Linux-Advocacy Digest #60, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Date of modifications of files (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: BSD & Linux (Richard Caley)
Re: Programming Languages (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Copyrights etc. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
("Christopher Smith")
Re: Rumors ... (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: BSD & Linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Rex Riley)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Norman D. Megill)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Robert)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("S Car")
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Copyrights etc. ("doc rogers")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Date of modifications of files
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:09:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 09 Apr 2000 19:00:04 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 16:43:46 GMT,
> The Ghost In The Machine, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:56:02 GMT <8cnvbs$9f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>Note that 'make' should be using time_t values; time_t is the number
>>of seconds since the Epoch (Jan 1, 1970, midnight GMT) and is very
>>easy to compare (it's a signed 4-bit integer).
>
> ^^^^^ 4 Byte maybe?
LOL!
Mea culpa. :-) (And good catch!)
>
>--
>Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
>WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- hmm...at what time of night *did* I post this? :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven
guilty
Date: 10 Apr 2000 10:11:31 -0400
On 10 Apr 2000 13:58:50 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>Other than his figures on Linux usage and its growth (which
>he has explained are estimates, and discussed their basis),
>and occasional misremembering of exactly who did a particular
>thing (which, in any case, was done) would you please give
>some examples of major, important assertions by Ballard which
>you have shown to be false?
When estimating the costs of installing NT at a school, he included
"consultants" fees of $200- per hour for *uinstallation*. Talk about
rubbery figures.
The guy makes some good points from time to time, but his "statistics"
are completely fictitious.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Richard Caley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 10 Apr 2000 15:12:42 +0100
In article <Lb7I4.4745$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bloody Viking (bv) writes:
bv> And which OS would be Aussie Rules Football (footie)?
Aussie Rules is not an OS, it's toggling it in on the front
panel.
--
Mail me as rjc not [EMAIL PROTECTED] _O_
|<
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:15:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 10 Apr 2000 11:07:12 GMT <8cscl0$srs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tcl is a very dumb but useful language, and can be used in a large
>> number of areas (because it's so simple to hook into an
>> application). Tcl requires no compiler at all -- although it does
>> require lexical analysis, and is a bit on the slow side for serious
>> looping.
>
>Tcl compiles into bytecode internally, and has done since 8.0 (1997?)
>You can even get an external compiler commercially, though people
>going down that route aren't doing so for reasons of speed.
Ah. I was not aware of that; I was thinking pre-8.0. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Copyrights etc.
Date: 10 Apr 2000 10:15:51 -0400
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:40:02 GMT, Bloody Viking wrote:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But the copyright model ensures the MS-Monopoly due to abuse of the
>system with ridiculously restrictive licencing. The only other company
No, the copyright model "ensures" no such thing. Assuming a competitive
market, the copyright model works, and works very well. The fact that a
company has used anticompetitive practices is not the fault of the copyright
model.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven
guilty
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:19:36 +1000
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8csk5o$u8s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Bb3I4.14040$06.63638@wards>,
> Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8cpqvs$nio$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >[...]
> >> >
> >> > Rex Ballard has described how Microsoft uses non-disclosure
> >> > agreements to prevent competitors like Linux from obtaining
> >> > the details of various essential hardware and software
> >> > interfaces. MS should be required to stop this practice,
> >> > and the current NDAs should be rescinded.
> >>
> >> Yes, but Rex has a somewhat loose grip on reality. Why anyone would
> >> consider him a source of even remotely reliable information is beyond
> >> comprehension.
> >>
> >> His stories are usually entertaining though.
> >
> >While I think you are correct about Rex's grip on reality, trying to
explain
> >this to Mark is a bit like trying to explain to the Devil that Charles
> >Manson is a bit antisocial.
>
> Robert Moir, Christopher Smith, and Steve Sheldon (who also
> wrote an article claiming that Rex Ballard is not believable)
> are all totally biased pro-Microsoft propagandists, as can be
> seen from examining their posts in DejaNews.
>
> The reason these three are desperately trying to convince
> readers to ignore Ballard is that he provides more information
> about the coercive, fraudulent, and destructive tactics that
> Microsoft uses than anyone else posting here.
>
> As to Ballard's reliability, every time I've seen his asser-
> tions questioned, he has successfully defended them by posting
> lots of supportive evidence.
