Linux-Advocacy Digest #807, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (ZnU)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Joel Barnett")
Re: Cool Idea
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:09:35 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:45:42 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:04:42 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:20:14 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:51:57 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On 31 Aug 2000 04:45:50 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other
>companies
> >> >> >> >> >>that support the *same* API.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Nothing is stopping someone cloning QT ( unless you count lack of
>interest ).
> >> >> >> >> No, Trolltech has made legal threats.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Terrible legal threat: "we can't guarntee we eill not sue".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...which individuals who don't have the financial resources
> >> >> >> to deal with a lawsuit must take into consideration.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course. What they shouldn't be is surprised. Noone will ever
> >> >> >guarantee they will not sue anyone else.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's not a threat, it's a statement of the obvious.
> >> >>
> >> >> ....yes, that Troll is a greedy corporate entity that operates
> >> >> under the same charter that any other for-profit corporation
> >> >> does: screw everyone else.
> >> >
> >> >I bet you work for a non-profit, right?
> >>
> >> Nope. I just have a realistic view of what a corporation is.
> >
> >So, you work for a corporation whose charter is "screw everyone else"?
> >What a sad life.
>
> Most people do. My life is not sad just because I don't need
> to dellude myself about the true nature of things. If anything,
> you are the pathetic one needing some Matrix kept over your eyes.
If you really believe your employer is out to screw everyone else,
then you should become some sort of unabomber. Or else, you are
working to screw everyone else.
> Perhaps it is to keep you sane. Perhaps you merely can't handle
> the real world in all of it's gory.
My company is out to earn money. It sometimes involves screwing, in
some ethical ways, some. Not out to screw everyone else.
> >> >> This is why it's a BAD idea to allow them to own an interface.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, yeah, let's accept companies, except where they bother jedi.
> >> >Really practical.
> >>
> >> You have managed to stumble upon one of those rare occasions
> >> where big business and idealists actually have come to the
> >> same conclusion.
> >
> >Allow me to refresh what you said with some added emphasis:
> >
> >"it's a BAD idea to *allow* them to *own an interface*"
> >
> >Wake up and smell the coffe, you are in no position to allow
> >TT to own an interface or not. To compose your ego with
>
> You are still quite dellusional.
So, you ARE in a position to allow TT to own an interface?
And *I* am delusional?
> Or is english a second language for you.
More like a fourth, but I manage.
> >misinformation, they don't own the interface, because
> >interfaces are not protected by copyright. They own the
> >implementation.
>
> Sure they do. Otherwise they wouldn't feel confident in
> suing Microsoft for the instance where they would infuse
> Harmony with cash and 'embrace and extend' it.
Read the quote again. They said they "might consider", not
that they were confident, and the embrace and extend was
embrace and extend Qt, not Harmony. How inaccurate.
> Interfaces are defined in sourcecode, unless they are
> codified elsewhere. QT is not such a beast.
What beast? Go learn about copyright law. APIs are not
copyrightable.
> >Also, your statement can be taken as allowing OTHERS
> >to own interfaces, just not TT.
>
> You need to take a remedial english course.
"it's a bad idea to allow them [them being TT] to own
an interface".
Let's replace the nouns: "it's a bad idea to allow them
[them being kids] to own a gun".
That allows others (non-kids) to own guns, does it not?.
Your statement allows others (non-TT) to own interfaces.
Lo and behold, I think my english is just fine.
If you meant that it's a bad idea for interfaces to be owned,
a better way to say it would have been "it's a bad idea
to allow anyone to own an interface".
Apparently your english failed YOU, jedi.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:02:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe
> R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now
> > > > studies from three states indicating that minority students,
> > > > particularly Hispanic and African-American, do better in private
> > > > schools. I think vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that
> > > > *extra* taxes are implemented to pay for them. The bad thing
> > > > about vouchers is that the money for them, at present, comes out
> > > > of public school budgets (so far as I know.) Competition is good,
> > > > but I don't want to hamstring the public schools by stealing
> > > > money from them.
> > >
> > > "stealing"? David, let's take just an example. Assume a school
> > > district has 10,000 students and vouchers take away 2000. Are you
> > > saying that whatever budget this district had is now to continue
> > > unchanged? Wouldn't a smaller student population require, for
> > > example, fewer teachers? Your bias as a school teacher is showing.
> >
> > Of course, in the liberal tax and spend world, that's not
> > unreasonable.
