Linux-Advocacy Digest #723, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 13:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What does IQ measure? ("S.T. Pickrell")
Re: > 40 Bank's hacked by russion mafia: NT servers of course ("f@m4ma")
Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Christian Brandt)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Joke (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:14:32 -0300
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> Ian Davey wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, as explained in the Scientific American article, this is
>> >an element of "social graces" which is ENTIRELY independant of the
>> >intelligence factor "g"
>>
>> I'll have to read that article, don't have time now unfortunately.
>>
>> >Also, this is an example of the "street smarts" phenomenon. Those
>> >who find themselves in fucked-up situtations on a regular basis tend
>> >to have stock-solutions to get themselves out of it....
>>
>> What about those with low IQ that aren't street smart and don't have
>> experience to fall back on? Are you suggesting that people with high IQ
>> are poor at applying that intelligence in real life situations?
>
> No. I'm saying that prior repititious experience, resulting in a large
> amount of "trial and error" data which one has personally (and
> usually PAINFULLY acquired) is always a distinct advantage. The
> person with 'street smarts' is NOT seeing the problem for the first
> time...what is implied by "street smarts" is VAST amounts of prior
> experience.
>
> 10 years of experience with even modest intelligence will always
> beat ZERO experience and hi IQ when you only have 2-3 seconds to
> make a life-or-death decision.
>
> Now...let's compare IQ-100 with 10 years of experience to acquire
> "street smarts" vs IQ-150 and only 3 years to acquire the same
> sort of "street smarts"
>
> Who would YOU bet on?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/1198intelligence/1198gottfred.html
>>
>> I'll try and have a look at this when I've got a spare moment.
>>
>> >See also "The Bell Curve" by Murray and Herrnstein.
>>
>> Interesting, but fundamentally flawed and overly simplistic. The
>> conclusions
>
> Oh really. Name one CREDIBLE source who disagrees with Murray and
> Hernstein.
>
> Stephen Jay Gould, Jesse Jackson, Dan Rather, and other leftists with
> an axe to grind and who do NOT--I say again ***DO** **NOT**--conduct
> research inton intelligence are ***NOT*** credible sources of refutation.
Well, there's the Currie-Thomas survey at UCLA.
Or is your question limited to people you have heard of? ;-)
>> are far too generic considering how many factors have to be taken into
>> account. Lot's of others in the same field disagree so you can hardly
>> offer it as definative proof.
>
> No...actually, EVERYBODY "IN THE SAME FIELD" agrees.
Well, there's Dr. Sternberg, IBM Professor of Education and Psychology at
Yale. He surely seems to work on that field, and he " feels that the
standard psychometric interpretation (on which so much of The Bell Curve
(is based) has mistaken the elephant of intelligence for nothing more than
a big and powerful snake.".
http://www2.psy.mq.edu.au/~tbates/intelligence/Sternberg_on_IQ.html
> Those who disagree are people like:
>
> a) Stephen Jay Gould (biologist and noted leftist, NOT* an intelligence
> researcher).
No need to bring Dr. Gould, there are plenty of researchers in the field
that don't agree with "The Bell Curve".
> b) Rep. Maxine Waters (D Florida), Famous for asking if the Mars lander
> could be driven to where the astronouts planted the flag(*), and
> noted leftist supporter of the Daniel Ortega and the other
> Sandanistas who were terrorizing the populace in Nicaragua
> ...NOT an intelligence reseracher.
I'm sure Senator Strom Thurmond, famous for opposing the civil rights act
would find "The Bell Curve" lovely, if he could read it. So?
It's "Sandinista", not "Sandanista", BTW. And I'm sure you loved Mr.
Reagan, who supported the contras, who also terrorized the populace of
Nicaragua.
> (*) Clue for the goddamned terminally clueless:
> The Apollo missions went to the MOON, not Mars
>
> c) Various news anchors (pretty-boy script readers with a penchant for
> disseminating leftist propaganda...and NOT intelligence researchers).
>
> None of the above are credible sources, because
>
> 1) they are NOT intelligence researchers
Dr. Sternberg is. So are Currie and Thomas.
> 2) they all have a political agenda which is damaged by the truth
> uncovered by intelligence researchers.
