Linux-Advocacy Digest #642, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: Not so fast...
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bill Altenberger)
Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bill Altenberger)
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Motif Open Source? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? (Christopher Browne)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Christopher Browne)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Edwin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:45:56 -0700
You forgot printing something and 5 minutes later hanging up the
system when trying to print another copy with the identical button
pushes after you got the print from the printer 200 feet away, hanging
the printer at the same time. The only solution is to turn off both
the printer and the computer so that they are both off at the same
time. Nothing big.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: 22 May 2000 20:54:33 -0400
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>As one would expect, there are many people in this group who refuse to
>believe any sort of viruses or trojans could be created for Linux.
>While it is true that the current fad of .vbs based viruses only
>targets Windows there are a number of ways a viruses writer could
>target Linux.
No one ever said that viruses are impossible to build under
Linux, but viruses do not spread via e-mail on Linux, because Unix
mailreaders don't run executable attachments when the user attempts
to "View" or "Open" them, and Unix mailreaders don't run ActiveX
content (which can be included in the actual message body, and runs
without the Windows user doing anything other than reading the e-mail).
A virus that runs the minute you read the e-mail (like BUBBLEBOY,
which contains ActiveX code) is impossible to write for Linux.
Furthermore, if a user did run a virus under Linux, it wouldn't
have write access to much that could be infected, unless the user
does everything as root. Just a few personal shell scripts, and
not even that if the user is an Average User (only Unix Gurus have
personal shell or PERL scripts).
>1) Infect source code, redistribute.
>This would be very easy to do and there would be little way for a user
>to detect a RPM file is infected with modified code. If you could gain
>access to the FTP mirrors you could infect huge numbers of people.
>Just how many users read all the source code in a program? (If any)
>There would be no way to detect a modified RPM package to my
>knowledge. Such a virus could install a back door, do mass mailings
>(by reading mail client configurations) or destroy data. The
>apache.org hacking showed not only can it be done but it can be done
>to the makers of apache, that I would venture to guess runs 99.9% of
>most Linux software projects web sites.
1) This wouldn't be a virus. A virus has to be able to copy itself to
other programs. What you describe is called a trojan.
2) Mail client configurations are not needed to do mass mailing from
Linux. All that is needed is the file pointed to by $MAIL to
collect addresses from, PERL to distinguish the addresses from the
rest of the text, and Sendmail to send the mail on its way.
>3) Lack of Linux viruses scanners
>If outbreaks did occur they would be impossible to detect without
>customized programs. (Which could lead you right back to point #2 two)
The lack of Linux virus scanners exists because there is a
corresponding lack of Linux viruses to scan for. If a Linux virus
was discovered, then a virus scanner would be written to detect it.
>5) Distribution Bloat
>The sheer size of the code included with Linux opens the door for back
>doors and others problems to slip by. (Which has already happened)
These are not viruses.
>9) Developers bringing bugs with them.
>You can argue that UNIX developers are less prone to introducing bugs
>since traditionally UNIX has been a market for high reliability / high
>security applications but what happens if Windows developers jump on
>the Linux bandwagon? They'll bring their bugs with them. How many
>Win32 apps have we seen store their passwords in plain text in an .ini
>file? How many have buffer overflow exploits?
While learning to write programs that run on Unix, these programmers
would also learn to write programs that are more secure and
less buggy than what they wrote on Windows. Otherwise, they'd be
frequently, ahem, corrected, by more competent Unix programmers
that happen to run into their code.
>10) Possible influx of desktop users
>Aka, targets. Aka, people who run happy99.exe
...by clicking on the attachment icon, which doesn't work under Unix,
and even if it did, the virus wouldn't run with the root privileges it
needs to infect programs or destroy the system.
--
Have you re-installed your operating system today?
------------------------------
From: Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:58:52 -0500
In article <8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Loren Petrich) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think Microsoft suffers from the win at all costs syndrome. It is sort
> >of like the death penality problems that have cropped up recently in a
> >few states. They got so big that ethics got a back seat.
>
> Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating, which cost
> his forces dearly. Consider Stalingrad, where he was unwilling to pull his
> troops out, thus letting them get defeated by the Russian forces there.
