually in agreement. (orthogonal does not equal incompatible).
My original point wasn't that it was difficult with a GUI system (it shouldn't be), just that it's difficult with the stew of text config files in regular unix.)
--
Simply put: system configuration is functionality orthogonal to an end user desktop, period.
There are so many counter-examples that it's probably not worth even starting. Anyway, the world does not begin and end with standard unix.
--
I don't see any reason OS/X couldn't run a third party X Server - there were some available for NeXTStep, for example. (The "native" GUI does not run in X however.)
Specifically, I can't imagine that a XFree86 port would be impossible, given that the BSD API is there in Darwin.
--
You have a good point when you say The problem, says O'Dell, is that there is a "strong tendency for configuration files to become hopelessly corrupted" if users try to use both GUI tools and command-line direct intervention at the same time.
Tools such as linuxconf always have a "shaky" feel to them. Furthermore, other solutions to this problem (AIX, NextStep, Windows) always seem to involve a binary configuration database.
I don't know if any real work is being done in this department, but GUI's such as KDE are always going to be pure eye candy if you can't do any system configuation there.
--
I believe Win2K has this. I wouldn't be suprised to see a client back ported to Win9x and NT4 once Win2K is out.
--
The "North American" version of Notes/Domino does not have this supposed back door.
Note that the "back door" is so Lotus can export a 64 bit encryption version, only that the US government knows 24 of the bits, effectively making it 40-bit when the USG is trying crack you.
Lotus has documented this. Go to http://orionweb.lotus.com and search for technote 162546.
--
I meant
4. If you are using IMAP, there's no reason you can't use PINE or something in addition to Outlook.
--
1. Roaming support is provided via Windows roaming user profiles. A bit sucky, esp on Win9x. Intellimirror improves this on paper.
2. I've been able to set up mutiple mail sources in Outlook, but never never tried multiple IMAP servers. The UI makes it look possible, though.
3. LDAP is supported.
4. If you are using LDAP, there's no reason you can't use PINE or something in addition to Outlook.
5. Windows and a substandard Mac client only. I would guess that a Unix port would have poor "public folder" support just as the Mac client does.
6. Internet client-side mail filters work fine in Outlook 98 without an Exchange server.
--
True - I said "user level functionality", which means mouse-wielding WIMP users (Windows/CDE/Linux DE). For the record, I currently use telnet+Pine, Outlook, Netscape, and Lotus Notes on both Windows and Unix platforms. Different tools for different circumstances.
Unix mail certainly has more "functionality" - it's just not as accessible on the user level. But apparently "user" is a four letter word around here so give 'em ssh and mutt.
--
There is about 50 posts here guffawing at Microsoft's crappy software and poor unix ports. Har Har.
But is there even one Unix mail program (commercial or otherwise) that comes even close to the user-level functionality of MS Outlook? And before anyone nominates KMail or Netscape Messenger, try using both side-by-side!
(Admittedly Outlook is a 30 MB install, but where I come from, mail is the #1 application by far. Of course, the PST format can go hairy, but again, so can Netscape's mail database.)
--
Although, how much CPU do you need to fill that ISA bus? My understanding is that by moving 10BT ethernet to a PCI slot on an older machine (like that guy's P120) could cut CPU usage by 50% or more. In ye olden days, moving the network from ISA to even EISA was a noticible improvement.
--
Contracts written with lipstick on cocktail napkins have been ruled to be enforceable. In most states a verbal contract is 100% valid. Why make an expection for an electronic signature, when a non-signed e-mail message may legally be considered enforceable?
Think about it -- Right now you can call someone on the phone and give them your credit card number and verbal authorization, and that's an enforceable contract. Likewise with the Submit button on amazon.com, or even an eBay auction.
Wouldn't a digital signature system actually be less "immature" than these relatively crude (and easily fradulent) ways of doing business now?
--
A document describing top-secret military plans is speech too, but I'm not allowed to give it to a foreign party (and probably not allowed to pass it around within the U.S. too).
Actually, when the NY Times published the "Pentagon Papers" during the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court did rule that publishing these stolen classified documents was within the NY Times' free press rights. (I don't know if "exporting" came up - it certainly would now days with the Internet.)
