Linux-Advocacy Digest #729, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
What MS-Windows was free (Re: What if Linux wasn't free?) (Jeff Silverman)
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (kiwiunixman)
Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability (Jeff Silverman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:27:40 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 06 Dec 2000 02:09:37 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>| >| But you don't get it in return if you copyright it and wrap it in a
>| >| trade secret, either.
>| >
>| >Oh, but it's this return that drives the software industry as it largely
>| >is today.
>|
>| Quite true. That's why people (like me, I'll admit) get incensed about
>| the current state of affairs. Its also what drives the move to the GPL.
>| So if you don't like GPL, then don't do it. We know that'll never work,
>| and the GPL software will eventually take over the planet, but its only
>| fair to warn them.
>
>Let's see what happens shall we?
Well, we can hardly avoid that, I would expect. Does this mean you
concede the point?
[...]
>| >If the developer and producer wish simple monetary compensation for
>| >their efforts then it *is* like a commodity. This *is* the situation in
>| >which a lot of software is produced.
>|
>| Actually, no it isn't, at all. People don't buy software as a
>| commodity; they buy licenses to run software as a commodity. Making
>| monetary compensation on software code itself, rather than a license to
>| use it, is what GPL is all about.
>
>This will depend on the type of software code in question and who the
>intended customers or users are of said code.
How so? In real world terms, please; thought experiments and
hypothetically would simply be belaboring the point.
>There is software who's
>users will depend heavily on support services and software where the
>majority of users will not need support or seek it charitably.
AFAIK, all software is inclusive of both characteristics. Different
customers and consumers have different requirements and expectations and
abilities. So there's scarcely any reason, based on this concept, to
believe that any particular software wouldn't benefit from the GPL.
>In one
>setting there's great profitability (OSS works) for the developer and
>producer, in the other setting there's minimal profitability. The user
>then has to hope that a developer will come along and offer software
>code with this low profitability to the community that will suit his
>needs.
No, the *customer* goes out and *finds* a programmer they can pay to do
what they want. Which actually means that there will be a free market,
and in a free market, there are generally plenty of producers actively
seeking an opportunity to earn some profit. So the user doesn't have to
so much "hope" that someone comes along, as sit and wait for someone to
come chasing their business. That's just the way it works. Sure,
there's nobody chasing business now; they just rip people off with
lock-in and profiteering, these days. So keep paying for your full
replacement price "upgrades", buying the whole product all over again
just to get a new feature or a bug fix. As long as you have the money,
you're allowed to be as stupid as you want.
[...]
>| Fine; there'll be others who are more competitive.
>
>It should be interesting to see where the pendulum swings in this
>regard.
The 'swing' is in your perception; the market isn't a pendulum.
>If the majority of users do flock to the OSS model (of course
>this would be the natural thing to do if what you want is what you'll
>get out of it) then the ISV's will certainly have to shape up or ship
>out. Will it get to that stage? We'll just have to see.
Or we'll have to consider it rationally, and recognize that the answer
is "yes, undoubtedly". Consumers don't care about the OSS model; they
go for better products at cheaper prices in more convenient packages.
>| Yes, but the question isn't whether there is profit to be made; we know
>| there is. The question is how much profit there is to be made.
>
>Indeed. There'll be quite a bit to be made in some instances and next to
>none to be made in others.
So some software is valuable, and some software isn't. Go figure.
[...]
>| It is true that software producers are making exorbitant profits, but
>| that's because they're profiteering, not because they're extremely
>| efficient.
>
>Hmmm. I'll concede that this is the case in many instances but not all
>instances by any means.
Actually, I know of no exceptions at all. Feel free to speculate; I
wouldn't mind examining some potential examples.
[...]
>The overwhelming majority of commercial ISV's making good profits are
>not monopolies.
Actually, they are. Each has a "monopoly" in its product, and this is
not the same as being the producer of a singular product in any other
market. That's the point of wrapping the copyright in a trade secret;
to prevent competition in the market for a product produced by the
existence of the product. Its like someone building cars, but being
able to prevent anyone else from making cars, or even trucks which have
some of the advantages of their cars. If the software itself were
copyrighted, and then produced competitively, others would write
software which provides a competitive alternative to consumers who find
value in the original product. If the software isn't copyrighted, but
maintained as a trade secret, then the same result occurs. Because of
the various mechanisms capable of locking in the consumer to a
particular, though arbitrary, code product, closed source software is
just about always an attempt to monopolize. Wrapping copyright in a
trade secret is anti-competitive. Once one vendor in a market acts
anti-competitively, the only way to survive is to likewise act
anti-competitively.
