Linux-Advocacy Digest #554, Volume #27 Sun, 9 Jul 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Microsoft's new ".NET" (RealCea)
Re: Luv Linux but it looses. (Rob S. Wolfram)
Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Ray Chason)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods (Bob Hauck)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451736 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Ray Chason)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RealCea)
Subject: Microsoft's new ".NET"
Date: 09 Jul 2000 22:19:11 GMT
Might as well put Microsoft on your right hand or forehead.
I cannot believe those guys. Did you know that Microsoft's ".NET" project is
nearly identical to a Netscape project in 1995 that was never finished
(probably due to Microsoft) called Costellation. Back then they were just
developing Windows 98. They are just a bunch of "has beens". Shove everyone in
the market around and steal other peoples ideas. Isn't that the worst type of
monopoly this country has ever seen? Innovation my ASS!! Whats up with the
crappy BIOs/IRQ architecture? You'd think they would develop something beyond
1970 technology there. All I see is a lucky man who got his OS (MS-DOS) on all
of IBM's PC's. And that was not even developed by him!!!
P.S. Internet Explorer was originally developed by Spry, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Luv Linux but it looses.
Date: 9 Jul 2000 16:09:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I love Linux but for alot of purposes it just isn't the ticket. Yes it maybe
>free and pretty stable and somewhat secure but for anybody worried about
>security, total stabilty, Solaris and SCO OpenServer win hands down.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROTFLOL!!!!
You're kidding, right? ISTR that SCO left the root-compromisable libXt
bug standing for *TWO YEARS* after it has been reported. Also they
shipped OpenServer 5.0.5 with SCO Doctor setuid-root, so one doesn't
have to go through the troubles of writing a program to smash the stack.
All you have to do is pick the menu-item "File -> Run Command" and
*anyone* on the system can run *any* command as root.
I wonder if this one has been plugged, but it sure is nice of SCO to
give the lusers a root compromise as an OS feature :-(
Honestly, if anyone is even *remotely* interrested in the security of
the OS, SCO is the absolute last OS I would recommend.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
>Ever heard of .cshrc?
That's a city in Bosnia. Right?
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 9 Jul 2000 22:20:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's the case. I have a dialup account with bSMTP (cable is no option,
I'm anxiously awaiting DSL in my town). I will be on a vacation[1] RSN
and I still want to be able to read my mail during my absence. So what I
did was add couple of rules to my .procmailrc that will pipe my mail
through a perl script. This script will verify that the mail has been
PGP-signed by me, and if so it will parse the times that the PPP
connection should be brought up and down so I can ssh into the system.
Everything happens on Linux, of course.
I am not a perl guru by far, but I could write it up in an evening
(including testing!). My question is, is this possible in Windows and if
so, how would it be accomplished (with the emphasis on security).
FYI I included the procmail rules and the actual script here.
[1] The vacation will be in Suriname, S.A., and the connection to the
Net feels like 9600 baud. So even if a Windows solution would be
possible technically, it still would not be an option...