The most amazing thing about that post is you're probably typing it with a
straight face.....
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:18:19 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>How do you define "questionable"? Remember, the employees of a public
>>company are required by law to do everything possible to maximize
>>shareholder value. Do you honestly believe that a single person at
>>Microsoft ever thought even for a moment that the company may have a
>>monopoly? And even if they did, how could they be expected to know for
>>sure, given that it's something that's so difficult to figure out?
>
>That whole 1995 consent decree incident should have tipped them off
>that the DOJ was thinking along those lines, even if it hadn't
>occurred to them otherwise.
>
>I think it is weak to suggest that MS was unaware of the risk of being
>declared a monopoly. By exercising a bit more restraint they may
>have avoided meeting the high standard of proof.
>
Grant, from our earlier encounters, I know that you're an intelligent
and reasonable guy. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this case. Do
you think its outcome will improve the industry? Does antitrust law in
its current form make sense in the internet economy? Did Judge Jackson
rule objectively?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 10 Apr 2000 10:29:54 -0400
On 10 Apr 2000 05:56:33 GMT, Damien wrote:
>You don't have the right to control what I do with knowledge in my
>possession.
Again, I believe I do. Hell, even the GPL is based on the assumption that
I "have the right" to control what you do. Do you ever release GPL'd
software ? If you do , and hold these views, this IMO makes you a hypocrite,
because you are imposing restrictions on what others can do with your
software but at the same time, you are saying that you have no right to
do this. The freeloading crowd are guilty of hypocrisy here IMO -- on one
hand they turn blue in the face when their copyright is violated ( for
example, the recent incident with Quake ), but they don't believe other
copyrights should be honored.
But really, I don't care what you do with it, as long as anyone you give
it to pays the license fee. What it boils down to is "freeloaders need not
apply". It is not for you to decide whether or not I should be paid.
Ultimately, when you speak out against copyright, you also speak out against
the authors right to be compensated for their creative works. Dismantle
copyright and you also dismantle creativity, because to attack copyright
is also to attack the value and economic base of creative labor. What it
boils down to is a question of whether or not you believe that creativity
and creation of knowledge should be rewarded with financial incentive. And
you seem to be answering this question with a decisive "no".
The other point is this -- if you don't want to accept the terms of a piece
of copyrighted software, simply *don't use it*. No one is *forcing* the
terms of the license on you. You carry on as if it's an infringement on your
personal freedoms, but IMO it is not -- because no one ever forced you to
even look at the "information" in the first place. Moreover, it is
"information" that would not even exist without a system in place to
make sure the author gets paid.
IMO, your claim that copyright is an infringement on your personal freedom
is totally bogus. You are confusing "free speech" with a deliberate attack
on the authors compensation. Not all speech is "free". "Speech" that harms
another ( such as defamatory speech ) is considered actionable. I fail to
see any tangible benefit of "free speech" in the sense of illegitimate copying
of software. IMO, the harm outweighs the benefits.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 14:26:00 GMT
In article <38f1d5b8$8$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 04/10/2000 at 12:08 AM,
> Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Can anyone confirm this?
>
>> How 'bout you identify yourself and your sources first?
>
>How about articles in the Wall Street Journal, PC Magazine, and the
>Washington Post.
>
>Moreover, MS admitted publically that those hooks were in the Windows 2000
>beta.
Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
"national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
>MR/2 Ice 2.10 Registration Number 67
>As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
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 10:43:39 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Visit the GNU homepage. Once upon a time, all software was free (as speech).
>Propriety stuff came along, so RMS decided to create a free OS, GNU (which is
>not unix :-). They had about everything except a kernel, which is where
>Linu[sx] jouned the fray.
Which is RMS version of the story. "All software" wasn't that much all -
compare the dates when GNU project had been started and when, say it, TOPS-20
had been shipped. Or UNIX, for that matter - AT&T version was not exactly free.
Or MULTICS. Or TOPS-10. As for "about everything except the kernel" - well,
very large part of this "everything" was written and maintained outside of
GNU project. As for the kernel... Yes, you can take Linux and use it where
you could use Hurd if Hurd was not vapourware. Which doesn't mean that it's
the only (or reasonable, etc.) use of the thing. You are free to do so. That's
it. Just as you are free to use X, Perl or TeX - none of them have anything to
GNU or RMS, they just can be used by anyone (RMS included) if that anyone wants
to put together a UNIXish system. Just as GNU stuff (e.g. gcc) can be used
outside of their system. And yes, Linux _is_ used outside of GNU system.
