Linux-Advocacy Digest #928, Volume #29 Sun, 29 Oct 00 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (mlw)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux or Solaris (Mike Marion)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (sfcybear)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: ("Philo")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Caldera OpenLinux User)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. (lyttlec)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Caldera OpenLinux User)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:00:40 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> "Benny K.Y. Li" wrote:
> >
> > There are people who say it's a monopoly....but what's wrong with monopoly
> > if it's good?
> > So I assume those people really mean that Microsoft apps suck.
> >
> > But why do they suck?
> > Is it because Microsoft pays less for their engineers so they're less
> > productive?
> > Is it because MS pays more but hired bad engineers (with bad fortune).
> > Is it because actually ALL good engineers/programmers are those who write
> > codes for free? (if so, and MS gives Linus Torvalds/Alan Cox/RMS a few
> > bagels + water each day, and promised them to release the codes, will they
> > work for MS too?)
> >
> > Or...actually people are just being religious with Microsoft, the same way
> > as they are with "666"?
>
> There are some real reasons to dislike Microsoft:
>
> (1) They focus on features, not on value. Value of software is what you
> can do with it vs what it costs. I differ with most magazine reviewers,
> in that I feel that the core of what I use must be absolutely stable. No
> Microsoft application I know can live up to that requirement. Geez,
> StarOffice, a Sun give-away, seems more stable than Microsoft office.
> What value has an application when you have to save every 5 minutes in
> case it crashes? That's like pulling over and restarting your car incase
> the car computer fails to work. Just stupid.
>
> (2) Corporate warfare. Microsoft takes public standards and modifies
> them and puts their changes to the standard under NDA. There are two
> problems with this: (a) Public standards are so heterogeneous
> environments can work together. Microsoft, by doing this, proves it has
> no desire to provide honest value to customers, but instead wants to
> force a vendor locked solution on them. (b) The public standards
> represent the intellectual property of individuals or an organization.
> Changing a public standard and keeping the changes secret is no less
> than theft.
>
> (3) Ask yourself this: "If Microsoft were not ubiquitous, would they be
> able to sell Windows?" Think long and hard. Do some research, BeOS, Mac,
> Go, etc. The only answer possible is of course "no." The only reason
> they can sell a piece of crap like Windows is because they managed to
> pressure computer makers, magazines, government officials, etc.
(4) Having problems in one release and making the fixes only available
in the next non-free release/upgrade.
>
> Microsoft can't survive in a world of competition, they are not that
> good.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:03:43 +1000
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
> (4) Having problems in one release and making the fixes only available
> in the next non-free release/upgrade.
Examples ?
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:15:05 GMT
JoeX1029 wrote:
> My bad i didn't specify, yeah x86. Solaris may perform *awesome* on SPARC
> (which it does) but is noticeably slower on x86. Sorry for the confusion.
I was gonna say... thought you were smoking some crack or something. :)
Haven't seen Solaris x86 much myself... lots on SPARC though.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
..I'm sure that if I were wandering naked across the Serengeti Plain and
happened to come across a pride of lions who were feeling peckish, they'd
show me the same f'g courtesy. Come on, in less time than it takes to say
"Two all-Miller patties" I'd be chili con carnage. -- Dennis Miller on
Vegetarianism.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:10:16 GMT
In article <8tijr1$fi0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > *EVERY* product is released with known problems. Red Hat does it.
> > Caldera
> > > does it. Debian does it. FreeBSD does it.
> >
> > Again, MS does it with more than any other company I have seen.
>
> Redhat has roughly 12,500+ bugs listed.
> Other linux dist has about the same number.
Did you acturaly READ what those bugs were???? Didn't think so! First
the 12,500 is for ALL redhat combined so MANY are duplicates! Don't
beleive me? look it up! The opensource movement has nothing to hide!
Like MS with it's 64000 bugs! Many of the so called bugs are I can't do
this or that (AKA feature request) Don't belive me! look it up!
>
> > > If the problems able to be worked around, or are cosmetic, then
it's
> > not
> > > worth delaying the product.
> >
> > Not when they can release 95 with so many bugs they can turn around
> and
> > SELL the big fixes as 98 and make more money!
