Linux-Advocacy Digest #19, Volume #35 Thu, 7 Jun 01 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (GreyCloud)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux (Rotten168)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (GreyCloud)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (GreyCloud)
Re: MS at it again (GreyCloud)
Re: I propose a GPL change... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS at it again ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (Rotten168)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: XP - what's for me? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I propose a GPL change... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:10:27 -0700
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fhjt5$49d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth that
> > it's
> > > bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy with
> > > um... SoftICE)
> >
> > I don't have this book, and orderring it will take a month.
> > Can you give a list of the reasons?
> >
> Here's the relevant section, hopefully there's no copyright infringement
> here :)
>
> Is Windows 2000 Less Stable with Win32 USER and GDI in Kernel Mode?
>
> Some people wondered whether moving this much code into kernel mode would
> substantially affect system stability. The reason the impact on system
> stability has been minimal is that prior to Windows NT 4 (and this is still
> true today), a bug (such as an access violation) in the user-mode Win32
> subsystem process (Csrss.exe) resulted in a system crash. This crash occurs
> because the parent process of Csrss (the session manager, Smss, which is
> described in the section "Session Manager (Smss)") does a wait operation on
> the process handle to Csrss, and if the wait ever returns, Smss crashes the
> system-because the Win32 subsystem process was (and still is) a vital
> process to the running of the system. Because it was the process that
> contained the data structures that described the windows on the display, the
> death of that process would kill the user interface. However, even a Windows
> 2000 system operating as a server, with no interactive processes, can't run
> without this process, since server processes might be using window messaging
> to drive the internal state of the application. With Windows 2000, an access
> violation in the same code now running in kernel mode simply crashes the
> system more quickly, since exceptions in kernel mode result in a system
> crash.
>
> There is, however, one additional theoretical danger that didn't exist prior
> to moving the windowing and graphics system into kernel mode. Because this
> body of code is now running in kernel mode, a bug (such as the use of a bad
> pointer) could result in corrupting kernel-mode protected data structures.
> Prior to Windows NT 4, such references would have caused an access violation
> because kernel-mode pages aren't writable from user mode. But a system crash
> would have then resulted, as described earlier. With the code now running in
> kernel mode, a bad pointer reference that caused a write operation to some
> kernel-mode page might not immediately cause a system crash, but if it
> corrupted some data structure, a crash would likely result soon after. There
> is a small chance, however, that such a reference could corrupt a memory
> buffer (rather than a data structure), possibly resulting in returning
> corrupt data to a user program or writing bad data to the disk.
>
> Another area of possible impact can come from the move of the graphics
> drivers into kernel mode. Previously, some portions of a graphics driver ran
> within Csrss, and others ran in kernel mode. Now, the entire driver runs in
> kernel mode. Although Microsoft doesn't develop all of the graphics device
> drivers supported in Windows 2000, it does work directly with hardware
> manufacturers to help ensure that they are able to produce reliable and
> efficient drivers. All drivers shipped with the system are submitted to the
> same rigorous testing as other executive components.
>
> Finally, it's important to understand that this design (running the
> windowing and graphics subsystem in kernel mode) is not fundamentally risky.
> It is identical to the approaches many other device drivers use (for
> example, network card drivers and hard disk drivers). All these drivers have
> been operating in kernel mode since the inception of Windows NT with a high
> degree of reliability.
>
> Some people speculated that the move of the window manager and the GDI into
> kernel mode would hurt the preemptive multitasking capability of Windows
> 2000. The theory was that with all the additional Win32 processing time
> spent in kernel mode, other threads would have less opportunity to be run
> preemptively. This view was based on a misunderstanding of the Windows 2000
> architecture. It is true that in many other nominally preemptive operating
> systems, executing in kernel mode is never preempted by the operating system
> scheduler-or is preempted only at a certain limited number of predefined
> points of kernel reentrancy. In Windows 2000, however, threads running
> anywhere in the executive are preempted and scheduled alongside threads
> running in user mode, and all code within the executive is fully reentrant.
> Among other reasons, this capability is necessary to achieve a high degree
> of system scalability on SMP hardware.