>| >The profit may be gained from other
>| >developers input in the further development of the software. Their may
>| >be no desire for a profit at all and just social rewards.
>|
>| There may indeed be no *need* for a profit at all. Social rewards
>| themselves may more than make up for the great bulk of software
>| development necessary, outside of the "form over substance" software
>| industry of today.
>
>:=)
>The user then uses what the community uses and not what he wants to use.
The community uses what the user wants to use, then. Because it is a
community of users. Get it?
>| [...]
>| >What's wrong with trying to make a living? What's wrong with requesting
>| >remuneration for your efforts in return for the customers increased
>| >productivity using your software?
>|
>| Requesting? Or demanding?
>
>Well, unless you're a monopoly, you can't demand anything of the
>customer.
Indeed. You seem to think that the software developer is owed something
based on how much the consumer benefits from the software, rather than
how much they're willing to pay for it in a free market.
>| An just how do you wish to measure the
>| increase in productivity using your software, over a competitor's
>| product or any bog-standard freeware?
>
>If someone wishes to develop software and distribute it freely then
>that's their prerogative. The difference between great freeware and
>great commercial software is always quite evident.
Yea; one exists, and great commercial software doesn't. Good software,
yes; Agent is one of my favorite examples. But there is a difference
between software distributed freely and GPL, which is free software, not
freeware.
>Note that I'm aware that most mainstream commercial software in use
>today are not good and their success hinges largely on the ignorance of
>the users where the existence of better solutions are concerned.
And the few exceptions are notable for not being commercial successes.
One might even observe that the quality of a piece of software is almost
directly inverse, these days, to the "success" of the product. I mean,
other than lack of competition, even stuff like Notes is really pretty
crappy, and yet still incredibly expensive. I work with 'niche'
software, network management products, which are all about as pricey as
anything outside datacenter systems, often costing a couple million
because they price them based on the number of nodes managed, these
days. And, quite frankly, the more expensive the product, the bigger
the pile of crap that it is, in the end. The huge revenue stream allows
it to be made very slick-looking, and with everything including the
kitchen sink bolted into it, so the 'better' it gets, the worse it
works.
You can only blame the customers for being clueless for so long before
you realize they really haven't much choice in the matter.
>| >Take an interesting parallel. Industrial equipment can be extremely
>| >expensive. This extreme expense cannot only be accounted for through
>| >production costs. A huge chunk of that charge is based on the fact that
>| >the equipment manufacturer knows that you'll be using the equipment he
>| >sells to you to make money.
>|
>| Actually, a huge chunk of the *cost* is based on that fact; you need to
>| make sure that equipment works well, and continues to do so
>| indefinitely, or you're liable for the customer's lost revenues due to
>| negligence.
>|
>| Unless, of course, you make software.
>
>This is indeed true, and a very disturbingly anti-customer oriented
>aspect of commercial software license agreements.
Imagine that.
I wonder what would come of trying to ascertain what other industries
might have such built-in anti-consumer aspects, and considering why they
may be that way.
>| >His equipment is therefore of a lot more
>| >value to you than the simple value of the manufacturing and assembling
>| >of its parts. Equipment that is a lot simpler than a car in concept and
>| >technology is far more expensive.
>|
>| And to such manufacturer's get away with extortion because of this fact?
>
>There are standard going charges.
>
>Equipment manufacturing is a highly profitable business. One cannot deny
>that. Profiteers pursue this sort of thing just as software vendors do.
You can't profiteer on equipment manufacture. Outside of the valid use
of patent, you cannot restrict production of anything to raise the
price. All you can do is make as much as you can sell profitably. In
any industry involving physical objects, this keeps profits low and
production efficient.
>| Of course not; unless you have a patent, you are faced with competition
>| (and often even then, as alternatives don't necessarily infringe).
>
>Patents .... keeping source closed .... similar in aim.
Yes, but one is a legal use of intellectual property, and the other is
profiteering by misuse of copyright wrapped in a trade secret. Because
of the legal nature of those two separate intellectual property
mechanisms, combining them is a way of simulating patent-like protection
for something which does not merit it. You cannot prevent someone else
from reverse engineering a trade secret, nor can you restrict a legal
owner of a copy of copyrighted material from showing it to someone else,
or even figuring out "how it works" itself. Software copyright is
shakey enough to begin with. Leveraging the presumption of guilt which
enables legal imposition of injunctive relief simply because you can
successfully compete with another piece of software to empower efforts
to keep secret what only merits protection when it is disclosed
(copyrighted works) is such an outrageous perversion of the whole idea
of intellectual property that it boggles the mind.