Well, I am sure you understand I could just say that everyone supporting
your position has a political agenda as well.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "S.T. Pickrell" <[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: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:17:52 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> I like Dan Mocsny's idea. Mandatory birth-control (Norplant for
> women, maybe even similar "chemical castration" implants for guys)
> until they can post $10,000 in an escrow account to take care of
> any babies they choose to whelp).
I wonder how many of the great minds of this century
would be left unborn under those circumstances.
> It's such a shame that the events of the 1930's and -40's turned
> eugenics into a bad word.
The best and the brightest gave us Vietnam, Aaron. You
should know better than that.
> Looking at the structure and procedure of medieval warfare was
> literally a way for those in power to conduct wholesale slaughter
> of the low-end of the gene pool. The rival aristocracy NEVER
> fought against each other directly on the battlefield...
Never is such a harsh word.
Frequently kings who conducted campaigns abroad would recruit
mercenaries to serve as the bulk of their armies. The mercenaries
were frequently well-armed folks. Hence the term free lance.
For if the king were to conduct an unpopular, expensive war
abroad, people would complain. But if the people were also
dying in this war, the king might soon find himself without
a throne.
> The core of most armies were aristocrats in armor, on horseback,
> and "rabble" low-class people who were often armed with nothing
> more than wooden pole-weapons, sometimes without even bladed edges.
Until the 14th century when the rabble realised that if their
pole-weapons were long enough and they could hold their lines,
the heavy cavalry wasn't of much use.
Hence the rise of the schilltrons.
> These were often set-piece battles as such.
>
> Mounted Horsemen Rabble Rabble Rabble
> || || || ||
> \/ \/ \/ \/
>
> /\ /\ /\ /\
> || || || ||
> Rabble Rabble Rabble Mounted Horsemen
> The aristocracy would go around, hacking and slashing the
> harmless (little to no metal-content in their weapons)
> opposing rabble. At the end of the day, both sides would
> retreat. The nobility would then go out onto the battlefield
> and count how many rabble each side had killed.
Oversimplication.
They would hack away at each other until one side got
tired of it all and tried to retreat. However, as even
the beginning student of military history will know,
retreating under fire is nearly impossible for a well
trained army much less so for a poorly trained militia.
Then the retreat would turn into a rout.
The mounted aristocrats would hack away at the rabble
to get at their opposing numbers, even killing their
own men under the weight of their mighty steeds.
'But Sire--if we use the archers now, we'll hit our own men!'
'Yes ... but we'll hit theirs, too.'
> It was simply a numbers game....just like spending a couple
> of hours at the bowling alley.
>
> This was modified slightly with the widespread use of the
> musket...but even as late as the Mexican-American war (1848),
> it was blade weapons (swords, cutlasses, bayonets, etc.) which
> primarily took and held ground.
Muskets were too short ranged until the 1840s and 1850s. (see
below regarding Napoleon). Cannon had a much larger range
(again see below).
James Longstreet was the ONLY general on either side of the
Civil War who saw how warfare had changed. Most people know of
his resistance against Pickett's Charge ... however
(1) He was the mastermind of the defensive work at Fredericksburg
(2) Chickamauga, which saved Atlanta for about a year, was made
possible by Longstreet transporting his entire corps VIA RAILROAD
to Tennessee. He was the first general to use railroads to
transport a large number of men in wartime between theaters.
The ONLY reason he is not properly regarded as the genius of
warfare he was, was that he became a Republican after the
war and tried to co-operate with Reconstruction authorities.
> What made Napoleon so irksome to the ruling class throughout
> Europe is that he refused to play the game by these "sword
> fodder" rules. He routinely attacked the opposing aristocracy.
True. He also envisioned large armies of well-armed people
and a national economy geared toward war.
> Those among the rabble who were veterans of previous battles
> knew what the procedure was...and would understand the
> significance of Napolean sending his most devastating forces
> against not themselves (as they had come to expect), but
> against the aristocracy who played with their lives in
> such a cavalier fashion (cavalier...cavalry...horsemen...hmmm)
> as something quite significant.
