Linux-Advocacy Digest #472, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again ("Christopher Smith")
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Prof. Gunter Bengel)
RE: Window managers ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Prof. Gunter Bengel)
Re: Slashdot is down ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Programs for Linux (Carsten Pitz)
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: CVS and Windows (Ton Nijkes)
Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Karri Kalpio)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:11:55 +1000
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <391b8aa4$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 05/11/2000 at 06:23 PM,
> > "Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> > > You haven't proved the use of undocumented API's in any 32 bit
> > > software.
> > > Yet I've proven through objective 3rd party documentation that the use
> > > of undocumented API's in the early Windows 3.x days was almost
entirely
> > > leftover from a time when the OS was not an OS. (proving that you lied
> > > about undocumented API's that you were aware of as well).
> >
> >
> > You continue to cross post into comp.os.os2.advocacy where you are most
> > unwelcome. Therefore, you are forever known as Erik Fuckingliar.
>
> Bob, shall we come up with some clever name to call you, as you keep
> corssposting this lame namecalling to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
> comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy?
Boob Germer has been the accepted name ever since (I think) he tried to
claim that the USB bus doesn't provide power to peripherals.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Prof. Gunter Bengel)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: 12 May 2000 09:07:20 +0200
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are correct. There identification of an "evil other" as the root of
> one's problems is not unique to WWII Germany. Neither is the
> expansionist political and economic agenda of the country during that
> time. My point is simply that no government that calls itself democatic
> should actively promote intolerance and exclusion based on differences
> such as religion or race. That the German government is restricting
> free speech and free religion in this way is frightening given what was
> happening there 2 generations ago.
>
Perhaps some information is called for. The german governement does
not restrict free speech and free religion. Scientology asked some 2
or three years ago to be recognized as a church because that would
have given some tax privileges. And since this is a tax issue they
asked at the relevant authority which is the "Finanzamt" (tax
office). The statute of a church was refused to them by said tax
office, not by the governement, for the reason that they are a profit
organization, which a church is not.
Then things started to get funny. If you are not satisfied with a
decision of an administrative authority you can always appeal to an
administrative court and then to a higher administrative court and
since this is considered by CO$ as a religious matter they could even
have tried to get the issue before the Constitutional court. But they
did not do this.Instead they started to publish ads in major US
journals , e.g. New York Times, saying that the german governement is
restricting free religion which is just a lie, and tried to make
pressure on the german governement via some congress menbers.
Your remarks seem to show that you have fallen for their lies.
Next is the issue of Windows 2000. When it was known that a critical
part was written by a software house owned by CO$ the governement of
the state of Bavaria , not the german governement, asked the question,
if it was possible that this part of Windows 2000 could contain a
security risk, considered that CO$ is known to have spied on people
they had difficulties with and even to have made pressure on some
state employees to spy for them. In my opinion it is the right of a
governement to express their concern. This has nothing whatsoever to
do with restricting free speech.
Gunter
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Window managers
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:12:49 GMT
I understand it perfectly boy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Prof. Gunter Bengel)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: 12 May 2000 09:15:47 +0200
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> No. By "regulate religion" I mean "We have determined that your
> organization is a religion, so you must register with the Ministry of
> Religion and follow its regulations" or suchlike. Regulating "nefarious
> things" without regard to the sociological classification of organizations
> involved with them does not constitute regulating religion. Forbidding
> certain activities to religious organizations while allowing them to all
> others (or vice-versa) is.
>
There is no Ministry of Religion here in Germany. An CO$ is allowed to
do what they want if they respect german law. The only thing they did
not get was to be recognized as a church and so they did not get the
tax privileges, a church has. The whole thing is about money not about
free religion or free speech.
Gunter
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:56:44 -0500
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
> Slashdot is down.
I saw one or two news sites carrying a story that they had suffered a
DDoS attack this afternoon, but there's no confirmation on Slashdot
itself yet.
