You're missing the point - the fact that ActiveX is inadvertently TIED TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM is the problem. The fact that if you download activeX or java code and execute it on your machine, because the browser, and hence, said code, is TIED TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM. This is no different than me BO'ing your box. Only I get a web browser with my remote administration.
DOS was more secure in this respect because the network was not tied to the OS (this is not nessicarily good, just secure considering the fact that security was not an issue with DOS, that is, unless you count hidden files:).
In UNIX, the network is tied to the OS, but the programs run in a protected environment seperate from the OS, so, unless you are running your browser as root, your system is fairly invulnerable to attack.
And to add insult to injury, the fact that NT isn't geared for multiple users on the same local machine infers that the best account for a local user is the administrator account, which might as well just be like running Win98 for all intents and purposes. To their merit, however, at least you can LOGOUT from the administrator account.
Win2k is destined to be a gaming machine. It's very fast and pretty and I would be more than happy to use it to play Counterstrike. But if I'm looking for REAL, local and network security I'm looking elsewhere from microsoft.
Conclusion - If I'm going to eagerly accept to execute code from someone or some company I'm not familiar with, I want it on a machine that's going to protect the data that's already there. No windows system is designed to protect data, just to keep crackers out and throw a few 56-bit keys around every now and then.
If you need more proof, just take a look at the wonderful job they did with SMB.:)
>half of the people in the world - if not more - probably wouldnt see a need in having a computer at all
I'm sorry, I thought, and thought and thought, but I just couldn't see how this is a bad thing. Too many people who should be spending money on books to learn how to use their computers, well... they're spending it on Windows.:)
Get your terms right: I don't see many people on slashdot Fearing, Uncertain, Or Doubting the fact that these things exist. In fact, I find even that a lot of stereotypical elderly computer users (who are generally the lowest on the tech tree) feel the same thing about Microsoft once presented with the facts and left alone to put the pieces together.
Photoshop, like SoftImage, IRIX, and 3DSMax, are fringe programs for fringe markets. There are freely availiable programs (BESIDES GIMP) that don't have the professionality of Photoshop but do the job. You get what you pay for, and I doubt that many 2d and 3d artists have much of a problem paying for these programs when they do what they want them to.
I, and many others, however, do have a problem with having to run an operating system that does not live up to the promises of it's developers, *AND*, on top of that, require payment for it everytime you go through someone that sells a computer with a warranty attached.
Personally, (don't hate me) I could really give a shit about Open Source as a just cause if OS developers were required to release the FULL SOURCE to just their Operating Systems' API, so that either emulators or direct binaries could be used on alternative Operating Systems to enhance feature competition, instead of feature lock based on the "bottom line".
As for the reduction of price. Call your OEM and ask him how much that 2 year old copy of Win98 will cost you... and yes... You'll find that they still cost around $90 retail... Not much of a reduction if you ask me.
>Strange how Linux drones only see what they want to see.
Technology is a good that has not reached full potential, plain and simple.
For instance, an automobile in america is hardly "technology", but perhaps the engine & transmission inside of it is.
Personally I don't think the technology surrounding a computer is the computer itself, but the application of the computer's capability, that is, until quantum computing becomes more of a reality.:)
Just like the different applications of an automobile, or better yet, an internal combusion engine, have been more or less "finalized" in our society as to what they are efficient/not efficient to use in practice, I think what we are doing now with silicon is very similar to the automobile boom of the 50's & 60's.
In about 30 years, when we're old farts, and the new thing has come along and we're struggling to get our retirement benefits from our employers, I think the parallel will be more obvious.
I am all for this, but I have to be honest, if I were sitting on the other side of the table I would not find this proposal interesting at all.
The proposal provides very few ideas on how the company is actually going to benefit, all it says is "publicity and company awareness", and then is vague from there.
I also noticed that the publicity argument is a good 80% of the text. I just doesn't sound very solid if you ask me.
If anything, I like the idea, but I wish that Eric would go through and add a little more meat to the proposal... Not any promises but at least some hypothetical money-making solutions that would give the people over at Amiga something to mull over. Right now it sounds like a lot of theoretical hot air and empty promises if you ask me. (even though we know it's not)
I have had quite a bit of experience in getting linux systems easy to use. I'm alone in my little world for the most part as a linux geek, and the people around me rarely figure out even the simplest concepts in windows.
