Linux-Advocacy Digest #187, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 03:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Warren Bell)
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (Brent R)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("David Brown")
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Some OS security thoughts ("Mike")
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:48:49 -0800
Martigan wrote:
>
> Warren Bell wrote:
>
> > With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows HP and the PA, that will
> > require you to have MS activate your PC after making any hardware
> > changes, makes me wish there was something out there to compete with
> > Windows. I mean really compete.
>
> So you want people to rent or pay for updates?
>
> >
> > Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the average
> > computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> > light, user friendly version that anyone can use. Something that's
> > stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> > multi user home system. Something that even the UN-technical user can use
> > without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would be
> > needed to make this work:
> >
>
> Linux is not for the average Computer user, which is why the standard
> does not have to bend to the will of the masses.
>
> > - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> > - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> > click.
> > - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> > distros are similar.
> > - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
>
> That sounds like windows to me already! ;-)
>
> >
> > I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> > with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> > thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> > this?
>
> As before if Linux does get standardized as you wish you will run into
> some problems:
>
> 1. No matter what group is out there ONE of them will write/own the
> standard. That means money. Money and Linux don't match.
>
> 2. If everybody uses the same standard you have inventive stagnation.
> How can your imagination in programming be excited when you HAVE to write
> for one standard?
>
> 3. As soon as you bring the a standard to lure new "techless" useres
> and charge them for a distro you will make the advancement of Linux
> depended on the whims and money of the "techless" users. Like Windows.
>
> 4. The comunity that owns Linux is a friendly one, will gladly help
> "techless" users become proffecient with the OS, just as long as they show
> a willingness to advance their knowlege. If they choose not to learn the
> OS then they can go crawling back to Windoze.
>
> Linux, for users by users.
> Windoze, from Gates to you, and from your pocket to his Phat bank
> account.
I've been hearing the last few years that Linux is going to be big
competition for Windows. The way that would happen is if it was as easy
to use as Windows. If it's not easy for techless users to set up and
use on their own, they'll just go with Windows instead.
I just hope they make a more user freindly and standerdized version that
will bring Linux closer to being an alternative to Windows.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:59:39 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
<snip>
> The results are mixed. AFAIK, Quake runs faster, for example.
Errr... what? Almost all the evidence I've seen points towards the
opposite. Please explain.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:00:07 +0200
Paul 'Z' Ewande� wrote in message <99vlnl$d9p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le
>message news: 99vght$n06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >Remeber that they [Microsoft] sell the all those systems.
>>
>> Remember also that they earn significantly more profit on NT/W2k than on
>> W9x, so they are not unbiased.
>
>That's exactly my point, they should be then extolling the virtues of NT/2K
>and hype it's superiority over Win9x, don't you think ?
>
I suppose they can't get the numbers to turn out right from the benchmarks.
Even MS would have difficulty basing a marketing campaign around "NT feels
much faster in use than Win9x" - they have to have figures to back it up
(even if the testing is so contrived that the numbers are pretty much made
up, they need to put in *some* numbers). I can't give any figures for my
experiances, and there is a lot of variation depending on what I am doing
(e.g., the compiler runs faster on the 800 MHz machine, but my text editor
is more responsive under NT while compiling in the background). An overall
figure of 10-30% is probably not too far off the mark, and realistic enough
to use in marketting (remember the price difference to step from a 1 GHz CPU
to a 1.3 GHz processor - for many, 30% is very significant).
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:04:58 +1200
Business's, such as IBM need to adopt the OS as a the standard right through out
their organisation, then, the employees feel that they have to install Linux on
their home machines so that it is compatible to work. Then, IBM partners think
"well, IBM is very important to us, we better move over to Linux for easy sharing
of information", so they move their computers over to linux. The ripple effect
continues, and as more and more users get added to this base, more and more
programs are ported, all this happened just by IBM moving to Linux, now, could
you imagine, if General Electric, IBM, Oracle, All Government Departments, HP,
Compaq and Dell moved all their clients from Windows to Linux, could you imagine
the huge ripple it would create in the computer industry? it would be massive,
Microsoft would get the shock of its life. It would not happen over night as
many of these organisations are spread over several continents, it may take up to
2 years for a full transition and retraining, however, as the roll out continues,
training organisations will offer Linux Training, and as a result, after 5 years,
a total roll out, and Linux will become one of the major forces in the office.
