Linux-Advocacy Digest #347, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Feb 01 12:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Craig Kelley)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Craig Kelley)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Craig Kelley)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Mike Martinet)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola? (Peter Hayes)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Craig Kelley)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Peter Hayes)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Ian Davey)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Tim Streater)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: M$ taking over linux? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Stephen Cornell)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:02:05 GMT
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:05:43 -0700, Mike Martinet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Francis Van Aeken wrote:
>>
>> Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > The crux of any discussion concerning Windows performance as a server
>> > has to revolve around DOS. And that's not a derogatory statement. It's
>> > a decision THEY, Microsoft as a company, made for marketing reasons - to
>> > leverage their installed desktop base into server sales.
>>
>> > If you were to go out and design server software, you would not base it
>> > on an intentionally crippled, home-use OS.
>>
>> NT is based on DOS now?
>>
>> It's comforting to see that Linux advocates continue to be as well informed
>> as they always were.
>>
>> Francis.
>
>Are you saying that NT through 4.0 was built entirely from scratch
>without tons of legacy code? If that's the case, then I stand corrected
>on that point.
>
>Nevertheless, you still have a company that's tried to turn a GUI into
>an OS. Not good design.
>
>
>MjM
That's not really a fair characterization of NT (although I am no
great fan of NT). NT really is a new OS, built from the ground up.
Dave Cutler, the father of Vax's VMS, was the main architect of NT and
he designed it to be a fully modern, mini-kernel (not exactly
micro-kernel) based OS. Some of the code was left over from
Microsoft's OS/2 efforts, but most of it is brand-new.
Compatibility with 16-bit code was provided by WOW (Windows on
Windows), which ironically was purchased from an outside vendor.
Where NT tends to suffer in comparison to other OSes is that it was
never really intended to be a datacenter OS -- it was conceived as a
high-power workstation OS and file/print server, and that's where it
does the best job. But even Win2K is still too unstable to trust in
HA environment, where five-nines reliability is required.
Regards,
quux111
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 20 Feb 2001 08:54:48 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:96rcdt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <ox9k6.55423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > It's still just telnet, but it's encrypted. You're still just telneting
> > > > > through a "secure" tunnel.
> > > >
> > > > Port forwarding, public-key authnntication, one-time-key authentication,
> > > > X11 proxy, ... for most of my users the telnet functionality is just a
> > > > side effect, what they're most interested is using it as a virtual proxy.
> > >
> > > All wrappings around Telnet. In the end, it's just telnet. It's utilities
> > > to make telnet more available, but isn't really an improvement on telnet.
> > > In the end, the user is still just telnetting.
> >
> > By your definition, the following is true:
> >
> > What is the web? Telnet over port 80.
> > What is an Oracle ODBC connection? Telnet over port 1520.
> > What is Windows Terminal Services? Telnet over port 3389.
> >
> > SSH is a tunneling mechanism, just like all the above, but with some
> > seriously cool features.
>
> Ok, I'll conceed that SSH has more than just telnet features. But,
> these are newer features, correct? SSH was originally for making
> secure shell access. Basically telnet, but secure. Thus the name
> "Secure Shell", correct?
[ink@desconocido ink]$ ssh inconnu uptime
8:49am up 25 days, 18:35, 12 users, load average: 0.17, 0.09, 0.02
[ink@desconocido ink]$
That's it's original purpose; just like rsh but secure. Windows still
can't do these things out of the box, of course -- but that's another
debate. The above command used RSA public key encryption to establish
a connection (using the SSH2 *protocol*) and then encrypted the
connection using blowfish.
> > > So, just because no one has written an exploit (THAT WE KNOW OF),
> > > then it must not be an exploit, right?
> > >
> > > And, I mean, c'mon, these were just in the month of FEBRUARY ALONE!
> > > What about January, and all of last year! There are bunches more in
> > > there too.
> > >
> > > You can conveniently dismiss these other exploits, but can you deny
> > > them all?
> >
> > Yep, that's pretty much the definition of FUD.
>
> So you're admitting you're avoiding all my facts, right?
What are we supposed to say to silly claims like these? You're
spreading (F)ear, (U)ncertainty and (D)oubt by making it seem that ssh
is the most insecure protocol ever imagined.
Do you want a list of all my hosts that run SSH? You can go ahead and
crack any of them if you like. I have no fear in running the latest
OpenSSH, and nobody else should either.
