Linux-Advocacy Digest #626, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Slow E-Mail checking speed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: ("Mike")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Slow E-Mail checking speed
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:08:10 GMT
Dear all,
I setup a mail server with RH7.0 and sendmail,
it suppost to finish the check mail process via
POP in 1s since it is a local server, but it take
3-4s to finish it, anyone can give me some commend
about it?
Regards
Bill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:01:50 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey, why try to actually make your product better than the other guy's if
> you can just kill the other guy and be done with it?
For a long time, it seem like MS wasn't putting any effort on the
development end of DOS, and hardly any into the marketting end. DOS
was just taken for granted, and each new release just had ho-hum
differences (like the diff between Windows 98 and Windows ME). Why
bother marketting DOS, when it shipped with most systems, and most
users who didn't get it by default went and bought it anyway? MS
instead put their efforts into the applications, getting Word and
Excel accepted as the "cool apps" on Macs. MS was almost at the
trailing end of the "GUI and Memory Management subsystem for DOS"
movement.
Later though, MS tried to do its catchup, about the time that Windows 3
was coming out. And there was the influential crowd of alternative-DOS
users out there, and this was what irked MS. It's almost as if they
hadn't even noticed the decline in that market segment until they started
ramping up the marketting machine for Windows.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:59:02 GMT
In article <8s4576$en3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In fact, recent iterations of DeCSS and variants explicitly exclude
> > illegal replication and publication from the license. Put another
> That's sad to hear.
One of the biggest problems that has popped up with open source in
the past was the irresponsible use of open source software for illegal
purposes.
Having a web site is much like having a radio station. You can't use
a radio station to commit felonies either. There are penalties and
liabilities that come with publishing illegal information, whether
that's the numbers and PINs of 25,000 credit cards, DES encrypted
instructions for a drug deal, or the telephone book of a major
metropolitan area (including unlisted numbers).
I'd rather see appropriate licensing of the copyrights than to have
the FCC create something equivalent to the Commercial First Class
radio examination. In reality, most of the laws governing radio
stations or common carriers also apply to web servers anyway.
You may not be liable for content you don't edit or censor, but
if someone sends you a note saying that someone posted their
copyrighted materials without your permission, you definately
want to cooperate with them.
I don't agree with the way DVD-CCA is handling this case, and
the judge has set some pontentially catastrophic legal precidents,
but I also don't agree with the way Napster has insisted that it
has no liability for it's role in encouraging people to commit
felonies.
You have the right to free speech. You don't have the right to
yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Every publisher has the
right to publish legally obtained materials, they don't have the
right to publish copyrighted materials for which they have not only
made no attempt to license, but have refused to license legally.
DeCSS has a legitimate use as a decoder/player for Linux. For that
use, there is no legal justification for prosecuting the author.
Since there is no criminal conviction of the original author,
the publishers have published the "Device Driver" in good faith.
On the other hand, the publishers who used DeCSS as a piracy tool
(as opposed to simply suggesting that it **could** be used as a
piracy tool), are committing felonies in any country that recognises
intellectual property rights.
> > Perhaps this would be a worthwhile extension of the GPL.
> > Quite simply,
> > it's not in the best interests of Linux, the Internet, or the IT
> > community as a whole to encourage the use of GPL software for the
> > purpose of committing felonies (or their international equivelants).
> No, it wouldn't. The licenses should be
> kept separated from the local
> frequently-changing laws or someone's
> personal distrust for, say,
> crane drivers or bank robbers or
> minors (like the Corel's first faux pas
> with it's Linux distribution). Read
> the archives of debian-legal for details.
I'm merely suggesting the addition of a simple clause such as:
You are authorized to use this software for legal purposes...
Which implies that you are not licensed to use the software
for illegal purposes (massive copyright violations).
When you purchase a gun, you are permitted to use it for legal
purposes (hunting, self defense, security, in connection with
militia activities). You are not permitted to use the gun for
illegal purposes (murder, robbery, assault, hijacking...).
The addition of this simple clause assures that we don't have the
nonsense we are experiencing with DeCSS applied to Linux and Open
Source in general.
