Linux-Advocacy Digest #70, Volume #27 Wed, 14 Jun 00 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 14 June 2000 GNU/Linux/Free BSDs and other Free OSes Beginners
Group: David Solomonoff on Securing Your Free OS Box ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (2:1)
How many times, installation != usability. (mlw)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (2:1)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (2:1)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (2:1)
Re: G4 in space! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ("Arjan J. Molenaar")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ("Stephen Kennedy")
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Grant Fischer)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Drestin Black")
Re: MS Windows WM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: G4 in space! (Jim)
Re: G4 in space! (Jim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 14 June 2000 GNU/Linux/Free BSDs and other Free OSes
Beginners Group: David Solomonoff on Securing Your Free OS Box
Date: 14 Jun 2000 08:15:11 -0400
By popular demand, Wednesday 14 June 2000 we will have another meeting
dealing with Free OS security and privacy. This will be Part 2 of last
month's talk by David Solomonoff entitled: "Securing Linux or BSD novice
users' home/personal computers against both hackers and intrusive
commercial/marketing entities." As usual, no assumption is made that you
have attended previous sessions-- including last month's Part I. And, as
usual, it is free and open to the public. The meeting starts at 6:30 with
general questions and answers.
In the words of the presenter:
This will be a more technical, "how-to" followup to my first presentation
on this topic.
<sub-topics to be covered>
Configuration to make a GNU/Linux or *BSD computer secure against
intruders and invisible monitoring of "clicktrails" while surfing the Web
will be discussed.
The Internet Junkbuster, a proxy server which can filter banner ads,
cookies and "web bugs" to protect privacy and improve download time when
surfing the Web, will be demonstrated.
Sample configuration files for the Internet Junkbuster will be available
to attendees.
</sub-topics>
The schedule is listed below, but, as usual the most up-to-date
information can be found at our current website at
http://www.eskimo.com/~lo/linux.
If you are planning to attend it would be helpful if you would follow the
attendance-counting link for this talk either here or from the website
under the announcement of the meeting. This is to help us estimate the
number of attendees to expect, so please only follow the link once for
each person planning to attend.
Day: Wednesday, June 14, 2000
Place: CALC/Canterbury, 780 Third Ave. C-1, New York, NY
Ask at the front desk for the Beginner's Group.
Hours:
6:30 Q&A
7:00 David Solomonoff will present Part II of
Securing Linux or BSD novice users' home/personal computers
against both hackers and intrusive commercial/marketing entities.
-Lyn
-GNU/Linux/FreeOS Beginners Group
Lightly edited and fully distributed poC TINC:
Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:26:28 +0100
> >
> >Yawnnn..... A twist on words.
> >
> >So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
>
> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
he'll never be able to use that. This should do the job:
#!/bin/wish
button .b -text "photocopy" -command exec "scanimage -d /dev/scanner |
lpr"
pack .b
now, he can click on the button as many times as he wants to get lots of
pretty photocopies!
-Ed
>
> >
> >
> >> There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
> >> machine or copier trick".
> >
> >
> >Sane is a bare bones abortion.
>
> How do the Windows variants "best it" exactly?
>
> [deletia]
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:29:36 -0400
I see it here so often, and so many Linux advocates get dragged down
this path. It wastes your personal bandwidth and it is a classic example
of an argument which can not be won, not because it isn't true, but
because of the great number of variables in the market place.
99% of the machines sold today are sold with Windows. To argue that
Windows is not "easier" to install is problematic. Yes you have to
reboot after you install each and every stupid little plug and play
device, etc. However, chances are that the hardware will be supported in
some fashion, because the box shipped with Windows, it only follows that
the OEM distributor put the work in to their n x 1000 boxes to ship with
all the correct support.
The argument that Linux sucks because it can't install on XYZ computer
is nothing but a wasted argument. To attempt to sustain an argument that
any version Linux is easier to install on a system that probably shipped
with Windows on it is silly. Because, as good as Linux is, there is
hardware out there that it does not support, and in such a debate these
will be introduced. It follows, however, that a computer, shipped with
Linux from an OEM, will have the correct drivers and kernel modules as
well. On that machine, this argument is completely, 100%, winnable.
Installation is important, but OEM installation is even more important.
With OEM installation, the user will never be faced with installation
and it becomes a non issue. Unlike Windows, Linux does not need to be
"reinstalled" if something goes wrong. It can actually be fixed in
place. It can actually be upgraded while running normally!
This leaves the real issues, on which the Windows advocates can't touch
Linux:
Scalibility
Windows may "scale" by using a vastly different code base for each
level, CE, DOS, and NT. Linux scales using the same code base.
Usability
Usability is more than just point and click. It is about reducing the
amount of repetitive work required to do a task. It is about how easy
tasks are to automate. While Linux can drag icons around just as well as
any other GUI machine, but behind it you have one of the most powerful
OS metaphors available.
Flexibility
You can have your Linux anyway you want, in almost any form you want.
