Linux-Advocacy Digest #673, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
MS opens up on Whistler copy protection (Nick Condon)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Edward Rosten)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Johan Kullstam)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Ian Davey)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Roberto Alsina)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Kevin Ford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: MS opens up on Whistler copy protection
Date: 23 Jan 2001 13:08:45 GMT
>From The Register [www.theregister.co.uk]
The product activation copy protection system that will ship with Whistler
and Office 10 will form the basis of a "cross product" protection system
for Microsoft software, and the signs are that the company will move heaven
and earth to make it stick. Speaking to The Register earlier today
Microsoft product manager, licensing technology group, Allan Nieman went
through the checklist of gotchas, and explained why product activation is a
pussycat really.
But first, although cracks and patches dealing with the protection in
Whistler builds 2410 and 2416 (an "internal" Microsoft build currently
maiming bandwidth in shady circles) have been produced, it would seem that
the panic produced by product activation's appearance in the beta code was
unnecessary - according to Nieman, neither of these builds is actually
protected. "It's just a UI screen," he says, a "first glimpse" of what the
system will look like. Just click next, as Microsoft's technical beta
testers have now been informed. Duh.
Obviously that won't be the case with the shipping product, so the work of
the script kiddies won't have been entirely in vain. But Microsoft really,
really wants people not to hate product activation and - strange but at
least at the moment true - is trying to draw a sharp distiction between
activation and registration. And, by the way, registration will not be
compulsory, according to Nieman.
As has now been widely reported, product activation takes a product key
from the software packaging, combines it with a code generated from the
specific hardware you're installing on, and then in exchange for the result
you get an unlock key from Microsoft, either over the Web or by phone. But
this is not registration. You only need to give Microsoft the code, not
your name or anything else, so it's entirely anonymous unless Microsoft is
doing any surreptitious sniffing, which Nieman assures us it is not.
Nor, he guarantees, will the software check into base on a "phone home"
basis after you've unlocked it. Once it's unlocked it'll be a fully stand-
alone product that doesn't try to regularly validate itself with Microsoft.
Presumably this will mean that the "rental" versions of products Microsoft
will be testing will have some form of time bomb rather than a phone home,
but it seems pretty clear that Microsoft is willing to go quite a distance
to separate privacy issues from anti-piracy.
One could reasonably doubt that it can keep it up, or even (given the
nature of .NET) that it's technically feasible to keep it up in the longer
term. When Microsoft tested the precursor to product activation in various
countries with Office 2000, Nieman says the company processed six million
activation requests in 24 months. That's chicken feed compared to the tens
of millions of activations a year if the system just applied to Windows,
and the marketing people surely can't be happy about passing up data on
that number of people.
Nevertheless, registration will be separate, and won't be compulsory. Not
exactly, anyway - Microsoft has required registration for access to product
updates in the past, and the position here tends to be a bit variable. The
activation process was described as the "Office Registration Wizard" in the
O2K test, but that was what you might call infelicitious. Nor did you
actually have to register as such - according to Nieman the only data
required was country.
So in that case, why is Microsoft bothering? Nieman says the system is
primarily directed at "casual copying," where people loan one another
software, pass it around the office, install multiple copies with just the
one licence and so on. The system will certainly tend to stop people doing
this, but on the other hand that could give casual copiers sufficient
impetus to dig out the cracks and use them, and recordable CD makes that
awfully tempting.
Think yourself into the position of paterfamilias, one PC for him, one each
for the two kids to do their homework, so what's he going to say to three
Office licences? Student licensing, yes we know, but he doesn't, and anyway
it's a hassle. He might hear about student licensing, or then again he
might hear about StarOffice being free.
You can circumvent the Whistler product activation system as described here
last week, and there are also two files circulating which deal with the CD
key and the time bomb on the Whistler beta. Put together with a bit of
cosmetics these provide the means to produce a completely unprotected
Whistler CD, and it's unlikely there'll be any difference when it comes to
the shipping product.
That leaves it as eminently crackable, and whether it is cracked on a
widespread basis or not will depend to some extent on cost, to some on
hassle. Large numbers of consumers and small businesses swap software, and
they're not about to stump up the readies to convert their current
unlicensed software to full product. Even in businesses that do pay their
licences, systems managers will frequently produce their own unprotected
copies to avoid having to go through the activation process over and over
again.
But, says, Microsoft, they don't have to - and this is where you can maybe
see an angle for the company. Product activation won't be present for the
enterprise Select and the volume Open licensing deals. These will still
require a single unlock for the media, but after that you can do multiple
installs, just keeping a tally of the licences you're using. Microsoft
licence management software will no doubt help you out here, and the Open
licence scheme goes as low as five copies, for which you get discounts.