> They always have had their share of technical problems,
> which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. They do introduce some bugs into
their slashcode now and then, but AFAIK it has never shut them down.
Their biggest problem is overload. They run some fairly complex pages,
and they have thousands of elementary school kids updating it constantly
in hopes of that elusive f1r5t p057. There are also lots of headline
rippers available for intermittently grabbing the front page and
displaying the headlines on your desktop or embedding them into your own
HTML; Rob intermittently pleas with the public to limit themselves to
one update per 5 minutes on the rippers. I suspect lots of people are
using more like 5 seconds, and even that is too high if you want to
compete for a FP.
> Maybe they should reconsider their set-up and let go
> of the hobbyist software.
I dunno. The site started as a hobby. Why should they change? Their
only serious problem arises from not having hardware and bandwidth in
proportion to the popularity of the site.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Carsten Pitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:18:16 GMT
In article <8fdtal$ocd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) Oracle in Linux?? Where to get??
> (2) I need assembler 'cos I wanna learn hacking and virus writing ^^
I got an Oracle for x86 Linux from an Oracle representant.
But, my Linux box at home does not quite offer the resources
to run it so I haven't tried it (I think it is a 8.0.5 version)
so far.
Hacking as well as virus writing is not my job. I wrote a lot
of assembler routines for 8080, 8085 and Z80 as well as some
for the 8086/88, but today the compute power is more than
sufficient for the thing I deal with, so I can comfortably
rely on compilers.
Carsten
Carsten
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:29:23 GMT
In article <dgIS4.626$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> billy ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:03:21 GMT, scumbucket
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >This is the full spec:
> >
> > [M$ "copyrighted" info snipped]
> >
> > what's really sad is that:
> >
> > 1) M$ uses perverse, insipid legal verbiage
>
> You mean like the GPL.
>
> > 2) people and companies are initimated by M$ tactics
>
> You mean like the GPL. Every
> company i've worked for has
> banned useage of code found on
> the internet due to the GPL's
> hardline tactics of forcing any
> developer that includes GPL'd code
> to publish all of their code. They
> simply don't want to take the chance.
There are several different licenses. There's the
GPL - if you want to use my 8 million lines of code,
and you want to add your 300 lines of code that would
break everybody elses software, you need to publish
your enhancement.
There's the LGPL - if you want to link to my shared library
feel free. If you want to add to my shared library, you
have to send me upgrades. Again, I have 8 million people
using my code, you want to push your proprietary enhanceent
in my library which will upset 7 million of my users. I'll
just call you every time someone calles me at 3:00 A.M. demanding
your enhancements.
Then there's the secondary Public Licenses - If you want to
add proprietary enhancements to my derivative work, I'm willing
to accept royalties or similar compensation.
> > 3) M$ adopts/steals Kerberos, then corrupts the protocol,
> > violates MIT's BSD-style license, then adds its own
> > licensing stipulation to the release of specifications
> > in order to quash use of the protocol on other platforms,
> > and prohibit cross-platform compatibility, and then cites
> > DCMA to quash criticism...
>
> BSD-style liscening is no liscensing.
> You can do with it as you please.
Actually, you could be prevented from distributing
dirivative works unless the contract explicitly
permits the creation of proprietary derivative works.
> You aren't even required to give credit anymore.
> Also, Microsoft worked closely with the
> Kerberos standards committee,
Forcing them to sign nondisclosure agreements?
forcing them to prostitute the offspring of hundreds?
of developers, spec writers, advocates, and supporters?
Microsoft believes that a standard is a standard because
they say it's a standard. If Microsoft keeps up this type
of activity they will either find that the DCMA will be
revoked, that the FCC will impose de-jure compliance with
public standards, or that the GPL community will supercede
Microsoft's Kerberos implementation with it's own GPL
implementation.
> and MS's implementation is entirely standards compliant.
I didn't read the spec, nor did I compare it with the Kerberos
standards. Specifically which PUBLIC STANDARD does Microsoft's
implementation follow?
