Linux-Advocacy Digest #585, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Stuart Fox)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:36:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Se�n � Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Heh. Or how about "superior product"? I find this rather hilarious
>given Max's assumed tone of authority when discussing this subject.
If Microsoft had a superior product, why did they spend so much time and
money monopolizing?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
"More broadly, Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the
competitive process through which the computer software industry
generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of
consumers. Id. � 412.
"Viewing Microsoft's conduct as a whole also reinforces the conviction
that it was predacious. Microsoft paid vast sums of money, and renounced
many millions more in lost revenue every year, in order to induce firms
to take actions that would help enhance Internet Explorer's share of
browser usage at Navigator's expense. "
On the odd chance you're willing to learn, I'll give you a clue. Having
a superior product doesn't build a monopoly. Just a huge market share
(or should I say "profits", since market share is meaningless.) And
then, only temporarily.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:50:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> >> >Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) :
>> >> >
>> >> >===============
>> >> >The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements:
>> >> >(1)
>> >> >the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
>> >> >willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished
>> >> >from
>> >> >growth or development as a consequence of a superior product,
>> >> >business
>> >> >acumen, or historic accident.
>> >> >===============
>> >
>> >"Business acumen" is happenstance?
>>
>> Effectively, yes. Because it is distinct from, in the language of the
>> court, "production efficiency". Consider a company which just landed a
>> *huge* deal which gives them a 'decisive marketing advantage' (other
>> than competing on merits). Are they to be immediately convicted merely
>> because they now have "monopoly power"? No, that would be oppressive
>> and counter to the purpose of the free market which the anti-trust laws
>> protect. However, bear in mind, if they should do anything to
>> *maintain* that decisive advantage, well, that's a crime.
>
>That's wrong. Once you have monopoly power, the first test above is
>met. To be in violation, the second test also has to be met. If what
>you do to maintain the decisive advantage is to create a "superior
>product", then you escape liability under the Supreme Court's test. Go
>ahead and try to argue otherwise to the Supreme Court. It's their rule.
Yea, but its your (botched) interpretation. There is no time-lag
between the tests; you look at any case, and make a decision based on
the evidence. We aren't tracking anybody's business history; we're
making a decision on points of law and facts of evidence.
You are correct, that if what you do to *try* to maintain a decisive
advantage is to create a 'superior product'. And how long do you figure
it is going to stay superior? Designing a superior product isn't a
conscious act of engineering "oh, I will make it 'superior'". If you
can compete, you compete. You won't keep monopoly power very long at
all, but you don't need it to compete. And if you can compete *well*,
you might still keep, or even build on, the large market share which
might have contributed to your monopoly power, along with the
circumstances that might have given you the ability to not compete, had
you chosen to use anti-competitive means to *make* your product
"superior", rather than letting natural market forces decide if it was
or was not, and how long it would be, superior.
Oh, you can keep the market share, if you're able. But, no, you're not
allowed to maintain the monopoly power. That's monopolizing, and its a
crime.
>> >That predatory power *is* monopoly power to begin with. The Supreme
>> >Court regonizes, in the above passage, that you can have "possession of
>> >monopoly power" (element 1) without also having the items listed as
>> >element 2. According to the Supreme Court, you can have "possession of
>> >monopoly power" without being in violation of section 2 of the Sherman
>> >Act. The passage is quite clear about that.
>>
>> It is popular wisdom, not the Supreme Court, which equates having
>> monopoly power with being a monopoly.
>
>Well, the courts really never use the term "monopoly" by itself, so you
>could argue that the courts have no conception of what a "monopoly" is,
>but since everyday folks talk about these things in terms of "monopoly"
>you have to make a translation, even if the Supreme Court doesn't give
>you an official one.
Yea, I guess that's right. If it weren't for the damn "having a
monopoly isn't illegal" crap, it might work, too.
>The terms you see in the court cases are "monopoly power", "market
>power", "power to restrain competition", "monopolization", "attempted
>monopolization", etc. You don't see them say, "X has a monopoly on Y."
>You see them say, "X has monopoly power over the market for Y".
Which isn't synonymous with "violated �2 of the Sherman Act", and that
is unspeakably important to understand. But that's because "having
monopoly power" is not "monopolizing" according to legal lingo. Since
"monopolizing" *is* synonymous with "violated �2 of the Sherman Act", I
can't see using the term "monopoly" the way people do today as accurate,
consistent, OR practical.