>
> You've never tried to convinced 95 to read USB, didn't you?
> It's much more than just a bug fix.
Hardly! Adding one extra module is hardly much more than a bug fix!
> BESIDE, there has been some newpapers (NYT, wasn't it?) that listed
> patched that would make 95 inoto 98, for FREE.
Ohhhh, So it takes NOTHINING but PATCHES to change 95 ot 98!!!! kind
proves you previous statement false!
> So please check your info.
As you can see, I did and found YOU in error (this by your own words)
>
> > And it's been stated, over and over again, that
> > > the number was significantly less than 64,000,
> >
> > Stated yes but never proven.
>
> Do you know what MS consider a bug? What "BugBug" (or is it "BadBug"?)
Yes, something they can not explain away!
> mean for MS? (I think that the equal linux term is "XXX", but I'm not
> sure)
> It means that this particular part of the code is not up to the
> programmer standards,
Which at MS must be VERY low standards indeed! (standards can be defined
as low as you want them).
it can be improved, but it works.
You can claim that a computer that crashes once a day "works". MS has
doen that for years!
> Every good programmer distribue those marks very freely.
Then why does MS hide them?
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/11/1840225.shtml
>
> An article on slashdot.org, (linux fans, mainly) about this.
> I suggest that you would read the comments, they are very interesting.
You beleive what is posted to slashdot????
>
> > At least with opensource I can go an look at the bug list and decide
> for
> > my self what issues are bugs and what are not. Lets see MS's What
does
> > MS have to hide but 64000 bugs in the closet.
>
> You want windows code? No problem.
No, I wanted the bug list!
> A> For Windows CE code, subscribe to MSDN, (cost money) you'll get it.
The program code???? Now I know you don't know what you are talking
about@!
> B> For other Windows code, ask MS, they are willing to give it, for a
> price.
Ha! I don't believe you!
>
> But I forgot, OSS thinks that software should be free, and programmers
> should starve.
Nope. I have no problem with programers being payed to write programs. I
also belive there is nothing wrong with contributing to OSS because for
now, it is the only way to get a good OS for a PC. MS aint it buddy.
> What is the redhat finance model? They are making money by giving
> support, right?
Most of MS;s money comes from support! Read there quarterly reports!
> What is their interest in making Linux better & simpler?
To get more people using the OS so they have a larger pool of possible
customers! Then, If you can get them under contract and they never call
(because Linux is so stable) then it's easy money!
>
> --
> All we have of freedom, all we use or know--
> This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.
>
> Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw--
> Leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the Law.
>
> __________
> Ayende Rahien
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Dennis Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:29:04 +0000
Caveman wrote (quoting me):
>
> >The place where Toon is wrong is that BL didn't give
> >Ken the PDP-11, he stole it. Maybe that's why "gives."
> ^^?
> I don't know if I would call it "stolen," it was more like
> taking control of an underutilized corporate asset.
>
Yup, I meant PDP-7. True also that "stole" was the wrong
word. Ken was indeed more a squatter on someone else's mostly
abandonded property; the PDP-11 purchase was legit.
If there is a real story behind Steve Jobs and the 7th
edition release, I'd like to hear it--it's new to me. Somehow
it sounds like an odd mutation of his visit to PARC, which itself
has taken on apocryphal overtones.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:17:45 -0600
i can't make a prediction but i'm *very* curious about IBM and Linux.
et tu?
--
Philo
website: www.plazaearth.com/philo
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:36:46 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
>
> You're just now realizing this? It's been proven many a time...
>
> You should check out the Mac and OS/2 advocates as well...
You shouldn't generalize. It destroys credibility. You Windows advocates
generalize too much.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:50:08 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lp4L5.12234$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4I1L5.116843$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > RedHat PGP sign the disrtibutions.
> >
> > And your average user checks when they do an install?
>
> Do you think there is some challenge in tricking an
> average user?
No I don't. Thats why Open Source is scary. The source code means you can
create a binary with a back door that has the exact same functionality as
the original binary.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:22:19 -0800
From: Caldera OpenLinux User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Bruce Schuck wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >
> > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > There has been much talk about hidden ports in
> > > > the back end of all windows products in the last
> > > > year.
