Linux-Advocacy Digest #950, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Mikey)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("Boris")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Alan Coopersmith)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (gLiTcH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:38:29 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8lhqsc$sme$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> > > rational discussion seems fruitless.
> >
> > Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> > rational discussion seems fruitless.
>
>
>
> > I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact
> > that machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of
> > choice have *always* been available.
>
> To hard-core geeks, yes. I have already said as much, but we are talking
No, to anyone with the gumption to pick up a PC magazine, or a local paper,
and look for appropriate sellers. Such businesses existed in Australia, so
I find it difficult to believe they didn't exist in the US. This is for an
entire system, as well.
> about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
> which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
And which alternative OS would you have proposed Joe and Jane consumer use ?
> > You'll have to work hard to convince me the computers I've bought in
> > the past without any OS and with OS/2 don't exist.
>
> And you'll have to work really hard to prove that you are really paying
> any attention to this discussion.
*sigh*. Your claim, basically, was that PCs without Windows were not
available to anyone except people with the expertise to build them. THis
is, for lack of a better word, bullshit.
> > > Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue.
> >
> > False.
>
> Uh-huh. "Proof by Proclamation" strikes again.
Indeed, much like your proof by proclamation that PCs weren't avaialble
without Windows.
> > > Unless you built your own machine from parts, or went to the most
> > > obscure hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county,
> > > there was no way to not buy Windows bundled with your computer.
> >
> > False. Certainly big names like Dell, Compaq etc weren't carrying
> > non-Windows PCs, but that's because they cater to the majority market,
> > and the majority market is only interested in Windows.
>
> No, they cater to Microsoft, who dictates licensing terms.
No, they cater to the mass market, and the mass market wants Microsoft.
Businesses are out to make money, nothing more, and if they aren't
delivering the products that their customers want, then they go broke.
> Obviously,
> you haven't been paying atention to the trial.
I have, and it makes no difference.
> > Or would you like to see the government leaping into and controlling
> > the computer retail market, forcing vendors to carry products with
> > little demand and wear the extra cost, as you would like to see the
> > government jump into and control OS design ?
>
> I would like to know where you guys get these fallacies.
>From people like you, apparently advocating such a chain of events.
> For starters,
> Government is already involved; Government is what allows MS to exist as
> a Corporation in the first place. If MS doesn't wanna play by the rules
> of Government (which is solely responsible for MS' very existence in the
> first place) then MS has to answer to Government.
Where do you get the silly notion that the Government is responsible for
Microsoft's "very existence" ?
> Also, Government's first order of business has to be self-preservation.
No, Government's first order of business *is* self preservation.
Government's first order of business *should be* satisfying the whims and
needs of the population that are the reason it exists.
> If some uppity Corporation starts getting arrogant and breaking Laws
> with appparent impunity, amassing a substantial power base in the
> process, then it's Government's duty to keep that Corporation in check.
A pity that all this is decided rather arbitrarily.
If "the law" could somehow be applied objectively, you'd have a point, but
that would be impossible.
> If you don't like that, then go start some other planet and run it any
> way you want.
>
> > > This is fine for hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average
> > > Consumer, this meant that there was no choice.
> >
> > There was no choice because.....there was no choice. Until very
> > recently the viable alternatives to Windows were the Mac, and that's
> > about it.
>
> Is this where I'm supposed to simply declare "FALSE?"
If you think you can back it up later, go ahead.
> DR-DOS, OS/2, GeoWorks GEOS, were available, as were others. The *only*
> reason why there weren't "viable" is because MS already had a lock on
> the preload market.
DRDOS had many compatibility problems, mostly with programs using extended
and/or expanded memory. Now, this wasn't DR's fault per se, and it
certainly wasn't Microsoft's, but the end result was simply that DRDOS
wasn't a viable replacement for MSDOS, which is what it needed to be.
