Linux-Advocacy Digest #940, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Windows98 (Daniel Tryba)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Marketplace Mysteries (Re: Hardware: budget Linux box?) (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:16:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8kqk89$1rn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <a2_b5.8056$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> The price is not so relevant as the quality.
>> >
>> >I see. So why does MS upset you so? Is it *so* bad for MS
>> >to offer low-quality, cheap goods?
>>
>> I think what really bothers me is the deceptive representation.
>> If the advertising mentioned that the products only worked
>> part of the time, or maybe mentioned the engineering
>> effort that went into *not* working with competitors products
>> it would seem more reasonable.
>
>Admittedly, Microsoft advertising doesn't exactly tell the
>whole story. But you can't exactly single Microsoft
>out on this one; There are very few software manufactures
>willing to take *any* responsibility for defects in their
>software. Microsoft ain't bucking that trend!
Microsoft leads the trend. Microsoft is the trend. I don't see any
other software vendors lying about their products and fronting a company
that strong-arms critics to remain silent. There are *no* other
software manufacturers that *aren't* willing to take *full*
responsibility for defects in their software, and nobody would think so
for a moment, now that you mention it.
>The "engineering effort that went into *not* working with
>competitors products" is, of course, largely a figment
>of your imagination. :D
Hardly. http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
>> I suppose automobile manufacturers have a right to build
>> cars that crash for no reason too, but you can't expect
>> the customers to be happy when that comes as a surprise.
>
>Yeah. But the thing is, the demand for software is so great,
>consumers will put up with an awful lot of crud to get products
>that do what they need.
A case study in profiteering, don't you think? The thing that really
gets me torqued is the thought that if they hadn't been so pathetically
obvious about it (which is to say, if Gates had been driven merely by
greed and lust for power, rather than megalomania), they could have
gotten away with it for decades, maybe for centuries.
>That'll probably change someday, of course. Could be a whole
>new world for the industry when it does!
The end is near. In a way, its already begun.
--
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: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 25 Jul 2000 07:17:04 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DR-DOS implemented true Multi-processing in 1985, yet Microsoft
> didn't accomplish the same task for another 8 years.
Bad guess. Microsoft offered a Unix implementation called XENIX, IIRC -
and later sold to SCO, and also OS/2.
>> MS was doing networking in the 80's with OS/2. It made no sense to include
>
> Microsoft did no such thing.
> OS/2 is an IBM product, you ninny!
Before calling people names you might want to have a clue what you are
talking about. :-) IBM and Microsoft partnered to develop OS/2, it was
sold by both companies. At one point in history OS/2 was promoted by
Microsoft as the replacement for MS-DOS, as was XENIX before it.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:09:04 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:48:20 -0400,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Perry Pip wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) There would be no computers as we know today. They pioneered them.
> >
> >Wrong. Alan Turing was working on these things FAR before the
> >military needed code-breaking computers.
>
> Turing is responsible for conceiving the first progammable binary
> state machine, which proved that a progammable binary computer was
> possible. But the Turing Machine's "architecture" is nothing like that
> of a modern computer architecture, was completely mechanical, and is
> little more than a teaching tool. It is John von Neumann who is most
Ooops, you're right. I was thinking of von Neumann, not Turing.
> responsible for computer architecture as we know it today, and his
> work was fostered by the vast amounts of ca$h the Government invested
> in developing fast electronic computers. And that's what caused the
> industry to take off.
von Neumann did most of his work in the 30's, LONG BEFORE the
government saw a need for his ideas.
>
>
> >Read Feynman's "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". Electro-mechanical
> >multipliers and dividers were "off-the-shelf" items by the late 1930's.
>
> And the first mechanical calculater was built in the mid 1800's. It
> sure took them a long time to become "off-the-shelf".
Not too many people needed them ==> low production runs ==> high cost.
>
> >>
> >> 2) There would be no Internet as we know today. They pioneered it.
>
> This remains true.
>
> >> 3) There would no reliable electricity, as the power monopolies would
> >> be to busy playing cut throating their customers.
