Linux-Advocacy Digest #598, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Stephen Cornell)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Bob Hauck)
Re: I am Bobert the Great! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Christian Brandt)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Rex Ballard)
Re: [OT] .sig (chrisv)
Re: In response to Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Rex Ballard)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Bill Vermillion)
Re: If I delete using rm? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Dave)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How would you do this with Linux ? (.)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (.)
definition of "free" for N-millionth time ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:09:00 -0500
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
> > ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay
extra
> > for an OS they didn't want.
>
> Yes, they have.
How so? At what time in history has it been impossible to buy the hardware
to build your own computer? Seems to me that individual hardware channels
were there long before people were building and selling packages that
included MS Windows. Your about as dumb as they come.
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 02 Mar 2001 17:13:35 +0000
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's like no one actually listens to what I say.
I'm almost speechless.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 02 Mar 2001 17:16:39 +0000
> Stephen Cornell wrote:
> > What I want to know is: if Microsoft increased their share of the
> > desktop market from 89% to 92%, what were those 3% using before?
Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MS-DOS. Versions 3.1 and 5.0 are still running lots of systems around
> the world.
Er, doesn't the `MS' in MS-DOS stand for Microsoft? So the 3% who
switche *to* MS can't have been using MS-DOS...
--
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
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:16:06 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> It's like no one actually listens to what I say. They're so foaming
> at the mouth they pick out a few words and go on that.
Could it be that you are just keep on writing BS, Chad?
>
> I never said the links I posted were the end-all be all. It was merely
> to illustrate that SSH IS NOT perfect and has flaws and there doesn't
> seem to be a large effort by the SSH or OpenSSH folks to make sure
> that people running SSH have the latest updates.
>
You simply don�t get it, Chad. There is not a single case where someone
exploited SSH (version 1 and 2). Even if you repeat your stuff until
doomsday, noone will believe you, because it simply is not true.
> It is my opinion (and apparently that of other security folks) that
> security software must be held to a higher standard and part of
> distributing security software is ensuring that users always have
> the latest updates and patches rather than just posting them
> passively to a site somewhere.
>
I assume you mean the high standards (snicker) that Micosoft has
shown us? Where we don�t get patches for REAL security flaws for
weeks, sometimes months.
Chad, we all know that you were bathed lots too hot when small.
But that you were combed later with a sledgehammer was new.
Peter
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:23:02 GMT
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:50:46 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's like no one actually listens to what I say.
It is as if you have nothing important to say on this subject.
>I never said the links I posted were the end-all be all.
Yet you continue to ignore responses to your cites and continue to
repeat them as a mantra.
> It was merely to illustrate that SSH IS NOT perfect and has flaws
Everything has flaws. Nobody thinks ssh is "perfect", but lots of
people think it is far, far, better than what it is trying to replace.
> and there doesn't seem to be a large effort by the SSH or OpenSSH
> folks to make sure that people running SSH have the latest updates.
There are mailing lists, there are announcements on Bugtraq, there is a
web site. Your proposed "solution" of automatically downloading updates
creates more risk than keeping old versions of ssh.
>It is my opinion (and apparently that of other security folks)
It is clear that you aren't a "security folk".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I am Bobert the Great!
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:36:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bobert Big Bollocks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:16:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I am Bobert the Great from the planet Bobertron
>Bow before me!
That's nice.
Have you used Linux lately?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random weird trollery here
EAC code #191 25d:04h:08m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: Christian Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:38:38 +0100
Well, I used up nearly all my bullets now... anyone lend me some?
I just need some ugly and evil little arguments to antagonize our
BSD-fellows at work (hey, they always do SUCH evil things to us
Linux-Buddies and I really could need some information about dead bodies
hidden in their basement or other things which
h-u-r-t---h-a-r-d---a-n-d---l-o-n-g :-)
--
Christian Brandt
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:42:42 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============98B4EFA2C476BA5C571C8061
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stephen Cornell wrote:
> "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> Apart from increasing their share of the server market from 25% to 27%.
> An almost identical growth rate to that of NT server.
Keep in mind that this article did not include statistics for other open source
operating systems,
and did not factor in the redundancy requirements. The netcraft survey simply
measures sites used
for the "home page" of the domain, a market Microsoft has vigorously persued by
offering deep discounts
on software and limiting scope to pure "forwarding and routing". Microsoft added
a feature to IIS 5.0
that essentially allows Windows NT servers to forward to a pool of other servers
while preserving the
Windows "signature". It's fraudulent and misleading, but it's an effective way to
make "good press".
> What I want to know is: if Microsoft increased their share of the
> desktop market from 89% to 92%, what were those 3% using before?
