Linux-Advocacy Digest #468, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tholenbot)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (mlw)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (tholenbot)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: From Linux BACK to Win 98SE (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (unknown)
Re: Not so fast... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Not so fast... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What have you done? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (Scott Babb)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (billy ball)
Re: Not so fast... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (John Hasler)
Re: Not so fast... (Jeff Szarka)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:24:46 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're the pope now?
Don't you know?
--
What is allegedly "roly-poly" about the fish heads? Evidence, please.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:27:42 -0400
tholenbot wrote:
> What is allegedly "roly-poly" about the fish heads? Evidence, please.
It is a gestalt sort of thing.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:34:32 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Myrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> rj friedman wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:25:14 Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > And how did you leap to that assinine conclusion?
>
> Note: no response
Note: incorrect spelling. How predictable.
> Sure is.
Sure is what?
> Make yourself look like more of an
> unreasonable
> jackass.
On what basis do you claim that the jackass is "unreasonable"?
> I'll extend the proverbial olive branch once and only once: What is your
> problem with me?
Can't you tell? More evidence of your Marty comprehension problems.
> If you can express it in a cohesive thought (lacking
> your
> usual baseless insults),
How ironic.
> I'd sure love to hear it.
Your emotions are irrelevant.
> What did I do
Don't you know?
> to earn
> such
> scorn from you?
Enlightenment comes from within.
> Do you even know why you're so annoyed with me?
Maybe your illogical posts have something to do with this.
> I gotta
> say,
> I don't
Obviously not.
--
On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:35:46 GMT
"John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linus' nationality has nothing to do with the sometimes irritating mess
that
> Windows* is. Bill Gates' nationality has nothing to do with the licensing
> mess
> that Linux is.
>
If Linus was American, he may not put Linux under GPL.
If Bill Gates is not American, he may not be brought to court
for building a company with monopoly power. Without the
timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
> --
> John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:39:04 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> So you're the pope now?
>
>
>Don't you know?
Don't you?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: From Linux BACK to Win 98SE
Date: 11 May 2000 19:43:25 -0700
[Follow-ups redirected]
>I currently have Corel Linux OS on my laptop and I just don't like the way
>it works, I've had monitor problems, and a whole mess of things. I want to
>take it off completely and reinstall Win 98SE.
I remember when all the Windoze users would be like, "you know, Linux is
like, so hard to install". Well, I guess those days are over, since
Windows users have a much easier time installing Linux than they do
reinstalling Windows.
Microsoft has this goal of making reinstalling Windows impossible. You
know that CDROM you get with your Windows machine that lets you reinstall
Windows, should you pooch your install, have a hard disk die, or when the
inevitable registry corruption happens? Microsoft wants to get rid of
that CD, since they worry so much that people are using those CDs to
pirate Windows.
The end result of this idiotcy by Microsoft is that people will install
and use Linux when their Windoze installs get hozed. A computer is not
reusable unless the OS the computer runs on is on CD in a convenient
place.
- Sam
--
Please post, and not email, questions you have about my answers
Go to http://samiam.org/cgi-bin/mailme to get my email address
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unknown)
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: 12 May 2000 02:18:08 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:37:57 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>billy ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:03:21 GMT, scumbucket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >This is the full spec:
>>
>> [M$ "copyrighted" info snipped]
>>
>> what's really sad is that:
>>
>> 1) M$ uses perverse, insipid legal verbiage
>
>You mean like the GPL.
>
>> 2) people and companies are initimated by M$ tactics
>
>You mean like the GPL. Every company i've worked for has banned useage of
>code found on the internet due to the GPL's hardline tactics of forcing any
>developer that includes GPL'd code to publish all of their code. They
>simply don't want to take the chance.
I'm sure the *BSD developers will be interested to know that. I guess they
may be taking their websites and ftp sites down since their code is
found on the Internet...
>
>> 3) M$ adopts/steals Kerberos, then corrupts the protocol,
>> violates MIT's BSD-style license, then adds its own
>> licensing stipulation to the release of specifications
>> in order to quash use of the protocol on other platforms,
>> and prohibit cross-platform compatibility, and then cites
>> DCMA to quash criticism...
>
>BSD-style liscening is no liscensing. You can do with it as you please.
>You aren't even required to give credit anymore.
But, but...BSD code is found on the Internet...now I'm really confused!
>
>Also, Microsoft worked closely with the Kerberos standards committee, and
>MS's implementation is entirely standards compliant. Nothing was "stolen".
>
Nope, just "extended".
>> M$ is going to get every evil action back - in spades...
>
>Probably, but you haven't named any.
>
But can karma, mojo, or what have you, really be explained by mere words?
--
.sig semper tyrannis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:51:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 19:48:37 -0500 <dqIS4.628$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Debatable. I think most Linux users recognize that the Linux
>> system is highly resistant to virii, but not totally immune.