> >
> > After all, welfare rolls have dropped by something like 75% in the
> > past few years. The total cost has dropped by a much, much smaller
> > percentage
>
> I imagine it costs more to move people from welfare to work than it does
> to just maintain them at a basic level of existence. Obviously it pays
> off in the long run.
But I thought that the objective of welfare was _always_ to get people
on their feet. At least, that's what we were promised every time the
Democrats voted for more welfare money.
Or are you admitting that the plan used to be purely a give-away and it
was only in the past couple of years that they started getting serious
about getting people to work?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:12:59 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On 1 Sep 2000 02:02:42 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:14:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>>>
> >
> >>So just how does that jibe with "we can't guarantee we won't sue"
> >>(assuming this was an accurate quote)? I don't expect anyone would ask
> >>for any such guarantee to begin with.
> >
> >Wrong, Max. Your house of cards is collapsing under its own weight and
> >it's not the first time.
>
> Not quite.
>
> Troll gave a particular scenario in which they would sue.
> That scenario sounds rather like the GNOME Foundation.
No "they would sue", but "they might consider suing".
And how is it similar? Just curious.
> You just may gloss over it due to hostility towards M$.
>
> BTW, the quote in question was somewhat gibberish. You cannot
> "embrace and extend" a GPL or LGPL licence. That is rather the
> whole point of both of those licences.
What a lack of imagination. Imagine Sun develops StarOffice using
a slightly different and incompatible version of Bonobo, and puts
money in advancing that incompatible bonobo until it's better than
plain bonobo. They just embraced and extended Bonobo. They then
rule the bonobo development.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:16:12 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:50:57 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:09:46 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:37:45 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:44:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Oh, come on, for something about harmony, I'd go to the harmony mailing
> >> >> >> >> list archives, it's not too big a guess :-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...where you would see them discussing an alliance with RMS
> >> >> >> to ensure that when the jackboots from Troll come they don't
> >> >> >> get all squashed...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Any references? You know, I did read a fair amount of the archives
> >> >> >looking for the reference I provided, and saw nothing like that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What about if someone did not know that harmony was involved in the
> >> >> >> >citation? What is someone does not know the location of harmony's archives
> >> >> >> >or even of the exitance of the harmony mailing list? What if someone had
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...sounds like Roberto...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Are you saying I didn't knew harmony was involved in the citation,
> >> >> >didn't knew the harmony archives location, or didn't knew the existance
> >> >> >of the harmony mailing list? Because all three are obviously false.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The accessability of the commercial QT code leaves much fertile
> >> >> >> ground for lawyerly abuse on the part of Troll.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I suppose you prefer closed code.
> >> >>
> >> >> When there are strings attached: YES!
> >> >>
> >> >> Better true enemies than false friends.
> >> >>
> >> >> Besides, if you think I am against proprietary code in
> >> >> general then you really haven't been paying attention.
> >> >
> >> >I prefer to have Qt's source code. If you prefer not to have it,
> >> >don't look at it and it's solved.
> >>
> >> Boy are you naieve...
> >
> >I had not been called boy in about 15 years. Thanks!
>
> Go take an ESL course or something...
I'll be glad to continue the discussion in spanish if you prefer.
> >However, I must say that you give no reason whatsoever for
> >your position.
And you still don't. As usual.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:02:36 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:47:17 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On 31 Aug 2000 04:45:50 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other companies
>>>>that support the *same* API.
>>>
>>>Nothing is stopping someone cloning QT ( unless you count lack of interest ).
>> No, Trolltech has made legal threats.
>
>Ah, the plot thickens. Can you spare any details, or further clues at
>least?
>
>>Also, the 'apparent openness'
>> of their code makes it more difficult to pull off a 'clean room'
>> implementation. Even so, reverse engineering itself in general is
>> under attack these days.
>
>From whom, and where? You have my full attention.
RealAudio versus Microsoft.
MPAA versus everybody.
>
>> Admittedly, the primary barrier to a useful clone of libqt is RMS
>> himself for being so dogmatic about the GPL.
>
>You're saying that because a GPL'd library cloning QT could only be used
>for commercial end-user-licensed software, it impedes the desire to
>provide alternatives to QT? What about the LGPL, which I would assume
>would be the license used for such an effort?
RMS is on a 'GPL for libraries' kick these days. So, if Harmony
wants the protection of the Free Software Foundation: Harmony
would have to be licenced GPL.
This makes it unsuitable for being utilized by non-free software
and greatly reduces it's usefulness.