You can have very few features, or all of them. And you don't have to
install netscape if you don't want too. You don't even need a hard
drive.
Reliability
I will not say that I've never seen Linux crash, or that I haven't
needed to reboot. But, when I have it has been for an explicit reason,
that I understood and could take corrective action. It has not been
because it was working funny and rebooting it would "fix" it.
Applications
Windows has a few great applications. There can be no argument about
that. However, a few really great ones tend to out shadow the really
really bad ones. All in all, IMHO, the applications on Linux tend to be
better than those on Windows.
X11
People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right. A
graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
both applications and OS. Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
To run an application server means a very expensive service, you would
not run it on a heavily loaded web server. However, it is perfectly
reasonable to run "xosview -display admin:0.0" to get a live visual
update of a UNIX web server.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:33:21 +0100
Matt Francis wrote:
>
> Has anyone let Tim in on this secret???
It's just so hard not to flame that guy about it.
-Ed
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Semantics _and_ spelling....
> > Please, its important...
> >
> > [
> > urrppp +
> > |
> > V
> > ]
>
> --
> Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://people.unt.edu/~mf0004
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:37:49 +0100
> >Why the hell should linux support every goddam crackhead piece of
> >hardware that manufacturers come up with?
> >
> >If you want a scanner that will work with Linux, get one that uses a
> >standard interface like SCSI.
>
> Because using the printer port is cheaper. Because SCSI costs money!
The parallel prot is also very slow. Secondly, linux users are not cheap
or poor. The money saved on software can easily be spent on a better
scanner. I would want a SCSI scanner under windows OR linux.
> Does Linux support USB scanners as yet? I have one, and SANE told me I had
> no scanner device.
Yes, it does.
-Ed
>
> Pete
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:40:15 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >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".
>
> Let us know when Linux supports AHA1520 and SB16 without resorting to hand
> massage certain script files. Oh yeah, Windows supports these without even
> a hiccup.
>
> Pete
I have a SB16 and have never had a problem with it (except when I
connected the wrong PSu to the speakers. It started to crackle after
that under any os :-(
-ED
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: 14 Jun 2000 12:34:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What processor do they run VxWorks on? I know that's been to space ...
I think it runs on all sorts of things.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:56:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:35:06 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> So exactly how is Linux going to unseat the already 90 or more percent
>> of home/SOHO/desktop users from Windows and entice them into running
>> Linux?
>
>How did Windows useat DOS?
It didn't. It *leveraged* DOS. This is one reason why Windows is
the dominant platform today; 3.0/3.1 started it all, after 1.0 and 2.0
more or less fizzled.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- wondering if SOL.EXE is still Windows 1.0 compliant
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:57:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:34:25 +0100 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>But it's such great hardware. Where else can you get an A20 gate style
>thingy. They're absoloutly invaluable...
Whoops, I missed a quirk. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- if only IBM had picked Motorola... :-)
------------------------------
From: "Arjan J. Molenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:19:55 +0200
> For instance, the graphical installation procedures have only even
> existed for the last 3 (three) months. Give it another year, and Linux
> will BLOW Windows AWAY for the installation.
> Give it another two years from now, and Linux will support all
> hardware, old and new.
> Desktop environments are evolving so fast you won't believe it! Look
> at the difference between KDE1 and KDE2, for instance! Look at the new
> Gnome! They all get slicker with every new version, which appear about
> every 3 to 4 months!
> The X-environment is getting a hook into the kernel (DRI), which
> ensures the same performance as in Windows. Linux is developing a new
Same??? Linux already beats Windows WRT OpenGL!
> 3D-audio library (http://www.openal.org), after which the SB-Live
> drivers will come out for Linux.
... and as FREE software!!! I don't wanna lay my faith in the hands of some
company again!
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:52:37 +0100
> >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)
>
> I've been thinking of doing just that. I've got the sources so I could go
> ahead and build a version for Windows and one for Linux.
Don't forget that gcc (the default compiler which ships with
most linux distributions) has historically been quite weak with
floating point operations.
A fair test is to compile both with the same compiler (ming32 or
cygwin for windows and gcc for linux).
Even then the test is meaningless since the OS is not being stressed.
Rendering of small scenes is clearly cpu bound. I'd imagine you'd see
fairly large differences if you made the scene too big to fit into
memory and made the OS do some work.
Stephen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Date: 14 Jun 2000 13:45:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:20:33 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Does this machine exhibit the same problems as the other?
>>(Thrashing on printing the large PNG.)
>
>This machine is the one that exhibited the thrashing when I tried to print
>a 2MByte PNG file. On Windows there was no problem at all, it just printed.
That's my point. Have you tracked down what was causing that thrashing
yet? That's not normal. Running performance tests on a box that seems
to have such strange behaviour isn't useful.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 14 Jun 2000 08:49:56 -0500
"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > Do you think you could find such a thing in ANY MS software? Just
curious to
> > your reply. the subject of this tread DOES read: "what else is hiddin in
MS
> > code?" afterall. Are we remotely on topic yet?
