Linux-Advocacy Digest #666, Volume #26 Wed, 24 May 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Who is "S"?? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: FFS, RIAA sues SuperPimpSoft (billy ball)
Re: Tholen invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?)
(EdWIN)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ (EdWIN)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) (EdWIN)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) (EdWIN)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (billy ball)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Forrest Gehrke)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Linux good choice for home desktop. ("Frank Rizzo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:01:09 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 11:47:46 -0600, Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2000 11:14:50 -0600, Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Dowe Keller wrote:
>[...]
>> >>
>> >> I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
>> >> (the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
>> >
>> >And the right to fork is good because...? Because it is GOOD to
>>
>> So a standard can be free to propagate into the hands of
>> anyone that needs it.
>[...]
>
>Then perhaps I am misunderstanding what is meant by "forking".
Forking can imply many different things depending on who
is making the implications and what their agenda might be.
>
>As for the unix bogeyman...sure it is an easy thing to write code that
>would work on any unix. It is also possible to make largely portable
>code if you write for windoze...but you lose enhancements and
>optimizations
>in doing so.
Very little code really needs that much 'tweaking'. Even the
code that does get tweaked the most can still manage to be
successfully represented with interfaces optimized for widest
compatibility rather than the highest framerate.
>
>Would not your code have worked better/faster/more efficiently on unix
>version X if you had written for unix version X rather than defaulting
>to the generic? Is it not this type of fragmentation (I use that word
It would likely work even faster if designed with clear functional
goals in mind rather than being driven from the marketing department
and subject to creeping featurism.
>instead of forking until I properly understand the term) that relegated
>unix to a niche market rather than taking over? The commericial
>unix makers kept going with propriatory versions rather than versions
>that would play well together. After a, perhaps, convoluted path we
>end up with Windoze as the predominant PC os. I doubt it would ever
>have been more than a stillbirth if unix hadn't fragmented and
>collapsed on itself the way it did (perhaps there would be an M$-like
>AT&T unix that everyone would be fighting against).
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who is "S"??
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:07:44 -0400
2:1 wrote:
>
> Is that with BSD logo (or whatever it's calles, the one from UCB
> anyway)?
ucblogo-4.6-2. Available for Linux
>
>
> I'm talking about a 20-year old version on an 8bit micro. I don't ever
> remember doing loops (junior school at the time), but mabey that's just
> me.
>
> Long live LOGO!
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
> because
> of all the fish in the atmosphere?
> -The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: FFS, RIAA sues SuperPimpSoft
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:18:02 GMT
On 23 May 2000 21:33:56 GMT, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK, I can understand why the RIAA are pissed over Napster, but sueing
>SuperPimpSoft is just plain lame.
RIAA goes right along with "DIA"... these lame idiots have been on a PR
run for the past year and half, "holy-rolling" the horrors of any open
software associated with copying, manipulating, compressing,
decompressing, or transferring audio or video files...
these idiots filed suit against Diamond Labs and lost... they're just
trying to justify their own $100,000+ lobbying positions in their cozy
DC/Northern VA offices...
they are losers, plain and simple, trying to use bottom-feeders in filing
frivolous lawsuits...
i wish some judges would whack their pee-pees...
>SuperPimpSoft produce PAN, a very nice GTK based newsreader. One of
>its features is it can automatically decode multi-part binaries. The
>RIAA don't like this, apparently because you can use it to decode
>*gasp* MP3s.
this will all be a moot point, as the LAME folks now have a free,
open-source encoder...
>The RIAA have demanded SuperPimpSoft remove the auto-decoder from PAN,
>and SuperPimpSoft have refused, hence a lawsuit will follow. See
>http://www.superpimp.org for more details.
hmmm... i guess SuperPimpSoft's ISP shut them down? the site is
restricted...
>I really *really* don't like this, but I doubt the RIAA will win.
>However, in the USA, the land of litigat^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfreedom, anything
>seems to go these days.
>
>What a sad world we live in.
only sadder for the sheep-like constituents out there...
>--
>Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
>Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
>This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tholen invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?)
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:19:01 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Tholen tholens:
Typical invective.
>> > We sic Tholen onto you.
Illogical.
>> Who is "we"?
Don't you know?
>The *real* question is how sic [sic!] is Tholen?
On what basis do you make this claim? Meanwhile, where is your
logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>--
>
>"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power
on the
>output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:20:01 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Edwin wrote:
>> >
>> > > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > In article <billa-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > [snip]>
>> > > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
>> > >
>> > > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially
dead. Move along
>> > > folks. No thread to see here.