But it only takes me 10 seconds to show people windowmaker. There are only 2 ways within the GUI to launch applications, the stable versions RARELY, if EVER crash, and it's one of the few linux gui's out there that really can smoothly be configured from teh desktop. (I have had numerous problems with KDE and GNOME segfaulting when I try to configure them from the GUI)
If he has vision problems, Windowmaker is default setup with large icons and fonts.
The best thing would be to try this, and many other windowmanagers out there and ask him what he thinks is best, as what is best for one is not for another.
This isn't a file system issue though, it's an operating system one. Otherwise, you could have a stray pointer anywhere in a unix system and have disk corruption, which is what the previous poster is speaking of in MacOS. (Which, i'm not sure if he's right or not).
Linux doesn't require ext2fs to run, never has and never will. MacOS, AFAIK, needs HFS, like NT needs NTFS. Don't replace system instability with poorly written utilities.
Intel users create an argument. They get moderated down. They get bitched at. Granted, a lot of em deserve it.
This "informative" post is nothing but oxy-acetylene based flames. In fact, I don't see much of anything "informative" in this post at all. When you break down all the jargon and name-dropping, you get:
"My Mac is Better than Your PC because Apple and I say so".
I hate complaining about things like this but this is just utterly absurd. Some of the moderators out there really need to be put in check.
The best way for moderators to check against this is to think "what kind of replies is this going to generate".
I see nothing of value to reply to this, other than coming up with just as much data to prove this guy wrong, and basically say:
"My PC is better than your Mac because Intel and I say so".
They teach Critical Thinking classes in High School and College. Please, if you're not going to take them, at least apply what you already should know.
Disclaimer: If you're going to flame, please, by all means, email me. I don't like losing moderation points for the backlash you are going to recieve.:)
The display problem can easily be fixed by running reset, at least with most display-related Xserver crashes (i've had a few that have done this on various video cards and it works).
The other 90% of the time it's a matter of user idiocy and a lack of understanding the hotkeys for virtual terminals. They get left at a cursorless console and think that nothing is happening, hence there is a need for some magic reboot.
The mount instance, is just... well... stupid. I can't think of any logical reason for that other than someone with a lot of time on their hands. It's no different than running a fork bomb as root. Not to mention, mount is tying I/O each time it is run... Constantly re-polling any device that takes time to activate (ie. any removable media, esp. on IDE) is going to destroy any system, not just unix or windows.
Remember, I/O is the bottleneck for Unix in the same way that CPU grunt is the bottleneck for Windows (I'm curious about BeOS and this.. anyone with a comment?)
Killing init (AFAIK here, please correct if wrong) is part of the shutdown process. Hence, if you're going to do that... well, you better be planning to reboot ahead of time.
Running any flawed program as root can crash a unix system, especially if it's doing any kind of direct I/O, or realtime scheduling. At the lowest level really, anything that makes the kernel do anything it's not supposed to do will crash the system, and with the exception of hardware error, is the only real way you can crash a unix system.
Windows (and I imagine MacOS as well, don't use it) passes a lot of the Real Work (tm) off to libraries, which have the ability to access the hardware directly. IIRC, Unix passes everything through the kernel first, which keeps this from being a problem and also keeps things like memory overwrites from happening, which is the biggest Windows killer. (see: GPF... Win2k RC2 doesn't do much better, at least Win98 made an attempt to recover, Win2k just locks the machine and basically says "no soup for you".)
Land is a remote DoS attack, based off of teardrop if I remember correctly. The bug exploited was present in the BSD TCP/IP protocol stack, which, you guessed it, runs in just about every major OS kernel. In the systems that don't, libraries that contain the stack for the system can easily gain direct hardware access. I don't think I need to mention what systems allow this.
At least from the few things that I've read, MacOS's biggest problem is very, very, very poor memory management. This is one of the many things that John Carmack touched on while critiquing the mac, and is probably a very good reason why a lot of the bigger named games aren't ported to it. (besides the obvious windows-is-the-only-platform ideology)
Sorry for my bantering - you work at a convenience store and try to explain this stuff to your customers.:)
I don't see how faster install times = easier installs.
After all, I could write a program to take a disk image and write it to disk, which, undoubtedly would be much faster, but has nothing to do with the simplicity of the install, which was, after all, the point.
