Linux-Advocacy Digest #558, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Mercury (was: No More Linux!) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Anonymous)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 22:16:06 GMT
Rich Soyack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > and I haven't had a blood transfusion since
>> >> >1973 (if at all -- appendix operation)...
>> >>
>> >> But those $10 hookers...
>> >
>> >False premise #1: that I use hookers
>> >False premise #2: that men can get AIDS from women in normal vaginal sex.
>>
>> That's how it spreads in most of the world, dimwit. Through
>> heterosexual intercourse.
>
>But the most common vector is not vaginal sex but anal sex,
Wrong. AIDS worldwide is usually spread by vaginal sex.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Mercury (was: No More Linux!)
Date: 16 May 2001 20:14:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You've got to be kidding me! We've had problem to no end with Mercury at
>> my POW (mail loops, server abends etc). Our Novell admins are now in the
>> process of migrating to NIMS Mail. The only real advantage that one has
>> with a Mercury/Pegasus combo is that it enables you to use native IPX to
>> talk to the mail server.
>
>Sounds like you're using the NLM version of Mercury. We're using the version
Yes, we are.
>for windows, running it on a W2k pro box. Mail directories are on a Netware
>4.1 server. This setup is quite reliable. I have no experience with the NLM
>version. We have about 75 users, so I don't know well our setup would scale
>to a large user base.
We've got around 5000 Mercury and NIMS users. The rest (around 2000) is
mainly on sendmail and a few small-scale others (Exchange, Mercury for
Windows etc). Our relaying systems are sendmail on Solaris.
>> Also, I don't know if I should blame Mercury or Pegasus for the
>> following case, but I suspect the former. User A sends a mail to user B
>> (who uses Pegasus as a client and a Mercury server). B "bounces" the
>> mail to user C. User C cannot see this in the MAIL FROM envelope header.
>> The reverse path is still set to user A. This is clearly incorrect and
>> IMHO in violation of rfc821 (now 2821).
>
>I'll check this out. Seems like I remember seeing something about this on
>the pmail site or one of the pmail newsgroups.
I'm curious. IMO it's a bug.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Any sufficiently advanced Operating System is indistinguishable
from Linux.
-- Jim Dennis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: 16 May 2001 20:50:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
>> >maybe they (SuSE) could license YaST to other distro's?
>> That would be nice, unless of course, it would render the other distro's
>> just as undistributable as SuSE...
>
>Why do you have an anti-suse agenda? because you actually have to spend money?
I don't have an anti-SuSE agenda, and I have spent more money on Linux
up till now than I ever spent on Windows. I have been using Linux
exclusively since 1996 (after 3 years of dual booting).
>because unlike Redhat, they are actually making a profit? they are actually
I wish them all possible kudos in making a profit. The more Linux / Unix
businesses are actually flourishing, the better we counter the
monopolisation of software.
>producing a better quality distro than Redhat? they have actually produced
That's subjective, but I agree that they are making quite a nice distro.
I personally like Debian better, especially for upgrading.
>some software rather than riding on the back of GPL developers? they actually
They have, but so have others, especially RedHat.
>support projects that are worthwhile? such as reiserfs and kde.
I take it that you hereby imply that projects like Gnome, apt and rpm
are not worthwile?
My only objection is that they too, ride on the back of GPL developers,
while _actively_ preventing their (freely downloadable) distribution of
being redistributed.
IMHO the political motives behind the GNU system are pretty important,
whether you agree with them or not. Not considering that aspect is doing
GNU a disservice and not acknowledging the immense work they have been
doing in the last two decades.
I think SuSE represents the GNU system by bringing out a GNU based
distribution and I think their policies make this a misrepresentation.
I would have a lot less problems with their policies if they would base
their distribution on a *BSD flavour. Those people don't share the GNU
view of software freedom and actually encourage the reuse of their code
in non-free projects.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
"You'd put your BRAIN on the Internet? Goodness. Most people are so
paranoid about security, they lock their brain in a strong box before
coming on." -- Antony Ord in c.o.l.a
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: 16 May 2001 22:06:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[x-posted]
I liked your analysis of the article, but then again, I am biased. Since
the serious Windows advocated don't hang around in COLA, I took the
liberty to cross-post this to COMNA. This is not ment as food for
trolls, just an attempt to trigger some real advocacy from both camps.