Matthew Gardiner
Warren Bell wrote:
> Martigan wrote:
> >
> > Warren Bell wrote:
> >
> > > With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows HP and the PA, that will
> > > require you to have MS activate your PC after making any hardware
> > > changes, makes me wish there was something out there to compete with
> > > Windows. I mean really compete.
> >
> > So you want people to rent or pay for updates?
> >
> > >
> > > Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the average
> > > computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> > > light, user friendly version that anyone can use. Something that's
> > > stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> > > multi user home system. Something that even the UN-technical user can use
> > > without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would be
> > > needed to make this work:
> > >
> >
> > Linux is not for the average Computer user, which is why the standard
> > does not have to bend to the will of the masses.
> >
> > > - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> > > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> > > - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> > > click.
> > > - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> > > distros are similar.
> > > - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
> >
> > That sounds like windows to me already! ;-)
> >
> > >
> > > I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> > > with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> > > thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> > > this?
> >
> > As before if Linux does get standardized as you wish you will run into
> > some problems:
> >
> > 1. No matter what group is out there ONE of them will write/own the
> > standard. That means money. Money and Linux don't match.
> >
> > 2. If everybody uses the same standard you have inventive stagnation.
> > How can your imagination in programming be excited when you HAVE to write
> > for one standard?
> >
> > 3. As soon as you bring the a standard to lure new "techless" useres
> > and charge them for a distro you will make the advancement of Linux
> > depended on the whims and money of the "techless" users. Like Windows.
> >
> > 4. The comunity that owns Linux is a friendly one, will gladly help
> > "techless" users become proffecient with the OS, just as long as they show
> > a willingness to advance their knowlege. If they choose not to learn the
> > OS then they can go crawling back to Windoze.
> >
> > Linux, for users by users.
> > Windoze, from Gates to you, and from your pocket to his Phat bank
> > account.
>
> I've been hearing the last few years that Linux is going to be big
> competition for Windows. The way that would happen is if it was as easy
> to use as Windows. If it's not easy for techless users to set up and
> use on their own, they'll just go with Windows instead.
>
> I just hope they make a more user freindly and standerdized version that
> will bring Linux closer to being an alternative to Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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, 30 Mar 2001 07:16:07 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [comin back]
> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The GPL encumbers beyond the objects being transferred.
>
> It doesn't, really. It only encumbers the redistribution of GPLed code.
>
> >The GPL ADDS restrictions, and the BSDL removes most of them.
>
> Please name *one* restriction that has been ADDED by the GPL.
The restriction against distributing a work containing any components
that have either more or less restrictive licenses along with the
restricted GPL component even if these components and licenses
existed before the GPL'd component (and thus cannot logically
be a derived work).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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, 30 Mar 2001 07:26:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:32:18
> >"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> As long as the definitions are clear and well written (which is
entirely
> >> the case in terms of the FSF's "free software") it does not take a law
> >> degree to understand them, nor should anyone be confused simply because
> >> they are unwilling to take a few minutes to read what the definitions
> >> are in a given context.
> >
> >There is nothing at all clear in the GPL regarding the relationship
> >of shared libraries to each other and the linking program, or the
> >case where a kit is provided containing all parts except the
> >GPL'd code which the user obtains for himself.
>
> Not in relation to your understanding of copyright, perhaps. To a
> reasonable person's understanding of software, however, it is clear, and
> the contrary issues you raise about shared libraries and linked programs
> are what is unclear. Exactly how do you rely on another author's work
> for yours to be valuable without deriving your work from his?
Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
Yet the GPL prohibits distribution of GPL'd components that link
to anything but standard system libraries. What really happens is
that each part does it's own work independently, just like a literary
or research work that refers to some other independent work that
you are expected to read to understand the whole context - and
each work may have its separate terms for obtaining the right to
use it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some OS security thoughts
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:37:31 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:08:15 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Security is more than just making things painful. Mark was right in
> > the post that started all this: "[a program received by email] should
> > be run in a protected environment."
