Linux-Advocacy Digest #281, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Tom Wilson")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Eric Leblanc)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (John Travis)
Re: where's the linux performance? (GreyCloud)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Eric Leblanc)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Tom Wilson")
Re: where's the linux performance? (GreyCloud)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Dave Martel)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Edward Rosten")
Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux Advocacy (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:10:08 GMT
"John Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And Chad Myers spoke unto us...:
> >This is BS.
> >
> >I have a PII-400 with 256MB RAM and I can play Unreal Tournament while
burning
> >a CD.
>
> Hmm...haven't tried this one yet but I have a feeling that would be a
coaster.
> I might boot 2k and try it right now if I didn't only have _one_ cdr left
:-).
> Guess there is another errand for tomorrow.
Under 2K, I'm not sure. It does seem a tad more stable than the
predecessors. I removed it as some of the utilities I use don't work
properly under it and I have no real desire to upgrade them quite yet.
Under 95/98 - Definite coaster.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
From: Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07 May 2001 03:12:23 -0400
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Eric Leblanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone doesn't
> > > know
> > > > > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
> > > >
> > > > What crap. If you don't understand something don't make pathetic
> > > > attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm could be
> > > > cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write such
> > > > rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and open to
> > > > peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but won't make
> > > > it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security
> > > > through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
> > >
> > > What's crap is your understanding.
> > >
> > > You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm. You can
> > > guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things like
> XORing
> > > the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and compressing it
> using
> > > 10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible
> combinations of
> > > decode algorithms is limitless.
> >
> > First, compression after encryption is useless because a good encryption
> > algorithm will produce output which will be statistically
> indistinguishable
> > from random bits and no compression algorithm can compress random bits.
> > A cyphertext that can be compressed means that your algorithm is flawed.
>
> The purpose of the compression is not to compress, but to change the data
> stream. Just one more set of instructions that need to be executed to
> decode the data.
Mathematically is it like this?
X := Plaintext.
f(s) := cryptofunction with key k applioed to stream s.
g_y(s) : compressor function y applied to stream s.
Cyphertext := f(g_10(f(g_9(...g_1(X))...)
> > Second, the opponents cryptoanalysts will probably find out you used
> > a series of compressors in no time at all especially if you compressed
> > the ciphertext. Compressing the plaintext would have been better. It
> reduce
> > the redundancy of the plaintext allowing you to extend your key.
>
> How would they figure this out if the output of the compression was itself
> encrypted as well?
Plenty of way. An example would be that they got hold by other mean of your
clear-text and are comparing it with your cyphertext, Since you compressed
your cyphertext at least once.(Assuming your crypto-algorithm is good but
its only fault is its small keyspace) Your plaintext would be shorter than
your cyphertext (ever compressed random number?). The enemy cryptanalyst
could guess at that point that you compressed after encrypting then encrypted
again. There is probably other way to do so but i'm not a crypto-analyst.
A longer stream to encrypt weaken you algorithn expecially when you have
a short key length because you have to repeat your key to cover the lenght
of the stream to be crypted.
Understand that compressed plaintext is still plaintext. It is *not* harder
to find the non-compressed plaintext once i decoded the cyphertext to
the compressed plaintext. A cryptoanalyst would only have to search amongs
relatively small number of compressors.
>
> > Third, once cryptoanalyst have found out your algorithm, the only thing
> > protecting you is your keyspace. If you have only a 4 bits keyspace, well,
> > you are toast in one microseconds.
>
> Indeed, but they could spend decades trying to figure out which combinations
> of which algorithms are used, and in what order.
Yes, but i would feel safer knowing that *even* if they have the algorithm
that it would take them decades to decrypt my messages. What happen when
your algorithm is discovered? All your messages are now known even if you
changed key at every messages.(assuming a small key lenght)
>
> > A strong cryptosystem need to have at least the following attributes:
> >
> > 1) Security reside in the secrecy of the key not the algorithm used
>
> Only if it's possible for the secrecy of the key to be compromised.
???
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if i have the key and
don't know the algorithm i couldn't guess the algorithm?
>
> > 2) Cyphertext from a strong cryptosystem should look random to statistical
> > tests.
>
> You're assuming a public key encryption system.
