Linux-Advocacy Digest #75, Volume #26 Tue, 11 Apr 00 13:13:25 EDT
Contents:
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Ziya Oz)
Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark ("Jim Ross")
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bill Gates on T.V. (Mike Marion)
Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious! ("Jim Ross")
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Truckasaurus)
We need an Xsetiathome!! (mlw)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jim Dabell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
From: Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:23:24 GMT
Rex Riley wrote:
> 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.
What "new capabilities and new services never before seen on the face of
this planet " have been enabled by Linux? And why can't these "new
capabilities and new services" be enabled by Mac OS X or Windows or some
other OS? Just because these OSes are owned by a single corporation?
> Linux has potential to scale innovation wider.
How so?
I hear Mac OS X has the "potential" to cure cancer. How can you dispute
that?
> 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.
I didn't realize that the sole impediment to "more wealth creation" was the
cost of the OS.
> 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.
Well, let's visit history, with just two prominent examples: PostScript
absolutely changed world (of design, publishing, printing, typography and
video graphics). It wasn't free. Windows changed the world (by creating a
cheap enough standard to expand the desktop market zillion-fold). It wasn't
free.
> 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.
What great risk was taken by, say, VA Linux or Caldera that "no one else had
done before"?
> Linux is good...
And imitation is the sincerest form of...
****
Ziya
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:25:07 -0400
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8cl3u2$cei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8ck0i7$q3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > >
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> Ha ha...You can't!
> > >>
> > >> The Linux crowd runs and hides ever time the word "benchmark" is
> > >> mentioned.
> > >
> > >This is a benchmark using NetBench 5.01 in a typical configuration
> > >of both Linux and NT.
> > >http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2196106,00.html
> > >
> > >Microsoft spent 6 months trying to come up with a benchmark
> > >that favored Microsoft and came out with the mindcraft benchmarks.
> >
> >
> > We are going to be seeing fewer and fewer of these benchmark comparisons
> > bettween Linux and Windows in the future as Linux ports on hardware like
> the
> > S/390's become widespread. Companies like Mindcraft and magazines like
PC
> > Mag don't have the knowlege or the skills to deal with Linux and this
kind
> > of hardware.
> >
>
> oh - that is funny - that is REALLY funny. And, say, I thought linvocates
> tell us that any system running Linux is so much cheaper (cause according
to
> them the cost of the OS makes up 92% of the TCO of the system) that I'm
sure
It's an important part of the price. So is licensing which also heavily
favors Linux.
So does stability.
MS now admits NT 4.0 was unstable now that they can point to Windows 2000.
Licensing ensures that MS will be a costly platform.
> PC Mag and Mindcraft can afford the hardware.
It's doesn't matter what the reason they don't benchmark the systems, they
just don't.
And as for the knowledge or
> skills - the last time Mindcraft invited the best Linux people to it's own
> labs linux STILL lost huge. Who do you need to tune linux before it'll
work;
> a personal visit from linus?
Still does that change the fact if the benchmark were constructed to favor
NT?
I also feel that NT was/is willing to sell its sole to get speed.
Stability is not something to be traded off so easily for a "server OS".
Maybe for a desktop OS, not a server OS.
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 02:09:23 -0500
Grant Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
The consent decree specifically allowed them to do what they are being
accused of.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 02:10:24 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:49:15 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >And if you read further down the faq, you'll see that Be doesn't want
to
> >> >open itself up to a reverse engineering lawsuit. Remember, apple is
the
> >>
> >> I'm certainly glad that Compaq and Phoenix didn't cop this attitude.
> >
> >Actually, you should be glad the IBM wasn't lawsuit happy in the early
80's.
> >They would have had a very strong case.
>
> Actually, it was.
They were still fighting with the DOJ at the time and were not all that
lawsuit happy. What's more, they didn't really care much about the PC
market, considering it to be a "fad".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 02:12:36 -0500
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8csk5o$u8s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Actually, in virtually every case of being questioned, he's back peddled
from his earlier statements and changed them when called out.
Just do a search under Deja on Rex's name and the phrase "True, but..."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 02:28:07 -0500
Try this one:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicrosoftCryptoAPI
If you don't know who the author is, then you know nothing of cryptography.
David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Freedom of speech. He didn't break any laws. It's all over the place!!!!
>
> http://homepage.tinet.ie/~muintc/hackal.htm
>
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Microsoft_Windows_contains_a_cryptogr
aphic_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
>
> It was Microsoft that broke treaties and violated the law by exporting
this technology.
