Linux-Advocacy Digest #584, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Richard E.
Silverman)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Adam Warner")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: ahem :)
Re: ahem :) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Donn Miller)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Donn Miller)
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? ("Joel Barnett")
Re: a little Ms humor (Donn Miller)
Re: My long signature ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Chris Torek)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: [OT] .sig (Gergo Barany)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Silverman)
Date: 01 Mar 2001 15:10:48 -0500
Chad> Ok, let's stop right there. First, I have NEVER attempted to
Chad> debate any of the specifics of why SSH is bad. I do not claim,
Chad> nor have I ever claimed to be an expert in the field of
Chad> encryption. Second, I have cited sources of "experts" in the
Chad> field who have posted vulnerabilities in SSH 1 and 2. ...
By your own admission, you do not understand the issues involved. Which
is fine; citing experts can be a useful method of argument -- we do not
all understand everything. However, in posting to comp.security.ssh, you
have entered a forum in which quite a few people *do* have such an
understanding, and they have provided specific, technical arguments
rebutting and questioning your quoted evidence. It seems to me that you
should respond either by taking the time to learn about these issues so
that you can make an intelligent response, or by acknowledging that you
lack the background to respond and simply withdraw from the discussion.
Instead, you have continued to merely repeat the same phrases that you do
not understand, over and over. I don't see that this furthers the
discussion in any useful way.
Chad> It seems that the OpenSSH folks have ignored SSH.com's repeated
Chad> communications about trademark violation and using the flawed
Chad> SSH1 protocol.
These are two entirely unrelated issues, and both your claims about them
are false. The OpenBSD project has responded publically to the legal and
other demands made by SSH Communications Security regarding their claimed
trademark and the alleged violations. And no one has "ignored" the issues
with SSH-1; there are simply differences of opinion as to whether the
problems that exist warrant immediately ceasing all support for the older
protocol. In order to decide that, you have to evaluate the severity of
the problems and the measures that can be taken to mitigate it, against
the security benefits derived by continuing to use SSH-1 where needed.
These issues have been brought up in this discussion. The fact that all
the security weaknesses inherent in SSH-1 have been addressed in writing
and in implementations should be ample evidence that nothing has been
"ignored." You might disagree with the decisions the OpenSSH and other
people have made regarding this, but that would require that you take the
time to understand the issues, which you say you have not done.
I would also like to point out that Tatu's allegation regarding OpenSSH
doing a "disservice to the Internet community" by supporting SSH-1, is
rather odd. The ssh.com SSH2 products include features for providing
SSH-1 backwards compatibility. Their Windows client supports SSH-1
connections. On the Unix side, it is more cumbersome and less secure than
the SSH-1 support in OpenSSH, but it is there, all using software
available from and maintained by SSH Communications Security.
Chad> This is what has concerned me. There are people who pretend to
Chad> operate a trusted security product, but do not take the
Chad> responsibility that comes along with operating such product.
The OpenSSH implementation has an excellent track record, both with regard
to proactive security-conscious development, and in responding to security
issues in a timely fashion. Most often, software bugs discovered in other
implementations were either fixed long ago in OpenSSH, or were never
present to begin with.
By way of contrast, the last time I reported a serious security bug in
SSH1 to SSH Communications Security, they took five months (!) to issue a
one-line source code patch to fix the problem. Mind you, this bug could
result in disclosure of a user's private keys. They repeatedly dropped
the ball, ignoring the issue and my communication about it for months at a
time. I was forced twice to threaten publishing the vulnerability without
their having issued a patch, in order to prompt some action. They finally
announced the issue on Bugtraq -- without informing me that they had done
so -- and to this day have *still* not incorporated the fix into the SSH1
software they maintain and distribute (ssh-1.2.31). My inquiries
regarding why this is so, have likewise been ignored.
If anything, it is SSH Communications Security who has displayed a
troubling degree of irresponsibility toward their role as a security
software provider -- not the OpenSSH project.