> >
> >Oh god. This is so stupid.
>
> This is why you can barely compete with Dresden in a debate.
Facts are on my side, not his, nor yours.
>
> >The main reason why most areas have
> >Electricity monopolies is BECAUSE OF the government, as they
> >GRANTED MONOPOLIES to the various power companies.
>
> And what would have happened if they didn't?? Multiple companies, each
> with their own grid having it's own voltage and frequency and multiple
> appliances on the market each designed for a different company's power
> service. All until one company gets enough vendor lock-in takes
> over. Then you have the same thing you have today but with no safety
> or reliability.
Are you really this stupid?
Was there a governmental body which mandated the use of the ISA
bus in PC's in the 1980's?
Of course not.
Anybody who enters the electricity market has to conform to
pre-existing de facto standards within the overal economy.
And vendor lock-in? Are you trying to sell the idea that in a
free market, all electric appliances would only be supplied by
the an electric current distributor...that there would be no
Sunbeam or RCA or Phillips or Sony or Magnavox??????
That would require that the patent office issue a patent
for oh, say 60Hz current, and another for 50 Hz current
and yet another for 65 Hz current.
In fact, there already ARE markets where multiple electric
companies compete on a house-by-house basis...where a person
may be purchasing from company A when the neighbors to either
side both purchase from company B.
In fact, they have even figured out a way for BOTH companies
to use the SAME distribution net--by using amplitude modulation,
each company distributes THEIR 60 Hz waveform as a signal riding
on a several kHz carrier wave.
Company A might be assigned to 10 kHz, and Company B to 30 kHz.
A simple AM demodulator, tuned to either 10 kHz or 30 kHz is all
that is needed to provide 60 Hz power to any individual hookup.
>
> >Every place where such officially sanctioned monopolies have been
> >overturned, the price of electricity drops IMMEDIATELY when a
> >competing company comes into the local market.
>
> But the distribution systems are still sanctioned monopolies,
> i.e. only one company is running feeders to your house, and there are
> different companies you can buy the power from. Back when the
> original monopolies were sanctioned, the high voltage switching and
> synchronizing technologies were too immature for something like that.
See above about 60 Hz current being carried on an AM carrier.
>
> Perry
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:17:08 -0700
Note: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy trimmed from NGs and followups.
On or about Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:48:58 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scrivened:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Colin R. Day wrote:
>> But was pkgadd open source? Could Red Hat have used it freely?
> No - but the spec is freely available, so RedHat could have freely
> created a workalike.
When was pkgadd created? IIRC, RPM was Erik Troan's baby, ~1995 or so.
I'm not sure _what_ proprietary Unices were using at that time, but
suspect standardized packaging came later. Ok, maybe I lied (see
below).
>> RPM installs, upgrades, uninstalls, queries and verifies. It also
>> maintains a database to check for dependencies and conflicts.
>> It automatically updates /etc/ld.so.conf after installing/upgrading.
> Yep - same stuff as pkg{add,chk,del} etc.
How about PGP/GPG signature checks (RPM) and/or anything resembling the
Debian packaging system's policy, installation, and package querying
tools (apt-cache, dselect, etc.)? Or the automated system update
mechanisms via "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade --download-only"?
I have to say that maintaining a Debian GNU/Linux system blows doors on
any other OS I've touched (WinXX, WinNT, RedHat, SuSE (and other
RPM-based Linuxes). Be interesting to see how the *BSD ports collection
compares.
Got some technical references on pkgadd?
I've turned up a paper by Erik Troan from SANE'98 comparing RPM to
pkgadd and swinstall:
http://www.nluug.nl/events/sane98/daily/19/troan.html
...unfortunately, it appears to be just an abstract.
It doees, however, mention that RPM provides both source and binary
packages, apparently a distinction from the proprietary systems.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
Evangelist, Opensales, Inc. http://www.opensales.org
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:25:50 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
> setting and install option of everything.
>
> Port 21 ftp WIDE OPEN.
