Linux-Advocacy Digest #84, Volume #26 Tue, 11 Apr 00 23:13:34 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open Source Will Live Forever (was: GPL WILL die...Just a matter of time.......
(Mike)
Re: Why so little discussion of the Netscape 6 preview on c.o.l.a? (Mig Mig)
Re: Linux for a web developer ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: Comparison between Linux and FreeBSD! (Andy Newman)
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) (Andy Newman)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Andy Newman)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (John Jensen)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: Linux for a web developer (clyde)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (John Jensen)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article for
commentary) (John Hasler)
Re: We need an Xsetiathome!! (mlw)
Re: about alt.linux.sucks
Re: BSD & Linux (jd hendrex)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Bloody Viking)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Chris Owen")
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Chuck Swiger")
Re: BSD & Linux (Timothy Murphy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Open Source Will Live Forever (was: GPL WILL die...Just a matter of
time.......
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:04:28 GMT
One of the interesting ideas posted to os opinion is that Windows NT
might be based on Linux..... code review time......
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why so little discussion of the Netscape 6 preview on c.o.l.a?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:08:24 +0200
Cihl wrote:
> >
> > Nope... Konqueror is better :-)
> >
>
> Do you know when Konqueror will be shipped with KDE.
> I think KDE 2.0 is still far into the future.
KDE is not so far away..i think probably june or july.
If you use RedHat or Mandrakle you can find the actual release of KDE2 here
ftp://ftp.nebsllc.com/kde2/current/
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:26:37 -0400
"OOrkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u17#8y#o$GA.234@cpmsnbbsa03...
> I'm a begining web developer; what are the benefits (if any) for a web
> developer to switch from WIN98 to Linux (which distribution would u
recomend
> ?) ?
> Thanks
>
>
If you can swing it, I would recommend two computers:
One Linux box to host your sites and to test using the Linux versions of
various web browsers; and,
One Windows box to test with what most people will see your sites with:
namely, Internet Explorer.
As you progress in web development, you will learn three things:
1. Good web design is more than just blinking gifs and javascript,
2. What looks good on one browser can look like shit on another,
3. Test on as many configurations as you can get a hold of.
Always think of who is looking at your sites and with what: a great many
people still use 640x480 or 800x600 at 256 colors. And most people have slow
connections, give them something to READ while all your slick graphics are
downloading. And make sure your site still works if someone has java turned
off.
Contrary to what some here will undoubtedly say, you CAN use a graphical
tool such as FrontPage or PageMill to design content. It can make layout and
trying out new design elements a breeze. Just don't become a slave to it.
Look at your code to make sure the tool is doing the right thing.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Comparison between Linux and FreeBSD!
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:11:04 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
david parsons wrote:
> And why is this? I don't know, though I strongly suspect that, even
> with softupdates on, FreeBSD's annoying habit of forcing sync writes
> on nfs traffic is what's making nfs performance slower. In any case,
> it means that freeBSD ends up being tucked into the corners of
> my network where speed isn't all that important :-(
Well softupdates has nothing to do with NFS, but...
There was a post to freebsd-hackers recently (past week or so)
where someone had fallen over what sounds like the same issue.
The NFSv3 code was sending NFS commit ops every 64K or so. He
modified it to not do so and sped up his I/O by a factor of
three to four or so ... Quote from the mail,
Over a 1Gb/s (Alteon, Jumbo frames) link, my write bandwidth
increases from 5-8MB/sec to 17-18MB/sec when talking to a
Solaris (2.7, i86) NFS server & writing a 375MB file.
Look for the subject "reducing the number of NFSv3 commit ops"
Depending on the disk system attached to the server machine the
17-18MB/s doesn't sound too bad for what it's doing. A machine
I built up with Linux s/w RAID 5 over 9 disks only gets double that
for local bulk writes of comparably sized files (1GB or so) but
I suspect it's limited by the PCI bus and the RAID 5 need to do
a multiple ops (must say though the throughput on the beast is
great [~ 60MB/s reading] although some of the kernel "issues" :)
drove me nutso for a while when it kept taking out the RAID array).
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:00:52 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
..all sorts of interesting observations...
>[10] CreateProcess() is interesting, too. Unlike Unix's fork/exec
>paradigm, processes spawned off by CreateProcess() do not become
>zombies if the parent forgets to wait for them, or exits prior
>to their completion. (I think this issue is no longer prevalent,
>however, on Linux. I'll have to check, though.) But it sure has
>a lot of arguments... :-)
Other ways are to ignore SIGCHLD to ignore your children. Or
double-fork and force the grandchild to be re-parented by
init which does all the work for you. But as you say it has
"a lot of arguments", like other routines (is it CreateFileEx?).