Chad> They don't seem to be the least bit scared of all the people out
Chad> there still using SSH1. This seems irresponsible, at least.
Being "scared" -- and thus scaring others -- to a degree which is out of
proportion with the true nature of the problem: that would be
irresponsible. Instead, the OpenSSH people are displaying what I consider
to be a mostly appropriate amount of concern regarding the issue. Which
is to say: they have implemented support for the newer protocol, while
maintaining support for the older version while it is still useful and not
so dangerous as to override that usefulness. I do think it would be good
to include in the OpenSSH distribution a more pointed warning and
discussion about the SSH-1 issues and the desirability of using SSH-2
where possible. I will draft text to that effect and submit it to them
for consideration.
Chad> When I attempt to alert everyone to it,
I think you are overstating your contribution here. No one here needed to
be "alerted" to any issue you brought up. In fact, most of those who have
engaged in conversation with you were already aware of all these issues,
and more, and actually understand them, as you do not.
Chad> or bring it up for discussion, I get flamed, insulted, ...
You did not so much "bring it up for discussion," as you have simply
repeated inflammatory remarks and misinformation, all the while ignoring
the corrections of those who understand the issues better than you do.
This is naturally disturbing and annoying to many people here. While I
don't condone the level of discourse displayed in this thread, I don't
think you are entirely the victim here.
--
Richard Silverman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:16:52 +1300
In article <3a9e5fa8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
I see. That was an interesting slant taken by Paul Thurrot:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4979275.html?tag=ch_mh
I didn't think this was worthy enough to post on its own, but it helps to
put Paul's article into perspective.
By the way the article is entitled "Linux catching up to Windows in server
market."
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:27:26 -0300
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97lmut$pgdep$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > Not just too complicated, but confusing, inconsistent, prone to failure
>> > and
>> > slow. The KDE panel configuration tool is an exercise in futility. I
>> > spent
>> > days trying to add panels in Mandrake 7.2, and they wouldn't appear. I
>> > thought maybe I had to restart KDE for them to be visible, but no go.
> The
>> > panels appeard in the panel editor, but didn't appear in the menus. It
>> > was
>> > just goofy. (this was KDE 2.0 upgraded to the release version).
>> >
>> > Now, you're right. I'm talking about 2.0 and not 2.1, but I can't
> imagine
>> > it's changed that much in such a short amount of time.
>>
>> The panel in particular has changed a real lot.
>>
>> But anyway, what do you mean by "adding extra panels"? KDE 2.0 only
>> supported one panel. On KDE 2.1, it's RMB on the
>> panel->Add->Extension->Child panel.
>
> Perhaps my terminology is not accurate here. My understanding was that a
> "panel" was an entry in the menus, but from your words here I take it that
> a
> "panel" is the entire menu. In which case, I mean that entries in the
> panel would not appear.
Panel is the strip in your screen.
You mean adding buttons to it to launch other apps?
I just do RMB->Add->Button
--
Roberto Alsina
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:12:52 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:34:36 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:15:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence
>> Kirby) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Aaron Kulkis" writes:
>> >
>> >...
>> >
>> >>Complete bozos are not given security clearances nor allowed to even
>> >>seeh, let alone use military code books.
>>
>> ROFL. Is Aaron asserting that field officers can't see codebooks,
>> unless they're also smart? Sheesh !
>
>Do you know what it takes to become an officer these days?
An 8th grade education, history of antisocial behavior, and a three
foot long criminal record?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: ahem :)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:36:07 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:42:08 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
>Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ahem :)
>
>*cough* :-/
fart.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: ahem :)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:45:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:42:08 +0000
<97m56t$sa9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
>Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ahem :)
>
>*cough* :-/
Um.....what were we debating again? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 24d:00h:18m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 1 Mar 2001 15:03:52 -0600
al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It bugs you to see the almighty Linux being pushed away by Windows, doesn't
> ti ?
> And don't forget 2000 was the worst MS's year and the best Linux's year and
> they still didn't make
> any inroads.