Cheers,
Rob
===== begin procmail rules =====
:0 HcbW:$MAILDIR/.ppp.lk
* ^X-Execute: PPP
* !^X-Loop: pppfilter
| /home/rsw/bin/verif.pl
:0 Afe:$MAILDIR/.ppp.lk
| formail -a "X-Loop: pppfilter"
:0
* ^X-Execute: PPP
* !^X-Loop: pppfilter
testbox
===== end procmail rules =====
===== begin perl script =====
#!/usr/bin/perl
# script to verify a PGP clearsigned message and execute
# PPP-up and PPP-down commands on the times specified in the
# message
#
# DOB: Thu Jul 6 00:49:47 CEST 2000 - RW
# Dependencies: GnuPG and Timemodules (CPAN)
use GnuPG qw( :algo );
use IO::File;
use Time::ParseDate;
# command to be executed first
$UpCmd="/usr/bin/pon";
# command to be executed later
$DownCmd="/home/rsw/bin/cond_poff";
$gpg = new GnuPG();
@rawin=<STDIN>; # msg body will be piped by procmail
$FH=IO::File->new_tmpfile or die "Tempfile failed\n";
# Module GnuPG only works with a file in verify mode :-(
$FH->autoflush(1);
foreach ( @rawin ) {
chomp $_;
print $FH ("$_\n");
}
seek($FH,0,0);
$sign=$gpg->verify(signature=>$FH);
# Supposes a clearsigned text
# Script barfs if verify fails
close(FH);
if (! $sign->{keyid} eq "DB54EDD1D61A655D") {
print STDERR "Not Signed by me!\n";
exit -1;
}
$up=0;
$down=0;
# Parse the two times and convert to unix time_t format
foreach (@rawin) {
if (/^\s*PPP (Up|Down): (.*)/) {
if ($1 eq "Up") {
$up=parsedate($2);
} else {
$down=parsedate($2);
}
}
}
if ( $up <= time() ) {
print STDERR "No correct up-time in message.\n";
exit -1;
}
if ($down <= $up ) {
print STDERR "Down-time too small.\n";
exit -1;
}
# Use only the needed time elements for "at" and build an argument array
($_,$min,$hr,$day,$mon,$yr)=localtime($down);
$mon+=1;
$yr+=1900;
@AtArgs=($DownCmd,"/usr/bin/at",$hr.":"."$min",$mon."/".$day."/".$yr);
MyPipe(@AtArgs);
if ($?) { #The `at` failed :-(
exit -1;
}
($_,$min,$hr,$day,$mon,$yr)=localtime($up);
$mon+=1;
$yr+=1900;
@AtArgs=($UpCmd,"/usr/bin/at",$hr.":"."$min",$mon."/".$day."/".$yr);
MyPipe(@AtArgs);
sub MyPipe {
# Pipe the contents of the first arrelem through an exec of the rest
# No errorcheching here :-/
my ($txt,@ar)=@_;
my $PIPE;
open PIPE,"|-" or exec @ar;
print PIPE $txt;
close PIPE;
}
===== end perl script =====
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
A lot of the programs you see today are actually put together by
shamans, and you just take it and if the computer crashes you walk
around it three times...and maybe it's OK.
-- Linus Torvalds
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 09 Jul 2000 19:03:45 -0400
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem #2 is that people claim that the GPL is free; it isn't. It
> doesn't 'free' software any more than any other licence does, or any
> less. Because the software remains licenced, it isn't free. (Which
> doesn't necessarily invalidate the utility and the purpose of the GPL
> -- I'm only after removing the religious language.)
This applies equally well to any other "free" license except for
public domain. So now you are tilting at windmills. You have taken
upon yourself the task of educating everyone who talks about free
software and telling them that they're using an incorrect term,
because the only free software is public domain. You will have even
less success than you have had saying that just the GPL is not free.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:12:05 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in <3967A1B7.1274D810
> @ix.netcom.com>:
>
> >Your failure to realize that Linux is superior to any Microsoft OS.
>
> This is in fact what we're debating now. You state it is as fact - I
> question that.
Well try better questions.
>
>
> >> I make the statement "Linux lags behind Windows" based on what I've
> >> observed. Please explain how that equates to ignorance.
> >
> >Because you can't read an HCL.
>
> I've no idea what you are on about here.
>
> Are you accusing me of not bothering to check the HCL before I bought my PC
> and the various pieces of hardware? Would it interest you to know that I
> bought this PC long before I tried Linux (this time around)?
>
So this "old" PC had a Voodoo 5 on it?
>
> Why should I read a Linux HCL when, at the time, I had no interest in
> running Linux?
Was this before or after the Voodoo 5?
>
>
> Pete
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:16:12 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sat, 08 Jul 2000 18:15:26 -0400...
> ...and Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The topic of his articles always seem to be based around problems he has
> > > > > with Linux. His Corel Office review was a classic.
> > >
> > > How is a problem with Corel Office a problem with Linux?
> > >
> > > Hint: The Linux port of Corel Office runs on an *emulator layer*, and
> > > it's crap.
> >
> > Wine is an emulation layer?
>
> Correction: An API translation layer. (A thick one.)
Does wine have to translate API's instead of just running them?
This might be more of a performance hit than I thought.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.linux.sucks,be.comp.os.linux,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:18:28 -0400
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> Matthew Matchura wrote:
I got Aaron's message, but not Matthew's
Weird.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.linux.sucks,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:20:16 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sat, 08 Jul 2000 22:24:05 -0700...