>
> This is why wherever Napolean went, he routinely added thousands
> of men from the local opposition to HIS forces...because the
> brighter amongst those men realized that he was not a threat
> to them....only the social system (feudalism) which held them
> down. [He also went around installing laws that gave universal
> human rights to ALL classes of people, replacing the multi-tier
> royalty/aristocracy/yoeman/peasant/slave classes of feudalism
> with one universal class, with equal rights and responsibilities
> for all, regardless of who one's mother was.
Also true.
About Napoleon's tactics though.
The average musket range back then was something like 60 yards.
Whereas cannon were good for several hundred yards. Napoleon would
set his cannon up at several hundred yards and fire them. Then he'd
move them up further. Fire again. Finally he would send his
musketeers forward against the depleted enemy. The charge could
beuild significant momentum before it came under enemy fire.
Welcome to Borodino. The one time Alexander I decided to actively
oppose Napoleon.
BTW, Napoleon could've wintered in Moscow in 1812-3 ... there were
a fair amount of supplies around, certainly better than trying to
march back. Also almost of many of Napoleon's Grande-Armee died due
the Russian SUMMER as did the Russian winter.
When musket ranges got longer we got the defensive warfare that
prevailed between 1850-1920. Only with the advent of the tank
which was by and large immune to ordinary carbine and most machinegun
fire was the charge able to take the day. Air power brought a
complete end to entrenched warfare. BTW, the siege of Petersburg
can easily be confused for World War I minus the machineguns.
Recommended reading: 'How Few Remain' and 'Guns of the South' by
Harry Turtledove.
--
Shawn Pickrell
Interim RFA President
PERSONAL: http://www.geocities.com/shawn_pickrell (it always sucks)
Washington DC United, MLS Champions 96/97/99
------------------------------
From: "f@m4ma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: > 40 Bank's hacked by russion mafia: NT servers of course
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:20:32 +0000
Heh. Makes me feel better that my bank runs Unix :)
f@m4ma
Frank Crawford wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/17456.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:25:07 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
>"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>[...]All
>> of the employees wished to remain anonymous.
>
>Yet you can't provide a link.[...]
That's right, Erik, we can't provide a link, so your argument from
ignorance tirade will go on and on and on until we get bored with your
pathetic mind-numbing bullshit.
And then you figure you must have been right. Its not just an argument
from ignorance; what you have is an argument OF ignorance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:25:08 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
>> [...]
>> >Look, Max. The argument says "Since Windows is the *ONLY* component that
>> >has not come drastically down in price in recent years, Windows must be a
>> >monopoly in order to not follow the market demands". This statement is
>> >proveably false, and I pointed out that roughly half of the average
>computer
>> >has stayed roughly the same price for at least 6 years.
>>
>> Look, Erik, forgive me for not going along with this premise that you're
>> entirely clueless. No, the argument was not "since EVERY SINGLE
>> COMPONENT HAS LITERALLY DECREASE IN PRICE WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, then
>> Windows MUST BE a monopoly."
>
>Yes, that is the argument. Here is the original post which includes the
>comment:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_oq=&as_ep
>q=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=+&as_umsgid=3A995A7B.6260866D@
>home.com&lr=
I should think explaining it to you four times straight would suffice,
but I suppose there isn't much I can do to *force* you to use your
brain.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:25:09 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:50:46
>"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:45:00 GMT, Chronos Tachyon
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >[Newsgroups trimmed, the CSS people are sick of this thread...]
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >You get flamed and insulted because you didn't even read the very URLs you
>> >posted as "evidence" in your favor. If you had read them, you certainly
>> >wouldn't be here ranting and raving like a lunatic about what amounts to a
>> >single speck of sand on an otherwise smooth tile floor.
>>
>> Just by reading this paragraph I knew who you were refering to.
>
><sigh>
>
>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.
It's like you don't even listen to what you say, let alone what anyone
else does.
<sigh>
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:25:10 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
22:30:20 -0600;
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > Not at all. MS understood that you make money on the server. The
>client is
>> > free. They have always done this with all their client/server products.
>>
>> You meant to say that Windows NT Workstation and Windows 2000 Pro are
>> free???? Cool!
>
>Good point, however I was not referring to OS's. I was referring to
>applications. And before you jump on the fact that i'm admitting IE is an
>application and not part of the OS, IE was in fact an application until IE3.
When it magically changed into part of the OS.