>
>I'd argue that legal reverse engineering of software doesn't require a
>'clean room' at all; the first step in reverse engineering software is
>to decompile it and reconstruct the source code to begin with, and such
>practices have been legally defended quite well by video game cartridge
>manufacturers from developing software "on top of" the console. I can't
>see any need to go to any extraordinary steps to 'reverse engineer' the
>workings of the open source code sufficiently to provide a legal means
>of developing software "underneath" KDE or any other product which uses
>QT. I'd have to say that the only thing that could make it difficult to
>pull off a clone of an open source product would be the limited
>imagination or talent of the programmers in not being able to think of
>any other, and possibly better, way of doing it then what QT used. And
>if they can substantiate in court that there isn't any other way of
>doing it, in parts at least (the minimal parts necessary, of course, but
>according to the courts, not QT's understanding), then they can simply
>make "fair use" of QT's code itself.
>
>Considering there must have been interest for TT to make threats, I'd
>say the only thing stopping someone from cloning QT is that they don't
>have the balls to do it.
Balls is everything.
Plus, one could do something else with one's labors that would
be less subject to threats from on high. Alternately, if one
were interested in tilting at windmills they might want a more
meaningful windmill to tilt at.
I have no interest in being sued over fixing Roberto's poo.
There are other things I would rather risk that for.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:11:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe
R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe
> > R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now
> > > > > studies from three states indicating that minority students,
> > > > > particularly Hispanic and African-American, do better in private
> > > > > schools. I think vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that
> > > > > *extra* taxes are implemented to pay for them. The bad thing
> > > > > about vouchers is that the money for them, at present, comes out
> > > > > of public school budgets (so far as I know.) Competition is good,
> > > > > but I don't want to hamstring the public schools by stealing
> > > > > money from them.
> > > >
> > > > "stealing"? David, let's take just an example. Assume a school
> > > > district has 10,000 students and vouchers take away 2000. Are you
> > > > saying that whatever budget this district had is now to continue
> > > > unchanged? Wouldn't a smaller student population require, for
> > > > example, fewer teachers? Your bias as a school teacher is showing.
> > >
> > > Of course, in the liberal tax and spend world, that's not
> > > unreasonable.
> > >
> > > After all, welfare rolls have dropped by something like 75% in the
> > > past few years. The total cost has dropped by a much, much smaller
> > > percentage
> >
> > I imagine it costs more to move people from welfare to work than it
> > does
> > to just maintain them at a basic level of existence. Obviously it pays
> > off in the long run.
>
> But I thought that the objective of welfare was _always_ to get people
> on their feet. At least, that's what we were promised every time the
> Democrats voted for more welfare money.
>
> Or are you admitting that the plan used to be purely a give-away and it
> was only in the past couple of years that they started getting serious
> about getting people to work?
People were supposed to get themselves back on their feet. The money was
just to keep them alive during that process. It turns out some folks
needed a bit more support and encouragement than that.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:08:45 -0700
"Steve Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> > Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
> > which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
>
> For that matter, please show me any computer bought over the counter, by
> mail-order, or from the shady guy on the corner that can be bought
> without an operating system pre-installed. Go on. Show >me.
http://www.beat-that.com
consider yourself showed :>)
>This is not
> just a Mac phenomenon. A Microsoft OS package "for new users of
> Windows" is basically a useless item these days, unless you're migrating
> your computer from Linux, SCO, Solaris, or some other non-Windows OS.
Joel Barnett
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Cool Idea
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:05:58 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:05:57 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:33:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> >> >Unless somebody refused to license the patent.... :-) :-)
>> >>
>> >> Atari has prior art from 1985. ;-ppp
>> >>
>> >
>> >How many times has prior art been ignored when determining is a patent
>> >should be issued?
>>
>> Who said anything about the issuing process?
>
>The conversation had turned to patents. In terms of patents "prior art" is
>cited as reasons for not issuing patents; "prior art" is also used as a
It is far more likely that prior art will be used to clean up
after the PTO rather than allowing the PTO to not mess up in
the first place.
>reason for setting a patent aside when it is tested in courts. It is best
>to stop a bad patent at the issuing stage so I had assumed that you had
>cited Atari's prior art usage was to state that the patent should not be or
>should not have been issued.
>
>
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:08:26 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:23:11 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Linux is a difficult target for for-profit companies, because it doesn't
>> >have as much market-share as Apple, and it's perceived that if it's not
>> >free, people won't use it.