>| >It's the same for software. There's nothing wrong with wanting returns
>| >on your efforts and returns on the profits people make off your efforts.
>|
>| Yes, I'm terribly sorry, but this is wrong. You don't have any claim to
>| the profits people make using the software. You only deserve profits
>| from the software. If you want the profits made by using it, then go
>| ahead and use it yourself.
>
>I disagree. I'm not saying that they should demand a percentage of
>profits being made using the software.
No, you're saying they should be able to extort additional profit if the
consumer makes a lot of money using the software as merely a piece of
business equipment like any other as a component in their operations.
>However, if I make software that people use to make a living, I'll
>certainly charge more for it. When I watch what my buddy does using
>Adobe Photoshop and in the process making a lot of money, the $600 he
>forks over to Adobe is a drop in the bucket and he willingly does so.
Have you ever wondered how the Supreme Court can say that monopoly power
is the ability to control prices? Does it really make sense? Doesn't a
producer always, as you illustrate, have the ability to control the
price his product fetches in the market?
Well, the fact is, the answer is "no". A producer doesn't control their
price. They do set it, but it is controlled by the market. They can
set it higher then the market might bear, but that will reduce their
sales, limiting their profits. If they set it too low, then obviously
their profit is proportionally reduced, based on the degree with which
they undershot the mark, leaving money on the table.
I bring this up because if you make software people use to make a
living, *they'll pay more for it*, of course. *That* is the principle
you've been trying to talk about, with this equipment manufacturing
stuff and such. I'm glad I finally figured it out. It doesn't make any
sense to think about what you would do to make money if you were a
producer, unless you are. Because the producer doesn't have much to say
about how they make money; the competition determines that. Their
opportunities are therefore limited by how competitive they are. That
can be measured by observing how many competitors they have. ;-)
>| But don't expect your competitors to not
>| replicate your software; they have a legal right to do so.
>
>Sure, but don't expect me to just hand over the code.
Why not? You'd prefer they were forced to write something incompatible,
thus decreasing the value of your product in the market (ever heard of
network effect?) It makes more sense to ensure that they will simply
cannibalize your market, rather than expanding it?
(Sorry, Curtis; I've sort of launched into the 'advanced course' stuff.
I hope you don't mind; feel free to ask questions, as I'm sure quite a
bit of this might not make sense until you get caught up.)
[...]
>| >Leave the monopoly argument for a moment. We're just speaking about
>| >software development and production in a commercial setting as opposed
>| >to a OSS setting.
>|
>| I know of no such "settings". Only the real world, stripped of as much
>| perception-based obscurement as possible. If you are discussing
>| commercial issues, then you can't ignore that the industry is dominated
>| by a monopolist.
>
>*You* can't. I'm sorry about that.
No, *you* can't, unless you simply don't have a clue about anything else
in the industry, either. Not an unlikely prospect. I was just
remarking on that today to a senior engineer at a global service
provider, based on something he'd said about a particular customer being
a nightmare. I observed that the entire IT industry is largely premised
on the requirement that most of your customers remain clueless about how
little value your product really has.
>| >| So the direct result, more or less,
>| >| of treating software as copyright-wrapped-in-a-trade-secret-license, is
>| >| that the GPL has been created. And adopted, more and more, by the very
>| >| programmers that you insist will be put out of work by it.
>| >
>| >The fact that programmers are adopting this model, doesn't by any means
>| >mean that all are or ever will be attracted to it. This model will work
>| >for a segment .... no doubt about that.
>|
>| And your logical argument why this 'segment' wouldn't be the vast
>| majority of all software used by typical consumers is....
>
>Your initial comment:
>
>� Social rewards themselves may more than make up for the great bulk of
>� software development necessary, outside of the "form over substance"
>� software industry of today.
Hardly my "initial" comment. What's your point? You forget, "the
software industry of today" is not a free market. In a free market, the
segment you refer to is the vast majority of all consumers and
customers.
>A typical elitist comment that will not do the OSS community any good.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
>It's pretty clear that in vibrant areas of the OSS community where all
>or the majority of OSS users will have to use, i.e., Linux and its
>Window managers esp. KDE, your statement is ignored. There's a lot of
>'form' in KDE. :=)
Oh? Perhaps you're unaware of the actual circumstances surrounding KDE.
