Linux-Advocacy Digest #64, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 21:13:30 EDT
Contents:
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
(Andy Newman)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Aaron J Reichow)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Binary Thinking ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: Way off topic: Anyone see "The Sopranos?" (Mig Mig)
Re: InstallShield coming to Linux (david parsons)
Re: RH linux stable?? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Bill Godfrey)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Chuck Swiger")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Manx)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:53:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Yes yes yes...you'll be smarter than everyone you know until you actually
(if you ever really do) have to deal with the real world and a real job.
:)
Then things will change very, very quickly.
There are actually betting pools in my office about how long fresh grads
will last without quitting and going back to school to escape reality.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
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 20:53:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Just because Rex writes a lot doesn't mean he's correct. I'm
not a Microsoft advocate in any way and have been a Unix-type
for the last twenty years or so and have lived through a lot
of what Rex writes about. He's always seems to put a spin on
what happened although recently he's been getting a little
better (less crap, more fact). He's in the right direction
but some of the inferences and "facts" he uses are just
plain wrong.
--
Andy Newman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:53:51 GMT
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:48:19 GMT, George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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?
Totalitarian consisitency is vastly over rated. For the simple and
mundane there certainly is some value in being predictable with
respect to those newbies which prefer to always remain that way.
However, beyond that point 'consistency' is of no real value.
For, a general purpose computer is not ONE single tool but rather
a COLLECTION of multiple tools for various distinct tasks.
>
>>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.
Whynot? It's just another form of keyword search. apropos just
happens to search a particular subsection. You can search the
entirety of the manapages if you like: with or without a shiny
happy frontend.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Aaron J Reichow <[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 15:51:58 -0500
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> 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?
Just because something *can* be built for FreeBSD, &c, doesn't mean it
will! The effect on Mac OS X will be less, but there are a number of
programs for FreeBSD/i386 that you can't get a native binary for, but you
can for Linux x86. The most notable program, from a user's standpoint,
is Netscape. There is no Netscape for FreeBSD -- but there is for Linux.
A notable server oriented application is Oracle, which runs on Linux, not
FreeBSD.
ELF binary loading would be almost useless in Mac OS X -- unless there
also was an added x86 emulation layer (doesn't Alpha Linux have one of
these?), as most closed source software for Linux is x86 only.
Aaron
----
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it." -- Alan Kay
------------------------------
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:11:27 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 4/10/00, 3:53:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote regarding=20
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?:
> Yes yes yes...you'll be smarter than everyone you know until you=20
actually
> (if you ever really do) have to deal with the real world and a real=20
job.
I was following those URLs myself and what I saw were descriptions of=20
bugs or poorly designed features being found in Windows 2000 betas,=20
followed rapidly by promises that they were taken out.=20
Did I miss the one that documented a deliberate back door in a=20
non-beta product?
I've read about the infamous "_NSAKEY" wild goose chase already.
Regards,
Chris Wenham.
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Binary Thinking
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:11:52 -0400
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is a long and well thought out post, but I think it is somewhat
> misguided. Haven't you wondered why you have to multi-boot? Seriously,
> it is the same computer, right? I can see having multiple/different
> computers for different jobs, but what you are really saying is that the
> operating systems are deficient when you have to leave them for another
> to accomplish a task.
Yes, I'd agree to that. If I have to leave an operating system to do
something, it's obviously not fulfilling my needs.
Having said that, though... there is no "perfect" OS. That was the
general underlying idea of my post. Linux is good for some things, NT for
others. Windows Media Player, GoZilla!, MS Visual C++; these are things I
can't get in Linux or FreeBSD. If I want to use them, I've got to either run
VMware or reboot.
Adaptec Easy CD Creator is nice to have, too -- I know cdrecord,
mkisofs, and the like do the same thing under Linux/UNIX, but being able to
drag WAV files into the window and have it work is _very_ nice.
> On a personal level, I HATE multibooting, it means I have to stop what
> ever I am doing to do something else. If I have a two day job running, I
> don't want to shut down my machine just to do something else. I almost
> never have just one thing running, most of the people I know are the
> same way.
Oh, I hate it, too! It's inconvenient, time-consuming, and can get to be
rather annoying when files you want are in other places than where you
expect them to be (or you can't write to the FS, like with NTFS).
> Multibooting is a DOS mentality that should not, MUST not be acceptable
> in any modern computer. If I can't accomplish a task with one operating
> system on one computer, then the OS is unacceptable.
Then I have found no acceptable operating system, by your definition.