> So what will happen when MS releases .NET, Visual Studio.NET, Windows XP,
> Office XP,
> XBOX, ... this year ? Their market share will be even higher.
Who cares? I won't be using it. BTW, nice formatting by your "superior"
Microsoft newsreader. Just because MS is the most numerous doesn't
automatically make it better.
====== 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: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Date: 1 Mar 2001 15:06:04 -0600
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know! I'm thankful that there's one more person on this planet
> who's realized this.
> Microsoft STOLE the code for the stack from BSD.
I believe the correct terminology is "embraced and extended".
====== 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: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:10:43 -0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Joel Barnett wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > > >
<snip>
> > > This must be some really strange set of requirements. I can't think of
a
> > single
> > > application for which terminal server would be appropriate, which
another
> > > alternative isn't a better choice. Please enlighten me, why do you
need
> > > terminal server?
> >
> > A remote sales office has 5 users who nedd to do the usual sort of
stuff,
> > input customer orders, run sales reports, check customer order status,
etc..
> > For this they need to be able to use the application we have for this.
This
> > app, (inhouse developed), and it's database reside on a Netware 4.x
server
> > at our main office. The terminal server allows the remote users to
connect
> > via a VPN, and do their work. They also use a contact mgr., (Goldmine),
over
> > the terminal server. The remote office has a peer to peer network of W2k
> > workstations, a router, firewall, and a fractional T1 line.
> >
> > Basically, the TS allows the remote users to work as if they were in our
> > main office. Instead of being connected to our LAN via a cat5 cable,
they
> > are connected over the internet through a VPN tunnel.
>
> I still don't understand why terminal server makes sense here. You already
have
> a VPN, why not use the regular LAN protocols over the VPN? If your VPN is
> configured correctly, everything should just work as if you are local
anyway.
>
But wouldn't this involve passing way more data over the internet ? By using
the TS, the only transfer over the internet is key strokes, mouse clicks and
the screen display. Example, in order to login to our Netware servers, each
remote machine would have the Novell client32 installed, when they login
packets are passing from the remote machine to the Netware servers. With the
TS, the client is on the TS, packets are passed from the TS session over the
LAN to the Netware servers. Why chew up bandwidth and slow down performance
for the remote users ?
> The only way TS may be a performance gain is if you have a database
application
> which does not use a database "server," i.e. some sort of file shared
x-base
> system where each program locks and updates blocks on a set of files via a
file
> sharing protocol. These systems are inherently bad when multiple
concurrent
> users are active. If you have that, I would suggest that it be written to
use
> some kind of database client/server model, preferably SQL.
>
> If you are using a database server like SQL, then it will be much more
> efficient to use the VPN to relay packets of data instead of the Windows
> desktop ala terminal server.
Seems to me it is less efficient to relay all that data over an internet
connection.
>
> Running TS they way you are describing sounds like the worst possible idea
one
> could have.
Think of PcAnywhere or VNC. They work well because all processing is done on
the host machine. Only keystrokes and the display is transerred over the
WAN. The TS does the same thing, but it allows one pc to serve multiple
users simultaneuosly - each user getting his own desktop, file system
rights, etc.
If you were setting a *nix based system for remote users wouldn't you do it
the same way, ie, all processing done on the LAN side ?
<snip>
>
> --
> The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
> The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
> consistency.
> -- Albert Einstein
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a little Ms humor
Date: 1 Mar 2001 15:08:33 -0600
Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you hear about the new bug that MS created?
> It is even making buildings in Seattle crash on people.
> (in reference to the recent earthquake for those who don't know about
> current events)
You know, it may be a kind of dramatic irony that the earthquake happened
while Microsoft (or at least Bill G.) was at a presentation of some sort.
The earth is trembling beneath MS's feet. Wow, what symbolism.
====== 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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My long signature
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:05:37 +0600
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> Fuck you all
Wonder how many Linux advocates just plonked you?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Torek)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 13:32:05 -0800
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: provide a standard library, but you could choose not to use if (for
>>: example if you're in to building kernels).