No, not at all. Read the sci.crypt FAQ or would an example convince you? I
used pgp with conventional single key encryption here. It's called the IDEA
cipher. pgp compress before encryption. I'll use a compressor to look for
pattern as i don't have proper tool to really do stat work here.
jughead:~$ pgp -c patch-groovycd
Pretty Good Privacy(tm) 2.6.3ia - Public-key encryption for the masses.
(c) 1990-96 Philip Zimmermann, Phil's Pretty Good Software. 1996-03-04
Current time: 2001/05/07 06:36 GMT
You need a pass phrase to encrypt the file.
Enter pass phrase:
Enter same pass phrase again: Just a moment....
Ciphertext file: patch-groovycd.pg
jughead:~$ ls -l patch-groovycd.pgp
-rw-r--r-- 1 jughead jughead 1054 Apr 16 14:17 patch-groovycd
-rw------- 1 jughead jughead 644 May 7 02:36 patch-groovycd.pgp
jughead:~$ bzip2 -9 patch-groovycd.pgp
jughead:~$ ls -l patch-groovycd*
-rw-r--r-- 1 jughead jughead 1054 Apr 16 14:17 patch-groovycd
-rw------- 1 jughead jughead 871 May 7 02:36 patch-groovycd.pgp.bz2
jughead:~$ bunzip2 patch-groovycd.pgp.bz2
jughead:~$ gzip -9 patch-groovycd.pgp
jughead:~$ ls -l patch-groovycd.pgp*
-rw-r--r-- 1 jughead jughead 1054 Apr 16 14:17 patch-groovycd
-rw------- 1 jughead jughead 686 May 7 02:36 patch-groovycd.pgp.gz
>
> > 3) Strong cryptosystem should have a large keyspace so that you can't
> > bruteforce search the key.
>
> Again, only if the algorithm is known.
Are you sure the algorithm is unknown to your adversaries?
>
> > > Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
> > > reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted
> data
> > > and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for
> the
> > > right algorithm.
> >
> > What would you prefer? A safe that is hidden and might be faulty or a safe
> > that is in plain sight and 'proven' difficult to break into?
>
> When you need general cryptography for ordinary people to communicate with
> other ordinary people, you are correct. If I'm sending sensitive data to a
> single person, both of us in the same organization with heavy security on
> the encoding and decoding software, then it is irrelevant.
No, it is not! What happen if somebody in your organization turned
rogue and brought with him to your opponent your algorithm? If you have high
security on both end of the communication use an OTP, which is proved
unbreakable instead. The only ways to break an OTP is to have the a copy
of the OTP or if you use the same pad more than once.
--
Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Departement de Mathematique % Univ. du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Qc
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:58:09 GMT
And Steve Sheldon spoke unto us...:
>I have had coasters due to bad media. Bought a package of 50 Sony discs
>they worked fine, bought another package 50% of them coastered, bought
>another package they worked fine. Even tried burning at single speed, and
>those suckers coastered... pretty sure it was the media.
I've been lucky media wise. I stuck with Imation discs for a long time, just
becuase they never failed me. The last spindle I bought was a 100 pack of PNY
16X 800meg...cost...10 dollars (rebate ;-). Not a coaster in the bunch.
jt
Now if I could just remember to mail in the damn rebate!!!
--
Got Free?
The daemon inside.
http://www.freebsd.org
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:12:43 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 18:09:23 +1000, Ian Pulsford
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Jonathan Martindell wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2 and
> >> then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been very
> >> disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I think,
> >> should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg rams, 10
> >> gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've tried
> >> running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10 seconds to
> >
> >As you say, you are a beginner, take the time to learn the system and
> >tweak it for maximum performance. First remove services unnecessary for
> >a desktop that are often included with a new install. Then learn how to
> >make a custom kernel. Then switch to FreeBSD.
> >
> >
> >IanP
>
> I have never tried FreeBSD so I haven't really commented on it, but I
> am beginng to think you guys have some kind of a valid point.
>
> The FreeBSD users seem to be a little more stable and less ready to
> snap as well.
>
> Maybe I'll give it a whirl this weekend if I get a chance.