Except on old operating systems Redmond wants you to stop using.
Microsoft sees promotion of the Open licence to small businesses as going
alongside product activation for consumers, as businesses will be
encouraged to go for the volume deals. Of course by doing so, you report
yourself to Microsoft, and are therefore more readily auditable. So
consumers get roadblocks to stop them sharing with their friends,
Microsoft's reach extends further down the business food chain, but there
are no privacy implications. Microsoft likely won't squeeze much more money
out of the consumer market, but by being better able to police
"unprotected" business licences, it could do well there. Quite a paradox,
no?
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:08:15 +0000
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >One should not have to change the way one is doing something to
> > >accomodate the paltry number of whiners running Linux.
> >
> > Indeed, you are correct. That's why we call Windows "monopoly
> > crapware", for forcing you to have to change the way you are doing
> > something in order to accommodate people doing things the correct way.
>
> Actually, I disagree. Linux users have a choice of what browser to run.
> Granted, if they want to see modern content, they have a small list of
> choices, but they DO have a choice. Netscape 6, as shitty as it is for
> Linux, has the Gecko engine, which is WAY more standards compliant then
> Mozilla was.
>
> If a Linux user has no desire to update their browser, I can sum up no
> empathy for their decision.
Then you're a fool. Why should I have to buy a newer computer? (my
computer runs NS6 to slowly).
> > No, its probably because its a technical page, and therefore he doesn't
> > give a shit if it looks like crap. Why, do you think the nuclear
> > physicists are bothered by it?
>
> I'm sorry, but a little USER INTERFACE thinking would make this page
> actually not be an eyesore. Sure, it get's the point across, but it LOOKS
> terrible. Some frame based orginization, a soft background, some CSS, a
> table to orginize things. Would this KILL the developer? Cause his page is
> KILLIN my eyesight.
The page is fine and works very well. Any `pretty' stuff in unnecessary
and would distract from the content.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:51:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:24:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Max it is quite clear you do not know what you are talking about.
> >At what level in the OSI stack would you place ethernet, IP, TCP, ftp
> >for example?
you don't. OSI is not an exact match for the usual internet way.
> I'm sure you cannot answer this. Proxies work at the
> >application layer (7) to give you a little help.
>
> I'm not Max (thank God), but I believe IP and TCP would go in Level 5,
> which is the session layer.
i found this site to be amusing
<URL:http://www.thereese.com/ositaco.html>
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:43:54 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Driver problems are the OS's fault.
> > In that case I'd like my $50.00 back on my Caldera Open Linux 2.4
because it
> > wouldn't run a Viper v550 out of the box. Wouldn't run my modem or
sound
> > card either. Now that you've explained that it's the fault of the OS I'd
> > like my money back.
>
> You should be explaining that to Caldera rather than to us. Of course,
they
> might just tell you that you should have read the supported hardware list
> before you and your money were parted.
If I were the type to blame others for my choices maybe I would whine to
Caldera. But it was a sarcastic remark. I do not believe driver problems are
the fault of the OS. It the job of the manufacturer of the hardware to
create working drivers for their intended OS platform.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:35:17 +0100
mlw wrote:
>
> Name just one product from Microsoft which is stellar enough to warrant a
> good review.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
Well, the Natural Keyboard (the old one) was quite good.
Also, the mice are decent, although I prefer Logitech.
Good is Encarta and Encarta World Atlas. Both could be better,
but not much.
Well, that's about it, I think. The rest is crap
Peter
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:31:35 GMT
In article <Nf1b6.55370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Let's not get hyperbolic here. You mean totally different for a
> > programmer? Sure! Just like Delphi and VB.
>
> Yes I mean that...
I don't see what's the problem?
> > Or you mean totally different for a user? In that case, it's a gross
> > exageration. For example, I am pretty sure that square beveled thing
> > that says "OK" in xchat is a button not unlike that square beveled
> > thing saying "OK" in ksirc.
>
> Buttons in isolation are fine.
>
> But consider the file open/save dialog. They are very different.
You have shown linuxconf as an example a million times. Now,
where do you see Linuxconf use a file open/save dialog?
All linuxconf uses are plain windows with rows of buttons/lineedits/
radiobuttons/checkboxes.
So, why do you feel linuxconf "works different" from a KDE app?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:33:43 GMT
In article <sq1b6.189359$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > This argument is getting so boring I could spend the whole 20
minutes it
> > would take and provide you, for your use only, a replacement
KFileDialog
> > that is bug-compatible to Motif's.