>>
>> You're on drugs. If it isn't a company, how can it have market-share?
>> If when its perceived that its not free, people won't use it, how do you
>> account for all the people who bought a shrink-wrap CD (millions)?
>>
>> >> >What are the barriers to entry? Please describe them.
>> >>
>> >> Virtually all new Intel compatible computers sold ship with Microsoft
>> >> operating systems. Investors are (understandably) nervous about
>> >> taking on a company with 95%+ marketshare. Microsoft also has a long
>> >> track record of rapaciously attacking new competitors using
>> >> underhanded tactics.
>> >>
>> >> Is that enough for now?
>> >
>> >No. How is this a barrier to entry? Because VC companies aren't
>interested?
>> >That's not a barrier.
>>
>> "40. What for Microsoft is a positive feedback loop is for would-be
>> competitors a vicious cycle. For just as Microsoft's large market share
>> creates incentives for ISVs to develop applications first and foremost
>> for Windows, the small or non-existent market share of an aspiring
>> competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop
>> its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. To
>> provide a viable substitute for Windows, another PC operating system
>> would need a large and varied enough base of compatible applications to
>> reassure consumers that their interests in variety, choice, and currency
>> would be met to more-or-less the same extent as if they chose Windows.
>> Even if the contender attracted several thousand compatible
>> applications, it would still look like a gamble from the consumer's
>> perspective next to Windows, which supports over 70,000 applications.
>> The amount it would cost an operating system vendor to create that many
>> applications is prohibitively large. Therefore, in order to ensure the
>> availability of a set of applications comparable to that available for
>> Windows, a potential rival would need to induce a very large number of
>> ISVs to write to its operating system. "
>>
>> Read http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm, and come back
>> when and if you'd like to discuss this competently.
>
>No thanks... I happen to disagree with the findings of fact.
Just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming won't
make it go away. You have to address what is actually wrong
about the paragraph given. It's value is quite independent
of where it came from. It's assertions are to be judged on
their own merits and not merely dismissed out of hand because
you find them to inconvenient and are unable to refute them
with any real detail.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:11:30 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:10:36 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:04:32 +0100, Robert Moir
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:32:45 GMT, Mike Byrns
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> >The feasability of your argument is your concern. You shouldn't
>assert
>> >that which you
>> >> >have no idea how to back up. Personal experience is fine although
>> >anecdotal unless you
>> >>
>> >> So? Where is your original OS install disk?
>> >>
>> >> Would it even fit in your current machine if you managed
>> >> to find it? Mine wont.
>> >
>> >Thats not what you claimed at the start. You were implying that you could
>>
>> No, you are just too wet behind the ears to consider that someone's
>> qualifying media might be obsolete or deteriorated.
>
>You were saying that you can not install windows "upgrade" software onto a
>bare machine. Not that there may be problems under some circumstances with
That's quite true actually.
[deletia]
Short of imaging another installed copy of Windows, none of the
machines in my househould can be installed with upgrade licences
if they were to be wiped.
Would that be true of a copy of MacOS 9 (assmuing I had a Mac)?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:15:14 GMT
On 1 Sep 2000 00:18:06 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: On 31 Aug 2000 10:44:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>: Steve Mading wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:> It seems to me that in this type of situation, the installer
>:>:> should generate a random, but usable, password from some very
>:>:> simple scheme, ("Roll a d46, 1-26 equals A-Z, 27-36 equals 0-9,
>:>:> and 37-46 is the punctiation marks above the numbers", repeat for
>:>:> 8 characters). Then it could tell you what this password is during
>:>:> the installation program. Is there any product out there that
>:>:> uses this technique?
>:>
>:>: Why dod that?
>:>: JUST PROMPT THE ADMIN FOR A PASSWORD.
>:>
>:>I assume from this you are also implying, "...and refuse
>
>: Nope. The end user should still be able to shoot themselves
>: in the foot if they really want too. Oracle has already lived
>: up to it's responsibilities by walking the novice admin through
>: the process of changing the default passwords.
>
>: Anything beyond that is a matter of the free will of the operator.
>
>If I had my good name on a product I sure as hell wouldn't want
>security "bugs" showing up in Bugtraq about alleged holes in my
People who want to slander you can do so regardless of what
steps you take to insulate morons from their own stupidity.
[deletia]
Meanwhile, an Oracle Master might take offense at being
treated like a moron.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