>
> flatfish
I prefer Solaris 8 x86. The docs are complete. The install detects even
the monitor and makes sure by displaying a test pattern before
continuing. On initial login, you are presented with a tutorial for CDE
(Common Desktop Environment). It still gives you an option to use CDE
or OpenWindows and one can even install later KDE or GNOME and
incorporate a choice of these at login. But the docs are great.
--
V
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
From: Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07 May 2001 03:17:41 -0400
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>
> Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the algorithm,
> you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that match
> known language patterns. If you disguise the language patterns by making
> sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of bytes, then
> you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
Just a historical point here.
When the German made the Enigma machine they made it so that if you encoded
the letter 'A' it never coded itself to 'A'. From what i read, it helped the
Allies find pattern.
>
> > > Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
> > > reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted
> data
> > > and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for
> the
> > > right algorithm.
> >
> > There are only 16 possible 4 bit keys. NSA would probably spend about 16
> > microseconds decrypting your message, no matter how you applied the key.
>
> I doubt it.
Post your algorithm to sci.crypt.
--
Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Departement de Mathematique % Univ. du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Qc
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:19:15 GMT
"John Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And Tom Wilson spoke unto us...:
>
> >At 10x burning speed under Linux the fifo's utilization seldom drops
below
> >98% regardless of the load (System in question is 768MB, 30 GB 7200 RPM
> >UDMA, PIII 866). The same system running Windows will often drop as low
as
> >58% with no other tasks running and will, about 40% of the time, produce
a
> >frisbee. However, I don't know if this is attributable to Adaptec's
burning
> >software (Not so good, IMHO), or to the OS (Equally not-so-good). One of
> >these days I plan to try Nero just to see, but, I find burning under
Linux
> >to be so much better that it seems a waste of time to mess with it.
>
> I *highly* recommend you give Nero a try. EZ was a POS for a long time
IMO.
> Nero is usually about half the price, and twice the quality (even
EZ5Platinum
> vs. Nero5.5).
If I find the need to burn under Windows again, I may (Just out of
curiosity). I prefer, anymore, to do the burning on the Linux box while I
get my coding done on the NT box. I have the process scripted to the point
that its' a piece of cake to burn just about anything by selecting a menu
item from FVWM2 (Which I access from an NT or 98 box via Exceed). Mostly
what I use a burner for, anyway, is a large floppy drive to transport things
to/from the office. I don't care for anything fancy, just reliable.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:19:16 -0700
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> In article <9d242m$n03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jonathan Martindell"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2
> > and then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been
> > very disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I
> > think, should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg
> > rams, 10 gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've
> > tried running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10
> > seconds to load. StarOffice takes a really long time too. When I'm
> > using win2000 I never have this problem. Even on comparable software.
> > Forte for Java and StarOffice both load many, many times faster in
> > windows vs linux. Do you think that my linux isn't configured for
> > maximum performance? I've spent some time looking through websites and
> > have noticed an increase when I use the hdparm tool but nothing
> > extrodinary. If this is the extent of the linux performance than I
> > don't think I'll be sticking with it. However, if it just requires more
> > work than setting up windows and you ultimately get greater performance
> > than I will definitely stick with it. I enjoy tinkering with computers
> > in that way. What do all of you think of this? Do you know of any
> > websites that show the results of linux benchmarks? Any help would be
> > greatly appreciated. Thanks!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> Jonathan,
>
> First of all, if necessary, apologies for the people thinking you are a
> troll. They have been reading this group longer than I am, and most posts
> like yours turn out to be someone who is out to troll this group instead
> of really asking for help.
> That being said, I think there are some things that might be worth
> looking into. As someone else remarked, first check if you don't have any
> unnecessary services running, this can really bring down your
> performance. Second, you said that a little tweaking with hdparm brought
> a noticable, if small increase. This for me would indicate that the stock
> kernels in your distros are not optimized for your hardware.
> Unfortunately, this means that you will have to recompile your kernel.
> Fortunately, this is quite easy. I'll give you a quick rundown:
>
> 1. First locate the kernel sources. They are usually in /usr/src/linux.
> If necessary, download the most recent kernel yourself.
> 2. In a terminal, as root, go to the kernel source directory.
> 3. do 'make xconfig' if you want a grapical configuration, or 'make
> menuconfig' if you want it text-based.
