Linux-Advocacy Digest #63, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 21:13:30 EDT
Contents:
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
A few minutes of your time... (Mark Cubberley)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("doc rogers")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: A few minutes of your time... (Matt Gaia)
Re: BSD & Linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Chuck Swiger")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Maury Markowitz")
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Maury Markowitz")
Re: BSD & Linux (Timothy Murphy)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (abraxas)
Re: BSD & Linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (abraxas)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Be vs. Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (David Steinberg)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Andy Newman)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (abraxas)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Andy Newman)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (George Russell)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (George Russell)
Re: Linux Counter - Iceland is most Linux-dense country ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:56:41 GMT
In article <8ct3s9$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2331412,00.html
>
>Idiot.
No, you're the idiot. Still haven't seen proof that MS admitted to a
backdoor for the government.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
------------------------------
From: Mark Cubberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A few minutes of your time...
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:00:14 -0500
I'm looking into Linux as a secondary OS for my PC laptop (I'm currently
running Win 2000.) I have no experience with this OS, but I would like
to!! I've looked around Linux-based web sites, but I'm looking for some
opinions on a good Linux OS to start with...Linux-Mandrake perhaps? If
you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to point me in the right
direction, give me your opinion, and help me get into this great OS, I'd
really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Mark Cubberley
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:39:56 -0400
Reply-To: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8crnfn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >What a load of Horse Pucky. If I express an IDEA and you take the IDEA
and
> >do something with it, more power to you. BUT if I take that Idea and
> >produce something of value with it , whether it is a book or a computer
> >program, a song or an algorithm, then that something is mine...
> You express an idea. I can take the idea and do something with it. The
> more power to me. No problem for you. But if you take the idea to
> produce another idea "of value" then I can't do something with it,
> even though (presumably) you also express the 2nd idea to me.
> Didn't you just contradict yourself?
Norm conveniently left out "whether it is a book or a computer
program, a song or an algorithm, then that something is mine."
> >And for your information Walt Disney, the inventor of Mickey Mouse,
> >hasn't been dead for 50 years yet.
> From the page http://www.reason.com/0003/fe.jw.copy.html I referenced:
>
> "Before the Bono Act, new or recent works copyrighted by individuals were
> protected for life plus 50 years. Afterward, protection lasted for life
> plus 70 years. Corporate-owned copyrights were also extended by two
> decades, to 95 years, as were all copyrights for works produced before
> 1978. The push for the new law was spearheaded by Disney, whose most
> famous character, Mickey Mouse, was scheduled to enter the public domain
> in 2004..."
> >It is the Idea that is free, not the way to use the idea which is free.
> This statement makes no sense to me.
Because you're conflating an idea with an arrangement of stuff.
>So any software program is free,
The software program in this view would be the arrangement of stuff. The
idea isn't. I don't necessarily agree with that distinction set forth in
that way (mainly because of my views on philosophy of mind), but that's what
I got from Keith's argument. My view is very similar. Copyright covers the
fact that I'm creating an arrangement of stuff in some medium. The law,
imo, should deal with my ownership of that arrangement, whether the stuff is
C++ code, successions and concurrences of aural material, bits of paint on a
canvas, etc.
Keith's distinction is that you can take the idea of "writing C++ code to
create a multi-tasking operating system" or "playing minor/major 7th chords
beneath a tri-tone transposed melody" but not the actual instantiation of
the C++ code that I came up with or composition I wrote and duplicate and
propagate it beyond personal use.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
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: 10 Apr 2000 19:02:31 GMT
You obviously can't read because you have failed to prove anything.
You've got conjecture and hearsay and circumstantial evidence but no
facts. As a famous poster here would say, we are only interested in
facts. By the way, I asked this in another post, do you know everything
about the OS/2 security api? Do you just implicitly trust IBM, do you
believe that the government wouldn't contact other operating systems and
computer manufactures about placing backdoors for "national security".
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can you read?
