Linux-Advocacy Digest #961, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: what's up with Sun? (David C.)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: what's up with Sun? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451795 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Chad Irby)
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Changing OSes (WAS Re: off email topic-alternatives to zonealarm?) ("Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David C.)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: 06 Sep 2000 20:10:53 -0400
"Raz A Mattazz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Only in big server RAID systems is SCSI superior to IDE.
You see an advantage any time you access multiple devices at once. IDE
can not access both devices of a single channel simultaneously. SCSI
can.
Of course, in RAID systems, this kind of parallel access happens all the
time. In non-RAID situations, it will depend on what kind of
applications you're running.
> Even advanced home users have no other reason to buy SCSI but for the
> sake of attaching up to 15 units and thus saving IRQs on their PCs.
This is not a minor detail. My PCs have no free IRQs in them. As a
matter of fact, I routinely have to disable one or both IDE interfaces
in order to have enough for the devices that I actually use.
Being able to add new devices without consuming any more IRQs is of
critical importance to me. Especially when a large number of devices
are present. My main PC has two hard drives, a Zip drive, a CD-ROM and
a tape drive. It will soon be getting a CD-RW as well. I have this all
on two SCSI busses - it could have been one bus, but I don't want the
Ultra-Wide hard drive to be slowed down by the non-Ultra devices.
Could I do all this with IDE? Probably. I'd need to add a third IDE
controller to the system, though. And I'd have to arrange the devices
so that the devices that typically get used simultaneously (like hard
drive and tape drive) do not attach to the same interface.
> Another point may be if you want to be able to move your harddisks
> between the PC, Sun, MacIntosh etc. Then SCSI is to prefer. Otherwise,
> for home and small business use, there's really no need or advantage
> in using SCSI. Expensive controllers and more hard to find and
> expensive harddisks, for what? A queved command advantage that you
> have no noticable use for in any "normal" computer use.
You and I have very different definitions of "normal".
My normal computer use involves running 10 or more apps at once. On
many occasions, several will be accessing my disk drives at once. SCSI
definitely improves overall performance in these situations.
And the controllers are not _that_ expensive. Sure, Adaptec has some
that sell for $350. They also have less expensive models. And you can
get good quality controllers from other vendors for the same price that
an ATA/66 or ATA/100 card sells for.
> SCSI is grossly overhyped.
Yes. But that's no reason to underhype it in response.
-- David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:09:49 GMT
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:26:31 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Ecrt5.903$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > It's not a question of cost, it's a question of risk. The MPAA uses
>> > DVD encoding to artificially restrict access as they see fit. No
>> > matter what you might offer to license their encoding, if your use
>> > or intentions might in any way jeopardize their enforcement of such
>> > restrictions, you will not get a license.
>>
>> So if i were to call them up for a licence for a closed source player for
>> linux they haven't got a reason to refuse, if they do object it means they
>> have *other* interrests in blocking linux
>
>Taking a look at this URL http://www.mpaa.org/Press/default.htm
>We find some comments reguarding Linux and this issue.
>
>---------------
>Q. Some computer users say they only want to use DeCSS to view their DVDs on
>computers that use the Linux operating system. Windows- and Macintosh-based
>computers can play DVDs, so is it fair to deprive the Linux community?
>
>A. The Linux argument is a false issue. It has always been in the interest
>of the Motion Picture industry that there be as many legitimately licensed
>DVD players as possible, including those using non-Windows operating
>systems. However the argument that DeCSS was written for Linux players is
>simply false. The De-CSS utility was written for Windows-based software, not
>Linux.
>
>Also, the development of two, separate, licensed DVD players for Linux
>systems - which use the CSS system - were recently announced. Sigma Designs
>(www.sigmadesigns.com) and InterVideo Inc. (www.intervideo.com) both
>announced the roll-out of LICENSED, LEGAL Linux-based DVD players.
>---------------
Until they actually ship, they're just vaporware.
Also, these annoucements don't address the availability
of versions for any Linux architecture other than x86.
Furthermore, a Linux DVD player would not only allow Linux
users access to DVD's but Irix, Solaris, HP/UX, BeOS, OS/2
and Amiga users access to a DVD decoder
Nevermind the fact that like any software only player, these
'sanctioned' decoders will expose a decoded media stream to the
host OS that then can just capture that data for any nefarious
purpose.
