Linux-Advocacy Digest #48, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Michael Marion)
Re: vote on MS split-up (David Steuber)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Terry Porter)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (JEDIDIAH)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (steve blakeway)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:41:20 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
I've been watching this thread and I have a nit to pick..
> software. This person says: "And if you find a backdoor (definition not yet
> agreed upon) then I'll send you your $5000 back and an additional
> 15,000" -- and I'm supposed to say, "Heck! Yea! here is my $5000 for some
Actually he said, "...for the amount of US$5000.00..." and then "...I'll
return you triple the amount." Which means that he'd return $15,000.
So if you did use an escrow account as you suggest, you'd put up $5k and
he'd put up $10k.. not $15k.
Sorry, that's just been driving me nuts.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
In 1984 mainstream users were choosing VMS over UNIX. Ten years later
they are choosing Windows over UNIX. What part of that message aren't
you
getting? - Tom Payne
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:00:01 GMT
Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' I give them a lot of credit. I USE Linux on my home machine, BUT, unless
' Microsft is hobbled, no other OS is going to get a chance to really
' compete. That has been proven. The ONLY reason inroads have been made is
' that no companies have been able to go public with Microsoft's
' "business" techniques.
It might also help if hardware OEMs were required to release
specifications for creating hardware drivers for !Windows operating
systems. They only aid in the Microsoft monopoly by refusing to do
so.
The DMCA is also an aid to Microsoft. Since when does Congress have
the power to make reverse engineering illegal?
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:07:16 -0500
Tiberious wrote:
> Linux on the other hand?
>
> 1. Doesn't support the scanner.
> 2. Barely supports the printer.
Let us know when Windows runs on everything from a 486 to a mainframe, and
then we'll start making comparisons of which has the best "hardware support".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 13 Jun 2000 15:22:12 +0800
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:26:48 GMT,
Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Subject:
> Installing a printer, scanner and Fax program on a Win98SE
>system.
>
>Specifics: Canon FB630P scanner. Parallel port version.
> Canon BJC 4400 Printer.
> Software including Winfax and what ever came with the
>scanner and printer.
>
>Install printer with CDROM supplied. Nice CanoCraft programs and
>Greeting Card Designer included. Add's all kinds of menu options to the
>standard print menu so that resolution, paper size, diagnostics and so
>forth are easily accessible to the user.
We have heard this from you before Steve, the software was crap, according
to a poster here, who has the same stuff as you.
>
>Install scanner, including Adobe Photoshop (Home version, almost the
>same as pro version) and Canocraft software plus a large selection of
>other software.
*Almost* the same , hahahahahahh. A Elephant is *almost* the same as a
Sherman tank, in terms of weight, but you orta see em try and breed.
>
>Install Winfax. Surprise, surprise, it recognizes the printer and
>scanner and adds a fax option to all menus.
No suprise, it *came* bundled with the scanner and printer.
>
>Super easy.
Super Wintroll.
>
>Try out all options and there are wizards to guide the user through all
>the operations of scanning/printing and faxing and most importantly ALL
>FUNCTIONS WORK TOGETHER,
Wow, that must really excite you ?
Some Windows stuff that actually works together!
> meaning you don't have to scan a printed
>document in order to fax it. You can just do it from the scanner menu.
>
>Linux on the other hand?
>
>1. Doesn't support the scanner.
So what, Linux supports other Scanners.
>2. Barely supports the printer.
Bull shit.
>3.Gimp vs Adobe? Need I say more?
Wouldnt matter if you did, GIMP rocks.
>4. You are on your own trying to figure out how to make things work.
No your not, Linux is a self learning system, everything is NOT hidden away
in proprietary obscurity like Windows.
> Assuming of course you CAN make things work.
I can, so have hundreds of thousands of Linux users.
> Integration between programs like in the Windows world? You'll be
>lucky if the programs put an icon in the menus let alone work together.
Hahahah, another good one Steve, the Windows world is NOT well integrated,
thats a myth.
Can you remotely admin my pc ?
Can you remotely log onto your pc ?