(As others noted, when building kernels you may want to use a
"freestanding" rather than a "hosted" compiler. How any particular
implementation divides the two, if it divides them at all, is up
to that implementation.)
>Steve Mading wrote:
>> But can you name-clash with it? Is that something that has to work?
>> If you write a kernel version of printf, don't you still have to
>> call it something different, like "kprintf", for example.
To do so is wise, yes.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This ALL comes under the section called "implementation dependant",
>and therefore, is not *really* defined, merely ***suggested***.
>
>Suggested != proscribed (i.e. defined, absolutely, no if's, and's, or but's)
Indeed, nothing *requires* the compiler to avoid using your printf().
At the same time, nothing requires it to use it either. If you
name your function kprintf() instead, something *does* require any
C compiler to use your function -- namely, the ANSI/ISO C standards.
In other words, you have on the one hand the opportunity to shoot
yourself in the foot by calling your function printf(); and on the
other hand, you have the opportunity to have code that works
everywhere, by (e.g.) calling your function kprintf(). If you
prefer to shoot yourself in the foot occasionally, well.... :-)
If you prefer to view this as "restricting yourself to a subset of
all current and future C implementations", feel free to do that
too. There is often a legitimate reason to restrict yourself to
particular implementations. Virtually everything you do had a cost
and a benefit. Naming your function kprintf() has the benefit of
guaranteeing that every C compiler will use it the way you expect;
naming it printf() has the cost that some C compilers will not.
If the benefit (whatever that may be) that you get from naming your
function "printf" exceeds this cost, then it makes sense to do so.
(What this all boils down to, of course, is that the Standard C
functions are part of Standard C. Implementations get to pick and
choose the ways in which external identifiers with reserved names
are actually implemented.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:32:22 +0000
> Frankly, this is true of the Windows world also. There is no consistent
> set of keys you use to cut and paste their either. Not truely
> consistent.
>
> The only way you achieve this is to run all Microsoft products, which
> companies rarely do.
That won't help. You know the best of the text editors supplied with
Win9X and up---edit.com? That uses the old convention of ctrl+ins and
shift+ins (which I prefer since I was much more used to them being an ex
Qbasic hacker :-)
> It would be like running all KDE made or all GNOME made products.
Madness.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gergo Barany)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 1 Mar 2001 21:33:13 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gergo Barany wrote:
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Every major conflict has been because one side was ill-prepared for
> > > war...and took a major shellacking because of it.
> >
> > World War I is a counterexample to this theory, I believe.
>
> Wrong. The war STARTED when Tsar Nicholas of Russia foolishly sent
> troops down to Yugoslavia to support the Serbs.
This statement is absurd in itself. The Serbs needed support because
they were fighting the Austrians; therefore, war must have already
had started by that time. In fact, Austria declared war on Serbia on
July 28, 1914, and Russia didn't start mobilization until the next
day, but didn't declare war yet (or rather, at all).
> At this point, there was a GREAT imbalance in forces (Russian + Serb
> forces far outnumbered Bosnian forces).
It was Austria (which Bosnia was part of at that time) that declared
war, and they were very prepared, having sent an ultimatum to Serbia
on July 23, five days earlier.
> The level of preparedness of Austria, Germany, France, Italy,
> Britain, US, etc. are of no consequence, because by the time they
> got involved, the war was already started.
As I stated above, Russia didn't get involved at the very beginning
either. In fact, Germany (August 1) and Austria (August 6) declared
war on Russia, not the other way round.
> Because Russia got involved, Austria and Germany were sucked in
> by treaties with the Ottoman Empire....who attacked Germany.
The Ottoman Empire entered the war on November 11, on the German
side. All hell had already broken loose by that time, and the
stalemate in France had already begun.