OS/2 was probably the most successful of the bunch, what killed it were a)
high (comparitively) hardware requirements, b) lack of native applications
and, finally, c) Win32
GEOS never even really got started.
> > Even today, the only really viable option to Windows is Mac. This is
> > not Microsoft's fault, no matter what you might think.
>
> "FALSE." (See above)
Please detail the other drop-in replacements for Windows (which is not to
say it has to run the exact same apps, just supply the same functionality).
> > Are you seriously trying to contend that Linux 1.2.xx based distros
> > were real competition to Windows and Mac ?
>
> I don't recall saying, or even implying as much.
So what were your other OS choices ?
> > > MS *has* been found guilty of criminal behavior. The proposed
> > > solution is dubious, obviously, but until they win on appeal or in
> > > the Supreme Court, MS are criminals.
> >
> > Yes, well, by your much touted legal system OJ is an innocent man.
>
> "Much touted" by whom, exactly?
Anyone who uses the argument "Microsoft broke the law" as their only
rebuttal. This implies a belief that the law is always correct, which is,
at best, a foolish stance to take.
> But yes, you are partially correct; OJ was found "Not Guilty" by our
> system. Too bad, but the fact that everyone is convinced of OJ's alleged
> guilt is irrelevant to the actual case, and is representative of why we
> have such a system. I suppose we could just rely on lynch mobs to
> appease people such as yourself who would elect themselves Judge, Jury
> and Executioner, and simply hang OJ from the highest branch of the
> nearest tree without a trial.
I would have done no such thing. My point was that the process of law is,
at best, questionable, so IMHO using the line "xxxxxx broke the law" as a
justification, is worthless.
"The law is an ass" is a line that springs instantly to mind.
> But, I digress. Perhaps you could explain how "Guilty Until Proven
> Otherwise" OJ was able to put up a defense credible enough to instill
> that "small shadow of doubt," which is all that is required to prevent a
> Guilty verdict, but multi-billionaire Golden-Boy Gates and his motley
> crew could not? After all, Gates and MS has one f*ck of a lot more money
> to spend on Dream Team attorneys, yet they failed to instill even that
> "small shadow of doubt."
>
> Oh, I forgot, the Judge had it in for them, in spite of being a Reagan
> appointee.
I'm afraid I'm not privy to the subtleties of American political agendas, so
the "Reagan appointee" is lost on me.
However, the impression I got throughout the entire show was that the judge
had made his decision, at least in concept, very early in the entire case.
He also demonstrates a fair amount of misunderstanding of the industry and
lacks background knowledge on the topic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:41:17 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Jeff Glatt writes:
>
>>>>> yet those who carefully look at all of Marty's responses
>
>>>> Who are "those"??
>
>>> The ones who look carefully at all of Marty's responses, Glatt.
>
>> The ones who have looked carefully at all of Marty's responses think
>> that you're a clueless loser.
>Typical unsubstantiated claim laced with invective,
Nonsense. They've already weighed in here at this newsgroup and told
you that you're a clueless loser. Would you like to see my collection
of comments about you from these people?
>and completely
>irrelevant to the question of yours that I answered.
The comments are from these people to whom I refer.
>>>> The only people reading your exchange with Marty are people who
>>>> think that he sounds like a reasonable person and you're a
>>>> clueless nutcase, fool, and loser
>>> Prove it, if you think you can, Glatt.
>> My collection of numerous, negative opinions of you, from a wide
>> demographic of readers of your posts,
>On what basis do you claim it to be a "wide demographic", Glatt?
It transcends the alleged "dichotomy along operating system usage
lines" that you claim restricts the demographic of people who regard
you as a clueless loser.
>It could easily be just a handful of people.
It isn't. It's quite a collection of quotes. The UofH found it quite
interesting to see just how many people felt that way about you, over
such an extended period of time while you were posting those messages
from the UofH system.
>Ask Stuyck about his
>investigation involving Mai Fong, for example.