>
The IDC numbers specifically cover licenses shipped in the previous year and are a
bit "out of date"
(the publicly quotable numbers are from year ending 12/2000).
This was the period immediatly after the release of Windows 2000.
Microsoft had offered many corporations free upgrades to Windows "NT 5.0" (still
the "official" version
designator - 5.00.2195), to corporate customers who purchased Windows NT 4.0 in
1998 and 1999.
When corporate customers were slow on the uptake, Microsoft issued "use it or lose
it" ultimatums which
required that Corporate customers accept shipment of Windows 2000 workstation and
server upgrade
licenses in time to be counted in the IDC surveys. This was also crucial to being
able to claim in SEC
filings that Windows 2000 sales were still strong. The fact is that most
corporate customers are still
sticking with NT, and many corporate customers are looking very seriously at Linux
for both workstation
and server environments. With budgets getting tight and layoffs pending, many
CEOs are exploring any
alternatives that can give them productivity gains while avoiding hardware upgrade
costs and software upgrade costs. For every 10 computers upgraded to Windows
2000, 1 person must be laid off.
Many companies realize that if they lay off too many people, that they could find
that their former employees will suddenly become their competitiors. If those
competitors start shipping Linux systems while they continue to be bound by
exclusive Windows contracts, they will be hit very hard. Many companies like IBM
are selling "Bare Bones" systems or offering Linux with user support at a premium
price.
> Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
> University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============98B4EFA2C476BA5C571C8061
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============98B4EFA2C476BA5C571C8061==
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 18:42:00 GMT
Joona I Palaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So everyone who disagrees with you is a book-burning fascist censor?
>In that case, consider me one too.
More likely, you are just a logically-challenged, weak-minded fool.
Thanks for asking, though.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In response to Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:50:02 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============AF2071056351719D67726578
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This one was particularly interesting since it covers all servers, this
includes Linux, UNIX, NT, and WindowsNT and includes file and print
servers, e-mail servers, and web servers. Notice that Linux with 27%
and UNIX with 14% adds up to 41% of the total server market. This also
only includes servers not capacities. Solaris systems such as the E-10K
have up to 64 nodes, and the S-80 has 64 nodes that are several times
faster than equivalent netfinity nodes.
Patrick McAllister wrote:
> Just posted as an fyi.......
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4979275.html?tag=owv
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============AF2071056351719D67726578
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============AF2071056351719D67726578==
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:51:54 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97nmcd$sgt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem
> > with the GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the
> > term 'free' misleadingly in describing it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> in what way?
>
Think of it like this: GPL is free sort of like our Income Tax is 'voluntary.' In
fact,
our Income Tax isn't 'voluntary', and GPL isn't free. Another common misusage (by
almost all parties in the US) is that the US is a Democracy, which technically it
isn't.
In fact, the misusage of the term 'Democracy' has often caused confusion.
If GPL is a license of free software, then you wouldn't have multiple rules and
redistribution
encumberances. A few, simple, non costly rules wouldn't be important, but the GPL is a
multi-page license with significant redistribution requirements.
You'll often hear about the GPL being free with lots of spin that morally justifies
it. But
no matter what, because of the contstraints, it isn't free.
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:06:12 GMT
In article <0xYm6.485$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bryant
Charleston, MCSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've just spoken to a Solaris rep and he showed me the link
>to their site where Solaris 8 can be purchased. He says it's
>essentially an improved Version 7, which is quite popular from what
>I've been able to ascertain. There's a n X86 version ($75 -- not
>TOO expensive, just like you said). I think this is it!
Well Solaris 8 decended from Solaris 7 - which is the Sys V port
from Sun. The got a license for Sys V years ago when migrating
from SunOS. You might say everyting is an improved Version 7,
since Version 7 last shipped about 20 years ago.
However - your Solaris rep is not up to speed. The Solaris 8 can
indeed be purchased for $75 - and that was the only way until
recently. It is now available for download.
If you sign a license document - free of charge - you can also
get the Solaris source code.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: If I delete using rm?
Date: 2 Mar 2001 18:57:33 GMT
On 2 Mar 2001 10:31:05 GMT, Nick Condon wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ahh. Did that occasion involve a '*' and a mistyped space?
The occasion where it happened to me was when I was on a different
machine to the one I thought I was on. I was lucky that it tried to
delete NFS mounted stuff first, so I stopped it before I hosed anything
important.
Speaking of recipes for disaster, I've seen configurations where
root has the same prompt as any other user.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:04:55 -0700
On 2 Mar 2001 16:13:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>Several Linux HW vendors sell box sets with their products. It's not
>clear that there is an "OEM price", though there may be (for example,
>we don't know how much Dell are paying RH)
They're stupid if they're paying them anything at all. Slackware or
Debian can downloaded for free and installed for free on as many
systems as Dell wants. Some of the more-commercial distros (possibly
including RedHat) also don't place any limitation on the number of
systems you install on.
