Linux-Advocacy Digest #158, Volume #33 Wed, 28 Mar 01 13:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Bob Hauck)
Microsoft abandoning USB? (Dave Martel)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor ("Scot Mc Pherson")
Re: Some OS security thoughts (Bob Hauck)
Re: Distro Bigotry... ("spicerun")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (WesTralia)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Dave Martel)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Perry Pip)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("HIM")
Re: Now I know (Chad Everett)
Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Wilbert Kruithof)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:29:45 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> >So, you concede that just because someone on USENET tells you to do
>> >something is *NOT* sufficient reason to obey their instructions.
>>
>> The point is not at issue. If I had the ability to do it, and were you,
>> I'd have sufficient reason to demonstrate I could, to silence my
>> detractors. You, on the other hand, will insist this isn't the decision
>> you've made, in a fruitless effort to disguise the fact that you can't
>> comply, so its not an issue of whether you would 'obey'.
>
>Then why didn't you jump when I told you to do so?
Because the request was effectively unintelligible. Now how is that
supposed to explain your aversion for defending your integrity and/or
living up to your word?
--
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
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:29:46 GMT
Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:56:28
>[...]Eventually,
>capitalism will slowly topple the communist system.
Didn't they teach any of you little boys in school that capitalism is an
economic system, as is socialism, while communism is a political system,
as is democracy? Please, no one-dimensional thinking to explain the
error: just admit it is an error and think harder about your opinion.
Just because your own carefully learned bigotries prevents you from
seeing the two distinctly doesn't mean you should encourage the same
prejudice in others.
--
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: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:29:47 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> > I said before that NT is more stable *as an OS*, because the point is,
>> > as a *platform*, its every bit as unreliable as any other Windows. And
>> > this, of course, is where the bad design of Windows really shines. NT,
>> > of course (including W2K and XP) doesn't fall over every time an
>> > application coughs up a lung, like WinDOS does. But it does crash,
>> > bomb, freeze, lock, wedge, glitch, or otherwise require a
>> > re-initialization (to arbitrary extent) on a routine basis.
>
>Windows CodeName Whistler, Build 2296
>Uptime: 24 days, 19 hours, 23 Minutes, 20 seconds.
>Reason for last reboot: Needed to installed another PCI video adapter.
>Tasks for next reboot: Need to take out the PCI Video adapter.
>Next reboot due at: When I get XP final.
>Computer uses: Email, Internet, Development (C/C++, Java, VB, .NET, ASP), TS
>Server, firewall, internet connection sharing, Word/Power Point, IIS & FTP
>server (light load, except when developing).
So? I fail to see your point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:54:39 GMT
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:23:30 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2683068,00.html
>> eWEEK: Linux, which you have described as your greatest competitive
>> threat, is also pushing into the embedded space. What exactly is the
>> nature of the Linux threat to Microsoft and what is your strategy to
>> deal with it?
>> BALLMER: ...
>> This partly led to us reducing Windows CE prices quite dramatically over
>> the past year ... but I think those prices are now pretty much as low
>> as they're likely to go.
>> In his speech Ballmer said their may be more concessions on licensing
>> terms from the company as it tries to build up market share in embedded.
>So... basically, Windows CE and PocketPC had significant share, of which
>Linux was eroding, so MS had to respond.
Nice spin job, but that isn't what it means. It means that CE has very
little share and MS is trying to get some for it.
When Ballmer talks about the "pre-eminent position in terms of developer
support", he's talking about the desktop space. He then switches to
talking about the embedded space, where Windows does *not* have such a
position. This is a common tactic of his.
Actually, I don't think anybody has a "pre-eminent" position in the
embedded space. The applications are just too diverse. If anybody is
at all dominant, it would have to be Wind River, and only because
they've been on a buying spree lately.
>The original claim was that Windows had almost NO share in the
>market at all, which seems to be untrue (wouldn't be the first time
>from Bob).
Please tell us where I have lied in the past. Windows has very little
share in the embedded market. Most applications still use in-house
operating systems, and of those that don't MS is not even close to being
a leader.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:58:54 -0700
MS cools to USB 2.0, warms to 1394
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/17919.html>
1394 chiefs back 5C's copy controls
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17845.html>
In a nutshell: MS wants to get into end-to-end content protection with
their Secure PC strategy. USB 2.0 doesn't offer the necessary
content-control features for peripherals but the latest 1394
(Firewire) standards do - see the second URL above.