>
> Another line of speculation was that SMP scaling would be hurt by this
> change. The theory went like this: Previously, an interaction between an
> application and the window manager or the GDI involved two threads, one in
> the application and one in Csrss.exe. Therefore, on an SMP system, the two
> threads could run in parallel, thus improving throughput. This analysis
> shows a misunderstanding of how Windows NT technology worked prior to
> Windows NT 4. In most cases, calls from a client application to the Win32
> subsystem process run synchronously; that is, the client thread entirely
> blocks waiting on the server thread and begins to run again only when the
> server thread has completed the call. Therefore, no parallelism on SMP
> hardware can ever be achieved. This phenomenon is easily observable with a
> busy graphics application using the Performance tool on an SMP system. The
> observer will discover that on a two-processor system each processor is
> approximately 50 percent loaded, and it's relatively easy to find the single
> Csrss thread that is paired off with the busy application thread. Indeed,
> because the two threads are fairly intimate with each other and sharing
> state, the processors' caches must be flushed constantly to maintain
> coherency. This constant flushing is the reason that with Windows NT 3.51 a
> single-threaded graphics application typically runs slightly slower on an
> SMP machine than on a single processor system.
>
> As a result, the changes in Windows NT 4 increased SMP throughput of
> applications that make heavy use of the window manager and the GDI,
> especially when more than one application thread is busy. When two
> application threads are busy on a two-processor Windows NT 3.51-based
> machine, a total of four threads (two in the application plus two in Csrss)
> are battling for time on the two processors. Although only two are typically
> ready to run at any given time, the lack of a consistent pattern in which
> threads run results in a loss of locality of reference and cache coherency.
> This loss occurs because the busy threads are likely to get shuffled from
> one processor to another. In the Windows NT 4 design, each of the two
> application threads essentially has its own processor, and the automatic
> thread affinity of Windows 2000 tends to run the same thread on the same
> processor indefinitely, thus maximizing locality of reference and minimizing
> the need to synchronize the private per-processor memory caches.
>
> So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
> kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
> decrease in system stability or reliability.
I'd highly doubt this very much on your last statement here. That is
why intel made these processors like this in the first place. That is
why Linux is quite stable in regards to isolation from the graphics
interface. I guess Dave Cutler knew what he was talking about when he
originally wrote NT. (Keep the kernel in ring 0 and the rest in the
other rings.)
--
V
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 04:13:14 GMT
quux111 wrote:
<snop>
> that being an American is more than that -- it's about a set of beliefs,
> ideals, ethics, and experiences that are unlike anywhere else in the world.
That's just the kind of naive exuberance that I find embarrassing as an
American. Being an American means *none* of that, dude. America is a
nation of individuals, I think that a handful can sit down and
appreciate all that that has been given them and the 200+ years of
history, but in this day and age most are probably more concerned with
their SUV's looking shiny and new, and bitching about stock options and
other worthless bullshit. Being an American means jack-squat. You are
just as likely to appreciate living in a democracy if you are born a
Britain, Czech, Indian etc. as if you are born an American.
Also consider the fact that while Americans can buy a gun and serve in
the military at age 18, they can't even sit down at a bar and order a
beer. Young people I know think it's a stupid law (with good reason),
but do they vote? No, but do they ever bitch! So please don't tell me
that being born an American gives you a biological intuition about how
to properly function in a democracy.
Think of how people from other countries on this NG will feel when you
read what you wrote. It's almost like an elitist thing, it's like saying
that a Czech/Fin will never really be able to understand the ideals that
have been the dream of civilization for thousands of years because they
weren't born in America, or because they don't want to come to America.
What really bothers me is that you don't realize that America is just
another country. God/Jesus/Allah didn't bless this land as sacred and
sacrosanct and say that all that is good shall be American. For the US
as a country to be such a great place, it can be such only on account of
it's actions. And it's actions on a worldwide level aren't really
anything to be proud of... as a whole. Yes it did step into WWII and
WWI, which is good, but in the last 30 years it has been intervening and
crushing democracy wherever it finds it to be politically feasible or
where it finds it to be threatening the profit margins of it's
Multinational Corporations. This is in addition to some of the wonderful
things it has done internationally, like give food and aid to some
impoverished nations. But it needs to do more for me to feel any kind of
pride.
You want me to be proud to be an American? Give me a nation that does
more good than bad.
