Linux-Advocacy Digest #678, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 22:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (George Marengo)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Terry Murphy)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Tim Kelley)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (George Marengo)
EFFector 13.03: ALERT: public comments due on DMCA copyright rules (Apparattus
Norvegicus)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:24:40 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > abraxas wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 Professional may hang after you
> > > > install Microsoft IntelliPoint 2.2. Microsoft says that pressing
> > > > CTRL-ALT-DELETE will not help. To resolve this problem, Microsoft
says
> > you
> > > > have to reinstall Windows 2000 Professional.
> > >
> > > This one is a real beaut and will forever keep Microsoft OSs in the
Mickey
> > > Mouse league.
> > >
> > Intellipoint 2.2 is a very old version of the software, it's currently
at
> > 3.1, installing old device drivers on new releases of OS is often a
problem,
> > and one not limited to MS. Of course the current version of IntelliPoint
> > works just fine.
>
> It's Microsoft's product, it's Microsoft OS, you would think that they
> would have tested this and have a work around before shipping the OS.
>
They did - you didn't.
whose fault?
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:35:23 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:10 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>Microsoft can't even figure out how to get their own apps working for a
>lowly user, two URLs I gave as an example:
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/devprods/vs6/vbasic/vb98/vbmsgwcadminprivileges.htm
The user must have PowerUser or Adminstrator rights to do _what_?
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q243/3/47.ASP
The user can't be a normal user to install software that might
change TCP settings... are you saying that you think it should
be allowed?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:27:14 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here you go:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
> > there -
> > > > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's
impossible
> > to
> > > > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these
binaries.
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy!
> > > Riddle: When is a virus not a virus? When it requires the informed
> > > consent of the user. The virus requires root access to infect the
> > > system, unlike WIndows, where ANY piece of code can infect your
system.
> > > In Windows NT, where most people run as, at least, power user, any
piece
> > > of code will infect NT as well.
> > >
> > > In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
> > > task.
> > >
> >
> > ahhh... you live in a programmers dream of what it's really like out
there.
> > I have quite a few guys working for me that think like you. they can
code
> > like freaks but their user interfaces suck because they think like
> > programmers and admins but not like users. As linux tries to make itself
> > into the mainstream more and more will run as root ("why should I use su
all
> > the time, why not just run as root?" typically).
> >
> > Where in the world to you get the idea that most people run NT as admin
or
> > power user?
>
> Actually, from Microsoft's own recommendations in the knowledge base for
> running Microsoft's own apps.
Oh - you found two, a whole two. yipee - besides, as you might know if you
actually used NT frequently (and recently) - it's not unusual to have a
particular install require power user just to keep the common users from
messing the system up and generating those errors most users never see.
>
> >I run as power user cause I am. I keep everyone else below that.
> > the only place I run admin is at the console doing a specific task.
> > Otherwise I use runas/su where necessary.
> >
> > So, i guess we'll agree that crap like BackOriface is not a virus
either. It
> > takes running an application to install itself. Running an application
is
> > concent to run it right? Oh, it's a trojan attached to the application
you
> > thought you were running? uh huh... :)
>
> Clue famine.
yes - you could use many clues. Are you prepared to argue that BackOrifice
is a virus? ha! might as well call pcAnywhere (or any remote control
software) a virus too.
You really should remove the Windows 95/NT part of your tagline. ( or at
least update to indicate that Win95 is 6 years old and the NT you refer to
is obviously 3.50)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 17 Mar 2000 17:40:17 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:04:56 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I have met EXTREMELY ignorant Unix programmers also. I have even met
>>one or two Unix programmers who do not even know assembly language on
>>the machine which they work on (I swear to god I am not kidding).
>
>Maybe that would be because hardly anybody codes in asm on Unix machines.
>That would be a real annoyance if you have to move the code to another cpu
>architecture.
You do not need to write assembly code in order to need to understand it.
I look at assembly output from GCC very often, for example, to make sure
it is doing what I want it to do. It is also useful for debugging.
