Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage
From: Moe Trin (ibuprofin_at_painkiller.example.tld)
Date: 08/11/05
- Next message: Moe Trin: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Previous message: Walter Roberson: "Re: Blocking Access to web-based email"
- In reply to: Charles Newman: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Next in thread: I am a Sock Puppet: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Reply: I am a Sock Puppet: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:02:48 -0500
In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<suidneJsldrVZmffRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Charles Newman wrote:
>"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote
>> I got rid of windoze before they invented networking so I don't know
> Well, Windows may be in your future, if you are still working in IT
>in 2011. I have heard that Microsoft is coming out with a Unix-based
>version of Windows, due out in 2011. It will be a Unix/Linux based OS
>capable of running all existing Windows and DOS software, as well as
>anything that Unix can compile and run. This future version of Windows
>will have a Unix/Linux front-end that will be capable of running all Dos
>and Windows programs.
Are you on the board of directors of microsoft, or are you merely parroting
what someone you don't wish to cite said because the mere concept you
propose is so ludicrous. By the way, I hear that Cadillac will introduce
a diesel powered 18 wheeler in 2011 that will run on synthetic fuel created
from recycled beef tallow formally used to cook french fries at McDonalds,
and that story has more fact in it that your fairy tail.
I know you are unaware of it, but microsoft did have a "UNIX" (actually
Solaris) version of internet exploiter. It required several add-ons to
run (it needed all of the windoze libraries - because microsoft couldn't
figure out how to make it run using the existing libraries, in spite of
Netscape having no trouble doing so), and had many of the security holes,
and crashed very frequently. Solaris IE resembled a well written UNIX
application in the same way that a fish resembles a 1961 Pontiac Bonneville
2-door hardtop. It was withdrawn because it wasn't selling, and the DOJ was
on microsoft's case about IE being an indispensable part of windoze.
By the way, microsoft may run into a tiny problem about being a UNIX or
Linux based O/S. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group, and to
use that term, you need to prove that your O/S meets _all_ of the standards
set by The Open Group, and pay a license fee. Linux on the other hand is
a trademark owned by Linus Torvalds, and the license is (to put it mildly)
_quite_ different, and both differ from the BSD License.
As far as running "all existing Windows and DOS software", even you should
know that's a bald faced lie. Windoze can't even run all existing Windows
and DOS software. On the other hand, quite a number of old DOS and early
windoze applications can run under WINE - a free part of a number of *nix
distributions.
>It will be Unix-like, and have all the Windows APIs needed to run all
>existing Windows and DOS programs,
and so, only need 24 Gigs of RAM for the base install, a 10 Gigahertz
processor (and will still run slow) and a 270 Gig hard drive
>but will be much more secure then any existing Windows release now,
>including Windows Vista,
See, now this statements proves that this whole thing is a lie. Microsoft
and it's supporters would NEVER admit that windoze isn't secure.
>due out in late 2006 or early 2007.
Is that a date slippage already? Only last week, you were promising
that Windows Vista would be in the stores for Christmas 2006.
>You will get the rock-solid stability of Unix,
>with the flexibility to run Windows software.
Never heard of VMWare?
>Microsoft is apparently taking a cue from Mac OS X and deciding to make a
>Unix-based version of Windows for the future.
They did have a good base system called VMS, that they "improved" into NT.
Virtually all of the security features had to be removed or disabled,
because they got in the way of "ease of operation". What makes you think
anything would be done differently if they tried to copy *nix?
>The only problem is that all the Windows guys coming out of the colleges now
>will have to learn Unix/Linux after the Microsoft release scheduled for 2011.
Perhaps you should try to get a head start. Go to http://www.distrowatch.com
and for under ten bucks you can have your pick of a dozen or so distributions
that run on your 64 bit AMD box - it was actually available since the
announcement of that chip - well before the hardware was actually in stores.
>If you can run Linux on your PC, then you will be able to ruin the Windows
>release scheduled for 2011.
That typo is absolutely beautiful.
>It will likely run best on a 64-bit machine. If Microsoft is doing this, it
>will likelye the first 64-bit Unix or Linux system available for Intel/AMD
>based systems.
64 bit Linux for Intel and AMD has been available IN STORES for over a year.
The O/S that Intel used to _test_ prototypes of the IA-64 architecture was
Linux which you can verify on the Intel web site. Yet another example of how
microsoft is YEARS behind the times. 64 bit Linux on other architectures
such as the DEC Alpha, Sun Ultra Sparc, and PPC64 has also been available
for years - but I guess because microsoft can't run anything on those
platforms, you weren't aware they existed. Now that I think about it, the
Alpha was running Linux in 1995, BEFORE microsoft tried to provide limited
32 bit support.
As for a 64 bit branded UNIX - try Solaris, it's been out for a while too.
And while it doesn't run on Intel/AMD, you might try to guess how long
Compaq Tru64 (aka Digital Unix, formally DEC OSF/1, now HP Tru64 UNIX) has
been available, and why it has the digits "64" in the name.
>I would imagine it will probaly be at least 2012 or 2013 before the colleges
>can re-tool to teach Unix once the Unix-based version of Windows comes out.
That is probably going to be earth shaking news down at Berkeley, never mind
San Jose State or even Foothill/DeAnza.
>When I was at CSU Sacramento and they were planning to change the curriculum,
>they gave two years notice, so that existing students who would not graduate
>before the changes could get certain courses they needed under their catalog
>rights, in order to graduate. That is how I know that the CSU system would
>need at least two years to re-tool thier business and computer science
>schools to be able to teach the Unix-based version of Windows.
Except that it doesn't and won't exist. You really ought to learn how to
use google as a search engine. Here's a hint: "UNIX Trademark" makes a
wonderful starting point.
>In the years I was there, CSUS was getting rid of a lot of the Unix-based
>machines in its computer science labs in favor or Winodws NT machines. Unix
>was being phased out in the late 1990s at CSUS. One reason being that the
>VAX and Sun machines, which Unix was being run on, had the Y2K bug,
What is "the Y2K bug" ? Kindly provide citations from someone like CERT or
NIST identifying this. No, not press accounts - they're all as accurate as
your fairy tail. I remember seeing (in _several_ major retail stores) power
cords labeled as Y2K Certified - that buzzword was a market-droids bonanza.
Oh, and I still have some early 1990s Sun boxes running SunOS 4.1.1 which is
an early 1990s release - it's keeping perfect time.
>and would not dsiplay the proper date after Jan 1, 2000, so they were slowly
>replaced in 1998 and 1999 with Windows NT workstations.
I don't seem to be having a problem with the Suns. Sorry Charles - that's a
C library function called time_t, and the library call you are looking for is
[compton ~]$ whatis ctime
ctime (3) - transform binary date and time to ASCII
[compton ~]$
'time_t' on a 32 bit system has a problem in that it will "roll over" on
January 18, 2038. A quick fix would be to redefine a 'long' as 8 bytes
rather than 4 on a 32 bit system, as has been the case on 64 bit systems
for twenty years. But then, I don't know how many people will be running
32 bit systems in 2030.
Old guy
- Next message: Moe Trin: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Previous message: Walter Roberson: "Re: Blocking Access to web-based email"
- In reply to: Charles Newman: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Next in thread: I am a Sock Puppet: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Reply: I am a Sock Puppet: "Re: IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
