Linux-Advocacy Digest #28, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
God damm Microsoft (Jeff Silverman)
Re: God damm Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Jay Maynard)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:36:05 GMT
In article <8lonu5$v5d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8lomgp$da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > kfm isn't distributed as a product. IE was and is and so is
> > > > Windows.
> > >
> > > IE and Windows are distributed together. IE for Windows is also
> > > distributed seperately, and when installs upgrades parts of the OS.
> > >
> > > As of IE3, IE becomes part of the OS by replacing and upgrading OS
> > > components.
> > >
> > > Presumably you think Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to distribute OS
> > > updates for free ?
> >
> > Not when "The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp"
>
> So what *can* they do if "The major reason for this is . . . to combat
> Nscp"
> ?
Ship a better product.
> > > > That's Illegal product tying. MS's breaking Windows and shipping a
> > > > unworkable version of Win95 to comply with a court order was
> > > > (according to the Judge) one of the reasons they lost credibility
> > > > and why the FoF does not reflect MS's version of the facts.
> > >
> > > Just taking out IE will break Windows. You have to replace all the
> > > components that rely on it *not* to break Windows. Just like, well,
> > > any other part of the OS, really.
> >
> > You say this like it's something that can't be helped. It's not. It's
> > something that was done intentionally by Microsoft to lock Netscape out
> > of the market.
>
> Amongst other things.
Anything else was secondary.
> > "I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply
> > to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's
> > [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one
> > with 80% market share. Maybe being free helps us, but once people are
> > used to a product it is hard to change them. Consider Office. We are
> > more expensive today and we're still winning. My conclusion is that we
> > must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows
> > which is cross-platform [means] losing our biggest advantage -- Windows
> > marketshare. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways
> > to leverage Windows technically more. . . . We should think about an
> > integrated solution -- that is our strength."
> >
> > I find it rather funny that Mr. Allchin doesn't even suggest that
> > Microsoft add innovative new features to IE. He just accepts that the
> > best Microsoft can do is "copy everything that Netscape does packaging
> > and product wise."
>
> Integrating IE *was* an "innovative new feature". As was componentising
> it.
IE was a "copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product
wise," according to Microsoft.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:43:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> >> I don't know how one would make a distinctive tape deck. But then, I
> >> don't think that one needs to copy the concept of "skins" either.
>
> This is pure BULLSHIT. The notion of 'skins' is nothing
> more than a reimplementation of X Window Manager themes.
> It is this aspect of X that allows it to take on the WinDOS
> like appearance that seems to distress you so.
Since you quoted something that I wrote, I'm going to assume you
meant me. So: When did I say the WinDOS appearance distressed me?
> A winamp skin that was more than window dressing would
> actually be quite a relief. I could fix the design
> limitations of the original interface.
Yes, I would also like that.
> Intuitive = familiar.
>
> KDE, at the very least is trying to attack that end of usability.
Pulling on the reins of a horse was a familiar user interface for
steering, but they didn't work when applied to motor vehicles.
Fortunately, the controls needed for a motor vehicle are very simple
and few, so the ideal interface evolved quickly. The controls for a
computer and all the programs it can run are complex and
numerous. It's likely that the UI we're using now is not the best.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Jeff Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: God damm Microsoft
Date: 27 Jul 2000 16:43:12 GMT
Here are the patch instructions for MS Outlook,
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/critical/patch9.htm It says that if you
have an older
version, you are still vulnerable, but you have to upgrade first and then install the
patch. It then
refers you to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/default.htm which has the
list of updates
for IE - they have come out with 4 of them in the past 2 months! If each patch takes
10 minutes and
I have 50 PCs (which have to reboot), that's 500 minutes or 40+ hours.
Because I have to reboot the PCs, I can't do this remotely.
Outlook is an application!
Jeff
--
Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software engineer, husband,
father etc.
See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:03:44 -0500
Outlook uses a common base service of the OS which is being patched, which
is why both Outlook and Outlook Express suffer from the same problem.
Fixing one, fixes both.
But, even so. I don't think you HAVE to reboot. MS often says you should,
but that's a default response.
"Jeff Silverman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lpor0$12i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Here are the patch instructions for MS Outlook,
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/critical/patch9.htm It says
that if you have an older
> version, you are still vulnerable, but you have to upgrade first and then
install the patch. It then
> refers you to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/default.htm
which has the list of updates
> for IE - they have come out with 4 of them in the past 2 months! If each
patch takes 10 minutes and
> I have 50 PCs (which have to reboot), that's 500 minutes or 40+ hours.
>
> Because I have to reboot the PCs, I can't do this remotely.
>
>
> Outlook is an application!
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
> --
> Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software engineer,
husband, father etc.
> See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 27 Jul 2000 16:44:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26 Jul 2000 22:33:49 -0700, Russell Senior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The costs of maintaining your PATH and related stuff is a small price
>to pay for `rm -rf' uninstalls.
"rm -rf" uninstalls are a small compensation for having to track what's on
your system manually, and figure out what depends on what when you go to
upgrade (a much more common occurrence than uninstalling), and manually make
sure everything got installed in the right order, and manually resolve
conflicts. All of these are things a package management system gives you.