> > >
> > > Anyone who runs Zonealarm -- which reports unauthorized TCP/IP traffic
> IN
> > > and OUT knows you are full of sh*t.
> > >
> > > We Zonalarm users know who has the hidden ports -- Real Audio , Adware
> etc
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > It ain't the Microsoft OS.
> > >
> > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> > >
> > > If you think Microsft could sneak hidden TCP/IP traffic past all the
> > > Microsoft haters masquerading as security experts you are dummer than a
> bag
> > > of hammers.
> >
> > Then why did Microsoft suffer 3+ months of unauthorized access from
> Russia?
>
> It was week. And the QAZ trojan infected an employees home machine. And it
> had access to the LAN, probably via a VPN.
>
> Any corporation allowing internal access via VPN's are vulnerable using the
> exact same scenario.
I don;t think saysin this attack can affect anyone is smart to say. I mean it
really is unacceptable so the implications are huge.
If you don;t get me then asnwer this.
How does QAZ infect OS/2 or LINUX or FreeBSD?
I use those OSs and wonder what risks I am at for this QAZ trojan infection.
What other OS vendor is tightly integrating their OS and apps and data?
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:05:53 GMT
In article <TrMK5.12164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8tfjft$ar2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > Meanwhile, IT managers who have been holding out for Linux
servers
> > > > powered by 2.4 are sweating bullets right now.
> > >
> > > How long can the situation continue before someone puts together
> > > a funded consortium to manage kernel development in a more
> > > predictable way and forks the code base?
> >
> > The challenge here is that any sort of funded organization, such
> > as a corporation or consortium would create the same kind of
structure
> > that led to UNIX forks. No one wants to create another Microsoft.
>
> I don't see how that could happen in the long run with GPL'd source.
> At each release point the source would be available to anyone
> else to merge with any possible concurrent development. Do
> people really expect Linus to continue forever?
It's really quite simple. If Linus hamstrings corporations, then
the OEMs will end up switching to BSD or another UNIX variant.
These don't have the "mandatory give-back" clauses of the GPL.
As a result, proprietary extensions would quickly cause forks.
Back to "business as usual" with UNIX (forks, proprietary products,
exclusive offerings...).
> > Actually, it appears that more and more, companies are simply
> > encouraging their own paid employees to participate as contributors.
> > These contributors include employees working for OEMs and ISVs but
> > also Customer corporations and consulting practices.
>
> Yes, but your comments indicate how that has not bought them any
> control.
It doesn't buy them control, but it prevents them from being excluded.
IBM had it's own people do ports to RS/6000 and S/390, and at the
same time, Compaq and HP had their people do similar updates.
> > Most of the innovations are driven
> > by "battlefield conditions", often
> > consultants and corporate customers
> > who need to make their Linux
>
> And this is why everyone likes it - the code does what someone
> actually needs instead of what someone who isn't using it thinks
> might be a selling point. I don't see why that would have to
> change with a funded QA dept, though.
We had the same problem with UNIX International, Open Software
Foundation, X/Open, and nearly every other funded consertium.
When the ISO attempted to create a better version of TCP/IP, they
ended up with the ISO stack that was so loaded with extensions and
options that it couldn't be fully implemented by anybody. Furthermore,
compulsory royalties to orgianizations such as ANSII raised the price
of entry from a 1 hour download of the RFCs to a $50,000 per programmer
price-tag that only covered the cost of the manuals.
Besides, the funded consortium already exists. It's the Free Software
Foundation. Companies who want to make contributions are encouraged
to do so. At the same time, high school kids can learn the guts of
Linux without paying 10 times the price of a top-of-the-line PC.
> > Unfortunately, the really good systems cannot be released until
> > Linux 2.4 kernel is officially released. It doesn't have to be
> > perfect, but it has to be reliable enough that fallback back to
> > 2.2 is not necessary.
>
> Yes, we would all be better off if many of the efficiency choices
> made in the earlier versions had never existed, but we can't
> change any sooner than now...
Backward compatibility has always been a critical. This has been
true for 30 years of UNIX, 20 years of TCP/IP, and 8 years of Linux.