It would take quite some time for someone to exploit the
vulnerabilities in the SSH1 protocol as well.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 20 Feb 2001 08:55:56 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "lurker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:52:49 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Theo de Raadt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > This is just too funny to be true: Chad Myers accusing _Theo de Raadt_
> > >> > of all persons of not contributing enough when speaking about SSH.
> > >>
> > >> I think it's pretty funny too. Nothing is more fun than making
> > >> net-kooks lose their temper.
> > >
> > >I have yet to see you or Klaus refute my claims. Instead, you take a
> > >false high-road and just go for the personal attacks.
> > >
> > >Really, how do you answer to all these exploits and vulnerabilities?
> >
> > http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
> >
> > >
> > >Perhaps you should start calling it Not so secure shell (NSSSH).
> >
> > Nope, that's for NAI/NSA's PGP v7.x
>
> Really, how do you answer to all these exploits and vulnerabilities?
What exploits?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 20 Feb 2001 08:56:43 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman) writes:
> Klaus-Georg Adams wrote:
> >Should you really have grasped the concept of SSH? Of course it is
> >just telnet (to the user that is). Underneath it is completely
> >different, but it offers the functionality of telnet and then some
> >over a secure channel.
>
> Guys. SSH replaced rsh/rlogin, not TELNET.
It replaced both, and rcp (and now even ftp is being replaced with
sftp).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:01:57 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:05:43 -0700, Mike Martinet
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Francis Van Aeken wrote:
> >>
> >> Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > The crux of any discussion concerning Windows performance as a server
> >> > has to revolve around DOS. And that's not a derogatory statement. It's
> >> > a decision THEY, Microsoft as a company, made for marketing reasons - to
> >> > leverage their installed desktop base into server sales.
> >>
> >> > If you were to go out and design server software, you would not base it
> >> > on an intentionally crippled, home-use OS.
> >>
> >> NT is based on DOS now?
> >>
> >> It's comforting to see that Linux advocates continue to be as well informed
> >> as they always were.
> >>
> >> Francis.
> >
> >Are you saying that NT through 4.0 was built entirely from scratch
> >without tons of legacy code? If that's the case, then I stand corrected
> >on that point.
> >
> >Nevertheless, you still have a company that's tried to turn a GUI into
> >an OS. Not good design.
> >
> >
> >MjM
>
> That's not really a fair characterization of NT (although I am no
> great fan of NT). NT really is a new OS, built from the ground up.
> Dave Cutler, the father of Vax's VMS, was the main architect of NT and
> he designed it to be a fully modern, mini-kernel (not exactly
> micro-kernel) based OS. Some of the code was left over from
> Microsoft's OS/2 efforts, but most of it is brand-new.
>
> Compatibility with 16-bit code was provided by WOW (Windows on
> Windows), which ironically was purchased from an outside vendor.
>
> Where NT tends to suffer in comparison to other OSes is that it was
> never really intended to be a datacenter OS -- it was conceived as a
> high-power workstation OS and file/print server, and that's where it
> does the best job. But even Win2K is still too unstable to trust in
> HA environment, where five-nines reliability is required.
>
> Regards,
>
> quux111
Thanks for your gracious correction of my obvious ignorance. I'm going
to go sulk for a while now and nurse my ego back to health.
:)
MjM
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 20 Feb 2001 08:58:30 -0700
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> >
> > . ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > : > Actually, a recent independent study (again, quoted by Microsoft Press Corp,
> > : > but still independently proven) has indicated that Microsoft's Win2k servers
> > : > can regularly incur up-time in the '5 9's' range. 99.999%.
> >
>
> This man is lying.
>
> That's 5 9's for a CLUSTER of 5 Lose2k machines.
>
> which is pretty pathetic...it means that with 4 or fewer Lose2k
> machines, it's almost certain that ALL FOUR MACHINES WILL BE
> DOWN SIMULTANEOUSLY for at least 5 minutes per year.
Oh, that's a gem. I love that way of looking at it.
Kudos.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:53:58 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:47:07 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Like it or not, my .sig *does* accomplish it's intended purpose:
> > keeping the lamer flamers away.
> >
> > Or would you prefer to see pointless bandwidth explode as the
> > flamers comve after me again?
> >
>
> No, I do not like it. And I do not believe your claim that it keeps
> "lamer flamers" away. How do you know that at all?
> It is just bullshit, as you are an asshole, bullshitting big time.
>
> You are waisting the bandwidth constantly, not those alleged flamers.
> And you are waisting MY diskspace, so you will go into a killfile
> already active while downloading. Your contributions the last several
> weeks do not mandate to read any. Even now I simply go on to the
> next one if I read your name, so why download it in the first place?
