Linux-Advocacy Digest #689, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Mar 01 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("David Brown")
Re: Help: Linux 6.0 install on laptop (Jakob Kosowski)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What does IQ measure? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What does IQ measure? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux destroys video card! (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux destroys video card! (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux destroys video card! (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Annette M. Stroud)
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Re: Linux Joke
"diversity" ("David L. Nicol")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Dave)
Re: Linux Joke (Dave)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:17:27 +0100
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>
>>>> and certainly does not have any development tools.
>>>
>>>It has shared libraries.
>>
>>Shared libraries are not development tools. A developer might take
>>advantage of existing shared libraries in a program, but that is a far cry
>>from calling libraries "development tools".
>
>Yes, I should have been more clear. The development tools are not part of
>what comes on the Win9x CD. However, the APIs *are* developed in tandem
>with the operating system, and an operating system with a good set of
>APIs tends to offer developers a lot when it comes to writing applications.
>
>The question I was addressing is "what is modern about Windows". While the
>header files and compiler do not come on the Win9x CD, they do add value
>to the platform from a users perspective, because they make it easy for
>the developer to write user friendly applications.
>
I see what you are getting at now, but there is one slight flaw with your
arguement - the Windows API is crap. It is far too big, totally
disorganised, inconsistent, carries huge amounts of baggage from older
versions that are no longer needed yet limit newer versions, has calls that
work differently under NT and 9x, has totally inconsistent methods of
handling bad arguements to calls, has piles of undocumented calls for the
benifit of MS apps, and has gems such as the ReadFileEx function that can
read from just about anywhere *except* from a file (under Win9x, that is -
under NT it *can* read from a file).
I am not going to argue that any other major OS's API is better or worse - I
don't have enough experiance with other APIs to do that fairly. But not
even MS would consider their API to be of good design - when making the
Wince API, they took the 60,000 calls in the Win32 API, and cut out those
that were duplicates, or seldom used, or overly complicated, or badly
broken, or completly unnecessary, and ended with 20,000 calls. Or witness
the struggle the Wine group has had to provide bug-for-bug compatibility of
the complete Win32 API.
------------------------------
From: Jakob Kosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help: Linux 6.0 install on laptop
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:26:46 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try to boot from CD.
Go into the BIOS-SETUP (you can see something like PRESS DEL TO ENTER SETUP
at startup), go to ADVANCED FEATURES, to BOOT SEQUENCE, select CDROM, C
or something with CDROM as first item, insert the CD and restart the laptop.
--
Linux NEVER crashes unless you really fuck up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:31:24 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tim Hanson wrote:
>> So? He doesn't rule the software business. He didn't change his mind;
>> he's never liked the LGPL. His isn't the last word on it, either.
>
> *sigh* In my second response to Mr Mading, I point out that Stallman
> can and will change the terms of the LGPL and people won't have a lot
> of choice about the matter because they've released the code with the
> phrase "LGPL version 1 or later..." because they assume that the FSF
> will keep the spirit in mind.
>
> If it doesn't, then people will probably abandon the FSF, but the
> possibility is there, and it will affect the licensing of the existing
> code significantly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when something says "version 1 or later",
then version 1 continues to be applicable. It just means that there
are effectively two licenses, and people can choose the one they like
best - a bit like Perl. Thus, no change to the licensing of existing code...
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:02:17 -0300
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Austin
> Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tim Hanson wrote:
>>> So? He doesn't rule the software business. He didn't change his mind;
>>> he's never liked the LGPL. His isn't the last word on it, either.
>>
>> *sigh* In my second response to Mr Mading, I point out that Stallman
>> can and will change the terms of the LGPL and people won't have a lot
>> of choice about the matter because they've released the code with the
>> phrase "LGPL version 1 or later..." because they assume that the FSF
>> will keep the spirit in mind.
>>
>> If it doesn't, then people will probably abandon the FSF, but the
>> possibility is there, and it will affect the licensing of the existing
>> code significantly.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but when something says "version 1 or later",
> then version 1 continues to be applicable. It just means that there
> are effectively two licenses, and people can choose the one they like
> best - a bit like Perl. Thus, no change to the licensing of existing
> code...
Silly question: what happens if the GPLv3 said something like "this
software can not be licensed under any other license"?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:01:52 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9861g3$5ht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>>> and certainly does not have any development tools.
> >>>
> >>>It has shared libraries.
> >>
> >>Shared libraries are not development tools. A developer might take
> >>advantage of existing shared libraries in a program, but that is a far
cry
> >>from calling libraries "development tools".
> >
> >Yes, I should have been more clear. The development tools are not part of
> >what comes on the Win9x CD. However, the APIs *are* developed in tandem
> >with the operating system, and an operating system with a good set of
> >APIs tends to offer developers a lot when it comes to writing
applications.