Does Mai Fong also think that you're a clueless loser?
>Of course, I have a collection of numerous, negative opinions of you.
I have no doubt that it pales in comparison to my collection of quotes
about you, and that my collection represents a much wider demographic,
for example, not almost exclusively OS/2 users.
>> clearly show that the readers of your posts regard you as a clueless
>> loser.
>Typical unsubstantiated claim laced with invective.
Not at all. Would you like to see the collection?
>> Would you like me to repost this archive for your edification?
>What I like is irrelevant, Glatt.
Everything about you is irrelevant. But nevertheless, that still
doesn't answer the question whether you'd like me to repost this
archive for your edification.
>History shows that you do whatever
>you want to do, regardless of what anyone else likes.
Irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:38:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:32:37 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 22 Jul 2000 21:19:45 -0400
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >
>> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[snip for brevity -- let's just say this was the
'Bill G = Slepian' solution suggestion :-) ]
>> >> Ye gods. As if the anti-choicers weren't bad enough
>> >> in talk.abortion... :-)
>> >>
>> >> Letting Billy boy rot in a jail cell is one thing, but shooting
>> >> him's probably over the line.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, we could lock him in a white-walled room with a
>> >> table and a computer with "BOB" running on it, and he
>> >> can't .... exit .... it!
>> >
>> >That would by cruel and unusual punishment.
>>
>> And subjecting us to "BOB" in the first place isn't?? :-) :-)
>
>I saw it in a store once.
>I take it BOB was even stupider than it looked?
Can't say from personal experience, but the idea was that one
was in a room with a bunch of items, such as a computer terminal,
a dog, a clock, some papers on a desk (or maybe a file cabinet?),
a wastebasket, and stuff. At least, that's what I remember;
I'm probably missing a function or two, like a scratchpad on the desk.
The computer terminal would be for E-mail or something.
The dog is the help icon.
The clock is for one's scheduling/calendar.
Papers on the desk/file cabinet might represent document management.
The wastebasket is for throwing away files.
The idea at the time struck me as slightly silly; I don't remember
whether I heard the jokes prior to seeing the product, or
afterward.
Of course, part of my personal problem is that I've been steeped
in computer usage and terminology since my early teens.
I know about a file, a directory, a symbolic link,
a block special, a character special, a socket, etc.
I was programming a PONG variant prior to high school -- and
got kicked out of a 'puter store because of it. :-) (This on
an Apple ][.)
A total newbie might not know these things. But he could
easily learn, methinks...it's probably similar in complexity
to the concept of a variable in, say, BASIC, C, or Pascal.
Once one understands what a file is, a directory isn't too hard.
But why call it a "folder"?
And why gussy up these things by pictorial icons with strange properties?
Can one, for instance, take the dog and throw it in the wastepaper
basket? :-) Would the dog have fleas and need a shampoo?
Does the file cabinet contain coupons, porn, tax forms, advertisements?
(Would these have different propeties?) Does the file cabinet
also contain .MP3, .AU, .WAV, and .MOV files? Does it contain
CD-ROMs, or just the titles? Does it contain that piece of
chewing gum the 5-year-old stuck underneath one of the drawers? :-)
Can one set the clock by moving the hands? Can one move the
clock? Can one replace the battery?
I think these questions illustrate some of the issues with this
sort of concept -- athough in a sense this does remind me of
virtual reality concepts pioneered by Xerox some time back,
although the only ones I remember are the "moving message wall" and
a 3-d mobile that represents the directory tree. And of course
some of these questions are bubbleheaded anyway -- but it's clear that
the clock is not a clock, really; it's an icon. However,
one could just as easily use a button or menu pick with the text
"Calendar", and that would be probably far less space-consuming,
with the added advantage that a menu pick "rolls out of the way"
when not in use, saving valuable screen real estate.
It's the same sort of illogic that permeates Quicktime 4's interface,
which actually looks like a physical product. But why use a
thumbwheel with a mouse? It makes little sense.
