Linux-Advocacy Digest #412, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (Mig Mig)
Re: Are we equal? (david parsons)
Re: Linux NFS is buggy (david parsons)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Compulsory open source considered in France (Reuters) (Bill Unruh)
Re: Which OS is WORST? (JoeX1029)
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Esther Schindler)
Re: Programs for Linux ("Poongunran Muthukumaran")
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (JoeX1029)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix (Angus Cameron)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (JFW)
Re: Virus on the net? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 15:41:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
[...]
>Apparantly you missed my followup post.
Well, maybe. Usenet isn't a highly reliable medium.
>Sorry to say that I do not have a "certification" in linux, but I do have
>enough experience to understand that it is at its *very* best, GNU-unix.
[...]
It is mostly GNUish, but you can alway use the sources of other UN*X
variants in case you don't like the GNU-versions. You'll perhaps have
to do some editing on the Makefiles, but that's it.
I've replaced the GNU version of "su" for the very same reason :)
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:17:28 +0200
Jim Richardson wrote:
> > - app to view realtime what connections are made right now
> netstat, ethereal, tcpdump, others
Ethereal i use but its not usable for my purposes. Actually i fell over
"etherape" (etherape.sourceforge.net) that does what i wanted.. a bit more
development and it really gets to be a valuable application.
I can recomend "etherape" if you want a live update of what connections
youre "involved" in.
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Are we equal?
Date: 8 May 2000 12:45:56 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Craig Kelley wrote:
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) writes:
>> >
>> > > Elian is from a country that we have barred any type of trade with.
>> > > Nothing from Cuba is allowed in the U.S. My best friends dad and 2
>> > > sisters had to spend so amny months (6 i think) in the US to get
>> > > citizenship. His sister finished school early and went back home
>> > > and got stripped of her citizenship. Is that equal? Why should
>> > > Elian be allowed to stay in the States? He should have been back
>> > > the same day he arrived here.
>> >
>> > His mother died brining him here.
>>
>> [...] How many mexicans die
>> trying to bring their children here?
>
>So have a heart then. Give in every once in a while.
Not that this has much to do with Linux, but why should the United
States screw up some kid's life because some rich emigres wish to
prop up a bananna republic in the Caribbean? It's already more
than enough that the USA has maintained a stupid blockade simply so
the Cuban government can use it to distract attention from the tiny
detail that the island is surviving on tourism and prostitution.
The Miami emigres should just get used to knowing that eventually
Fidel will lose power (though at this point, thanks to their efforts,
it will be at about the same time he finishes breathing) and their 15
minutes of fame will be over.
____
david parsons \bi/ And the sooner the better.
\/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Linux NFS is buggy
Date: 8 May 2000 12:52:26 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We have an Ultra 10 running Solaris 2.7 with a SCSI DAT Drive. We NFS
>mount the users' files on a second Ultra, a Sparc 10, an old HP UNIX
>box and an old SCO Intel box so they may be tar'd to tape.
>
>About a month ago we introduced a Linux box (Mandrake 7.x) into the
>equation. What a mistake! The backup stops at random locations
>within the NFS mounted Linux file system. At first we thought the
>tape drive was faulty and dragged a Sun technician out to replace it.
>But the problems still recurred.
There's a pretty simple solution to that problem: if the Linux box
doesn't interoperate with Solaris, take one of them out.
>We spent a good fortnight getting NFS on the Linux box to work in the
>first place. Now we find it's buggy.
A fortnight? What did you do, write your own NFS server for Linux?
I've spent about a fortnight trying out replacements for Linux
because of a couple of problems with the Linux userland nfs server
(no locking, hashing collisions) but it only took me a matter of
minutes to replace the previous SGI nfs server with a Linux box.
____
david parsons \bi/ And the distressing thing is that nfsv2 is about
\/ 3x as fast on Linux as it is on FreeBSD :-(
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:27:57 -0700
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> His claim is that all software developers benefit from the work done in
> Microsoft application divisions, since Microsoft takes that code and makes
> it available to 3rd parties via Windows API's.
