Linux-Advocacy Digest #531, Volume #27 Sat, 8 Jul 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Jeremy Cheng)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (John Jensen)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (B'ichela)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (TNT)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeremy Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:16:39 GMT
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:13:24 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Looks like Simon777/Heather69/Whatever is posting for entertainment
> >purposes again. Please skip this thread, it's not serious.
>
> Why? Some of us *like* being entertained. :-)
Yeah, I'm getting a kick out of listening to the winblows users. :-)
If any winblows users read this please continue your ranting. This is better
than Summer reruns by far. :-)
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: 8 Jul 2000 04:25:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 7 Jul 2000 22:35:38 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >For another take, "Misadventures of a Linux Newbie from the Mac World":
: >
: > http://www.linuxnewbie.org/articles/macnewbie.html
: ...which speaks of mounting filesystems manually with all the
: gory command line options...
: You can't even do that as a normal user. Nevermind the fact that
: even Slackware sets you up with pre-canned mount configurations
: for removable devices.
What I liked was that he recognized that there were (at least) two
aesthetics involved. The first piece was a little too sure of right and
wrong.
: It's not a well informed piece.
: BTW, VPC with Redhat bundled is going for $50 after rebate.
He mentioned that the PPC Linux were running a year behind x86 in
features. That might account for some of it.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:32:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 03:59:49 GMT, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Circuit breakers have typical reaction times in the order of
>multi-milliseconds (>1/1000 of a second) whereas power MOSFETs have reaction
>times in the order of sub-microseconds (<1/1000000 of a second). Guess who
>wins the race to interrupt the too-high current flow?
Umm one of my original UPS's had fuses! Standard Fast acting
fuses. How fast is the reaction time for a fast acting fuse? I don't
trust Circut Breakers. thats why all of my Electical equipment had the
breakers replaced with fuses! Future home will be wired with Non
Tamperable Type-S fuses also. Seen Too many breakers fail! both
Household and electronic equipment.
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:24:46 +0400
Folks, watch out. Dress 10 is Baaaacccckkkkkkhhhhhh!
Drestin Black wrote:
> Let me tell you, this guy Lewis has written a fantastic article that really
> really hits the mark. He tells it like it is and manages to say it concisely
> and without insulting anyone. He says all the things I wish I could say in a
> newsgroup posting without being interrupted by zealots and fanatics with
> their spue. I loved reading this and I hope you do too:
>
> http://www.macopinion.com/columns/macskeptic/00/07/07/index.html
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:25:11 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TNT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
> <8k60ic$918$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Your IP doesn't show in your post's header, so it was probably a random
port
> scan. Unless you have a fix IP, even if it shows in header, it will just
> change after a disconection making your comp kinda impossible target.
The IP address that I have been assigned by my ISP as a part of the PPP
parameter negotiations is listed in my usenet posting via the
NNTP-Posting-Host header. The IP address that was used to post the article
that you have just responded to is d1.6e.e2.4b which is the hexadecimal
notation for the IP address of 209.110.226.75 which corresponds to the
hostname of ali-ca10-11.ix.netcom.com.
I have had to disconnect from that dial up server and reconnect directly to
my ISP since I posted that article, so now this message will have a
NNTP-Posting-Host header reporting an IP address of 77.ae.c4.75 which is the
hexadecimal representation of 119.174.196.117 which corresponds to the
hostname of user-33qth5h.dialup.mindspring.com.
It is true that the IP address of the ppp0 interface is reassigned when I
reconnect to my ISP; however, I am often on-line for more than a day at a
time, it is the result of using demand dialing and scheduling transfers for
when I am not sitting at the workstation. Anyone examining the headers of
the postings I made yesterday could see that I was connected all day using
the same IP address. So they could reasonably expect that I could still be
using it.
Often the only reason that I may become disconnected is a telco problem or
problem at the ISP. I have been on-line for as much as a week at a time,
when things are running smoothly.