>
>Then explain the thread titled "Linux will continue to be immune"
Dunno. I'm not familiar with that particular thread, and SLRN won't
let me go back to visit it while I compose this.
Someday, I'll compose The World's Perfect News Reader. :-)
>
>> True, and whoever did it was apparently fairly clever.
>> This doesn't mean of course that Microsoft doesn't have back
>> doors.
>
>Then how come Microsofts web site has never been compromised?
Probably because they're extra vigilant. After all, think of
the embarrassment. :-)
>
>> >6) User zealotry
>> >A virus could spread simply because everyone running Linux thinks
>> >they're safe. I'm sure many don't give a second thought about the
>> >possibility of a virus outbreak. How many people blindly trust RPM's
>> >to be safe? Lots.
>>
>> How many people blindly trust Outlook Express, VB Scripting Host,
>> or Microsoft Windows to be safe?
>
>Nobody ;)
>
>Why do you think virus scanners are so popular?
Yeah, but why did ILOVEYOU spread so fast?
>
>> >7) Pre-emptive strikes against security problems in open source
>> >software
>> >Why report the bug or fix it when you can exploit it first?
>>
>> One advantage of O.S. is that, once reported, things tend to be
>> fixed rather quickly. Consider the teardrop scenario, for instance.
>
>Of course that assumes that everyone is staying up to date.
True.
>
>> >Something to think about before everyone climbs up into their ivory
>> >towers and pretends it can't happen here.
>>
>> I'll agree with that sentiment. Just remember, Windows users are
>> down in the trenches, too.... :-)
>
>I don't think anyone is denying that.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:51:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 12 May 2000 00:54:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:25:10 GMT, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>:I think you might want to check the spelling on that word :)
>
>Yea.... that should be "facilitate"
>
>Not sure how that slipped by. MS Word auto-correct maybe...?
Hmm..."This spell checker might be X-rated"? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- or maybe NC-17?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:56:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 12 May 2000 00:35:30 GMT
<mlIS4.76417$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Steve Harvey would say:
>>In article <RsmS4.15586$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher
>>Browne wrote:
>>>There does indeed need to be a file transfer service that doesn't
>>>transfer passwords in clear text; layering FTP atop SSH is a quite
>>>appropriate way to cope with this.
>>
>>There's also a secure copy tool - scp - that is part of ssh, and
>>serves this purpose very nicely.
>
>Unfortunately, it needs to become ubiquitous.
>
>Which requires that it be _free enough_ to become ubiquitous. Which
>it isn't, yet...
>
><http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9810/msg00130.html>
Ugh. Yet Another Strangely Licensed Non-Free Tool That Should
Probably Be Free But Isn't. :-)
And then there's the government, which finally woke up and bought
half a clue. At least, I think it's half a clue; I haven't looked
through the specific proposals. (I hope it's the correct half!)
Sigh.
>--
>To err is human, to moo bovine.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cryptography: see MUNITION.
Munition: See ARMS.
Arms: See Amendment II.
------------------------------
From: Scott Babb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:13:07 GMT
>From a small, dark corner of the flat Earth he inhabits,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> billy ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 1) M$ uses perverse, insipid legal verbiage
>
> You mean like the GPL.
>
Let's paraphrase, shall we?
GPL: Here's my software and the source to it. You aren't
allowed to restrict the distribution of them or derivative
works of them.
M$: Here's our software. If it works, you're lucky. If it
doesn't, it's not our fault. If your computer catches fire
and is completely destroyed, you cannot load this software on
the machine you buy to replace it. If we decide we don't want
you to run the software any more, you can't. No refunds.
Which seems more insipid and perverse to you?
> > 2) people and companies are initimated by M$ tactics
>
> You mean like the GPL. Every company i've worked for has
> banned useage of code found on the internet due to the
> GPL's hardline tactics of forcing any developer that
> includes GPL'd code to publish all of their code. They
> simply don't want to take the chance.
You're intimidated by the GPL?!? You need to get out more!
I've worked for a huge defense contractor, a major computer
company, a small robotics company, the worlds largest security
and printing company, a college, and a small telephone and
networking company. Every one of them used GPL software.
They didn't write GPL-ed code into their own products, since
their engineering staffs all had enough talent to write original
code on their own. The did, however, occasionally ship GPL-ed
products with their own, following the GPL when they did so.
>
> > 3) M$ adopts/steals Kerberos, then corrupts the protocol,
> > violates MIT's BSD-style license, then adds its own
> > licensing stipulation to the release of specifications
> > in order to quash use of the protocol on other platforms,
> > and prohibit cross-platform compatibility, and then cites
> > DCMA to quash criticism...
>
> BSD-style liscening is no liscensing. You can do with it
> as you please. You aren't even required to
> give credit anymore.