In a haste to define their rights to innovate, MS has begun to
admit their own developers have an unfair advantage.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Compulsory open source considered in France (Reuters)
Date: 8 May 2000 20:35:01 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Axel Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The French parliament is considering a proposed law which would oblige
>government agencies to buy only open-source software. See
>www4.zdnet.com:80/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2556031,00,html
Well, I think that they should make it part of the copyright law.. Give
software 2 years copyright, extended to say 5 or 7 if the source code
is
published. A company could decide they did not want to publish, and thus
accept the 2 years.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: 08 May 2000 21:00:38 GMT
dude why don't you take Winblowme some where else seeing as you posted in
linux.advocacy group you wintroll
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:28:05 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 8 May 2000 07:59:01 -0700...
...and david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
>
> Oh, so Gnome is nannyware? Good, that's another reason to keep it
> off my systems.
Not exactly nannyware. It's just GNOME's file manager that complains
if you want to run it as root because it has not been audited for
security holes.
The logic behind this (and this has been amply explained on the
mailing lists) is that anyone who is aware what they are doing when
running an unaudited file manager as root can rip the anti-root
countermeasures right out of the source code beforehand since they're
probably a knowledgable system administrator.
I personally hope that they'll finally get their act together for
Nautilus and build some decent architecture for doing things as root
with it.
mawa
--
Death is life's way of telling you you've been fired.
-- R. Geis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:31:06 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 08 May 2000 13:14:46 -0500...
...and Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The ultimate goal of a CEO may be towards corporate centrailzation,
> > but our (Earth's) nature does not tolerate uniformity, no matter how
> > hard they try. It's one of the beauties of the free market, it
> > requires little maintenance to keep it functioning fairly because
> > there will always be an individual who is unhappy with the market
> > leader's product.
>
> There really is no "free market", corporations are tools for
> controlling such, and are doing quite a good job so far.
A free market needs an enormous amount of maintenance by a dedicated
government and of course by NGOs (consumer protection agencies,
standards organisations etc.).
mawa
--
Level 2 - Data Link Layer
User is a major player in the development of XYZ package which is
included in all distros of Linux.
-- Cliff Pratt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Schindler)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:00:13 GMT
Yes, I agree -- although most of us leave our Cynicism Meter set to
high for *any* vendor. :-)
--Esther
On Mon, 8 May 2000 14:42:34, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Schindler) wrote:
|
| > Sigh. It's tough to be knowledgeable about every technology out
| > there... and even tougher to know every technology well enough to
| > recognize it when someone misleads you.
| >
| But not so tough to learn to "consider the source," and have your
| skepticism alraedy out of the box, especially when the source has a
| track record like M$'s.
|
| --
| Jim Naylor
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Poongunran Muthukumaran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 15:51:41 -0500
Go to :
http://sal.kachinatech.com/index.shtml
and choose Graphics, Images and Signals and choose sub category CAD,Drawing
and painting tools.
You can see a lot of commercial as well as GPL applications.
Its all out there. You just goto find it. If you want a variation, You can
custamize it.
Thats what is cool abt linux
regards,
poongs
Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sXoR4.50397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello all, to start off, I'd like to tell you what this is about. I am a
> certified Linux Admin, and I have several
> issues about programs for Linux that I would like to talk about. Just to
> clarify to all of the dull-brained argumentative people (you know who you
> are): I am using Windows to write this.
>
> I like Linux, I think it's the coolest OS in the world, however any OS
needs
> programs to make it popular. If I was just going to be an Internet Junkie,
> Linux is fine. I can listen to my multimedia files, I can chat on ICQ, and
I
> can surf the web. However, I can not do the productive things I want to
do.
>
> First off, I want to be able to do lots of CAD, and I want to use my CAD
> work to design electronic devices. Print blueprints... et cetera.
>
> Another thing I would like to is Advanced 3D modeling and other 3D
imaging.
> Perhaps I want to make a model of something I want to build, or make a 3D
> computer-animated cartoon.
>
> I want to compose MIDI files. Nuff said.
>
> I want to use IEEE 1394 to edit videos.
>
> I want to make Employee Identification Cards with a plastic card printer.
> Just like the one they have at the local YMCA to make member cards.