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Following a link from slashdot, I was interested to see an MS document
>entitled Linux in Retail and Hospitality. A converted document can be
>found at http://www.iglu.org.il/linux_report.html, the originals are at
>http://www.microsoft.com/europe/industry/retail/strategicwhitepapers/2523.htm
>
>Some quotes from the paper (I've tried not to take it out of context,
>please repost if you feel I have!):
>
>"Numerous Installation Versions
>
>There are over 188 different distributions of Linux available today,
>with the number growing all the time. You have to first decide which
>distribution and graphical user interface to use. Next, you have to
>deal with the limitations you will be faced with. For example, there is
>no guarantee that any software you develop on one distribution will run
>under another distribution. Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, that
>an application you develop for one GUI will run under a different GUI,
>even on the same distribution. You do not have this problem with
>Microsoft’s platform, since there are only a few different versions, all
>with a common user interface."
>
></quote>
>
>Microsoft makes: Windows 2000, Windows ME (soon to have Windows XP for
>consumers) and Windows CE. In the Windows 2000 stable they have: Windows
>2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server and
>Windows 2000 Data Centre. This is a fair range of products, which is a
>fair enough thing to do: each has it's own strengths and capabilities.
>However, this is no different than from the various Linux distribution.
>
>I would also dispute the fact that their are 188 distributions of Linux.
>Perhaps they would care to list these distributions? If you look at the
>Linux distribution market fairly then you will find that their are only
>a few key distributions: Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, Turbo Linux,
>Caldera Linux, Mandrake Linux and Slackware Linux. As you can see, their
>are not so many as Microsoft say. To put it bluntly, saying that their
>are 188 different distributions of Linux is ridiculous, as there are
>many hobbiest distributions (where someone has put together their own
>distribution: just because they could or just to see how the different
>components go together in Linux).
>
>When Microsoft writes "For example, there is no guarantee that any
>software you develop on one distribution will run under another
>distribution", this is a fair enough comment until you realise that all
>of the main Linux distributions keep up to date with packages and
>release upgrades to main programs as soon as they can package them.
>There is also a filesystem standard that most distributions adhere to
>fairly well; Linux development is incredibly portable as standard
>libraries are used and if you can compile on one system cleanly then you
>will be able to compile on another system. From here it is just a matter
>of "packaging" the developed program to the required distribution.
>
>Microsoft also writes: "Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, that an
>application you develop for one GUI will run under a different GUI, even
>on the same distribution." This is not correct. I can run all KDE
>programs under GNOME so long as I have KDE installed correctly. Any
>GNOME programs can be run under KDE so long as GNOME is installed. Any
>Motif program can run so long as the Motif libraries are installed. Not
>only will it run under another GUI, but it will run on the same
>distribution. Clearly Microsoft are mistaken, and I feel that they
>should not be publishing such wildly inaccurate information.
>
><quote>
>
>"Lack Of Available Software
>
>Software for the Linux operating system has a long way to go. There are
>not very many well-known or enterprise-wide software packages available
>for Linux today, especially for POS. There is also a huge void on the
>Linux platform in server side software, like database, message queuing
>services, and transaction servers. The present limitations of software
>for the front end, middle tier, and server on Linux represent additional
>costs you need to factor into your TCO model. You do not face this
>limitation with the Microsoft platform, which has thousands of products
>available to create a complete end-to-end solution."
>
></quote>
>
>While Microsoft may have a very advanced and mature POS system, I again
>feel that they are not accurate in some of the statements in the comment
>"There is also a huge void on the Linux platform in server side
>software, like database, message queuing services, and transaction
>servers." At least on the database front, Oracle has release products on
>the Linux platform, IBM released DB2 on Linux, and there is MySQL, mSQL
>as well as PostGres. IBM has also released their MQSeries of products
>(see http://www-4.ibm.com/software/ts/mqseries/), so there are message
>queuing services for Linux. Level8 also have a product, called Geneva
>Message Queuing http://63.111.55.182/gmq/
>
>
><quote>
>
>Lack Of Formal Development Schedule, Research, and Standards
>
>With Linux, no formal development schedule or set of standards exists.