This is why 2.4 vs 2.2 is less of a risk. It's true that the 2.4
applications won't run under 2.2, but the 2.2 applications should
run under 2.4.
In the past, there have been glitches to backward compatibility. The
most famous and notable being a.out applications that had library
conflicts with ELF, and libc.a applications that broke under glibc.
But within about 2-3 months, the glitches were resolved and
everything ran beautifully.
> > > Do all programs that need large file support have to
> > > be recompiled to get it?
> >
> > If you need large files, you need 2.4 libraries and kernel.
>
> But switching libraries isn't enough, is it? You must have
> to actually recompile the source to pick up the new
> structures from the header files.
Correct. This is why it's important for 2.4 applications such as
databases to have the 2.4 kernel. Most 2.2 applications will run
under 2.4, it's only the large file applications that must be
recompiled. On the flip side, the 2.4 applications MUST be recompiled
to run under 2.2
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:30:42 +0200
> > "met mousefocus"? WTF are you talking about?
>
> get mouse focus. Simple typo. In windows, it's usually click focus.
I'd it, it was horrible for me, being used to click focus.
Anyway, you don't need to hack the registery for this.
TweakUI will do it for you quite nicely.
As well as give you access to a lot of other settings.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:34:23 +0200
> > Linux is a niche and has about 2 more years left on it's "15 minutes"
> > of fame... if that. And that's ONLY if they ever manage to ship the
> > 2.4 kernel and it isn't a major embarassment (which it's already
> > turning out to be)
>
> For Microsoft maybe. The Linux authors wait until they have
> a WORKING product before they ship.
Which is why MS worked on 2000 for 4 years, and why they continuely delayed
its shipping?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:32:03 +1000
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> >
> > You're just now realizing this? It's been proven many a time...
> >
> > You should check out the Mac and OS/2 advocates as well...
>
> You shouldn't generalize. It destroys credibility. You Windows advocates
> generalize too much.
You forgot the ;).
(At least, I *hope* that was written with irony in mind).
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:41:27 GMT
Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:49:13 -0800, "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On 28 Oct 2000 21:56:24 -0400, Richard Hoskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > The real question is why M$ were daft enough to have their source
> > > > > code on any machine(s) that were in any way connected to the outside
> > > > > world.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, all the GNU source is on machines connected to the outside world,
> > > > and I've always considered that a GOOD THING.
> > >
> > > Yes, many educated eyes being cast over GNU sources leaves little chance
> > > for stealth code.
> >
> > But what about stealth compiles? Imagine this scenario:
> >
> > 1) Download RedHats source
> > 2) Add a back door.
> > 3) Recompile
> > 4) Create a CD with the new binaries and old source.
> > 5) Distribute it with a counterfeit Redhat label.
>
> To ensure complete safety you'd have to check out the source of the
> compiler as well. It could easily add the back door. And you'd have to
> check the source of the compiler that compiled the compiler (as so on ad
> nauseum, or until you get to an assembly routine that you could hand code).
>
> But at least with GNU code that's possible - try doing that with anything
> from Redmond.
>
> Peter
It not that difficult to detect a backdoor. You compile to generate a
mixed source/assembly listing, one file at a time. Then you assemble the
assembly code to generate mixed assembly/machine listing. Then you link
and compare the linked file with the machine code from the previous
stage. Thus each stage provides a check for the next stage. Its a lot of
work, but not as much as bootstraping your own compiler from scratch.
Although I have known a few paranoid enough to do just that. The
backdoor could be a very small bit of code in a very large haystack.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:34:06 +1000
"Caldera OpenLinux User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> > It was week. And the QAZ trojan infected an employees home machine. And
it
> > had access to the LAN, probably via a VPN.
> >
> > Any corporation allowing internal access via VPN's are vulnerable using
the
> > exact same scenario.
>
> I don;t think saysin this attack can affect anyone is smart to say. I
mean it
> really is unacceptable so the implications are huge.
> If you don;t get me then asnwer this.
> How does QAZ infect OS/2 or LINUX or FreeBSD?