The rationale for knowledge of assembly language is to understand the
entire tool chain. Programmers who do not know how assembly works,
and how functions are called, and how arguments are passed, are really
missing out. I know lots of programmers on both Windows and Unix who do
not know how these things work.
>I think you misspoke. You meant to say "Windows desktop productivity
>software". I don't think Windows database servers, for example, are
>demonstrably superior to Unix ones (Drestin's fascination with artificial
>benchmarks notwithstanding).
Windows database servers do shine on TPC-C, for what it's worth. I do
not know if it is a function of the hardware, the OS, or the application,
but they do perform extremely well.
But in general, server (and even batch) programs are much easier to
debug/test than GUI applications. It is difficult to systematically test
them with random loads, like it is possible for server applications
(which have very discrete inputs). Microsoft Office is not the most
stable program in the world, but is also enormously complicated. It is
pretty amazing that it works as well as it does. Desktop applications are
nothing to sneeze at: sure they are not as important as all of the server
applications in use, but that doesn't mean they are easy to develop.
>gcc generates correct code more often
I do not have extensive experience with MSVC, but I do have extensive
experience with GCC (I use it on a daily basis, and do almost all of
my work in it), and there were several instances where it has
produced incorrect code, or was otherwise buggy.
>msvc does and gcc is portable while msvc is not
I know for a fact that MSVC was available for the Alpha platform, and
was likely also available for the MIPS and PPC when there NT ports
were supported.
Anyways, if a portable compiler is inherently not as fast as a
non-portable compiler, that's more of an argument to abandon the
concept of a portable assembler altogether...
>Then there's the fact that one is developed by a giant corporation with
>virtually unlimited resources, the other largely by volunteers who mostly
>work on it part time.
Cygwin wrote some parts of GCC, and is made up of anything but
volunteers. Intel has provided code for GCC. Heck, the FSF is largely
made up of paid programmers (only R "I get $400/hour for consulting"
MS works for "free").
>Well, I guess I'm not up to your standards as a programmer, because
>frankly it is hard for me to think of what gcc ought to do when it runs
>out of memory. Bailing out with "out of memory" would seem to be a
>reasonable thing to do. It isn't as if it can just throw away some of the
>parse tree or symbol table or something to make more room. Perhaps it can
>call up the VMS gods, where we never run out of memory, or at least not
>very often.
In a batch program, which is given only one operation to perform,
it is of course logical to exit if that work cannot be performed.
My problem with GCC is that it exits _at the point of the malloc_
rather than in the main function. A program should never, ever, ever
exit from a function aside from main.
For example, if I called gcc thusly:
$ gcc -c file1.c file2.c file3.c file4.c
And there is not enough memory to compile file2.c, then operation would
be terminated at that point (and only file1.c would be compiled), but
in the ideal implementation file[134].c would all be compiled.
This is not a stowstopper, and I consider it to be very low priority.
In general, memory allocation failures are not extremely important to
handle in batch programs. It is servers and interactive porograms which
I am concerned about...
>I find it interesting that you think Unix is worse than other systems in
>this regard because you looked at the code of some free applications.
>Why do you think that "professional" programmers do any better since by
>and large they are the same people who write the free stuff?
I receieved "out of memory" errors in Windows programs, which were
handled gracefully. I do not believe I have ever received one from Unix
(aside "out of memory - exiting").
>>Even the X Windows server does not properly handle failed allocations,
>>and simply exits (bringing down the entire desktop along with it) when
>>the condition occurs.
>
>Again, what _should_ it do? Kill a couple of apps at random? Switch to
>16 color mode? Freeze up for a while to see if more memory will become
>available? None of those seem to be particularly appealing.
Since it is a server, it should fail the request which caused it
to exceed memory allocation. It is _extrememly_ simple to handle this
in the server. It is more difficult to handle this in the clients.
>It is true that out-of-memory errors can often be handled more cleanly
>than they are. It is also true that this is _not_ an easy thing. Unix
>programmers don't have a monopoly on doing it wrong. Windows programs
>sure don't have a reputation of handling memory exhaustion cleanly.