>There are thousands of developers contributing to it from all over the
>world, with no accountability to the retail industry. Linus Torvalds
>makes the final decision about what gets included in the latest Linux
>release, and he has no accountability to the retail industry. There is
>no formal research and development process with Linux. Microsoft plans
>to spend over $4 billion in R&D in 2001 and listens to the retail
>industry.
>
></quote>
>
>Microsoft states that Linus Torvalds makes the final decision about what
>gets included in the latest Linux release. This is also incorrect. Linus
>controls the kernel development, not the developement of distributions.
>I find it very suprising that Microsoft say that their is no formal
>research and development with Linux - universities LOVE Linux and often
>use it to research various things. To say that no formal research is
>going on merely shows the author to have not done their research (or
>perhaps they haven't gone to Uni lately)
>
>I find it amusing that Microsoft feels that they have to mention that
>they are spending over $4 billion in R&D - IBM alone are spending $1
>billion dollars on Linux alone (refer to
>http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2000/flat/toc/2_3_1_intro.html) to say
>nothing of the money being spent on it by other companies in developing
>for it. It's commendable that Microsoft are spending so much money, but
>try to remember that they aren't the only one spending vast amounts of
>money.
>
><quote>
>
>Less Secure
>
>“Open source” means that anyone can get a copy of the source code.
>Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The
>same is not true with Microsoft Windows.
>
></quote>
>
>Where do I start? What about the number of IIS holes that have needed to
>be patched - even recently! While security through obscurity may seem
>like a good thing, sooner or later someone is going to find a
>potentially compromising hole in your software. When you *are*
>compromised, how are you going to stop it again? you aren't able to
>analyse where the problem lies as you aren't able to analyse the source
>code. Instead you have to wait for Microsoft to release a service pack
>or individual patch. Although Microsoft are fairly fast at releasing
>these, it is unfair to say that open source is any less secure. It is
>true that developers can find security weaknesses very easily in open
>source software (again notice that they say Linux and don't state
>whether they mean the Linux kernel or the Linux distributions). That's
>why so open source software is so secure - as soon as holes are found
>they are patched. You really can't ask for much more security than that.
>
>You may want to read the rest of the things they have to say. I'm not
>trying to say that all of what is published by Microsoft is not without
>merit, they make some good points, but I feel that they have also been
>somewhat misleading and I felt the urge to point out some of the
>inaccuracies.
>
>I'll leave the last word to Microsoft. To quote them:
>
>"The information contained in this document represents the current view
>of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of
>publication. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market
>conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part
>of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any
>information presented after the date of publication."
>
>Chris
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
f u kn rd ts, ur wy 2 gky 4 ur wn gd.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:39:05 +0100
rn about linux, the more I'm impressed.
>
> Me: BBC --> Amiga 500 --> Windows 95 --> Linux
>
Similar for me:-
Sinclair Spectrum > Texas TI99/4A > Acorn Electron > BBC > DosPlus&GEM
(running on Master512 board on BBC B) > MSDOS ( first 5.0 then 6.2) > Win95
> Linux (plus win98 for the occasional game, rarely used now most run under
wine).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 22:25:40 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rich Soyack wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >False premise #1: that I use hookers
>> > >False premise #2: that men can get AIDS from women in normal vaginal sex.
>> >
>> > That's how it spreads in most of the world, dimwit. Through
>> > heterosexual intercourse.
>>
>> But the most common vector is not vaginal sex but anal sex, when it comes to
>> sex.
>
>And vaginal sex is a very very low-percentage risk for WOMEN ONLY.
>
>It presents NO danger (AIDS-wise) for men.
WRONG, you stupid asshole!
MOST cases of AIDS are from HETEROSEXUAL transmission, and that
INCLUDES MEN. Maybe if you weren't such a homophobic bigot just
looking to justify your bigotry you'd look at the facts and see
that men AND women get AIDS from heterosexual intercourse.
Here, moron, read this. The web site is at the University of
California at San Francisco. A university that teaches and researches
medicine.