The radical change in KDE's status which so recently occurred when Troll
Tech GPLed QT, a library used by KDE, makes what is form and what is
substance in KDE's case something of a deep discussion all by itself.
>Form *is* very important but disturbingly lacking in the OSS I've tried
>and a lot of the Win32 freeware that I've encountered as well. Note that
>a lot of OSS have Win32 versions.
Not a point in their favor, to be honest. And, again, you're not being
very explicit when you use the term 'freeware'; you seem to be using it
as a catch-all, and that's not a good idea in a discussion of matters
relating to technical details.
[...]
>| Not much need to pay for something that costs nothing to produce.
>
>I don't think *any* developer will agree with you that developing
>software costs nothing. You disregard their time and efforts when you
>say this.
No, I just know what the real value of their time and efforts are, in
comparison to actual capital investment requirements, like manufacturing
facilities and such.
Developing software isn't production; its development.
>You disregard the time it took them write the code and you
>disregard the time and effort they invested in accruing the knowledge
>necessary to write the code.
No, I don't. I just don't think its a license to steal.
>If a developer wishes to charitably give
>away his/her code for free that's up to him/her, but don't use that act
>as a reason for arguing that all developers should give away their code
>or to make the erroneous conclusion that writing code is done at no
>cost.
I don't know what argument you are referring to; perhaps you're unaware
you've just invented something entirely unrelated to what we've been
discussing. Frankly, sir, you should get your head out of your ass.
The use of GPL has nothing to do with charity, nor do developers give
away their code (only licenses to use it), nor did I ever say that
writing code is done at no cost.
>If I'm a doctor and someone comes in my office. I use no equipment
>except my hands during the consultation. Are you saying that I shouldn't
>charge for the consultation because I used no materials? Hmmm?
No, I'm saying you aren't a doctor, and aren't getting paid for
consultations, when you write software code.
[...]
>It costs money to produce software!!
It costs money to *develop* software; it costs practically nothing to
produce it.
[...]
>| >Well, one has to have a balanced outlook.
>| >
>| >Both paradigms fall under two full swings of the pendulum.
>|
>| So you agree Microsoft should be broken up, rather than entirely
>| dissolved?
>
>I don't share the agreement that breaking up MS as is planned is the
>solution. I don't see where this will make much of a difference at this
>point.
Well, that's got passingly little to do with whether it will make much
of a difference, I'm afraid. Would you like me to explain it to you?
>| [...]
>| >| You misinterpreted my contention. I said that "support" means technical
>| >| support (your "advanced question"), not newbie help. As you've pointed
>| >| out, this is a valuable service, quite capable of supporting a profit
>| >| magin, since there aren't that many questions that you can get an
>| >| answer to on the web.
>| >
>| >Here, it depends on the type of software.
>|
>| Not at all. It depends on the type of user. Which is to say, it
>| depends on the customer, not the product.
>
>The type of software will determine the customer.
No, the customer determines the type of software. One is animate, the
other abstract; this isn't a chicken and egg thing, its an eggs and
omelets thing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Jeff Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What MS-Windows was free (Re: What if Linux wasn't free?)
Date: 8 Dec 2000 06:35:05 GMT
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> Would anyone but nerds be interested?
Would we still forgive it when it crashes?
> I doubt it.
>
> The only reason the big companies are jumping on the Linux bandwagon
> is because they figure if it catches on (doubtful at best) they can
> make a buck selling hardware and services.
The only reason the big companies jumped on the Windows bandwagon is
because they figure that if it catches on (remember, there was a lot of
pretty good software that ran on MS-DOS!), then they can make a buck
selling software and services.
> It has such a dismal market share amongst desktop users now, that if
> it were commercial it would be dead by now.
It has a larger market share than Macintosh or Amiga or HP-UX or Solaris and those
product lines are
not dead. They are niches.
> Point is Linux can't even be given away because no desktop user in his
> right mind (programmers are not in their right minds) would want it.
Hmmm... just this evening, I landed a lucrative consulting contract converting a
server to linux
because the customer wasn't happy with the reliability of Windows
> As Redhat and SuSE and Corel move toward commercializing Linux, and
> don't kid yourself that is their ultimate goal, to make money, Linux
> will be even deader than it is now.
I just don't believe that Linux is dead. I guess maybe you and I disagree about the
definition of
the word "dead" in this context. I believe that a product is dead if it is no longer
being
developed or sold. Linux is being actively developed, in fact there is a version du
jour of the
kernel. RedHat, SuSE, and Corel are all selling Linux - my customer just bought a
copy for each of
his machines (That's kinda sweet, isn't it? He's a happy camper because he figures
he's way ahead
of buying Windows/9x. Should I tell him?). So, by what definition of dead is linux
dead? I just
don't see it.