As I said before, I have in the past received "out of memory" errors
from Windows programs, which is evidence enough from me that it is
being handled in at least some of the software.
Regards,
Terry Murphy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 972-2800
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:55:42 GMT
David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <38d1c80d$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >In article <38d091fc$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <38cf141b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> >> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> HEY EVERYONE --- Standby for McCoy to tell us how the sex was with someones
>> >> >> mother. Its his standard MO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Weenie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> McCoy you asshole, crawl back into the hole you came out of and this time stay
>> >> there.
>> >>
>>
>> >Strong words, weenie. The loudest rhetoric often comes from the most
>> >cowardly of weenies.
>>
>> >Like you.
>>
>> McCoy you asshole, would you like me to re-post all of your messages where you
>> talk about how good the sex was with someones mother? -- Get out of here you
>> scumbag!
>>
>> _____________
>> Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>I hate to tell you weenie, but sex with your mother isn't all that good.
I knew you would provide PROOF in the end. You do everytime. Now. why don't
you go off like the defective jackass you are and spend your time working on
the Darwin Award, instead of squeeling like a stuck pig looking for mud and
slop to sleep in.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:55:44 GMT
David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <38d2542b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt) said:
>>
>> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <38d091fc$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>@David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>>@
>> >>>@>In article <38cf141b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >>>@>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >>>@>> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>>@>>
>> >>>@>>
>> >>>@>>
>> >>>@>> HEY EVERYONE --- Standby for McCoy to tell us how the sex was with @>>
>> >>>someones
>> >>>@>> mother. Its his standard MO.
>> >>>@
>> >>>@>Weenie.
>> >>>@
>> >>>@
>> >>>@McCoy you asshole, crawl back into the hole you came out of and this time
>> >>>@stay
>> >>>@there.
>> >>>@
>> >>
>> >>> Maybe you should change your name to Hackfield?
>> >>> Followups set.
>> >>
>> >>And your point is? -- McCoy is loony who jumps in and out of different news
>> >>groups with nothing of value to state, and who, when he begins to lose the
>> >>argument starts into a tirade about having sex the other fellows mother.
>>
>> >Ed Letourneau is a loony who jumps in with nothing of value to state, and
>> >who, when he begins to lose the argument, starts into a bigotted tirade about
>> >homosexuality
>>
>> Ah yes, glatt the aberrant mental buddy of McCoy. One talks of how he f**ks
>> everyone's mother when he gets caught in another moron statement. The other
>> (glatt), wants us to think his desire to stick his peepee in the butt of other
>> men is normal and anyone who objects is a bigot -- and who for the life of
>> him can't figure out that its his obnoxious personality that no one can stand.
>>
>>
>> glatt, we haven't missed you in the past few days. In fact I was wondering if
>> you had gone off working on the Darwin Award, but alas you're still here.
>> Maybe you and McCoy can work together on it, eh.
>What a weenie you are. I'm going to smack your mom tonight for having you.
Give it up you brain damaged twit. You proved my point and therefore lost.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> So, Tim Kelley states that NO ONE has/uses root access in Linux - because
> that is a security risk. So, no one needs or get root. But they use SU all
> the time....
>
> laughs last that laughs best...
Who su's all this time? In an "office" unix environment, NOONE will be su-ing
to ROOT (except the admin). They won't even know what su means, unlike NT,
where end users must practically administrate their own systems.
In NT it is quite common, despite all the propaganda you can spew, that users
are running NT on a FAT filesystem (no security at all) or have administrator
rights.
Oddly enough, the best solution to NT file system design/security problems is
novells zen works.
Everything from MS is utter crap.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:09:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> oh way, I thought "su" didn't necessarily mean root
su == su root (at least for the past fifteen years on all the *nix
systems I've been cursed with....)