So... it looks like all those consumers and hardware manufacturers who
have been jumping into USB peripherals at Microsoft's urging will soon
be unable to use that equipment to play/monitor content-protected
media, even though they own the original media.
Which brings us to another semi-related story on the same site:
Gates plans invisible, automatic updates for WinXP users
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17944.html>
Looks like Windows Update is also going to be less of an option under
Windows XP. I found this comment towards the end of interest:
"...He did say quite recently that he'd be using a signed driver
system with a regularly updated revocation list to stop you copying
digital music you didn't own, and by making himself custodian and
approver of the hardware drivers, he might somehow also find himself
relating this to the hardware mods he's planning in the future Secure
PC."
Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:11:50 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
> >> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> > I said before that NT is more stable *as an OS*, because the point
is,
> >> > as a *platform*, its every bit as unreliable as any other Windows.
And
> >> > this, of course, is where the bad design of Windows really shines.
NT,
> >> > of course (including W2K and XP) doesn't fall over every time an
> >> > application coughs up a lung, like WinDOS does. But it does crash,
> >> > bomb, freeze, lock, wedge, glitch, or otherwise require a
> >> > re-initialization (to arbitrary extent) on a routine basis.
> >
> >Windows CodeName Whistler, Build 2296
> >Uptime: 24 days, 19 hours, 23 Minutes, 20 seconds.
> >Reason for last reboot: Needed to installed another PCI video adapter.
> >Tasks for next reboot: Need to take out the PCI Video adapter.
> >Next reboot due at: When I get XP final.
> >Computer uses: Email, Internet, Development (C/C++, Java, VB, .NET, ASP),
TS
> >Server, firewall, internet connection sharing, Word/Power Point, IIS &
FTP
> >server (light load, except when developing).
>
> So? I fail to see your point.
Personally I reboot my WinBox everymorning. Why? Cause a toilet needs to be
flushed after it gets filled with crap. I would rather do a controlled
reboot than suffer the consequences of a lock-up or crash during a critical
operation. The reboot flushes that toilet and makes sure the bowl has a
fresh supply of water for us to dump our crap in.
Funny though, I don't need to reboot any of my linux machines, and I never
has a crash, and the only lock-up I ever got was because I had a mainboard
go bad. The only reboots were required when I compiled a new kernel, or some
other equivilent boot dependent operation. (i.e. faster and easier to bounce
than to manually reset many services that I have modified at once utilizing
a script to go and write the new global configuration files.)
--
Scot Mc Pherson
N27� 19' 56"
W82� 30' 39"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some OS security thoughts
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:19:43 GMT
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:08:42 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You do realize the risks you are taking, right?
>
> Yup, I sure do, and they're pretty low.
I think you may be underestimating the risk, especially if you run stuff
you get unsolicited, even from people you know. That's exactly how
ILOVEYOU spread so fast. It came from someone you knew.
> I'm not talking about running the latest script from some mass mailer,
> I'm talking about getting a script from a coworker that I want to run.
And you never want to run it more than once? That seems like an unusual
situation to me. Usually when I get scripts from co-workers I want to
keep them, so I have to save them anyway. Unless you are into those
silly birthday card-type programs, which are a perfect vector for
trojans.
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but then I've had machines hacked and I've had
virus infections (on Windows). It is not a fun experience.
> I can't fathom any rational reason why I should have to do anything
> more than click on it.
Because too many people would click on it without thinking and because
it makes it too easy to run something by accident. If you make them
take a couple of extra steps it give them time to think about whether
they really want to run the script. Even just making them right-click
and select from a menu is better than nothing.
Anyway, Roberto Alsina told you how to make your mailer behave the way
you want.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distro Bigotry...
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:48:27 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Andy Walker"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are interested in getting people to convert to Linux, it makes
> sense to create a distribution running an up to date KDE desktop. The
> idea being that converting over from Windows will be less painful for
> the user.
You haven't tried installing the latest Windows have you?....I have seen a
blown install convert people to Linux faster than I could have ever done.
The other way I've found to convert people is to let them notice that I'm
running with no problems doing the same things they're doing on their
Windows machine between the BSODs.
