Linux-Advocacy Digest #189, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 06:14:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: RHCE (Mohamed Sentissi)
Re: LILO saves the day (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Adams Klaus-Georg)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Adams Klaus-Georg)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Adam Warner")
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: BSD & Linux (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: BSD & Linux (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: BSD & Linux (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (Truckasaurus)
Re: BSD & Linux (Philip Homburg)
Re: Vehical Comparisons (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Richard Watson)
Guess How Many Windows Crashes.... (CG)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Joseph)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("Robert L.")
Re: LNUX below 30 ("Robert L.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mohamed Sentissi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RHCE
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:48:24 -0600
Salamou Alaikoum
I was just wondering if a BS student in computer science -me-, who is very
intersted in linux -Redhat in particular- could take this exam, I have
experience just from my curosity and my 3 computers home network. I never
really worked as a system administrator for a large network .
What could a RHCE advice me with??? take a shot to the exam or spend the
money in the BARS. :)
I am preparing for it for the moment but is it really worth it right
now????
Thanks
Shalom
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> If anyone is looking for an sample test for the RHCE exam that they can
> actually use, try looking at:
>
> http://www.rhce2b.com
>
> I built a sample test using basic html forms and a couple of perl
> scripts. Feel free to add test questions (but don't add any questions
> that are copywrighted by anyone else.)
>
> Randy
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Frank Pittel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy TARogue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : On 11 Mar 2000 16:28:08 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > : scribbled something about Re: RHCE:
> > :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy S. Christopher Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > : I bought the Red Hat Certified Engineer Linux Study Guide, by
> Syngress
> > : Media, Inc., distributed by Osbourne/McGraw Hill. The first thing I
> > : tried to do was take the practice exam to find my strengths and
> > : weaknesses. Unfortunately, the test, though written in HTML, was
> written
> > : to by used by Internet Explorer.
> >
>
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: LILO saves the day
Date: 19 Apr 2000 06:21:31 GMT
>
>In any case, Win95 couldn't possibly trash a drive to the point where it
>required a LLF, unless the drive itself had a problem to begin with.
Give it a chance.
It would be nice if there would be some standard means for a LLF of IDE
drives-- I wonder if that could have quick-fixed a drive with bad sectors (as
it used to do for my old 20M MFM MiniScribe)
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: 19 Apr 2000 08:15:10 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M. Kuchling) writes:
[... why Solaris ships with crappy tools ...]
> The fix was to install and use GNU sed, which worked correctly. Now,
> what does Solaris gain from having a buggy version of sed, and having
> to repair this bug themselves, when simply including GNU sed would
> solve the problem for them?
But any admin worth is salt will install the GNU tools on his machine,
be it Linux (ok, not necesarry), Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, OS/390 USS. Most
of the time they are simply better than the default
implementations. They are compatible on all machines they run
on. Think make for example. Think about the hell a Makefile writer has
to go through because every vendor has incompatible extensions over
the (admittedly crappy) POSIX standard here. You install GNU make on
all machines, ranging from DOS over WinXX or OS/2 over Solaris, AIX up
to the Mainframe running OS/390. Instant portability of Makefiles and
a happy build manager :-)
The point is I don't care about bad tools in standard unix
implementations. I just install GNU tools when they start bugging
me. I have the choice because I have the source.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[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: 19 Apr 2000 08:05:46 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
[...]
> Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
> personally know looded at the Linux Source?
I do so nearly daily. I looked at the implementation of device drivers
for Linux on Mainframe, because I'm interested in the technology. I
fixed an SMP race for the tokenring card I'm using in one of our
servers (the same day incidently the author release a patch for this
:-(
What was your point?
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:34:33 +1200
Hi Rob,
I've enjoyed your comments and the staking of a year's salary that there are
no intentional backdoors in Debian (frankly, I hope you feel the same about
Redhat).
What's your view on the Dansie shopping cart
backdoor?http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/archive.pike?list=1&date=200
0-04-08&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The backdoor may have been in there quite a while. I understand the script
may have been compacted to make it difficult to understand (by letting all
the lines run together) but by its very nature the script would have been
open source ASCII.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:54:02 -0500
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Then how come nobody DOES guarantee it? Are you willing to put up say,
your
> >yearly salary that no backdoors have ever or will never be in any Linux
> >distribution?