>
> If you know of some post-development applications that can do these
things,
> tell us all!!!
> You can email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If not, guys and gals, we need to get busy programming!
>
> --NSC--
> _The Liquid Linux Project_
>
>
> Posted on: alt.linux, alt.os.linux, alt.os.linux.caldera,
> alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> comp.os.linux.questions
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: 08 May 2000 21:06:18 GMT
or MAYBE you're just a flaming idiot??!!!?!?
<Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
to operate correctly.>
2 weeks!! shit, you a stupid one!!
Took me 2 min...
I bet you can't even even tell me when DOS 1.0 came out (or for that matter
what it stands for)
So what other OS's have you installed Winblowme dosen't count. People like you
just need to pack up your box and sell it on ebay.
=========
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:57:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Mon, 08 May 2000 12:35:26 GMT...
> ...and Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, the reason for the high number of dependencies of, say, the
> > > GNOME panel, compared to, say, kpanel, is the greater modularity
of
> > > the supporting libraries GNOME uses.
> >
> > Actually, no. It's because KDE's modularity is done better ;-)
>
> I'm not talking about the KDE libraries (which are split pretty much
> the same way as gnome-libs), but about Qt. Qt is a large monolithic
> chunk AFAICS. GTK+ consists of three libraries minimum (not counting
> libgthread, libgmodule etc.).
If every app is going to link glib, gdk and gtk, what's the point
of having three libraries?
> BTW, has KDE got any equivalent to the GNOME canvas (main reason we
> link to libart_lgpl is antialiasing and affine transformations for
> canvas members) and the gnome-print architecture?
Well, Qt applications have been able to print since Qt 1.2 or so, so
I don't know what you mean, exactly ;-)
As for the canvas, there is (or was) something called QCanvas floating
around, but I have no idea if it's equivalent.
> > > For example, kpanel only links to
> > > libjpeg. Probably, other image formats are loaded by loaders built
> > > into libqt or one of the libkde*s directly. (Or maybe you don't
even
> > > support formats other than JPEG and XPM while we can load about
every
> > > format in the known universe, frankly I don't know.)
> >
> > It loads pretty much anything.
>
> (gdk_pixbuf does PNG, JPEG, XPM, GIF, Windows ICO, RAS, TIFF, PNM and
> BMP and is extensible of course)
Pretty much the same thing, yes.
> > However, to do that, you don't need to
> > have the libraries linked, which increases startup time.
>
> Startup time isn't the Holy Grail.
It's a good thing to improve if it doesn't break anything else, and
modular runtime-loaded image loaders certainly fits that description.
> Anyway I just found out that
> gdk_pixbuf uses the same architecture (loading plugins at runtime),
> so all that linking against image format loaders must be due to that
> vile old Imlib we're still dragging around.
Ok.
> > > panel links to libtiff, libjpeg, libpng (thus, also to libz); it
links
> > > to libgdk_pixbuf, thus it links to libart_lgpl, too etc. etc. For
> > > legacy reasons we still link to libgdk_imlib, we'll drop Imlib
with
> > > GNOME 2.0, however.
> > >
> > > Also, the GNOME panel uses CORBA. ORBit and GNORBA means another
five
> > > libraries. Using GTK+ means linking to GDK and glib, too.
> > >
> > > GNOME has got panel applets, KDE hasn't yet; that means linking to
one
> > > more library etc. etc.
> >
> > KDE2's kicker has applets (in fact, everything in it is an applet),
and
> > it is in the list above.
>
> I know that.
Then I fail to see the point of what you said. That's probably just me.
> However, there's no stable released version of a KDE
> panel supporting applets.
Sure. KDE 1.89. Or wait a couple of weeks.
> Anyway it's interesting to see how both
> sides make cover versions of the other side's features. The applets
> clearly weren't a KDE idea.
Of course not, they were a window maker (or afterstep, or NeXT) idea!
Or you meant they were somehow a GNOME idea?
> I'd also love to know how exactly Magellan
> and Konqueror influenced Nautilus and Evolution.