Not support. If you have ever worked at an ISP, you know that most of the support goes into the "casuals" who don't know how to setup their accounts or figure out just exactly what the caps lock key does.
When you rent a movie or any piece of software, you still have to follow any laws applying to it, for the period of your rental. Hence, if hw/sw was "loaned", then the person renting could still take the GPL'd software and distribute it with full rights as stated in the license.
Although, I'm not sure if the company would be nessicarily required to distribute the source or if there would even be a differentation.. But it's an interesting question.
This is exactly what they're doing.... I got a copy of Win2k RC2, and I put it on since I figured I was going to reformat soon anyways...
I hate microsoft just as much as any other self-respecting slashdot user, but I have to admit that Win2k.... well... It's not a unix machine, but it's definately not 98 or NT, it actually works, keeps a stable uptime, lets me do what I need to do with the machine, and at least with DirectX it's faster.
My point is, is that it feels to me that they're actually making a more robust product... and without my having to spend a grand or so to make sure my processor would be fast enough to run it. (I have a PII-350, I'd say it probably runs fine on a P-200)
Granted, I also felt this way about the 98 RC's (yet I didn't get to test them at home doing 3-day Half-Life map compiles)
ATX1 'nuff said (ahh... the days of doom & 2 modems in 1 room....)
It kind of disturbs me that so many people in here know so many languages, yet never spent 10 minutes reading their modem manual to figure this out.
Actually, all ATX1 does is disable the "NO DIALTONE" message, which most modem clients use to detect whether there is one or not. Technically, as long as the modem itself gets a handshake, it doesn't give a flying shit.
so, on the client...
ATX1(CR) ATD(CR)
server... ATX1(CR) ATA(CR)
you *MUST* initiate the client first. Never gotten it to work the other way around.
blammo. you hear blackboard-scratching noises.. wait for "CONNECT" and you're ready to go:).
Although, don't waste your time with PPP if you can do SLIP over that kind of a connection... No sense in having to bother with all the bullshit involved in a PPP server.
This is very open to interpretation. Linux has more security issues, because the code is able for review by anyone.
Beside the fact that I disagree with you, perhaps the reason that NT has less "security issues" is because the code is not open for such review.
If the code was at least open for REVIEW (not development), at least a lot of unresolved bugs that are going to pop up sooner or later, and take big hits with them. At least if the code is there for review, an admin could take steps to prevent something from getting exploited, even if it doesn't actually FIX the problem.
I'm a full advocate for open source, but when security is an issue, the more you can see the better.
>I don't. I *do* know that if the woman fell >asleep after smoking pot (and only...) that you >should have just left her sleep. I've *never* >heard of or seen anybody just "pass out" from >marijuana and I, like many here, have been >around for many years. Combinations of, with >alcohol, yes, but not marijuana alone. Where I >find fault with your argument is starting off a >post with "Pot KILLS people" and then going on >to justify the post with a very unlikely story. >I'm certainly not taking fault with you for >trying to save someones life. It all just seemed >a little, oh... off the deep end.
I had a straight bong that would do it, to be honest. It was called "The Terminator", and was 4' tall and about 6" in diameter. Made 2 people pass out on 1 hit, one guy who had been smoking regularily for 15 years.
It is possible, you just haven't seen it yet...
Besides, it was a novelty bong and we were getting way too high off of it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, Microsoft actually has contributed considerate amounts to the republican party (Bob Dole was one of the recipients) in the past.
I'm captivated by CSPAN - what can I say.
-Erik-
Netscape for Linux has bugs. I'm sure many of these bugs could be exploited....
If I was that stupid to run it as root.
Imagine what a skilled cracker could do if netscape (theoretically) ran in kernel space on a linux box. It scares me.
See the point NOW? Bugs don't matter as long as the system can't be harmed from them.
Oh yeah, this is the part that I mention that there are only 2 Operating Systems that come from one company that have these "features".
Do the math.
-Erik-
You're missing the point - the fact that ActiveX is inadvertently TIED TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM is the problem. The fact that if you download activeX or java code and execute it on your machine, because the browser, and hence, said code, is TIED TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM. This is no different than me BO'ing your box. Only I get a web browser with my remote administration.
:).
:)
DOS was more secure in this respect because the network was not tied to the OS (this is not nessicarily good, just secure considering the fact that security was not an issue with DOS, that is, unless you count hidden files
In UNIX, the network is tied to the OS, but the programs run in a protected environment seperate from the OS, so, unless you are running your browser as root, your system is fairly invulnerable to attack.