The Emperor has no clothes.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: 7 Sep 2000 00:00:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.hardware Raz A Mattazz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Fred Nastos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8p5giq$m1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: manufacturers of harddrives have the (mechanically) same
: harddisk in an ATAPI version and in a SCSI version. Such "twins"
: perform equally. Only in big server RAID systems is SCSI
: superior to IDE. Even advanced home users have no other reason
Believe me, scsi makes a huge difference on my (ide + scsi)
P2 450MHz 128MB workstation. I can actually type and get a process
back from swap at the same time!
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 128316 118244 10072 39976 26768 40196
-/+ buffers/cache: 51280 77036
Swap: 258008 24444 233564
2:00am up 46 days, 11:54, 1 user, load average: 0.92, 0.28, 0.15
: SCSI is grossly overhyped.
Nonsense. A response from a person who isn't trying to load netscape
while quitting staroffice all on their IDE transport, perhaps? It's
worth every penny to my nerves.
You know it makes sense ... 8-)
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:16:24 GMT
On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
>:>
>:> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
>:> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
>:> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
>:> >in later. :-)
>:> >
>:> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
>:> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
>
>: That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line, in
>: stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best fits your
>: situation.
>
>I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
>reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
>an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
>that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
???
Even doing all of this stuff at the commandline is hardly
tedious. There are a plethora of gui tools available for
burning an Image to disc under Linux. Downloading those
images is also not something that can be reasonably called
tedious. It may take a long time. However, that's merely
a matter of having a file transfer dialog open on your
desktop for a few hours.
I usually end up with Distros in hand through 'manual
downloading' much faster than they ever get to my local
retailers.
>in the meantime.) 2 - I like to fund the companies, to help keep
>them in business.
...and admirable goal. However, 'spreading around' is
ultimately better for Redhat (and friends) even if the
people you directly effect never actually buy from Redhat.
A growing market has intrinsice value.
>
>The only exception to this is emergency bugfixes - those I'll download.
I'm not aware of any vendor that publishes 'fixed' variants
of their distributions. Downloading errata is pretty much
a requirement unless you can find a suitable third party.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451795
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:20:58 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Interestingly, he still didn't respond to the
proof of his continuing lies. He hit the 200 postings-since-late-May level.
201> Here's today's Tholen digest. Interestingly, he still didn't respond to the
201> proof of his continuing lies. He's hit the 2000 postings-since-late-May
201> level. To the digest improper:
201>
201> [Wake me, will ya, when Tholen begins to say anything of importance.]
201>
201> Thanks for reading!
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
And the question of Slava's that he continues to ignore:
Message-ID: <N8On5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:11:34 +1000
"Why do you post exactly the same thing in each one of your
'digests', and then hypocritically accuse Tholen of not saying
'anything of value'?"
--Slava Pestov
"[who is this "Slava," Tholen, one of your sock puppets?]"
--Joe Malloy
And proof that Malloy still lies:
"Notice how he *doesn't* post from his work account"
--Joe Malloy, 2000 August 31
] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Tholen)
] Date: 26 Aug 2000 05:37:32 GMT
] Message-ID: <8o7l2s$sr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"he had a little chat with TPTB, you see."
--Joe Malloy, 2000 August 31
There is no "TPTB" here, Malloy, nor was there any "chat"
with any similar group of people.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:19:47 GMT
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:24:57 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:c36t5.803$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Now, what did MPAA do with DeCSS? they attack it as if it were made by
>> satan, and claim it's made for piracy (btw, they use other tricks for
>this,
>> plus, nothing stops you from duplicating a DVD-rom)
>
>Erm... apart from a $140,000 setup fee? Duping DVDs is expensive.
>
>Now, what DeCSS lets you do is extract the MPEG data streams, which you can
Show does DirectShow, or any other tool that can capture and store
the output from your audio/video devices or memory.
[deletia]
Once the decoded DVD is in system RAM, the game is over.
It doesn't matter if it's through DeCSS or WinDVD.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:12:41 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p68vk$cc87b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >That would depend on 'market share', wouldn't it? The two or three most
> >popular out of 5 certainly wouldn't necessarily sell more copies than a
> >product which supported all 5, no. Again, depending 'market share'. To
> >be perfectly honest, I don't care about 'market share'. But it would
> >help if I knew which OS I had, if I'm supposed to decide what software
> >is worth what to me.
> >
>
>
> Everyone seems to be missing an obvious point about porting software - if
> common libraries are used to develop the software ( e.g. QT, GTK, OpenGL,
> etc) and most of the code is written in a common language (C or C++) then
> porting between 6 or more operating systems should be a lot simpler.