>
> While the whole thread has been interesting... it'd be kinda hard to
> find a backdoor in the code when one can't even look at MS' code.
I'm sorry - do you mean to suggest because the code is closed source versus
open source that it's much harder finding backdoors in closed source
software than open source software?
That's what I've always said!!
Open source software makes it easier for holes to be found (and NOT
necessarily by well-meaning people who will report it to the right person
who could actually fix it).
I agree that it is MUCH harder to find security vulnerabilites (obviously
including backdoors) in closed source software than OSS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:37:41 GMT
I'd like to check out KDE2, but I haven't quite figured out how to get
it. I'm still kinda new to this Linux stuff. I'll say this, Gnome 1.2
is pretty slick. And with the HelixCode site offering it up,
installation couldn't be simpler.
There are a lot of crashes in Gnome, but I don't think it's Gnome
specifically, I think it's the Midnight Commander that keeps crapping
out, for me at least. When I try to do a "Find File" it goes sideways
sometimes. Also, I had a bit of trouble with it trying to move icons
around on the desktop. I had created a launcher under Gnome 1.2, and
when I tried to move the icon, it kept hosing up MC, making it actually
dump out and reload the desktop every time. The rest of Gnome seems
solid as a rock. It's just MC that's got to go. The screenshots and
what I've read give me great hope that Nautilus will alleviate some of
these problems. MC's a little feature-poor anyway.
Don
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 14 Jun 2000 08:50:45 -0500
"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > The amounts are unimportant to me, he can set any he'd like. Although I
>
> I know that they really didn't matter when it came to the whole issue..
> it was just the geek in me coming out because I noticed the math error.
> :)
>
no probs...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 14 Jun 2000 08:56:40 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i6f91$f4a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Drestin Black wrote:
> >> >
> >> > p.s., it is impossible for an operating system _alone_ to be C2
> > certified.
> >> > It is ALWAYS a complete system that's evaluated and certified. NT
enjoys
> >> > another advantage in that it's C2 certification can be achived
through
> >> > software alone, not requiring any special hardware.
> >>
> >> Don't sentences one and two contradict each other Drestin?
>
> > no, I said not requiring any special hardware. What I mean is what I've
> > written. NT enjoys the fact that it can gain certification on most any
> > readily available hardware.
>
> Not laptops. Care to tell the class why, dresden? Go ahead, flaunt
> your incredible security knowledge.
>
This is an area where I think they got it wrong. My humble opinion.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 14 Jun 2000 08:56:51 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i6f6k$f4a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8hgqbg$sm8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Um, no. I just believe that if you read the document and accompanying
> > PDF
> >> > you'll note that no hardware changes are requird and if you read the
> > specs
> >> > on the hardware you will find nothing special about them. I am able
to
> >> Umm, you're claiming that a system might be C2-secure if it's running
> >> on a PC with known bugging devices attached?
> >>
>
> > are you on drugs? where did you come up with that crap?
>
> You said that hardware doesnt matter for an NT C2 certification, idiot.
>
> Are you telling me that I could plug my cute little PC microphone onto a
> certified C2 NT machine and keep that certification?
>
OK, tell you what: I'll play. Show me, URL, exactly where it says plugging
your "cute little PC microsphone" into a certified machine will void that
certification.
We'll go from there. First, prove SOMETHING.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: 14 Jun 2000 10:02:51 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> >
[snip]
> My chioce goes with domestic pigs. it seems that they can be very
> intelligent.
Pigs it is then.
> > Fourthly, can we agree that "a bit dim witted" is an oxymoron?
> >
> > Fifthly, you've _still_ said nothing which demonstrates that you did
> > anything other than "shoot from the hip" to comment about something
> > which _obviously_ is not "dim witted." Such potshots can occasionally
> > come close to the mark, if the shooter has had lots of practice. You
> > need a "bit" more.
>
> It was more than shooting from the hip.
> Satellites are best if they need less power. It meand they need fewer
> batteries, and fewer solar panels. That reduces weight, so less fuel
> needs to be carried. The satellite becomes lighter and cheaper.
>
> It sounds to me (a bit) that this is a publicity stunt for Apple,
> therefore it does not need to use the *best* stuff, only stuff that will
> put apple in a good light.
Ok, that's a start. Now do you have some evidence that Apple are
involved financially? Or does it just "sound like" you're spreading FUD?
And can "a bit" properly modify "dim witted" without being (a bit of) an
oxymoron?
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: 14 Jun 2000 10:04:30 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Sounds like this StrongARM processor of yours is the right answer,
> > regardless of the question or if it has already been answered. Coming
> > from a non-UK address, it would have sparked my interest. From an UK
> > address, it is perfectly understandable.
>
> Actually, I don't (and,. unfortunately probably won't) own a strong arm
> based computer. Mabey the processor will start to spread a bit now INTeL
> is behind it.
That's nice to know. Certainly makes it's name appropriate.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