> Nothing was "stolen".
Absolutely NOT TRUE. BSD source code is placed into public
repositories and into the public trust. Third party contributors
contribute enhancements to the specifications, enhancements to the
code, enhancements to the documentation, and become advocates of
the implementation as a public standard.
Microsoft is FORCING the migration of ALL BSD code to GPL before
enhancing it. If Microsoft really wants to follow the standard,
they should provide and publish a BSD compatible implementation
in Open Source as a "Reference Model", a standard practice for
ALL internet standards. A standard practice which Microsoft
has repeatedly refused to accept.
Microsoft has no right to attempt to call a public license
specification and a public standard used by the internet,
a proprietary, "trade secret", nor do they have the right
to include implicit nondisclosure agreements for this code.
IF on the other hand, Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos
is NOT compliant and compatible with all other Kerberos
implementations supported by GPL code, then this is just one
more reason for Judge Jackson to use the strictest possible
definitions and restrictions of Microsoft's code.
Other companies including Sun, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Compaq (DEC),
and other vendors who which to adhere to standards have learned the
hard way that trying to implement standards which are NOT implemented
in Open Source is a good way to kill the standard. A really dramatic
example is the OSI protocol set promoted in 1990. By 1993, OSI was
a dead horse - because GPL and BSDL implementations of Internet
protocols were already available, already deployed, and already
well documented and available in public archives. OSI tried
to implement proprietary standards.
As a contributor to Kerberos (specification, design, early
implementation, and advocacy) Microsoft has stolen directly
from me, and from every other contributor - regardless of
which employer happened to be writing the paycheck at the time.
I have worked for several companies that not only used GPL software,
but encouraged cultivating and harvesting GPL software, which included
contributing specifications, designs, pseudocode, source code changes,
advocacy, and user/developer support.
> > M$ is going to get every evil action back - in spades...
> Probably, but you haven't named any.
It would be interesting to see another class action suit. On the
other hand, this wholesale theft of intellectual property put into
the public trust will probably be cited as one of the first contempt
of court citations - and grounds for denial of any stay pending appeal.
Furthermore, if Microsoft actually attempts to enforce it's
nondisclosure agreement, it will probably be weighed by the
appellate and supreme court.
This type of activity is flagrant contempt of Judge Jackson's rulings
of Law and his findings of fact. It's like a convicted rapist, out
on bond, raping the victim's sister the day before sentencing.
Microsoft obtained intellectual property rights to Mosaic without
the consent of the developers and contributors who had made that
technology so successful, then attempted to add proprietary code,
then tried to treat this proprietary code as trade secrets. THEN
they added insult to injury by demanding that OEMs remove the
second generation product from the desktop and give Microsoft
the exclusive "right to innovate".
Microsoft has absconded with hundreds of intellectual property rights
to subsystems and technology designed by people who were anything
but Microsoft fans. The trail of blood starts with hierarchal
file systems (MS-DOS 2.0) and now includes perversions of Kerberos
and LDAP designed to guarantee that Microsoft controls the security
system and directory system (just what we really want - more "love
bugs" controlled by Microsoft).
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ton Nijkes)
Subject: Re: CVS and Windows
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 May 2000 23:41:32 GMT, Christopher Browne wrote:
[snip]
>
> You can buy third-party products that somewhat resemble CVS, albeit at
> considerably higher prices...
>
> a) Microsoft sells a product called "Visual SourceSafe." Only $549.
> <http://msdn.microsoft.com/ssafe/prodinfo/purchase/pricing.asp>
> b) PVCS. They don't quote prices, which means it must be atrociously
> expensive.
> <http://www.merant.com/pvcs/>
They are. Somewhere in the same price range as "Visual SourceSafe".
I've used PVCS and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Winxx client
software (GUI) is extremely buggy. The *nix admin tools and client
software (CLI) are extremely complex to use.
I would go for CVS anyday.