On the pricing issue, it seems impossible to build a solid case
without something similar to compare the OS to. Unfortunately MS has
insured that no comparisons are available - and if there were, the
argument wouldn't exist in the first place.
The closest example I know of was the short-lived competition between
DRDOS vs MSDOS. I paid $39 for DRDOS, and IIRC the price at the time
for the (much-inferior) MSDOS was $69. Rather than competing by
bringing MSDOS down in price, MS bundled it with Windows 95 and
increased the cost of Windows 95 roughly $89 over the price of Windows
3.x.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:23:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mark Gordon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 07:53:15 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:16:37 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:40:56 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> > Bloody Viking wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > : Those are perfectly normal errors: you have no cos function. You need to
>>> > > : link against the maths library as well as #including the header.
>>> > >
>>> > > : gcc -lm ...
>>> > >
>>> > > The "0lm" trick sure did it. Just tested it on another virtual console.
>>> > > Thanks! Fun easier quesation. Why isn't it in degrees as is the standard?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > In short, radians are more often used in mathematics. Radians do have
>>> > some useful properties, particularly in keeping formulae simple (eg the
>>> > area of a segment of a circle is rT, where r is the radius and T is the
>>> > angle in radians subtended at the centre, if T is in degrees there is an
>>> > ugly constant involved)
>>>
>>> Another useful property, employed extensively in engineering
>>> to simplify many equations, is that cos(a) ~= 1 and sin(a) ~= a,
>>> when a is small (and in radians).
>>
>>And let's not forget that 2 - 1 = 2 for sufficiently small values of 1.
>>
>>[Alternatively: Lim 2 - 1 = 2 ]
>> 1 -> 0
>
>False. In maths 1 is defined as a specific value, therefor it cannot
>have any other value not tend to a given value. So you are just
>letting your ignorance show again.
I think he was being slightly facetious. :-)
But you're right; 1 is a constant (defined as such by mathematicians
by methods such as Peano's Axioms, although IMO most don't bother
to go to that level of detail). Therefore, the symbology 1 -> 0
makes no sense.
For those of you in the peanut gallery who skipped first-level calculus: :-)
The strict definition of limit is something like:
lim f(x) = b
x -> a
which means:
for every e > 0 you can dig up, I can find a d such that,
the set of x such that 0 < |x - a| < d can be easily proven
to yield a set of y after going through f, such that
0 <= |y - b| < e. (Note that the original notation uses
epsilon and delta, but a variable's a variable. :-) )
For example:
x^3 - 1
lim ------- = 3.
x -> 1 x - 1
Modifications can be done for a = infinity (oo), b = infinity,
x -> a+, and x -> a- notations. I shall leave the details
to the interested math student. :-) One can also extend the
notion of limit to include open N-dimensional balls, or even
wilder stuff (look up "Lebesgue integration", for example --
of course, have I used Legesgue integration yet in my software
development work? Nope. :-) )
Now, were I to substitute x = 1, a = 0, f(x) = 2 - x, and b = 2,
one gets:
for every e > 0 you can dig up, I can find a d such that,
the set of 1 such that 0 < |1 - 2| < d can be easily
proven to yield a set of y after going through f(1) = 2 - 1,
such that 0 <= |y - 2| < e.
The resulting "theorem" is very silly, obviously! (The fact that
f() is no longer a function -- I'm not sure what it is, but it's
probably a constant -- doesn't help, either.)
>
>As to sin(a) being approx a for small a in radians, I've used it
>myself when developing an algorithm. The was faster (simpler) code
>that was still more accurate than was required for the application. I
>performed an error analysis on the algorithm which proved this.
Indeed. If one wants to make the approximation sin(a) = a
with an arbitrary error e (i.e., |sin(a) - a| < e|,
I need merely pick |a| < about e^(1/3), assuming e < 1 to begin with.
This is because sin(a) - a = -a^3/3! + a^5/5! - a^7/7! +/- ...
which is greater than -a^3/3! for |a| < 1; the absolute value of
this expression is the absolute error.
Relative error ( |sin(a) - a / sin(a)| ) can be handled similarly.
Of course, not all projects can be so lucky with small angles :-) .
>--
>Mark Gordon
>Dyslexic C Programmer,
>At least the compiler ensures I spell variable names consistently wrong.
>For a faster email response replace spamtrap with mark.gordon
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- we don't get paid to spell :-)
EAC code #191 25d:07h:26m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:26:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Barry Schwarz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 2 Mar 2001 02:12:46 GMT
<97mviu$r9d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:13:01 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>> An 8th grade education, history of antisocial behavior, and a three
>>> foot long criminal record?