>
> Port 23 telnet WIDE OPEN
>
> Port 110 pop3 WIDE OPEN
>
> Port 113 ident Wide open....
>
> Not to mention all of the other security holes due
> to inetd running every service known to mankind.
Deadpenguin, when someone selects "medium security" the must know that it is
not as secure as a higer security level would be. If your are concerned
about the secutiry of the installation why didn't you install with a higher
security level test it and then report your findings? You also must realize
that if you install everything, that all daemons will be installed, that is
the purpose of the everything option.
As you know, I run a mixed platform network and have a Linux host serving as
a gateway/router and firewall. So I used the same webpage as you did to
test my Linux box to put the lie to your claims.
Here is the port scan report from http://grc.com
Quickly Check for Connectable
Listening Internet Ports
Port Probe attempts to establish standard TCP/IP (Internet) connections on a
handful of standard, well-known, and often vulnerable Internet service ports
on YOUR computer. Since this is being done from our server, successful
connections demonstrate which of your ports are "open" and actively
soliciting connections from passing Internet port scanners.
Your computer at IP:
207.93.32.16
Is now being probed. Please stand by. . .
Port
Service
Status Security Implications
21
FTP
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
23
Telnet
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
25
SMTP
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
79
Finger
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
80
HTTP
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
110
POP3
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
113
IDENT
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
139
Net
BIOS
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
143
IMAP
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
443
HTTPS
Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
exists at this IP address!
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 25 Jul 2000 07:30:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Or you could apply compression to the backup copy of the image. A properly
> created partition image file of a 27 Gig partition that contains only 8 Gigs
> of data would normally compress down to less than 8 Gigs. Intremental
> backups could be processed buy other means--also by Linux. But in the
> example presented, if the data files are stored on a fileserver, the
> partition image would be sufficient for the restoration.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. If the partition contains only 8 Gb data
the rest consists of randombits and not for example "null' characters.
Normally only the reference to the file is deleted from the FS so the
actual data is still around and so it wouldn't compress that much.
There are programs around (ghost comes to mind) that have sufficient
knowledge of the filesystem (afaik ghost only supports FAT and NTFS) to
make a real effective diskimage (never used it although since my
partitions are exts of reiserfs). Maybe a simple thing like creating a
file in the emptydisk space that contains only the same characters would
make a (dd if=/dev/sda | gzip > image.gz) a good alternative.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:24:58 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> "dakota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
> > >setting and install option of everything.
> > >
> > >Port 21 ftp WIDE OPEN.
> > >
> > >Port 23 telnet WIDE OPEN
> > >
> > >Port 110 pop3 WIDE OPEN
> > >
> > >Port 113 ident Wide open....
> > >
> > >Not to mention all of the other security holes due
> > >to inetd running every service known to mankind.
> >
> > Are you an idiot??? Just because those ports are left open
> > doesn't mean its a security risk. There are millions of servers
> > out there that leave those ports open and suffer no ill side
> > effects. Besides that, you can pipe everyone one of those
> > services and more through an encrypted ssh session. Are you
> > aware of those things called "firewalls" <snicker>?
>
> Just like a nix troll to take a nice civil thread and turn it black. Of
> course we've heard of firewalls. Let's assess this line of reasoning:
> millions of servers are out there that leave these ports open and suffer no
> ill effects. That may be true. They may be running perfectly secure ftp,
> pop3 etc. daemons on those ports. But they are not as secure as a default
> install that forcefully rejects connection attempts on those ports.
>
> Piping "everything" through a ssh session doesn't make any sense at all.
> But you were just blowing smoke anyway so I'm not at all suprised.
>
> > >Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
> > >those ports and several are in stealth mode.
> >
> > Winshit 98 has a badly broken TCP/IP stack (not to mention the
> > plethora of shutdown and APM problems) as does Windows 95/NT/Win
> > 2000. Nmap can detect them quickly and they are highly
> > susceptible to DoS attacks.
>
> Wake up troll. Each of this summer's widely publicized DoS attacks were
> against nixes.