> >
> >The question I was addressing is "what is modern about Windows". While
the
> >header files and compiler do not come on the Win9x CD, they do add value
> >to the platform from a users perspective, because they make it easy for
> >the developer to write user friendly applications.
> >
>
>
> I see what you are getting at now, but there is one slight flaw with your
> arguement - the Windows API is crap. It is far too big, totally
> disorganised, inconsistent, carries huge amounts of baggage from older
> versions that are no longer needed yet limit newer versions, has calls
that
> work differently under NT and 9x, has totally inconsistent methods of
> handling bad arguements to calls, has piles of undocumented calls for the
> benifit of MS apps, and has gems such as the ReadFileEx function that can
> read from just about anywhere *except* from a file (under Win9x, that is -
> under NT it *can* read from a file).
>
> I am not going to argue that any other major OS's API is better or worse -
I
> don't have enough experiance with other APIs to do that fairly. But not
> even MS would consider their API to be of good design - when making the
> Wince API, they took the 60,000 calls in the Win32 API, and cut out those
> that were duplicates, or seldom used, or overly complicated, or badly
> broken, or completly unnecessary, and ended with 20,000 calls. Or witness
> the struggle the Wine group has had to provide bug-for-bug compatibility
of
> the complete Win32 API.
Backward compatability has always been a problem for MS.
Another thing that they want .NET for, a cleaner set of API, and a chance to
change the underlying bits without cause mayhem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:10:04 +0000
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <snip!>
>
> :> Hell, it doesn't even harm Windows. There is no such article on cnn.com,
> :> nor has there ever been. It's a hoax.
>
> : That was meant to be sarcastic
>
> Naturally. No flames intended. I just want to ensure people don't
> think there's *yet another* godawful Windows-Email virus on the
> loose.
>
> The rest of us have to update sendmail filters to protect the Windows
> users whenever one appears, and that gets old after awhile...
Fair point
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:12:28 +0000
"Marada C. Shradrakaii" wrote:
>
> >Aaron, try simply rebooting a windows machine every 30 seconds, it very
> >rarely has time to crash :)
>
> Ironically, my Windows install often crashes WHILE rebooting. Two rapid
> control-alt-deletes should reboot, but I get a BSOD perhaps 5% of the time. I
> suspect it's the mainboard, as it has only happened with this particular
> board/CPU combonation.
I sadly have to work with windows. In 9 hours today, it crashed over 10
times.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:06:00 +0200
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:16:16 -0500, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tim Hanson wrote:
> >> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> I would think that putting further restrictions in future versions would
> be ineffective, because
>
> (a) most probably someone has already licensed the code under a less
> encumbered version
>
> (b) if the license explicitly allows version (X) or later, then you
> could still license it under an earlier version (???)
>
> However, after RMS's rant about LGPL, I wouldn't hand over copyrights
> of anything to the FSF
Why would you want to do that for? LGPL's idea is good, you can use the
code, if you change it, you must give the changes back, but you can use it
in non-LGPL code as well.
GPL's restrictions are too limiting, BSDL too free, LGPL is good enough.
Well, as long as LGPL still says what I just described, haven't checked it
in a long time.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:16:45 +0000
>> > There is are VERY strong correlations between doing well on a
>> > well-designed IQ test, and the ability to quickly learn and perform
>> > well at any other randomly selected task. (Quickly as compared to
>> > the rate at which an IQ 100 person [statistical mean] would learn).
>>
>> The only thing that IQ tests measure is how good you are at IQ tests.
>
> That's something dumb people say.
That really is all IQ tests measure.
>> They put no emphasis on precision over speed, for instance.
>
> Being able to think fast is a sign of higher cognitive processing speed,
> which is a distinct advantage in most situations.
It may be an advantage in many situations but if I can get further in a
problem than someone who thinks more quickly, who is the most intelligent?
>> The kind of person that works slowly but precisely and creatively
>> scores poorly in IQ tests.
>
> Give some examples of highly intelligent people like this.
I don't know of any well known people. I'm going on my experience of
people I have known. I could quout the names, but they would be
meaningless to you.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:19:51 +0000
>> However, it probably does as good a job as you could hope for given
>> that the output of the test is a single three digit number.
>
> It does a good job at testing cognitive abilities. Those cognitive
> abilities correlate well with some things and not at all with other
> things.
You are implying that it does a good job of testing all cognitive
ailities. It does a good job of testing the cognitive abilities which
relate to the things it tests. Tha is all.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:38:55 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux destroys video card!
Henry_Barta wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a linux advocacy group, so I'd thought I'd create a thread about
> > how great it was.
