Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 04:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Bill Vermillion)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Mark Christensen")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Mark Christensen")
Re: Verwirrung (Arthur)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Donn Miller)
Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (Satch)
Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (Satch)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Angelos Karageorgiou)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Mike Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 05:36:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Angelos Karageorgiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>> And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
>> MS did support - but no longer.
>> Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
>> supported processor families. Down to one now.
>S'Ok , Linux and Netbsd run on just about every type of machine
>available so it will not be an issue.
I was thinking more along the line of the failed 'promises' of MS.
After all NT was to be the Unix killer and Unix was platform
independant while MS ran only in the iNTEL world. That was part of
their hype. Wonder what else they may have lied about ? :-)
>I can have my wristwtch, PDA , home pc , office server and corporate
>server all on different CPUs and different BUSes and silicon, use
>any OpenSource OS. Life can go on happily without chugging a penny
>for inferior software :-)
Well I've been running Unixen OSes since 1983 - and I did fire up
Win98 two days ago to print a Word or Excel thingy - on the inkjet
attached to my FreeBSD system. Works quite well I might add.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: "Mark Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 06:22:49 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The right to property would be the main capitalist principal I would cite.
> Denial of the validity of intellectual property is a thinly vieled attack
on
> the right to property. The second principal I would cite is that
enlightened
> self interest is an essential precursor to productivity. In particular,
> you can hurt or destroy an industry by attacking its means to generate
revenue.
> The "cosource" advocates have not offered instances of companies that have
> profited from developing end user applications. In other words, they are
> unable to offer evidence that destroying copyright would not destroy the
> application software industry.
Well, as you probably already have guessed, I am not entirely convinced that
intellectual property and capitalism are inexorably intertwined.
However, I agree that enlightened self interest is a central factor in
determining the projects people choose to take on. This coupled with
intellectual property law's history of promoting the generation of
literature, art, and non-fiction books, tells me that intellectual-property
(as we know it) is not entirely without merit. That however is not an
admission that intellectual property is a "good thing."
I say this because I believe that intellectual property ought not be
understood as an innate right. Instead, I am convinced that we would be
better off if we saw it as the product of an inevitable tension between the
right to profit from intellectual labor, and the (in my view) inalienable
right to freedom of thought and speech. And therefore our notions of
intellectual property are only justifiable insofar as they are necessary to
provide compensation for intellectual labors and their restriction of my
right to freedom of thought and speech are minimal.
While copyright law and patent law may well have been functional 50 or 100
years ago, when the printing press was the chief information technology, I
don't think they work well in toady's high speed massively networked world.
Moreover, what interests me most about the GPL and the free software
movement is that it has produced a license which demands that we be creative
about how to profit from our intellectual labors. And that is still very
much an experiment in progress, but the preliminary results have been very
very promising. The number of people cashing in on their "linux expertise"
is astonishing, especially when they are specifically disallowed from
profiting by traditional means.
And whether intellectual property law is necessary seems to me to be
largely irrelevant, the GPL has set up an alternative software fund, which
is legally required to forgo traditional methods of generating revenue
streams (by creating artificial scarcity) when determining how to capitalize
on intellectual resources. And I believe that it will turn out some great
software -- even for end user applications (like GIMP).
And while I am going to resist UCTIA and the Millenium Copyright Act and
push for a reformation of Patent law, I have no interest in undermining
proprietary software companies and their ability to profit from sales of
licenses. Well, that's not quite right, I intend to support the production
of free equivalents which will certainly undermine traditional software
companies, but only by producing a higher value lower price equivalent.
------------------------------
From: "Mark Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 06:41:01 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:33:27 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >On 29 Feb 2000 18:29:53 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And again, I'll point out that a discussion about music of the 17th
century is
> hardly relevant to a discussion about the 20th century software industry.
> Arguments by analogy are useful for explaining ones opinion but they do
not
> prove anything.
The argument was only intended to prove that intellectual property law is
unnecessary -- at least in some cases. Perhaps you can demonstrate that the
20th century is /essentially/ unlike the 17th,18th, and 19th century music
industry. But then again, perhaps not.
--
Mark Christensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
People understand me so little that they do not even understand me when I
complain of being misunderstood.