But lots of arguments, that take care of moderately rare situations
leads to bigger programs and harder to test system code (more input
combinations to test). And it still can't do some useful things.
While it's true you very often exec after a fork sometimes you
don't want to, the spawn i/f makes writing certain types of things
very hard. Fork/exec is both simpler and more flexible but at some cost.
>Is it any wonder that, with this sort of philosophy, that Windows
>NT requires 32 megs of virtual memory just sitting there?
Not at all. System architecture is so, so, very important. Plan 9
is nicer than Unix in this respect. Fewer abstractions but can do
things other systems make you jump through hoops to accomplish. As
far as design goes it is lovely.
>Socket programming is somewhat peculiar, too, although it's
>not as bad; the main thing missing is a socket() call; one has
>to use WSASocket() instead, which returns, bizarrely enough,
>an unsigned value; one has to check for INVALID_SOCKET rather
>than merely < 0 (I guess Windows NT expects to support 4
>billion file handles per process someday :-) ).
Agggh. Don't talk to me about WinSock! About five years ago
I was writing a TCP/IP implementation as part of a network
printer prototype our lab built (I did the architecture and
wrote a big chunk of the kernel) for ages I kept getting
reports that my code was broken when talking to Windows clients.
Connection resets at odd times etc... After battling with the
people writing the client-side code it turns out to be the
client s/w (which they had copied from my Unix-based code).
WinSock had (possibly still has) this "nice" feature of sending
a TCP reset when you don't drain the input upon a TCP half-close.
In BSD you just "close(socket);" and the system does everything
for you. In WinSock you have to recv() (no read for sockets as
there is no single stream like i/f presented by the system) until
you force the reception of the peer's close and then you can
closesocket. Otherwise it sends a RST segment which my printer-side
server code interpretered, correctly, as the client going away and
terminated their job. Total PITA. It is plausible however that
the programmer may want to do what WinSock allows but it is very
rare but WinSock forces all programs to deal with it and add the
little bit of extra code to handle the far more common case. This
style being applied to the N-thousand functions in the API adds
up quickly.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:14:09 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Mitchell wrote:
>Are there M3 compilers in the gnu world that are up to the task?
>
> At least three processor targets.
Not the gnu world but look at,
http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/modula-3/html/home.html
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 11 Apr 2000 22:31:06 GMT
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: QNX? QNX!?
: Sorry. That's one of the most absurd things I've heard. Ever. Exactly
: how is Linux like QNX? QNX's two big selling point are "real time" and
: "true microkernel architecture." Neither of these have anything to do
: with Linux.
I've used QNX. I like QNX. I owe a few years of fat contracts to QNX,
but ...
: Actually, Darwin is much more like QNX than Linux.
Don't forget the realtime Linux initiatives(*). They must be impacting QNX
even now, and as they improve they can only impact it more. It will be
interesting to see how and when QNX chooses to respond.
John
* - as good a place to start as any -> http://www.realtimelinux.org
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:36:08 +1000
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> QNX? QNX!?
>
> Sorry. That's one of the most absurd things I've heard. Ever. Exactly
> how is Linux like QNX? QNX's two big selling point are "real time" and
> "true microkernel architecture." Neither of these have anything to do
> with Linux.
Don't forget "incredibly small memory footprint". Compared to QNX, Linux is
a bloated pig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 11 Apr 2000 22:33:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>> : Thankfully, its been decided that the databases on that box be switched
>> : to UNIX; probably solaris. We wont have this problem again.
>>
>> Excellent choice. Can't go wrong w/Solaris && Oracle, that is, unless
>> you've got retards running the systems (like a certain large auction site).
> Another plus being if the box does get into a braindead state for some reason,
> if you have remote access to your network, and a proper (and secure) way to get
> to the serial port of the server, you'll be able to do any admin work you need
> just as if you were sitting at the box (except in the _very_ rare instance of
> the Sun not responding at the prom level either).
Thats what bootboxes are for...:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:48:05 -0400
From: clyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
OOrkis wrote:
> I'm a begining web developer; what are the benefits (if any) for a web
> developer to switch from WIN98 to Linux (which distribution would u recomend
> ?) ?
> Thanks
checkout this, it's in beta now, but it's ok.
http://www.jp.ibm.com/esbu/E/toppage/index2.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
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: 11 Apr 2000 22:22:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, i understand your concern but you have it wrong.