I've never understood the disdain some folks have for package management.
What's wrong with letting the computer do things the computer's good at,
like record-keeping?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:53:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> > How does this change the point that most Linux applications are
> > copies of something else?
>
> It makes the point moot.
No. If I say that a lot of software written for Linux has copied
features and user interface elements from other programs, then simply
pointing out that the "other programs" /also/ copied ideas does not
make my point moot.
If software written for Linux has been copying ideas, then it has
been copying ideas.
> This is why people like you are so annoying. You see something
> in MicroSloth product and then proclaim they invented it.
Okay, so someone else invented the concept behind the "start"
menu. Chill.
And then name them :-)
> It just implies that you are only aware of the few
> examples that bolster your particular rant.
So tell me what new software for Linux has come out that doesn't copy
another program in one way or another?
> No, that would make me incorrect.
Okay, cool. You're incorrect and not a liar. You /did/ jump to a
conclusion, though.
> So does nearly anything written in the last 15 years.
>
> Your 'grand inspiration' is not at all noteworthy.
Not to you. But it concerns me that few are implementing new user
interface designs.
> Now, you have yet to demonstrate what would be served
> by seeking out this gratiuitive distinctiveness. What
> is grossly absent is just WHY what you claim to be the
> problem is indeed a problem.
Sure, I did it in an earlier message.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:07:50 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:43:05 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What you called geek code would by definition be created and used by geeks.
>You already knew that I work with the configuration files, scripts, and
>program code; any or all of which could be what you meant by geek code. So,
>that was an indirect means to libel me.
Here is the message it's entirety:
**************Begin*************
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:22:30 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:25:50 -0700,
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Medium is really the only choice to make with
>>> Mandrake because if you select paranoid it turns
>>> off just about everything and things like ppp
>>> don't even work.
>>
>>So you mean that Mandrake's highest security setting is too secure. That
>>violates your original premis in this thread.
>
>
>Stop splitting hairs.
>
>Mandrake paranoid setting is virtually useless because just about everything is
>either turned off, or not even installed. PPP for instance.
>
>>> You're comparing apples and oranges. I did default
>>> installs, not touching anything other than setting
>>> up kppp with my dialup numbers etc.
>>
>>While you may be talking about the Mandrake distribution of the Linux
>>operating system, your subject line is inclusive of all Linux. So any Linux
>>configuration that proves the invalidity of your premis is valid evidence.
>
>And in the first sentence I mention the 2 distributions I tested, but people around
>here seem to have a difficult time reading properly.
>
>***Insert Cheap-Shot****
>
>Maybe it has to do with looking at those crappy Netscape fonts all day long.
>
>**end Cheap-Shot*****
>
>>> On a default install, everything I stated is true.
>>> You can check it yourself if you wish.
>>
>>I am not disputing what the defaults installation of that distributions are.
>>I am disputing your claims as it extends to ALL Linux, which you subject
>>line includes.
>
>
>You guys are really getting desperate...
>
>I point out something and you guys start playing semantics.
>
>
>
>
>>I am also questioning your motive is starting this thread since your have
>>setup your Linux host the way you did by your specific choices. You have
>>reject the more secure configuration and then complain about the lack of
>>security.
>
>See above.
>
>Have you ever tried Mandrake 7.x on the paranoid setting?
>
>If not, I suggest you try it. Almost useless unless you want to spend all weekend
>hand installing and configuring the things it leaves out.
>
>Someone else pointed that out.
>
>
>
>
>>As you know, inetd runs vvery few services like chargen, time, daytime, and
>>echo. The remainder of the ports it may listen on are not serviced by
>>inetd, rather inetd will execute the deamon that provides the service if and
>>when a connection is established on one of those ports. If your don't have
>>the daemond installed then inted would not be able to execute them and the
>>services would not be available. You can also turn off those services by
>>modifing inetd's configuration.
>
>I am talking default install, for the 10th time.
>I didn't modify Windows 98SE with ics and grc.com show much better security for that
>box. Several other sites said exactly the same thing.
>
>
>>You already know that a Linux host can be configured to run any services you
>>what and restrict it to only accept connections to the services from certain
>>network interfaces and not others. You can also configure a Linux host to
>>accept the connections from only some networks or individual hosts. You can
>>use any combination of these restrictions for any of your services in any
>>combination.
>
>Anything can be configured to do anything.
>
>Default install, the one the majority of new users are going to use.
>
>>The restrictions can be enforced at the any level you prefer. The
>>restrictions can be enforced by the packet filtering firewall. The
>>restrictions can be enforced by proxies. The rescrictions can be enforsed
>>by tcp wrappers. The restrictions can be enforced by the internet super
>>daemon. The restrictions can be enforce be the individual daemons. -- or
>>by any combination of these and additional methods.
>
>If you are able, or willing to read geek code blocks all day.
>*****************************THE LINE HE OBJECTS TO
>
>
>>So, I do question your motives for startng this thread.
>
>And what does that have to do with the FACT's.
>
>Try the 2 distributions for yourself and see.
>
>Typical Linvocate.
>
>You guys are really starting to become a sad lot.