>When random people talk about these things, they usually just use
>"monopoly" by itself. So then you have to decide how that would
>translate into legalese. And it seems to me that when most people say
>"monopoly" the legal translation ought to be "monopoly power" or "market
>power", and it's quite clear that you can acquire monopoly power without
>being in violation of the law.
That's fine. The problem is when you translate it back, it becomes
"having a monopoly isn't illegal" and that is devastating to the ethical
system inherent in the 'popular wisdom'.
>> Another re-write of the old saw:
>> "It isn't illegal to have the power to be the monopoly, its only illegal
>> to gain it or acquire it willfully." Again, it just doesn't quite flow
>> the way we'd like. I still prefer "having a monopoly is illegal". It
>> keeps them on their toes, at worse.
>
>You might prefer that, but that's not how the courts have applied the
>law.
Sorry, you're mistaken, still. It is simply not how you would like to
interpret the decision of those courts. The fact is, all of those
commercial companies that people say are "monopolies", are, and actually
do commit federal crimes in their profit-seeking behavior *every single
day*. Because people think its OK to try to increase your market share
on purpose, and its not.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:35:11 -0400
Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:43:07 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >That all changed a few years ago. Now, you can sell electrical power
>> >anywhere you want, and in many places, you can even force the power
>> >companies to let you use their lines for that purpose.
>>
>> Maybe in your area, but not in all by any means. Most states are still
>> thinking it over.
>They're trying to figure out how to implement it. The question isn't about
>preserving local power companies' monopolies. It's about how to let other
>companies compete without completely dicking over the folks who already have
>established businesses.
>There are a lot of regulatory issues, like how to let
>government-subsidized rural electric co-ops get into local urban markets
>without having to give up their (very large) U.S. government subsidies.
RE Co-ops do not get subsidies. They get loan guarantees. I don't think there
was one that failed to repay the loans -- at least not until the late 80s, and
then they were small community owned co-ops with interests in canceled nuclear
power plants.
The right likes to spread lies and mis-information about the REA because it
managed to do what free enterprise said couldn't be done without losing money.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:56:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> A) You are not "buying" anything when you pay taxes.
>
>Fine. Shut down the government then.
Boy, if there's a world record for distance in missing the point, ...
>> B) A head tax is a non-tax within the context of these discussions.
>
>that's like declaring multiplication to be non-mathematical with the
>context of these discussions.
Ummm... no.
>> I honestly didn't figure you were that stupid, Aaron. You wouldn't even
>> get the short waiting period before they'd kill all the rich people with
>> your system.
>
>Progressive income taxes are immoral
>flat-rate income taxes are immoral
>
>Wealth Redistribution is slavery of the workers.
Oh, so you're a *Marxist*.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:02:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> You are allowed to increase
>> your profits. If that increases your market share, as well, then fine.
>> You are not allowed to take efforts to increase your market share
>> directly ('monopolization', section 2 of the Sherman Act) nor to take
>> efforts to decrease someone else's market share directly ('restraint of
>> trade', section 1 of the Sherman Act).
>
>In that case, shouldn't advertising be illegal? The primary goal of
>advertising is to increase market share.
Quite possibly, in the simple gedunken sense which you provide, yes.
The primary goal of advertising is supposed to be to increase your
sales, by providing information to potential customers about your
product and its competitive advantages. As it performs that function,
its perfectly legitimate, if somewhat obnoxious.
FUD, certainly, should be considered a Section 1 (restraint of trade)
violation. Don't you agree?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:22:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 20 Aug 2000 23:17:07 -0700, Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>The meaning of the sentence you extracted from Max's paragraph (which I
>>DIDN'T understand) seemed obvious as I read it in situ. He meant that
>>the copies made in RAM as part of library/program utilization (which was
>>the topic in discussion) were the permitted-without-licensing copying
>>that 117 addresses and not the copying of section 106. Anyone trying to
>>follow the discussion should have recognized the sentence as a
>>shorthand (call it crude if you will) allusion to this thing we had
>>discussed before. Duh.
>>
>I think in this discussion it is important to be clear. Max said
>that copying into RAM was not copying in the copyright sense.
>That explanation "works" when running a program is considered but
>it just isn't accurate. The wording of section 117 is that such
>copying into RAM is copying, but is not infringement if the
>criteria are met.