>> >
>> > And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep
posting to
>> > this thread?
>>
>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>
>Illogical, as Tholen responds of its own free will.
Prove it, if you think you can.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:21:42 -0700
In article <mRPW4.10707$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Christopher Smith writes:
>
>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>
>Who is "we"?
Don't you know?
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
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: 24 May 2000 14:17:58 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alexander Viro wrote:
>> Kernel _is_ allowed to fork. RTFGPL and for $DEITY sake, get the fuck out
>> of c.o.l.d.system with that off-topic drivel, will you?
>
>No. I am part of this thread to learn and will continue to put forth my
>thoughts, expecting errors to be corrected or encounter mere opinions of
>no more worth than my own, thank you.
You know what Followup-To: is, don't you?
>As for kernel forking...is not linus torvald the ultimate point of
>control
>for what a linux kernel is? A linux kernel is what he ultimately says
>is
>a linux kernel. Others are not linux, by definition. They may be
>compatible
>but they would not be linux.
Again, RTFGPL. And watch the distributions - they routinely patch the tree
they ship. Not to mention RTLinux, etc. As for the code given back to
community - I'ld rather see _no_ Microsoft-produced code, 'cause no matter
what license you put on a pile of crap it remains exactly that - crap.
See NetRape for example - try to read their code and you'll see. Again,
if you put crap under GPL you still get nothing but crap.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:23:44 -0700
In article <8ggte3$8ic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher
Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:mRPW4.10707$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith writes:
>>
>> > We sic Tholen onto you.
>>
>> Who is "we"?
>
>We is us.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:33:31 +0200
Yannick wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 May 2000 20:28:27 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:08 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> > >> Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [deletia]
> > >> The easiest way is to create a group for each resource. Then you
> > >> could modify your new user scripts to add all new users to all the
> > >> groups. Then if you want to deny a paticular user a paticular
> > >> resource, just remove them from that group.
> > >>
> > >Which means the system does nothing and the admin everything
> > >(writing scripts).
> > >
> > >I don't find this to be a good idea. The _concept_ of having one
> > >user group per resource is stupid. (I don't say your solution is
> > >stupid, because it seems as if it's the only one). But the concept
> > >itself is just plain stupid.
> >
> > Why? Presumably you're interested in an ACL for each shared
> > resource. A group is just another level of indirection.
> >
> No. NT's security logic is that you have people (users), which, as
> member of a particular organisation, or assuming a particular function
> (i.e. belonging to a group), have access to some resources.
> There are several problems to that group thing :
>
> * If you, as normal user, want to deny access to a resource of yours,
> you cannot do this on a per-user basis since all your choice will be to
> prevent your 'resource group' from accessing it.
>
I have some pain following you. A security scheme is exactly
a scheme: it must refer to some model in order to be
manageable.
Unix model, in my understanding is the following:
Some shared resources do exist, which are organized in
homogeneous clusters (called groups). Each user, besides his
private resources, has right to access to a limited, well
defined number of these resource clusters. Each user has the
right of making available to others some of his private
resources, including them in one of the existing clusters,
he has right to access, or just making them accessible by
everybody. Exceptions to the rule can be easily handled with
hardlinks (exceptions must be few, otherwise they become a
new rule).
That's reasonably simple and well manageable. In my
experience it covers pretty well the needs for design
groups, and for administrative tasks.
To what model are you referring instead?
> * If you, as normal user, want to grant access to a resource of yours,
> you will not be able to do this, be it on a per-user or per-group
> basis, unless you ask your admin to create you the 'resource group' for
> it.
That's what why the sysadmin was invented. How will
everybody disentangle in the permissions you built when you
leave for another company, if someone didn't keep track of
that stuff?
>
> * Besides, if you have 500 different resources, you will have 500
> different resource groups. If you have 3000 different resources.....
> In short, you will slow down the system in an amount proportional to
> the number of resources, and also influenced by the number of system.
> The NT ACL system may be slightly slower for each access, but not be
> very influenced (maybe not at all) by the number of users or resources.
If you have 3000 different SHARED RESOURCES so sparse that
you were not able to put them into a manageable number of
directories, then you'd have such a mess that the only
command sysadmin could use to make some order is FORMAT C:
/U
Unless you have 3000 USERS and a single service serving all
of them, because in that case organization is large but
trivial.