>
>http://homepage.tinet.ie/~muintc/hackal.htm
>http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Microsoft_Windows_contains_a_cryptographic_backdoor_.html
>
>http://www.collectonyourjudgment.com/privacy/infoga.htm
>http://rc.sdnp.undp.org/rc/forums/mgr/sdnpmgrs/msg01238.html
>http://linuxtoday.com/stories/9533.html
>http://smart.online.fr/privacy/Part2
>http://amug.org/~glguerin/opinion/win-nsa-key.html
>
>Robert wrote:
>
>> 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: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few minutes of your time...
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:12:37 -0400
IF your looking for a good introductory Linux OS, then yep, Mandrake or
RH would probably be your best bet. They're both pretty easy and
straightforward to set up and configure. Personally, I'm running Mandrake
(started on 6.0 and went through to 7) on my home PC, and I haven't gotten
so much as a hiccup out of that machine.
------------------------------
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 15:15:10 -0400
In article <8ct6nj$f4r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) writes:
>
>>Or UNIX, for that matter - AT&T version was not exactly free.
>
>AT&T Unix _was_ free.
>(My understanding is that they weren't allowed to sell it,
>for anti-trust reasons.)
Erm... <looking at the front page of Lions><reading the notice>
Doesn't look that way. They did license it with reasonable terms
until early 80s, but... If you started to distribute the thing without
licensing it you would get into trouble.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:29:14 GMT
Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> If MacOS X is based on BSD, does that mean MacOS X will also have
>>> a BSD compatibility option?
>>
>> Given Darwin is Open Source, it is certainly doable to add ELF binary
>> support to MacOS X and provide the hooks so that ldd looks for the
>> Linux shared libs.
>
> Well, I'd almost say that would be the best of all possible worlds!
As I've said before, cross-platform binary support isn't often that
useful. Almost anything you can get working on Linux should be
trivial to build under FreeBSD or MacOS X.
Why bother running a Linux binary when you can just run a native binary?
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
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 15:39:46 -0400
On 10 Apr 2000 11:06:15 -0400, Norman D. Megill wrote:
>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.
Wrong. GPL forbids binary-only derivatives, for example. If I release
a binary-only derivative with no restrictions, I am still violating the
GPL.
The GPL has another agenda -- to force authors of derivative works to
disclose their changes, whether or not they choose a restrictive
copyright.
> 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
No, it is not. He relies on copyright law. If there was no copyright
law, it would be possible to release binary-only derivatives of GPL'd
works.
> But it also allows
>uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
By "proprietary", he means that the source is not available. In other
words, he finds it necessary to use copyright law to gaurantee that
the licensee abide by the author's wishes -- in this case, the authors
wishes are that the source code remain available.
Copyright law is all about making sure that the users abide by the authors
wishes. And the GPL is no different. Without copyright law, it would
be easy to violate the GPL. Worse, it would be possible for authors to
make binary only derivatives which require the purchase of a digital
key to function.
>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.
Of course public domain can be exploited. But public domain can be exploited
with or without copyright law. In the case of the GPL, it is clear that
copyright is protecting free software authors.
I find it very hard to make a case for a license such as the GPL without
recourse to the principal that the author of a piece of softwre has the
right to impose terms and conditions on the users.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Maury Markowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:51:14 -0400
> > I'd much rather see them cribbing from a better example, or even better,
> > pushing past this and creating their own examples.
>
> That's funny... MacOS X is simply NeXT Step 2000. Apple is basing
> their next-generation UI on a UNIX box.
How is that funny? NeXTSTEP is certainly a "better example" than Windows
or other Unixen.
Maury
------------------------------
From: "Maury Markowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:52:35 -0400
> Man, I hadn't realized how far out of bounds my "rants" had become in my
> Linux commentary. I'll have to consider carefully how to make amends to
> you, the listening community
Money works.
Maury
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy)
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 20:46:59 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) writes:
>>AT&T Unix _was_ free.
>>(My understanding is that they weren't allowed to sell it,
>>for anti-trust reasons.)
