Linux-Advocacy Digest #61, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 21:13:30 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious! (SamIam)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (John Orwen)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (SammyTheSnake)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Apr 2000 15:53:49 GMT
On 10 Apr 2000 10:29:54 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 10 Apr 2000 05:56:33 GMT, Damien wrote:
|
| >You don't have the right to control what I do with knowledge in my
| >possession.
|
| Again, I believe I do.
Knowledge exisits in the mind and in belongings. If you claim to have
the right to control knowledge that is in the possession of others,
you claim the right to control their mind and personal belongings.
| Hell, even the GPL is based on the assumption that
| I "have the right" to control what you do. Do you ever release GPL'd
| software ? If you do , and hold these views, this IMO makes you a hypocrite,
| because you are imposing restrictions on what others can do with your
| software but at the same time, you are saying that you have no right to
| do this.
Actually the restriction of the GPL amounts to "You can't take away
anyone's right to use this software in any way."
| The freeloading crowd are guilty of hypocrisy here IMO -- on one
| hand they turn blue in the face when their copyright is violated ( for
| example, the recent incident with Quake ), but they don't believe other
| copyrights should be honored.
You'll find RMS is very respective of the law, even copyright law.
| Ultimately, when you speak out against copyright, you also speak out against
| the authors right to be compensated for their creative works. Dismantle
| copyright and you also dismantle creativity, because to attack copyright
| is also to attack the value and economic base of creative labor. What it
| boils down to is a question of whether or not you believe that creativity
| and creation of knowledge should be rewarded with financial incentive. And
| you seem to be answering this question with a decisive "no".
The lack of copyright laws didn't stop Mozart, Bach, DeVinci,
Beethoven, Shakespeare and so on. And the fact remains that creative
minds can still make a living doing creative things without copyright
law to enslave the rest of us.
That being said, I am not decisively against copyright law in the
general case. It may be that the good outweighs the harm. But I know
it doesn't work in the case of software.
| The other point is this -- if you don't want to accept the terms of a piece
| of copyrighted software, simply *don't use it*. No one is *forcing* the
| terms of the license on you. You carry on as if it's an infringement on your
| personal freedoms, but IMO it is not -- because no one ever forced you to
| even look at the "information" in the first place. Moreover, it is
| "information" that would not even exist without a system in place to
| make sure the author gets paid.
We already covered the fact that the information could exist without
copyright law. Secondly, observing something, is not equivalent to entering a
binding contract with the someone to only use that information in very
limited ways. And thirdly, the topic of being 'forced' to use certain
proprietary software (MS software) has already been beaten to death
with a stick in this newsgroup (AHM).
| IMO, your claim that copyright is an infringement on your personal freedom
| is totally bogus. You are confusing "free speech" with a deliberate attack
| on the authors compensation. Not all speech is "free". "Speech" that harms
| another ( such as defamatory speech ) is considered actionable. I fail to
| see any tangible benefit of "free speech" in the sense of illegitimate copying
| of software. IMO, the harm outweighs the benefits.
Okay, so free speech which destroys something that is of great
economic benefit to some people is not allowed?
------------------------------
From: SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious!
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:03:16 -0500
I have to agree with you. Currently, I dual boot both Win98 and Linux
but I use Linux most of the time.
I first tried Linux with Redhat 5.0 since I mainly use Unix (Sun) at
work. But I had such a hard time getting it installed that I quickly
deleted it and went back to Windows. A year later I tried it again with
Mandrake 6.0 on the same machine. This was a much better experience and
I'm still using Mandrake today (7.0).
I think the reason most people are happy with Microsoft is because they
don't know any different. Microsoft has brainwashed everyone into
thinking crashes and reboots are exceptable. I used to just put up with
it but now I can't stand Win98 crashing on me multiple times a day. So
I'm weaning myself off of Microsoft products. Unfortunately, I still
need Windows for certain tasks.
For one, Microsoft does offer the better web browsing experience.
Netscape is very buggy and will hopefully be fixed with Mozilla (I
haven't had a chance to try it yet). Plus virtually every plugin works
with IE and I can just install a new one with a click of a button. I
once bent over backwards to get RealPlayer to work with Netscape in
Linux and still it only worked half the time until I upgraded to
Mandrake 7.0. I have to browse in Windows to watch any Quicktime or
Winmedia files. I occasionally like to download a new movie trailer
like the new "Lord of the Rings" trailer and I can't get Quicktime for
Linux. Things are changing but for now, Windows provides the much
better browsing experience, except for the occasional crash.
Another important app for me and one that gets mentioned here often is
tax software like Quicken. Yea, I could do them the old fashioned way
by hand but why when there are great tools like this available.
Fortunately, tax time only comes once a year but I'll have to keep Win98
available for this purpose until a solution comes around for Linux.
So I prefer Linux and its stability, configurability and versatility,
but unfortunately its still missing some key apps. Although I seriously
doubt I make the jump to Win2000, I have to keep Windows around until
some glaring desktop holes get filled in Linux.
Oh on a side note, I also use NT 4.0 at work for email and word
processing and I seldom have any problems.
--Sam
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Isn't is just a riot! I can't believe peoples stupidity.
>
> People still debating which OS is superior Linux or Microsoft.
>
> Well,
> It's totally true that my linux desktop hasn't been re-booted
> in 6 months. In that time, I've written
> maybe 20 or so C++ programs, and compiled a kernel a couple of times,
> web browsed till bed-time every
> night, wrote letters to freinds and newsgroups, experimented with
> different X desktops, played with
> strange and exotic GNU software and read thru about 10 man pages and
> info pages.
>
> At work I've got NT 4.0 for my OS and I compiled, and wrote
> business letters yet I have to re-boot
> my NT box every morning or it will blue screen on my by around 1-2 pm
> every day I forget to re-boot.
>
> Just about all my Linux desktops have multiple desktops to
> switch back and forth into and out of.
> My Windowmaker has 8 seperate desktops for my use. I wish NT had 8
> seperate desktops. I wish
> NT had a free C++ compiler and database. I wish NT ran as quickly as
> linux does. I wish NT multi tasked
> as well as linux does. I wish NT could network as easily as linux does.
>
> But it doesn't. And I could debate a Microsoft fan until I were blue in
> the face and it wouldn't matter to him how good linux is as he's never
> going to leave Microsoft. He doesn't care.
>
> He doesn't care that I can install my Suse 6.4 distribution
> automatically. That when I install Linux
> on a computer I don't have to stop occassionally to load diskette after
> diskette of specialized drivers then
> reboot the thing 3 times before I'm finished installing.
>
> The typical Microsoft fan doesn't care about any of this. It just
> doesn't matter to him/her that Microsoft
> can't accomplish one of these feat's I've listed.
>
> There is NO debate for these people. They don't listen or care about
> debates.
>
> They don't care that Microsoft releases double in price every release
> now.
> They don't care that by 2006 the Microsoft desktop for business and home
> use will be close to $1,000.00.
>
> So there is no debate which will work for these people. We will just
> have to wait until Microsoft
> runs themselves out of the OS business and then they will try Linux and
> switchover.
>
> A great many OS2 supporters were the same way.
>
> As the Microsoft OS becomes more expensive due to increased costs in
> producing it as they attempt to
> keep ahead of Linux, more people will leave Microsoft.
>
> People leave Microsoft of the cost reason as well as the blue screen or
> re-boot continuously reasons.
> People leave Microsoft because to get Windows 2000 to be similarly
> equipped to say Suse 6.4, one would
> spend 3-4 thousand dollars in applications costs.
>
> This message is really intended for both the Linux Camp and the
> Microsoft Camp.
>
> The message is if your Microsoft, enjoy it whilst it is still around if
> you like it.
> It's not going to last another 10 years, so enjoy it while you still
> can.
>
> For the Linux group the message is, let's not get into any more moronic
> debates with Microsoft people.
> Loosing an OS is similar to loosing your mother for most true computer
> people.
> It's not a pleasant experience, it wasn't for the OS2 crowd.
>
> Loosing your OS means you loose all your applications with it, for the
> most part.
> You loose all the money your dumped into your OS investment. All that
> money went down the drain.
>
> Loosing your OS also means for agencies like the Federal Court house
> THAT, your long term investment
> in Visual Basic and Microsoft Access has suddenly turned into poop! But
> don't feel bad about that
> Federal folks, the states are full of people who've done the same thing
> you've done, so's the District
> attorney's offices. These are all government agengies who've helped to
> bust up Microsoft and now
> stand directly in the machine guns path of distruction for themselves.
>
> That's incredibly intelligent don't you think folks! Get into an
> anti-trust situation with the very company
> which wrote the OS you gambled your entire futures with.
>
> Now you see why I think these OS debates are absolutely Hillarious!
> They truely are.
>
> There isn't a sole on this planet who can't say in his or her own heart
> that a FREE OS which performs
> better than any Microsoft product ever made can't topple Microsoft in
> the OS market.
>
> And since Microsoft's strategy was to ENGRAIN products like Back office
> and Visual Basic directly
> into their OS, the entire deck of cards will fall when the OS does.
>
> Let's not say that just because you NEED a Microsoft OS to run Visual
> Basic, there has been NO CRIME COMMITTED HERE.
>
> But I'm glad to see you, once again, cut the very nose you have off your
> very face.
>
> Linux will be the dominate OS on the market soon. The future is full of
> GNU licensed competitors
> all offering free services to the planet at large. There will be an
> almost non-existant involvement in
> a commerically written OS in the future.
>
> The day for commerically written OS's has passed into history.
>
> Whether you debate about it or not. Who gives a flip.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 15:50:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm. Well *my* definition runs something like this:
>>
>> Programming is the creation of a reusable instruction to a
>> computing device.
>>
>> Typing the letter "x" into an editor is *not* programming
> well that 'x' is much more reusable than most programs
Thanks for that cheap shot. I sure needed it...
>> Computational programming is programming that is Turing complete in
>> expressive power
> where does this restriction come from? ISO, ANSI ... your
> nightmares?
I'm a computer scientist. I know more about this than you[*], so it
seems. There are strict limits on what you can do in a language
without computational power (HTML cannot calculate an arbitrary digit
of pi, for example.) When most people think of computer programs,
they are actually thinking of computational programs of some form.
However, I take the general concept of a program (i.e. a reusable
instruction to a computer) to be wider than that as that avoids some
arbitrary awkwardnesses.
ISO and ANSI can rule on this to their heart's content, but the
fundamental truth is deeper than that. Of course, you don't need to
understand the truth to use it. The fact that it is there in the
first place is usually enough.
Donal.
[* It's my job, damnit! ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:59:28 -0700
"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
> I read it. I also read the articles in Networking, and the Wall Street Journal. This
>is common knowledge
> for the literate.
>
> The lab that actually found the key notified the NSA first! Maybe you don't have
>access to well known
> publications by CMP. I understand that ZD is more your level so that is why you
>never heard it before
> now.
>
Ah, and now the insults start.
I have read it, I have also heard about this a long time ago. Only a truly paranoid
mind would take this as
evidence that MS is plotting with the
NSA. I'll ask again, where is MS admitting to the existence of backdoors in Windows
2000?
>
> Josiah Fizer wrote:
>
> > "David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
> >
> > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
> > > > products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
> > > > government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
> > > > could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
> > > > "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
> > >
> > > Read this if you can Jason! You are so damn stupid and ignorant!
> > > http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Content/7182_01.html
> > >
> > > I wonder if they actually exported this stuff and did it go to allies. Did they
>export this to the
> > > Russian's? British? Israelis?
> > > Man what if the Massad was being spied on?
> > >
> > > Isn't it amazing that Bill (theAntiChrist) Gates wanted to dominate the browser
>market? Just think
> > > how this may have given him the advantage when it came to market place strategy!
> >
> > Where in that page is MS admitting that there is a back door in Windows 2k? All I
>see is a lot of
> > conjecture about how MS "could" be sending information to the NSA. This is all
>based
> > on a file name _NSAKEY, which could be a 100% arbitrary file name. Do you even
>read these things? Or
> > do you just jump to a conclusion based on the document title?
------------------------------
From: John Orwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:30:35 -0500
What you are describing is as much a violation of existing communication act
laws for the fbi, cia, irs, or ssc as it is for the average citizen.
anon wrote:
> I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to work in
> computer security at the NSA.
>
> According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors" into the
> Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
> I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but thought that it
>might deserve
>
> some public scrutiny.
> At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two "backdoor"
>protocols in the
> TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
> The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies to
>surreptitiously log in
> to
> any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine files looking
>for evidence of
> terrorism or criminal enterprise.
> The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event of passage of
>the UCITA or
> "Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically log on to all
>Win 2000 servers
>
> on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything that it finds.
>
> Can anyone confirm this?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:16:30 GMT
In article <8csgsp$ia3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> 8cqjfo$mu6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <8cpluh$rek$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff that I don't have the stamina to adress </SNIP>
>
> > and forthright. Widoze is great if you don't mind the occasional
>
> Ah, we're are definitely making progress. Windows went from total
> crap which crashes all the time to great if you don't mind the
> occasional crash.
Sorry. Forgot to put in the <SARCASM>/</SARCASM> flags. Didn't
think it was necessary.
> > crash. My whole point here originally was that Windoze is far
> > worse than other OSes WRT this. And I explaied the reason for
>
> My point is that it's not as bad as you make it to be. I know of
> two consumer leve OSes, MacOS and Windows9x. IME, MacOS has no
> edge in that department against Windows9x, but I'm aware that
> others have different experiences.
IME, it sux. For reasons adequately described. And I bevlieve
that my characterisation of what Micro$ux considers "support"
is spot-on as well. Arrogance is pretty much the only word
that can describe their behaviour. And it is pervasive, as was
shown in the e-mails revealed in the anti-trust suit.
> <SNIP> Some more stuff that I don't have the stamina to adress </SNIP>
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: 10 Apr 2000 12:31:27 -0400
On 10 Apr 2000 15:53:49 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2000 10:29:54 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Knowledge exisits in the mind and in belongings. If you claim to have
>the right to control knowledge that is in the possession of others,
>you claim the right to control their mind and personal belongings.
What do you mean by "in possesion of others" ? This very phrase
implies some recognition of property. What do you mean by "personal
belongings" ?
On one hand, you make a god of one kind of property while ignoring
another kind.
>Actually the restriction of the GPL amounts to "You can't take away
>anyone's right to use this software in any way."
How is releasing binary only derivatives "taking away anyone's right" ?
Surely, the fact that I make a binary-only derivative doesn't stop you
from releasing the original.
>The lack of copyright laws didn't stop Mozart, Bach, DeVinci,
>Beethoven, Shakespeare and so on.
A tired argument indeed.
(1) They depended on funding from the aristocracy. As such, the
demands and needs of the common person are ignored. Simply
put, I don't want to wait until some multi-millionaire decides
he wants a piece of software before I can use it.
What the copyright system does is provide a distributed payment
system for a software package. Instead of requiring one person or
corporation to cough up all the money, copyright makes it easy
for software production to respond to the demands of ordinary
users.
BTW, the music of those days is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, compared
to the pluralism we have today ( in terms of both software and
music ). Today's music is considerably diverse
and meets the demands of a broader class of listeners.
> And the fact remains that creative
>minds can still make a living doing creative things without copyright
>law to enslave the rest of us.
How does copyright law "enslave" anyone ? NOONE is forcing you to use
copyrighted works. Copyrights do NOT prevent you from writing free
software. If there are other models superior to the copyright model,
surely they can succeed without committing vandalism against
the copyright system ?
>That being said, I am not decisively against copyright law in the
>general case. It may be that the good outweighs the harm. But I know
>it doesn't work in the case of software.
I would argue that it *does* work with software. Where would ID software
be without copyrights ? Most of their income is derived from licensing
their proprietary engine. Just recently, openSource Office suites are
catching up to the commercial office suites that were released 15 years
ago.
>We already covered the fact that the information could exist without
>copyright law.
I'm not disputing that *some* information could exist, however, I'm saying
that copyright law makes *more* information available by fostering
creativity -- something that a lot of the freeloaders have no respect
for ( probably because they don't have any )
> Secondly, observing something, is not equivalent to entering a
>binding contract with the someone to only use that information in very
>limited ways.
Sorry, I don't get your point.
> And thirdly, the topic of being 'forced' to use certain
>proprietary software (MS software) has already been beaten to death
>with a stick in this newsgroup (AHM).
I don't buy the argument that they're "forced". I use Linux, OpenBSD
and NetBSD. Free will. I can choose to use these. So can anyone.
In any case, it's irrelevant to this debate -- in this example, the
problem has more to do with competitive markets than being "forced".
I don't believe anyone should be "forced" to use anything.
>| IMO, your claim that copyright is an infringement on your personal freedom
>| is totally bogus. You are confusing "free speech" with a deliberate attack
>| on the authors compensation. Not all speech is "free". "Speech" that harms
>| another ( such as defamatory speech ) is considered actionable. I fail to
>| see any tangible benefit of "free speech" in the sense of illegitimate copying
>| of software. IMO, the harm outweighs the benefits.
>
>Okay, so free speech which destroys something that is of great
>economic benefit to some people is not allowed?
This type of "free speech" has questionable merit ( in fact calling it
free speech is somewhat questionable ).
Say what you like, but use your own words. Plagiarising someone else
in a manner not covered by fair use has very questionable value as
"free speech". The purpose of protecting free speech is to protect
those who have something to say ( ie something of their own ), not to
protect freeloaders, leeches and plagiarists.
Fair use covers instances where you wish to comment on someone else's
speech -- you are still saying something.
Free speech was never intended to protect leeches with nothing to say.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:46:36 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <38f1d5b8$8$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 04/10/2000 at 12:08 AM,
>> Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> > Can anyone confirm this?
>>
>>> How 'bout you identify yourself and your sources first?
>>
>>How about articles in the Wall Street Journal, PC Magazine, and the
>>Washington Post.
>>
>>Moreover, MS admitted publically that those hooks were in the Windows 2000
>>beta.
>Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their products.
>Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the government? I
>didn't think you could. I believe that the government could put them under
>enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of "national security", but
>they have not publically admitted any such thing.
Wrong: M$ tried not to admit it, but they left in evidence in a service pack
for NT4 and they did admit it.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 10 Apr 2000 16:43:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] fell asleep on the keyboard and...
>In article <EBj*[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Their increasing support for the MacOS (even though this directly
>> impacts sales of Windows) says they disagree.
>
>Way bad analogy. Microsoft was one of the first vendors to ship product
>for Macintosh. They've been in that market since there was a market.
>
>And have you noticed what subset of MS apps are available for MacOS?
>Office, IE and what else?
windows, IIRC :)
Cheers & God bless
SammyTheSnake
--
email: SammyTheSnake(at)Hotmail.com (E)TLA page: www.warwick.ac.uk/~phuae/
ICQ: 62693112. Wheels: raleigh 10-speed racer :(
Box: K6-266@300 w/ VoodooII running debian linux, kernel 2.2.14 :)
primrose up 44 days, 2:30, load average: 4.56, 4.66, 4.77
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:57:26 GMT
Just shut your mouth and open your eyes and ears.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~muintc/hackal.htm
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Microsoft_Windows_contains_a_cryptographic_backdoor_.html
http://www.collectonyourjudgment.com/privacy/infoga.htm
http://rc.sdnp.undp.org/rc/forums/mgr/sdnpmgrs/msg01238.html
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/9533.html
http://smart.online.fr/privacy/Part2
http://amug.org/~glguerin/opinion/win-nsa-key.html
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:58:12 GMT
Can you read?
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~muintc/hackal.htm
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Microsoft_Windows_contains_a_cryptographic_backdoor_.html
http://www.collectonyourjudgment.com/privacy/infoga.htm
http://rc.sdnp.undp.org/rc/forums/mgr/sdnpmgrs/msg01238.html
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/9533.html
http://smart.online.fr/privacy/Part2
http://amug.org/~glguerin/opinion/win-nsa-key.html
Robert wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:23:51 -0400, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to work in
> >computer security at the NSA.
>
> Your credibility was shot with the first statement (and the technical
> aspects of the remainder are also without merit). Why would someone
> who works in computer security at NSA be inclined to divulge
> information to you? Chances are this individual stacks cans of green
> beans at the grocery store and in an attempt to boost his self image
> found the most gullible person he could and started spilling his
> imaginary beans.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