And if you are a non-American, don't take this opportunity to bash
America without looking at some of the shortcomings of your own nation
either. Nothing is more pathetic than some non-American bashing America
because they can't deal with the diminished stature of their own
country. You know what I'm talking about. Patriotism stinks in all
countries.
> That's why "home" has a special meaning to everyone.
>
> From A Proud Yank,
>
> quux111
Now this is where you call me a commie-liberal-pinko and I start fearing
for my life. Well check out my posts in comp.sys.ibm.games.strategic,
like the "booth babes" thread or the "gasoline" thread (do a quick
search on Deja.com). I think you'll see that I'm no liberal. I just
don't care for patriotism, that's all.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:13:04 -0700
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > > So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
> > > kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
> > > decrease in system stability or reliability.
> >
> > What a load of crap. It's quite simple :
> >
> > People who write drivers make pointer errors => your system dies
> > People who write the subsystem that lives in the Kernel Space make
> > errors => your system dies
> >
> > That is why MY windows box keeps crashing so often (and every windows
> > box that I have seen).
> >
> > THERE IS NO PLACE FOR EXTRA RISK IN KERNEL SPACE. This is a simple trade
> > off between reliability and speed/convenience. Therefore you should
> > endeavor to place as little code in the kernel as possible.
> >
> > Much of the same arguments can be used against Linux when compared to a
> > micro kernel approach such as the famous debate between Minux's Andy T
> > and Linus.
> >
> > Whichever why your flag flies: for the book to say that "[kernel space
> > GUI] without any significant decrease in system stability or
> > reliability." is a provable bald face lie. All I need to do is look at
> > my Linux box in comparison to my win98 box to see that.
>
> Of course, they aren't talking about Windows 9x. They're talking about
> Windows NT/2000 - hence the title of the book - "Inside Windows 2000".
> Windows 9x is an unstable piece of crap regardless of where the GDI/GUI
> components are.
That much I agree with.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:16:21 -0700
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the GDI got into the kernel space because of speed issues.
>
> This would be a shame if true. XFree86 4.0 and 4.1 are able to acheive
> some very good acceleration without putting the video HW in ring level 0
> or operating in kernel mode. Plus, it's safer (theoretically).
>
It is safer. VAXes use this ring level technique in hardware and it
really works.
Solaris uses the same technique. There was a paper on the net "Free
VMS" that asked the question if intel processors had any ring levels to
use. Answer was yes. Letting the processor hardware take care of
guarding code and address space is the best bet as you then don't have
to worry too much about your own app... at least you'll know what part
of the system croaked and what part didn't to better isolate bugs.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:31:25 -0700
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> In article <9fi5n6$89j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Not all windows advocates are bad.
> >
> > They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
> > believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
> > Myers).
> >
> > I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
> > change from nominating trolls).
> >
> > I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
> > like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
> > advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
> >
> >
> > -Ed
> >
> >
> Second that and I nominate Erik F. for second place (like most people
> seem to do). Both are very reasonable people, though Erik is a little
> more stubborn, and that tends to get people irritated.
>
> Mart
>
Yes, Eric seems to have demonstrated quite a bit of computer lore and
knowledge.
He's okay to argue with. I'd just wish he'd try out more o/ses on
different platforms to get a better feel for things. I get the feeling
a lot that he is more neutral on a lot of topics than we think.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS at it again
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:38:19 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry Rosen wrote:
> >AT&T FILES SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT - [The Wall Street Journal, B18.] AT&T
> >claims in a lawsuit that Microsoft is distributing software programs through
> >its Windows operating systems in violation of a patent AT&T holds on a
> >digital speech coder. AT&T contends Microsoft's TrueSpeech program, which
> >decodes voice signals, and its NetMeeting program, which allows users to
> >hold video and audio conference calls over the Internet, infringe a speech-
> >coding patent issued to AT&T in 1984. The programs are included in
> >Microsoft's current version of Windows for consumers, Windows Me, and
> >Microsoft's Windows NT Internet information server. AT&T maintains it
> >notified Microsoft in April 1999 that the software giant was infringing
> >AT&T's patent. Although AT&T has offered to license the patent, Microsoft
> >has refused a licensing arrangement, the suit claims. The suit, filed
> >Monday in Manhattan federal court, seeks a permanent injunction barring
> >Microsoft from "continued acts of infringement" and an unspecified amount in
> >damages. AT&T also seeks an assessment from the court that Microsoft
> >willfully infringed AT&T's patent, which would triple damages under federal
> >statutes. [Print, wire, broadcast and online coverage elsewhere.]