Besides the only check system needs is owner and group of
the file versus name and groups of user. Unless you have
users belonging to all 3000 groups, which appears slightly
unlikely, 20 or 3000 groups don't make any difference on
time to access the resource. The only user which should
access all groups is quite logically the owner of all the
resources, if such a need exists, or the root user, for
maintenance purposes.
>
> The resource group is not a solution, it's a workaround of a design
> flaw. The design flaw which probably wasn't a flaw in its original
> context (i.e. slow processors, few resources available, etc...).
>
> Yannick.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:34:15 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 17:09:35 GMT, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip *very* lucid dialogue]
>I'm happy to agree to disagree - just lose the anger toward Windows
>users, please. What we do is not brain surgery. Nobody dies. All I'm
>saying is put some perspective on this. It's not worth the anger.
>
>David
i'm a rabid Linux user, but definitely don't hold or feel any anger
towards Windows users...
my anger is aimed at Microsoft, especially for its business practices... i
currently have nearly a dozen shrinkwrapped copies of its operating system
and associated software that i didn't want, and don't need, but had to pay
for...
the only computer in which i didn't have to pay a M$ 'tax' on is one of my
servers that i built from scratch... all other computers, and especially
the laptops, came with software i couldn't "not" accept...
in three instances, on the Sony Vaios, for example, you cannot get a full
year's warrantee unless you register your computer by booting Windows and
running a registration program... once you run the software, you've
accepted the M$ license... if you don't register the computer, the
warranty is only for four months...
(interestingly, "Linux" is one of the choices for "type of OS to be used"
in the Sony registration dialog running under Windows...)
try buying a new laptop or desktop PC, then clicking on the 'decline'
button... see what happens...
my routine now is to just insert a bootable Linux install CD, wipe the
drive(s) and install Linux...
the shrinkwrap software, associated games CDs, etc. sit in the box,
unopened, unneeded, unwanted, and unused...
but i still had to pay for them... and that makes me angry...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 24 May 2000 13:35:47 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>People in this group complain about NT security. However if you
>examine the way people try to attack NT systems it is almost always
>from a Unix machine using something like Samba.
The samba client would likely compile and run under NT without
much trouble.
>Earlier this year there was an attack on a machine on a neighbouring
>network to the where I work. The source was apparently an IP address
>on our subnet. The machine owning the IP address turned out to be an
>NT workstation in a secure location. We immediately dismissed it as
>some sort of IP spoofing.
So, you think it is impossible for someone to do much of anything
under NT?
>Unix is an ideal platform from which to launch security attacks. NT
>is not.
Unix is a nice platform to do a lot of work. NT, hmmmmm....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: 24 May 2000 13:31:58 -0500
In article <8gfroj$hgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sam E. Trenholme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Your machine would be faster if you ran windowmaker instead. :)
>
>And even faster if it was running uwm!
>
>For the uninformed out there, uwm is an ancient window manager for X11R2
>from 1987 or so. It has no virtual desktops, no drag and drop, no
>themeing ability, in fact, the windows have no decorations at all. None,
>zero, zippo. Basically, it has a crude-looking windows when you click on
>the root, and some primitive keyboard controls to raise, lower, and move
>windows. The window manager, in fact, compiles and runs on a modern Linux
>system after a few modifications are made.
Blackbox is a more modern attempt at a minimalist window manager.
Limiting resource consumption seems to be goal rather than an
accidental side effect of not doing much.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:46:13 GMT
Joseph wrote:
> Collateral estopple.
The important word here is 'estopple'.
A legalese Latin term meaning: A bar against an allegation or denial that is
contrary
to one's previous allegation or denial of a fact.
//
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 24 May 2000 13:53:46 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
>> (the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
>
>And the right to fork is good because...? Because it is GOOD to
>fragment
>software and libraries so that apps fail to work nicely?
Suppose the original author is hit by a beer truck and his relatives
sell all rights to the code to a video game manufacturer. Or
he just quits supporting it, or takes it a completely different
direction than the rest of the world wants to go.
Or you want it to work on hardware that he can't/won't support.
>So that if you
>want app A to work, built on a forked library, you have to install yet
>another version in addition to the original - or worse, replace the old
>with the new, probably/possibly breaking all your software based on
>the pre-forked libs?
Hey, just libc...
>I can't see the "right to fork" as a good thing. Forking is what killed
>the unix baby early on.
Hardly, it is mostly what kept it alive. However, in that case not
all the forks are what we are discussing since some of the branches
are complete rewrites because the original code did not allow
unlicensed forks.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Frank Rizzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Frank Rizzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux good choice for home desktop.
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:04:45 GMT
Psych!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