(Have I been an engineer too long? :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- BOB. When you absolutely, positively, want to
confuse the user -- or make him feel like
an unintelligent child. :-/
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:44:28 -0400
Thus Sprake abraxas:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thus Sprake Steve:
> >
> >> Thank you for supporting my findings with the
> >> technical knowledge that you have and I don't.
> >>
> >> I was merely pointing out, at a very basic level
> >> that a default Linux install leaves the end user
> >> wide open to attacks.
> >
> > If you're so worried about attacks, then SELECT HIGH SECURITY for your
> > box, especially if you've got a cable modem or DSL. If you select
> > "medium security" on a constant connection, then you probably deserve
> > the reaming you might get. Try the high security setting and ask around
> > on how to secure your box instead of bitching because the setup program
> > doesn't hold wipe your butt for you. That's a mom's job. :)
> >
>
> High security under mandrake (which isnt even actually linux) is a very
> bad idea if you ever plan on using it for anthing more than an extremely
> secure router/service machine.
IMHO Default *anything* is bad when it comes to security. btw, Mandrake
not Linux?
How so?
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:42:02 -0700
> > > Oooh...you mean even newer and more exciting viruses?
> > Because SOAP executes on top of HTTP, it has all security mechanisms HTTP has: SSL,
etc.
>
> Not good enough: All this guarantees is that nobody can eavesdrop on
> your connection while you're downloading the next I LOVE YOU virus. It
> gives no protection at all against hostile code.
That's why AV software business is huge. Viruses are always a hazard.
At least, I've never heard about a virus which would use DCOM to spread.
Boris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:43:01 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:44:28 -0400, Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thus Sprake abraxas:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Thus Sprake Steve:
>> >
>> >> Thank you for supporting my findings with the
>> >> technical knowledge that you have and I don't.
>> >>
>> >> I was merely pointing out, at a very basic level
>> >> that a default Linux install leaves the end user
>> >> wide open to attacks.
>> >
>> > If you're so worried about attacks, then SELECT HIGH SECURITY for your
>> > box, especially if you've got a cable modem or DSL. If you select
>> > "medium security" on a constant connection, then you probably deserve
>> > the reaming you might get. Try the high security setting and ask around
>> > on how to secure your box instead of bitching because the setup program
>> > doesn't hold wipe your butt for you. That's a mom's job. :)
>> >
>>
>> High security under mandrake (which isnt even actually linux) is a very
>> bad idea if you ever plan on using it for anthing more than an extremely
>> secure router/service machine.
>
>IMHO Default *anything* is bad when it comes to security. btw, Mandrake
>not Linux?
>How so?
It isn't your only option and those that choose to install it
on their machines (OEMs) aren't bound by contracts not to
change it.
Infact, that's how Mandrake itself came to be.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:51:49 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8lhs3c$tnc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l7tqi$575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8l79io$s8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > Since when have managing e-mail and web browsing been "OS"
> > > functions?!!?!
> >
> > Since around the same time a shell (of any description) became
> > standard issue with an "Operating System" distribution. Indeed, since
> > around the same time an "Operating System" contained anything except a
> > bare kernel and some device drivers.
>
> So, then, it has yet to happen.
You can name some commercial OSes shipping without shells (keeping within
the market of OSes aimed at interactive syle use) ?
> > The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in
> > the consumer world.
>
> Translation: The true definition of an "operating system" is moot in The
> Microsoft World.
No, in the consumer world, ie most people. Why don't you do a quick poll
around and see how many end-user style people you can find who don't think
Finder, Explorer or bash are part of "the OS".
I doubt you would find many people outside (or even inside) of CS who would
identify ntoskrl.exe over "Windows NT" as the "operating system".
> > What 99.9% of the computer using population call an "operating
> > system" is really an "operating system distribution".
>
> What "99.9% of the computer using population call" *anything* is
> irrelevant.