When I first noticed the port scan in progress, I could have disconnected
and reconnected and that would have ended that for me. But there were two
problems with that solution. The first is that I was in the middle of a
sizeable transfer, following that solutions would have caused be to have to
cancel the transfer and restart it afterwords, wasting what had already been
accomplished. Then since I knew that my network's firewall is secure, I
knew that I was safe from an attack of that kind. However, should someone
else connect to my ISP and get my now available IP address and if they were
not as secure as I am and the port scanning was still in progress, their
computer could have been compromised.
While that person's plight could not have affected me, I could, in good
honor, accept the possibility of someone being hurt when I could prevent it
be taking those hits against my firewall.
If it was a random scan from an unknown third part, It would have been one
hell of a coincidence when you consider the attacker's IP address.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:33:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8k6egb$ujm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> TNT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
> > <8k60ic$918$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> NNTP-Posting-Host header reporting an IP address of 77.ae.c4.75 which is
the
> hexadecimal representation of 119.174.196.117 which corresponds to the
> hostname of user-33qth5h.dialup.mindspring.com.
Opps I make a typo that generated a cascading error. That segment of my
prior message should have read.
NNTP-Posting-Host header reporting an IP address of c7.ae.c4.b1 which is the
hexadecimal representation of 199.174.196.177 which corresponds to the
hostname of user-33qth5h.dialup.mindspring.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 8 Jul 2000 00:55:12 -0500
In article <8k62if$7mq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In gnu.misc.discuss, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>: Kerberos is not a good argument for the GPL. The same thing could have
>: happened if the MIT implementation were GPL'd. Kerberos is actually a
>: very good argument for the BSD license, as it would be much less widely
>: distributed now were it under a more restrictive license. The BSD license
>: met the intentions of the original authors (namely to raise the bar on
>: Internet security in general) considerably better than the GPL would have,
>: and given their goals I would have recommended they use the license they
>: did.
>
>Okay, so I picked a bad example. This doesn't invalidate the argument,
>only the example.
It is actually a reasonable case to make a theoretical argument,
though. Suppose MS did actually copy the base code and would
not have been able to if it had been GPL'd. The alternative
would not have been MS giving away the source to win2k, it
would have been writing something themselves that would
almost certainly have been badly designed by comparison.
Most of us would be affected at least to some extent by
broken code on our networks. How can anyone possibly think
it is a good idea to encourage that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT)
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 06:43:47 GMT
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 05:25:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<8k6egb$ujm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>TNT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
>> <8k60ic$918$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> Your IP doesn't show in your post's header, so it was probably a random
>port
>> scan. Unless you have a fix IP, even if it shows in header, it will just
>> change after a disconection making your comp kinda impossible target.
>
>
>The IP address that I have been assigned by my ISP as a part of the PPP
>parameter negotiations is listed in my usenet posting via the
>NNTP-Posting-Host header. The IP address that was used to post the article
>that you have just responded to is d1.6e.e2.4b which is the hexadecimal
>notation for the IP address of 209.110.226.75 which corresponds to the
>hostname of ali-ca10-11.ix.netcom.com.
Sorry, didn't notice the hex representation.
>If it was a random scan from an unknown third part, It would have been one
>hell of a coincidence when you consider the attacker's IP address.
Have you reported the abuse to the attacker's ISP?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 03:15:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 03 Jul 2000 12:56:16
[...]
>The difference is that there are no monarchical oligarchs to make
>certain speech illegal. Attempting to sway the opinions of millions of
>people is always going to take large amounts of resources.
Only if you are attempting to convince them of something which is
untrue. Otherwise, it only requires the truth. Unfortunately, the fact
is that untruth cannot be differentiated from truth easily, so whoever
speaks loudest is considered most correct. And, of course, giving
someone the truth might sway their opinion, but might not sway it in the
direction you desire.
>In the
>US, we do not, or should not, allow the law to censor the content
>of the message based upon the means used to accumulate the resources
>by which the message is presented.
No, but we should allow the law to hold people responsible for being
honest in their messages, both content and propagation. At present,
they're only held responsible for being able to afford to propagate,
regardless of how honest the message is. Conversely, for reasons
explained above, honest messages have less likelihood to enjoy a large
accumulation of resources than dishonest but self-serving ones.