> 4. Make sure you have an accurate spec sheet of all your hardware handy,
> and select the necessary options. It is safe to compile everything
> *except* your HD drivers and your root filesystem (usually ext2) as
> modules.
> 5. Pay special attention to the HD parameters. There are several options
> there to optimize your performance (if you have an Intel 440BX
> motherboard, select PIIX tuning support, for example).
> 6. Choose save and exit.
> 7. Do 'make dep' optionally followed by 'make clean'
> 8. Do 'make bzImage'
> 9. Do 'make modules modules_install'
> 10. Your kernel will be in arch/i386/boot/bzImage. Copy it to /boot,
> optionally renaming it (I always call mine vmlinuz-<version>).
> 11. Edit /etc/lilo.conf. The easiest way is using Linuxconf, and choose
> 'Add new kernel' in the 'Boot' menu. Fill in the relevant details.
> 12. Do 'lilo' for good measure.
>
> After rebooting, you should have a marked improvement in performance. My
> HD went from 5 M/s to 20 M/s. Play a little with hdparm to squeeze more
> out of your system if necessary. Read the Kernel-HOWTO for more details.
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Mart
>
> --
> Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
> Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
> For that icy feel when you start to swerve
>
> John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
HEHE! That's usually the same response I found in a Windows performance
ng as well.
Run lean run fast. Still, windows just starts running slower and slower
as time goes on. Eventually, you have to start doing repairs or even a
total re-installation of windows. As a suggestion to everybody: go to a
windows performance ng and watch the headaches arrive daily. You'll
find everything from "Windows installation burned up my computer while I
had my microwave oven plugged in" to "I'm trying to install another HD,
but windows doesn't recognize it" complaints.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:12:32 -0600
On Sun, 6 May 2001 17:05:33 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This is fine, so long as you own all of the software. But suppose Trolltech
>had 1 line of GPL'd source code in their library. Suddenly, they no longer
>have the choice to relicense it any other way.
Suppose they'd used an algorithm patented by Microsoft?
Suppose they'd included one function out of a proprietary programmer's
library requiring per-user royalties?
You keep trying to blame the GPL for programmers' refusal to read the
licenses accompanying their code libraries. I might even buy that if
the GPL license were as impossible to parse as a Microsoft license,
but it isn't. And anyone who can't understand it can find all sorts of
discussions and analyses of the GPL's individual terms all over the
Internet.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:26:21 +0100
> This is BS.
Mabey, bus
> I have a PII-400 with 256MB RAM and I can play Unreal Tournament while
> burning a CD.
So what? I have an old uniprocessor P133 with 72M and it usually manages
over 95% burning at 8X. Oh, yeah, under Linux, that is...
> Except when I had a problem with my IDE channel, I've never seen EZ CD
> Creator's buffer drop below 95% on any system I've used it on, including
> the old dual- P200 I used to have. And I always am doing something while
> burning CDs.
>
> I usually take care not to do anything TOO intensive like compiling code
> or copying the entire contents of a hard disk from one to another, and
> I've never had a problem.
I've run a compile at the same time, just for kicks, and my computer can
grok it.
> Granted, EZ CD isn't a prize, but it's not that bad. And likewise,
It's /ok/, ie passable.
> Windows isn't either (Windows 2000 at least).
You could define Win2K as passable, but I wouldn't use it.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:27:16 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> While I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing, I don't
>> think it's likely. For one thing, a corporation would probably be
>> more comfortable releasing code under GPL than under BSD - that way,
>> competitors couldn't make improvements without also giving them
>> back.
> Yes, but the situtation is reversed with already-existing GPL
> software. Companies would rather use BSD-licenced software (eg,
> Apple's Darwin) than GPL for obvious reasons.
Yes, they'd rather *use* BSD code. But I'm talking about *releasing*
it - i.e. contributing back.
Of course, there are lots of allegations about companies using GPLed
products without coming up with the code, so the issue may be a bit
hypothetical.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:28:42 +0100
> I had a flaked-out 24x CD ROM that would go schitzo and literally eject
> itself while the disk was spinning at full RPMS. They'd litterally fly
> out of the thing.
That is _so_ cool!. I would definitely keep that drive :-)
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
Subject: Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:32:11 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> EGCS is a prefect example of a fork rejoining again. There is no fork any
> longer.