--Kierkegaard
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Verwirrung
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:23:29 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Borgardt wrote:
> was ist hier denn los?????
As my mother would say:
"Alles was nicht angebundant ist."
Hope the spelling is close.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 07:05:12 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 06:22:49 GMT, Mark Christensen wrote:
>I say this because I believe that intellectual property ought not be
>understood as an innate right. Instead, I am convinced that we would be
>better off if we saw it as the product of an inevitable tension between the
>right to profit from intellectual labor, and the (in my view) inalienable
>right to freedom of thought and speech.
This makes sense. I'd certainly agree that the right to freedom of thought
and speech should overrule intellectual property rights ( or for that
matter, any sort of property rights ). This is the main reason why I am
opposed to existing patent laws ( I am not in principle completely against
patents, but I object to the implementation of the system, some aspects
of the laws, and the fact that it doesn't even work as intended )
>While copyright law and patent law may well have been functional 50 or 100
>years ago, when the printing press was the chief information technology, I
>don't think they work well in toady's high speed massively networked world.
I'd say that the fact that it is cheap to distribute software makes
copyright law even more essential. Your point of view is that the best
argument for copyright protection is to allow authors to profit from
intellectual labor. The fact that it's easier to undermine the ability
of the author to profit via unauthorised redistribution makes it more
necessary to use legal protection than it would be otherwise.
>And whether intellectual property law is necessary seems to me to be
>largely irrelevant,
This is an important point that I keep trying to make. Actually, patents
are a real problem because they provide an obstruction to free software
developers. However, free software will get written whether or not copyrighted
buyware exists.
> the GPL has set up an alternative software fund, which
The GPL ? Do you mean the FSF ? The GPL is a license.
>on intellectual resources. And I believe that it will turn out some great
>software -- even for end user applications (like GIMP).
What would help Linux a lot is some corporate sponsorship for projects like
KDE and GNOME. gimp was an extremely important project ( it kicked off the
development of gtk ). It was a University project. IMO, Linux will need to
take the next step ( into the corporate world ) if it's to reach a broader
user base. This has been happening to some extent, but most of the corporate
dollars seem to be going into the kernel and not applications.
>licenses. Well, that's not quite right, I intend to support the production
>of free equivalents which will certainly undermine traditional software
>companies, but only by producing a higher value lower price equivalent.
When you put it this way it sounds more constructive. My feeling is that I
like to contribute to OpenSource projects ( mostly documentation actually.
I've written programs but I doubt that anyone actually uses them ;-)
My main reason for doing so is to help make better software [1]
Some people are on a "crusade" to "destroy Microsoft" or "destroy commercial
software". To me, this sounds like some kind of vandalism. Personally, my only
"crusade" is to help develop better software, and the buyware crowd will
just have to justify their license fees if they wish to stay in business.
There are some good analogies [2] wrt public health and education -- I am
not against the existence of private health and education, but
I would like to see the public infrastructure brought to an acceptable level
to make the private services earn their keep.
[1] Documentation is definitely an important if somewhat underrated
part of the software. Bram, main developer
of vim says that an undocumented feature is not a useful feature.
[2] I've said many times that argument by analogy sucks. My point here is
not to make an argument but convey some insight into an opinion.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 02:38:50 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> I'll admit, I'm curious as to what space Linux loadable modules
> run in (ring 0? ring 3? something in between?); presumably,
> if one does a null pointer dereference, or, worse, a known
> *bad* pointer dereference, it's kernel panic time,
> game over, you lose, put another quarter in the junk box... :-)
I think the Linux kernel pretty much runs everything in ring 2. I
think Windows 9x runs certain drivers in ring 0. Windows NT, AFAIK,
runs everything in ring 2.
- Donn
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Satch)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 07:49:29 GMT
[posted and mailed]
Allegedly [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jaro Larnos) said on 29
Feb 2000 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the following:
> Yes, you mean "hacking" got a bad name due [to] cracking?
It wasn't so much that the first generation used cracking as a means to an
end, it was the misunderstanding by the second and subsequent generation of
hackers. Cracking by the first generation was noticed and bitched about by
adminstrators across the land, and in some cases by the FBI and the Courts
when cracker activity cost someone (like the government) some real money.