> And later in the war, he refused to try to make a peace deal with either
> side, even though his top underlings had seriously thought of doing
> exactly that. Instead, his forces had a last hurrah in the Battle of the
> Bulge in western France, which was a big embarrassment. When it was clear
> that his forces were losing, he ordered the destruction of a lot of German
> industry and similar sorts of stuff, and lieutenants of his like Albert
> Speer ran around and countermanded those orders.
>
snip..
I wouldn't liken MS to the Nazi era of Germany. I think a more appropriate
example would be a state univerisity directly east of Illinois in Elam's
territory..
Bill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX???
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:05:32 GMT
On 22 May 2000 22:53:32 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does any body know where to find exploits for RedHat 5.x??
http://www.rootshell.com/
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 23 May 2000 01:10:33 GMT
On Sun, 22 May 3900 13:41:26, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, they set up a talking head half-dead judge that will do whatever they
> say and railroad the whole trial and get their win.
>Yeah! Liberals win another battle over all those mean capitalist
pig-dogs! Elect Al Gore!
> He'll punish all those mean big businesses! First software, next guns and
> tobacco!
When you really believe "liberals" are not mean capitalists, i guess
you'll have to relive history all over again.
(whoever puts this idea into peoples minds ???)
All liberals are against and All republicans are pro GUNS ??? Even
worse !!
Come on, put yourself together and explore the news and the Internet,
(you've got the connection )
it's thre to broaden your mind.
greet
Frank
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 22 May 2000 13:02:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
>
> ' David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> '
> ' > What TrollTech is currently doing with Qt 2.x and higher is a
> ' > good thing. People who produce GPL software can use Qt without
> ' > worrying about the QPL.
> '
> ' That is not even close to true. Trolltech has rights to a copy
> ' of everything that even links with QT. They could EASILY take
> ' your QT linked code, and fold it into proprietary software.
>
> http://www.trolltech.com/products/download/freelicense/
>
> Show me where in this license TrollTech can take GPL code that links
> to Qt and make it proprietary.
Section 3b) (on modifications to QT)
When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification.
And section 5c) (on linking to QT)
If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
You can note that there are no restrictions on this copy being
made available, no licensing issues mentioned. QT has quietly
assured themselves of the right to have a copy to every program
that modifies or links to QT. Especially in the case of 5c
it is not at all clear that they need to stick to ANY license
in how they use it. Fair use would certainly allow them to
use substantial chunks of such code however they like. Either
your program is open and GPL, or they have (some) rights to it.
Things like this bother me. Why can't the author of a program
that links to QT have as many rights as the library authors ??
They clearly do not right now.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:17:20 -0500
In article <8gcdo8$4q9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
> > chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
> > business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
> > quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
> > retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
> > bullet now and salvage what they can?
> > They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
> > Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
> > be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
>
> If you truly believe that Microsoft's survival is in jeapordy, you're living
> in a fool's paradise.
>
>
>
I don't think their survival is in jeopordy, but rather their monopoly is.
The devaluation of the Nasdaq will have more influence than the restrictions
the courts/DOJ might place on the company..
Bill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:02:59 GMT
On 22 May 2000 20:13:51 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'll give you another way that doesn't require special software. Run
I can give you fifty ways if we stipulate that I'm running as root.
>the following command as root:
>
> yes > /dev/kmem &
You're root. Yes, that means you can scribble all over memory. How
nice. You could also do "rm -rf /" and be done with it.
If you could do that as a regular user then it would count.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:56:56 GMT
Followups set to colda.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
I thought I'd seen you here before!
> > I much, much, much prefer being able to right-click on something and
> > hit "Properties." I also like being able to press F1 when the mouse
> > is over a confusing field and get an explanation of it. (The
> > explanation often isn't a help, and I expect that would carry over
> > to Linux, but at least there's no flipping around between screens.)
> Agreed. The right-button and F1 idioms are good ones, as are button
> bars on apps and scrollwheels on mice. Writing decent documentation
> is a different skill to writing a decent GUI. I have yet to meet
> anyone at all who was good at both in the same application.
The problem is, of course, that the programmer usually knows far too
much about the application to be able to strip out the bits that
nobody else cares about. When I try to write documentation, about 3/4
of it usually ends up being an in-depth description, complete with
code examples, of the internal aspects I find most interesting.
> [attribution lost]
Oops. Sorry.