>
>
> John Orwen wrote:
>
> > What you are describing is as much a violation of existing communication
act
> > laws for the fbi, cia, irs, or ssc as it is for the average citizen.
> >
> > 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?
>
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates on T.V.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:23:31 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> Since Microsoft has been convicted of an actual crime under the
> Sherman Act. Microsoft is hoping to somehow overturn the convictions.
I think that's the whole point of that ad... Nice Ol' Bill coming standing up in
front of the whole nation telling us his story. They're just a group of
dreamers who took a chance and made some great products... now the big old mean
gov't is out to get them. This would be bad for every American citizen, so
please... you should like Bill and his friends and help keep the gov't off his
back.
Of course, this makes me ill. MS products have never been the best and they
either stole us just bought most of it, they had _nothing_ to do with PCs being
cheap (that was due to cloning), and they've put competition out of business. I
hope they get the worst done to them.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"HTML [e-]mail... the 90's equivalent of letters on scented stationary." --Dan
Foygel 3 Jun 1998
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious!
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:33:53 -0400
SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have to agree with you. Currently, I dual boot both Win98 and Linux
> but I use Linux most of the time.
>
> I first tried Linux with Redhat 5.0 since I mainly use Unix (Sun) at
> work. But I had such a hard time getting it installed that I quickly
> deleted it and went back to Windows. A year later I tried it again with
> Mandrake 6.0 on the same machine. This was a much better experience and
> I'm still using Mandrake today (7.0).
>
> I think the reason most people are happy with Microsoft is because they
> don't know any different. Microsoft has brainwashed everyone into
> thinking crashes and reboots are exceptable. I used to just put up with
> it but now I can't stand Win98 crashing on me multiple times a day. So
> I'm weaning myself off of Microsoft products. Unfortunately, I still
> need Windows for certain tasks.
>
> For one, Microsoft does offer the better web browsing experience.
> Netscape is very buggy and will hopefully be fixed with Mozilla (I
> haven't had a chance to try it yet). Plus virtually every plugin works
> with IE and I can just install a new one with a click of a button. I
> once bent over backwards to get RealPlayer to work with Netscape in
> Linux and still it only worked half the time until I upgraded to
> Mandrake 7.0. I have to browse in Windows to watch any Quicktime or
> Winmedia files. I occasionally like to download a new movie trailer
> like the new "Lord of the Rings" trailer and I can't get Quicktime for
> Linux. Things are changing but for now, Windows provides the much
> better browsing experience, except for the occasional crash.
>
> Another important app for me and one that gets mentioned here often is
> tax software like Quicken. Yea, I could do them the old fashioned way
> by hand but why when there are great tools like this available.
> Fortunately, tax time only comes once a year but I'll have to keep Win98
> available for this purpose until a solution comes around for Linux.
>
> So I prefer Linux and its stability, configurability and versatility,
> but unfortunately its still missing some key apps. Although I seriously
> doubt I make the jump to Win2000, I have to keep Windows around until
> some glaring desktop holes get filled in Linux.
>
> Oh on a side note, I also use NT 4.0 at work for email and word
> processing and I seldom have any problems.
>
> --Sam
>
Basically Win9X is "good enought" for most people.
For the rest NT usually does the job.
I think people are willing to suffer virtually anything to get
compatibility. Then ease of use.
People therefore usually don't care about alternative OSes.
Getting the "de facto" standard to be an "open" standard like Linux would be
the best of both worlds.
I'm not sure Linux can unite on the scale necessary.
Seems almost impossible at this point.
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:01:40 GMT
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:23:24 GMT, Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rex Riley wrote:
>> 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.
>
>What "new capabilities and new services never before seen on the face of
>this planet " have been enabled by Linux? And why can't these "new
>capabilities and new services" be enabled by Mac OS X or Windows or some
>other OS? Just because these OSes are owned by a single corporation?
NeXT/2000 and Windows aren't efficient enough or cheap enough.
QNX, the OS you should really be comparing Linux to in this
area, has the efficiency part down better than Linux but is
expensive.
[deletia]
While this by itself isn't innovative (really), it does allow
those system integrators who might innovate with some embedded
device tighter margins.
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:28:57 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>>>> > 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.
>>
>>Wrong: M$ tried not to admit it, but they left in evidence in a service pack
>>for NT4 and they did admit it.