And to add insult to injury, the fact that NT isn't geared for multiple users on the same local machine infers that the best account for a local user is the administrator account, which might as well just be like running Win98 for all intents and purposes. To their merit, however, at least you can LOGOUT from the administrator account.
Win2k is destined to be a gaming machine. It's very fast and pretty and I would be more than happy to use it to play Counterstrike. But if I'm looking for REAL, local and network security I'm looking elsewhere from microsoft.
Conclusion - If I'm going to eagerly accept to execute code from someone or some company I'm not familiar with, I want it on a machine that's going to protect the data that's already there. No windows system is designed to protect data, just to keep crackers out and throw a few 56-bit keys around every now and then.
If you need more proof, just take a look at the wonderful job they did with SMB.
-Erik-
>half of the people in the world - if not more - probably wouldnt see a need in having a computer at all
:)
I'm sorry, I thought, and thought and thought, but I just couldn't see how this is a bad thing. Too many people who should be spending money on books to learn how to use their computers, well... they're spending it on Windows.
-Erik-
This is horribly offtopic, but your nick reminds me of what people used to call me because of my very reminiscent sounding last name. :)
tweedley dum
tweedley dee
it's
-Erik-
Get your terms right: I don't see many people on slashdot Fearing, Uncertain, Or Doubting the fact that these things exist. In fact, I find even that a lot of stereotypical elderly computer users (who are generally the lowest on the tech tree) feel the same thing about Microsoft once presented with the facts and left alone to put the pieces together.
Photoshop, like SoftImage, IRIX, and 3DSMax, are fringe programs for fringe markets. There are freely availiable programs (BESIDES GIMP) that don't have the professionality of Photoshop but do the job. You get what you pay for, and I doubt that many 2d and 3d artists have much of a problem paying for these programs when they do what they want them to.
I, and many others, however, do have a problem with having to run an operating system that does not live up to the promises of it's developers, *AND*, on top of that, require payment for it everytime you go through someone that sells a computer with a warranty attached.
Personally, (don't hate me) I could really give a shit about Open Source as a just cause if OS developers were required to release the FULL SOURCE to just their Operating Systems' API, so that either emulators or direct binaries could be used on alternative Operating Systems to enhance feature competition, instead of feature lock based on the "bottom line".
As for the reduction of price. Call your OEM and ask him how much that 2 year old copy of Win98 will cost you... and yes... You'll find that they still cost around $90 retail... Not much of a reduction if you ask me.
>Strange how Linux drones only see what they want to see.
s/Linux drones/Trolls/
-Erik-
I rememeber this very well -- it was a "bonus pack" in warp 3 for internet support, and then you had to download a 3rd party driver for PPP support.
MS stuck the knife in OS/2, but IBM twisted it many times.
-Erik-
"Monopolistically Competitive" is an oxymoron.
-Erik-
You obviously never used doublespace, or QEMM, or DR-DOS. Oh yeah, what about them stacker folks?
MS has been doing this since day 1... I'm honestly surprised it took this long.
-Erik-
Technology is a good that has not reached full potential, plain and simple.
:)
For instance, an automobile in america is hardly "technology", but perhaps the engine & transmission inside of it is.
Personally I don't think the technology surrounding a computer is the computer itself, but the application of the computer's capability, that is, until quantum computing becomes more of a reality.
Just like the different applications of an automobile, or better yet, an internal combusion engine, have been more or less "finalized" in our society as to what they are efficient/not efficient to use in practice, I think what we are doing now with silicon is very similar to the automobile boom of the 50's & 60's.
In about 30 years, when we're old farts, and the new thing has come along and we're struggling to get our retirement benefits from our employers, I think the parallel will be more obvious.
-Erik-
I am all for this, but I have to be honest, if I were sitting on the other side of the table I would not find this proposal interesting at all.
The proposal provides very few ideas on how the company is actually going to benefit, all it says is "publicity and company awareness", and then is vague from there.
I also noticed that the publicity argument is a good 80% of the text. I just doesn't sound very solid if you ask me.