Remember, there was no significant objection do DeCSS, which had
been available for nearly a year (late 1998 to December 1999)
before someone suggested that it could be used as a piracy tool.
The problem is that the California Judge who is setting these
precidents is assuming that because the computer can technologically
be used to commite a felony, that the computer should be outlawed.
Unless there is a criminal conviction of the original author, there
is no proof that the author used information protected by the Digital
Millineum Copyright Act, in a jurisdiction protected by that act,
for the purpose of creating the code.
Until it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law
recognised by a court having jurisdiction of the digital millineum
copyright act, that the original author knowingly used the alleged
"trade secret" material, provided to him by someone who has been
criminally convicted of divulging the trade secrets after agreeing
not to divulge them, you can't say that the publishers illegally
published the DeCSS code.
The fact is that DVD-CCA published information about the encryption
technology in several publications, on web sites, and in other
"marketing materials" not covered by the DMCA.
As a result, the suggestion that DeCSS could ONLY be implemented
using DVD-CCA trade secrets is merely speculation.
Furthermore, suggesting that the author of DeCSS knew that he
was receiving trade secrets covered by the country of his residence is
also speculation.
Finally, if Norway did not recognize the validity
of the DMCA at the time that the information was recieved,
and the DVD-CCA made no attempt to patent,
copyright, or trademark these intellectual properties (which
the laws of Norway MIGHT recognize as a violation of
international copyright law), then any suggestion that
the trade secrets were illegally obtained is merely
speculation.
As a result, any action or attempt to suppress the right
of publishers to publish information which, in the absence
of sufficient evidence to prove that they knowingly were
publishing illegally published material (illegal according
to the laws of Norway in this case) would be premature.
Finally, each defendendent is entitled to all of the rights,
priviledges, and "due process" appropriate to his particular
jurisdiction of residence. In the absence of preexisting
international treaty, prosecution of a Norwegian citizen
who had never entered the United States, and is not compelled
to appear without an extradition hearing. Furthermore he would
be entitled to full legal council during all proceedings, and
would be entitled to all of the rights afforded to defendents
in United States courts.
The DVD-CCA has filed suits and injunctions against 70 web sites,
many of them funded by private citizens as a function of community
service and maintained on a pro-bono basis. These suits and
injunctions were filed in California against numerous citizens
living in other states (which means that the offense was committed
in the state of residence "where the mouse click took place").
Nearly every ruling in this case has set constitutional precedent.
Furthermore, nearly every ruling has been obtained under the most
questionable of circumstances. Finally, each publisher has had
to deal with consequences of rulings that directly contradict the
constitution of the United States, numerous prior federal court
rulings, and the explicit exclusions of copyright and patent law.
Unfortunately, the consequences of these rulings have already hit
the stock market and parts of the economy. The chilling effect it
has had on publishers, on loyalty building infrastructures such as
discussion boards or feed-back areas is triggering loss of circulation,
loss of revenue, and a general sense if instability among all web site
managers.
Unfortunately, if a web site operator removes a legally published
copy of DVD-CCA related material - such as the posting of transcripts
made public during the trial when submitted as evidence without a
request for those documents to be sealed - they have now taken on a
role as "editor" or "moderator" and are now subject to all the
regulations and liabilities of a news publisher rather than having
the feed-back area fall under the classification of "common carrier".
The NASDAQ has dropped nearly 1000 points since these lawsuits and
injunctions were initially filed. Some stocks have been decimated.
Others have been halved. Most of the Internet related stock slides
are a direct result of this judge's rulings and injunctions.
This reminds me of the fable of the man who killed the goose that
laid the golden eggs so that he could get all the gold at once.
Of course, there were no golden eggs inside the goose, and since
the goose was dead, the man lost his supply of golden eggs.
Ironically, in much the same way that Open Source and Open Standards
revived the economy just as it was threatening to crash in 1991/1992
(IBM stock halved, other Tech stocks dropping similiarly), it's likely
that Open Source will also turn the tide over the next decade.