>
>See I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to
>work in computer security at the NSA.
>
>According to this indivual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors"
>into the Linux OS were discussed.
>I can not personally vouch for the accuracy of this information, but thought
>that it might deserve to be spammed and trolled as far and wide for purely
>anti-Linux purposes.
>At this meeting, it was explained that Linus had secretly coded two
>"backdoor" protocols in the TCP/IP stack of Linux but wrote the remarks in
>Finish so no one could decode them and changing the work of a living god is
>prohibited and peer review of such a diety is not even necessary.
Thank you very much for this post, Drestin. Although your little game of
reverse psychology is funny at best, it clearly shows the value of open
source software. See, it is possible for Microsoft or another closed
source vendor to place a backdoor into their program and there would be
no way of knowing that until it is far too late. It would also be
possible for Linux or another open source system to be backdoored, but
this would be noticed *very* soon. As a matter of fact, this happened in
real life. Someone cracked the win.tue.nl ftp site and replaced the tcp
wrapper tarballs with trojaned versions that would send a mail with
sensitive information to some hotmail account when used. Within hours
this was all over Bugtraq and for all we know, nobody used the trojaned
version unintentionally.
Now some people will dig up the old anecdote about Ken Thompson who
compiled a backdoor into /bin/login and also backdoored the C compiler
to recognize compilation of login.c or itself. Please note that this is
only possible when you have only a single source for C compilers. This
might have been true in the early '70s, but it sure isn't now.
Bottomline is, if you value the integrity of your data, you rely on open
source software, period. There's no second best.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
I wonder why half the world is crying, while the other half of the
world is crying too...
-- Janis Joplin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
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: 11 Apr 2000 21:24:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:..(.pointless blather snipped)....
>> > Considering that the TCP/IP stack is simply a translator that takes
>> > raw data and sends it to applications that request it, this makes
>> > no sense.
I've seen you post pretty clever stuff before, but here you're sounding
pretty stupid.
The Microsoft TCP/IP stack is closed source, so you have no idea what
hooks are attached to it. They could e.g. trigger a backdoor if some
received frame answeres to specific constrains, and there is no way of
knowing short of sniffing the network. If someone would accidentally
activate the trigger, the TCP part of the protocol would easily take
care of retrying the frame. Would you be somehow able to *prove* to me
that this is not the case? I thought not.
>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.
Telnet does not work with all sockets, only TCP/IP sockets (check rfc854
for details).
>
>> > Neither situation makes any sense. Considering the lack of any
>> > sense and the anonymous nature of the source, It's safe to say that
>> > this is pure bullshit.
>>
>> Yes, your post IS complete bullshit...
>
>Your assertion that telnet is part of the TCP/IP stack is. Here's a hint.
>The tcp/ip stack on Unix is part of the kernel. If the telnet daemon were
>part of the kernel, you couldn't start it or stop it and it wouldn't run in
>it's own process and in it's own address space. The same is true of Windows
>2000 and NT.
Here's a hint to you. Starting and stopping a telnet daemon that would
be running in kernel space would be as easy as echoing a string to a
file in the /proc filesystem, just as turning IP forwarding on or off is
as easy as "echo x > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward" where x is either 0
or 1.
/me wonders how the kernel space http daemon in Linux kernel 2.3.x is
stopped or started... ;-)
And now a challenge. According to your definitions of the "TCP/IP
stack", should a userspace firewall (like Checkpoint's FW1) be
considered part of the TCP/IP stack? How about a network sniffer? How
about Wietse Venema's tcp wrappers and how about inetd?
If your state that neither of these are, because they are not part of
the kernel, then I suppose that the kernel space http daemon in 2.3.x is
part of the TCP/IP stack?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
In a small way, [Richard Stallmans] ideas seem to coincide with
Microsoft's ideas, of computing, [...]
-- Stephen S. Edwards II in <83i1m1$phs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 11 Apr 2000 23:10:21 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Nifty, although you have to do a fair amount of fiddling to get
: > it working. Wonder how well this works under load?
: You have to do a fair amount of fiddling to get it working under Linux
: as well. :)
I've been doing a bit of fiddling as well. I did some work with a simple
PIII 500 w/ ATA disk and the $99 Oracle for Linux by Macmillian. That
worked surprisingly well - once I got a little ways up the Oracle learning
curve. That earned me a new box (2x600 PIII, 1G, RAID-0 w/ 4x10K RPM
drives) and more problems. The ProLiant needed a kernel patch from Compaq
for the Smart Array RAID, and then the full-blown Enterpise set of Oracle
CDs needed a patch from Oracle. (Oracle7 OCI calls were not correct in
libclntsh.so.8.0)
I think I can get going again.
