Linux-Advocacy Digest #56, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 06:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Majordomo)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Truckasaurus)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Truckasaurus)
Re: BSD & Linux (Steve O'Hara Smith)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Apr 2000 07:15:44 GMT
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 06:53:24 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 09:53:55 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Hey, I think that resolves this dueling rights issue. We'll just make a
| deal. I will give you access to a copy of my software for certain specific
| uses, if you will agree not distribute copies. If you agree, you get to
| take home the software, and I'm secure in the knowledge that you've agreed
| to not infringe on my rights. If you don't agree, I take my bat and ball
| home with me, and I know that my property is still secure. That sounds
| reasonable to me. What say you?
Hmm, I get to negotiate what rights I give up rather then have them
taken from me? That sounds reasonable. Mind you, I'd rather not give
up any right at all so I think I'll just continue to use and support
free software instead.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:34:14 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:01:16 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [bigsnip]
>
> | The real challenge is to RS. Will he defend the owner's decision to
ship
> | GPL'd programs w/o source code, based on his statement that he's "just
> | sharing free programs with our customers"? That' equivalent to RS
saying
> | that piracy is "just sharing information with your neighbors", isn't
it?.
>
> No, RMS would probably have a hissy fit. However, that's not because
> he feels the programmers have an innate right to control how their
> wares are distributed. But because the law says they do. A law, even
> one you don't agree with can still be used to your benefit, to achieve
> things you want.
But another party can simply ignore what Stallman wants, and violate the
letter and intent of the GPL in whatever way benefits THEM. They rework
the source code, build a new distribution for their use only, and create new
applications based on the GPL'd source . None of this source will be made
available outside the company, and no credit will be given for the GPL'd
base. The code will be gutted of every GPL license reference, and the
company will replace it with a proprietary license, modeled after MS, that
restricts the code to one machine per license. It won't be free software,
not by any definition you care to use.
But this is just taking Stallman's advice about sharing information to its
logical conclusion. Don't respect MY copyright terms, why should I respect
YOURS? If Richard Stallman thinks it OK to share my information to his
neighbors, then why can't I do as I see fit with his information? If it's
because the law prohibits that, then maybe he'd better rethink his position
on piracy.
fmc
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:44:32 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 06:53:24 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 09:53:55 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | Hey, I think that resolves this dueling rights issue. We'll just make a
> | deal. I will give you access to a copy of my software for certain
specific
> | uses, if you will agree not distribute copies. If you agree, you get to
> | take home the software, and I'm secure in the knowledge that you've
agreed
> | to not infringe on my rights. If you don't agree, I take my bat and
ball
> | home with me, and I know that my property is still secure. That sounds
> | reasonable to me. What say you?
>
> Hmm, I get to negotiate what rights I give up rather then have them
> taken from me? That sounds reasonable. Mind you, I'd rather not give
> up any right at all so I think I'll just continue to use and support
> free software instead.
No one ever tried to take your rights. Offers are made with certain
contingencies, and the buyer is free to agree or walk away. Unfortunately
there's no room for negotiation unless you wield enough clout with the
seller.
------------------------------
From: Majordomo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:53:43 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Ahh.. Mister Anonymous has an Anonymous tip from an Anonymous source inside
> the NSA that claims something nasty about MS.
>
> Let's examine this, shall we?
>
> anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to
> work in
> > computer security at the NSA.
>
> Well, Since we neither know you or your source, there is no way for anyone
> to take your statements credibly.
>
> > According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where
> "backdoors" into the
> > Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
>
> Naturally.
>
> > I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but
> thought that it might deserve
> > some public scrutiny.
>
> And as you can see, it won't hold up to any public scrutiny...
>
> > At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two
> "backdoor" protocols in the
> > TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
>
> Inside the TCP/IP stack eh? That would be quite a task.
>
> > The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies to
> surreptitiously log in
> > to
> > any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine files
> looking for evidence of
> > terrorism or criminal enterprise.
>
> Considering that the TCP/IP stack is simply a translator that takes raw data
> and sends it to applications that request it, this makes no sense. TCP/IP
> itself cannot allow anyone to log in, thus modifying the stack to allow this
> makes no sense. You would instead modify a login program such a telnet
> server or some other remote login service that uses TCP/IP and no
> modifications would be necessary for the stack.
>
> Since your "source" doesn't even know how TCP/IP works, it makes it much
> less likely that he knows what he's talking about.
>
> > The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event of
> passage of the UCITA or
> > "Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically log on
> to all Win 2000 servers
> > on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything that
> it finds.
>
> Even UCITA wouldn't allow that to happen, since Microsoft would not know
> whether the software was liscensed or not. Even if they found an invalid
> key or a duplicated key, they wouldn't know if the user had a liscense to
> use the product and simply entered the wrong key by mistake. Deleting
> things in such a case would make them very open to liability lawsuits,
> especially considering that the person might have a legal liscense to use
> it.
>
> > Can anyone confirm this?