>
> It would be more interesting to provide a KDE style dialog for
Netscape or
> Gtk... can you do that?
Well, if all you want is consistency, I prefer to provide it the easy
way ;-)
I could provide a Gtk+ dialog, if I spent a week learning the damn thing
and neutering my brain to C level.
I probably couldn't provide a Netscape dialog anyway. Ok, I could if
I hacked OpenMotif, but the perspective sends a chill down my spine.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:34:55 GMT
In article <tx1b6.189388$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Do you suffer some sort of hysterical blindess?
>
> No, but I'm losing track of where this thread is going! 8)
>
> > Both of them, specially the web interface should work just fine in
> > a "pure KDE" environment (so should the Gtk+ one, but you seem to
> > be hellbent on not using it, that's why we bother telling you,
> > for the 241st time how not to use it).
>
> I think what I was trying to say was that if I stick to just KDE apps,
then
> the list of usable apps shrinks considerable. Linux Mandrake has a
whole
> bunch of apps written with Gtk, but not KDE.
As I said: that's your choice. If you don't like none of the options,
take a third path. Say, windows 2000.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:40:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) wrote:
>I expected as much. I tried to have a look but then found it was
>Windows only so I moved on.
>
>When I see a better space warfare tactical game than StarForce Alpha
>Centauri (a simple but elegant board game from about 1975) I might get
>interested. It didn't have very many pieces but had real 3-D combat
>with simultaneous movement. The main reason systems like that didn't
>catch on is that too many people believe in the naval lines-of-battle
>analogy (even the 18th Century version!), even if warfare in space would
>never be like that (never mind Star Trek).
"Shogun Total War" is now the only reason I keep my Windows 95 partition
around, a superb real-time 3D strategy war game (http://www.totalwar.com/). By
far the most realistic war game I've ever played. It really expresses the
chaos of the battlefield, yet encourages you to play strategically.You can
also wind up with thousands of men on the battlefield. If this were ported to
Linux I'd buy it in an instant.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:46:04 +0000
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:15:59 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >You trolled for it, you've caught it. A capsule summary of
> > > >your sophomoric sophistry. Babbage cabbage. Fiddling while
> > > >your Rome burns, Caesar Au-Gates-Us with a knife in his OS,
> > > >sipping his lead-laden cup of bile. Your gallium-arsenide
> > > >semiconductor fuctor with Pb. Sipping from a firehose with a
> > > >straw, it gets jammed in your craw.
> > >
> > > Yep I sure did, caught one that is...
> > >
> > > A certified card carrying Penguinista.
> >
> > Shoot, where can I get one of those cards?
>
> I'd prefer the tee-shirt. I couldn't cram another card into my wallet if I
> tried.
You need the new Microsfot Wallet(TM) with space for 10Exa-Cards and and
animated zip.
It only costs $200 (if you upgrade from your MS old wallet), requires
6000 W and takes up to 3 m^3
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:37:02 GMT
In article <pz1b6.189398$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > > If I want all my file save/open dialogs to all look the same -
like
> > the KDE
> > > style, or MOTIF or Gtk, can I do that with the Linux desktop? No I
> > can't -
> > > my choice is restricted here to whatever toolktip the application
is
> > > created with.
> >
> > Yes, you can. Use the apps that match whatever style you prefer,
> > and don't use the others. Or use all and live with the
inconsistency.
> >
> > Your choice.
>
> Well, I won't go on any further on this. I don't think I can dump Gtk
apps
> and just use KDE, for example, as the kind of apps written on Linux
> Mandrake are mostly Gtk.
I don't understand what you wrote. If you don't feel you can drop them,
don't drop them. If you feel you can't live with the inconsistency, drop
them. If you can't live with either, DON'T.
> Then it's less of a choice.
I don't get it. I really don't.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:30:11 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donn Miller once wrote:
>Kevin Ford wrote:
>
>> Another one of my favourites is 'application not responding, press wait or
>> close it' isn't that what I just did??
>>
>> Also I like it when the Windows kernel has decided that windows has
>> performed an illegal operation, probably something like trying to stay up
>> longer than a couple of days. Blue screen, press any key to close the
>> program and return to windows.... erm, isn't that what I'm closing???
>
>I remember when I used to get that message box (on Win 98) saying
>"krnl32.exe: this program has performed an illegal operation". Then, I
>press OK. Ironically, I can still move my mouse, and I still see the
>Windows background w/out icons. Apparently, Windows can still have some
>limited graphics functions when the kernel has crashed. Amazing.
>
I notice you write 'when' and not 'if'.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