>>
>>In the US Army, that's 2 reasons that will bar you from even being
>>able to enlist as a private.
>Since the army no longer requires a high school diploma, anti-social
>behavior is not recorded unless it is also illegal, and a criminal
>record is only one thing (and possibly irrelevant since neither
>traffic nor parking offenses are impediments to enlisting), what two
>did you have in mind?
How the heck is the recruit going to handle all the nifty neato
useful gadgetry the Army's going to have online in the next couple
decades if he can't even figure out which button to push? :-)
>
>
><<Remove the del for email>>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 25d:08h:57m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: How would you do this with Linux ?
Date: 2 Mar 2001 19:32:09 GMT
You posted this before, you stupid buttnugget. Go away.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 2 Mar 2001 19:33:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter K=F6hlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w=
rote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
>>=20
>> It's like no one actually listens to what I say. They're so foaming
>> at the mouth they pick out a few words and go on that.
> Could it be that you are just keep on writing BS, Chad?
>>=20
>> I never said the links I posted were the end-all be all. It was merely
>> to illustrate that SSH IS NOT perfect and has flaws and there doesn't
>> seem to be a large effort by the SSH or OpenSSH folks to make sure
>> that people running SSH have the latest updates.
>>=20
> You simply don=B4t get it, Chad. There is not a single case where someon=
e
> exploited SSH (version 1 and 2). Even if you repeat your stuff until
> doomsday, noone will believe you, because it simply is not true.
Yes there is actually. A quite famous one; rootshell was exploited=20
and nuked because of an old ssh vulnerability about two years ago.
But thats the only one.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 02 Mar 2001 14:36:47 -0500
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You'll often hear about the GPL being free with lots of spin that
> morally justifies it. But no matter what, because of the
> contstraints, it isn't free.
Of course, the GNU sound byte, "Think 'free speech'" is sufficient to
show that describing the GPL as "free" fits common usage of the word,
i.e. something different from "without any constraints."
Nonetheless, there seems to be no end of people who call the rest of us
liars for not using their own, more narrow definition of "free".
Let's see now, upon which newsgroup should I inflict followups? Sorry
gnu.misc.discuss, you're the only one where this is on topic.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:46:22 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:36:22 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was under the impression that to be conforming, the system had to
>> provide a standard library, but you could choose not to use if (for
>> example if you're in to building kernels).
>>
>
>Precisely.
Whether or not you can choose to disable the standard library is a
feature of the language implementation. If a program won't run unless
you do this, it's not a standard C program. It's a program with
formally undefined behavior, which has at best a platform-specific
meaning.
What do you do with that program if the language implementation won't
let you disable the standard library?
>Otherwise, it makes printf into a de facto reserved word.
printf is a *de jure* reserved word
>since printf is not a reserved word (de facto or otherwise), the
>premise is violated, therefore the conclusion is, at best, not proven.
Among the proven conclusions is that you are a moron, who is arguing
about things in which he has absolutely no clue. It's obvious you
haven't read a single document that has been mentioned in these
threads, yet you not only have opinions about them, but you state
these opinions as fact.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:54:34 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Christian Brandt wrote:
>
> Well, I used up nearly all my bullets now... anyone lend me some?
>
> I just need some ugly and evil little arguments to antagonize our
> BSD-fellows at work (hey, they always do SUCH evil things to us
> Linux-Buddies and I really could need some information about dead bodies
> hidden in their basement or other things which
> h-u-r-t---h-a-r-d---a-n-d---l-o-n-g :-)
I don't think you're going to find many BSD-hateers in this NG. Oh, I'm
sure there are a few, but most of them, I think, run both BSD AND
Linux. Probably around 3% of the Linux advocates truly hate BSD, as
opposed to the 96% that hate Microsoft, Bill G., and/or Windows. ;)
In fact, most Linux advocates are probably more generally open source
advocates who find Linux more useful than BSD, so they don't truly hate
BSD per se, but rather find Linux more suitable for their tastes.
Both Linux and NetBSD have a promissing future in the area of embedded
HW, as well as multi-platform support. There is a healty rivalry
between the two. For example, I remember the panic expressed on the
FreeBSD mailing lists when 2.4.0 was still in development about Linux
vastly improved SMP support. Luckily for the FBSD camp, BSDi had
already done a lot of the necessary ground work for FBSD's improved SMP
support for 5.0 release.
In fact, they both kind of excel in different areas, but both are much
better than the Windows family of products. Both are freeing us from
the evils of proprietary monopolies, and are proving that there IS a
very good low-cost (or free) solution to server and other computational
problems, and that you don't have to rely on $$$-y proprietary software
solutions.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