>
> Neither situation makes any sense. Considering the lack of any sense and
> the anonymous nature of the source, It's safe to say that this is pure
> bullshit.
actually, it is well worth investigation, as any such claim is, just because
something is unlikely, doesn't make it impossible
-NateGrey
blah
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 03:08:20 -0500
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t8cI4.5516$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > NT seldom requires a reboot though for this. The software may tell you
> to,
> > but I've only found a few cases where it was required.
>
> I guess for you comment applies below that most users don't know the
> difference and reboot when told to.
Most users don't know much, if anything about the OS. Linux has the
advantage that most of it's users are fairly knowledgeable about it. This
is based entirely on the user base, and not related to the OS at all.
> It does seem that problems usually do occur if I don't heed the advice to
> reboot in my experience.
I've seldom seen that.
> > You've never had to do this with NT, despite that it told you to reboot.
> > Windows 2000 doesn't even tell you to.
>
> That is an improvement.
> Unfortunately I feel you must tell the bad of W2K to get the good.
What is that supposed to mean?
> > What they are trained to do, and what is required are two different
> things.
> > Most Linux users would probably reboot their machine if X crashed or
> locked
> > up rather than trying to telnet into it from another machine to kill the
> > processes.
>
> I feel the past and current crop of Linux users are smart enough to solve
> the problem short of rebooting.
What's easier? Rebooting your machine, or going to another computer,
logging in, connecting to your machine, etc.. what if your machine is set up
to disallow remote logins for security reasons? Rebooting is an easy
solution that doesn't require much work, and most users, even knoweldgeable
ones will probably take that route unless there is some vital reason not to.
> You are right in the future they might reboot due to their experience with
> troubleshooting under Windows.
Or due to the fact that they don't know how to do it.
> Hopeful the word will get out that Linux is modular unlike Windows and
> things can be restarted and contained well.
If you jump through hoops and leave your system wide open.
> > > Reason #4: Decreased performance. Over time, with heavy use, Windows
> > systems
> > > tend to slow down dramatically.
> >
> > Not if you maintain it properly. These are things you would generally
do
> in
> > Unix as well. An example would be trimming or deleting log files (the
> same
> > as optimizing the registry). Granted that this is often automated by
cron
> > tasks, but there's no reason it can't be automated with windows as well.
> > One step that you'll want to do with Windows is defragment, which isn't
> > usually necessary for Linux (unless you run full drives and add and
delete
> > stuff a lot).
> >
> > Proper maintenance can keep a Win9x machine running as fast as the first
> day
> > you installed it.
>
>
> That would require alot of work and software to do tell I think.
> And still I think it only helps, it doesn't solve the problem.
>
> A good program to demonstrate this is Visual Basic, but I'm sure other
> software would act this way as well.
> With VB6, megabytes of stuff is added to the registry. In fact the VB
> installer even resizes the maximum
> registry size to allow that much information to be added.
VB6 doesn't add megabytes. It adds a few dozen K or possibly 100k at most.
And again, optimizing the registry cures the problem. Registry optimzation
is rather easy as well. You can either use a program like Norton Utilities,
or you can export the registry to text and reimport it.
> As the registry grows, speed slows. I've heard of the Start Menu taking
20
> seconds to load on a PII system
> after installing Visual Basic.
Only if the registry were extremely fragmented.
> Nothing short of not installing software will help due to the design of
> Windows and Windows software, and the resulting
> interaction. Note: this does not occur really in Linux.
Untrue. As I've already said, if you do proper maintenance, it will act as
fast as the day you installed it, without reinstalling anything. Of course
adding a bunch of programs that hook themselves into the OS will slow you
down. Shell extensions are a good one for this, and lots of people add
them. A poorly written shell extension can make your system seem quite
slow. Writing Gnome or KDE extensions can do the same.
> > This seldom happens under NT. If one hangs, you can kill it from a
> command
> > prompt. I've never had it happen with Windows 2000.
>
> It happens more than seldom for me.
> Not alot, but not seldom.
> If I install apps into NT, it's worse.
> If I use NT alot, it's worse.
Such as? Have you tried going to a command prompt and net stopping the
service?
> I believe it has been shown in both Linux and NT (W2K maybe too) that a
> program can be written to hang a system easily.
Yes, it's possible in both systems.
> > Something which no longer happens with Windows 2000.
>
> They sort of sold their soul on that one trading of compatibility.
> It will be interesting if File Protection in W2K can force windows
> developers to adopt good coding practices like not changing the
> underlying OS.
Win2k has lost very little compatibility, though some classes of programs
are less compatible than others. Device drivers are a big instance, due to
Win2k's new device driver model. Other low-level programs like virus
scanners also are effected. Other than those two classes, i've never had a
program not work under Win2k that would work under NT 4, and tons of
programs that did work under Win2k but would not work under NT4.
> Doing that should be offlimits to most programs.
> Assuming that a reboot after installing new software is insane.