> >
> >--
> >Larry Rosen
> >System & Network Administrator
> >Senior Technical Staff Member
> >AT&T ANS-LOCAL NTWK ENGR & OPNS
> >
> > /^>
> > ____/ \____
> > / \
> > / / / \ \ \
> > /\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\
> > / \
> >'67 Firebird HO Convertible
>
> Are you people getting as much as I am out of this?
>
> When former monopoly targets of the government are filing
> suits against MS for infringement purposes doesn't this
> kind of indicate to the absolutely blind that MS is an
> overbearing monopoly which must be broken apart before
> it's too late????
>
> You know there's an old phrase, "It takes one to know one."
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
You robbed me of that one. "It takes one to know one." :-)
Just goes to show ya that MS does steal code after all.
And hide it under the proprietary software guise.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I propose a GPL change...
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:19:10 -0500
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:27:34 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Since Microsoft so despises the GPL, I propose that the GPL be changed
> > to prevent the use of GPL'd software on any Microsoft OS! ;o)
> >
> A great idea and I second it, but whats the point ?
>
> Microsoft have just demonstrated (MS v/s AT&T) that they will
> steal your patented code, and then refuse to pay one cent
> even when you allow them to license it (after the act).
You cannot patent code, you can only patent algorithms.
There is much GPL'd and free software that violates patents as well, for
instance vorbis ogg is claimed to still violate the mp3 patents.
Patents cover ideas, which can be implemented in hundreds of different ways.
It's quite easy to unintentionally violate a patent. Of course AT&T claims
that MS willfully violated the patent, however, it's pretty much common
practice to ignore patent issues unless actually sued, since most of the
time the claims are baseless.
> How can Microsoft expect Windows pirates to feel the least
> bit guilty, when MS are themselves pirates on a mammoth
> scale?
Patent infringement is not copyright infringement.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:24:24 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
> >
> > In article <9fi5n6$89j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not all windows advocates are bad.
> > >
> > > They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
> > > believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
> > > Myers).
> > >
> > > I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
> > > change from nominating trolls).
> > >
> > > I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
> > > like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
> > > advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Ed
> > >
> > >
> > Second that and I nominate Erik F. for second place (like most people
> > seem to do). Both are very reasonable people, though Erik is a little
> > more stubborn, and that tends to get people irritated.
> >
> > Mart
> >
>
> Yes, Eric seems to have demonstrated quite a bit of computer lore and
> knowledge.
> He's okay to argue with. I'd just wish he'd try out more o/ses on
> different platforms to get a better feel for things. I get the feeling
> a lot that he is more neutral on a lot of topics than we think.
I have extensively used many OS's.
Windows
Dos
Amiga
Mac
OS/2
BeOS
QNX
Various flavors of Unix
VMS
AS/400
DOS/VSE
VM
MVS
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS at it again
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:25:31 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry Rosen
wrote:
> > >AT&T FILES SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT - [The Wall Street Journal, B18.]
AT&T
> > >claims in a lawsuit that Microsoft is distributing software programs
through
> > >its Windows operating systems in violation of a patent AT&T holds on a
> > >digital speech coder. AT&T contends Microsoft's TrueSpeech program,
which
> > >decodes voice signals, and its NetMeeting program, which allows users
to
> > >hold video and audio conference calls over the Internet, infringe a
speech-
> > >coding patent issued to AT&T in 1984. The programs are included in
> > >Microsoft's current version of Windows for consumers, Windows Me, and
> > >Microsoft's Windows NT Internet information server. AT&T maintains it
> > >notified Microsoft in April 1999 that the software giant was infringing
> > >AT&T's patent. Although AT&T has offered to license the patent,
Microsoft
> > >has refused a licensing arrangement, the suit claims. The suit, filed
> > >Monday in Manhattan federal court, seeks a permanent injunction barring
> > >Microsoft from "continued acts of infringement" and an unspecified
amount in
> > >damages. AT&T also seeks an assessment from the court that Microsoft
> > >willfully infringed AT&T's patent, which would triple damages under
federal
> > >statutes. [Print, wire, broadcast and online coverage elsewhere.]