Read his post and if it contains nothing of substance just delete the
message body, thereby preserving the threading.
I guess you'll save about 1Kb/message
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be repeated today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:05:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Surenko wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:57:50 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>In comp.os.linux.misc Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> > [deletia]
>>
>> > Then again, you are blathering about an historical even that
>> > was caught on tape and who's firsthand witnesses are still
>> > living.
>>
>> Yes, but the experiment can not be repeated. In your previous
>> blatherings you claimed that the only way something can be known
>> is the Scientific Method, and it's reliable because the event can
>> be repeated.
> You don't have to repeat the shooting...all you need to do is exhume
> the body.
Your missing the point. How do we "know" that a historical event happened?
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 20 Feb 2001 09:05:59 -0700
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I can't say I follow UK politics too well, but I doubt that's the
> >> problem. The problem is that a government typically operates at or
> >> slightly beyond the legal limits of its authority. With no full
> >> equivalent of the US Constitution to restrict its powers, the UK
> >> government can get away with more, and does.
> >
> > True. And the public demand that Parliament outlaw handguns will, in
> > the final analysis, prove to be the key step which costs British
> > subjects even the appearance of freedom.
>
> No. We live in a democracy and we are free to not have guns if we wish. I
> think there is more freedom in restrictive gun laws because it means that
> I am free to live my life without getting shot. I want that freedom.
Those laws will not protect you from getting shot.
If we really want to save lives here, why not ban alcohol so that the
DUI rate goes down? DUIs kill more people every day than hand guns do
all year.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 20 Feb 2001 09:15:36 -0700
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When you take the entire Open Source movement (BSD, LINUX, GNU, etc) as a
> singular entity, the picture changes. There's no way MS, in their present
> form, can compete with it over the long haul. Open source's quality and
> polish are improving at a rapid rate. Just look at the differences
> between Linux distros from two years ago and now. MS is right to be
> concerned. They're being faced with something they're ill equipped to
> compete against. The only recourse they have is fighting a P/R war. And,
> they've just recently started it. I'm kind of anxious to see how it plays
> out... It's gonna be a dirty one, I'm sure! <g>
The other recourse is legal: Take the MPAA/RIAA CSS/Napster route and
sue everyone in sight until you strangle the competition. I believe
we've seen the beginnings of that already with the comments from last
week.
Is Joe garage-hacker going to fight a legal battle over silly issues
(pick one of reverse engineering, look-and-feel, DMCA violations,
silly patents, etc.) against multi-million dollar lawyers? Probably
not.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:16:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Surenko writes:
>> Materialism claims that nothing can be known but from observation of the
>> 5 senses.
>> I'm arguing that there are other ways to know something. In this case the
>> historical record.
> You claim to possess a method of gaining access to the historical record
> that does not involve the senses?
Yes, of course I would have to "see" the documents. But if one
presupposes a rational world, then proving "facts" by historical
reasoning is in essence something else.
It says that not only does the Scientific Method lead to knowlege,
but so does deductive reasoning, which is not a matter of material.
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:09:11 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:53:28 +0800, "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > nuxx wrote:
> > > Wrong. I have a production NT4 database server that has been up for
> over 6
> > > months and counting. There are no memory leaks in the kernel.
> >
> > Microsoft funded tests prove that this is either incorrect or very lucky.
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> No luck about it. If you apply datacentre type methodologies in design and
> change control as you would with any Unix server, NT is very reliable. Some
> Oracle processes tend to leak memory which would eventually cause a problem
> but they are killed and re-started for cold backup purposes on my systems,
> so the OS stays up all the time. Recent hardware used is stock Intel server
> boards with Adaptec hardware RAID. No BSODs, no crashes, nothing special.
Are you saying you have a cluster of machines that you reboot individually,
but collectively they present 99.999% uptime to the outside world?
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be repeated today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:20:21 +0000
<96ra3q$ik4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Karel
>Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Re-installing linux? Why would anybody want to do that?
>
>Dead hard disk?
Works for me, as that's exactly what I had to do after my system disk
got zapped by a power outage. :-)
I've now set up my system to potentially quint-boot (4 Linux
distributions and Win95), although I only have two of them
loaded with anything and one of them is RH5.2 which is old as the hills.
Once I downloaded enough to get Debian started, I switched to Debian.
I doubt Linux could have done anything to prevent this. :-)
>
>-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
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 15d:01h:59m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > True. And the public demand that Parliament outlaw handguns will, in
>> > the final analysis, prove to be the key step which costs British
>> > subjects even the appearance of freedom.