Can you remotely run programs ON your pc, and recieve the graphics output
from them, just like you were at your pc ?
No ?
Ah well it seems that integration in the Windows world is not quite as
"friendly" as you thought.
>
>This person walked into Staples, presented a problem and walked away
>with a solution for $225.00 that was a breeze to install and worked from
>the getgo.
I send a money order for $6.50 in Aug1997, and recieved a CD with Linux and
2000 programs, it worked from day one, printer, modem, vid card, its still
running *right* now.
RedHat4.2
>
>Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
Remote Admin
Stability
Multiuser
Standards support
Worldwide Community of helpful users
Thousands of the best software packages I've ever seen, all for FREE
Many other reasons, too numerous to list here.
>
>Why should someone take a step back in time to a half supported system?
Thats the reason why people shouldn't use Windows!
>
>What advantage does the person above gain running Linux?
Please see above.
>
>I have yet to se a valid reason to do so except for cost, and running a
>desktop system kills that reason.
Bull, I run a desktop system, it rocks, its also a server, and that is
NO BIG DEAL under Linux, its easily done.
Linux is both a Desktop and a Server, always was, always will be.
>
>Sorry but Linux loses again.
Nope, Linux rules as always, you're sadly mistaken.
Your lame printer and crap *free* software example is so rehashed, I should
save this reply to re post every few months.
>
>
>
To any lurkers or Linux possible users, this poster is a Windows troll, and by
using the few unsupported devices he can find, he claims Linux is behind
Windows.
It's a scam, and a Troll, nothing more.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 18 hours 11 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 13 Jun 2000 15:33:55 +0800
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:47:32 GMT, Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Nico Coetzee wrote:
>
>> I don't know if I'm just lucky or what but I have installed about 12
>> Linux Workstations the last two weeks. The Package: RedHat 6.2. I had
>> *no* hardware problems. Some of the PC's still give trouble under NT -
>> especially the Packard Bells (which seems to be designed only with Win9x
>> in mind). But even they have no problems.
>>
>> At home I have the same thing. I don't even bother anymore to check the
>> Hardware Specs. The RedHat installer does everything. The only thing
>> that takes a while is to pick and choose all the packages you want -
>> because there is so many.
>>
>> So far I can install an average Linux Workstation quicker then a NT
>> Workstation (basic OS plus a Office Suite)
>>
>> The hardware I used was anything from a P166 to PII333 and AMD K6-3.
>>
>> So... Am I just lucky or what is this about hardware?
>>
>> O, before I forget - if you want to reply negatively - just keep in mind
>> that these are *training* PC's and therefor don't need DVD and all these
>> fancy stuff. In fact, I still don't understand why people use
>> SoundBlaster Live except if they are in the music industry. I just
>> coupled my ESS card to my hi-fi and I think I have pretty good sound.
>>
>> What is the rest of the groups feeling? Is Linux finally winning with
>> hardware?
>
>I had some problem with some network cards that were supposedly
>supported. But that was with 6.1. It's still much better than the days
>of 5.*.
>
>But it's still dangerous. Many people try to shove Linux on old PCs
>that are sitting around. This is a great use for the PCs but it's a bit
>of a challenge for the installer program. One journalist complained
>about an installation failure recently.
>
>Has anyone been to an install-fest recently?
I have just installed Debian "slink" on a OLD 486SX 25mhz with 8 meg ram,
100 meg HDD, a 1.4 floppy, no cd.
The base install was a breeze, inc net card.
Just eleven 1.44 floppies (which I d/l of the net) and its up and running :)
It is however painfully slow with dpkg, the package manager.
On this PC, Redhat 4.2 installed of CD, via NFS
Redhat 6.2, refused to go.
Slackware wouldnt run.
FreeBsd installed or started to, but ran out of HDD, over NFS.
My son just installed RedHatr6.2 on a old AMD586/133 (a souped up 486)
via NFS and its working perfectly, inc KDE desktop, which I gotta admit
is pretty slick, and NOT as slow as I thought.