>> RedHat however have a different market hence are more
> concerned with stability than getting the latest version.
If that is true, then why do you have to wait until Redhat version X.2
before it really is stable? (IE-Redhat 7.2 will be the next stable
version of Redhat).
> What I'm basically trying to say is that it is a case of "horses for
> courses". Who would want kernel 2.4 and X11 v4 on a server when
> stability is a primary concern and graphical display virtually
> uneccesary?
Have you considered that the people who put out kernel 2.4 and X11 version
4.0 (latest 4.03) have already tested those components and have determined
them stable enough to release? That's why I have no problems with putting
those components on what I was running before. I can definitely tell you
that kernel-2.4.2 and Xfree-4.02 has made my Redhat 7.0.90 distribution
much more stable than before.
> What you need to do is find a distribution that suits your application,
> not pick one at random then complain about the contents.
My application is to write experimental drivers and applications on
systems yet to come out. What distribution would you recommend for me in
this case that will meet my needs (and isn't outdated for my
applications).
> I'd love a dist that had the latest kernel and X release but I wouldn't
> complain if it was slightly unstable!
I agree with you...In my case it wasn't picking an unstable
distribution....I saw nothing unstable in Suse 7.1. It was that it
wouldn't support my preferences....one of which I prefer Gnome over KDE
(And I'm not here to tell anybody else that Gnome or KDE is better).
In fact, The Redhat beta I have is more unstable than Suse....one major
problem is that the 'printtool' (Printer setup tool) for Redhat 7.0.90 is
not complete and does basically nothing. Fortunately, a reload of
printtool from Redhat 7.0 fixes this.
But, as you might note, the reasons I'm looking forward to Debian is for
standardization of file locations, better compatibility, better stability
... and a hope that I won't have to keep tracking down libraries
(especially ones that Redhat doesn't feel fit to install) so that I can
compile all of the programs I download and try out successfully. It's a
major pain when you get something like a new xmms plugin available in
source form, try to compile and get a 'missing db.o' error (What library
is db.o a part of anyhow?). Now to think of it, it is equally as
frustrating trying to put on the binary via rpm only to find you needed 3
other rpm packages installed....and you can't install one of those 3
packages because it is too old for your system (libdistc++ packages are a
perfect example of this).
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:26:16 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
> >"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" wrote:
> [...]
> >> All this under Win98SE. Not too shabby for a DOS based piece of crap.
BTW,
> >> i'm not the only one who thinks that Win9x multitasking abilities
aren't
> >> that far behind WinNT.
> >
> >This story lacks the ring of truth.
Ah, but just not because you are into telling you macho war time
bloodthirsty fantasies on various Usenet groups that the world is full of
pathological story embellishers. You're letting your own shortcomings alter
your outlook of life. :)
> Actually, it does. If you'd noticed he's talking about managing to do
> three trivial things all at the same time, with only some slowing.
Indeed, it's quite trivial, on this we agree. But it damages the argument
that Windows of any stripe can't format an floppy and do something at the
same time, now does it ?
> That's not too shabby for a DOS based piece of crap. And having
> switched back now from NT to 9x again, I can confirm that NT's
> multi-tasking actually is almost as crappy as WinDOS'.
I *won't* touch this one. :)
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:30:24 -0600
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> MS cools to USB 2.0, warms to 1394
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/17919.html>
>
> 1394 chiefs back 5C's copy controls
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17845.html>
>
> In a nutshell: MS wants to get into end-to-end content protection with
> their Secure PC strategy. USB 2.0 doesn't offer the necessary
> content-control features for peripherals but the latest 1394
> (Firewire) standards do - see the second URL above.
>
> So... it looks like all those consumers and hardware manufacturers who
> have been jumping into USB peripherals at Microsoft's urging will soon
> be unable to use that equipment to play/monitor content-protected
> media, even though they own the original media.
>
> Which brings us to another semi-related story on the same site:
>
> Gates plans invisible, automatic updates for WinXP users
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17944.html>
>
> Looks like Windows Update is also going to be less of an option under
> Windows XP. I found this comment towards the end of interest:
>
> "...He did say quite recently that he'd be using a signed driver
> system with a regularly updated revocation list to stop you copying
> digital music you didn't own, and by making himself custodian and
> approver of the hardware drivers, he might somehow also find himself
> relating this to the hardware mods he's planning in the future Secure
> PC."