>Erm... <looking at the front page of Lions><reading the notice>
>Doesn't look that way. They did license it with reasonable terms
>until early 80s, but... If you started to distribute the thing without
>licensing it you would get into trouble.
Maybe we are at cross-purposes.
AT&T Unix was free in the sense that it did not cost anything.
(They charged for media and shipping, but that was very modest --
maybe $20.)
It certainly was not free in the GPL sense --
in fact one had to negotiate a licensing minefield.
Eg when asked why you wanted Unix,
it was fatal to use the word "research" in your reply.
It did come with full sources, though.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 086-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 19:56:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Man, can you show more ignorance? Telnet uses sockets to operate. Sockets
>> > are not a part of the actual stack, they are a set of tools that use the
>> > stack. The same with SNMP or ftp, or a mail program. They all operate the
>> > same way, by opening sockets and listening to them. The stack itself does
>> > not do the logging in or the management.
>>
>> Wow...thats pretty good for a kid who just reads the trade rags and stares
>> at porn most of the time. Lemme know when you get a job.
> Ugh. Go bother some other .advocacy group.
Ive been reading this one for 6.5 years, and im not turning back now. This
is the 13th moniker change, the 14 is due in july. Eat me.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 10 Apr 2000 15:55:05 -0400
In article <8ctb3j$i81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) writes:
>
>>>AT&T Unix _was_ free.
>>>(My understanding is that they weren't allowed to sell it,
>>>for anti-trust reasons.)
>
>>Erm... <looking at the front page of Lions><reading the notice>
>>Doesn't look that way. They did license it with reasonable terms
>>until early 80s, but... If you started to distribute the thing without
>>licensing it you would get into trouble.
>
>Maybe we are at cross-purposes.
>AT&T Unix was free in the sense that it did not cost anything.
>(They charged for media and shipping, but that was very modest --
>maybe $20.)
Well, d'oh. Could you _please_ read the posting I was replying to?
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 19:57:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just shut your fucking piehole and provide proof for the statement that
> was made. You can't prove anything, you can have a suspicion but good ole
> Bob claimed that MS admitted to it and doesn't have the balls to admit
> that he was wrong, as usual.
Did you even go look at any of the links below?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 20:04:02 GMT
In article <8ctbnj$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just shut your fucking piehole and provide proof for the statement that
>> was made. You can't prove anything, you can have a suspicion but good ole
>> Bob claimed that MS admitted to it and doesn't have the balls to admit
>> that he was wrong, as usual.
>
>Did you even go look at any of the links below?
Yep, they are all old and not one has an admission from Microsoft. That
was the issue that I responded to. Does Microsoft have keys setup for
backdoors? Who knows, it is a closed source system and we can't be sure.
I don't trust them though.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: 10 Apr 2000 20:17:00 GMT
Be does own it's own OS. BeOS 5 (the one for download) is a persoanl edition
and can't be used for commerical stuff. If you want to use it commerically you
have to buy a license from Be.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 10 Apr 2000 20:26:38 GMT
2:1 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > It sort of does. It has "My Computer," which holds C:, D:, etc, as
: > well as "Network Neighbourhood" (how is the network part of my
: > computer?), and
: It's not. Network Neighbourhood is part of the Desktop, not My
: computer.
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 05:15:13 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
>
>> Yes, but data != code.
>
>
>well:
>
>typedef void (*FUNCTION)();
>
>FUNCTION ptr = (FUNCTION)malloc (2000);
>
>// do something with the allocated memory ... set some permissions etc.
>
>ptr();
Go back to school and listen this time.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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 20:27:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ct3s9$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2331412,00.html
>>
>>Idiot.
> No, you're the idiot. Still haven't seen proof that MS admitted to a
> backdoor for the government.
You know...youre pretty uppity for someone with an .edu account.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:22:20 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Dabell wrote:
>> > oh, and linux has no viruses.
>>
>> YET.
>
>Actually, I think there are one or two ELF viruses out there. They just
>can't propogate in a sane environment. It would be more accurate to say
>that Linux has no virus problems, and it is doubtful any will crop up.