>
> > I had a bit of a crisis yesterday, my trusty Riva128 died. There was no
> > output to the scren at all.
>
> What's so greate about that! Clearly if you had been running a
> proprietary OS, your viodeo card would still be working. (And you
> would live longer, be more attractive to younger women, find
> untold wealth, etc. etc. etc... :)
>
> I think I still have you beat. I operated my firewall for 4
> weeks after the hard drive failed. I shut it down to put a
> spare drive. Barring loss of power, it sppeared to be ready
> to run indefinitely. (Running Linux, of course. I don't think
> that any Win based system would tolerate excessive hard drive
> failures and keep running.)
>
> --
> Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
> Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
I had a 4Gig drive gone bad the other day - dual boot between an old NT
instalation and Linux. I heard the drive one day started to make a lot
of noise. Strange thing is that NT fell over as soon as it hits the
first bad part of the disk (even before the logon screen appears). Linux
had some services not starting, but you could still work - enough to
backup crucial data on CD-R. Luckily I had nothing important anymore on
NT. Maybe it was just bad luck for NT, but it does really seems if Linux
handles some errors better, doesn't it?
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
"The sixties were good to you, weren't they?"
-- George Carlin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:36:49 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux destroys video card!
Henry_Barta wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a linux advocacy group, so I'd thought I'd create a thread about
> > how great it was.
>
> > I had a bit of a crisis yesterday, my trusty Riva128 died. There was no
> > output to the scren at all.
>
> What's so greate about that! Clearly if you had been running a
> proprietary OS, your viodeo card would still be working. (And you
> would live longer, be more attractive to younger women, find
> untold wealth, etc. etc. etc... :)
>
> I think I still have you beat. I operated my firewall for 4
> weeks after the hard drive failed. I shut it down to put a
> spare drive. Barring loss of power, it sppeared to be ready
> to run indefinitely. (Running Linux, of course. I don't think
> that any Win based system would tolerate excessive hard drive
> failures and keep running.)
>
> --
> Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
> Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
I had a 4Gig drive gone bad the other day - dual boot between an old NT
instalation and Linux. I heard the drive one day started to make a lot
of noise. Strange thing is that NT fell over as soon as it hits the
first bad part of the disk (even before the logon screen appears). Linux
had some services not starting, but you could still work - enough to
backup crucial data on CD-R. Luckily I had nothing important anymore on
NT. Maybe it was just bad luck for NT, but it does really seems if Linux
handles some errors better, doesn't it?
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
"The sixties were good to you, weren't they?"
-- George Carlin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:39:44 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux destroys video card!
Henry_Barta wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a linux advocacy group, so I'd thought I'd create a thread about
> > how great it was.
>
> > I had a bit of a crisis yesterday, my trusty Riva128 died. There was no
> > output to the scren at all.
>
> What's so greate about that! Clearly if you had been running a
> proprietary OS, your viodeo card would still be working. (And you
> would live longer, be more attractive to younger women, find
> untold wealth, etc. etc. etc... :)
>
> I think I still have you beat. I operated my firewall for 4
> weeks after the hard drive failed. I shut it down to put a
> spare drive. Barring loss of power, it sppeared to be ready
> to run indefinitely. (Running Linux, of course. I don't think
> that any Win based system would tolerate excessive hard drive
> failures and keep running.)
>
> --
> Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
> Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
I had a 4Gig drive gone bad the other day - dual boot between an old NT
instalation and Linux. I heard the drive one day started to make a lot
of noise. Strange thing is that NT fell over as soon as it hits the
first bad part of the disk (even before the logon screen appears). Linux
had some services not starting, but you could still work - enough to
backup crucial data on CD-R. Luckily I had nothing important anymore on
NT. Maybe it was just bad luck for NT, but it does really seems if Linux
handles some errors better, doesn't it?
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
"The sixties were good to you, weren't they?"
-- George Carlin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 7 Mar 2001 20:30:47 GMT
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:17:27 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>
>I see what you are getting at now, but there is one slight flaw with your
>arguement - the Windows API is crap. It is far too big, totally
>disorganised, inconsistent, carries huge amounts of baggage from older
>versions that are no longer needed yet limit newer versions, has calls that
>work differently under NT and 9x, has totally inconsistent methods of
>handling bad arguements to calls, has piles of undocumented calls for the
>benifit of MS apps, and has gems such as the ReadFileEx function that can
>read from just about anywhere *except* from a file (under Win9x, that is -
>under NT it *can* read from a file).