Good question.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Angus Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,local.unix.general
Subject: Re: Malicious scripts on Unix
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 14:02:37 -0700
> >Bob Tennent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 05 May 2000 13:38:43 -0500, Brian Fristensky wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Unix mailers are still susceptible
> >> >to malicious scripts.
Yes, but if the script comes in as an email attachment, the user must
save the attachment, change the permissions, and run it. Easy to do,
but it's enough of a hassle that it's unlikely that it would take off
like ILOVEYOU (IMNSHO).
AC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:15:42 GMT
On 8 May 2000 19:42:50 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>And to anyone who thinks Linux is hard to install, I issue this
>challenge: wipe a system bare, install Linux first, THEN install Windows.
>
>After 13 years of DOS/Windows experience and 6 months with Linux, I tried
>this. It definately confirmed my suspicions about which system offers
>the more advanced, more complete, and simpler installation utilities.
Well... ms installers are very advanced about seeking and wiping out
foreign operating systems and boot managers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:13:20 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 19:50:07 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:51:47 -0400, Nik Simpson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No it's not. You can't put #!/path/to/jpeg-viewer as the top line in a
>jpeg file, set the exec bit, and have it work.
No, it doesn't work, but only because the jpeg viewer can't handle the
extra junk in the file. I just tried it with a gif and the xv viewer. Put
"#!/usr/X11R6/bin/xv" at the top of a gif and then "chmod a+x test.gif".
Running the gif launched xv, which just printed a hex dump of the file
since the gif header is all borked up now.
The magicfilter print filter uses the #! mechanism and you don't need to
do anything special to make it work (other than installing magicfilter).
>The #! mechanism is built into Unix specifically for supporting scripting
>languages and calling scripts directly. It does not support general data
More specifically, it supports script languages that use # as a comment or
that ignore the first line of the script.
>files. The file association mechanism in Windows was originally built for
>general data files, i.e. .jpg, .html, .doc, etc. etc. and then later used
>for scripting tools as they were added to windows. This has lead to
>confusion of the terms "open" and "execute".
I don't know where the confusion comes from but I'm not at all sure that
the file association mechanism is the root of it. I think it is more from
the "document centric paradigm" that once was the "future of computing".
>There is certainly a serious risk in executing any script from an unknown
>source on any OS. That's why a good UI, be it for Unix or Windows, should
>clearing distinguish between "open" and "execute".
I can certainly agree with this. But that would conflict with "document
centric computing".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:27:58 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 22:00:25 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Steinberg wrote:
>
>> Something tells me that if the answer to any of these was "yes," you
>> wouldn't have too much trouble with current Linux distributions.
>>
>> For some reason, I think the troll's vast experience in installing OSes
>> consists of upgrading his Windows 95 preload to Windows 98.
>>
>> And to anyone who thinks Linux is hard to install, I issue this
>> challenge: wipe a system bare, install Linux first, THEN install Windows.
>
>I do agree. It seems most of those complaining that Linux is hard to
>install compared to Windows, never tryed to install Windows on a bare
>machine. I think the turning point where Linux passed Windows regarding
>installation was with RedHat 5.1.. this is long ago in IT.
>
I installed win95 in a vmware virtual box which (before version 2.x) was
about as bare as you can get. Partition. Format. Install Dos. Find CDROM
drivers. etc. About 10 reboots in all.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:37:33 -0500
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 06:15:12 GMT, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >On Sat, 6 May 2000 22:44:14 -0500,
> > Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
>
> >>The virus downloaded and installed another trojan called WIN-BUGFIX.EXE,
> >>which did steal passwords, but the virus itself does not.
>
> >I am disagreeing with your claim that it did none of this. You were
> >wrong, you even admit as much in the above.
>
> You will find that Erik's hair-splitter is one of the sharpest around. I
> believe it can split a human hair into at least 18 distinct parts.
Touche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 8 May 2000 21:29:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy M. Buchenrieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> [...]
>>Apparantly you missed my followup post.
> Well, maybe. Usenet isn't a highly reliable medium.
>>Sorry to say that I do not have a "certification" in linux, but I do have
>>enough experience to understand that it is at its *very* best, GNU-unix.
> [...]