>
> OK, I'll bite. Let me give you a couple of streets headstart. I am
> willing to put up my yearly salary that not a single program of the main
> stable Debian distribution (v 2.1 aka "slink") contains an exploitable
> backdoor (backdoor meaning an *intensional* security breach to gain
> unlawful access to remote data), if and only if you are willing to put
> up your yearly salary that there is no exploitable backdoor (see meaning
> above) in only IIS and Exchange Server (current NT4/W2K versions,
> standard installs).
Why would I do that? I didn't claim that it's impossible for NT to have any
backdoors. You, however, did claim that all linux distributions are
guaranteed to not have any.
In fact, such a backdoor did exist in red hat not too long ago (within the
last 18 months). A binary distribution of Red Hat on a mirror site had been
compromised and had a back doored file installed into it.
You cannot choose any specific version of Linux. Your statements claimed
that it was impossible for a back door to exist in any linux distribution.
> >Also, if the peer review process is so good, why are new buffer overrun
> >errors found so often in this peer reviewed code? It should be bug-free,
> >right?
>
> I never said that. Buffer overflows are unintentional programming
> errors. With a backdoor, you need to add several lines of code to be
> able to just check the constrains for enabling the backdoor. A buffer
> overflow generally means that the programmer *forgot* to either check or
> initialize the data that's being placed in an array.
The point is that if this peer review process is so good, such buffer
overruns would never make it into a distribution. They would be caught. If
a programmer forgot to check something, someone else would have found it.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:17:14 +0200
> I'm surprised at the way Minix has been written out of history.
> Linux started life as a Minix variant, in effect.
Linux was never a Minix-Variant, it started to be developed
on Minix, but it does not/never contain any Minix-Stuff.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:19:07 +0200
> Tanenbaum already had a far more interesting system: Amoeba. Unfortunately
> with many new performance problems.
Well to me Amoeba is nothing (realy) different from a clustered unix ...
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.os.qnx
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:23:02 +0200
> In that flamewar Linus asserted that microkernels are just a fad,
> and they're going to be slower than monolithic kernels.
>
> Personally, I am not sure about this. Have any of you guys tried QNX demo
> disk at http://qnx.com/iat/index.html ?
Well QNX is realy nice ... but is not the same as an Unix.
I am thinking of virtual-memory etc. As Linux said Micro-kernels are
'fad' he has a 'complete' (unix)system in mind.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 06:51:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For once I agree with you, Drestin. Simply being open source is not
> a guarantee of security. I would like to add to that and say that
being
> closed source means there can *never* be a guarantee of security
becuase
> you can *never* see the code.
This is not true. Your use of the word "never" is too harsh in this
context. For it is possible to "guarantee" the security of closed source
if you have access to the source code, for example if *you yourself* are
the owner of that closed source.
--
"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: Philip Homburg <[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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:43:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tanenbaum already had a far more interesting system: Amoeba. Unfortunately
>> with many new performance problems.
>
>Well to me Amoeba is nothing (realy) different from a clustered unix ...
And MS-DOS is just a small version of Unix. Seriously, Amoeba does not have
much in common with Unix. It is a completely different operating system.
The Amoeba sources are available from
ftp://ftp.cs.vu.nl/pub/amoeba/amoeba5.3/
For other info (e.g., papers) look at ftp://ftp.cs.vu.nl/pub/amoeba/
Philip Homburg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: 19 Apr 2000 10:26:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Security on a linux box is much better, but I don't believe
> air-tight security exists for any OS.
I believe there are systems that *are* secure (if you take
B2-certified to be secure, and that is pretty strong. I'm not aware
offhand of any A1-certified systems.) Just not on anyone's desktop,
since people don't seem to want to pay for it.
> If you need to keep your data secret don't let it rest on the
> computer, or use encryption if you're allowed to by the government.
If you never have any secret data on a system that is online, then
you're probably OK against everything short of burglary. But most
people don't have too much secret data in the first place; they just
don't want some snotty bunch of crackers (whether working for big
business or no) mucking their system up when they're in the middle of
something crucial...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 19 Apr 2000 10:31:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Cool. What are you researching?
> create systems to detect (indicate) breast-cancer, we are working on
> lever etc. too
So you need image processing (duh! Of course you do - you said that!)
and a basic idea of algorithmic efficiency? Maybe some neural net and
fuzzy logic stuff too, but that's only if you're trying to take the
in the code, and not just provide decision support for clinicians...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 19 Apr 2000 10:14:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've enjoyed your comments and the staking of a year's salary that there are
>no intentional backdoors in Debian (frankly, I hope you feel the same about
>Redhat).
