Linux-Advocacy Digest #984, Volume #29 Wed, 1 Nov 00 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (Andres Soolo)
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Bruce
Schuck")
Re: Why Linux is great (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Chris Applegate")
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (.)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Roberto Alsina)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:15:36 -0800
"Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tobps$cq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <iAbL5.5023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How many multi-server load balanced Linux sites can you come up with?
> > Google is a good one, but it's a rarity.
>
> The main reason you don't see as many clustered UNIX sites is that a
> single machine can do the work of many NT machines.
>
> Microsoft's own site is a virtual masterpiece example of throwing
> resources at a problem instead of using your head. A single IBM
> mainframe could handle that load, and be cheaper. It would, of
> course, be running UNIX. Or Linux even.
And it would be 10 times more expensive.
And have a single point of failure. Look at EBays use of 1 E10000 over the
last few weeks as a prime example.
Clustering of cheap boxes is a lot more flexible. And cheaper.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:16:53 -0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8tnfcm$mds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > : "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > : news:iAbL5.5023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > :> Linux seems to run several "domain squatter" sites, where they
register
> > > :> hundreds or thousands of domains and direct them to the same
server.
> > >
> > > : How did you discover that? Why do you think it is a statistically
> > > : relevant number compared to other systems?
> > >
> > > He doesn't. He's just too blind to see that the premise he uses
> > > to discredit the Netcraft survey causes his own argument to discredit
> > > itself too. If you can't tell from the outside which hostnames go
> > > to which physical boxes, then he can't make his claim that Linux has
> > > lots of domain squatters that map names to one box - his very own
> > > premise (that you can't tell from the outside) makes it impossible
> > > to know if this is going on or not.
> >
> > What are you talking about? My statement was that there is no evidence
to
> > suggest that there are more Linux boxes on the internet than Win2k
boxes.
> > And that is in fact true.
>
> There is plenty of evidence. Netcraft reports 3 times as many sites
> hosted by Apache than by IIS.
Netcraft doesn't differentiate between hobbyists and real companies either.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:19:33 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8tobps$cq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <iAbL5.5023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > How many multi-server load balanced Linux sites can you come up
with?
> > > > Google is a good one, but it's a rarity.
> > >
> > > The main reason you don't see as many clustered UNIX sites is that a
> > > single machine can do the work of many NT machines.
> >
> > No, it's that web sites are not just serving up static pages anymore.
> >
> > > Microsoft's own site is a virtual masterpiece example of throwing
> > > resources at a problem instead of using your head. A single IBM
> > > mainframe could handle that load, and be cheaper. It would, of
> > > course, be running UNIX. Or Linux even.
> >
> > microsoft.com alone transfers 6 Terrabytes of data day. Executes
millions
> > of queries, and creates dynamic content by the 100's of millions. I'm
> > sorry, but a mainframe can't deal with that kind of data throughput on a
> > single machine.
> >
> > Even if it could, you're putting all your eggs in one basket. What
happens
> > if you have a power outage,
>
> The same way financial businesses do: a HUGE lead-acid battery (often
> consisting of dozens of car batteries) as battery backup AND a big old
> diesel-engine-powered generator activated by the battery backup.
>
>
> > a failed router,
>
> simple redundancy.
>
> > or any number of other failures
> > that can cause a localized failure.
>
> simple redundancy
>
> > Even if you have redundancy in the
> > mainframe, it might not be enough. If you need 24x7, you need
distributed
> > servers with load balancing run across multiple data centers.
>
> simple redundancy
>
> >
> > On top of that, Mainframes don't run as a single fast server. An IBM
> > mainframe typically runs as something like 500 seperate servers
virtually.
> > That means no single subsystem can gain anywhere near the kind of
> > performance the full machine is capable of.
>
> But much of the load is off-loaded onto smart disk-cabinets like EMC.
>
> >
> > > Microsoft has probably the largest. I'm amazed by it really.
> > >
> > > In all fairness to Microsoft, this is a less a problem with them than
> > > it is our current idea of lot's of little machines to do computation.
> > > It is not always a win. Sometimes big iron works better, and cheaper.
> >
> > A single IBM mainframe costs millions of dollars. That's not counting
the
> > proprietary maintenance agreements you need to sign, and the cost of the
> > periphials. You have to add disk arrays, network arrays, etc.. And
they
> > cost a pretty penny. Microsofts tpc cost is much much lower than a
typical
> > IBM mainframe, which tells me that mainframes aren't as cheap as you
claim.
>
> You're fucking on drugs, you know?
>
> It takes a couple THOUSAND NT-machines to imitate an IBM mainframe.
The amazingly ignorant unix geek spews bullsh*t again.