The proprietary standards such as DVD-CSS and Microsoft numerous
exclusive standards only have power if there is no willingness
to adopt an alternative non-proprietary standard. In 1991, the
"smart money" was on OS/2, Windows 3.1, Netware or Lan Manager,
and dedicated services such as Prodigy and Compuserve. The
telecommunications carriers were pushing "frame relay to the NIC",
with the intent of metering every byte coming out of the card. In
that model, they expected to have 10 million people connected to
wide area networks by 2001. They would use the ISO/OSI communication
stack, but you had to pay $50,000 just for the manuals to write the
software for these puppies.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, George Bush (Sr) had just cut the funding
for the Internet. At that time, the National Science Foundation
was expected to fold in early 1992, forcing all usenet and smtp email
users to switch to commercial services.
What George didn't realize was that some of the admins weren't too
keen on losing their jobs, and many Internet users weren't too keen
on paying 25 cents per kilobyte for e-mail and metered service.
Rather than "roll over and die", they started creating the
infrastructure for what we now know as the World Wide Web.
I personally took on the task of negotiating and convicing an executive
at MCI that supporting TCP/IP and connecting to IP routers with high
speed T1 circuits for a large monthly fee would be more profitable than
metering ISDN or point-to-point frame relay traffic.
Richard Stallman and a team of about 200 programmers started a project
to make a "GPL version of a UNIX compatible operating system". The
big break in this project was when a student named Linus Torvald's
asked us to look at this little kernel he'd been working on.
And a couple of guys named Brewster Kahle and Henry Dhuring (sic)
had this great idea for creating text search engines that could
search each other called Wide Area Information Servers.
And another couple of guys came up with Viola, Cello, Mosaic, and
later Netscape, and the NCSA web server, which Brewster tied to
the WAIS engine and sold to Dow Jones (with a little help from
a friend :-) to create the first Web Portal.
=================
Well, here it is, 10 years later, and DVD-CCA and Microsoft's
proprietary formats are trying to put out the fire.
It will be Linux and Open Source that come up with simple, open source
ways to create MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 encryption and watermarking schemes
that enable copyright management without creating a hardship on the
customers, publishers, and providers. Furthermore, even if the big
studios don't adopt it right away, it won't take long for the small
publishers to catch on (the San Jose Mercury News was profitable
nearly a year before Dow Jones was). It may involve recruiting some
key players in the media industry and entertainment industry as well.
Meanwhile, we may see every high school theater production, every
community theater, and every band that has ever played at CBGBs will
be publishing their content in a "royalty managed" structure
implimented in Open Source (similar to the way Mosaic 2.0 created
the infrastructure for managing text and artistic copyrights).
And yes, there will be fanatics who listen to obscure bands who
won't want to be "observed", but that only means that the music
they like won't be funded by the web.
And yes, there will be publishers who resist Open Standards and
Open Source because they fear piracy.
But look at AOL. Did they go bankrupt because they didn't get
85% of the revenue collected from their 1 million "dedicated
dial-up" subscribers?
In 1993, AOL got $10 million a month from users who reluctantly
connected to metered service for less than an hour a day. Today,
AOL does almost $7 BILLION a year with over a billion a year in
earnings.
Would Paramount or Universal or United Artists be incredibly upset
if instead of getting $1/week in movie royalties per capita, they
suddenly found themselves getting $50/month in direct royalties?
Would they really object if users actually picked the movies they
liked best and were actually INTERESTED in the ads that went along
with it?
I remember getting so excited when I got Direct TV, I figured that
with 200 channels, I'd be able to find interesting stuff. And I did.
I got hooked on Biograph, A&E, and Discovery. I also liked SciFi.
But I still got frustrated when I'd already seen the offerings but
missed the really cool movie showing at 3:00 A.M.
So, now we have TIVO, and it's already turning "dead time" into
"TIVO time". Suddenly, instead of having this worthless time-slot
at 3:00 AM-5:00 A.M, you now have the ability to show something
that could be tomorrows "prime time". With proper tracking of the
plays and advertising, along with tracking of user actions, you
could couple advertizing to content by interest, same as you do with
the Web content today. In much the same way that you now have the
ability of reading 500 pages a day that are really interesting instead
of getting 50,000 column-inches of "bird cage lining" to get one page
of "interesting classified ads", you can similary switch from 6 hours
of television so interesting that you can barely get up to go to
the bathroom (you can pause at the commercial so you won't miss a
thing), and commercials so closely related to the content that you
don't even want to miss the commercials (in fact, the movie can wait,
please let me order right now - click).