The news reports of the time, though, centered less on the cracking
activities of the relatively few and more on the actions of the Weathermen
who tried to bomb various computer centers, and in a couple cases
succeeded.
I still remember when I was working at a computer center when we had a bomb
threat. It was real -- we workers found a crude bomb near the tab room
(room with older tabulating equipment such as sorters, interpreters, and
the ubiquitious IBM 407 accounting machine) and the bomb squad got it out.
No one was hurt.
> Those calling cards you are referring might as well be a message
> to other netabusers too. A media trick saying "I managed to do
> this, can someone do it better?"
In many cases, if I'm reading the literature right, the "calling cards"
were to answer the challange by co-crakers: "PROVE YOU DID IT!" This is
why, even today, defacements of Web home pages includes a "signature" of
some kind.
I shudder to think what will happen when crackers pick up on "it's amazing
what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." As long as
crackers have big egos, we will be able to identify who did what.
Why is this important? This concept of identification is crucial to
prosecution in a court of law, in virtually every country in the world.
That prosecution serves as a limit on the first-tier crackers from going
too far. I've heard stories from credible sources that some first-tier
crackers will not publish the results of certain cracks that could harm
national security of their home country. This robs the script-kiddies the
opportunity to do some nasty, nasty harm.
--
_____
__/satch\____________________________________________________________
Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971
satch at concentric dot net [OR] satch at fluent dash access dot com
"Is spamming a spammer counter-spamming?" www.fluent-access.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Satch)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 07:56:36 GMT
[posted and mailed]
Allegedly [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jaro Larnos) said on 29
Feb 2000 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the following:
>> If you prefer, it's the acts of "cyber-criminals," "cyber-terrorists,"
>> or "cyber-deliquents." Those three terms are more accurate, although
>> it doesn't fit on a headline very well. In some cases, drop the
>> "cyber" as unnecessary.
>
> They are just plainly "criminals" for me but I can't let go
> of the fact some of these so called "criminals" tend to be
> only 10 to 15 years of age. That's pretty young to be
> called a criminal.
Kids that age are blowing people away. That's a crime.
Kids that age are mugging people. That's a crime.
Kids that age are breaking and entering. That's a crime.
Crimes in every country you can name, regardless of age.
We have a saying in the United States, that was brought up from the
underworld by Hollywood a number of years ago (the TV series _Baretta_):
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
'Nuff said.
--
_____
__/satch\____________________________________________________________
Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971
satch at concentric dot net [OR] satch at fluent dash access dot com
"Is spamming a spammer counter-spamming?" www.fluent-access.com
------------------------------
From: Angelos Karageorgiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 10:19:25 +0200
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> The only thing that's not multiuser about NT, IMO, is the console.
> And that's a very small thing. Everything else about NT, as
> far as I can tell anyway, shows that it is in fact ready for
> multiuser and server use.
>
I beg to differ, NT is Not Trully Multiuser neither is it trully
multitasking. One can easily verify my claim by writing a little
thread code, after creating a thread you NEED to call wait on
the mutex or else your app eats all the CPU.
Thus NT is really single user with a few bad hacks to emulate
multitasking.
>
> NT makes a fairly good multiuser server (although Linux and its
> Unix brethren make better ones :-) ).
I will second that, for small offices with limited needs it is fine
for anything more strenuous than that ......
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Angelos Karageorgiou - CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +30 31 498104
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:01:37 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
Now that's one thing I've _never_ experienced with Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD,
HP-UX, or older SunOS. Sure, I've had some offending app (Framemaker likes to
do it now and then) that horkes the session so that it appears hung, but I've
_always_ been able to login to the box from another (which of course is moot in
a standalone setup), kill the offending app, and continue right along.
I'm not saying I've never seen a box hang due to a hardware problem (or bad
kernel bug) though. I've noticed that Sun keyboards have a habit of hanging a
box completely if they're crapping out and send a bunch of breaks in fast
succession before eating it. Of course that's only happened about 5 times in
the last 2-1/2 years (out of about 1200 boxes)... but 5 of the times when
machines were hung, we found that the keyboard had just died too.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth
beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name
that sat on him was DiVX, and Circuit City followed with him. And power was
given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to mislead with
deception, and with trickery, and with fan sites, and with the beasts of the
sales floor." - Stolen from the alt.video.dvd NG
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