> ...and Matthew Matchura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As far as I know, the only UNIX IE has been ported to is Solaris (Sparc).
> > > You could try running it under wine, but the results will probably not be
> > > that impressive.
> > >
> > > Colin Day
> >
> > Tried IE under WINE...results were not impressive!
>
> Same for me... However, what flabbergasted me was that a fairly recent
> Wine nearly managed to run Word 2000 -- everything was there, complete
> with blinking cursor. I could even type and the letters show up
> because I reacted fast enough before it crashed :)
Cool!
As I said in a different newsgroup, wine could be a bigger threat to
Microsoft than a courtroom full of antitrust prosecutors.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 23:42:09 GMT
On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:51:00 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> IOW, he doesn't think they need to document wire protocols because they
>> allow you to invent your own protocol instead of using theirs.
>
>My God, someone was listening!
Of course I was listening. I still don't agree that this is a good
solution to the "interoperability problem". The problem is not that I
am too stupid to understand what you are saying, but that I think you
are wrong about this "architecture" being the proper approach from the
customer's point of view.
>Honestly, your idea of "real choices" seems to be "everyone else
>has to do what I say".
I'm sorry, I can't hear you any more. There must be static on the
line.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 9 Jul 2000 23:04:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in <8k61rh$ha8$1
>@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>A REAL soundblaster 16 card, or a proprietary chip which came with
>>a special set of drivers so that it would be soundblaster compatible
>>for Windows programs.
>
>It's a Creative SB16 Value card.
IIRC you said elsewhere this was a Plug and Play card. There's your
trouble; Linux PnP support isn't mature. I had much the same issue
with my ISAPnP modem. (Beats the crap out of ending up with a
LoseModem of course.)
PCI cards don't have such issues, because you really can't have PCI
without plug and play.
The 2.4.0-test2 kernel has true ISAPnP support, but I haven't tried
to set it up yet.
>>> AHA152x unsupported?
>>
>>Adaptec 1540 chips are no problem, and 1520 chips should be O.K. too.
>>You do need to make sure that your terminators are configured
>>correctly (Windows may be setting them on set-up, on some cards, Linux
>>needs to be told to terminate).
>
>aha152x=0x340,11,7,1 is telling the driver the port address, the IRQ, the
>SCSI host and I'm not sure what the '1' means. Somehow the auto detect
>wasn't even getting this far.
Comments from the Linux 2.2.16 source, drivers/scsi/aha152x.c:
CONFIGURATION ARGUMENTS:
IOPORT base io address (0x340/0x140)
IRQ interrupt level (9-12; default 11)
SCSI_ID scsi id of controller (0-7; default 7)
RECONNECT allow targets to disconnect from the bus (0/1; default 1 [on])
PARITY enable parity checking (0/1; default 1 [on])
SYNCHRONOUS enable synchronous transfers (0/1; default 0 [off])
(NOT WORKING YET)
DELAY: bus reset delay (default 100)
EXT_TRANS: enable extended translation (0/1: default 0 [off])
(see NOTES below)
So that '1' allows targets to disconnect.
It looks like aha152x=0x340 would probably have been sufficient.
BTW, you never mentioned any ISAPnP issues with this card. I assume it's
a jumper-configured ISA card? That's why you had to set those parameters
manually. If the Windows driver configures itself, then either there's
some possibly-undocumented way of querying the card for its settings, or
the Windows driver is probing the possible I/O addresses. Autoprobing is
risky, and if you've built a 6809 system from scratch then I probably
don't need to explain why.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 23:55:17 GMT
In article <8k9aqs$o9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :>
> :> The tactic of assuming that the only reason someone disagrees with
> :> you is because they don't have all the information is egotism.
> :>
> : The tactic of continuing a lie is a little worse than a little
> : bit of egotism :-).
>
> Look, it isn't a lie if I actually believe it to be true. You can
> accuse me of being false. You can accuse me of being mislead, but
> you can't accuse me of lying, since it's pretty darn obvious I
> actually believe what I'm saying. This sort of ad hominem isn't
> going to swing me over to your point of view. Once upon a time you
> had a chance of convincing me. You don't anymore. I'm done with
> this thread. It's a shame, really, since I'll admit that with a
little
> more convincing, and some better arguing, there's a chance I might
> have changed my mind.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:10:08 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> On the contrary.