> Nice post, but wrong. It is not limited to use only one operating
> system, it is short sighted to assume people desire/should desire to
> stop everything to do something slightly different on the same machine
> with a different OS.
I wouldn't boot into FreeBSD from NT just to type up a document in AbiWord.
I _would_ boot into FreeBSD to, say, test a program or work with something
involving servers.
I still don't think my approach is wrong, unless you can point me to one
specific OS that I will like :) (It's very, very hard... I'm very picky.)
-Evan
> Evan DiBiase wrote:
> >
> > Hey, everyone... some folks might remember me from a while back. If
not,
> > I'm just a 16-year-old who happens to have the problem (blessing in
> > disguise?) of having a hard time settling down with operating systems.
Now,
> > however, I think I've found a fairly stable mix, and I figured that I
could
> > share a few thoughts with everyone regarding it and a few other things.
> > First off, I've noticed that a lot of people (especially in Western
> > societies) have what I like to call "binary thinking." That is, in
short,
> > that things are either 1 or 0. On or off. Black or white.
> > Now, this doesn't have to be bad. There are certain cases where
clear
> > cut decisions have to be made, and I'm not saying that these shouldn't
> > happen. But all too often we tend to think "this in exclusion to that,"
and
> > basically make opposing options mutually exclusive.
> > I used to think this way in regards to operating systems. It was
either
> > Linux or NT, BeOS or FreeBSD. I would not dual-boot; my opinions would
swing
> > from "Linux is the king of operating systems!" to "NT is pretty damn
good...
> > I'm not going back to Linux, ever!" It was this binary thinking pattern:
one
> > thing at the complete exclusion of the other. It got to such a point
that I
> > was no longer looking at the operating systems; I had tried each so many
> > times that it was merely the variety that drew me.
> > I think a lot of people in the .advocacy groups are the same way.
> > Obviously, if you're from .nt.advocacy, you're not going around trying
to
> > convince people not to use NT. But that doesn't mean that advocating
Linux
> > when Linux is due is a bad thing. After all, what we're all really after
is
> > a better working electronic society, right? Of course, the same thing
goes
> > for .linux.advocacy, BeOS advocacy groups, or almost any advocacy group
you
> > can think of: suggest the right tool for the job.
> > Yeah, I know, it's been said a lot before, but why don't we take it
to
> > heart this time? Come on, admitting that NT _might_ be slightly useful
in an
> > all-Windows environment with all Microsoft products isn't the end of the
> > world. If you're advocating Windows NT, advocate what it's useful for.
If
> > it's a good workstation, say so! I think it's a great workstation. Of
> > course, I think FreeBSD, BeOS, and Linux all make great workstations,
too!
> > Would I suggest that my grandma install and administer a FreeBSD box by
> > herself? Of course not! We've got to be willing to admit that there are
> > tradeoffs to everything. There can be no Ultimate OS.
> > Perhaps that rubs some of you the wrong way. I know it will, because
> > I've seen it in so many posts and so many web sites. "Linux does
everything
> > better than NT!" Now, I like Linux. I like the Open Source concept. But
> > saying that Linux does everything for everyone is like saying that Fords
are
> > everything to everyone. My family has a Jeep, a Volvo, and a Toyota --
all
> > very different kinds of cars with very different uses. The Jeep wouldn't
be
> > used for transporting a lot of stuff like the Volvo would, and for long
car
> > trips nothing can beat the Toyota van. My parents didn't say, "Well,
Jeep is
> > the best, so we're going to buy three Jeeps!" That would be stupid. The
Jeep
> > is great for off-roading, and for having fun in. It's not what my mom
needs
> > to carpool or what my dad needs to go to work.
> > So, if we pick the "right car for the job" when we buy or drive a
car,
> > why is it that so many of us refuse to use the "right OS for the job?"
I'll
> > tell you flat out, I dual boot Windows NT4 and FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE. Why?
I
> > like the availability of applications in Windows, and I think Visual C++
is
> > a great IDE. In FreeBSD, I like playing with all the UNIX tools, and
> > learning how to do things related to servers, like designing interactive
web
> > pages with PHP or Perl. The fact of the matter is, it wouldn't be
possible
> > for me to use the Windows apps natively in FreeBSD, and I can't get a
good
> > UNIX environment in Windows. So why would I deprive myself of the
advantages
> > of both?