John
------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:41:45 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
<snip>
>>
>>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.
>I didn't say that I trusted Microsoft, nothings been proven though. The
>simplest way to see if you been compromised is to look for traffic on the
>wire that isn't part of your normal operation. If somebody is sitting on a
>port listening that you haven't setup they probably don't belong.
You misunderstand the thinking of military/national security. The problem is
knowing exactly what is compromised, or what can be compromised -- and not
just that it happened.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article for
commentary)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:02:42 GMT
Donovan writes:
> IMO, where Marx really screwed up was with the idea that a "class war" <
> was necessary or even desirable.
"Class war" is just a euphemism for "kill the rich and take their money",
an idea that's been around for millennia. It's only a good idea for those
few who are clever, murderous, and lucky enough to end up in the new ruling
class. It's a negative sum game that always makes the poor poorer.
> The countries that come closest to getting what Marx wanted are leftist
> democracies, and the changes were evolutionary ( as opposed to
> revolutionary ) and invariably came about by way of a democratic process.
"Democratic government" is as much of an oxymoron as "communist country".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: We need an Xsetiathome!!
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:33:05 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> It already exists in various and sundry forms, including a windowmaker
> docapp.
>
> You should have really known that. :)
>
> -----yttrx
WHERE???
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: about alt.linux.sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:53:29 GMT
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:41:39 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've got alt.linux.sucks in my subscriptions, but
>there have been no additional posts for the last
>several days. Is something wrong with my ISP, or
>doesn't Linux 'suck' anymore!
No. Just you.
------------------------------
From: jd hendrex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:01:43 -0500
Bloody Viking wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : You are obviously so new to the game that you don't know what you're
> : missing: the ethic you describe of writing free software has been
> : going on for a lot longer than that.
>
> But Linus popularised the GNU ideology.
Hi all,
Linus wrote the kernel (and still maintains) and put it out for others...
Richard Stalman (MIT) started the GNU movement with a printer driver...
Thousands of others the entire world over have since contributed...
And the beat goes on...
later, 8>)
john
<"Socrates is said to have spent his latter years proving his hypothesis;
`Most people confuse their opinion and fact'" -jdh>
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:18:52 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I also don't think that those things should be illegal. I think it should
: remain illegal, however, and the illegality entail sever punishment if you
: _do_ take force with the knife, say. As long as you don't, what do I care
: that you are threatening me? I can just walk around you.
But Microsoft DOES use the threat of violence to maintain its monopoly
thanks to the copyright laws making the government into a violence server.
You use warez. Now, you are under threat of violence in the form of law
enforcement. The government acts as the violence proxy due to the laws and
Microsoft's abuse of them. Microsoft needn't have its own army to use
violence or the threat thereof to maintain its monopoly. Ever read an
EULA? Violate it, and yep, your legs can get broken by the men in blue.
It's just that the government is the violence server.
The point is that Microsoft's monopoly is a direct result of bugs in the
laws and them exploiting them like a hacker.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: "Chris Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 01:36:47 +0100
==========
In article <8d095o$m2t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> QNX? QNX!?
>>
>> Sorry. That's one of the most absurd things I've heard. Ever. Exactly
>> how is Linux like QNX? QNX's two big selling point are "real time" and
>> "true microkernel architecture." Neither of these have anything to do
>> with Linux.
He was simply making the point that if you want to use an OS as a benchmark
for efficiency, QNX is a better benchmark than Linux.
Whatever it's 'selling points' are is immaterial. From a technological point
of view, it proves that Linux isn't always the ultimate goal, and we can
learn alot from more minority OSes.
I don't see anything absurd about that.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:51:09 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Marcel Weiher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> But Darwin is the OS foundation of MacOSX, so the question is quite
>> valid.
>
> Near as I can tell, Darwin is OS X with all the interesting and compelling
> bits removed.
I think Mach is pretty nifty. So is NetInfo. So is Apple's
Objective-C runtime (part of the gcc/gdb/binutils packages).
-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] (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: 12 Apr 2000 02:00:16 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) writes:
>But if you were a commercial site, a Unix source license [the only kind
>there was until ~1980] was (IIRC) $25k *per CPU*!!!
I don't recall there being a commercial version of Unix in 1980.
It was my understanding that AT&T were not allowed to enter the software market
at that time (and IBM was not allowed to enter the telephone market).
Am I mistaken?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 086-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