> - so, what if a su to guest or something like that - not very
> fatal eh?
would depend on your definition of "fatal" and who you "su'd" to, I
guess. Guest acccount? Gets removed just after install just like on
NT.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:21:12 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>In NT it is quite common, despite all the propaganda you can spew,
>that users are running NT on a FAT filesystem (no security at all)
>or have administrator rights.
It might very well be common where you looked, but I've seen
NT generally installed on NTFS and users running as Users.
>Everything from MS is utter crap.
Hey, now there's a novel way to get people to think you're a
rational thinker...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Apparattus Norvegicus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.eff,alt.politics.datahighway,talk.politics.internet,misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,misc.activism,alt.activism,alt.activism.d,misc.int-property,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.freedom,alt.civil-liberty,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.government.abuse,alt.censorship,alt.freedom.academic,alt.internet.commerce,alt.freespeech,talk.politics.crypto,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.libraries,soc.libraries.talk,rec.video.dvd.advocacy
Subject: EFFector 13.03: ALERT: public comments due on DMCA copyright rules
Date: 17 Mar 2000 21:24:35 EST
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EFFector Vol. 13, No. 3 Mar. 17, 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
IN THE 151st ISSUE OF EFFECTOR (now with over 23,000 subscribers!):
* EFF Alert: Copyright Office Needs Comments on DMCA
+ Intro
+ What YOU Can Do
+ Resources
* Administrivia
For more information on EFF activities & alerts: http://www.eff.org
_________________________________________________________________
EFF Alert: Copyright Office Needs Comments on DMCA
Alert issued Mar. 16, 2000. Please redistribute to relevant forums, until
Apr. 1, 2000
An HTML version of this alert is available at:
http://www.eff.org/ip/DMCA/20000316_eff_dmca_alert.html
Intro:
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) is a so-called
"update" to the US copyright laws, that strongly favors the rights of
copyright holders over all others, and may interfere strongly with
fair use rights, the right to reverse engineer, the right to conduct
cryptographic analyses, and many other rights held by individuals and
by companies in other industries than information and entertainment
content. The law could even thwart libraries' and museums' ability to
archive information, and interfere with education and research in our
schools and universities.
The US Copyright Office in the Library of Congress has the job of
ensuring that implementation of the DMCA does not negatively impact
legitimate activities that should remain exempt from DMCA's
prohibition on "circumvention of technological measures that control
access to copyrighted works." The Copyright Office is asking for
public comments on its proposed rules and, in this instance, for
"reply comments" on previous comments submitted in an earlier round of
testimony.
The testimony covered many questions, but the most important ones are
covered in EFF's comments, at:
http://www.eff.org/ip/DMCA/20000217_eff_dmca_comments.html
The comment deadline is now Fri., Mar. 31 2000.
What YOU Can Do:
Read some of the most important prior comments (see below), and think
about them, then submit new comments that:
1. supporting our original comments and those of likeminded prior
respondents who are seeking continued protection of fair use,
reverse engineering and other rights;
2. criticizing the "infotainment" industry's anti-freedom position in
which their monetary interests would be protected at the expense
of all others; and
3. informing the Copyright Office of vital reverse engineering,
research, security, fair use and other rights and needs that would
be harmed by the Copyright Office accepting the content control
industry's position - they need really great, original examples,
especially from experts in technical and other fields.
Sending comments via e-mail:
Send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a message containing the name of the person
making the submission, his or her title and organization (if the
submission is on behalf of an organization), mailing address,
telephone number, telefax number (if any) and e-mail address. The
message should also identify the document clearly as either a
comment or reply comment. The document itself must be sent as a
MIME attachment, and must be in a single file in either: (1) Adobe
Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred); (2) Microsoft Word
Version 7.0 or earlier; (3) WordPerfect 7 or earlier; (4) ASCII
text file format; or (5) Rich Text File (RTF) format. (If you use a
modern e-mail program like Eudora, Netscape Communicator or MS
Outlook, simply use the file attachment command, and it will
automatically be sent in the standard MIME format.)