A common technique of install programs is to install a service or driver,
setting it to start automatically and then forcing a reboot. This is easier
than writing the code to restart the service after it's installed. This is
pure laziness on the part of the developer, and unneccesary for the user to
have to restart the computer. They could simply open the services panel and
start the service.
> Windows 2000 has improved things.
Yes, it has.
> Unfortunately there are some nasties associated with it I believe are
quite
> painful.
Such as?
> I feel Microsoft has finally hit the limit where they can't produce what I
> consider to be a better OS on the whole.
> New features when I don't want them (and bugs for free),
incompatibilities,
> etc.
If you don't want the new features, then don't upgrade or turn them off.
> Linux isn't ready as a desktop to me either.
> I do think Linux/RedHat has potiental so I'm willing to wait a few
versions
> for it to improve.
> Hopeful in the mean time more compaies will come around like Quicken,
Intuit
> and support Linux.
Perhaps, but Quicken's entire business model is based on an integrated
browser in the OS. It would be tough for them to port Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 10 Apr 2000 07:42:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:No, nobody should be running their domain controller on a machien that's
:directly connected to the internet.
What about comapanies with large intranets? I know of one company that
has 500 employees between two offices. They use one Novell server at
each end of the intranet (a wide-area network) to do authentication.
They are hiring more people. They are planning to switch over to W2K.
I guess they are in for a surprise...
--
Rick Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rmkhome.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:20:03 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
==============C408ED3E09F039CCF21B038F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
anon wrote:
> I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to work in
> computer security at the NSA.
>
> According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors" into the
> Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
> I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but thought that it
>might deserve
>
> some public scrutiny.
> At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two "backdoor"
>protocols in the
> TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
> The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies to
>surreptitiously log in
> to
> any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine files looking
>for evidence of
> terrorism or criminal enterprise.
> The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event of passage of
>the UCITA or
> "Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically log on to all
>Win 2000 servers
>
> on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything that it finds.
>
> Can anyone confirm this?
I believe that this would be a breach in a couple of International laws, so I don't
think that it is
true and if it is, it can cause serious damage to MS on the International market. Why?
Simple... It
boils down to the fact that the FBI (or other agency) will also gain access to other
Countries
systems which run W2K - a security risk not likely to be taken by the rest of the
world.
Nico.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
In Seattle, Washington, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon that
is over six feet in length.
==============C408ED3E09F039CCF21B038F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
anon wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I was recently conversing with a person that I know
well, who happens to work in
<br>computer security at the NSA.
<p>According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors"
into the
<br>Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
<br>I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but
thought that it might deserve
<p>some public scrutiny.
<br>At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two
"backdoor" protocols in the
<br>TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
<br>The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies
to surreptitiously log in
<br>to
<br>any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine
files looking for evidence of
<br>terrorism or criminal enterprise.
<br>The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event
of passage of the UCITA or
<br>"Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically
log on to all Win 2000 servers
<p>on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything
that it finds.
<p>Can anyone confirm this?</blockquote>
I believe that this would be a breach in a couple of International laws,
so I don't think that it is true and if it is, it can cause serious damage
to MS on the International market. Why? Simple... It boils down to the
fact that the FBI (or other agency) will also gain access to other Countries
systems which run W2K - a security risk not likely to be taken by the rest
of the world.
<p>Nico.
<pre>--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
In Seattle, Washington, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon that
is over six feet in length.</pre>
</html>
==============C408ED3E09F039CCF21B038F==
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:27:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8as342
$isk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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!
> > >
> >
> > I got a better virus than that, if you're gonna use "su".
> >
> > $ su
> > Password:
> > # rm -rf /
> >
> > It may be somewhat subtle, but it works....
>
> oh way, I thought "su" didn't necessarily mean root - so, what if a
su to
> guest or something like that - not very fatal eh?
Dres "UNIX-Wizard" Black has spoken - read it and be amazed!
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:37:30 GMT
In article <iWqA4.8009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights
allow.
> >
> > But most users need to run as power users, or local admin, so as
much
> > damage as it wishes.
>
> They don't "need" to, that's just how lazy sys admins set them up.
>
> It's possible to run a tight ship and still run all the apps the
person
> needs to.
How about this:
I've heard that if I run an app on an NT server, and I need to start it
from a (remote) NT workstation, it is run on the workstation, which
means I might have to transport XXXMB of data on a slow network.
On Linux, this would be easy, but nt gurus are talking about a
workaround for NT, that leaves security holes open.
How would you solve this in an NT environment?
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve O'Hara Smith)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 10 Apr 2000 09:52:44 GMT
Bloody Viking ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: What Linus did was not only create a new OS, but a new ideology, the
: ideology of GNU freeware. It's the ideology of hacking (not cracking)
: mentality put to use to benefit others.
Richard Stallman will be delighted to hear this :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: 10 Apr 2000 09:58:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So any program with a race condition isn't a program? Nope.
They are just *bad* programs. :^)
> Non-determinism can be fun!
Better than some memory optimisations I've had to do, but not much.
Frankly, I'd rather spend several weeks off with bad head-cold...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
