Linux-Advocacy Digest #166, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: GPL & freedom (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:33:53 -0400
Otto wrote:
>
> "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : : And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how? Maybe
> you
> : : should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about Linux
> and
> : : DDoS on Friday:
> : :
> : : http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
> :
> : Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches available for
> : quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
>
> Oh wow, hundreds of systems are compromised on the daily basis with old
> exploits. Availability means nothing, applying the patch might. It doesn't
Are you implying that patches should automatically seek out un-patched
systems, and automagically install themselves?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 01:41:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
: have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
: changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
: it.
I'm skeptical of junk science and most of the ways it is misused by
people with political agendas, but I think that on this particular
issue, the evidence is sufficient to justify serious concern over
human activities that may unnecessarily contribute to global warming.
>From my admittedly secondhand and layperson's reading of the evidence,
I've drawn the following conclusions. I welcome correction if any of
these points are mistaken.
(a) To the extent that CO2 levels can be measured over time, they
appear to be higher now and in the past century than they had
been previously.
(b) Both computer models, and empirical measurements taken over
time, suggest a strong correlation between CO2
levels and global mean temperatures. This correlation can't
be proven since there's no way to do a controlled experiment.
But a lot of circumstantial evidence exists.
(c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
detrimental impact.
(d) It is not proven to my satisfaction that human activity
contributed substantially to global warming, but it seems
almost certain that it has contributed at least a little.
Only the amount of impact is still in question, not its
existence.
(e) Because of the detrimental potential impact of global
warming if it continues at its present rates, or accelerates,
it is reasonable for influential leaders and groups within
our society to:
(1) continue to study and try to find ways to measure, predict,
and understand the amount and nature of the impact;
(2) do whatever is consistent with liberty and fundamental human
rights to discourage activities that are suspected or
known to contribute to global warming; and
(3) try to learn how to reverse the increase of global CO2
levels if this can be done without causing worse problems.
Ignoring the problem is not a good option, nor is exaggerating it, nor
is pretending to fully understand it when it seems clear to me that as
yet we don't.
It also would be unwise to ignore the fact that poor and developing
countries will be the most impacted by rapid global warming and also
by any draconian steps that might be necessary to combat it. This is
one of the very few problems in the world that have a truly global
scope. It may require a solution that likewise is global in scope.
Given that the very idea of "world government" is a cure that's even
worse than the disease, I think it's pretty safe to say that the
solution will require consensus and cooperation, rather than one group
of (most likely wealthy) nations dictating to the poor nations, and
possibly even to the poor within the wealthy nations.
How does this possibly relate to Linux? Linux along with other
high-quality free software is allowing developing nations to utilize
their greatest resource - their people, who are capital-poor, but
intelligent and well-educated - to build leaner, more efficient, and
more environmentally friendly economies.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:17:40 +1030
Zenin wrote:
> Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow. This thread took off on the weekend :)
> : Can you not take BSD-licensed software, and sell it (withholding source)?
>
> Yes, however you can't stop anyone else from giving the source away
> either. You can not "hijack" BSD code.
Yeah, but whatever changes you made (no matter how revolutionary) are
unavailable to the rest of the community. Whether this is important or
not is up to an individual's politics I guess.
(Please note, I'm not necessarily stating mine :))
> : (honest question; haven't read the BSD license entirely yet)
>
> Huh? The BSD license is one of the shortest licenses written. -In
> striking contrast to the complex and deceiving GPL, a large (and
> required) chunk of which isn't even part of the license...
Wow, so it is. (I didn't mean to imply I'd read part of it; what I'd
seen was stuff that been quoted at me. I'd assumed there was more)
[ copyright notice ]
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
[disclaimers follow]
Is there a longer version?
> If Oracle's SQL*Plus were to use the GNU readline library, without
> "altering" it in any way would SQL*Plus then be an "enhancement" of
> the readline library?
>
> Common sense says no, the GPL says yes.
I personally prefer the LGPL over the GPL for many uses because of that.
(I don't know enough licenses to say if I'd prefer either over another
though.)
> :> > "Do anything you want, as long as you don't stop others from doing what
> :> > they want too."
> :>
> :> And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from distributing
> :> theirs?
> :
> : The primary motivation with GPL was to ensure that if you make changes to
> : the code, those changes go back into the source pool so others can
> : benefit. (The viral nature of GPL is secondary, I think, in keeping with
> : RMS's philosophy.)
>
> You've got it backwards. The viral nature is primary; the first
> part is simply the spin put on the idea to make it easier to digest.
Um, okay. You're not really suggesting the GPL is primarily a virus to
cause mayhem in the software industry -- and the idea of ensuring
availability of source is just a scam to spread it? You don't have
*that* low an opinion of RMS do you?
> The ball really is in your court. "In what ways?" isn't a valid
> response; if you want to challenge the idea that said freedoms are
> not available without the GPL it is upto you to site explicit cases
> where it fails and back it up with an explanation of how it fails.
Someone made the point better elsewhere. The "freedom" that the FSF are
talking about is primarily for the end user, not the developer. When a
person gets GPL software, he has access to the source and can make
whatever improvements he likes. If he distributes it, he has to pass on
those rights to *his* users. If the license doesn't require it, he can
choose not to, and create a dead-end product -- if his users need to
make changes, they'll have to go to some other development from the
original code, and try to reimplement his features.
For the most part though, I'd agree that that last point isn't often be
a biggie (if his feature was good it would probably get reimplemented
elsewhere anyway.)
> And if the original author wants to use his code in a non-GPL form,
> he (effectively) can't, period.
> Why? Because as "additional developers" have contributed to his
> code under the GPL, his code is now forever infested with the GPL.