Thanks, and I'll consider using different phrasing in the future. But
the fact is this is one of those 'hairbrained theories' things; I
believe the statute and precedent support a dual use of the term "copy",
and while used strictly, it nevertheless refers to either copying the
"intellectual property", or copying a produced copy of that intellectual
property, which you might call 'the fixed form' or 'the expression' or
"the produced work" or "the reproduced work" or "the product" depending
on context. Since "copying" (reproducing) is an infringement, and S.117
says copying to RAM is not infringement, then you aren't "copying" when
you're "copying". Or, rather, you are copying the code, but not the
intellectually property.
I think it is accurate (because it is precisely what I mean), but I'll
agree that it is not consistent with every other presentation of the
concepts. Which is more practical is for you to judge, but I'll stick
with my "intellectual property as non-textual metaphysical substance",
for now. It works for me. I'm willing to re-arrange vocabulary to keep
things straight, you know, but I just can't see saying that 'copying' is
not forbidden by copyright law, even if they never use that word in
section 106. (For some reason, I keep losing track of where to look up
the statute, so I can't check at the moment.)
>Since at least some of the discussion probes around the limitations
>involved in Section 117 and falling outside of the protection of
>117 thrusts one right into the face of section 106, I think Lee
>is justified in being very clear. The correct construction is
>that the copying into RAM is clearly copying, but is not
>infringement if the owner (and not a hired contractor or a licensee)
>has made the copy as an essential step in using software.
And so it is not 'copying in the copyright sense' in that copyright
prohibits copying, does it not? (Sorry for harping.)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:16:41 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >> > > > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Occasionally, vulgarity is the appropiate answer. Why should
> >> I restrain my means of expression.
> >
> >Note: dangerious ground, using that argument to defend vulgarity could be
> >setting the foundation to use it to defend the using any insulting
> >expressions here, including racial slurs, religious slurs, and ethnic
slurs.
>
> Only if "a racial slur is the appropriate answer", and I can't see that
> happening, honestly. Use of vulgarity is quite appropriate in some
> situations. Racial, religious, or ethnic slurs are not.
Vulgarity defended by that argument is the camels nose.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:21:40 -0400
Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>>
>> >
>> >> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced them
>> >> is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
>> >> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
>> >
>> >*sigh*. You're missing the point.
>> >
>> >No one has come up with a compelling alternative. The closest were
>MacOS,
>> >accessibility to which was historically quite expensive, and OS/2 which
>was
>> >in a similar situation wrt to cost and also "anti-marketed" by IBM before
>> >about 1994.
>> >
>> Do you actually have any notion whatsoever about OS/2's market share prior
>to
>> the "launch" of Windows 95?
>Not a clue. I was part of it, but I wouldn't have any idea what it was like.
>Compared to today, I'd imagine it was huge.
>> >Neither of these results were Microsoft's fault,
>> they were, respectively, >Apple's and IBM's.
>> >
>> It seems to me that quite a few people who are "in the know" disagree to a
>> large extent with your opinion.
>Funny how the only people who you think are "in the know" agree with you.
>How was it Microsoft's fault OS/2 required at _least_ twice the hardware
>resources of Windows to run ? How is it Microsoft's fault Macs were
>incredibly expensive ?
>> >I am an ex-OS/2 user btw, and a somewhat bitter one (against IBM) at
>that.
>> >I migrated to NT4 during Feb 96 (beta 2) because it was clearly the
>better
>> >solution - faster, stabler, better hardware support and more software.
>> >
>> Actually, of the four arguments you mention, only the last one is valid,
>and
>> then only if we explicitly _not_ mention the adjective "quality".
>They're all valid. Whether or not you want to agree is irrelevant.
As the insider that you are; When the trial is over are you going to like one
Microsoft better then other?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:37:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:27:26 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> In the *highly* competitive
>>landscape of the future, the market won't tolerate such flim-flammery, I
>>should hope.
>
>I hope too, but I'm not optimistic. The market currently tolerates
>Microsoft's non-standards and upgrade treadmills. It tolerates the overcomplex
>mess of HTML trying to be a markup langauge and a page layout language.
>It tolerates the annoying differences in ascii file formats between
>DOS, Unix and Mac. It tolerated the 640K limit and kludgy workarounds.
>It tolerates loads of different Unices with subtle differences and
>incompatibilities between them (that's going as linux and GCC subsume the
>others).