False. Absolutely false.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: 1 Nov 2000 16:18:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux.org is not the "front page" of Linux. Furthermore, it is not
>> that unusual at all for a business to put an independant link
>> comparing itself to a competitor on it's home page.
> Ah... when it does something good (Linux.org) then it is, when it's being
> stupid (most of the time) it isn't? This ambiguity in the Linux community
> is rather retarded. The whole community basically echos the same opinions,
You see, the world is not black-white. Linux.org is not THE front site,
however, it's one of the major sites.
> but when called on it, the Standard Defense(tm) is to always claim that
> "that isn't what the majority thing", "he/she's not the spokesperson for
> the Linux community", yadda, yadda, yadda.
That's right. There is no spokespeople for the Linux community. I doubt
that even Linus could claim that title :-)
> It only serves to your detriment that you can't organize anything successfully,
> let alone an OS development effort.
So, if we can't organize ourselves into the frames that your little mind
can understand, we're degenerant?
> making the whole process more automated. Spend a couple hours getting
> all the image boot disks ready, the software in place on the server and
> the automated INF files ready, then just walk around (if they're not
> in a lab) insert the disks, reboot the machine and watch the fireworks
> happen. MS has made the whole process automatable and customizable to
And that's your imagination of `easy'?
Not to mention that most of that easy job is very routine and, thusly,
boring to anyone who happens not to be a monkey or, then, to have better
things to do.
> the point where there is no input necessary for a full Windows and
> Office install. Not one key.
Ahem, since when was the number of keys pressed a good measure of the
complexity of some operation? Sure, Microsoft seems to think so.
And Timmay is a living example of the bad consequences.
> But there was still a mention. Why? Why do supposed Linux supports feel the
> need to constantly bash MS? Why so much negativity. Even OS/2 users who should
Remember that most of the non-Linux people come from MS background (like
you), so we have to make it easy to you by supplying something to compare
with.
> So you deny that frequent and negative attacks on Microsoft are made
> throughout major Linux community sites and portals?
[thinking ... thinking] Yes.
Now, if we'd talked about earnedly negative _comments_ on Microsoft, you
might have a point.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What is research but a blind date with knowledge?
-- Will Harvey
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:21:32 -0800
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:47:44 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9HJL5.1627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >> The reality is open source software is more likely to be secure than
binary
> >> only software.
> >
> >LIE
>
> Nearly every security expert on the planet disagrees with you.
>
>
> >Linux has now taken the lead in exploits.
>
> These exploits are being found and patches released before they are
> exploited, becuase it's open source.
>
> >It seems that Open Source has produced more security holes than closed
source.
> >
>
> No the OSS ones get discovered and fixed.
The OpenBSD website disagrees in the sense they say they are at least 6
months ahead of the other Linux/BSD sites in closing security holes.
Go ahead. Take a look.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: 01 Nov 2000 08:36:05 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Ginn wrote:
> >> Its got a nice *terminal emulator* included.
> >So does Mac OS X. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.
>
> That may be true for Macos X, but its not, and likely never will
> be, true for Linux.
>
> Try and setup Linux and use it without going to a console.
I just did three days ago when I installed Mandrake 7.2. I had a
fully usable system after a completely GUI install. It even has the
option to bypass user login password if the desktop is going to be
used by a single user.
Now I don't consider myself a regular user. The first thing I did was
go in and pare down the kernel and recompile it to support my hardware
only. Di I have to? No. The system was fully functional already,
but I _wanted_ to tweak it. If we crippled Linux like you seem to
want to do, it would have made _my_ life much more difficult. Why do
you want to cripple the machine for power users instead of newbies?
> >> For the retro look, choose the Green on Black console schema.
> >>
> >> KDE, however nice, is limited in scope, and no Unix desktop
> >> will ever shed its cli roots
> >
> >Nor should it have to. Contrary to popular belief, the CLI is still
> >alive and well, and a better choice than a GUI in many cases.
>
> Every few years, Unix gets another GUI. Its a shame the cli isn't
> replaced / improved as often.
So tell me George, how would you improve the CLI? Replacing it is not
an option for some users; unless your intent it to tie one hand behind
their backs.
> >Win9x still hasn't shed its DOS roots by the same argument.
> >
> >REGEDIT?
> >MSCONFIG?
>
> Two commands that appear in no version of DOS, your point is?
>
> FWIW, they were *new* in Windows 95 - based on DOS - but your
> point in no way shows this.
Why are you asking me what my point is when you seem to already know
what my point is? Trying to be cute?
My point is that Windows has just as many idiosyncracies as Linux,
you're just used to them. There are still plenty of things you can't
do with a GUI in Windows.