Now, may I ask WTF it is doing in c.u.b.*?
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rex Riley)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:01:41 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ziya Oz wrote:
> Rex Riley wrote:
>
> > If you're stuck on a Linux centered desktop, I would not be
surprised.
> >
> > I personally believe this serves to Linux detriment. It distracts
Linux core
> > resource focus onto a desktop where it does not compete. It
ignores strengths
> > of the OS responsible for solid growth opportunities where it does.
>
> Why are you being charitable to Linux?
>
I have vested interests in Linux...
> It's just like any other OS/platform with its millionaires,
> once-hot-now-cold IPOs, flacks, apologists, zealots, strengths and
> weaknesses.
>
> If they are committing the mistake of chasing false hopes (desktop)
or
> self-splintering (the code base), etc., why not encourage it? Why
does it
> have to get a free ride on all accounts?
>
>
Linux is a decent OS. Anytime, anyone, anywhere can download a free
copy of LInux. When they can load that free OS onto a platform of
their own design and enter the marketplace with a new product, with new
capabilities and new services never before seen on the face of this
planet ± that's innovation.
Palm was the last OS innovation but had a scalibility of 2,
3com+Handspring. NewtonOS before it, scalibility factor of 1. Linux
has potential to scale innovation wider. It has the potential for more
wealth creation. It is not unlike mining natural resources. If you
know how to find'em and get'em, they're yours for the cost of a filing
fee.
It gets a free ride because Linux is not a scarce resource. Those who
free their innovative ideals onto the platform are free to change the
world. The fact that some may become millionaires is just rewards for
those who took the risk to create something no one else had done
before. Capitalism rewards its innovators. Innovation drives wealth
creation. Wealth is a good.
Linux is good...
-r
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
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: 10 Apr 2000 11:06:15 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2000 05:56:33 GMT, Damien wrote:
>
>>You don't have the right to control what I do with knowledge in my
>>possession.
>
>Again, I believe I do. Hell, even the GPL is based on the assumption that
>I "have the right" to control what you do. Do you ever release GPL'd
>software ? If you do , and hold these views, this IMO makes you a hypocrite,
>because you are imposing restrictions on what others can do with your
>software but at the same time, you are saying that you have no right to
>do this. The freeloading crowd are guilty of hypocrisy here IMO -- on one
>hand they turn blue in the face when their copyright is violated ( for
>example, the recent incident with Quake ), but they don't believe other
>copyrights should be honored.
>
The purpose of the GPL is to prevent others from using copyright law to
place restrictions on the software, which could be easily done if the
software is public domain. Since copyright laws in fact exist, the GPL
becomes necessary for this purpose; it is a clever exploitation of
copyright law itself to essentially defeat it. From
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/ :
"The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public
domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and
their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows
uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a
proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified
form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the
middleman has stripped it away."
If you think that public domain cannot be exploited, look at Bill Gate's
ownership (via Corbis) of the "digital rights" to paintings of masters
that have long been in the public domain. An example of copyright law
completely out of control IMO.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 11:17:23 -0400
In article <8cnop5$n2j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8cllas$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In another post you wrote:
>
>> >I have the same model gateway (well, the equivalent, its only about a
>> >year old) with all the fixins sitting at home on top of my stereo
>> >serving up MP3s
>
>I didn't write that. But okay, let's proceed :-)
Sorry, it wasn't you, it was [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand corrected.
As for the rest of your comments, I'll let them speak for themselves.
To me they seem to have a vague inconsistency along the lines of "I want
liquor to be prohibited as long as I can obtain it myself."
--Norm
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:14:59 GMT
Jason Bowen wrote:
> Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
> products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
> government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
> could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
> "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
Read this if you can Jason! You are so damn stupid and ignorant!
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Content/7182_01.html
I wonder if they actually exported this stuff and did it go to allies. Did they export
this to the
Russian's? British? Israelis?
Man what if the Massad was being spied on?
Isn't it amazing that Bill (theAntiChrist) Gates wanted to dominate the browser
market? Just think
how this may have given him the advantage when it came to market place strategy!