> > >
> > >--
> > >Larry Rosen
> > >System & Network Administrator
> > >Senior Technical Staff Member
> > >AT&T ANS-LOCAL NTWK ENGR & OPNS
> > >
> > > /^>
> > > ____/ \____
> > > / \
> > > / / / \ \ \
> > > /\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\
> > > / \
> > >'67 Firebird HO Convertible
> >
> > Are you people getting as much as I am out of this?
> >
> > When former monopoly targets of the government are filing
> > suits against MS for infringement purposes doesn't this
> > kind of indicate to the absolutely blind that MS is an
> > overbearing monopoly which must be broken apart before
> > it's too late????
> >
> > You know there's an old phrase, "It takes one to know one."
> >
> > --
> > Charlie
> > -------
>
> You robbed me of that one. "It takes one to know one." :-)
>
> Just goes to show ya that MS does steal code after all.
> And hide it under the proprietary software guise.
Patent infringement is *NOT* copyright infringement. Violating a patent
doesn't have anything to do with "stealing code".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:26:22 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <7GlT6.8410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >> As a friend, take my advice, and bail out of this gracefully. I've got
> >> more IP than you've got pubic hairs. If you persist, I will bury you.
> >
> >You mean as a moron.
> >
> >Admit that you're wrong. You went of on a tangent without even realizing
> >it.
>
> Admitting your a moron compared to pretending to run FreeBSD
> could be a graceful compromise Erik.
It's quite easy. Just go to netcraft and look at what OS is running
funkenbusch.com
> I'd take the man up on his offer, while there's still time.
Go away.
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 05:26:36 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> I have extensively used many OS's.
> DOS/VSE
I'm sorry to hear that.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:27:20 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
> >
> > In article <KihT6.8375$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> I'll have to side with you on this one, Paolo. Now that I recall, a lot
> of federal projects that gave funds to universities that researched a
> particular idea or special projects were classified and later the rights
> were purchased by a private company and then turned around and patented
> or copyrighted the material. One fellow I know as a welder in a
> shipyard developed the argon gas welding equipment with the help of the
> goverment and he later applied a patent to the process.
There is a difference between the government funding a third party and the
government creating something itself with government employees.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP - what's for me?
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:32:13 -0500
"Richard Thrippleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <C0yT6.8483$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >Second, your facts are wrong about the UK website, many Macintosh and
even
> >linux users have been able to access it, the problem is with the 128 bit
> >security which the site requires, not because of any specific MS
extensions.
> If their vague 'security add-in' means SSL, then Links with 128-bit
> SSL is most firmly denied. The site was developed by MS, hence they will
> obviously abuse that power; how much clearer can it be? Not that I'm too
> disappointed, considering the entirely fscked attitude our govt. has
towards
> the internet; yell 'paedophile' or 'terrorist' and they seem entirely
happy
> to turn the country into an online police state.
It's not a security add-in, its simply using 128 bit certificates that
Netscape 6 doesn't like very much (some NS6 people are claiming they can get
in, while others aren't). Fact is, they're using a net standard, not some
MS specific thing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: I propose a GPL change...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 05:33:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Porter wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:27:34 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since Microsoft so despises the GPL, I propose that the GPL be changed
>> to prevent the use of GPL'd software on any Microsoft OS! ;o)
>>
>>
>A great idea and I second it, but whats the point ?
>
>Microsoft have just demonstrated (MS v/s AT&T) that they will
>steal your patented code, and then refuse to pay one cent
>even when you allow them to license it (after the act).
>
>How can Microsoft expect Windows pirates to feel the least
>bit guilty, when MS are themselves pirates on a mammoth
>scale?
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
>--
And this is exactly why XP is totally insane!
I've worked for very few, probably no companies which
haven't pirated software at one time or another,
either intentionally or accidentally.
MS will alienate it's entire customer base.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:34:02 -0500
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > I have extensively used many OS's.
>
> > DOS/VSE
>
> I'm sorry to hear that.
Yeah, me too. I spent nearly a year doing VSAM work under DOS/VSE and being
a defacto operator while the company shuffled their feet trying to hire
someone to do it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