This URL popped up in a discussion in cola,
http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
It has some interesting papers/programs. But as you say
the chance for propogation is minimized (but not eliminated
by any means) through the lack of write access to things.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
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 20:39:46 GMT
In article <8ctdf5$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <8ct3s9$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2331412,00.html
>>>
>>>Idiot.
>
>> No, you're the idiot. Still haven't seen proof that MS admitted to a
>> backdoor for the government.
>
>You know...youre pretty uppity for someone with an .edu account.
Smarter than you apparently so you're not even that smart. When you can
provide proof I'll listen.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:48:17 GMT
>> Crappy interfaces, arcane
>>help doc (try clicking help on kde stuff and see how many "will be
>>written soon" messages you get) and so forth.
>Kde is the new kid on the block, and alpha, thats why so much stuff
>isnt done.
Yeah right, read the version number.
When did 1.1.2 == ALPHA?
Thats the current release version btw. A 2nd patch to the 1st patch of
the 1st release...
Get another excuse...
>Get Windowmaker, or is it too diferent, and your unable to transcend
>the "start" button ?
Version Number? 0.61? Is it out of beta yet?
NeXT was cool - but it was the DE, not the WM that made it so..
>>This is a system trying to replace Windows on the desktop?
>Nope, it HAS replaced Windows on MY desktop since Aug1997, thats over 2 years
>Steve.
It has augmented mine, replace? Never.
Come back when you have anything standard other than a means of pushing
(slowly) pixels to screen.
>** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Registered Linux User 61117
Disillusionment can come to all.
George Russell
(Soon to go to FreeBSD 4.0 - Linux just isn't organised enough.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:48:19 GMT
On 7 Apr 2000 13:59:29 GMT, Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Crappy interfaces,
>
>I can think of no interface worse than the one Office comes with.
>But why stop there? All of Windows shares its sloppy, inconsistent
>philosophy. X11 is simple and elegant by comparison.
Is this the same X11 with the 20+ widget libraries - to guivew it that simple
air of elegance - and complete inconsistancy?
>So please, don't try to tell me Windows help is any real
>improvement over online docs and FAQs.
At least you can search it.
apropos or man -k doesn't hack it.
>: Linux is like a half written, hacked together system of utilities and
>: general How-To's many of which need some serious updating. Even the
>: man pages in many instances post a message of non support.
>
>: This is a system trying to replace Windows on the desktop?
>
>Anything would be an improvement.
Anything not Unixlike, anyway.
[snip how solaris is better than Windows]
When I want to buy a RISC box, why run Unix on it?
Get a good desktop OS for Desktop use ala Acorn RiscOS.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Counter - Iceland is most Linux-dense country
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:44:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:54:10 +0200,
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >Did you ever wonder which country is the biggest Linux user?
> >According to http://counter.li.org/reports/short.html the answer is
Iceland,
> >which took the lead in this information poll from Norway late last
month.
> >
> >If, as is the classic estimate, 1% of Icelandic Linux users have
registered,
> >there are 19.800 Linux users in Iceland, or about 7.5% of the whole
> >population.
> >
> >That's market penetration. Still some way to go until market
dominance.
> >
> > Harald
> >
> >Do something that counts! Get counted!
> >http://counter.li.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
> ISTR a news story a few months ago, that M$ wasn't going to make a
version
> of Windows for Icelandic, but that a group of volunteers working on
the
> (all together now) OPEN SOURCE Linux were going to "Icelandify" it.
> I wonder how this will pan out in the long term, Icelanders are
pretty proud
> of their culture, and I suspect that given the choice, they'd far
rather use
> an OS that "spoke the language", as it were...
Micro$oft has already released Windows 98 in Icelandic, but that
doesn´t change the fact that none of the Office apps have been
translated. A group of Linux users is busy translating KDE and KDE apps
so the question willl be do you only want an Icelandic operating system
or do want an Icelandic environment mail browser WP and spreadsheet ?
Micro$oft is unlikely to win this one.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