Last night a friend of mine called me because his cable modem stopped
working. So we spent an hour or so on the phone playing around with
the limited set of diagnostic tools that Windows comes with. How I
wished for a few of those arcane commands or a CLI at that point.
Would have made diagnosing the problem a lot easier.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: 01 Nov 2000 08:43:11 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>
> > Emacs has that. I betcha it has more features than Delphi's too.
>
> I'm sure it does as an editor. Delphi is more than an editor.
So is Emacs. It's a complete environment. Mail, news, browsing
(lousy, I admit), development. Heck, it's practically its own OS? :)
> > Emacs can run external compilers and collect the error messages, which
> > you can then click on to visit the file. It also has a debugger
> > interface, although I'm partial to standalone debuggers.
>
> Delphi can run external tools but doesn't pick up on the results.
>
> Delphi is available as a command line compiler.
>
> > Emacs has that. For dozens of languages. It also auto-indents (and I
> > mean it understands syntax, not just "indent to previous level").
>
> Yes, Delphi does auto indentation. It also has templates for statements
> like 'if' or 'while' etc.
So does Emacs.
> It analyses source code and produces lists of
> class members when you type '.',
Emacs has a pull-down menu with list of classes. There are add-ons to
show all variables and methods too, if you want.
> or pops up a tool tip hint when you
> enter '(' for a function. Can Emacs do that?
Well, if it doesn't, you can program it to!
( You probably didn't like that answer. :) )
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:34:58 -0300
El mié, 01 nov 2000, . escribió:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El mié, 01 nov 2000, . escribió:
>>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
>>>>>without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
>>>>>linux.
>>>
>>>> Dear ".", that's pretty much bullshit.
>>>
>>>> No distribution, except for perhaps SOME of the mini-on-floppy ones ships a
>>>> as-released-by-Alan-or-Linus kernel.
>>>
>>>Actually, quite a few do. Mandrake is simply the most hacked up version.
>>>>
>>>> You can check it out.
>>>
>>>I've been doing this a long time.
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>> So what if it isn't true Linux, or if the elitist users look down
>>>>>> their nose at you for running it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Theres nothing wrong with running it; it simply shouldnt be included
>>>>>in a conversation about LINUX, since it isnt. :)
>>>
>>>> If Mandrake ain't Linux, Then no distro is Linux.
>>>
>>>Slackware, Stampede, SuSe, etc.
>
>> You say SuSE ships a non-patched kernel? What Suse would that be?
>
>You're getting "patched" confused with "entirely re-written".
Well, the original claim was that Mandrake was not Linux because
"Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
linux."
So, choose what you want to say and stick to it, please.
And I pretty much doubt Mandrake rewrote the kernel, anyway.
>>>You dont know what youre talking about.
>
>> I may be wrong about slackware (after all, I have not looked at it in 3 years),
>> but Suse, Red hat, Mandrake, Dbian and most others do ship patched kernels.
>
>Again, theres a difference between writing a module to make reiserFS work and
>entirely re-writing the headers because they were "dirty".
What headers did Mandrake rewrite? Example accompanied with version information
would be nice.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Chris Applegate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:49:11 -0500
There is a GUI available for Linux. I was running it (XFree86 4.0.1 and
xfce, in my case) just the other night. It crashed and locked up the whole
computer. I had to reboot.
CDA
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tp5lh$i43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> At least he has a GUI. Don't you?
> Oh wait, you aren't running windows or mac or os2 or beos.
> You're running linux.
> Sorry.
> Never mind.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: 1 Nov 2000 16:52:14 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El mi=E9, 01 nov 2000, . escribi=F3:
>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> El mi=E9, 01 nov 2000, . escribi=F3:
>>>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
>>>>>>without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not=20
>>>>>>linux.=20=20
>>>>
>>>>> Dear ".", that's pretty much bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>> No distribution, except for perhaps SOME of the mini-on-floppy ones =
ships a
>>>>> as-released-by-Alan-or-Linus kernel.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, quite a few do. Mandrake is simply the most hacked up versi=
on.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can check it out.
>>>>
>>>>I've been doing this a long time.
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>> So what if it isn't true Linux, or if the elitist users look down
>>>>>>> their nose at you for running it.=20=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Theres nothing wrong with running it; it simply shouldnt be included
>>>>>>in a conversation about LINUX, since it isnt. :)
>>>>
>>>>> If Mandrake ain't Linux, Then no distro is Linux.
>>>>
>>>>Slackware, Stampede, SuSe, etc.
>>
>>> You say SuSE ships a non-patched kernel? What Suse would that be?
>>
>>You're getting "patched" confused with "entirely re-written".