>
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
--
Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software engineer, husband,
father etc.
See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:28:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:59:42
>"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>> And who is comparing what to "ALL of MS products" again?
>
>I don't know, who? I'm not sure what you're saying. Awhile back, I made a
>comment that several specific distros are now beating ALL of MS products in
>exploits per month. I was merely pointing out that the claims that OSS
>yields better software and quicker bug discovery was false.
Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise, I'm afraid,
particularly considering the general nature of the claim as you relate
it.
>Typically, when I refer to Windows, it's NT and or 2000 only.
Your mistake. Microsoft likes the extra income, of course, but there's
still several hundred million WinDOS users out there who feel they have
an original claim to the term.
>However, when I refer to Linux, as do most people, I refer to the common
>code shared by many distributions (i.e. the kernel and common services).
>It's the PRODUCT as a whole, not the vendor's extensions. People often
>do this same thing with Windows, but worse (they lump Exchange bugs in
>with Windows. I would consider an IE bug, for the most part as part of
>the OS as a bug, but not with Exchange).
People do that, and it is appropriate to do so, because you can't get an
Exchange nor a Windows from any other vendor but Microsoft, so the
"kernel and common services" comparison doesn't work any better than the
kernel comparison. Exchange and IIS aren't "vendor extensions" to
Windows, that just happen to come from Microsoft; they're part of the
platform, because it is, indeed, "ALL of MS's products" that any
alternative vendor is going to have to compete against.
When you refer to Linux, you refer to a common component of a number of
vendor's products. When you refer to Windows, you refer to a monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:29:28 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jake Taense in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:43:18
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Are you claiming that having taken a course, in say, english literature
>>is the difference between being an engineer or not?
>>
>>What part of fulfilled or EXCEEDED all core curriculum requirements
>>do you not undferstand?
>
>Do you hold a degree in an engineering field?
>
>No, you don't.
>
>Do you claim to be an engineer in your sig?
>
>Yes, you do.
>
>Are you lying?
>
>Yes, you are.
>
>I don't see what's so complicated about this. Saying "Well, the school's don't
>say I'm an engineer, but I think I am" doesn't make it so.
No, but "the people who pay me to do engineering say I'm an engineer"
does make it so, I'm afraid, though the state of Utah, I understand,
disagrees.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:42:57 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > We're not talking about obtainint root. In fact, obtainint root first
would
> > invalidate this claim.
>
> I knew you'd say that.
>
> How about this, if you don't mind paying a lot for the product:
>
> Invisible Keylogger Stealth for NT at http://www.amecisco.com/iksnt.htm
>
> Any user can install it locally, or you can install it remotely
> using some tools in the NT Hacking Kit (also known as the NT Resource
> Kit). Copy the software to %systemroot%\system32\drivers\scsi.sys (or
some
> other innocent-looking name. Then push the Registry changes to the remote
> machine using regini.exe (from the NTRK). Then reboot the system using
another
> Microsoft-provided hacking tool, shutdown.exe:
Sorry, but this is not something "any user can install" in a locked down
system. Specifically, in a locked down system, standard users are prevented
from installing device drivers (which is what this is). They don't have
permissions to modify that registry.
> shutdown \\(ip_address) /R /T:1 /Y /C
>
> All keystrokes, including Ctrl-Alt-Del, will be logged. Eventually, you
> can get domain credentials.
>
> Or how about sniffing? Use BUTTsniffer to capture passwords from the
host.
> Or fsniff.
If you're logging in remotely with cleartext, remember, we're talking about
a secure login here.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:40:41 GMT
WTF would a financial institution use a Wintel server? the
banks/financial institutions I know either use the trusty RS/6000 loaded
with AIX, a Sun Enterprise Server, or a UNISYS Mainframe.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: Jeff Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: 8 Dec 2000 06:42:57 GMT
Netcraft has a service where they measure the reliability of various operating
systems. The URL is
http://uptime.netcraft.com/hosted?netname=DN-CIDR2,209.207.128.0,209.207.255.255
Interestingly enough, of the top 50 sites in terms of uptime, EVERY ONE OF THEM is
running Apache on
either Linux or Solaris, or BSD/OS.
Jeff
--
Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software engineer, husband,
father etc.
See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
[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
******************************