> >> This is the problem though, they don't care enough to create
> >> programs to help newbies install and use linux and so linux is
> >> being held back.
> > I care enough. I'm just no good at GUI programming.
> It isn't that hard with something like Tcl/Tk, Perl/Tk or TkInter.
Yeah, I know. But either way, I have to learn Tcl, Perl, C, or what
have you, as well as the toolkit it uses. If I want to use GNOME,
which I do, I have to learn IDL, too. (Actually, I know that already,
via SOM.)
> You just have to remember that users aren't necessarily going to work
> through things the same way you do, that they want *both* mouse and
> keyboard navigation, plenty of help and a chance to undo things where
> possible (and a really hefty warning where you can't undo!)
With decent development tools, keyboard shortcuts are absolutely
trivial. The bitch-ass part is implementing a proper (meaning
multi-level) undo.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Motif Open Source?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:57:11 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Cybrinjn would say:
>On Mon, 15 May 2000 13:32:05 GMT, Christopher Browne
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donn Miller would say:
>>>Donn Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/intro.html
>>>
>>>All the ftp sites listed were overloaded. Damn, I was just about to
>>>make the move from Motif to Qt or Gtk. Who knows where this will
>>>lead, though... now that it is Open Source.
>>
>>One problem is that, despite the manifold use of the word "Open,"
>>OpenMotif is _NOT_ Open Source according to the OSD.
>>
>>That's not me "license-lawyering;" the FAQ at the Open Group
>>site states this...
>
>You get the source. You get it free. If that ain't open,
>what is?
The word "open" is used _so many times_ in this context that its
meaning either disappears in blandness, or else needs to be defined in
greater detail.
See the FAQ at the Open Group web site, _easily_ findable based on the
URL described above; it explains precisely why OpenMotif from The
OpenGroup, despite using the "Open Group Open License," is _NOT_ Open
Source (tm).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #94. "When arresting prisoners, my guards
will not allow them to stop and grab a useless trinket of purely
sentimental value." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:57:13 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Erik Funkenbusch would say:
>Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ga2ee$9gf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : Actually, Bill's house runs on many different NT servers (at least
>that's
>> : what the press has reported).
>>
>> Why would there need to be more than one?
>
>Two words, industrial control. You can only hook up so many devices to a
>single system, and it's much easier to maintain if the devices in one room
>are run by the server in the same room. If something is wrong, you don't
>have to run all over the house trying to fix things.
That sounds like PC/NT-isms; seeing the world through the veil of what
PCs running NT can do...
a) Any self-respecting industrial controller should be able to cope
with a large number of devices.
b) Any self-respecting industrial controller should be able to cope
with remote access and control, whether via Telnet (TCP/IP), LAT
(DecNet), or SNA.
Only a WinIdiot would feel the need to drive a golfcart around the
house to _try to_ fix things; a competent design would provide the
ability to do remote management. By the way, there is no "try;" you
either do, or do not, fix problems...
If you had claimed that they were using RS-232 for device control and
that this wouldn't cope well with the size of his house, I'd agree,
but suggest that a _competent_ system design would involve using one
of (RS-422, RS-423, RS-485) instead, and most likely RS-485, as it
supports 32 receivers per line and cable lengths up to 4000 feet.
Stallion sells an adaptor that supports 8 RS-485 ports, thus
supporting on the order of 256 devices. Of course, if that's not
enough, you might plug in several of them.
For so challenging an industrial environment, one might try something
like this <http://www.itox.com/pages/products/cases/dragon/dc9828.cfm>
which would offer up to 20 slots. Roughly speaking, 20x256 = 5120
devices.
I'm no "industrial control" expert; presumably someone that _is_ could
suggest other offerings that might well be even _more_ scalable.
>> A reasonably modern and well-built PC running any genuine server OS
>> can serve many dozens if not hundreds of users, performing a variety
>> of both CPU- and IO-intensive tasks, with reliability considerably
>> superior to that of most other household appliances.
>>
>> If Bill G. truly needs "many different NT servers," then this fact
>> alone speaks volumes about the limitations of NT Server as compared to
>> any genuine server OS.
>
>No, it speaks about the topology of his home.