1> On the contrary.
1> On the contrary.
1> On the contrary.
All you could was pontificate, while ignoring the evidence for your
reading comprehension problems, as evidenced by the questions I
reproduced that you called "alleged".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.win2000.general,microsoft.public.win2000.new_user,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:10:56 GMT
On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:06:51 GMT, Yet Yu Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think you Microshaft people fans are hopeless. I'm sure M$ lawyers
>
will do all the blood sucking scheme to twist the law.
>There was AT&T, Standard Oil and IBM, did they resist the break up order?
Actually, of those, only Standard Oil did resist and was broken up
anyway. AT&T made a deal to be broken up. Interestingly, AT&T was
divided into fewer parts than Standard Oil, but the shareholders of
both companies made out quite well. IBM settled before the case was
brought to trial, and lived under court supervision for a couple of
decades.
>It's the law and precedence, M$ might add up to the list.
Apparently the New Economy is so important that we can't live without
these companies, yet also so delicate that enforcing the law will cause
them all to fail and their employees to be thrown into the street.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:15:16 -0400
In article <Av8a5.26314$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> All you could was pontificate, while ignoring the evidence for your
> reading comprehension problems, as evidenced by the questions I
> reproduced that you called "alleged".
What alleged "evidence"?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451736
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:19:59 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Note how he pontificates about me being
wrong, yet he hasn't produced a single bit of evidence for those alleged
"requirements". But let's examine the logic of the situation a little
closer. Let's suppose that those "requirements" did exist, and that I
didn't satisfy them, as Malloy has claimed. Is that supposed to be some
sort of explanation for why he did not reciprocate? But he claimed that
he did reciprocate! Yet he obviously did not, as evidenced by his
continued frequent postings in response to my postings that were in
response to others. Thus regardless of the existence or nonexistence of
the alleged "requirements", we are still left with the simple fact that
Malloy lied when he claimed that he reciprocated. He's too embarrassed
to admit that he, in fact, did not reciprocate, and is trying to cover
up that lie with another lie, namely this nonexistent "offer" of his,
and a third lie, namely my alleged "mistake", and a fourth lie, namely
"astrologer".
Note how he also avoids the illogic of his claim that he'd have
little reason to "frequent these precincts" if I wasn't here, yet
he doesn't frequent the other "precincts" where I appear. Seems like
he's comfortable only where he can count on others to join him.
107> Tholen tholenates some more.
107>
107> He's just trying to hide the fact that he's wrong. Bad, Tholen, bad! Note
107> how he tries to obfuscate the issue by referring to some alleged
107> "requirements", as if there had been none. I unilaterally ignore what
107> Tholen claims since 1992 (hey, maybe I should make that my trademark!)
107> without making any deals, without Tholen making or taking any offer. It is
107> unfortunate, however, that Tholen does not remember my offer and chooses to
107> lie about it. He's too embarassed to admit that tiny fact, however. What
107> can you expect of an astrologer? Typical Tholen.
107>
107> Now, the Tholen digestification proper:
107>
107> [Nope, nothing yet, nothing for 8 years!]
107>
107> Bye.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 9 Jul 2000 23:28:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The vast majority of people, unfortunately, buy or have bought
>pre-loads which are notorious for including Win hardware to keep the
>price low. Some models even have proprietary chasis which makes
>substituting replacement hardware difficult.
Proprietary chassis *cough*Compaq*cough* are a cut corner, Linux
or no. If your floppy disk fails, would you rather replace it with
the $30 model from Best Buy or the God-only-knows-how-expensive
model that you have to mail order direct from Compaq and wait six
weeks to get?
>But MY devices also work on the iMac.
>Not under Linux USB though.
Patience. 2.4.0 is on its way, and the beta kernel has USB support.
I found it prone to crash under heavy load, and so I've gone back
to 2.2.16; but even that can be patched for USB. See
http://www.linux-usb.org/ .
What USB devices do you have?
>What about the millions of folks who already have a system and want to
>try Linux?
A battle we probably can't win in the short term. Winmodems are
especially thorny, given the unpublished interfaces and the patents
on modem protocols. Winprinters are probably a different issue.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 17:44:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Below is a small extract from the beginning and the end of my log enteries
from this incident. The entire log is just under 200K. I hope this is
enough evidence. I would prefer to not have to post the entire log but I
will, if you demand it. I believe this is enough supporting evidence for
your involvement to be questioned.