Porting
> between multiple versions of unix is already simple in a lot of cases ( a
> lot of linux software will compile on SGI, BSD, Solaris, etc machines) and
> unix translation layers could also be used on the remaining operating
> systems.
>
> If this is taken into account then having multiple operating systems to
> support could increase profits for software companies, not reduce them
> e.g. home user runs BSD, Linux and windoze either on separate machines or
> multi-boot - if product is good there is potentially 3 sales to the same
> person of each product hence 3 times the profit).
There is no need to limit the market to just the PC hardware platform.
Consider the possible sales for a good wordprocessor being ported to just
about any OS in service? It could run on anything from a micro to a
mainframe.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:16:54 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:32:48 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >What foolishness, that queston as hand was is it possible for Windows 95
to
> >run without Microsoft Internet Explorer.
> >
>
> No, the question was whether IE could be removed from today's Windows
> without damaging the product. The answer is no. Microsoft didn't lie.
Windows 98 was not available yet. Window 98 SE was not available yet.
Windows ME was not available yet. Windows 2000 was not available yet. Only
Windows 95 and before was available, it was Windows 95 that was the subject
of the lie.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:20:24 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:26:31 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Ecrt5.903$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> > It's not a question of cost, it's a question of risk. The MPAA uses
> >> > DVD encoding to artificially restrict access as they see fit. No
> >> > matter what you might offer to license their encoding, if your use
> >> > or intentions might in any way jeopardize their enforcement of such
> >> > restrictions, you will not get a license.
> >>
> >> So if i were to call them up for a licence for a closed source player
for
> >> linux they haven't got a reason to refuse, if they do object it means
they
> >> have *other* interrests in blocking linux
> >
> >Taking a look at this URL http://www.mpaa.org/Press/default.htm
> >We find some comments reguarding Linux and this issue.
> >
> >---------------
> >Q. Some computer users say they only want to use DeCSS to view their DVDs
on
> >computers that use the Linux operating system. Windows- and
Macintosh-based
> >computers can play DVDs, so is it fair to deprive the Linux community?
> >
> >A. The Linux argument is a false issue. It has always been in the
interest
> >of the Motion Picture industry that there be as many legitimately
licensed
> >DVD players as possible, including those using non-Windows operating
> >systems. However the argument that DeCSS was written for Linux players is
> >simply false. The De-CSS utility was written for Windows-based software,
not
> >Linux.
> >
> >Also, the development of two, separate, licensed DVD players for Linux
> >systems - which use the CSS system - were recently announced. Sigma
Designs
> >(www.sigmadesigns.com) and InterVideo Inc. (www.intervideo.com) both
> >announced the roll-out of LICENSED, LEGAL Linux-based DVD players.
> >---------------
>
> Until they actually ship, they're just vaporware.
>
> Also, these annoucements don't address the availability
> of versions for any Linux architecture other than x86.
>
> Furthermore, a Linux DVD player would not only allow Linux
> users access to DVD's but Irix, Solaris, HP/UX, BeOS, OS/2
> and Amiga users access to a DVD decoder
>
> Nevermind the fact that like any software only player, these
> 'sanctioned' decoders will expose a decoded media stream to the
> host OS that then can just capture that data for any nefarious
> purpose.
>
> The Emperor has no clothes.
>
I should have stated that I was not championing anyside of the discussion, I
just offered the quote to offer the information it provides to all parties
of this discussion.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:32:34 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p6m5m$kck$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:nEvt5.53302$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > No, they can't. Not when it comes to court evidence. You need to look at
> the
> > MS site, and at the DOJ site, and compare evidence. Each has only half
of
> > the story, and in isolation, you'll get bias. Falsifying court evidence
> and
> > proceedings when reproducing them is against the law, so they can't just
> > "put anything they want" on their website.
> >
>
> Since when has that ever stopped B.G.&Co. ?
OK... the evidence is up. Please point to one piece of evidence that is not
as it was submitted to the court, assuming that official redactions are not
included in this list.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:34:07 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:24:57 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:c36t5.803$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Now, what did MPAA do with DeCSS? they attack it as if it were made by
> >> satan, and claim it's made for piracy (btw, they use other tricks for
> >this,
> >> plus, nothing stops you from duplicating a DVD-rom)
> >
> >Erm... apart from a $140,000 setup fee? Duping DVDs is expensive.
> >
> >Now, what DeCSS lets you do is extract the MPEG data streams, which you
can
>
> Show does DirectShow, or any other tool that can capture and store
> the output from your audio/video devices or memory.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Once the decoded DVD is in system RAM, the game is over.