> > I'm not trying to tell you to dual boot, stop advocating your
favorite
> > OS, or to switch your opinions entirely. All I'm asking is that you take
the
> > time to consider the problem before you choose the solution. If you like
> > Linux a lot, look at NT, FreeBSD, and BeOS for your needs and still
think
> > Linux is the best choice and load it up as the only OS on your computer,
> > that's great! You've made a wise, concious decision based on how you
feel
> > about each OS and what it provides to you. You've found that Linux does
> > everything you need, and any tradeoffs are completely acceptable. Of
course,
> > if you want to only run Windows NT, that's fine too -- just don't go
around
> > screaming, "NT IS THE SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS" or "LINUX IS THE
SOLUTION TO
> > ALL PROBLEMS" -- they're not, and that kind of attitude is not going to
help
> > anybody out, and will, in the end, only end up hurting you.
> >
> > Please forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes; I'm usually pretty
good
> > with those kinds of things but it is, after all, 1:00 Eastern.
> >
> > -Evan
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> "We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
> lobster"
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Way off topic: Anyone see "The Sopranos?"
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:15:47 +0200
mlw wrote:
>
> Just curious, I can't help it I am addicted. Talk about a show that
> makes you root for the bad guy!
Yould you feel the same if the name of the boss was Guillermo Portale?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: InstallShield coming to Linux
Date: 10 Apr 2000 13:34:46 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"InstallShield(TM) Software Corporation and IBM (NYSE: IBM) today
>announced an agreement to work together to simplify the installation of
>applications and software on IBM platforms, creating a consistent,
>easy-to-use install experience for customers".
I wonder if it's going to be a native-code version of Installshield
or if it's going to be a j*v* monstrosity. And if it's nativecode,
I wonder how the packages are going to be formatted, and if
InstallShield will simply embrace the Redhat borg and make a
human-usable rpm packager (if they DIDN'T embrace the borg but
instead used tarballs as their package format, I'd be tempted to
switch Mastodon over to that package format and get out of the
package software business altogether. Having a pretty installer
that Someone Else writes is a fairly appealing thought, particularly
if they give a damn about portability and don't lard it up with
GNU and RHisms because that's the easy way out.)
(Yes, Adobe, I'm talking about your ``tar xfo'' here.)
____
david parsons \bi/ Expecting to see lots of whining by Linux ``advocates''
\/ who Just Don't Get It.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:22:18 GMT
In article <8ciiqs$8ug$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Don't think so. Last night I sat down to do my taxes, and since I
> don't have MS Excel, I said why don't I use the spreadsheet program on
> RH.. Well, halfway into the fray, the spreadsheet locks up and I lost
> all my work! (yeah, I know, back up..).
>
> Sure, the kernel might be stable and all that, but the graphical tools
> are as immature as Win95 or worse. The GUI side of Linux still has a
> ways to grow.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
ok, I'm the original poster and will try to respond to everyone en sum.
[1.Troll post?] No, and I apologize if it sounded like it. I was
simply very frustrated about losing two hours of work and going to bed
at 2am with nothing to show for it!
[2.Software version] I bought Linux Redhat 6.1, and installed it as a
Gnome workstation. Spreadsheet came with Gnome.
[3. Should have backed up] Yes, I know. But I'd still like to use
stable software.
[4. Why I'm not upset about Windows bugs in the same way?] When
Windows craps out on me, it's just as annoying. I'm not taking sides,
I just want to use stable software, that's all. I did believe that
Linux had an edge in it, now I'm not so sure.
[5. The spreadsheet could be early, maybe alpha or beta] Why should I
care. I bought it as part of a very recent "official release" RH Linux
and expect it to work reasonably. If it's that buggy it shouldn't have
been included in the distribution.
[6. I paid very little for it] Yes, but the nice thing about Linux was
it supposed to be very cheap, high quality software. If, in the end,
you get what you pay for, it really loses a lot of it's luster.
[7. Should try better Linux "office" products, like StarOffice]
Actually, a StarOffice CD was included in the RedHat 6.1 package.
Maybe it's more stable, but I didn't have any reason to doubt the Gnome
app. I needed just a simple spreadsheet, and functionally the Gnome app
seemed adequate. Also see [5].
[8. Why am I making blanket statements when having problem with a
single app] Shouldn't have done it, see [1]. However, I did have
numerous problems with other Gnome apps, such as Gnome-RPG and
LinuxConf - both freeze the OS regularly. Overall, the reliability
feel of Redhat Gnome is similar to early Win95. Yes, perhaps there are
some killer Linux apps out there - I retract the blanket statement and
limit it to RH 6.1 release and accompanying apps. Still not a good
thing for Linux as RedHat now stands as a major retail distributor.
[9. How do you know it locked up?] The app window didn't respond to
any input for 5 minutes.