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:27:07 -0700
"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
>
> > Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
> > products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
> > government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
> > could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
> > "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
>
> Read this if you can Jason! You are so damn stupid and ignorant!
> http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Content/7182_01.html
>
> I wonder if they actually exported this stuff and did it go to allies. Did they
>export this to the
> Russian's? British? Israelis?
> Man what if the Massad was being spied on?
>
> Isn't it amazing that Bill (theAntiChrist) Gates wanted to dominate the browser
>market? Just think
> how this may have given him the advantage when it came to market place strategy!
Where in that page is MS admitting that there is a back door in Windows 2k? All I see
is a lot of
conjecture about how MS "could" be sending information to the NSA. This is all based
on a file name _NSAKEY, which could be a 100% arbitrary file name. Do you even read
these things? Or
do you just jump to a conclusion based on the document title?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert)
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 15:30:21 GMT
On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:23:51 -0400, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to work in
>computer security at the NSA.
Your credibility was shot with the first statement (and the technical
aspects of the remainder are also without merit). Why would someone
who works in computer security at NSA be inclined to divulge
information to you? Chances are this individual stacks cans of green
beans at the grocery store and in an attempt to boost his self image
found the most gullible person he could and started spilling his
imaginary beans.
------------------------------
From: "S Car" <[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 11:34:53 -0400
actually, it has been reported just recently that _CIAKEY and _FBIKEY were
found in the CryptoAPI of W2K, in addition to _NSAKEY that was found
earlier.
:)
"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.
>
> 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
<snipped>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 10 Apr 2000 15:37:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (There's no getting away from a GUI when you need to DTP or manipulate
> photos/graphics...)
_Strictly_ that is not true. But there's no way I want to do anything
even remotely close without a GUI again. Life is just too short...
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>
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Copyrights etc.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:49:37 -0400
Reply-To: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 10 Apr 2000 02:25:17 GMT, Damien wrote:
> >That's understandable. But it is my belief that the increased
> >usefulness of the software that is written, plus the efficiency gained
> >from not re-inventing the wheel any more, will more then make up for
> >the lack of code written because it doesn't pay as well anymore.
>
> I'd argue that if there exists another model that is more efficient than
> the traditional copyright model, then that model will win on it's own
merits,
> whether or not copyright law is dismantled. However, there are those who
> advocate dismantling copyright law because they are unwilling to let the
> copyright model coexist with other development models.
>
> IMO, we won't see anything completely replace the copyright model. There
are
> other licensing models that have proved succesful for *certain types* of
> software, but it is simply not true that one size fits all. IMO, the
people
> that say (free|nonfree) software is inherently superior are just being
> narrow minded.
Excellent points. I certainly don't object to anyone willingly giving up
copyright protection and using other models.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:46:35 GMT
I read it. I also read the articles in Networking, and the Wall Street Journal. This
is common knowledge
for the literate.
The lab that actually found the key notified the NSA first! Maybe you don't have
access to well known
publications by CMP. I understand that ZD is more your level so that is why you never
heard it before
now.
Josiah Fizer wrote:
> "David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
>
> > Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > > Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
> > > products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
> > > government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
> > > could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
> > > "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
> >
> > Read this if you can Jason! You are so damn stupid and ignorant!
> > http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Content/7182_01.html
> >
> > I wonder if they actually exported this stuff and did it go to allies. Did they
>export this to the
> > Russian's? British? Israelis?
> > Man what if the Massad was being spied on?
> >
> > Isn't it amazing that Bill (theAntiChrist) Gates wanted to dominate the browser
>market? Just think
> > how this may have given him the advantage when it came to market place strategy!
>
> Where in that page is MS admitting that there is a back door in Windows 2k? All I
>see is a lot of
> conjecture about how MS "could" be sending information to the NSA. This is all based
> on a file name _NSAKEY, which could be a 100% arbitrary file name. Do you even read
>these things? Or
> do you just jump to a conclusion based on the document title?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (robje2000)
Subject: (Cher second try) File 01 of 10 - 01_Believe_Cher_Believe.mp3 (12/26)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:27:03 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 10 Apr 2000 15:37:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (There's no getting away from a GUI when you need to DTP or manipulate
> photos/graphics...)
_Strictly_ that is not true. But there's no way I want to do anything
even remotely close without a GUI again. Life is just too short...
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
******************************