Yes, but it was young and naive. Everybody makes mistakes when they're
growing up. Twenty years under a monopoly may have been just what it
needed to get its ass in gear and go back to college for that degree in
being a knowledgable and demanding market.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:42:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <8nsh3r$ou4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Read it and laugh (or cry, your option):
> > >
> > > http://slashdot.org/articles/00/08/21/0759251.shtml
> > >
> > > If you administer an MS-SQL server admin, read it and panic.
> > >
> > > Who needs to knock Microsoft when you could stand back and watch
them
> > do
> > > such a thorough job themselves? (-: If it didn't have painful
> > > consequences, watching some of the BugTraq lists would be better
than
> > > the Comedy Channel.
> >
> > Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
> > ships with default passwords. If you are so unfamiliar with the
> > product that you don't know that the first thing you do is change
the
> > default password (which is in the documentation), then you have no
> > business installing or using it. Period.
>
> Actually, Oracle forces you to set a username and password on
> installation.
>
Try Oracle 8i - you aren't forced to set any passwords. Default
passwords are used
Excerpt taken from Oracle 8i Admin guide:
Database Administrator Usernames
Two user accounts are automatically created with the database and
granted the DBA role. These two user accounts are:
SYS (initial password: CHANGE_ON_INSTALL)
SYSTEM (initial password: MANAGER)
These two usernames are described in the following sections.
========================================================================
========
Note:
To prevent inappropriate access to the data dictionary tables, you must
change the passwords for the SYS and SYSTEM usernames immediately after
creating an Oracle database.
========================================================================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:43:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:14:31 GMT, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <8nsh3r$ou4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Read it and laugh (or cry, your option):
> >>
> >> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/08/21/0759251.shtml
> >>
> >> If you administer an MS-SQL server admin, read it and panic.
> >>
> >> Who needs to knock Microsoft when you could stand back and watch
them
> >do
> >> such a thorough job themselves? (-: If it didn't have painful
> >> consequences, watching some of the BugTraq lists would be better
than
> >> the Comedy Channel.
> >
> >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
> >ships with default passwords. If you are so unfamiliar with the
>
> Nope.
>
> The oracle rdms installer since at least version 7.1.x has
> forced the admin to set passwords for the superuser accounts.
>
> >product that you don't know that the first thing you do is change the
> >default password (which is in the documentation), then you have no
> >business installing or using it. Period.
>
> ...which the oracle install 'wizard' has taken you through
> step by step for years.
>
> You're the one that seems to be unfamiliar with the products
> you're talking about.
>
Well, you are certainly well contradicted by Oracle themselves who say
in their online documentation:
Database Administrator Usernames
Two user accounts are automatically created with the database and
granted the DBA role. These two user accounts are:
SYS (initial password: CHANGE_ON_INSTALL)
SYSTEM (initial password: MANAGER)
These two usernames are described in the following sections.
========================================================================
========
Note:
To prevent inappropriate access to the data dictionary tables, you must
change the passwords for the SYS and SYSTEM usernames immediately after
creating an Oracle database.
========================================================================
This is borne out by personal experience with Oracle on NT - I can't
speak for Unix.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:46:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:33:37 GMT, A transfinite number of monkeys
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:27:18 GMT,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords,
MySQL
> >: >ships with default passwords. If you are so unfamiliar with the
> >:
> >: The oracle rdms installer since at least version 7.1.x has
> >: forced the admin to set passwords for the superuser accounts.
> >
> >Not so.
> >
> >I just installed 8.1.6.1 EE on Linux the other day. After I
installed,
> >I created a database using dbassist, and had it create the db, rather
> >than save shell scripts. At no point in time did it ask me to change
> >the passwords for sys, system or ctxsys. I had to go into sqlplus
> >and do it myself.
>
> ...and I just rebuilt an Oracle 8 database last week.
>
> It sounds like Oracle is still skimping on the Linux installer.
>
And you might as well include the NT installer in that as well, O
knowledgable one. Please clarify what versions you are talking about,
otherwise it appears like you are making accusations which you can't
support
Oracle 8 Admin Guide clearly states:
Database Administrator Usernames
Two user accounts are automatically created with the database and
granted the DBA role. These two user accounts are:
SYS (initial password: CHANGE_ON_INSTALL)
SYSTEM (initial password: MANAGER)
These two usernames are described in the following sections.
========================================================================
========
Note:
To prevent inappropriate access to the data dictionary tables, you must
change the passwords for the SYS and SYSTEM usernames immediately after
creating an Oracle database.
========================================================================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