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?page=kb-01&doc=kb-01-02
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:42:04 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 21:39:21 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Problem is there are no pro quality applications to use the card, or
> >> any other high end card for that matter.
> >
> >Why not write some tools then?
> >
> >-Ed
>
> Dammit Jim! (Ed)!!!
> I'm a musician not a programmer!!!!
>
> I'd stand a better chance of building my own artificial heart.
> Anyone know if that "LeakEnder 2000" on infomercials works on blood?
>
> flatfish
Then why not post requests for the software you need onto some Linux
programming newsgroups and let someone else code them for you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 22:28:46 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> Aaron, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if a persons gay, who cares? I don't.
>
>Niether do I...until they insist on giving me the gory details.
The only one going on about "the gory details" is YOU.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 22:30:16 GMT
Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And where is your evidence that people have no choice over their homosexual
>behavior?
Yeah! You could choose to be interested in men so it's obvious that
homosexuals could choose to be interested in women.
Right?
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:49:56 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> > Your wasting your time on the blithering bastard.
> >
> > Even if you present Chad with the facts he will just ignore them
> > and continue on his merry rampage anassment anyway.
> >
> > --
> > Charlie
> > -------
>
> If I remember correctly, the Strong Arm Processor was designed and
> developed by a
> company in England, and that Intel licenses the technology off them.
> Can't remember the name, however, Apple a few years ago owned some shares
> in the company, and has since, sold them off.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
The company you refer to is Acorn Computers ( the company who made The
Atom, Electron and BBC 8 bit machines) and the ARM processor was first sold
in a co-processor addon board for the BBC Micro (in 1985 or 86) , soon
followed by it's use in the Acorn Archimedes computer (in 1987) which
amusingly has a win9x style taskbar. At the time of it's development Acorn
was owned by olivetti ( not sure if they still own any share of the
company).
The letters ARM orignally stood for Acorn Risc Machine.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 18:44:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark Styles wrote:
> You've obviously never had your own business.
In fact I do have my own business,
it's a sole proprietorship though,
so I don't really have the overhead
of most companies, I work out of my home.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:07:29 GMT
In article <3b027a4c$0$82769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What? Are we saying that Microsoft doesn't use .dll's
>> in IIS? Are we saying they didn't give out instructions
>> to delete a certain .dll to close an illegal backdoor
>> they put in every IIS server in the universe?
>
>There is no illegal backdoor in IIS. And, see thirdly for something that
>invalidates your entire thread.
>
>>
>> Secondly, how do you not use something anymore when it's
>> on the CD which install the fucking system Chad?
>> Do you just have to remember to delete it every time
>> your server craps out and you need to reinstall?
>
>See thirdly
>
>>
>> Thirdly, why is Microsoft shipping an OS with an illegal
>> .dll which allows illegal entry into your corporation
>> in the first place?
>
>The DLL you refer to does not contain a backdoor, only a "poorly-worded"
>string which does NOTHING to violate security in any way shape or form. AND
>this DLL is NOT included with the OS. It's NOT on the OS CD, it's NOT part
>of IIS. It's ONLY added to your server if you manually install the Front
>Page 98 server extentions (not FP97, and not FP98a or anything newer).
>
>>
>> Fourthly, since MS has given instructions to delete this
>> .dll to close the security breach, what other function
>> did it have to support IIS? If you took a car engine
>> and just arbitrarily threw away a piston it would
>> hurt the cars performance and or usability?
>
>The DLL you refer to is not used to support IIS. It extends some minor
>functionality of IIS - but has long since been obsolete and no longer used
>which is why it means nothing to simply delete the file if the letters in
>that "offensive" string, um, offend you. Cause being offended by those
>letters is the worse they can do for you. Reminder; no backdoor according to
>every security expert who's reviewed it including the guy that found the
>string in the first place.
>
>Starting to get it (I'll wager not)?
>
>
You are totally incorrect on all accounts.
MS's written recommendation IS to delete the .dll to close the illegal
back door.
Fuck! MS can put it in print and you'd argue with it!
Listen to MECA here, delete the .dll to close the illegal back door!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