I you are really looking for a commercial offering, check out MKS
Source Integrity. It isn't cheap either, but it works pretty well.
Like CVS, it is based on RCS, which is an absolute plus, IMHO.
Greetings,
Ton.
--
================================================================================
//
// Ton Nijkes Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
//|\ || Murphy Software BV,
//||\\|| P.O. Box 285, Voice: +31 (0)53 4320055
|| \|| 7500 AG Enschede, The Netherlands Fax : +31 (0)53 5360448
================================================================================
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:41:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2000 20:35:07 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8f1el0$t39$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Notice that none of the "love bug" components were detected
> >> by Macaffe or Norton or any of the others. I would have thought
> >> that the ActiveX controls in question would have triggered the
> >> virus detector.
> >>
> >> Of course, virus detectors
> >> focus on content stored on the disk drive.
> >> A hacker component embedded in a web page
> >> would only show up in
> >> RAM, and perhaps in the cache directory
> >> (first thing the hacker would
> >> do is remove the tmp file).
> >
> >Huh? Love bug doesn't have any ActiveX content.
> >
> >> > > All very convenient Rex. I won't call you paranoid, I'll call
> >> > > you stupid if
> >> > >you think anyone here falls for this.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying that Microsoft targeted me. But I do think it's a
> >> strange coincidence that less than 24 hours after I post this
> >> article, and less than 5 days after posting the warnings to this
> >> thread, that the "Love Bug" suddenly goes out and does everything
> >> I just described. (If you open the file, it renames your office
> >> files, encrypts them using different keys, and sends you password
> >> files and posting history (including all the cgi string values)
> >> to someone via e-mail.
> >
> >Which Love Bug virus did you get?
> > None of the strains I've seen rename
> >office files, encrypt anything,
> > nor send password files or posting history
> > to anyone. You can see exactly what the
> > virus does because it's just a
> > script. You can read it.
> >
>
> There is at least one strain which
> emails stuff to an edress at super.net,
Well, we now know that this was the original intent
of the virus. It was originally intended to collect
passwords.
As for the encryption and renames, these could have been
mutations and could have been simple VBScript calls to
ActiveX links. It seems that it was quite simple to
see the virus in a folder, make a few tweaks, and then
forward the virus to the next unlucky victim.
> >> The local San Francisco News station opened the virus in a an
> >> isolated computer to see what it would try to do. It did all
> >> of the things described above. I'm curious whether there might
> >> be a time delayed "wipe the partition table" bomb waiting to
> >> go off?
> >
> >You are lying Rex.
> > Love Bug doesn't do any of those things.
> > And if you bothered to read it yourself, you'd see that.
Unfortunately my Lotus Notes server was purged of virus containing
e-mails before I could get to it. :-)
The people at the San Francisco television station DID read the
virus. That's how they figured out what it did.
> I won't say you are lying Eric,
> possibly, you are simply misinformed.
In Eric's defense, there were numerous mutations of the virus,
and with everybody seeing love-bug viruses and with love-bug
viruses being automatically opened by Messenger (you're supposed
to turn that off).
We seem to get instant amnesia. The latest estimate is that
this virus has already cost $10 billion in lost productivity.
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 12 May 2000 10:51:00 +0300
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linus is one of thousands, pehaps hundreds of thousands,
> of participants. Linus named a UNIX like operating system
> after himself (actually Linux stands for Linux Is Not UniX)
A small correction. He didn't. He called it "Freax".
"Linus, on the name "Linux":
Actually, [the original name] was just -Freax-. And I think Linux
[the name chosen by the FTP site admin] turned out to be a much
better name, even though I at first thought it would sound too
egoistical."
IIRC, the person that made up the name Linux was Ari Lemmke.
--karri
--
You have moved your mouse, for these : Karri Kalpio
changes to take effect you must shut : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
down and restart your computer. Do you : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
want to restart your computer now? : [+358] (9) 43543665 (work)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