It doesn't. He said same scenario, not same events. THe scenario is a
trojan, and any OS is vulnerable to them.
> I use those OSs and wonder what risks I am at for this QAZ trojan
infection.
About as much risk as a Windows OS wouldb e to a Unix trojan.
> What other OS vendor is tightly integrating their OS and apps and data?
Makes no difference to a trojan. But, pick any vendor trying to sell a
similar sort of package to Windows - Apple, Redhat, Be etc.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:42:53 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> > >
> > > You're just now realizing this? It's been proven many a time...
> > >
> > > You should check out the Mac and OS/2 advocates as well...
> >
> > You shouldn't generalize. It destroys credibility. You Windows advocates
> > generalize too much.
>
> You forgot the ;).
>
> (At least, I *hope* that was written with irony in mind).
I like to keep 'em guessing. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:52:03 -0800
From: Caldera OpenLinux User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Bruce Schuck wrote:
> "Caldera OpenLinux User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > > "joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > gm wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:42:22 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3310071.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.ni
> > > > > >
> > > > > >3 FULL MONTHS they were stealing code and Microsoft
> > > > > >has now admitted they got everything including Whistler!
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you even bother to read the very sources that you refer to?
> > > > > What MS admitted was they saw code for programs that are in
> > > > > development, but they did not see the code for existing products.
> > > >
> > > > "MS admitted"
> > > >
> > > > MS is NOT required to tell the public what was seen nor to be truthful
> > > about the
> > > > extend of the break-in.
> > >
> > > The SEC would require disclosure if it was material to the companies
> > > fortunes.
> >
> > > Shareholders could clearly sue if Microsoft lied about it.
> > >
> > > If you bring in the FBI you might be guilty of bad judgement, but you
> aren't
> > > guilty of a coverup.
> >
> > It's common knowledge (at least I assumed until now) that companies are
> hacked
> > and that they don't fully disclose the details of the hack let alone what
> was
> > taken.
>
> If Coke's formula for Coke was stolen, and no one was told, any shareholder
> could sue.
>
> >The FBI is not required to all the details of a crime.
>
> Microsoft called the FBI. They did not do a coverup.
>
> >I've never
> > heard that the SEC requires companies to disclose the full extent and
> nature
> > of a security breach. That was an creative excuse. It's baloney but it
> was
> > creative.
>
> It is true. The SEC would require disclosure of a security breach if it was
> material to the well being or future of a company.
>
> Microsoft disclosed.
>
> >
> > > > > That's a failure of the admin personnel, not a failure of the
> > > > > software. It could easily have happened at any other company running
> > > > > something other than Windows if the security administrator(s) aren't
> > > > > keeping their eyes open.
> > > >
> > > > Baloney. Windows is designed with "features: that rely heavily on
> > > individuals.
> > > > It is a design flaw.
> > >
> > > People break into root on Linux boxes everyday. Go read the security
> > > advisories.
> >
> > Who said otherwise? No OS is perfect, the lack of perfection doesn't
> improve
> > the more vurnerable Windows system. Giving the user more options to
> engage or
> > disengage security and the deep integration of OS with Windows apps and
> data
> > are the problem. This integrated architecture is driven by a need to
> defend
> > MS from an anti-trust break-up, not to build a better OS. Now we know MS
> > cannot protect their crown jewels - OS source code.
>
> The OS source code was not at risk.
So you BELIEVE. MS is not under any obligation to tell you the full extend of
the break in.
> Any more than it is at risk at many
> software companies that get access to the code to write software under
> contract with Microsoft.
What company has FULL access to MS's sourrce code - FULL access?
>
> >Denials and excuses like
> > yours are what helped put MS into this corner. The implications of this
> > computer architecture on Windows.NET are obvious.
>
> Yes. DO NOT ALLOW VPN OR DIAL-UP ACCESS TO YOUR LAN.
Worse than that - don't share data files.
> The QAZ trojan infected an employees home computer.
>
> Any company that allows VPN access or dial-up access to the LAN from
> machines that are not behind a corporate firewall are at risk.
Let me try to run the QAZ trojan virus. How do I get a visual basic marco to
run on LINUX? Or activeX controls?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