If anything, I like the idea, but I wish that Eric would go through and add a little more meat to the proposal... Not any promises but at least some hypothetical money-making solutions that would give the people over at Amiga something to mull over. Right now it sounds like a lot of theoretical hot air and empty promises if you ask me. (even though we know it's not)
-Erik-
I have had quite a bit of experience in getting linux systems easy to use. I'm alone in my little world for the most part as a linux geek, and the people around me rarely figure out even the simplest concepts in windows.
But it only takes me 10 seconds to show people windowmaker. There are only 2 ways within the GUI to launch applications, the stable versions RARELY, if EVER crash, and it's one of the few linux gui's out there that really can smoothly be configured from teh desktop. (I have had numerous problems with KDE and GNOME segfaulting when I try to configure them from the GUI)
If he has vision problems, Windowmaker is default setup with large icons and fonts.
The best thing would be to try this, and many other windowmanagers out there and ask him what he thinks is best, as what is best for one is not for another.
-Erik-
This isn't a file system issue though, it's an operating system one. Otherwise, you could have a stray pointer anywhere in a unix system and have disk corruption, which is what the previous poster is speaking of in MacOS. (Which, i'm not sure if he's right or not).
Linux doesn't require ext2fs to run, never has and never will. MacOS, AFAIK, needs HFS, like NT needs NTFS. Don't replace system instability with poorly written utilities.
-Erik-
I'm sorry, I don't get this.
Intel users create an argument. They get moderated down. They get bitched at. Granted, a lot of em deserve it.
This "informative" post is nothing but oxy-acetylene based flames. In fact, I don't see much of anything "informative" in this post at all. When you break down all the jargon and name-dropping, you get:
"My Mac is Better than Your PC because Apple and I say so".
I hate complaining about things like this but this is just utterly absurd. Some of the moderators out there really need to be put in check.
The best way for moderators to check against this is to think "what kind of replies is this going to generate".
I see nothing of value to reply to this, other than coming up with just as much data to prove this guy wrong, and basically say:
"My PC is better than your Mac because Intel and I say so".
They teach Critical Thinking classes in High School and College. Please, if you're not going to take them, at least apply what you already should know.
-Erik-
Disclaimer: If you're going to flame, please, by all means, email me. I don't like losing moderation points for the backlash you are going to recieve. :)
:)
The display problem can easily be fixed by running reset, at least with most display-related Xserver crashes (i've had a few that have done this on various video cards and it works).
The other 90% of the time it's a matter of user idiocy and a lack of understanding the hotkeys for virtual terminals. They get left at a cursorless console and think that nothing is happening, hence there is a need for some magic reboot.
The mount instance, is just... well... stupid. I can't think of any logical reason for that other than someone with a lot of time on their hands. It's no different than running a fork bomb as root. Not to mention, mount is tying I/O each time it is run... Constantly re-polling any device that takes time to activate (ie. any removable media, esp. on IDE) is going to destroy any system, not just unix or windows.
Remember, I/O is the bottleneck for Unix in the same way that CPU grunt is the bottleneck for Windows (I'm curious about BeOS and this.. anyone with a comment?)
Killing init (AFAIK here, please correct if wrong) is part of the shutdown process. Hence, if you're going to do that... well, you better be planning to reboot ahead of time.
Running any flawed program as root can crash a unix system, especially if it's doing any kind of direct I/O, or realtime scheduling. At the lowest level really, anything that makes the kernel do anything it's not supposed to do will crash the system, and with the exception of hardware error, is the only real way you can crash a unix system.
Windows (and I imagine MacOS as well, don't use it) passes a lot of the Real Work (tm) off to libraries, which have the ability to access the hardware directly. IIRC, Unix passes everything through the kernel first, which keeps this from being a problem and also keeps things like memory overwrites from happening, which is the biggest Windows killer. (see: GPF... Win2k RC2 doesn't do much better, at least Win98 made an attempt to recover, Win2k just locks the machine and basically says "no soup for you".)
Land is a remote DoS attack, based off of teardrop if I remember correctly. The bug exploited was present in the BSD TCP/IP protocol stack, which, you guessed it, runs in just about every major OS kernel. In the systems that don't, libraries that contain the stack for the system can easily gain direct hardware access. I don't think I need to mention what systems allow this.
At least from the few things that I've read, MacOS's biggest problem is very, very, very poor memory management. This is one of the many things that John Carmack touched on while critiquing the mac, and is probably a very good reason why a lot of the bigger named games aren't ported to it. (besides the obvious windows-is-the-only-platform ideology)
Sorry for my bantering - you work at a convenience store and try to explain this stuff to your customers.