> This brought France and England into the war against Germany
> (again, due to treaty obligations)...etc., etc.,
Luxembourg (August 2), France, and Belgium (August 3) were attacked
by Germany without having committed any acts of aggression. It was
called the "Schliefen Plan", and the Germans had been preparing for
it for a long time. They even knew that they had no realistic chance
of winning the war if they couldn't conquer all of northern France
within 6 weeks; that was the time Britain needed to mobilize and
start sending troops across the Channel.
> The ever-expanding nature of the war was due to treaty obligations,
Yes, partly.
> NOT because late-coming belligerants percieved some opportunity
> to gain something by going to war.
Germany had long planned to go to war with France, and Austria
wanted more influence on the Balcans; they only needed a plausible
reason to go to war. When they couldn't find one, they used an
implausible one: Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered on
June 28, but the Austrian ultimatum was sent on July 23, almost a
month later; Serbia *accepted* it with reservations and was willing
to negotate, I believe, yet Austria declared war on them.
There were no treaties that caused Germany to overrun Belgium and
Luxembourg, which were both neutral; they did it because they were
the aggressors and needed to get to nortern France as quickly as
possible.
> At that point, they were
> merely defending their honor as governments worthy of signing
> treaties and sticking to them.
Our definitions of "honor" seem to differ, but that's OK.
Gergo
--
QOTD:
"I used to be lost in the shuffle, now I just shuffle along with
the lost."
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:38:39 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pat McCann"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Linux. He goes out
>> >>of his way to call Linux GNU/Linux (technically correct) and adds
>> >>that the majority of code in Linux is GNU (again correct).
>> >
>> > Wrong. About 30% is GNU.
> No, none of Linux is GNU. More than that of "the GNU system with the
> Linux kernel". (At least that's the way it should be said in His
> presence.)
Plenty of GNU/Linux is GNU, though :-)
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:40:44 +1300
> > So, the BSD->NT is the real conversion, while the CNet story of MS's
> > plans of shifting from Sun machines to NT is made up? I do hope you
> > noticed that the articles talk about converting two different operating
> > systems, both of which Hotmail apparently runs on.
> >
> > So, does it actually run on Solaris or BSD? Or does it run on both?
>
> Anyone that has ever built a large multiserver application will tell that
> you don't just flick and switch and convert.
Anyone with a brain and a mild understanding of what's involved could
also see that. What does that have to do with the fact that noone seems
to agree on what Hotmail runs? Certainly I could understand it might run
on all sorts of different servers, but noone seems to be able to detail
the systems (and have it corroborated by anyone else). The annoying
thing is that all these news sites have articles talking about "THE
[failed] BSD->NT conversion" and "THE [failed] Solaris->NT conversion" as
if the entire system was being shifted in one go.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:41:54 +1300
> Let the record show the kind of immature childish assholes I attempt to
> engage in an intelligent debate with.
But namecalling IS the height of maturity?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:40:18 +0000
>> were handy. Further, even now, well under half the OS is GUNish, unless
>> you creatively define the line to only include the GNU stuff.
>
> If it wasn't called GNU, then one could draw the line at Single Unix
> Specification and say that the base OS contains of kernel, interfaces
> and utilities described in SUS. Just for the purpose of counting. But
> since GNU is not Unix, SUS doesn't apply.
I think it would be best to consider all the stuff required by POSIX.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:46:08 +0000
> Bullshit. You couldn't buy a MS OS "off the shelf" in 1985. MS didn't
> start to retail MS-DOS until Dos 4.0, which came out around 1989, and
> Windows did not become an OS until Windows 3.0 (possibly Windows 2/386,
It is debatable that Win3x (or even 9X) is an OS.
> The price of Windows 1.0 was $100 (I was wrong in an earlier post when I
> thought it was $500) but required DOS, which meant Dos + Windows costed
> $199, about $8 cheaper than the MSRP today, and Windows today is 1000x
> what
> Windows 1.0 was.
If Windows today is 1000x what Windows 1 was then it must be a pretty
poor product. Oh wait, it is...
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