The law, obviously, cannot be tasked with defining what is truth and
what is untruth (though distinguishing what is true and what is not true
is, in fact, the stock-in-trade of the courts which uphold the law), but
laws which require democratic and honest communication, are sorely
needed and don't even begin to hint at 'censorship'.
The theory you're spouting is that in the US, we don't censor content
(for any reason), but that provides no response to the counter-claim of
preference to self-serving but dishonest views. The result of this kind
of misdirection is that those with great wealth, regardless of the means
used to accumulate that wealth, whether ethical or socially responsible
or not, have the power to effectively restrict the free speech rights of
those without great wealth. The assumption that those with wealth must
have earned the privilege of dominating public discourse by gaining that
wealth, *particularly* if you wish to maintain that the source of that
wealth is irrelevant, is a baneful one, and something that mankind has
worked hundreds if not thousands of years to overcome.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 03:21:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 03 Jul 2000 13:01:08
>Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes. Even ideas that quite a lot of the population see as
>> reasonable are included in the ideas which will get ignored
>> though. And the "people" who are doing the ignoring are not the
>> population as a whole, but rather the few who control the media and
>> political system.
>
>I assume that in the UK, like in the US, essentially anyone may start
>a newspaper or a magazine, or write a book, or run for office. The
>people who "control" the media and the government have achieved that
>position through popularity, not force. It still sounds to me like
>you don't happen to like the outcome of such popularity contests.
"In the US, anyone may start a newspaper" is a separate statement from
"in the US, anyone can start a newspaper" and the practical difference
is all-important. One gives lip service to liberty, one is evidence of
a democratic access to capital. Because the people who control the
media did not achieve their position through popularity, but through
capitalization. It definitely sounds to me as if you're successfully
wriggling out from under any sensible refutation of your contentless
argument using deception and insinuation, as well as purposefully
insulting and frustrating phrasing and statements.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 07:34:32 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Windows can do it, LIE-nux cant.
Linux can play mp3s just fine. Perhaps if you had even 2 seconds of
experience in linux you'd know that.. but you prefer to just make false
claims about it rather then learn about it first.
> >No. Word only has more features, that's all.
>
> ...witch makes it better.
Oh no! We've learned the secret of Word: it uses Witchcraft... we're
all screwed.
> Nothing happen'd. They just closed. No crash. LIE-nux loses again.
So windows not crashing, for you, in one instance.. means that Linux
loses?!? Moron.
> ..except it has moar featchers.
A program having 50 million features.. that maybe .01% of users use, is
useless. Hell, I work for Qualcomm and I don't use Eudora... it all
comes down to taste. I actually prefer tkrat myself. Then again, I
don't use windows for much either.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"This software comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. Even if it erases your
hard
drive, too bad. Although we did fix that bug from the last release."
--README from a long-ago release of DJGPP
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 03:51:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 04 Jul 2000 20:41:51
[...]
>In the first case, I assume you are referring to a situation where
>interested consumers of some broadcast are required to pay for it
>instead of assuming that the entire population is equally interested
>in it, so that it should be paid for by taxes. If that's the case, it
>seems reasonable to me.
That would depend entirely on the actual numbers, which you don't have,
and are merely assuming would work out. There's every likelihood these
days with the growing "force" of huge media corporations, this is simply
profiteering. It would be dishonest to suggest that it should not be
examined rather than assumed it is reasonable, I think.
>In the second case, I assume you are referring to a situation where a
>small group of people were engaged in a protest against a decision
>that their government had made, presumably in the usual legal way, and
>the police perceived, possibly incorrectly, that the situation was, or
>was potentially, a riot which needed to be suppressed. I don't know
>the specifics of the outbreak of violence, but clearly government by
>whomever is able to assemble the noisiest protest is not a terribly
>good idea.
You really get off on that kind of bullshit, don't you? You don't even
know anything about it, but are willing to assume that those in power
were right, and insinuate that people exercising their free speech were
somehow unconscientious troublemakers, rather than trying to defend
their liberty?
Even if you were right, your assumption and posturing, as well as
general attitude and approach during this discussion, would indicate
that you have no less than an abominable mis-understanding of both
justice and liberty.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