>
> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
This content control stuff that Microsoft is doing is really getting
interesting. I'm intrigued by it because the Internet - which no doubt
is a BIG driving force of the computing industry today - is such an open
free-for-all type of atmosphere. Everything from Linux development
(open source) to families building their own unique web sites, the net
fosters the greatest information exchange known to man. Yet, here
is Microsoft trying to control that freedom. Somehow, they think it is
tangible and therefore profitable. Microsoft wants to mark and tag
everything we do on the Internet and charge us accordingly.
The next 5 years are going to be very interesting years watching how this
plays out. It is my hope that the Internet, true to form, grows around
any obstacle put in its way.
--
-wt
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:33:01 -0700
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:27:07 +0200, "Paul 'Z' Ewande�"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le
>message news: 99s60m$ppf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> I think the point here is that WinNT's multitasking is not much better
>than
>> Win9x - it means the same thing literally, but the implications of the
>> arstechnica comment are wildly different from yours.
>
>What I mean is that Win9x is always are always ridiculed, but they really
>aren't *that* bad.
Depends on what you do with them. I still use Windows 98SE on my
Internet system and it's stable enough, but that's because it only has
a small handful of applications installed. Start installing enough
compilers, development tools, graphics applications, etc., for real
work, and pretty soon it'd be up to a couple of crashes a day.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 28 Mar 2001 17:46:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:32 GMT,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Mar 2001 07:32:17
>>On 26 Mar 2001 21:08:28 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>>On 14 Mar 2001 22:01:24 GMT,
>>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>Wait a minute -- I am not claiming barriers to entry don't exist
>>>>at all. I'm not claiming that they couldn't fix prices either.
>>>
>>>Here is what you wrote in a previous post:
>>>
>>> "If your definition of monopoly is "they can fix prices", then I simply
>>> don't agree that they have a monopoly."
>>>
>>>Now it seems to me you are arguing that they can't fix
>>>prices. Furthermore, that is the legal definition of a monopoly, not
>>>mine.
>>
>>OK, I did claim that in a previous post. I *was* arguing they couldn't fix
>>prices. I suppose there is a reasonable argument that they could.
>
>As well as a rather *strong* argument that they *do*, and only an
>argument from ignorance that they *don't*. Though I must still quibble
>with the phrase "fix prices", as that is not a good description of what
>they do. All vendors "fix prices" at what they want them to be; the
>market "controls prices" by thereby determining how much will be bought
>at the fixed price. The common vernacular "fix prices" refers to
>collusion by several vendors to hold prices above a certain level,
>itself by nature above competitive levels.
>
>>>Well I had originally responded to your claim:
>>>
>>> "What I am saying is that the "MS's prices are too high" claim is
>>> unsubstantiated nonsense."
>>>
>>>If it's unsubstantiated nonsense how did it get proven in Federal Court??
>>
>>Did it get "proven" ? What do you mean by "proof" anyway ?
>
>They have monopoly power. Since the definition of such includes the
>ability to control prices, it has indeed been *proven* (to Judge
>Jackson, anyway, and those who agree with him) that they have, indeed,
>controlled prices. I guess it just requires more understanding of
>economics and law re: monopolization than you seem to have.
>
>>This is not a
>>criminal case, which substantially lowers the standards regarding what
>>constitutes "proof", (actually it's not necessary for the plaintiff to "prove"
>>anything to win a civil suit).
>
>To the contrary: it is just as necessary to prove what happened. The
>burden of proof is not as onerous: proven with a preponderance of
>evidence, versus proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But to say this
>means nothing is or needs to be proven is to say that *nothing* can
>*ever* be proven, because no absolute proof is necessary.
>
>>And the decisions were made unilaterally by
>>Jackson. The legal system allows for a due process and peer review that has
>>not as yet run its course.
>
>A quibbling point, considering the discussion, but true.
>
>>>>>Now here in lies the problem, you are *stereotyping* me. And you seem
>>>>>to do so to anyone who disagrees with you.
>>>>
>>>>No, this complaint is not specifically about you at all. (in fact it
>>>>doesn't even apply to you.)