MIT's license is not "no liscensing [sic]." Also even if you
"aren't even required to give credit anymore" it doesn't mean
that you are allowed to claim the work as your own.
>
> Also, Microsoft worked closely with the Kerberos standards
> committee, and MS's implementation is entirely standards
> compliant. Nothing was "stolen".
I remember the first time I encountered Kerberos. It was long
before Microsoft had any interest in networking. In fact, it
was long before Gates pooh-poohed the Internet as a geek fad
that would never catch on because Microsoft wouldn't back it in
the original version of his book "The Road Ahead." If Microsoft
"worked closely with the Kerberos standards committee," it was
probably to try to get the Kerberos folks to explain how it
worked, since it wasn't written in Visual BASIC.
>
> > M$ is going to get every evil action back - in spades...
>
> Probably, but you haven't named any.
>
[sigh] You're right, Eric. The rest of the world is marching
out of step and you're the only one hearing the beat. Now that
we've all realized how wonderful and benevolent Microsoft is and
how it's entirely our fault their software is bloated and buggy,
you can probably quit your job as full-time Microsoft apologist.
Your work is done. Our negative engrams have been cleared.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:17:33 GMT
In article <66KS4.2874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Without the
> timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
operating systems vendor.
Its time for a change again.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:47:33 -0500
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Or how about this site:
> > >
> > > < http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html>
> > >
> > > Where the author has this list:
> >
> > [large list of undocumented functions deleted]
> >
> > Noone is arguing that there are not undocumented functions. What we're
> > arguing is that nobody can provide a list of undocumented functions that
> > current Microsoft applications take advantage of. Most (if not all) of
> > those API's are used by the OS itself rather than applications.
>
> We have a utility in OS/2 called EXEHDR. It can show all of the DLLs that
get
> dynamically linked to the executable in question as well as which ordinals
it
> uses. I have to imagine that something similar exists in the Win32 world.
> This could provide the requested proof.
Who do you think created EXEHDR? Microsoft did and it's been available for
years.
That said, nobody has been able to provide the requested proof.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:42:05 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:37:57 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>billy ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip digression]
>> M$ is going to get every evil action back - in spades...
>
>Probably, but you haven't named any.
let's wait and see, shall we?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:49:40 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:48:37 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Debatable. I think most Linux users recognize that the Linux
:> system is highly resistant to virii, but not totally immune.
:
:Then explain the thread titled "Linux will continue to be immune"
That's a perfect example.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:48:18 GMT
Christopher Browne writes:
> They appear to regard it as a "cult" rather than as an ordinary religion.
> I would tend to agree with that regard.
I thought Hubbard was dead. Perhaps he has not been dead long enough?
> Ah, but if they cannot have _any_ regulations on religion or religious
> activity, this means that those that would wish to do nefarious things
> need only establish themselves as a religion, and establish the nefarious
> activities as religious activities.
No. By "regulate religion" I mean "We have determined that your
organization is a religion, so you must register with the Ministry of
Religion and follow its regulations" or suchlike. Regulating "nefarious
things" without regard to the sociological classification of organizations
involved with them does not constitute regulating religion. Forbidding
certain activities to religious organizations while allowing them to all
others (or vice-versa) is.
> Scientology has some activities (running businesses, running conferences,
> providing "business technologies") that appear _not_ to be religious
> matters.
This distinguishes them from the Catholic Church how?
> Whilst religious organizations traditionally encourage the widespread
> dissemenation of their "scriptures," whether that be the Koran, the
> Christian Bible, Hindu scriptures, or such,...
I'm sure that this will come as quite a surprise to students of the myriad
of mystery religions that have existed over the millennia.
> If you regard religious activities as being inherently irrational,...
Much (perhaps most) human activity is irrational.
> ...and thereby a "bad thing,"...
I don't consider that which is irrational to be automatically "bad".
> ...then the _appropriate_ direction that comes from that regard should be
> to forbid them altogether.
Nor do I have any desire to see all that I consider "bad things" forbidden.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:54:20 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:39:53 GMT, "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
:It's the same for windows, i mean, if user download anything, they can get a
:virus. I infected my system once, with tchernobyl, the worst is that i have
:virus scan, and it didn't detect it. From this time, i remove virus scan,
:but i download less program from unknown source.
Right and that is the way most Windows viruses spread. ILOVEYOU and
other vbs viruses are a new fad. In the past, plenty of damage was
done with more traditional viruses / trojans.
:In Linux, as long as you are as user and not as root, the virus are not very
:destructive. In windows, any virus can attack anything. In other OS, i don't
:know.
So if I create a user account called Jeff a trojan virus could not
destroy /home/mp3 ? and /home/jpg ? Like ILOVEYOU did?
:This is why we "don't believe in virus". If we do what we should do, there's
:no big dangerous virus.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