KISMET!!!
(search this thread for KISMET for explanation).
> --
> Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides.
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:16:11 GMT
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:40:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
|They also mentioned how much Oracle sucked under Linux which backs up
|my point that Linux versions of Windows applications are somewhat
|lacking.
|
|claire
Since when is Oracle a *Windows* application?
Yes, it has been ported to windows, but the original version
was deveolped for Unix (SunOS or Solaris IIRC).
I doubt the Linux port was based on the Windows version, when
starting with the generic Unix version would have been involved
about 1% as much work.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:36:32 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:18:54 +1300...
> ...and Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
> > very stable. Windows, easy to use and administrate.
>
> *WHAT*? Easy to administer? Windows?
>
> Windows cannot be administered, at least the consumer Windows can't.
> All you can do is pray, fix registry corruption and such, and
> reinstall frequently.
>
> mawaa
> This was a public service announcement brought to you by mawa.
Okay, mawa(a), why don't you explain what gnome is doing to make
administration on Unix less painful than a root canal?
I make this request because I have two Unix machines and three Windows
machines, and have always found the Windows machines to be vastly easier, in
comparison, to manage. I should also point out that I don't get paid to
administer systems - it's something I have to do to get the work I get paid
to do done.
In that sense, I'm like your grandmother. I have better things to do than
administer my system (in fact, anything is something better to do).
What, exactly, are you doing to make my system administer itself?
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:40:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >It is not the OS vendor's responsibility to make their system API's
>> >easily clonable.
>>
>> Blah blah blah.
>>
>> >In fact it has typically been seen as contrary to
>> >their interests. The various Unix vendors, for instance, have <yet> to
>> >create a common Unix standard set of system API's.
>>
>> I guess POSIX doesn't count.
>
>POSIX is too basic. The point he's trying to make is, even though
>people say Unix is Unix is Unix, there are still apps that only work
>on HP-UX, or Solaris, or Linux. If they have a common API, why is this the
>case?
Because POSIX is too basic? You forget; there are a whole lot of apps
that will work on any of these OSes, merely be being recompiled.
>What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
Absolutely nothing but the fact that nothing's ever 'incompatible' when
you have open source; merely inconvenient.
[...]
>> >How is the win32 API anti-competitive? Saying so doesn't make it so.
>>
>> How it is pro-competitive. Saying it doesn't make it so.
>
>It's pro-competitive because it's probably the most thoroughly documented
>API of it's size in existance. If not, then it's definately up with the
>top.
You don't seem to understand what the term 'pro-competitive' means. How
does being "the most thoroughly documented API of it's size" contribute
to competition? Not to mention which, the discussion seems to be on
whether it is even adequately documented to begin with, let alone
'thoroughly'.
>The computing industry as a whole has yet to match a documentation effort
>the size, functionality, and usefulness of the MSDN Library online
>(msdn.microsoft.com).
The computing industry as a whole has yet to be competitive, due to the
illegal monopolistic practices of Microsoft (www.usdoj.gov). Talking
about how wonderful Microsoft's 'developer resources' are only brings us
to the question of, if Microsoft were under competitive pressures to
maintain low costs and high value, why is it they are providing all this
high value at high cost when there isn't even any competitive
alternative to which developers may turn and still remain compatible
with the 90% monopoly?
>Rumors and FUD of "undocumented" or "secret" Win32 APIs that only
>Microsoft uses or creates are merely that... rumors and FUD.
More like "documented and widely known".
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html
The fact that there are characteristics of the API which cause non-MS
developers more difficulty than MS developers is hardly a baseless
supposition. In fact, unless you can provide a lot better evidence or
more documentation than MSDN, which MS may claim is 'complete' or
impressive, but which many developers find wanting, it seems that it is
even more than likely. Windows is proprietary software; the
difficulties that WINE is encountering (due to their naive attempt to
'clean room' clone Windows, which is not necessary according to law, but
Microsoft has too many lawyers for anyone to try it without a clean
room) simply and effectively illustrate the *fact* that there are a lot
of pitfalls and arbitrary complexity that only MS could safely navigate.