He did it ALL himself, inc the new install from scratch, and moving the old
/home to the new /home, but everything else from his old RedHat 4.2 instal
was deleted first.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 19 hours 11 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 13 Jun 2000 06:26:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[posted & mailed]
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I'm not going to give you some present here. I have something for sale
>> and I tie a nice guarantee to it. Like I said, put up or shut up.
>Um, no. Look, you could prove who you are. Sure. Great. "Someone" on the
>Internet posts Rob's PGP key and post "just like" Rob. And says; "Send me
>$5000 and I'll send you some software" - great, I might even get the
>software.
If you would look a little further than your noselength, you would have
discovered that I did not post my PGP key, but a PGP *signature* of a
text snippet, which was signed using my *private* key and which can be
veryfied using my public key. This public key can be extracted from
http://www.keyserver.net along with its certificates.
[snipped healthy dose of paranoia]
>And as you appear to be from the .nl - where people can crack code (and
>claim it was legal reverse engineering) - where you escape all US law
>and the concept of a binding contract would have no meaning?
Where exactly did you study Dutch law to have this insight? </sarcasm>
>Yea, and who do you think is the stupid one? No, like I said: I put
>$5000 in an interest bearing escrow account, you put $15,000 in said
>same account. One of us gets that amount in x days (we'll negotiate
>that period too). You could get back more than you put in (interest) -
>how does this hurt you? Otherwise, *i'm* expected to give you $5k for
>something I can get myself for free and you are expected to do nothing
>in return? hahaha, sorry, I don't play that.
Start giving me proof of your identity and we'll work this out.
>> Can you provide something similar so that I know who I am dealing with? If
>> you want to keep it out of the groups and do it by mail, go ahead.
>That would be best at some point.
I'm waiting for something to drop in my mailbox...
>>My email address is real, which is more than I can say of yours:
>My email address is 100% real - why would you suspect it is not? In
>fact, you prove that it's real with and you can send it e-mail and I
>will reply. What is your basis for claiming I have an "unreal"
>address? Why is your address any more "real" than mine?
My bad, home.com accepts a canonical name, but not just a username in
the SMTP talk. That's why I was mistaken.
> And I've a PGP key too...
What's the keyid? I could not find it on either Alex Boge or Drestin
Black. Have you posted it on a keyserver?
>> Then again, you are the
>> one who claimed: "This is entirely untrue - There IS NO BACKDOOR IN
>> FRONTPAGE" (see http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=611355808 ). I just
>> asked you to prove *your* statement. If you would have stated "the
>> string is not a backdoor password" you would never have heard a thing
>> from me.
>And you know that I'm replying to the thread that suggests that the
>backdoor is this reverse string found in an old DLL. THAT is the
>backdoor in FP I'm refering to.
Then you should have phrased it otherwise. When it is in your favour you
are *very* picky with words and phrases (remember the DeCSS thread?) and
now you want to diss it off with something like "you know what I ment".
I think your measures are in great need of standardizing.
[attempt to define a backdoor]
>So, what does that leave us with?
That you will have to find some code that is clearly there for one
purpose and one purpose only: to allow access (or get info) without the
user knowing it and where the user would likely not agree if he knew.
The "ShoppingCart" perlscript that mailed info of the machine where it
was being installed on, to the writer of the script, had a clear case of
a backdoor. *That's* what we're talking about.
>> P.S., I asked you another question in this thread which you haven't
>> answered (yet). Is it possible to use PGP on Windows non-interactively
>> in a secure manner, and if so, where does the entropy come from?
>I missed that question. I do not have an answer to that. I simply do not
>know.
Neither do I, and as long as I don't I'll stick to an OS where there is
an entropy gathering daemon running (either kernel based or userspace
based). Like I read somewhere else on usenet: "RFC1750 is the Bible".
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
If the Internet was meant to be like TV, you would have been
given a remote control.
-- Rop Gongrijp
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:12:23 GMT
On 13 Jun 2000 15:33:55 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:47:32 GMT, Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Nico Coetzee wrote:
[deletia]
>>But it's still dangerous. Many people try to shove Linux on old PCs
>>that are sitting around. This is a great use for the PCs but it's a bit
>>of a challenge for the installer program. One journalist complained
>>about an installation failure recently.