(asuuming he's thrown away his original source, from before other users
got into it; he's the only one that can hold up source not based on or
added to an existing product. He can relicense *that* code without
needing anyone's consent, because its solely his work.)
> The GPL is a virus.
> The GPL is a lie.
> The GPL is incredibly and intentionally deceptive.
> The GPL is inherently evil.
So... you don't like it then? ;)
> Doens't help; see above about adding a non-GPL plugin to a GPL
> browser. It can't be done.
Yeah. That, I think, is the *biggest* flaw in the GPL. Not that it
requires all future development to also be GPL (that was its intended
effect anyway), but that GPL software is barred from taking advantage of
existing proprietary code. That has probably held back GPL applications
more than anything else.
> Point 2 is effectively invalid. If you don't think so, I dare
> you to try this hijack approach on any public domain or BSD
> software.
>
> How are you going to force all FTP sites to delete it?
> How are you going to force all users to delete it?
>
> You can't. There is no "at any point down the tree". This argument
> is effectively bullshit. Full stop.
I take a rendering application, and come up with an algorithm that
allows it to render 5x faster than the original. It's only a fairly
small change in a big package, but I'm not required to redistribute the
source, so I keep it to myself and sell the enhanced version. There are
now two branches of the code -- the slower open-source one, and the fast
closed one. The "fast branch" can't be further developed by anyone else.
What it all boils down to, is the GPL *is* a political tool. If you want
to make use of their code, you have to agree with their ideals (source
should always be available). It creates a separate market where all the
code is available, and none of it *can* be proprietary. If you don't
follow those ideals, then their code is denied you, as yours is denied
them.
If you want your software to be part of the GPL market, then use the GPL
and avoid the rest; if you want to be part of the 'commercial' market,
use pretty much anything else and avoid GPL.
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 18 Sep 2000 01:43:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>> In article <39c54bdd$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On 09/17/2000 at 02:18 PM,
>> > "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >
>> >> > >The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
>> >> > >have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
>> >> > >changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
>> >> > >it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well hell you can't provide proof of other claims you make so you drop
>> >> > those threads so to a new one you go. You know an asshole like yourself
>> >> > wouldn't know cursorary evidence if it hit you in the face. The pga tour
>> >> > doesn't produce cfc's, ergo it isn't at fault. The are a by product of
>> >> > aerosols though and guess what, they have only existed in the last
>> >> > century. Care to try again? So why do you not like having the truth in
>> >> > front of you?
>> >
>> >No one has provided any irrefutable scientific proof which is universally
>> >accepted that CFC's have cause any climatic changes. There are theories
>> >put forth by some scientists which are not accepted by others with equal
>> >prominence.
>>
>> Which is why things are called theories and studied. Dismissing something
>> because there is a disagreement is the sign of stupidity.
>> >
>> >You on the other hand are too stupid to recognize valid analogy when you
>> >read it. Sad, sad, sad. About what one expects from liberals like you.
>>
>> You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
>> of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy O3,
>
>Dork...
>
>Clue for the fucking clueless. Chloro-Flouro-Carbons were routinely
>used as aerosol propellents...the use of such was outlawed in the US
>during the Carter Administration...that was 1977...over 20 years ago.
No shit? What is their lifespan? Not very thorough in your argument are
you?
>
>As for other countries....quit bitching about the US if the crime which
>you are accusing them of is something which
>
>A) has been a discontinued practice here for years...and
>B) is still legal in your own country.
And have residence times of 60-120+ years. There you go clueless. For
60-120 years they keep breaking down O3, even if they aren't used anymore.
>
>
>
>> plenty of proof for that. I don't know about Joe, but I am no liberal,
>> pretty conservative actually. I just am not facist and know not to
>> dismiss something that might hurt one of my beliefs. You are too small of
>> a person to do such a thing and are more of a facist than a conservative.
>> Too bad you are too fucking stupid to provide real proof for your beliefs.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 18 Sep 2000 01:48:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >> You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
>> >> of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy O3,
>> >> plenty of proof for that.
>> >
>> >How long does it take for the cfc's to even reach the ozone? I've heard as
>> >high as 50 years. In which case you might as well consider it destroyed no
>> >matter what fix gets implemented now.
>>
>> whoa, wait a minute, you mean you have read on this and don't just spout
>> your belief system?!?! ;-). There are a couple of naturally occuring
>> sources of Chlorine based gases, CH3Cl and HCL. Marine plankton produces
>> a lot but only accounts for 0.6ppb and the current stratospheric
>> concentration is 3.3ppb so obviously there is another source. Volcanoes
>> provide a lot of HCL but most of this is scrubbed from the air by the
>> rain, hence the reason why even major eruptions only affect climate for 1
>> to 2 years and that is from ash and Sulfur based emissions. Little HCL
>> from eruptions makes it to the stratosphere. So most of the CFC's are
>> anthropogenic with lifespans of 60-120 years. The levels have been steady
>> though since Freon-11 and Freon-12, both CFC's, have been banned. Now
>> only if we could take the extra ozone that makes the city air so damn
>> dirty and ship it to Anartica, then we'd have a solution to 2 problems.
>
>You're a nitwit. The only reason R-11 and R-12 were banned is because
>they are cheap, highly effective refrigerants...and it's hard to
>extort money from original equipment manufacturers when practically
>anybody can make the stuff in their garage.
>
>So...the "solution"...outlaw this low-profit margin chemical, so that
>all must bow to the gods of E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company.
If you have proof for this provide it otherwise shut your fucking piehole.
You are obviously wanting to support a belief system and will not accept
anything other than that which supports your beliefs. This makes you
dishonest. I have proof for the levels of CFC's leveling off, any study
on cfc's proves it and lo and behold it coincides with the banning of the
said products. You paranoia and conspiracy theories don't hold.
>
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