Ummm... I mean, "When it illegally changed into part of the OS." Sorry.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Christian Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 18:27:12 +0100
In article <JDgn6.663$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>FreeBSD and OpenBSD are quite a bit more secure than Linux due to many
>process they adoped quite a while ago. Buffer overruns are a rarity, an=
d
>almost always in a port rather than the core OS.
>
>FreeBSD also has what is considered to be the most robust and efficient
>TCP/IP stack implementation as well.
Well, like I stated earlier, most exploits happen in applications and
then freebsd and openbsd do not have many advantages, because a
sendmail-exploit hits everyone using the faulty sendmail release. Ok, If
you are using some unusual system (lets say openbsd on m68k) you are a
bit out of the fireline, but security through oscurity never really
worked.
Also saying "OpenBSD hadn=B4t a kernel-exploit in xy years" doesn=B4t
impress me as the OpenBSD-Kernel is more simplistic and leightweighted
than a linuxkernel. Supporting Myriads of Devices and Lotsofstuff just
leaves more room for bugs. So figure...
> Ha, and stolen as Microsoft is now using it.
Well, would be fun if it had turned out to be GPL, then we could all
have a good laugh at the Windows-Sources :-)
> >FreeBSD has a bit poorer SMP support than Linux, especially with 2.4, =
but
> >they're concentrating on that for FreeBSD 5. They'll also have kernel=
> >threads as well then.
"FreeBSD has a bit poorer SMP support" doesn=B4t hit the nail. "FreeBSD
has nearly no SMP support" is exactly the situation. It features ONE big
lock around the kernel like early Linux-1.3 did. FreeBSD5.0 will improve
it... to a level of a dusty 2.0.38-linux-kernel.
> >If they're using a 4MB kernel, then they're doing something wrong. Ev=
en
> >FreeBSD's generic kernel is only 3MB. If you take out the unrelevant
> >drivers for hardware you're not using, you can get it down to about 1.=
4MB
> >easily.
I was refering to the memory-consumtion, not the size of the file.
> >make world may take a great deal of time, but it's one command to issu=
e, and
> >everything is then optimized for your system. apt-get isn't bad eithe=
r, but
> >these tend to retrieve generic files optimized for 386's, which isn't =
always
> >what you want.
Thats really a nice bonus. But I can also cvsup Debian and compile most
stuff on my own - heck, I can even do that with Suse and RedHat, it just
is not that common today.
> This issue is narrowing with the next release of Debian.
Well, basically its not about Linux vs. BSD, its
OpenBSD vs Debian vs Slackware for light and secure systems,
NetBSD vs Debian and Suse for portability
FreeBSD vs. Debian, Suse, RedHat in terms of ready available
Software/Packages
macosx vs. Suse, RedHat, Mandrake, Caldera in Terms of easy usage
And while I accept that the several BSD-Operating-Systems have some
very strong points, those mustn=B4t automatically lead to victory. The
several Linux-Operatingsystems have their fields, most are very sane and
they also have a lot of advantages in THEIR keypoints. I even think that
the non-free-software will finally give Linux the momentum to outrun BSD
forever - I do not like it, but I expect it. Its not about big apps like
Staroffice or Netscape, its about "nice things to have" like
Flash/Shockwave, a legal DVD-player and so on...
-- =
Christian Brandt
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:29:16 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
>> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of
>Hotmail
>> >to NT
>> >> > all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible
>> >news
>> >> > site with "unnamed" sources.
>> >>
>> >> Cnet - Sun->NT
>> >> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-344896.html
>> >
>> >This (and it's related links) talk about MS having plans to convert, but
>not
>> >actually doing so.
>>
>> In case you seriously never "got it", Erik, this is described, perfectly
>> accurately, entirely consistently, and completely practically, as
>> "trying and failing".
>
>Really? So, if my plans are that I will visit europe, but It takes me 3
>years to do so, that means I failed simply because I didn't do it right
>away?
Do us a favor, Erik; just go to Europe, don't tell anyone, and do it
right away.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:36:48 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
>> [...]
>> >Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to NT
>> >all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible news
>> >site with "unnamed" sources.