> Well, the original claim was that Mandrake was not Linux because=20
> "Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
> without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not=20
> linux."
> So, choose what you want to say and stick to it, please.
I have. You arent understanding the terminology.=20=20
> And I pretty much doubt Mandrake rewrote the kernel, anyway.
I never said they did, you moronic fool. I said they rewrote the HEADERS.
Thats NOT a patch. Thats a rewrite.
>>>>You dont know what youre talking about.
>>
>>> I may be wrong about slackware (after all, I have not looked at it in =
3 years),
>>> but Suse, Red hat, Mandrake, Dbian and most others do ship patched ker=
nels.
>>
>>Again, theres a difference between writing a module to make reiserFS wor=
k and=20
>>entirely re-writing the headers because they were "dirty".
> What headers did Mandrake rewrite? Example accompanied with version info=
rmation
> would be nice.
Everything is available on their webpage.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:03:19 -0300
El mié, 01 nov 2000, . escribió:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> You say SuSE ships a non-patched kernel? What Suse would that be?
>>>
>>>You're getting "patched" confused with "entirely re-written".
>
>> Well, the original claim was that Mandrake was not Linux because
>
>> "Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
>> without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
>> linux."
>
>> So, choose what you want to say and stick to it, please.
>
>I have. You arent understanding the terminology.
Maybe.
>> And I pretty much doubt Mandrake rewrote the kernel, anyway.
>
>I never said they did, you moronic fool. I said they rewrote the HEADERS.
Allow me to quote from this very post:
>>>> You say SuSE ships a non-patched kernel? What Suse would that be?
>>>You're getting "patched" confused with "entirely re-written".
Since I had not mentioned headers, and I was replying to something that didn't
say headers, how the fuck is one supposed to guess you actually mean HEADERS,
when saying KERNEL? If you are too stupid to write coherently, spare the world
your idiocy.
Saying that I am confuding patched with re-written in "a non-patched kernel",
obviously means you are referring to a rewritten kernel. Unless you are not
using english.
>Thats NOT a patch. Thats a rewrite.
Whatever.
>>>>>You dont know what youre talking about.
>>>
>>>> I may be wrong about slackware (after all, I have not looked at it in 3 years),
>>>> but Suse, Red hat, Mandrake, Dbian and most others do ship patched kernels.
>>>
>>>Again, theres a difference between writing a module to make reiserFS work and
>>>entirely re-writing the headers because they were "dirty".
>
>> What headers did Mandrake rewrite? Example accompanied with version information
>> would be nice.
>
>Everything is available on their webpage.
Any more specific pointers? You know, you are saying they did something very
wrong, perhaps something more than your word would give you credibility.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:59:29 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> Compiling a source is an unneccecary hassale for most people. Most of them
> aren't programmers, they don't have anything to do with the source.
Yes, but it's extremely nice to be able to get binaries that are
tailored for your processor. Why settle for a binary with Pentium
optimizations if you've got a K6? If the makefiles and configuration
scripts are written well, it's no hassle and the user gets an extra
performance boost out of the application.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:03:12 -0500
lyttlec wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Chris Wenham wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>> "Ayende" == Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:YLxL5.508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > >> That's quite a bit of trouble to go to, but it is not an impossible
> > > >> scenario. Here's the same scenario for Windows:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) Write a back door in any piece of software you want to.
> > > >> 2) Upload it to shareware sites.
> > >
> > > > Why can't I do the same for OSS product?
> > >
> > > You can do the same, so in theory the potential for payoff (the
> > > number of clients you compromise) is the same for either model.
> > >
> > > The only difference is that the user of the Free software HAS THE
> > > OPTION of re-compiling the source code that he might also audit or
> > > have audited.
> > >
> > > The user of the closed software does not have that option.
> >
> > But what does this option buy you? Is a user of a given piece of open source
> > software generally paranoid enough to scrutinize the source code before
> > deploying the application? More than likely, the answer is no. So the
> > detection of any security holes usually occurs after the first act of
> > violation (same as a closed-source scenario). At this point, the open source
> > software user can either work on a fix themselves, locate the original author
> > and notify them of the problem, or both. The closed source software user has
> > to notify the author and wait for a fix. So, in essence, the only difference
> > would be turnaround time to fix the defect, and that's only the case if you
> > happen to be a skilled coder.
>
> But someone will check and notify everyone if a backdoor is found.
> Paranoia is becoming very common. The advantage of open source is you
> can't hide anything.
If there's a backdoor buried in 100,000 lines of code, how likely is it
to be found by someone who is unfamiliar with the application? Throwing
a needle into a haystack is an effective way to hide the needle.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