Although it started due to disatisfaction with the gcc team's response
time. Some people tired of not seeing their patches applied, forked
out egcs. And now, as you say, they are merging everything into a
better compiler.
> As for GNU Emacs, this is down to the religiois fanaticism of RMS: he
> wanted every contribution to come with a signed document from the author
> to prove it was their work and it would remain GPL, or something.
Lucid started what became XEmacs since they wanted to add some
features that Emacs didn't want at the time. There was plenty of
technical disagreement how things should be implemented, whether you
call it religious fanaticism or not is a matter of opinion. GNU Emacs
has gotten most of the features later on, but implemented in different
ways.
While the FSF requires that copyright be signed over to them for
significant contriubtions, I don't think that was a main issue for the
fork.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:30:46 -0700
"~�~" wrote:
>
> A glowing example of Neo-Linux advocacy if I've ever seen one.
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Interesting things I've encountered talking to people about Linux.
> .
> >
> > Here is some of the comments made to me by our awakening userbase.
> > COMMENT:
> > I don't like Linux because of the GPL License. You know, 19 year olds
> > can read the source code and come up with free applications which
> > would be competing with mine in the marketplace. They'd be stealing
> > my marketshare and taking food away from my family. You know some
> > 15-21 year old lives at home and doesn't have to worry about making a
> living
> > but I have to. We have a business to run here and I don't want to face
> > the frustrations of competing with kids
> >
> > RESPONSE:
> > Son! If your worried about some 9 year old comming out with an
> application
> > which would defeat YOUR application then I'd suggest going into
> > lawncare or some other field you can handle as you obviously aren't worth
> > your weight in shit as a programmer and I think you've just told me so.
> > TAKE CARE...
>
> This is just the sort of 'response' that is putting Linux and its user base
> in an increasingly bad light.
> Not to mention, I consider the source. Trouble is, most of what I see is not
> worth considering at all.
>
> [...snipped from here ...]
Trolling I see. What's the matter, invest too heavily in MS stock?
Divest young man.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:32:54 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> dale wrote:
> >
> > i can understand the digicam stuff especially if it is usb but the burning
> > stuff is totally out of line!! Cd record is a wonderful prog and deserves
> > all credit it can get.. Have you ever tryed it? i dought it!
>
> cdrecord is great for copying Microsoft CDs, audio CDs, and for making
> archives of your /home/luser directory when you decide to strip your
> machine down to reduce the amount of space used by Windoze, and increase
> the amount used by Linux. Combined with mkisofs, it would seem pretty
> difficult to me to beat the flexibility and safety of CD burning
> on Linux.
>
> As far as obtaining audio data, cdparanoia is great. You can often
> reconstitute a broken CD (one with tracks that skip) with it.
> Is there any software like that available for free in the Windoze world?
>
> In any case, every Windoze user I've talked to that burns CDs tells
> me about how often they've coastered a CD. I've never coastered one
> under Linux, so I have no intention of wasting my time booting to
> Windoze 2000 to burn CDs. Windoze, even of the NT/2000 ilk, has too
> high a peak interrupt latency to be worth risking a $0.50 CD-R.
> You never know when Windoze will pop in and garbage collect,
> and not respond to the CD interrupt in time. Windoze latency is
> like 10 msec typical even in the most advanced desktop versions.
> Linux latency, on the other hand, is measured in microseconds.
>
> To which OS would you trust your time-sensitive operations?
>
> That being said, take note that Linux needs modification for
> use in real-time applications.
>
> > "John Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > But when I want to do things such as web surf, read
> > news,
> > > >send email, download pictures from a camera, use my burner to create
> > music
> > > >compilations .... any technology made in the last 3 years, in other
> > words,
> > > >there is no choice other than windows.
>
> See the above.
>
> > > >Mac osX can't even burn a freaking
> > > >Cd.
> > >
> > > Yeah I like bringing up the cd thing too ;-). I like to play with lots of
> > > multimedia stuff, which unfortunately means I can't use only Unix.
>
> You guys need to research where Linux is at now.
> It's a moving target, and it's moving forward even faster than
> Microsoft can whip its pony.
>
Microsoft may be beating a dead horse!
> Chris
>
> --
> Free the Software!
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