>
>I point out some facts, which nobody has been able to dis-prove, and don't bother
>because I really did install both those distributions, and you start playing semantic
>games.
>
>Pretty desperate.
*************End of Message*************
You have a convoluted way reasoning and twisting words around.
(more on that later)
>If you are at all an honorable man or woman, you would appologize for your
>offensive and libellous comment. And don't hide behind the indirect method
>that you used to deliver it.
Apologize for what?
Using the term "Geek Code Block"?
There are many people who use that term in their signature lines...
Are you a "Code Block"?
If indeed you are, then you have my apology.
>In the end of the port scan attack, I was willing to accept your innocense
>on the assumption on your word of honor rather than the evidence that all
>pointed to you as the culprit.
Evidence?
What evidence?
You have nothing but an accusation and a log file that could have
easily been doctored with a find and replace function. You have no
logs from my ISP and it wouldn't matter if you did because it wasn't
me. And yet you go screaming all over USENET that I am trying to hack
you.
I could find and replace your last IP address into one of my logs and
do exactly the same thing, and it would end up with the same results.
Nothing.
> If you don't appologize then it is clear
>that you are not honorable and so your word of honor is worthless. That
>would cause me to reconsider your complicity based on the strength of the
>evidence against the re-evalulated value of your honor.
Reconsider this:
http://x74.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=601064605&CONTEXT=964716268.1466237089&hitnum=71
Maybe the Little Green Martian Men were hacking your fire wall because
they had to tell you something?
And people wonder why I don't use my real name?
>
>> As to your lawsuits?
>
>I did not say, I was going to sue you, I was just warning you that if you
>continue making libellous statement like that you could find yourself in
>court.
And a few more post's like your Alien one and the men in the white
suits and nets just might be coming for you.
You're wasting my time...
******PLONK****************
Welcome to Agent's somewhat limited, but effective killefile.
You won't have anyone to talk to though because you are the only one
in it.
>
------------------------------
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:12:23 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:06:27 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:14:23 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:11:38 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >> ...they don't know well enough to be aware of the distinction
>> >> >> between operating systems and buy the first thing they come
>> >> >> across.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ignorance is no defense. Why is it anyones concern that "the average
>joe"
>> >> >isn't self-discovering all of his available options.?
>> >>
>> >> We've covered that already.
>> >>
>> >> Joe Normal doesn't want to spend the equivalent of a high
>> >> end refridgerator on or in a marginal and untrusted merchant.
>> >
>> >Joe Normal is a sheep by nature, safety in numbers and all that. It's
>still
>>
>> That shouldn't matter in a free market. Perfect replaceability
>> should make it quite possible for even small vendors to thrive
>> and for new vendors and new products to break into the market.
>
>There's nothing holding them back, software has about the lowest barriers to
>entry of any market on earth, at least it does now. Never fear though, the
What kind of crack are you on?
Software has to deal with 20 years of legacy issues in both
hardware and software, including the emulation of obscure
quirks which some of that legacy might depend.
>government is devising ways to cut out the little guy as we speak. After the
They don't have to. Microsoft already beat them there and is busy
working on the likes of Pen Computing, Stac, Trumpet and Netscape.
>legislature is through with the software industry you'll need a law degree
>to navigate your products through all the red tape, to the marketplace.
>
>> >no reasong for Judge Jackson to get his panties in a bunch and blame
>> >Microsoft for it.
>>
>> Whether or not Microsoft is to 'blame' is quite irrelevant.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tivo & perfect replaceability: Alive and well at retail.
>> >> BeOS & network effects: Gasse can't give it away.
>> >
>> >Sounds to me like BeOS and the DOJ better get together and figure out who
>to
>> >blame and sue for this non-acceptance.
>>
>> The Precedents are right there in the public record for all
>> to see actually... a whole century of them, ending with AT&T.
Once you control the marketplace, the rules change.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:14:53 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:40:34 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Well, hold on. There is a lot of FSF and GNU software that was written
>> before Windows stole the desktop, and Windows has copied a lot of
>> concepts/features from UNIX/GNU/FSF, so your observation seems
>> backwards.
>
> I know about classics such as Emacs, but what others can you think
> of? (This is not meant to contest, just looking for personal
> enlightenment. Oh, and that Window Manager sucks, too.)
Lex is also a good example.
However, any new or different interface is bound to suffer
from the 'intuitive = what I already know' problem and at
[deletia]
It's not at all apparent that you are paying any attention
to the periphery.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:16:15 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:53:06 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> If it squawks like a Lemming...
>
> I bought a piece of wood with a reed in it. It quacks like a duck
> when I blow through it.
>
>
>> > Well produces examples tha....
>>
>> A strange reverence for Microsoft product.
>> A piss-poor understanding of competing products in general.
>
> And he then produced examples tha....
>
>
>
> Oh he couldn't do that either.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it's because the claim is baseless and is there like a safety
Nope.
You exhibit characeristics common to those that use Microsoft
as a security blanket and can't see past it for they haven't
really been exposed to anything else.
> blanket for an insecure mind that doesn't know any other way of
> presenting a defense?
Beyond foo->bar, there's really not much else one can claim.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