Not even everything that is distributed as "Debian", just the core
distribution (aka "main") because that is completely DFSG free software
(see http://www.debian.org/social_contract for details).
>What's your view on the Dansie shopping cart
>backdoor?http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/archive.pike?list=1&date=200
>0-04-08&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not open source (yes, source is available, but it does not conform
to the OSD/DFSG). It's a straight simple commercial application, so a
backdoor in it not at all unlikely. That's exactly the message that I
was trying to get through here.
>The backdoor may have been in there quite a while. I understand the script
>may have been compacted to make it difficult to understand (by letting all
>the lines run together) but by its very nature the script would have been
>open source ASCII.
See above. Source available does not constitute "open source" yet. See
the DFSG (part of the Debian Social Contract, linked above) or the Open
Source Definition, which is a generalisation of the DFSG (
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html ).
*That*'s what I'm talking about. I have no idea if there's a backdoor in
Corel Wordperfect for Linux or something like that. "Running on Linux"
does not constitute open source software.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Q: Where did the names "C" and "C++" come from?
A: They were grades
-- Jerry Leichter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 19 Apr 2000 10:36:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Then how come nobody DOES guarantee it? Are you willing to put up say,
>your
>> >yearly salary that no backdoors have ever or will never be in any Linux
>> >distribution?
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. Let me give you a couple of streets headstart. I am
>> willing to put up my yearly salary that not a single program of the main
>> stable Debian distribution (v 2.1 aka "slink") contains an exploitable
>> backdoor (backdoor meaning an *intensional* security breach to gain
>> unlawful access to remote data), if and only if you are willing to put
>> up your yearly salary that there is no exploitable backdoor (see meaning
>> above) in only IIS and Exchange Server (current NT4/W2K versions,
>> standard installs).
>
>Why would I do that? I didn't claim that it's impossible for NT to have any
>backdoors. You, however, did claim that all linux distributions are
>guaranteed to not have any.
DO NOT put words in my mouth, chicken. Reread my statements above. I'm
talking of commonly used *open source* applications! Open source is
defined in the open source definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html)
and are part of the core debian distribution. That's why I limited my
scope to Debian. I can't possible make such a statement about a
commercial application that happens to be part of Redhat. READ WHAT I
WROTE! It's still quoted.
>In fact, such a backdoor did exist in red hat not too long ago (within the
>last 18 months). A binary distribution of Red Hat on a mirror site had been
>compromised and had a back doored file installed into it.
If you're talking about the DANSIE Shopping Cart, read my followup to
Adam's posting. If you're talking about the trojaned tcp wrappers, they
never made it to any distribution. Anyone else?
>You cannot choose any specific version of Linux. Your statements claimed
>that it was impossible for a back door to exist in any linux distribution.
I never said that. I talked about *COMMONLY USED OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE*.
The only piece of commonly used open source software that I know of,
that is not part of the Debian distribution, is KDE (I won't go into
that, it's a thread of it's own). That's why I limited my scope to
Debian, *BECAUSE I LIMIT MY SCOPE TO COMMONLY USED OPEN SOURCE SOFWARE*.
Can you please quote where I said the above (including Message ID)?
>The point is that if this peer review process is so good, such buffer
>overruns would never make it into a distribution. They would be caught. If
>a programmer forgot to check something, someone else would have found it.
I have extensively answered this, and I will not rehash it. Learn to
read. You will never catch me saying that open source software review
eliminates all bugs. That would be moronic, newarly as moronic as the
way you try to twist my words.
BTW, I take it that your chickening out of the challenge means that you
agree on the superiority of open source software where it considers
backdoors?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Q: Where did the names "C" and "C++" come from?
A: They were grades
-- Jerry Leichter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: 19 Apr 2000 10:49:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Common sense says that each and every individual does not have to
>> verify every line of code.
>
>Common sense also questions why everyone should trust this tiny minority of
>people that are actually "reviewing" the source code.
I beg to disagree. The people reviewing the source code make up quite a
few and are not bound by any company policy. There's nobody holding you
back to take part in it.
The association I would like to introduce here is that if the number of
*independent* people who say that your wife sleeps around increases,
your willingness to believe it will increase, however much you trust
her. That's common sense.
My common sense tells me it is impossible for all the thousands of
independent reviewers worldwide to conspire together just to slip a
backdoor in.
But, rest assured, Winvocates. The growing acceptence of the UCITA will
increase the willingness of companies to introduce backdoors into their
software. Only they will call it "necessary features to make the
software UCITA compliant".