[10. Did it lock up your X server, perhaps your X server vid card has a
problem ?] I installed Red Hat Linux 6.1. That came with the kernel,
the X-server or whatever, and the bundled apps. As a user, I really
don't care which component(s) failed. The video card works fine under
Win98. If RH didn't have the correct driver for my video card, this is
a serious problem for RH distribution, since the card didn't come with
drivers for RH as it did for Windows. Certainly not a "fault" of
Linux, but a serious hurdle to overcome in market competition, and a
major annoyance to users.
[11. Should have used KDE instead of Gnome] How could I know which was
better. See [5].
[12. Standard Windows install doesn't even include a spreadsheet]. See
[5].
I think I've covered it.. In the end, I still believe (and as some
pointed out), that the kernel is a very strong efficient OS. If I'll
want to run a server from my home, I'd still prefer Linux+Apache to
WinNT+IIS. But as a regular user, I'm disappointed in RH as a client
workstation, and hope it will improve with time, then I'll be glad to
use it.
Best regards,
Mark.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 21:22:30 GMT
In article <8ctf0o$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Smarter than you apparently so you're not even that smart. When you can
>> provide proof I'll listen.
>
>Yes yes yes...you'll be smarter than everyone you know until you actually
>(if you ever really do) have to deal with the real world and a real job.
I deal with the real world and a real job, too bad you are ignorant enough
to equate your belief system with an address.
>
>:)
>
>Then things will change very, very quickly.
>
>There are actually betting pools in my office about how long fresh grads
>will last without quitting and going back to school to escape reality.
You don't know my age and are showing yourself to be quite an idiot. A
claim was made and no proof provided. So lets see, you infer age from
the internet address and come to the aid of somebody unable to provide
proof for their claim while not providing any proof for said claim also.
So tell me what kind of job do you have that doesn't require backing up
what you say? Do you have an MSCE? Anything that requires analytical
though? If you had any balls you'd admit that you can't provide proof, in
the real world men admit when they are wrong.
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
>
------------------------------
From: Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 10 Apr 2000 22:32:18 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > What happens if you lose the root password?
> > Boot up with a floppy, change the password.
> Wow, that is secure.
To do that, you need to be physically present at the hardware. In which
case you may as well just open up the case, remove the hard disk and
take it home.
If your adversary has physical access to hardware, your only hope for
security is encryption.
However, if the server is locked away in a guarded room, then an attacker
could not get to the server to boot from floppy.
Tha above applies to all operating systems. No OS can protect from a
screwdriver. (Cryptography notwithstanding.)
Bill, responding to month old messages.
------------------------------
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 21:43:33 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Just because something *can* be built for FreeBSD, &c, doesn't mean it
> will! The effect on Mac OS X will be less, but there are a number of
> programs for FreeBSD/i386 that you can't get a native binary for, but you
> can for Linux x86. The most notable program, from a user's standpoint,
> is Netscape. There is no Netscape for FreeBSD -- but there is for Linux.
> A notable server oriented application is Oracle, which runs on Linux, not
> FreeBSD.
True. On the other hand, the notion that Linux binary support is
valuable because it means that other platforms can run closed-source
programs is highly ironic. It's an error to believe that the Linux
would is monolithic, but this circumstance does seem to represent a
conflict with the basic philosophy of Linux as a platform. :-)
Also, from a more practical standpoint...I would be very surprised if
Oracle 8i for Linux actually worked properly under the FreeBSD
Linux-binary-support layer.
> ELF binary loading would be almost useless in Mac OS X -- unless there
> also was an added x86 emulation layer (doesn't Alpha Linux have one of
> these?), as most closed source software for Linux is x86 only.
Again true, but notice that ELF binary support could be useful for
Darwin on Intel.
-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: "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 21:48:26 GMT
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> "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."
Uncooperative people can do the same thing with GPL'd software. They could
say thay were sharing information with their neighbors.
> 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.
Corbis has copyrights to digitized images of public domain art, not to the
originals. Anyone can scan the same originals. If you wanted to put Corbis
out of business, all you'd have to do is to scan the same artwork, then
release the scans to public domain.
fmc
>
> --Norm
>
------------------------------
From: Manx <[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?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 03:53:58 -0700
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > actually, it is well worth investigation, as any such claim is, just
> > > because something is unlikely, doesn't make it impossible
> >
> > Uh-huh. And some thing that is both unlikely and which comes from a crap
> > and unverifiable source is what exactly?
> >
>
> A Microsoft press release?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Ragosta
Damn that's funny! Thanks for the laugh, Joe.
Manx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