>Provide a link to them admitting to providing a backdoor for the government.
Use your head.
There are a number of places that provide information on the keys. The keys
are there and it is not disputable. The only thing that can be disputed if
whether M$ did for M$, or for the government.
But note three things;
The security guys will never tell us all the details -- its against the rules.
The US military is using WinNT for a number of activities where classified
information is involved. They need a method to detect systems that have been
compromised.
...An old guy who use have a Top Secret/Crypto Access/Spec. Cat clearance and
saw lots of CIA/NSA/Mil. Intelligence stuff.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:35:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:57:24 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ain't it a riot?
>
>
>These nuts actually believe in this shit.
>
>And worse yet, their collective sorry assed geek souls think that
>others in the free world are interested in this tripe.
>
>It is HYSTERICAL!!!!!!
You've never driven a stick before, have you? :-)
Yes, pointy pointy clicky clicky is easy, for the first time user
wanting to do simple stuff, like finding a file by name.
That's how it should be. Linux falls down in this respect;
I frankly admit it; Windows is much easier for that simple task.
('locate', is, however, an adequate substitute. It's not clear,
at least at a first glance, whether 'locate' is easily locatable,
but once located, it's useful.)
Now, try something a little harder, like finding all files which
have expired in the last 7 days, are not empty, and are owned by
a particular user. (Um...wait, Windows 9x doesn't know who owns what!
Windows NT does, though.)
Use the GUI. Show all work. :-)
>
>
>Steve
>
>
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:43:54 -0400, "Drestin Black"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8cj1vb$14an$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > Then why not do this 'benchmark' on a Windows 2000 machine with the
>>indexing
>>> > service running. Find ANY file (or files or folders) in under a second
>>every
>>> > time, including text within most file types and based on dates, size,
>>> > attributes, keywords, summary, copyrights, versions, whatever. A fully
>>> > indexed file system... hows locate compare now?
>>>
>>> cd /
>>> find * | cat >> biglist
>>> alias locate=grepinbig
>>>
>>> (grepinbig)
>>> grep -i $input /biglist | less
>>>
>>> That was really...ummm...
>>>
>>> Hard.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm sorry but I look at all that crap you just wrote and think - someone
>>actually thinks that's easy? That someone would actually WANT to type all
>>that crap in? That someone would wanna do that when they could just click in
>>a little search box and hit "search" and get the results instantly. And be
>>able to see them all on the screen at once and actually be able to do things
>>with the result set on the screen... that's easy? better?
>>
>>No, sorry... no way.
>>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:38:44 +0200
> Given Darwin is Open Source, it is certainly doable to add ELF binary
> support to MacOS X and provide the hooks so that ldd looks for the
> Linux shared libs.
Darwin != MacOSX
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:12:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Truckasaurus wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob Lyday wrote:
> > >
> > > > Shell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (redrum) writes:
> > > > > >I already believe that Linux runs on Intel architecture
chips.
> > I'm not
> > > > > >sure if they have a good GUI or not, but it's really needed
to
> > succeed.
> > > > > >Computer makers have been bullied by M$ into putting only
> > Windows on
> > > > > >their PCs. If they can get those agreements invalidated
under the
> > > > > >antitrust ruling, then they'll be free to put whatever they
want
> > on
> > > > > >their PCs. Windows runs 95% of PCs now because people will
buy
> > what is
> > > > > >common. M$ snagged the market early so that when Joe Blow
went
> > out to
> > > > > >buy his first PC, he saw that they all were running Windows
so
> > he said
> > > > > >why not. But if a good number of Linux PCs come out with a
good
> > GUI and
> > > > > >Windows compatible apps, people will look into them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Amiga and Macintosh had a chance to do this back in the
> > 1980's when the
> > > > > PC was relatively uncommon in the home market. It didn't
happen,
> > despite
> > > > > Commodore actually having the largest share of the home
market in
> > the early
> > > > > 80's.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and M$ pre-loading agreements had nothing to do with it!
> > > > Too bad we aren't running Amiga and Mac now, it'd be a better
> > > > world...
> > > > >
> > > > > There are forces at work here far more powerful that
Microsoft,
> > far more
> > > > > powerful than the Computer makers unwillingness to waste their
> > time putting
> > > > > other software on the machines.
> > > >
> > > > If they can sell the box, why is it a waste of time? And they
> > > > can...
