Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Under Unix, you'd have to install some 
> stuff and configure it before that would work. (Argue amongst yourselves 
> which one is better...)

  I really can't understand where you are getting this from. Not from what
I said, at least. I said that transferring files has been one of the core
features of unix from the very beginning. You make it sound like I had said
the exact opposite: That you need to do a lot of work to achieve that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2011 11:12 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Under Unix, you'd have to install some
>> stuff and configure it before that would work. (Argue amongst yourselves
>> which one is better...)
>
>    I really can't understand where you are getting this from. Not from what
> I said, at least. I said that transferring files has been one of the core
> features of unix from the very beginning. You make it sound like I had said
> the exact opposite: That you need to do a lot of work to achieve that.

You said that it's always been easy to transfer files with Unix, and 
that Windows makes it far too difficult.

I said that Windows allows it *by default*, whereas under Unix you'd 
have to set up and configure a bunch of stuff first.

So, by my reckoning, transferring files is *easier* with Windows, not 
harder.

Now, if you want to talk about *security*, that's an entire other topic 
of course...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Now I haven't tried it, but I'm told is approximately /impossible/ to 
> actually configure X so that you can access it remotely. Even though 
> that's its entire design goal.

  I don't know what you mean.

  For the sake of it, I just now tried to do a "ssh -X" to a friend's computer
(who is also running linux) and ran xclock. It opened nicely on my screen,
even though the program itself is running on my friend's computer (which is
physically located something like 200 km from here).

  (For some reason xclock is the de-facto "standard" X program to test
running X apps remotely. Probably because it's very light and ubiquitous
in all X installations.)

  Yes, you have to specify a special parameter to ssh in order to enable
X forwarding, but that's for safety reasons rather than anything else.

> >    It's Windows that was designed to be a purely local system, and to which
> > remote running was patched in later.

> And yet, Windows is the one where I run a command, type in the name of 
> any networked PC, and I have remote access. By default. No special 
> configuration required.

  What kind of configuration did I do to be able to log in into my friend's
computer and run an app remotely? Or to transfer files for that matter (which
was the original point)?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 13/09/2011 08:30 AM, Warp wrote:

> >    I like how to you everything in Windows is "trivial". Like using soft or
> > hard links (which, btw, I have still no idea how to do, regardless of your
> > assurances that it's very easy).

> End users aren't supposed to use this technology. It's used "under the 
> hood" by various Windows features. Remember, the desktop Windows OS is 
> designed to be operated by morons.

  I don't think Windows uses soft links itself either. Soft links are
supported by NTFS, but I don't think Windows itself uses them for anything.
(After all, Windows has to be able to work if installed on a FAT32 partition
too.) Same's probably true for hard links.

  (And no, "shortcuts" are not soft links. They are a completely different
thing.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2011 11:28 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On 13/09/2011 08:30 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>>>     I like how to you everything in Windows is "trivial". Like using soft or
>>> hard links (which, btw, I have still no idea how to do, regardless of your
>>> assurances that it's very easy).
>
>> End users aren't supposed to use this technology. It's used "under the
>> hood" by various Windows features. Remember, the desktop Windows OS is
>> designed to be operated by morons.
>
>    I don't think Windows uses soft links itself either. Soft links are
> supported by NTFS, but I don't think Windows itself uses them for anything.
> (After all, Windows has to be able to work if installed on a FAT32 partition
> too.) Same's probably true for hard links.

I'm fairly sure System Restore uses hardlinks. (Not that you can tell by 
looking at it.) At least, it does on NTFS. On FAT, it presumably makes 
copies of the files. Then again, there's all sorts of features that 
don't work on FAT and only work on NTFS. (For example, I believe 
"offline folders" only works for NTFS.)

>    (And no, "shortcuts" are not soft links. They are a completely different
> thing.)

No, they aren't. They are special files that are interpreted by Windows 
Explorer. The hold no special significance for any other programs.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I said that Windows allows it *by default*

  So how exactly would I transfer a file to you from my Windows?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2011 11:25 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Now I haven't tried it, but I'm told is approximately /impossible/ to
>> actually configure X so that you can access it remotely. Even though
>> that's its entire design goal.
>
>    I don't know what you mean.
>
>    For the sake of it, I just now tried to do a "ssh -X" to a friend's computer
> (who is also running linux) and ran xclock. It opened nicely on my screen,
> even though the program itself is running on my friend's computer (which is
> physically located something like 200 km from here).

Like I said, I haven't personally tried to run X remotely. (I wouldn't 
know how.) I'm told it requires spending hours editing the X 
configuration files to set up authentication and so forth, and then to 
make sure the server is started, and then to tell the application you 
want to run to open on the remote machine rather than the local one (by 
using CLI options that vary for every individual program so you have to 
look them up), and then...

And that's without encryption. If you want encryption, now you have to 
also install and configure an ssh server and client, set up 
authentication and encryption keys and god-knows what else.

>> And yet, Windows is the one where I run a command, type in the name of
>> any networked PC, and I have remote access. By default. No special
>> configuration required.
>
>    What kind of configuration did I do to be able to log in into my friend's
> computer and run an app remotely? Or to transfer files for that matter (which
> was the original point)?

So you're seriously telling me that with a default Linux install, not 
only is an ssh server installed, but it's actually configured to allow 
incoming connections and service them? And that X will actually work in 
this configuration?

I know nothing about X, but I do remember setting up my old laptop to be 
an ssh server so I could RDP into my Windows box over the Internet. It 
was a hellish nightmare of wading through manpages finding out how the 
hell to do what I actually wanted to do...

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2011 11:40 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I said that Windows allows it *by default*
>
>    So how exactly would I transfer a file to you from my Windows?

You can't. My PC is firewalled.

You also can't transfer a file using Unix, for the same reason.

That said, Windows file sharing is designed for the LAN. It really 
doesn't work properly over the Internet. You would need some kind of VPN 
connection to make it work properly. Unix, on the other hand, has tools 
which *do* work over the Internet. Things like FTP and so forth.

If both machines are on the same LAN, sharing files between Windows 
hosts becomes trivial.

Post a reply to this message

> On 13/09/2011 11:40 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I said that Windows allows it *by default*
>>
>> So how exactly would I transfer a file to you from my Windows?
>
> You can't. My PC is firewalled.
>
> You also can't transfer a file using Unix, for the same reason.
>
> That said, Windows file sharing is designed for the LAN. It really
> doesn't work properly over the Internet. You would need some kind of VPN
> connection to make it work properly. Unix, on the other hand, has tools
> which *do* work over the Internet. Things like FTP and so forth.
>
> If both machines are on the same LAN, sharing files between Windows
> hosts becomes trivial.

If both Unix machines  are on a LAN, sharing files becomes as trivial.

There are Linux distros that start ftpd, remote shell and NFS by 
default, or at least ask you if you want to do it at installation time.

Same thing for Solaris, AIX and other *NIX variants.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-09-13 04:07, Invisible a écrit :
> On 12/09/2011 10:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:17:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
>>> users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
>>> Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
>>> trusted. But anyway...
>>
>> Every unix system can do this with something like sshfs installed - on
>> the client side only - and sshd running on the server.
>
> Yes, if you /install stuff/ you can do it.
>
> My point is that Windows lets you do this by default.
 > Nothing to install,

Correction: Everything required is installed as part of the default 
installation.

> nothing to configure.

Correction:  Everything is preconfigured as part of the default 
installation.

> It's the *default* configuration state,
> unless you purposely changed it.

SO, if I was to provide you with a Linux distro that had ftpd and sshd 
installed by default, and allowed remote root logins, would you concede 
the point?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message