-Erik-
I don't see how faster install times = easier installs.
After all, I could write a program to take a disk image and write it to disk, which, undoubtedly would be much faster, but has nothing to do with the simplicity of the install, which was, after all, the point.
-Erik-
Not support. If you have ever worked at an ISP, you know that most of the support goes into the "casuals" who don't know how to setup their accounts or figure out just exactly what the caps lock key does.
-Erik-
When you rent a movie or any piece of software, you still have to follow any laws applying to it, for the period of your rental. Hence, if hw/sw was "loaned", then the person renting could still take the GPL'd software and distribute it with full rights as stated in the license.
Although, I'm not sure if the company would be nessicarily required to distribute the source or if there would even be a differentation.. But it's an interesting question.
-Erik-
I know i'm going to get moderated down for this.
This is exactly what they're doing.... I got a copy of Win2k RC2, and I put it on since I figured I was going to reformat soon anyways...
I hate microsoft just as much as any other self-respecting slashdot user, but I have to admit that Win2k.... well... It's not a unix machine, but it's definately not 98 or NT, it actually works, keeps a stable uptime, lets me do what I need to do with the machine, and at least with DirectX it's faster.
My point is, is that it feels to me that they're actually making a more robust product... and without my having to spend a grand or so to make sure my processor would be fast enough to run it. (I have a PII-350, I'd say it probably runs fine on a P-200)
Granted, I also felt this way about the 98 RC's (yet I didn't get to test them at home doing 3-day Half-Life map compiles)
-Erik-
ATX1
:).
'nuff said (ahh... the days of doom & 2 modems in 1 room....)
It kind of disturbs me that so many people in here know so many languages, yet never spent 10 minutes reading their modem manual to figure this out.
Actually, all ATX1 does is disable the "NO DIALTONE" message, which most modem clients use to detect whether there is one or not. Technically, as long as the modem itself gets a handshake, it doesn't give a flying shit.
so, on the client...
ATX1(CR)
ATD(CR)
server...
ATX1(CR)
ATA(CR)
you *MUST* initiate the client first. Never gotten it to work the other way around.
blammo. you hear blackboard-scratching noises.. wait for "CONNECT" and you're ready to go
Although, don't waste your time with PPP if you can do SLIP over that kind of a connection... No sense in having to bother with all the bullshit involved in a PPP server.
-Erik-
Actually MS Mice are manufactured by Logitech :)
-Erik-
Why do you say that? Death is a simple fact of life, that's going to happen to all 100% of people.
I personally think it's rude to go outright and say "I don't care".. But the fact that someone feels that way shouldn't be such a sticky topic...
-Erik-
This is very open to interpretation. Linux has more security issues, because the code is able for review by anyone.
Beside the fact that I disagree with you, perhaps the reason that NT has less "security issues" is because the code is not open for such review.
If the code was at least open for REVIEW (not development), at least a lot of unresolved bugs that are going to pop up sooner or later, and take big hits with them. At least if the code is there for review, an admin could take steps to prevent something from getting exploited, even if it doesn't actually FIX the problem.
I'm a full advocate for open source, but when security is an issue, the more you can see the better.
-Erik-
Heh, counterstrike is the reason I don't play q3test much anymore... :)
Anyone who complains there isn't enough strategy in FPS games should try it out..
-Erik-
>I don't. I *do* know that if the woman fell
:)
>asleep after smoking pot (and only...) that you
>should have just left her sleep. I've *never*
>heard of or seen anybody just "pass out" from
>marijuana and I, like many here, have been
>around for many years. Combinations of, with
>alcohol, yes, but not marijuana alone. Where I
>find fault with your argument is starting off a
>post with "Pot KILLS people" and then going on
>to justify the post with a very unlikely story.
>I'm certainly not taking fault with you for
>trying to save someones life. It all just seemed
>a little, oh... off the deep end.
I had a straight bong that would do it, to be honest. It was called "The Terminator", and was 4' tall and about 6" in diameter. Made 2 people pass out on 1 hit, one guy who had been smoking regularily for 15 years.
It is possible, you just haven't seen it yet...
Besides, it was a novelty bong and we were getting way too high off of it.
-Erik-