... And perhaps calls into question how intelligently that topology
was determined ...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
"take USABLE from UNSTABLE and you get NT"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:57:20 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Kaz Kylheku would say:
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:11:48 GMT, bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Am I the only one here who thinks that X Windows is crap?
>>X Windows is extremely archaic, ridiculously bloated,
>>way too slow, and extremely hard to install.
>
>X is smaller and faster than all other mainstream windowing systems.
>
>X was once considered to be bloated and slow---yes, by users running hardware
>like ancient Sun workstations with 68020 processors running at 25 megahertz or
>thereabouts, with somewhere between 4 and 8 megs of RAM. More recently, people
>ran XFree86 on 386 based Linux boxes with 40 meg hard drives and 4 megs of RAM.
>
>Anyway, not all X servers are the same. Are you talking about XFree86? Or all
>flavors of X, proprietary or not?
The other entertaining part is that the overall X "environment" gets
bloated in three main ways:
a) It bloats when you add in libraries to provide the "fuzzy dice" and
such to make it "really pretty." For instance, people have found
GTK Themes to get Pretty Expensive.
Of course, GTK Themes on any _other_ graphics substrate could
become _JUST AS EXPENSIVE_. Blaming GTK's bloat on X is fairly
silly.
b) It bloats when you toss in large numbers of TrueType and Type1
fonts.
The environments that do not thus "bloat" are environments that
provide _NO_ fonts.
[I am exaggerating only slightly.]
c) It bloats when you expect it to work with huge quantities of
graphical data that inherently consumes a lot of memory.
Thus, if you install a graphics card with 32MB of "on-the-card"
RAM, it is reasonably likely that the processes required to _feed_
that will consume a reasonably considerable amount of RAM.
I would contend that any environment that would claim to provide
_relatively_ comparable functionality would be similarly bloated under
similar conditions.
>>Let's get rid of it completely.
>
>What do you mean by getting rid of it? Do you propose to erase any X window
>related binaries or source from every machine in the world, including X window
>terminals?
>
>I think that what you are asking for is for X to be *superseded* by something.
>
>In order for X to be superseded, there has to be a superior alternative which
>includes all the useful functionality of X that current X users rely on. As
>well, there has to be a migration path: people will probably want their
>favorite X applications ported to the new thing.
>
>So start hacking! The development platform is free, and you can share drivers
>with XFree86, so what excuse do you have? :)
See URL below for links to would-be superseders of X.
Not that it is realistic that this will truly _happen_...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/xbloat.html>
The human race will decree from time to time: "There is something at
which it is absolutely forbidden to laugh."
-- Nietzche on Common Lisp
------------------------------
From: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:15:05 -0500
David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Edwin I think beyond M$, I happen to care about some of the people whom
have
> lost a great deal of their retirement funds due to this single minded
lunacy of
> M$.
That's too bad. Tough breaks for them.
>There has to be a time and a place to draw the line. Survival may have been
> a poor choice of words, because M$ zealots can only construe my meanings
in one
> way. Consider M$ dominance survival, somebody needs to lead, M$ is
definitely a
> poor choice I'd agree.
It would be better for us all if MS were no longer dominate.
> Put another way Edwin, how about if I said the survival of M$ dominance
may be
> at stake. Would that appease you?
Nope. Windows will not lose dominance because of this, nor will MS lose
its grip on the market. It's all just a big shell game.
> Would you not agree that M$ would be stronger if it defined the lines of a
> breakup instead of a panel?
Good reason to let a panel do it.
> What about the survival of pension funds that are going down the tubes.
Should
> brokers continue to allow their clients money to continue to erode?
Nope. Sell MS stock. Buy something else. Apple stock was up there
awhile. Everybody loves Apple now. Buy Apple stock.
Or do what I do: Put all your spare money into canned goods and shotguns.
> Think about the people.. ok .. when is enough, enough?
You think MS cares about people... heh, heh, heh. Oh sorry, that's rude,
but then... heh, heh, heh.
Don't get in a huff now. Oh wait, you can't help it. Carry on. <:o]
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
> > > chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
> > > business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
> > > quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
> > > retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
> > > bullet now and salvage what they can?
> > > They should split on their own terms, not what the government
dictates.
> > > Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts
may
> > > be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
> >
> > If you truly believe that Microsoft's survival is in jeapordy, you're
living
> > in a fool's paradise.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