> It is mostly GNUish, but you can alway use the sources of other UN*X
> variants in case you don't like the GNU-versions. You'll perhaps have
> to do some editing on the Makefiles, but that's it.
I understand this, but most new linux users do not. I look at 'wheel'
as a nessesary bit of security, while GNU sees it as a bullshit piece
of fascism. Since GNU controls most of how linux is developed, most
people who use it wont get the chance to make the decision for
themselves.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:15:40 GMT
> "Updates to Windows and Office technologies that could, for example,
> protect against attacks such as the LoveBug virus would also be much
> harder for computer users to obtain."
>
> Yes, Bill. The DOJ is trying to take away your ability to protect
your
> customers, for whom you care so deeply, from ILOVEYOU. Considering
how
> long it's been since Melissa, I don't know how they could possibly
slow
> down the release of such updates to technology any more.
Hey, wasn't the big thing touted when the released Win95 was that it
would find viruses? What happened to that? Did they give up? Or was
hammering Explorer into the OS (which was easily removed by college
students) take up too much of their time? Is THIS what is meant by
freedom to innovate?
So far, at least according to latest estimates, this has cost $10
billion dollars. Had some companies not been using Lotus notes (or
Macs), it would have cost more. Hmmm... seems to remind me of the
importance of diversity...
L
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: JFW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:45:03 -0700
On Mon, 08 May 2000 00:52:25 -0500, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, those innovative folks at Microsoft have done it again! This time,
>they've invented XML. Read about it here:
>
>
>
>http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19908-2000May6.html
>
>=====
>Ballmer hopes to build Microsoft's new identity partly around a
>computing language known as XML. Invented several years ago by two
>Microsoft technologists, it allows easy exchange of information among
>different devices, across the Internet.
>=====
While I disagree with the term "invented" (which sounds like an
Ignatius misinterpretation), there IS truth to the notion that MS was
_deeply_ involved in the creation and spearheading of the XML
standard.
Have you actually looked at who are the main individuals involved with
the creation and ongoing maintenance of the XML standard? And more
specifically, whom their employer is?
jfw
P.S. I always considered XML the "engulf" phase...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:40:41 -0500
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f6g2i$j03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Security is not much of an issue here. Chances are, a user on a
> > workstation will have write access to most data files on his
> > machine. And may or may not have access to files on a server. The
> > same is true of Windows, since network resources can be restricted.
>
> Not necessarily. On my home Linux system, the only reason that a
> majority of files can be written by me without needing sudo is the
> sheer quantity of source files I keep lying around... :^)
I said most data files, not most files. The virus is unique in that it
copies itself primarily to data files (jpegs, mpegs, etc..) and then changes
their type.
> Running as root/admin hasn't been smart for years on any platform.
> Time for a particularly amusing quote from my .sig DB...
You wouldn't have to run as admin to still cause damage and still propogate
the virus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: 8 May 2000 21:37:34 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 May 2000 17:49:39 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 8 May 2000 07:59:01 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so Gnome is nannyware? Good, that's another reason to keep it
>>>> off my systems.
>>
>>> ...only barks if you're DUMB enough to run a desktop as root.
>>
>>Ahh...the psychology of a nannyware advocate...
>>
>>There are actually a few reasons to run X as root, briefly.
> Like what? There's no reason you can't run an X app from
> either a su service running in an xterm or one that will
> log you in without showing you a commmand line.
Ummm..jed, listen....
Just because you have never had the occassion to do such a thing doesnt mean
that NO one has. Ive had a number of test environments set up where running X
as root (in order to make nicing compression processes/encryption schemes much
less complicated in a much larger and complex equation) was not only very
helpful, but entirely safe.
There are no absolutes, and there are especially no absolutes in UNIX. One of
the reasons that I despise gnome is that it, like you, assumes that there are
absolutes.
>>
>>Gnome really does suck, seriously.
> The sort incapable of running from the console are precisely
> the sort that NEED nannyware to clue them in on the basics
> they chose not to inform themselves of.
Gnome may be *decent* for extreme newbies, but its stability, reliability and
consistency have been in question since its very first day. And deservedly
so.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