Evidently you forget Melissa, ILoveYou, etc.
The reason eBay, Amazon, etc. were under DoS attacks against Unix
is because NOBODY tries to run a large e-commerce site on LoseDOS.
So far, there is no public evidence that these weren't anything more
than massively parallel http requests to clog the network bottleneck,
something which NO platform can defend against, any more than a
traditional store is not immune from a large crowd of non-buyers
flooding the store to impede the access of genuine customers.
> All internet connected hosts are susceptible to DoS. It has
> next to nothing to do with the stack and everything to do with spending all
> the incoming bandwidth.
DoS isn't a security issue, it's a bandwidth issue.
>
> > Try sending an oversized packet to
> > Winshit 95, or try sending a malformed ICMP packet to any of the
> > above and see what happens.
>
> Yeah, you're the up to date cracker now aren't you! The patch has been
> available for months. Just like you little nix elves we apply patches
> religiously too. Or maybe you're lulled into a false sense of security just
> because sleep with a stuffed penguin. Perhaps you'd like to read about this
> "security hole" that you think would bring a Windows machine to it's knees:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/fq00-029.asp.
Given that this is the EXACT type of attack used in Morris's "Internet
Worm" of 1987, don't you think it's rather inexcusable for Microsoft
to have left this open for 13 years, especially considering that the
Win32 API was written YEARS after Morris's worm?
To me, it indicates that Bill and his thugs don't give a shit about
customer's system security.
>
> Sending a a malformed ICMP packet (specifically malformed that is) will only
> make the stack chew on it for longer than it should -- maybe a whole
> millisecond. You need to send a steady stream of millions of them to cause
> Windows, with out the patch that is, to slow down. That's the extent of
> this "earth shattering security breach".
>
> > Have you seen the lastest security
> > bulletin from Meglasoft? It mentions a problem with Win2000's
> > telnet server in which there is a DoS vulnerability but they
> > play it down by giving the excuse that you can stop and restart
> > the service.
>
> From that bulletin "Even in affected systems, the effect of the
> vulnerability is limited to Telnet itself - there is no capability to cause
> other services to fail, or to cause Windows 2000 to fail." This engineer
> remotely monitors both nix and 2000 servers and if a service stops
> responding it tells the server to restart it. I get an email message with
> the log snippet containing the cracker's IP and we report the incident.
> Happens every day folks with a *real* presence.
>
> >You see, the "Microsoft" version of security is
> > very flawed and nearly non-existent, as evidenced by the many
> > security bulletins they put out on a daily basis.
>
> Most of these bulletins are for legitamate, albeit quite involved, exploits.
> The folks that stand up and proclaim "I've found yet another GIGANTIC HOLE
> in Windows! I'm the greatest cracker in the world!" really need to get a
> life. If they were real security "white hats" then they would tell
> Microsoft and work with them to get the patch issued. Instead they tell
> every acne-ridden script kiddie to try it on their high school file server.
> Why? Well I think it can only be that they have psychological problems and
> crave attention.
>
> Or maybe they are nix trolls like yourself that will do anything to further
> their righteous cause. You do your grown-up peers a dis-service. Don't you
> know that the grand-daddies of linux were actually quite mature, intelligent
> folks? Honor them by acting the same way. You'll do a lot more for your OS
> that way.
>
> > All the
> > stealth mode <I'm still laughing at this one> that Microsoft has
> > to offer isn't going to protect you from denial of service
> > attacks.
>
> I agree. Nothing will.
>
> > Can MS products filter by Type of Service or Quality
> > of Service, I don't think so. Can MS products do IP
> > masquerading or filtering (ipchains in Linux), I don't think so.
>
> Haven't gotten your MCSE yet I see :-) QoS implemented in Winsock2. IP
> "masquerading" is known by professionals as NAT. IPSEC and filtering are
> under Advanced TCP/IP Options.
>
> > >No wonder the script kiddies seems to love
> > >Linsux.....
> > >
> >
> > They like it because its design is extremely flexible. The
> > TCP/IP stack isn't flawed, either.