>>
>> There was only one occurrence, so it is not surprising that all
>> references are based on the same story of this occurrence. The fact is
>> that you would go to your grave swearing that it never happened, and
>> using as your only proof a series of arguments from ignorance, and the
>> fact that unless the attempt was successful, it can be disqualified by
>> your rules for not being 'complete' enough.
>
>I'm not using an argument from ignorance.
Yes, you are, Erik; you do it all the time, and apparently you don't
recognize it, even after I've pointed it out a couple dozen times.
>MS has stated quite clearly that
>no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one.
Shocker.
>It's an anonymous
>source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that would
>know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
As incredible as it may seem, when it comes down to an anonymous report
(which is otherwise uncontradicted) versus Microsoft bullshit, the smart
money is obviously on the anonymous report. That must really drive you
nuts, I guess, but its true.
>> >Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
>> >attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
>> >weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
>> >familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task, let
>> >alone complete and fail within weeks.
>>
>> How do you complete something that failed? You moron. As if we give a
>> rat's ass what Microsoft "themselves" claim.
>
>Hint: Look up the word complete. You can either successfully, or
>unsuccessfully complete something.
And what on god's green earth is an "unsuccessful completion" but a
failure to complete successfully the plan? Christ, Erik, it must be
painfully obvious even to you that you have your head up your ass on
this point, but I suppose it takes dedication as well as purposeful
ignorance to be a sock puppet.
[...]
>> And unrefuted.
>
>What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
>false, if not a refutation?
The MS official statement. What more needs to be said? I think its
just you that doesn't know that means "bullshit", to anyone with more
than two brain cells.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:25:13 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:21:03 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > >I was complaining that people out there are blindly trusting SSH
> > >for secure information transfer and there are several ways in which
> > >that information security could be compromised
> >
> > We've already been through this. It's very unlikely to happen. People
> > who care enough about security that they're unwilling to take any risks
> > at all do not "blindly trust" anything.
>
> The fact remains that there are thousands of installed Linux and
> BSD systems which have an older version of SSH installed on them.
> There hasn't been a concerted effort to educate them to the faults
> of the "flawed" SSH1 protocol they're still using. The worst I've
> seen so far is a posting to the SSH developer's group complaining
> about the same thing I've been saying. No one seems to care.
>
>
> >
> > > and the SSH folks
> > >don't seem to care
> >
> > Yes they do. They take bugs very seriously. The OpenBSD developers are
> > one of the few groups who proactively stomp out potential security holes
> > (AKA bugs)
>
> They fix the bugs, yes, I never said they didn't, but they're not
> letting people know that there are serious issues with the SSH1 protocol
> and that people should upgrade their older SSH software to the newer
> versions ASAP.
>
> >
> > > let alone attempt to warn the community of
> > >the problems in the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol.
> >
> > It is considerably less "fundamentally flawed" than the vast
> > majority of services. Perhaps if there were large amounts of users
> > running nothing besides ssh, it would be an issue. However, on a
> > "typical UNIX machine" that is running NFS, NIS, telnet, ftp, httpd,
> > sendmail, and lpd, ssh is the least of your concerns (even if it's the
> > "fundamentally flawed" version)
> >
> > BTW, OpenSSH supports ssh2.
>
> But it also _STILL_ supports SSH1, even though it's known to have
> serious and compromising flaws.
>
> -Chad
>
>
Chad, you really don�t get it.
I for example use SuSE. Ever seen their site?
I guess not, because then you would have known that they post
regularly about security issues. Same with RedHat. Lots of people
read bugtraq and know about the problems.
It is very dishonest to claim that there are "thousands of older systems"
with problematic SSH, and you know that now after several people
told you how it would be possible to get access via SSH. You postet
your wild eyed "fundamental flaws" and repeated it even after you were
told that there was NEVER an attack via SSH which succeeded. The
only one ever published was done by simply stealing the password.
So, would you please just stop repeating your lies?
Peter
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: 10 Mar 2001 04:18:41 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>We're going to hit a wall on IC miniaturization pretty soon...and it has
>NOTHING to do with power dissipation. Basically, it's getting to the
>physical limit with regard to trace size.
I can recall exactly the same being said ten years ago. *Exactly* the same.
Bernie
--
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself
Franklin D. Roosevelt
US president 1933-45
Inaugural address, 4 March 1953
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