>
> Sure, but setting up a protected environment is tricky. Just ask the
> Java developers. There is a fine line between making it "safe enough"
> and making it so that the scripts run in it can't do anything useful.
> For instance, you can't allow it to write to your disk, or it could
> overwrite your files. That particular one could be overcome by setting
> up a chroot environment, but that just pushes the problem down a layer.
> What should be included and what should be left out of the chroot jail?
> Put in too much and a malicious script could still do damage, too little
> and something that you think you need won't work.
>
> Then there's the issue of when it fails and a script damages your
> system, or if it does not run a script that you think it should run,
> then the vendor of the mailer gets the blame.
>
> If it were easy, it would have been done already. It is far easier to
> discourage people from mailing scripts around willy-nilly, and probably
> in the long run that's a better approach anyway.
I'll just tell my colleagues to just stop working. Hell, there's no point
mailing this code around willy-nilly, we're too damn likely to get work
done. God knows we wouldn't want that to happen. How else am I supposed to
send things around? Allow blind NFS access? I'll bet if I printed out all
the scripts that come with a typical Linux distribution I'd have thousands
of pages of text: far more than anyone can read and sort through in any
reasonable length of time, much less analyze for potential security errors,
and yet many of them have to be run from a root privileged account just to
compile and install. How many people really read every one of those scripts
and carefully analyze them to see if they contain errors that could damage
their systems? I'll bet you haven't, and yet you say that I'm acting in a
dangerous way.
Setting up a protected environment may be tricky, but the whole point of
these computer things is to make life easier for the user, not for the inept
programmer. If I run something from a mailer by clicking on it, run it
safely. That's all. If it's something that could potentially damage my
computer, or our network, then stop it and warn me. If I save the damn thing
to disk, change the protections, and then execute it, then there's not much
anyone could have done anyway, is there? Hell, if you really want to prevent
me from ever doing anything wrong, just cut my keyboard cable. ("That'll
show the bastard! Let's see him delete a file now!!! Bwahahahahahaha!").
It seems to me that clicking on a file attachment in an email is a pretty
natural thing to do, and it's not entirely unnatural to expect an
appropriate action to happen when you do. If it's a picture, show it to me.
If it's a song, play it. If all that happens is that the file gets saved
every time, I'll just run it after it's saved. Why not execute it in a safe
environment, and warn the user if it tries to do anything funny? Then, if
they still want to save it and run it outside of mail, they can. But in that
case, the warning they'll have received won't just be a canned, "this might
do something if you run it," message that automatically displays with every
message (until every user with acuity learns how to click the OK button on
the warning message in under 20ms), it will actually say, "Hey! This script
you're trying to run is trying to delete your files!" It sure seems to me
that would be a whole lot more useful that what I might get today:
>powersim.pl
>ls
>
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:34:49 +0200
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Now that you mention it, the distrust, do you suppose that ZoneAlarm
> could be one of those monitoring programs thats sending data back
> home?? I've noticed that when she is on the net reading her e-mail that
> the red bars are active a lot.
>
Well, ZoneAlarm for sure *does* call home.
Officially just to check if a new version is available.
You have to believe that, or you don�t.
I do not. But I do not know. Since I use linux, I don�t have any need of
a playthingy like ZoneAlarm, but even if I had I would not use it.
Peter
--
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:48:33 +0200
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The four most critical
> > > pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are BIND
[Berkeley
> > > Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache. Everyone of them is
> > free
> > > software.
> >
> > You mean DNS,
>
> check
>
> > CGI (why is this an infrastructure?)
>
> huh? he never mentioned CI, why would you make a leap like that?
> Perl (not "cgi") is the glue which hooks so many parts of
> the internet "wiring" together behind the scenes. You may
> have heard of perl only in a "cgi" or "web" context, but
> perl was a popular and well respected tool before the web
> existed, and does a great many other things you would
> not have thought of -
When he mentioned perl, in the context of the web, I assumed he is talking
about using Perl with CGI, to produce webpages.
What do you mean, Perl is the glue?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