Unless you're trying to sell that thing to them, at which point what they
call it becomes the *most* important thing.
> Or perhaps we should all start calling out CPU boxes "hard
> drives."
The fact that we don't, suggests that not that many people do.
> > Linux distros ship with multiple developer tools, web browsers, image
> > editors, networking programs, office apps etc etc. Presumably you
> > also advocate that these should all be wiped from the market and
> > everyone should have to build their Linux machine from scratch ?
>
> No, but then I have yet to run across any Linux distro which calls the
> various included browsers and e-mail programs "part of the OS."
I don't see Redhat marketing their product as "Linux, and a whole bunch of
shells, developer tools, text editors, word processors and daemons".
Instead they market it as "RedHat Linux", which implicitly includes all the
stuff they include in their distro.
Now, that marketing might clash with your belief in the One True Definition
of an OS, and as a CS major myself I understand, but that's just how the
world works. Get used to it, if you arne't already.
> No,
> Linux makes a clear distinction between the OS kernel and *APPLICATIONS*
> and utilities.
No, *certain people* within the Linux community make that disctinction (and
they are few and far between, unless prompted, as well), but most people
will just say "Linux" when what they mean is "a Linux distribution".
> OTOH, if Windows (including Outlook Express and IE) were available free
> for download, along with the source, FROM MULTIPLE VENDORS, then:
>
> A) I would have less to complain about, and
>
> B) Your argument would make more sense.
My argument wouldn't change at all, and neither would its meaning.
Hopefully in your OSS crusade you attack *all* vendors who market non-OSS
software ?
------------------------------
From: Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 25 Jul 2000 16:46:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in comp.sys.sun.misc:
|When was pkgadd created? IIRC, RPM was Erik Troan's baby, ~1995 or so.
It's part of SVR4 which was released around 1991 or 92, IIRC. (Solaris
2.0, Sun's first SVR4 release, shipped in 92.) I don't remember it on
SVR3, but I didn't use SVR3 systems that much.
|I'm not sure _what_ proprietary Unices were using at that time, but
|suspect standardized packaging came later. Ok, maybe I lied (see
|below).
I'm fairly sure it came much earlier, giving the Linux solutions many
examples for inspiration, as well as to learn what not to do.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://soar.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [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 16:46:56 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:38:29 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8lhqsc$sme$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> -- snip --
>>
>> > > Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
>> > > rational discussion seems fruitless.
>> >
>> > Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
>> > rational discussion seems fruitless.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact
>> > that machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of
>> > choice have *always* been available.
>>
>> To hard-core geeks, yes. I have already said as much, but we are talking
>
>No, to anyone with the gumption to pick up a PC magazine, or a local paper,
>and look for appropriate sellers. Such businesses existed in Australia, so
...and then make sense of all the jargon
...and put their money in the hands of unknown, untrusted,
potentially lying and thieving businessmen from the other
side of the continent.
>I find it difficult to believe they didn't exist in the US. This is for an
>entire system, as well.
>
>> about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
>> which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
>
>And which alternative OS would you have proposed Joe and Jane consumer use ?
One that some manufacturer choose to load on the machines that it
sells through well trusted consumer products outlets.
[deletia]
This doesn't seem to be too hard for other forms of electronics.
The fact remains that the bulk of the market, in terms of actual
sales rather than how many cockroaches you can count, has been
for quite some time bound by exclusivity agreements and potentially
punitive price discrimination in a cutthroat marketplace.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:58:36 -0500
From: gLiTcH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
>
>
> 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.
and why wouldn't it make any sense? If it didn't make sense why would anyone
ever use SSH then??
>
>
> > >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. 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.
Based on reports from msnbc.com the attacks were directed (or at least affected)
the routers that Yahoo, etc. used and therefore affected the actual websites.
Based on those reports the attacks were not directed to a specific OS.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> 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".
[big snip]
Brandon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