>>
>>Has anyone been to an install-fest recently?
>I have just installed Debian "slink" on a OLD 486SX 25mhz with 8 meg ram,
>100 meg HDD, a 1.4 floppy, no cd.
>
>The base install was a breeze, inc net card.
>Just eleven 1.44 floppies (which I d/l of the net) and its up and running :)
>
>It is however painfully slow with dpkg, the package manager.
>
>On this PC, Redhat 4.2 installed of CD, via NFS
>Redhat 6.2, refused to go.
Redhat has gotten fat in it's old age. 100M just won't
hold it these days...
>Slackware wouldnt run.
This is unexpected. I thought Slack was trimmer than that.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 13 Jun 2000 08:29:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>I've been watching this thread and I have a nit to pick..
>> software. This person says: "And if you find a backdoor (definition not yet
>> agreed upon) then I'll send you your $5000 back and an additional
>> 15,000" -- and I'm supposed to say, "Heck! Yea! here is my $5000 for some
>
>Actually he said, "...for the amount of US$5000.00..." and then "...I'll
>return you triple the amount." Which means that he'd return $15,000.
>So if you did use an escrow account as you suggest, you'd put up $5k and
>he'd put up $10k.. not $15k.
Thanx, that's exactly what I ment. Drestin has the habit of reading
things that have not been written, but when someone makes a statement on
what he writes, he goes bezerk.
I am honestly very serious about this, but things would have to be
written down carefully, and of course Drestin would have to come out of
the closet. But I think he's less interrested now that he's learned that
he will need to search a lot more than just a "dubious string"...
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
I wonder why half the world is crying, while the other half of the
world is crying too...
-- Janis Joplin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 Jun 2000 10:41:43 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Just to keep you happy, I ran a scene called chess2.pov through POVray on
>both Windows 98 SE. This ran for 22 minutes 51 seconds on Windows 98 SE and
>32 minutes 42 seconds on Linux.
>
>In both cases I chose an image size of 640x480 with antialiasing of 0.3.
>
>Do you see the trend here? Linux is _still_ slower than Windows 98 SE.
>
>Oh yeah, before I forget. I cheated. I biased the test in favour or Linux.
>The Windows version is a full blown editor with a POVray engine. It
>generated an image as it ran on Windows.
>The Linux version I ran straight from the shell. No X-windows running, also
>no image rendered as it ran.
>
I don't believe Linux is 2-3 times faster than windows either, at least
not generally. Possibly in some very specific circumstances.
However, I'm not sure I can accept the povray test, because altough you
used the same scene and a version of povray on both systems there's nothing
saying that they are equal. The version on windows is as you said yourself
is different in how it renders to screen. What guarantees that that there
are not significant differences in the rendering code as well?
>Linux still came out slower than Windows 98 SE!
>
For a fair test, find a version of povray and compile it yourself for
both machines. That way there are no hiddens/unknowns that can skew the
test. (except for compiler differences)
Also, make sure no other more or less time-consuming tasks are running on
either system.
An interesting test would be to run 4 or 5 (or more) concurrent povray
sessions and see how good the systems are in the taskswitching department.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Gabe: [burning stolen money] It costs a fortune to heat this place.
/Cliffhanger
------------------------------
From: steve blakeway<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:18:11 -0500
In article <B56A4EDE.1C33Monday, June 12, 2000 8:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Spidey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But, except for the curosity factor, why would anybody running Intel
>> hardware choose OSX-Intel over FreeBSD?
>>
>> steve
>>
>>
>
> I don't know. I'm not even sure how this thread started. I can't see a
> lot
> of Linux/unix users moving over to OSX just for the heck of it. Linux is
> still going to be far more customizable. You can't, for instance, change
> the new Aqua interface in OS X. I suppose you could run through Darwin
> and disable it, but they're not supporting 'skins' and different desktop
> environments right out of the box.
My understanding is that Aqua will not be available in the Intel version.
steve
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