Yes, you have claimed that you were not involved in your first reply. As
you know, I have not commented on your claim. I have not officially
rejected your statement and I have not stated belief in or against your
involvement since my first posting, in which I did not claim that you were
involved, only that the evidence point in your direction, so I was asking if
you could be involved.
Since that origiinal article, I have not tried to argue to support the case
of your involvement. All I have done is defend my reasoning to have
suspected your involvement in the first place.
As you will recall, I was the one who first suggested that it is possible
that someone had forged IP packets of the port scan to appear to have come
from you. In that reguard you could consider me to be your advocate. Gee
that admission of being your advocate in that instance hurts. ;-)
What good would taking it to Earthlink do since it was not involved with
this incident?
Jul 6 21:15:23 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:1 L=47 S=0x00 I=62384 F=0x4000 T=44 (#1)
Jul 6 21:15:46 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:2 L=47 S=0x00 I=51882 F=0x4000 T=44 (#1)
Jul 6 21:16:28 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:3 L=47 S=0x00 I=29127 F=0x4000 T=44 (#1)
Jul 6 21:17:32 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:4 L=47 S=0x00 I=52511 F=0x4000 T=44 (#1)
Jul 6 21:18:37 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:5 L=47 S=0x00 I=15136 F=0x4000 T=44 (#1)
.
.
.
Jul 7 08:38:05 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:1273 L=1500 S=0x00 I=8481 F=0x4000 T=51
(#1)
Jul 7 08:38:06 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:1274 L=1500 S=0x00 I=10222 F=0x4000 T=51
(#1)
Jul 7 08:42:25 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:1275 L=1500 S=0x00 I=63527 F=0x4000 T=43
(#1)
Jul 7 08:42:26 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:1276 L=1500 S=0x00 I=65228 F=0x4000 T=43
(#1)
Jul 7 08:42:27 olympus kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6
209.246.107.110:38654 207.93.32.142:1277 L=1500 S=0x00 I=1299 F=0x4000 T=43
(#1)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And what is the probobility that you are making it all up?
>
> With all due respect you haven't provided one shred of evidence other
> than the ability to read an ip address from a post.
>
> How can we be sure it even happened at all?
>
> I could for example read your ip address from the post I am following
> up on now and scream all over the place that I was getting hacked from
> that ip address.
>
> If it is that serious an issue for you I suggest you contact
> Earthlink.
>
> You will however have to provide them with more evidence other than
> your word.
>
> My guess is that you are just making the entire issue up, unless
> someone else if spoofing my ip address. I don't know, but I doubt that
> is the case.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 9 Jul 2000 20:06:18 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 8 Jul 2000 00:55:12
> [...]
>>It is actually a reasonable case to make a theoretical argument,
>>though. Suppose MS did actually copy the base code and would
>>not have been able to if it had been GPL'd. The alternative
>>would not have been MS giving away the source to win2k, it
>>would have been writing something themselves that would
>>almost certainly have been badly designed by comparison.
>>Most of us would be affected at least to some extent by
>>broken code on our networks. How can anyone possibly think
>>it is a good idea to encourage that?
>The GPL encourages bad design?
This is a theoretical case, but assume that a good standard actually
is implementated with GPL'd reference code. The GPL prevents
it being used in a vast number of circumstances, so those instances
are forced to invent something that that not only is not as
good, but is unlikely to interoperate correctly with the copy
that you use.
>I don't think so. Corporations that
>want to profiteer on IP encourage bad design.
Perhaps, but the way to avoid that is to make the reference
code usable by all, in any combination with anything else,
not to prevent use of the well-tested base code.
>The GPL does not
>contradict commercial development, distribution, or sale of software.
Yes it does. Where is the GPL'd component that incorporates
DES encryption or RSA, etc. No GPL'd code can be included in
any software that requires non-GPL'd code.
>Merely commercial ownership of software.
And since they can't be combined, anything that requires components
that are commercially owned cannot have any GPL'd parts. Just
like things that are less restricted than the GPL. Neither one
makes any sense from the perspective of potential users of this
prohibited code.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
