|SUBJECT ||Re: [hangout] Re: Advocacy vs. Zealotry vs. Who Cares?!?
|From owner-hangout-destenys-at-mrbrklyn.com Sat Sep 4 14:36:36 2004
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id i84IaaJM002634
for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:36:36 -0400
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id i84IaZPF002633
for hangout-destenys; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:36:35 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: mdom set sender to owner-hangouts-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com using -f
Received: from mail.dadadada.net (MAIL.DADADADA.NET [126.96.36.199])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id i84IaWxW002624;
Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:36:32 -0400
Received: from billy by mail.dadadada.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1C3fPW-0003n2-00; Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:37:14 -0400
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:37:14 -0400
To: Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
Cc: Billy , hangout-at-nylxs.com
Subject: Re: [hangout] Re: Advocacy vs. Zealotry vs. Who Cares?!?
References: <20040902213438.M20206-at-mrbrklyn.com> <20040903171055.GA16130-at-mail.dadadada.net> <20040903175915.M35727-at-mrbrklyn.com> <20040904064424.GA28302-at-mail.dadadada.net> <20040904141339.M63977-at-mrbrklyn.com> <20040904140952.GA29928-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com> <20040904162459.GB9545-at-mail.dadadada.net> <20040904163441.GB31718-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com> <20040904174105.GE9545-at-mail.dadadada.net> <20040904181505.GC1566-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
List: New Yorker GNU Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribe name-at-domian.com in the body to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on www2.mrbrklyn.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 02:15:05PM -0400, Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS wrote:
> > > Actually it is. Even Visual Basic applications which leverage heavely
> > > the MSFT installs new DLL's and replaces old ones willie nillie.
> > Yeah, people get away with murder writing apps on Windows.
> > There are so many bad Windows programmers.
> > This isn't a fundamental weakness of Windows, is it?
> Yes - IT IS.
> The Kernel in Free Software has protections built into it to
> prevent the loading and execution of a wide variety of
There are plenty of Free Software kernels that don't.
If you're talking about Linux, talk about Linux.
This isn't about free software. Sheesh!
> It will flat out restrict access of users to a large
> number of network and memory resources.
> You actually have to use a programming exploit, or a bug.
Now look here, Windows provides the SAME PROTECTIONS.
This is ridiculous. I don't feel like you're listening to me.
You just keep repeating the same FUD.
> With MS products, you can just exploit the functionality intentionally
> built into the OS and the applications.
This is nonsense. 'MS products' are not the topic of discussion.
Windows is, specifically. You can compare IE and Mozilla,
SQLServer and Postgresql, Windows and Linux, MFC and gtk, or Excel
and gnumeric (or whatever), or Evolution and Outlook. Fine. But
you can't compare EVERYTHING MICROSOFT MAKES on one side of the scale to
the Linux kernel on the other side. It's just nonsensical.
Talk about the OS, or talk about the applications, but this thread is
too thin to discuss both at once.
> > > and XP. All processes are considered threads by the operating system. This
> > > makes the process context slightly lighter than the traditional
> > > heavyweight process model used in UNIX-like operating systems. As a
> > > consequence of this everything-is-a-thread model, however, everything
> > > sits in global memory address space. With the correct permissions and
> > > the correct address, one program could twiddle another program's bits.
> > This is total nonsense! Who wrote this?
> Someone named Beagel, I believe...
He's named after a windows worm?
Not someone I'd trust.
> > > Another consequence of this is data structures created by the kernel don't
> > > sit at any fixed address. This means it is up to the user program to lock
> > > down the associated memory before using any global data structures, such
> > > as graphic contexts. You also must remember to unlock these structures
> > > once you are done with them, or they may help cause memory fragmentation.
> > This is fine. The alternative is memory fragmentation, as he said. I
> > don't think Linux is any different in this regard. In fact, I can't
> > think of an instance where you even GET ACCESS to any kernel structures
> > in Linux.
> Right - because these memory blocks on in users space limited in access to
> processes, or you get a segmentation fault.
Yeah, this happens on Windows, too... I've seen this more than a few times
The program "Mozilla" has attempted unauthorized read
access to memory location 0x00000001, press 'Ok' to
terminate, and 'Cancel' to debug.
The "Lock" and "Unlock" functions he's referring to can expose and hide
a single data structure from the kernel to the user program. Linux
doesn't do this. It isn't a security feature or a bug or anything.
It's just a different way to do the job of setting up a drawing context
(in his example). On Windows, drawing contexts are kernel objects, and
on Linux, they are part of the X server (which runs suid root). This is
a big architectural difference, but doesn't make Windows worse, per se,
> > So this is really not an apples-to-apples comparison.
> Apple - we're not getting into Apple as well :-|
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc