Linux-Advocacy Digest #194, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 07:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: BSD & Linux (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Standard desktop... ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Standard desktop... ("Davorin Mestric")
Unix is dead? ("Chris Williams")
Re: Elian ("Michiel Buddingh'")
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("doc
rogers")
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Guess How Many Windows Crashes.... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Red Hat does not recognize IDE drives ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:26:46 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Gcc-1.40 and a posix-question
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 3 Jul 91 10:00:50 GMT
Hello netlanders,
Due to a project I'm working on (in minix), I'm interested in the posix
standard definition. Could somebody please point me to a (preferably)
machine-readable format of the latest posix rules? Ftp-sites would be
nice.
---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).
I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
Linus ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
---
where did Linux write its an alternative for Minix anyway?
He has mentioned POSIX, not Minix-kernel-layout.
read and believe
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Standard desktop...
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:27:49 +0200
no, you said your KDE settings could be used on other OS because it was
open source. this has nothing to do with being open sourced or not.
you can run Internet Explorer on other OSes, but it is not open source.
what is your point again?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Get real, I was talking about the KDE *USER INTERFACE* being able to
run
> on different *OPERATING SYSTEMS*. The Windows98 *USER INTERFACE* can
> only run on the WINDOWS98 *OPERATING SYSTEM*. In fact the *NONE* of
MS's
> *USER INTERFACES* can run on ANY MS *OPERATING SYSTEM* other than the
> SINGLE *OPERATING SYSTEM* it was designed for.
not really true. internet explorer is turning into a full user
interface.
> KDE is a *USER INTERFACE* that CAN run on different *OPERATING
SYSTEMS*
> (I have it running on Linux and Solaris) from DIFFERENT COMPANIES (MS
> can not even do this with it's own *OPERATING SYSTEMS*) making it
> possible to give the SAME *USER INTERFACE* across DIFFERENT *OPERATING
> SYSTEMS*.
but this has nothing to do with it being open sourced. those things are
orthogonal to each other.
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:40:13 +0200
"Robert L." schreef:
> There's one way that Linux sell more than Win2k:
> if Win2k have 60000 bug, they sell 1 millions copy
> if Linux have ~10 bug ( XFree ) sell ? copy. ( don't know the exact number )
Where did you get this figure?
Don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of GNU/Linux, but this is simply impossible!
Also, the figure about Win2K with 60.000 bugs is very inaccurate as it is
very difficult to determine how many bugs a program would have.
It is generally a good estimation that a piece of software, OS or otherwise,
would have about 10 bugs per 100 lines of code. Yes! That much!
Just by being a good/bad programmer doesn't change this by more than
5 percent.
It's more of a question of how many bugs of these are truly irritating to the
user of that software to determine the quality of that software.
Have you ever tried writing a large piece of code yourself?
[snipped the rest]
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Standard desktop...
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:30:51 +0200
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus, with free (aka open source) software, you are free to
> change your hardware platform or your software company without
> losing the applications you want to use.
again, this is not tied to being open source. multiplatform and
open source are two distinct properties.
------------------------------
From: "Chris Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Unix is dead?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 03:54:48 -0400
I keep hearing "Unix is dead or will die soon."
What can replace it?
Linux?
Linux is Unix.
Chris Williams
------------------------------
From: "Michiel Buddingh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:17:58 +0200
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:32:46 -0400, DGITC wrote:
>
> >That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users are
> >already Communist.
>
> Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
Bullshit? Linux is one of the best examples of
anarcho-communism the world has ever seen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 20 Apr 2000 08:54:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> DO NOT put words in my mouth, chicken. Reread my statements above. I'm
>> talking of commonly used *open source* applications! Open source is
>> defined in the open source definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html)
>> and are part of the core debian distribution. That's why I limited my
>> scope to Debian. I can't possible make such a statement about a
>> commercial application that happens to be part of Redhat. READ WHAT I
>> WROTE! It's still quoted.
>
>No, what you originally wrote is not still quoted. Here it is:
>
>>> There's enough independent peer review of the Linux source code by many
>>> independent individuals to *GUARANTEE* that there is no backdoor in
>>> Linux and all it's commonly used open source applications.
Correct, I said it in [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>That says quite clearly that you seem to think that all Linux distributions
>(not just Debian) minus any non-open sourced apps are guaranteed to be back
>door free. I'm not putting words in your mouth, you spoke them.
It most definately does not! Please point me to the word "distribution"
in that statement? I've noticed your followup post where you finally
noticed the word "commonly". Please hold on to that "licido interfallum"
and let's reread my statement. There are *two* common meanings to the
name "Linux". One being a complete computing environment based on the
Linux kernel and GNU utilities, the other being the kernel only (hence
the name Debian GNU/Linux that RMS favours). Please note that the
commonly used open source application that run on the Linux kernel are
part of every major distribution.
Now, if I talk about "Linux and all its commonly used open source
applications", which meaning of the name Linux could I possibly have
ment in that statement? Logically? I hope I'm not asking too much when I
ask you to consult some logic?
Next request for you to consult logic. The whole discussion was
pinpointing to open source vs. closed source. How can I possibly be
making such statement about complete distributions when many
distributions contain closed source software as standard (like
WordPerfect, Staroffice, Netscape and do on). *Please*, use some common
sense, will you? I honestly think you're capable of it.
>Either retract your statement that Linux and all it's open sourced
>applications are guaranteed to be back door free, or remove your
>restrictions on Debian.
By restricting it to Debian (main), I just ruled out non-open source
software. By including the whole Debian main / stable tree, I *EXPANDED*
my statement above, *NOT* limited it. If you can't figure out what I'm
talking about, you know less of what you're talking about than even I
considered likely.
>> >In fact, such a backdoor did exist in red hat not too long ago
>> >(within the last 18 months). A binary distribution of Red Hat on a
>> >mirror site had been compromised and had a back doored file
>> >installed into it.
[snip]
>They made it to a version of Red Hat that was distributed on a mirror site.
>For several hours people were downloading the back doored code.
This is entirely possible. But was it commonly used open source
software? Please post the URL so I can verify your point or don't bring
it up at all. It makes no sense like this.
>> I never said that. I talked about *COMMONLY USED OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE*.
>
>No, you said *ALL* open source software And Linux.
I consider this retracted, given the follow-up to your own post.
>If it cannot eliminate all bugs, how can it possibly eliminate all back
>doors that could possibly exist?
OK, last rehash on this one. Bugs are possible by LEAVING OUT some code
(i.e., code that should do some sanity checking). Backdoors are only
possible by *INCLUDING EXTRA CODE* (i.e. code that should check the
constrains for allowing an action that would not be allowed, or code
that will take some action that would otherwise not have been taken).
Because this is *EXTRA* code, it stands out, *especially* when it's been
obfuscated.
Bottomline, I don't give a r@t's @ss what you think about the number of
bugs in open source software, it's off-topic. The topic is about back
doors.
>No, I'm calling you on your statements. And I never made any claims about
>Windows, you however made claims about Linux and *ALL* of it's open source
>software.
I accepted a challenge that has been brought up by YOU (Message ID:
3yBK4.2492$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) but I'm not letting you fill in all
the blancs and I will only accept if their's something to gain, hence
the counterchallenge. But you've clearly chickened out.
So let's cut down to the main point of this thread. My statement is that
open source software is by its very nature inherently more secure that
closed source software when it concerns back doors. Do you or do you not
agree with this statement, and please elaborate as to why you hold your
opinion or why you consider my statement incorrect.
I use Debian Slink, so I'll repeat my harsh statement:
** I'm using backdoor-free software ** (Prove me wrong).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: None. They just declare darkness the new industry standard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:29:05 -0500
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It most definately does not! Please point me to the word "distribution"
> in that statement?
What is Linux without a distribution? Since each distribution ships
whatever version of the kernel they want to ship, it's entirely possible for
a distribution to have a trojaned kernel (especially if it ships a binary).
I've been told repeatedly on this newsgroup that hardly anyone ever
recompiles a kernel anymore, thus you could very well have a backdoor
without even knowing it, especially if the distribution is compromised on a
mirror site.
> Next request for you to consult logic. The whole discussion was
> pinpointing to open source vs. closed source. How can I possibly be
> making such statement about complete distributions when many
> distributions contain closed source software as standard (like
> WordPerfect, Staroffice, Netscape and do on). *Please*, use some common
> sense, will you? I honestly think you're capable of it.
Fine. But again, the fact that they ship as binaries means that they could
have backdoors in them without your knowledge, even if you've read the
source since the binary may not match the source. Additionally, backdoors
could exist in the source in ways that are difficult to pinpoint by casual
observation.
> >Either retract your statement that Linux and all it's open sourced
> >applications are guaranteed to be back door free, or remove your
> >restrictions on Debian.
>
> By restricting it to Debian (main), I just ruled out non-open source
> software. By including the whole Debian main / stable tree, I *EXPANDED*
> my statement above, *NOT* limited it. If you can't figure out what I'm
> talking about, you know less of what you're talking about than even I
> considered likely.
No. Each distribution of Linux gives different opportunities for breaches
in security.
If you're so sure about open source software, why not include every
distribution and it's open source portions (even if there are closed source
portions)? Remember that a given distribution can ship with any version of
a given open source program, and might ship with a modified one that hasn't
been peer reviewed at the time that it ships.
> >They made it to a version of Red Hat that was distributed on a mirror
site.
> >For several hours people were downloading the back doored code.
>
> This is entirely possible. But was it commonly used open source
> software? Please post the URL so I can verify your point or don't bring
> it up at all. It makes no sense like this.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-99-01-Trojan-TCP-Wrappers.html
> >If it cannot eliminate all bugs, how can it possibly eliminate all back
> >doors that could possibly exist?
>
> OK, last rehash on this one. Bugs are possible by LEAVING OUT some code
> (i.e., code that should do some sanity checking).
Are you claiming that this is the only type of bug in open source code?
That's what it sounds like.
> Backdoors are only
> possible by *INCLUDING EXTRA CODE* (i.e. code that should check the
> constrains for allowing an action that would not be allowed, or code
> that will take some action that would otherwise not have been taken).
Not true. A back door might be to remove security code that would otherwise
exist, but in an area where it may not be normally tested. Or perhaps you
intentionally introduce a bug that would allow you to gain access.
> Because this is *EXTRA* code, it stands out, *especially* when it's been
> obfuscated.
especially? It would be pretty easy to create some code that intentionally
trashed the call stack without it being obvious. And if you could predict
the way that the call stack was trashed, it could create a back door.
> Bottomline, I don't give a r@t's @ss what you think about the number of
> bugs in open source software, it's off-topic. The topic is about back
> doors.
And why can't an intentional bug be a back door? But that's really beside
the point. It takes roughly the same skill to find bugs as to find back
doors, yet people with those skills are constantly missing bugs, how can you
trust that they haven't missed back doors as well?
> >No, I'm calling you on your statements. And I never made any claims
about
> >Windows, you however made claims about Linux and *ALL* of it's open
source
> >software.
>
> I accepted a challenge that has been brought up by YOU (Message ID:
> 3yBK4.2492$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) but I'm not letting you fill in all
> the blancs and I will only accept if their's something to gain, hence
> the counterchallenge. But you've clearly chickened out.
It's not a challenge. You stated specifically that the software is
guaranteed. Nobody in the world is guaranteeing Linux software as being
back door free, thus the only way you could make such a statement is if YOU
are the one guaranteeing it. I'm merely holding you to your word, not
issuing a challeng.
> So let's cut down to the main point of this thread. My statement is that
> open source software is by its very nature inherently more secure that
> closed source software when it concerns back doors. Do you or do you not
> agree with this statement, and please elaborate as to why you hold your
> opinion or why you consider my statement incorrect.
Neither is inherantly more or less secure. If we take your statement at
face value, you can take the same identical code, make one copy open source
and the other closed. Why would one copy be "inherently less secure" when
the code is identical?
You can argue that open source software has a greater chance of being more
secure, but you cannot argue that it is *inherantly" more secure.
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 06:37:04 -0400
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:43:02 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | "Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > > > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> | > > > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> | > > How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as
well as
> | > > revenue that the publisher lost?
> | > FFS revenue is not a right.
> | However, copyright is. That is Clancy's intellectual property, he
created it
> | and he alone should be the sole person to profit from it.
> Copyright is not a right. Intellectual property is not property.
All you'd have to argue in this context is "Copyright is a right.
Intellectual property is property." Which claims are correct? How would we
determine this?
> | By making illegal copies of his books, you are in essence stealing from
him
> | because those people might have otherwise bought the book.
> And in writing a competing book on the same subject I am also in
> essence stealing from him because people might have bought his book,
> but the bought mine instead. Correct?
Not in my opinion, no.
> | I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with this.
> | Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have been
> | common law for centuries.
> Just because it's a law does not make it right.
Good point.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:46:41 -0500
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> One reason that things have changed is the trial. That is a very
> hard thing to prove or disprove, but it does seem possible that
> the trial has caused MS to modify their strong arm tactics a bit
> for the duration of the trial.
Microsofts OEM liscensing has not changed since the start of the trial in
any significant way. MS did abandon certain other practices (such as
requiring ISP's to use only IE), but as far as their OEM nothing has
changed.
> Another point I would make is this: If I shoot you, I have
> committed a crime and deserve to be tried and punished
> regardless of whether or not you recover from the injury.
> However, I agree that any punishment must take into account the
> current state of the market.
Anti-trust is not about punishing the guilty. It's about changing the
behavior of a monopolist. That's why things like breaking up the company
and limiting them to certain practices are the results of such trials. Not
as punishment, but to prevent the behavior from happening again (which is
why they're called remedies and not punishments). Therefore, it makes
little sense to impose remedies based on out of date information.
> See my comments above. The market did not change all by itself -
> it changed (a little) but the presence of the DOJ quite possibly
> influenced the market.
Actually, more than likely it's the fact that Linux has actually become a
viable product in the last 2 years since the trial began. 2 years ago Linux
suffered a great deal and didn't have very much market support. Today, many
of the things that held it back are non-issues.
> I agree that it is normal for businesses to try to crush each
> other, but in the case of abuse of monopoly power, it most
> definitely does not benefit the consumer. Businesses fail
> everyday, and that is normal. In theory, consumers decide which
> businesses live and which die. But a monopoly that abuses its
> power to kill off competitors is in effect murdering those
> companies before consumers have a chance to decide.
So a monopoly should be crippled so that a poorly run company can continue
to function? Let's face it. Microsoft is where it is, not because of
monopoly power (though that helped). Microsoft is where it's at mostly
because it's competitors dropped the ball. For instance, both WordPerfect
failed to see the importance of the Windows based word processor market
until well after Ami and Word had established themselves. Lotus (who bought
Ami) later dropped the ball when Windows 95 came out, choosing to take a
"wait and see" approach before porting their word processor to 32 bit.
Meanwhile, Microsoft had been porting Word and Excel to NT while Lotus sat
on it's laurels. This allowed Microsoft to not only "port" Office to 32 bit
Windows 95, but also to enhance it, since they had ported to NT already.
> Why
> >should the Netscape situation have been any different?
>
> Again, see my above comment. The Netscape situation was
> different.
You didn't answer the question. WHY should it have been different?
> The issue is not with just providing a browser, the issue is the
> way MS used their monopoly power to force consumers to use their
> brower and the lengths they went to to kill a competitor that
> threatened their monopoly.
They didn't do anything that Netscape wasn't already doing. Netscape
pioneered every "monopolistic practice" that Microsoft used against them.
When Netscape had 90% of the market, nobody else could get in. Even when
Microsoft included IE for free with the OS, Netscape continued to be a
monopoly. It wasn't until IE actually became a peer with Netscape (around
IE3) that IE began to take market share away from Netscape, and it wasn't
until IE became better than Netscape that they actually gained more market
share than Netscape.
IE won mostly on it's technical benefits. The market proved with IE1, 2 and
3 that even if the product is integrated and ISP's promote the product, that
customers won't drink the proverbial water they've been lead to.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:54:28 -0500
"Robert L." wrote:
> There's one way that Linux sell more than Win2k:
> if Win2k have 60000 bug, they sell 1 millions copy
That's an interesting way of looking at it: W2K sold 63K * 500,000 =
31,500,000,000 bugs last month!
Together with last month, that's a whopping 94,500,000,000 bugs sold so far!
Step right up, folks! Get yours while they last!!!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guess How Many Windows Crashes....
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:49:08 -0500
CG wrote:
> We installed a new network printer yesterday. Guess how many times my
> "user friendly" windows 98 machine crashed in the process of
> installing the new printer driver.
Those aren't crashes, they're, ummm... printer installation
auto-reboots. Yeah. A user-friendliness feature -- saves you from
having to do all those tedious installation reboots yourself.
As for my guess... 3 ?
And what's the prize for the first person to get it right?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat does not recognize IDE drives
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:56:15 -0500
DE wrote:
> Can anyone lend some insight as to what is going on ??
I can't, but you might try comp.os.linux.setup or comp.os.linux.hardware.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