>
> It doesn't matter if it's through DeCSS or WinDVD.
Duuuuh... and?
The thing is, DeCSS is specifically meant for extracting the stream. That's
the issue they have. If it was for playback, so what.
Simon
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:39:00 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Actually, the corporations in charge of 'recordings' (RIAA
> anyone?)
Recording Industry Association of America.
> In this case, alternative used to mean: alternative to big
> business controlled music. The big business couldn't
> handle anything beyond their controll existing, so bought
> the rights to say what they had was 'alternative', even
> when it wasn't.
>
> Pretty confusing huh?
In the process the word alternative lost all real meaning in the usage. Too
bad the bands didn't know how to Handel them when the big money started the
Mendelson in their business.
>
> At least punk's not dead! Oh shit, never mind.
Long live Baroque! ;-)
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:48:28 GMT
"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You tell me.. if you drop a file into a document.. do you *REALLY* want
> the computer to decide the placement of it?
No, I want it to drop the file into the place where the cursor is
resting, like it usually does.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:53:02 -0400
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:47:20 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> As for the rest -- HTML Help makes great sense.
>> Using a browser to navigate the file system -- if it's such a stupid idea,
>> why does KDE do it?
>
>Because KDE did not already have another working hypertext help system
>already in place like Windows did?
>
What, you've never heard of GNU info?
Microsoft did exactly the right thing. They realized that it would be
completely idiotic not to switch to HTML for help. The old WinHelp was
adequate but a dead end. The entire industry was putting all its
efforts into HTML.
Why use one format for online help and another for expanded help on
the Web? Why force the user to switch apps when jumping from one to
the other? The move to HTML for help didn't just make sense; anything
else would have been an act of utter stupidity.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:54:50 GMT
Andrew Carpenter wrote:
>
> lyttlec wrote:
> > Andrew Carpenter wrote:
>
> > > I'd heard that the NT security certification not only required no
> > > network card be present, but that no floppy drive was installed as well.
> > > Was that the case?
> > >
> > > (If it was, what *is* such a system good for?)
> >
> > Many military computers do not have floppy drives. They come prepackaged
> > with a set of software that is not, under any circumstances, changed by
> > field operators. They come in very handy for solving some specific field
> > problems.
>
> Granted... but if you have a sealed box, with no ability to transfer
> data in or out (excluding the user of course), I wouldn't have thought
> it would be all that hard to get some level of security rating for
> pretty much *any* system worth its salt...
>
> Andrew
> [ opinions are my own ]
True. All it needs is to be password protected. Even some DOS based
systems got C2 because they were configured to run only one program.
There was one that could be used only for filling out personnel reports
that were hardcopy only.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:50:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p6nr2$p16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8p6m5m$kck$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:nEvt5.53302$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > No, they can't. Not when it comes to court evidence. You need to look
at
> > the
> > > MS site, and at the DOJ site, and compare evidence. Each has only half
> of
> > > the story, and in isolation, you'll get bias. Falsifying court
evidence
> > and
> > > proceedings when reproducing them is against the law, so they can't
just
> > > "put anything they want" on their website.
> > >
> >
> > Since when has that ever stopped B.G.&Co. ?
>
> OK... the evidence is up. Please point to one piece of evidence that is
not
> as it was submitted to the court, assuming that official redactions are
not
> included in this list.
I have not stated that Microsoft had done that so I have nothing to prove,
on the other hand what I did suggest is "Since when has Microsoft ever been
afraid of crossing the line on legal or ethical grounds?".
------------------------------
From: "Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Changing OSes (WAS Re: off email topic-alternatives to zonealarm?)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 01:07:26 GMT
"Rod Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OQst5.343310$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [Posted and mailed]
>
> [Followup-to line set appropriately]
>
> In article <wtst5.1513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I've had to teach the other members of my household caution, and lots
> > of other stuff, while using M$ products, and they still manage to
> > mangle things. I'm *not* looking forward to re-training them on
> > another OS just yet, not to mention the level of expertise I'd need to
> > be able to repair any damage they might do.
>
> One of the advantages of Linux is that users can do very little damage
> to the system, assuming your security is set at even a modicum of a
> reasonable level and that the users aren't malicious cracker types.
> Users can damage THEIR OWN files and configurations, but that will not
> impact other users or system files.
Yabbut, I'd still need to be able to repair any damage they do, even if the
system remains safe. I just might pick up one of your books -- at the very
least, I'll learn something about Linux, even if it's not the flavor I'm
using.
Shadowfox (geek in training)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