Resources:
The Copyright Office's Request for Reply Comments (for current round
of comments) + background:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html
Federal Register Notice with full instructions for sending comments:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fedreg/65fr6573.html
The Copyright Office's Notice of Inqurity (with questions for original
round of comments) + more background:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/fedreg/64fr66139.pdf (PDF file)
Full text of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304
(1998):
http://www.eff.org/ip/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html
All prior comments (HTML index to PDF-format documents):
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments
Important prior comments (pro-freedom):
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/ip/DMCA/20000217_eff_dmca_comments.html (HTML)
Assn. for Computing Machinery:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/171.pdf (PDF file)
Computer & Communiations Industry Assn.:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/224.pdf (PDF file)
MIT Media Lab:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/185.pdf (PDF file)
Library of Congress (National Digital LIbrary Program, and the Motion
Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Div.):
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/175.pdf (PDF file)
(Yes, even the Library of Congress itself criticizes the DMCA!)
Princeton University:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/235.pdf (PDF file)
Assn. of American Universitities, American Council on Education, and
Natl. Assn. of State Universities:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/161.pdf (PDF file)
American Library Assn., American Assn. of Law Libraries, Assn. of
Research Libraries, Medical Library Assn., and Special Libraries
Assn.:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/162.pdf (PDF file)
Important prior comments (anti-freedom):
Time-Warner Inc.:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/043.pdf (PDF file)
Motion Picture Association of America:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/209.pdf (PDF file)
Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/190.pdf (PDF file)
You might also like to examine some of the intelligent comments
submitted by concerned individuals, such as...
Michael Sims:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/139.pdf (PDF file)
Prof. Peter D. Junger:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/1201/comments/203.pdf (PDF file)
Hopefully YOU will add more such comments. Remember, the deadline is
Mar. 31.
Coming in the next issue of EFFector - an alert about UCITA, a bill
being considered by state legislatures that grants even more rights to
intellectual property holders at the expense of everyone else.
_________________________________________________________________
Administrivia
EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
1550 Bryant St., Suite 725
San Francisco CA 94103-4832 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Communications Coordinator/Webmaster
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Membership & donations: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To
reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for
their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements may be
reproduced individually at will.
To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message BODY of:
subscribe effector-online
to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which will add you to a subscription list for
EFFector. To unsubscribe, send a similar message body, like so:
unsubscribe effector-online
to the same address.
Please ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] to manually add you to or remove you
from the list if this does not work for some reason.
Back issues are available at:
http://www.eff.org/effector
To get the latest issue, send any message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (or [EMAIL PROTECTED]), and it will be mailed to
you automagically. You can also get:
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/current.html
--
Stanton McCandlish [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eff.org/~mech
Program Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 fax: +1 415 436 9333
PGPfone: 204.253.162.21
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:32:05 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Mr. Rupert" wrote:
>
>> > According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 Professional may hang after you
>> > install Microsoft IntelliPoint 2.2. Microsoft says that pressing
>> > CTRL-ALT-DELETE will not help. To resolve this problem, Microsoft says you
>> > have to reinstall Windows 2000 Professional.
>>
>> This one is a real beaut and will forever keep Microsoft OSs in the Mickey
>> Mouse league.
>
> Misleading and totally untrue. You don't have to reinstall at
> all, what you have to do is pick through the registry for 70+
> hours looking for the right things to delete.
C'mon guys the bug (sorry, feature) list was funny enough. I liked the
'Backup procedure' bug the best. They are still stuck with 8.3. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:48:58 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Wow... where to start with this one...
>>
>> > It doesn't make a difference really. A default user can fuck up
>> > an NT system so bad that it won't run.
>>
>> False Statement #1
>
> Absolutely true, try it, I guess you haven't.
<big snip>
He won't reply to any of this as usual. I killfiled Drestin as he is
just an arsehole but Chad is just sooo funny I have to read his posts.
By the way Chad, you haven't posted a follow up to my reply in the
'which OS is best?' thread where you said I was harming my kids
education by only having Linux on their PC.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