>>>
>>>Well then why are you including these complaints in your responses to
>>>my posts??
>>
>>The point is that I am very sceptical when I see an argument that I believe
>>uses fairly sloppy reasoning siezed upon by a herd.
>
>And without a doubt, Perry's is a bit loose on the reasoning, at least
>in comparison to mine, I think.
Wait a minute!! Where is my loose reasoning?? I never said I was
proving anything. I was only responding to Donovan's claim that "MS
prices too high" is "unsubstantiated nonsnese". I have provided at
least enough evidence to show the idea is more than "unsubstantiated
nonsnese", but I never said I proved it.
Donovan seems to be taking the extreme position that if you can't
absolutely prove something, you should never assume it under any
circumstance. This may apply to his profession of abstract theoretical
mathematics, but you can't apply that type of rigor to a social
science like economics.
>But still your presumption that since
>you don't understand or believe something, those "less skeptical"
>(simply more skeptical of the obverse) are somehow demonstrating a 'herd
>mentality' is simply your own private arrogance and pretentiousness.
>And it is that, not any dispute concerning logic, which leads to this
>protracted argument.
Donovan is working on his PhD in math...so he thinks the rest of us
are morons becuase we don't apply abstract logical rigor to the real
world. Ironically, in my profession, Aerospace Engineering, you learn
that the rigors of the real world are actually much more complex than
any form of mathematics. And when you get into social sciences it's
phenomenally more complex than any branch of Engineering.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "HIM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:51:40 -0500
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
MS never bet the farm on anything. And probably never will. And as far as
content protection goes they could care less.Why would they? They didn't
even do a very good job making OfficeXP (final release version) locked into
hardware either like they said they would. MS likes pirating. They secretly
like software pirates especially. Actions speak WAY louder than words. They
want their product, especially the OS and Office on every desktop (paid for
or not) and will never do anything to hinder that. Think about it. Win2K was
compiled on 12/7/99. Four hours later it hit internet warez groups. I know,
I was waiting that day. It's the same with all their software. They'll never
lose, they know how to gain market share every way possible.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Now I know
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:41:11 GMT
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:11:24 +0100, David Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [--SNIP--]
>
> I've recently switched from GNU/Linux for my
>desktop (I am a GNU/Linux, Unix system administrator)
>by a Windows 2000 Pro. Advantages = more stability
>(believe it or not), better web surfing, boss documents
>100% compatibility and by far better e-mail clients;
>disadvantages = price (just it). GNU/Linux has
>failed to develop a browser (Konqueror, Galeon,
>Mozilla, Netscape or Opera are simply jokes,
>anyway the best one is Opera ... not GPL).
>
Let's see...you specify that you are using the most current
Microsoft offering (Windows 2000 Pro), but you don't specify
what version/s of GNU/Linux you are talking about. Why is
that?
You use the word "failed" and yet the most recent offerings
that I have used on a current GNU/Linux dist with current
KDE and GNOME have really great browsers. Far from failing,
Konqueror has recently become excellent...same goes for Mozilla.
> But what's more, I am also switching from GNU/Linux
>to Solaris my servers since Solaris is behaving by far better
>than GNU/Linux is doing. Even for firewalling, I prefer
>Checkpoint Firewall-1 to iptables (not to talk about
>incomplete ipchains+ipmasqadm team).
>
Really? What hardware are you running Solaris on?
> There was a time when I thought that a GPL GNU/Linux
>would take the world. Now I think it is slowly dying not
>only as desktop (if alive at all) but as a server.
>
> If any response, please ... leave my mother apart ;-)
>
OK...I left your mother apart.
------------------------------
From: Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:38:49 +0200
Hello!
Let me explain why I am asking this question. First of all I want to say that
it's not my intention to discuss about advantages of several operating systems,
nor software/hardware vendors. I am also not a newbie to unix (clones), so no
RTFM, or www.opensource.org. Do not see this as presumption, or something like
that.
The only thing I am asking for is an answer to above question. *What* way is
Open Source developing?
And is there a connection between Darwins theory and the way Open Source is
developing??
Actually, this is my important question. Please react serious, than it is not
necessary to cross-post this :).
Thanks in advantage!
Greetings,
Wilbert
See also: http://home.hccnet.nl/wilbert.kruithof ; but I think above is clear
enought...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