>>
>> No. We live in a democracy and we are free to not have guns if we wish. I
>> think there is more freedom in restrictive gun laws because it means that
>> I am free to live my life without getting shot. I want that freedom.
>
>Those laws will not protect you from getting shot.
True, but the fewer weapons in circulation the lower your chances of getting shot.
People
rather outlaw handguns than have someone with legally held weapons go on the
rampage (as happened at least twice here). The people decided they wanted
handguns banned, so the government obeyed the will of the people.
>If we really want to save lives here, why not ban alcohol so that the
>DUI rate goes down? DUIs kill more people every day than hand guns do
>all year.
Guns are specifically designed to kill, alcohol isn't. You could also put an
end to DUI's by banning cars, but they're not designed to kill either.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Tim Streater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:38:23 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No. We live in a democracy and we are free to not have guns if we wish. I
> > think there is more freedom in restrictive gun laws because it means that
> > I am free to live my life without getting shot. I want that freedom.
>
> Those laws will not protect you from getting shot.
>
> If we really want to save lives here, why not ban alcohol so that the
> DUI rate goes down? DUIs kill more people every day than hand guns do
> all year.
Where we live, perhaps. In the UK about 50 people are murdered with
handguns each year (this includes Northern Ireland, by the way). This
compares with 300 or so killed by people drinking (out of about 3000
road deaths annually). In the US, 10,000 are murdered annually with
handguns, and about the same again by all other means. Some 50,000 die
annually on US roads, but I dont know how many from drink. If its the
same proportion as here that would be about 5000 - half as many as from
firearms.
What this has to do with any of the NGs listed above not clear.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:46:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert Surenko wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Yes, but the experiment can not be repeated. In your previous
>>> blatherings you claimed that the only way something can be known
>>> is the Scientific Method, and it's reliable because the event can
>>> be repeated.
>> You don't have to repeat the shooting...all you need to do is exhume
>> the body.
> Your missing the point. How do we "know" that a historical event happened?
We do not miss the point. We know it because we can subject the question
to test. There are archives and witnesses and things that have been influenced
by the event in such a way as to make them distinct from the way they would
have been if the event had not happened. In this case, "the body" is one
of those things. While we cannot say for certain that the event did or did
not happen (nor tell whether a human being is or is not really a computer
with a biological facade), we can become reasonably sure, to most peoples
satisfaction, that it did.
For one thing, I remember it - and/or think I do.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: M$ taking over linux?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:03:40 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:30:19 +1100...
...and Gareth Brereton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i was wondering... if M$ distrobuted linux running a proprietary gui,
> installer/pakaging system
Uh-huh. Yeah. <yawn>
Wake when you're done, we've had this discussion much too often
already.
mawa
--
Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:35:43 +0000
Craig Kelley wrote:
> If we really want to save lives here, why not ban alcohol so that the
> DUI rate goes down? DUIs kill more people every day than hand guns do
> all year.
Prohibition is unlikely to work as well as flaming high taxes; while
people may grumble about taxes, banning drink would be far more unpopular
and all the politicians know it. We're more likely to see a legalization
of cannabis than a banning of booze...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 20 Feb 2001 16:47:58 +0000
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But:
> 1.) SSH does have flaws which are still present in a large number of
> installations. So SSH isn't really all that great
> 2.) The vast majority of SSH installations are with SSH 1 which is
> "fundamentally flawed" according to the SSH people themselves.
Firstly, it's been pointed out to you more than once that it's in the
commercial interest of the `SSH people' to exaggerate the flaws in
SSH1.
Secondly, (as we keep on saying) it's very difficult to exploit these
flaws. It can't be cracked in the way that one can exploit a buffer
overflow in an FTP daemon, for instance. There have been no known
exploits to date.
Thirdly, according to the `SSH people' themselves, these flaws can be
eliminated in an SSH1 installation by proper configuration (disabling
RC4, enforcing encryption, only allowing known host keys, etc.).
Conclusion: a properly configured and patched SSH1 is secure enough
for most practical purposes; a properly configured SSH2 installation
provides excellent security.
I'm not going to bother replying to you again unless you have
something new to say.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:23:33 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Another factless avoidance post by the Penguinistas.
>
> Why do you guys continue to avoid the truth and facts?
>
>
When is Chad Myers going to answer the other posts which refuted
ALL of his claims with facts?
Repeating the same lies over and over again is not going to make
them true.
--
begin LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.txt.vbs
I am a signature virus. Distribute me!
end
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