>
>I am not going to argue that any other major OS's API is better or worse - I
>don't have enough experiance with other APIs to do that fairly. But not
Your claims that it is "crap" are meaningless unless you have something
else to compare it with. There are very awkward compromises between
backward compatibility and moving forward, but it does offer a lot to
the person who wants to develop user friendly applications. Linux is
playing catch up here.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Annette M. Stroud)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:44:16 GMT
In article <98650h$lgp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > There is are VERY strong correlations between doing well on a
>>> > well-designed IQ test, and the ability to quickly learn and perform
>>> > well at any other randomly selected task. (Quickly as compared to
>>> > the rate at which an IQ 100 person [statistical mean] would learn).
>>>
>>> The only thing that IQ tests measure is how good you are at IQ tests.
>>
>> That's something dumb people say.
>
>That really is all IQ tests measure.
>
>
>>> They put no emphasis on precision over speed, for instance.
>>
>> Being able to think fast is a sign of higher cognitive processing speed,
>> which is a distinct advantage in most situations.
>
>It may be an advantage in many situations but if I can get further in a
>problem than someone who thinks more quickly, who is the most intelligent?
Or, if the more one thinks about something, the clearer it becomes, rather
than muddying up pretty accurate instantaneous responses.
Annette
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:44:41 GMT
On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:06:10 GMT, Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Exactly why is IE so bad? I find it much nicer to use than NS, hell even
>the Linux version of NS sucks (I love how it opens downloadable binaries
>as web pages).
>
IE has security holes you can drive a barge through. I'd rather just cut
to the chase and take a sledgehammer to my computer than permit activeX
to run on it.
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:46:37 GMT
Why does the average windows user replace all his software everytime
microsoft releases a new major version of their operating systems?
Because the old software will run like shit.
------------------------------
From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "diversity"
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:32:18 -0600
My university has just distributed a call for "diversiity projects."
There is a modest amount of grant money available for projects that
help nurture diversity, in any form. The eords "..but not limited
to..." appear in the list of axes on which diversity is to be
recognized.
Since all of the university computer labs here run monopoly operating
systems, I am imagining myself writing a proposal to increase diversity
on the campus by esatblishing dual-boot machines in every lab.
Thus this note to comp.os.linux.advocacy: Has anyone else done such
a thing, proposing to increase Diversity by installing Linux, and how
did it go? May I copy phrases from your documentation?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The trouble with crazy people is,
they are always trying to recruit" -- Justine
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:50:04 -0700
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:55:36 +0100, "David Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Have you even *LOOKED* at WMP? Hell, the damn thing creates CD's in
>version
>>8.
>
>What advantage is that? Have you ever seen a Windows PC with a CD burner
>that did not come with its own CD burning software?
>
>>
Besides which, MS isn't supplying the WMP "improvements" out of the
goodness of their hearts. They're trying to corner the market on
music, video, and software copy-protection. What do you want to bet
that in a few years WMP will refuse to play music that's not
registered to that specific machine, and MS's burner software will not
permit you to duplicate copyrighted CD's (even though you're legally
permitted to make backups), and Windows itself won't even permit
third-party burner applications to do so?
After what the recording industry did with DAT and DVD and what
they're trying to do to our computers with CPRM, I don't want their
greedy hands anywhere near MY computer or MY software.
This is going to be an interesting battle. The way the recording
industry shoves things down consumers' throats is to come up with a
way to copy-protect media, then sue anyone who doesn't use it for
assisting in the theft of copyrighted material. So, when they came up
with a way to copy-protect DAT, DAT-recorder manufacturers who didn't
incorporate the protection in their hardware ended up in court. Same
with DVD regional codes and that's what they were striving for with
CPRM. Even a meritless lawsuit can delay production and scare away
investors. Businesses find it easier just to go along.
So, what I THINK Gates is planning here is that MS is going to kiss up
to the recording industry and have the only OS that provides heavy
copy protection for media - and Microsoft will hold the patents for
the actual methods and code. Computer manufacturers who bundle other
OS's will find themselves in court for "assisting in the pirating of
copyrighted media". We've already seen this play out on a small scale
with DVD's under linux, and the DeCSS trial.
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:50:13 -0700
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:56:35 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've always maintained that Linux must have an EZ-HACK feature, judging
>by the ease in which "hackers" compromised entire university computer
>labs for their DDoS assault on Ebay, Amazon, Microsoft and several
>others last summer. It was reported that a large majority of the
>machines used in the attack were compromised Linux boxes.
I once heard a university sysop say on the firewalls group that he had
so many "wannabe hacker brats" (his term) INSIDE the network, that the
firewall was more a way to protect the Internet from the students than
vice versa. He said everyone had just given up on security because
they had so many users and rather than hiring permanent professionals
the university got computer science students to do short stints.
Not even linux is secure if you don't make an effort.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