Bill Gates' own comments seem to indicate, quite strongly, that this is
purposeful.
>Even the products the FUDsters claim use these secrets manage to
>run on older versions of Windows that wouldn't have had these
>secrets.
You over-formalize the concept of 'secrets'. EVERYTHING about Windows
is a secret, until MS documents it. And short of providing source code,
SOMETHING about how Windows works is *still* going to be 'secret',
purposefully or not.
>> >At the time it was introduced, keep in mind that the MacOS and OS/2 had
>> >been out for longer periods of time (not to mention BSD, which had been
>> >around forever).
>>
>> I'm not concerned about the time it was produced; you are trying to
>> objectify the API in appropriately. Win32 is anti-competitive crap
>> because that's what Microsoft wants it to be.
>
>Lie, conjecture. Please stick to the facts, and, perhaps what you know,
>which obviously isn't very much.
Ha.
>> As for how it is anti-competitive, the most obvious example to come to
>> mind is that it includes web browser functionality, implemented with\
>> the specific intent of preventing competition.
>
>You're referring to the GUI (explorer.exe) specifically. I thought
>we were talking about the Win32 API? The Win32 API has no dependance
>upon IE.
No, I'm talking about everything Microsoft does. You can divvy it up
any way you want. You seem to disagree rather strongly with the federal
court, the majority of the industry, and in some ways even Microsoft,
when you say that 'Win32 has no dependance upon IE'. You're obviously
dissembling, at best.
>Besides, how come every other OS is allowed to package and include
>browser technologies in their OS, but when Microsoft does it, it's
>bad?
Because when Microsoft did it, it was a violation of the Sherman Act.
>I see almost everyone (KDE, Gnome, Apple/MacOS, Be, etc) including
>browser-style or browser-dependant technologies into their GUIs.
They are all acting competitively.
>This is a feature enhancement. I know of very few GUI-using people
>who can do without their browser-style file viewing (with the
>Back,Up,Forward,Favorites style interface).
You know a lot of stupid or very very inexperienced GUI-using people,
apparently.
>This did nothing
>to hurt competition (namely Netscape).
Microsoft seems to think it did. So does Netscape, and so does the
federal court.
>Netscape had already
>shot themselves in the foot several times, ignored the trends
>of the market, continued to bilk their customers without giving
>them any new technology, refused to improve their browser
>(Netscape 4.x? Give me a break, that has to be among the worst
>software ever written), etc. They killed themselves, MS had
>nothing to do with it except for building a better browser.
Boy, you're a real MS groupie, aren't you? This rather pathetic level
of argument leads me to believe that you are Bill's little 'band aid',
in fact. Don't forget your lip balm.
>Last I checked, improving your product to beat competition for
>profit isn't illegal nor unethical.
You haven't checked, obviously. Whether you are improving your product
to 'beat competition for profit' or not, you have to follow the law,
which says you are not allowed to combine products which the market
considered distinct in order to use market dominance in one market (the
Windows monopoly) to exclude competition in the other market (web
browser 'technology').
Nobody said you had to understand it for it to be true. If you don't
understand it, its because you don't know enough about it.
[...]
>> So that would be one thing that makes it crap; its inconsistent with the
>> industry standard. ;-\
>
>Or that the WINE developers (or Open Sores(tm)) in general aren't competent
>enough to retro fit Win32 in to the tattered X API(s)?
Thus, my point. Your position requires you to insult the professional
integrity of people you don't know and who's work you haven't directly
evaluated (presuming you would be competent to do so). My position
refers to the fact that Microsoft has already been convicted of criminal
activity, and has evidenced the intent to 'churn' their Win32 API in
order to intentionally prevent anyone but MS from being able to use it
without MS's help. They may own the Windows code, but you are aware
they do not own, and are not allowed to 'control', in the face of market
demand, the Win32 API itself, aren't you?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