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Q: Where did the names "C" and "C++" come from?
A: They were grades
-- Jerry Leichter
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:14:51 +1200
Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
> See above. Source available does not constitute "open source" yet. See
> the DFSG (part of the Debian Social Contract, linked above) or the Open
> Source Definition, which is a generalisation of the DFSG (
> http://www.opensource.org/osd.html ).
Point taken: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code."
I've just realised that I haven't been paying attention to the "open" in
"open source".
Thanks for clarifying that,
Adam.
PS: Sorry for misrepresenting your bet. I wouldn't want you destitute ;-)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
From: Richard Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Apr 2000 11:36:17 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) writes:
> > Exactly, Anarchists oppose all kinds of hierarchy and authority
> >*especially* the ones found in capitalist workplaces. Private
> >comnpanies are probably among the worlds most tyrannical and
> >undemocratic organizations.
> >
> >Vlad.
>
> So is that an authoritative statement? are you seriously trying to
> tell anarchists what they must do ? :)
>
> It's like herding cats.
Contrary to popular belief anarchy is quite well organised. Although
it is used as a synonym for chaos, anarchism in a political sense has a
group of well defined ideals.
>From the Collins English Dictionary:
anarchism:
1. Political theory, a doctrine advocating the abolition of government.
2. The principles or practice of anarchists.
Just because you don't believe in government doesn't mean that you're
disorganised or without some degree of organisation.
To bring this slightly back onto topic, compare Microsoft with
linux. Microsoft has a hierarchical structure which distributes work
down to the lower levels of employee. Linux (and in a sense the whole
free software ideal ) has an "anarchic" structure where people take
on work that they feel might be relevant or helpful.
So it's not like "herding cats" its the belief that those "cats" have
a fair idea of where they're going. But it doesn't mean that they're not
pulling in relevant directions.
--
Richard Watson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pentagon Web Design Ltd
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
Subject: Guess How Many Windows Crashes....
Date: 19 Apr 2000 08:52:43 EDT
We installed a new network printer yesterday. Guess how many times my
"user friendly" windows 98 machine crashed in the process of
installing the new printer driver.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 06:27:29 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Common sense says that each and every individual does not have to
> >> verify every line of code.
> >
> >Common sense also questions why everyone should trust this tiny minority of
> >people that are actually "reviewing" the source code.
>
> I beg to disagree. The people reviewing the source code make up quite a
> few and are not bound by any company policy. There's nobody holding you
> back to take part in it.
A small fraction of a very larger number is still a larger number than
the tiniest number - MS W2K programmers. MS had ~400 people working on
W2K code prior to shipping. There are a large number of people actively
reviewing sections of the open source codes.
My systems admin reviewed sections of (and modified for our needs) the
FreeBSD 3.1 distribution, one edition of which I use as a compute
server. He participates in monitoring security and he's not the only
one at our site that does this kind of code review. I don't buy into
the argument that the codes are not well scrutinized - they are as part
of a job description like system security, or research project where one
studies/modifies a part of the operating system or to modify the OS for
a particular purpose.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:37:53 GMT
There's one way that Linux sell more than Win2k:
if Win2k have 60000 bug, they sell 1 millions copy
if Linux have ~10 bug ( XFree ) sell ? copy. ( don't know the exact number )
So if Linux want to overcome MS sale, just put more bug, something like
70000 bug.
Home user and companies gonna be happy.
The next MS O.S. for home user ( Windows Millenium, in bêta test now )
already have ~50000 bug ( french version, i have test it, a friend ask me to
test it ).
The install went wrong, a driver call a program?
PPPoE doesn't work.
Outlook Express was in english. I test a french version, how OE can be in
english?
There's more, but don't want to write for an hours about those bug.
J@M a écrit dans le message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>"Indeed, on Tuesday, Microsoft said it had sold 1.5 million copies of
Windows
>2000 in the two months since its launch, a pace four times that of its
>predecessor, Windows NT 4.0."
>
>0.5 million copies for the second month compared to 1 million in the first
>month...
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LNUX below 30
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:39:40 GMT
Francis Van Aeken a écrit dans le message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8di9il$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Sorry you bought VA Research at 40. But it will probably be up at
>> 40 again soon, unless the market takes another torpedo.
>
>I didn't buy LNUX, but I agree with you that the stock should go up again.
>It's already at 38...
>
>Francis.
>
>
>
Already, i think i'll buy some.....
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