>
> And all the exploit scripts run on it. So there are *no* bugs in the stack?
> Why were there several dozen fixed in the last stable kernel release?
>
> > >Typical newbie will install it with defaults and
> > >be hacked within a couple of hours.
> > >
> >
> > Linux is NOT meant for the typical winnewbie. It's meant for
> > people that have a brain.
>
> I'm glad you think that. That superiority complex will limit the market
> share and keep nix in the back 40.
>
> > >BTW SuSE 6.4, Install Everything did somewhat
> > >better in that only ports 80 and 113 were open.
> > >
> >
> > Your webserver doesn't have to listen on port 80. Have you
> > heard of a "proxy server"? Squid comes to mind for Unix, it's
> > free and quite versatile. It can also act as an http
> > accelerator. What has windows got, MS proxy server
> > 2.0<snicker>? ipchains can be effectively used to lock down the
> > ident service on port 113.
>
> You miss the point. That proxy server still has to listen on 80. If you're
> so worried about it just use a PIX. Oh yeah, I bet you don'y know how to
> program one do you? Probably costs more than your car :-)
>
> <snipped more piffle>
>
> Mike Byrns
> Quality Assurance Engineer
> MSB Consulting Services
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 25 Jul 2000 07:41:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Marketplace Mysteries (Re: Hardware: budget Linux box?)
>>
>> BTW, which is the better buy: a $50.00 K6-3 350 cpu, or a $50.00 K6-2
>> 500?
>
>Depends. They require different motherboards..
>
No. Both are theoretically Socket 7 (I'm assuming it's not some special mobile
version).
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:43:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >When Leslie posted his 'theory', the result *was*, in his opinion,
>> >known.
>>
>> By Leslie?
>
>Oh yes. Surely if nothing else is clear, Leslie's low opinion
>of Microsoft's products is abundantly so.
You have come full circle again, and are misrepresenting the case. The
validity of the prediction is not dependant on Leslie's expectation.
>> >Even if you agree with his theory, you can hardly consider it proved
>> >by the mere fact that he proposed it.
>>
>> Personally, I considered it illustrated, not proved, by his
>> "prediction". But then, I don't confuse discussion with empirical
>> science.
>
>Well, apparently Leslie does. :D
No, you do.
>But why hold that against him? It's hardly the worst of Usenet sins!
It is. You're trolling. Posting binaries inhibits discussion less.
Stop it.
>> >(And you can hardly consider it revelant to interoperability,
>> >either. I keep resisting his efforts to change the subject
>> >because I do know that MS's interoperability record
>> >is much more defensible than their reliability or security
>> >record)
>>
>> MS doesn't have much of an interoperability record.
>> Merely a reputation for not having, and in certain cases
>> intentionally damaging, interoperability.
>
>Sure they do- at least, if you think "interoperability" has
>something to do with working with other vendor's products,
>they do.
No, they don't. And I certainly know what interoperability is. It has
everything to do with working *interoperably* with *competitors*
products, and Microsoft doesn't do that.
>It's *standards compliance* where they're reputation is
>a bit less than gleaming white. But I am not going to let
>you conflate the two.
Could be you're mistaken, there. Could be you're trolling. Don't lie
to me, sir. You and all others that defend Microsoft most certainly do
conflate the two.
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
http://www.dislessici.org/opensource/halloween/halloween1.html
>> Connectivity between a Microsoft client and Microsoft server is not
>> interoperability, ever. Its functionality, maybe, but not
>> interoperability.
>
>Sure, I agree. But connection between a Unix client and a Unix
>server isn't interoperability *either*.
Yes, it is. Because it is never a Unix client connecting to a Unix
server. Its a Unix client connecting to any server, or any client
connecting to a Unix server. Hence "inter-operability".
>Now, connecting between Unix and Windows may be considered
>interoperability. And that is done very largely through Microsofts
>technolgies.
Yes, that is the inevitable result of a monopoly that doesn't support
interoperability.
--
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
******************************