> > > >
> > > > That force is the consumer, woe be it to
> > > > > him who defies the will of the consumer.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, M$ has made a career of it, Stevie, how come they don't get
> > > > their due?
> > >
> > > You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? Steve Sheldon
had
> > it right on
> > > the nose - there are forces at play here that are truely far more
> > powerful than
> > > either Microsoft, or its detractors. And these forces are
ESPECIALLY
> > more powerful
> > > than the detractors are.
> >
> > Yeah, Jodie Foster told me to buy Windows, my dog told me to buy
> > Windows, the UFOs told me to buy Windows, and the voices inside my
> > radiator told me to buy Windows... ;-)
> >
>
> Spare me the sarcasm. BEsides, Jodie won't talk to me, my dog really
likes
> Windows, I haven't seen any UFO's, and I drowned the voices in my
radiator
> <grin>.
>
> > It's a combination of things:
> > Is Sony the only manufacturer of Walkmen?
> > Is the "Wright Brothers Aviation Company" the only aeroplane
> > manufacturer?
> > Is IBM the only manufacturer of PC's?
> >
> > No!
> >
> > Being first, and being present is not enough to maintain a monopoly.
> > But it's a very good platform for building a monopoly.
>
> Very True.
>
> >
> >
> > Closed standards will kill off competetion, open standards make it
> > thrive. Windows advocates often mention that Bill Gates/MS made PCs
> > affordable and easy to handle. That might be true.
> > But isn't it time, that this powerful tool that controls so many
> > aspects of society is given a chance to develop in a way that is not
> > controlled by one single company (one single man?) ?
>
> Not if it means an open standard that generates variants that have
> incompatibilities with each other. I think that's the fear with some
people.
Then "some people" should get their heads of their... then these people
should have a look at the _real_ world.
Incompatibilities may be bad in some short term environment. But in the
real (open) world, darwinism is a major player:
Can you cross breed a camel with a dog?
No.
Most people have dogs, so I guess since a camel and a dog are
incompatible, the camel is useless, and the dog is best in some absolute
way?!?
No.
Some tasks are better solved with a dog (hunting/guarding), and some
tasks are better performed with a camel (transportation through desert).
The simple survival of an OS/species defines its right to exist - and
Linux will exist as long as people use it. Windows wil exist as long as
it is profitable (or, if it is made open source, as long as people use
it).
So as long as _I_ use Linux, Linux will exist - I am in charge of the
existence of my OS, which is pretty cool if you think about it - and
I got it for almost free.
I'm not saying that Win* doesn't have a right to exist, it probably will
maintain a high level of acceptance (>60% of desktop users), but as soon
as Win* market share drops below 40-50%, there is _no_ reason for using
Win*, since it's main strength is "Most people I know use it".
And calling Linux... whatever the average Winvocate is calling it... is
not very smart. It has the right to exist, simply because it exists.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: We need an Xsetiathome!!
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:52:30 -0400
I have the Windows version of setiathome running on my NT box. I have to
say, I think it is fairly cool to watch. I would like to see a KDE or
GNOME version of that, what do you think?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:52:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Browne wrote:
> b) Postscript is entirely unsuitable as a word processing format because
> its purpose is for rendition of graphics, and the only intended "reader"
> of PS data is the set of utilities that render it for display/print.
I believe he meant to say "document distribution format" rather than "word
processor format", in which case ps/pdf would be pretty good.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:45:55 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
[snip]
> >If your adversary has physical access to hardware, your only hope for
> >security is encryption.
>
> Indeed. Although I do wonder how a Linux system can boot with an
> encrypted filesystem -- presumably, it can be done, though; the
> kernel would have to ask for a pass-phrase at some point.
>
> Anyone know? :-)
Off the top of my head, I suppose I'd use the intl kernel patch, and set
up an initrd to mount the encrypted filesystem (with user-supplied
passwd). From a security point of view, I guess it's insecure in that
the initrd can be overwritten with something that logs the password, but
it'll stop a single attack, and the encrypted filesystem scripts can
always check the initrd for mods.
But this would be a false sense of security, in that once you lose
physical security, you have no security. Think keyboard pass-through
cables that log your keystrokes, video cameras, etc. IMHO, if you have
to worry about physical security so much that a decent security system
isn't enough, then you are in .mil or .gov, and deserve some cool
classified tech to protect yourself :)
How does Windows achieve root FS encryption? Or don't they tell you?
Jim
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