--
Isn't binary still a form of computer language?
My understanding of the case was that the professor had won the right to publish encryption source code in a scientific article. (That is, that the law prevented him from his right of scientific expression.) It doesn't generally apply to computer code which isn't being used for illustrative purposes.
So this might apply to binary code, if a bunch of hex was published in a scientific journal. It also might apply to a download which accompanies such an article, but it certainly doesn't remove cryptography restrictions, or technology export laws (esp. with govt. contracts, which probably have additional wording).
--
Your argument is baloney from a legal perspective (IANAL), in that your "rights" to practice polagamy are not any more restricted than anyone else's. I'm sure if you practiced human sacrifice, you'd also find your "freedom of religion" impinged. Furthermore, nothing is preventing you from having a church-sanctioned 3-way, just as you mention, you just can't file tax forms to that effect and so on.
A better argument would be the ban on same sex marriage, which regardless of your moral opinion, obviously does limit certain people's marriage rights wrt others.
--
Could you elucidate what config problems people might have with Netscape on Linux? I'm actually curious - this is no troll.
In my experience, Communicator 4.5 on Solaris x86 has been great, while 4.0x from Linux Mandrake 5.3 has been an utter POS.
(It's hard to sell users on the "stablity" of Linux, when the web browser seems so drastically broken.)
--
The hardware may not favor Linux, but a Quad Xeon with 1 GB RAM is really not that out of the ordinary.
You sound as if you are ready to conceed the party line that "Linux is better than NT" and admit that "Linux is only better than NT on boxes with less than X RAM and Y CPUs and Z NICs". If that is in fact the case, then Linux is "broken" in some respects.
--
You have Browser Election problems with NT and not with Windows 95? That's a new one to me...
--
The Outlook Express encryption appears to be standard SMIME, so I doubt there's special backdoors.
If you owned a company, and you were deploying a certificate infrastructure, wouldn't you set it up so that you had a back door to the data that you own? The user has a "certain feel of safety" against other users and other companies, but any user who wants his/her corporate e-mail to be totally private is just plain ignorant of the law and of technology.
--
Yes, but the ironic thing about the "I bet the farm on Linux" contest is that a foolhardy few have bet the farm on Windows NT. They might not be too happy about it, but it's been tried.
--
It seems the moderation tendencies are as follows:
(from highest scores to lowest)
1) Factual corrections, additional information, eyewitness accounts.
2) Long winded eloquent restatements of the Linux Advocacy party line.
3) Anything by Bruce Perens (I think this is automatic)
4) Long winded expositions of the greatness of Free Software in general and Linux in particular.
5) Thoughtful comments of other types.
6) Not so eloquent restatements of the Linux Advocacy party line and other Linux testimonials.
7) Random comments, responses, etc.
8) First Posts, Hitler stuff, etc.
Not that this is so bad, just that the moderation is getting predictable. It was more interesting when the scores were more dynamic (ranging from -1 to 10 rather than -1 to 4.)
--
Regardless of what Ken Thompson thinks, Unix can compete in the area where Windows "won"...
Well, Linux's big commercial market (excluding the hobbiest factor) is low-end servers, and neither Windows nor Unix nor Novell has "won" that market yet.
On the desktop, he might have a valid point. After all, IBM still does own the Mainframe market (which is irrelevant to the tune of several billions of dollars a year!) The question is, can any other "personal computer" enviornment dislodge Microsoft's grasp on the desktop. Somehow I'm pessimistic - if people really didn't want Microsoft, they could buy Macintoshes today rather than waiting a few years for the Linux desktop to firm up.
Instead, look at how many ways the PC approach is fundementally broken, especially in it's target market, the corporate desktop. The Linux desktop projects seem only intent on continuing the PC tradition of making every user the king of his own CPU, and not necessarily to introduce an enviornment that is easier or more managable or more network-aware. Sooner or later something is going to come along and make both Windows and Linux irrelevant on the desktop, whether that be JavaStations, or Star Trek computers that talk back to you, or brain implants, I don't know.
--