Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #30 Thu, 2 Nov 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!) (Peter Maas)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (hack)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Peter da Silva)
Re: advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!) (bob_more)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Eric Remy)
Re: I think I'm in love..... (sfcybear)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Joe Doupnik)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("JS/PL")
Re: advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!) ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: More on Megashit security ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff.. ("Chad
Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Astroturfing (chrisv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 17:09:05 +0100
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...
Don't forget the Windows advocates. I think *.advocates generally
tend to be a bunch of morons. You are hanging around here, waste
time and bandwith because you can't stand that other people have
other preferences than you (kind of computer related fascism /
stalinism). Get a life. Provide useful information to the usenet
(or at least ask intelligent questions) instead of emitting
bullshit.
No need to answer, I am unsubsribing.
Peter.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (hack)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 2 Nov 2000 16:17:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Since you're talking about the aggregate utilization, it makes no
>difference whatsoever how many hosts you have or what kind of traffic
>patterns they show, unless you're going to pretend you can "interleave"
>frames efficiently on the channel by second-guessing individual
>transmissions. Yes, the utilization of an ethernet can be any figure
>from 1% to 99%, and as you correctly surmised, the efficiency of the
>ethernet (in supporting an individual stations demands) can be said to
>be the inverse percentage. Ergo, to use a channel which already has
>over 50% utilization is to be satisfied with a channel that has an
>efficiency of less than 50%.
Last week I mentioned an approach that does support interleaving transmissions,
and does so without having to guess other station's behaviour. Unfortunately I
tried to be a good netizen and changed the subject line to "Ethernet saturation
and throughput", and drew no replies. So I'll stick with begging for food.
If stations throttle their transmission *rate* when the proportion of lost
packets increases (instead of reducing the *window* size), the exponential
backoff upon collision detection together with an exponential rate increase or
decrease will adapt naturally to concurrent transmissions. Total effective
throughput remains good (saturation effects are smooth, because the cable does
not suddenly get flooded with retry packets), and individual throughput simply
drops to its fair share of the shared medium.
I should note that our approach has only been used on a single LAN. I'm not
quite sure how the mechanism would behave across a network, but it was very
effective in the context for which it was designed.
Btw, I use "throughput" in the sense of "number of bytes successfully received
per unit of time", so that frame overhead, acknowledgements and retry packets
occupy cable bandwidth but do not contribute to the measured throughput.
Michel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 2 Nov 2000 16:17:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Layer 3 switching" is simply a performance hack to speed up routing in the
> >common case. If it's at layer 3, it's routing. I agree the terminology is
> >stupid. That doesn't mean the hack isn't useful or that it doesn't work most
> >of the time.
> But neither does the fact that it is useful or works most of the time
> make it worth the difficulties and expense (both initial and on-going)
> which it incurs.
Mate, you're a wonder. On the one hand you go into great detail about the
complexities of properly understanding network configuration, and on the
other you're blithely dismissing a tool without considering when it might
or might not be appropriate.
Or is this one of those Holy War things you're on about?
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "Milloin halasit viimeksi suttasi?"
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: bob_more <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:33:06 -0500
Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >=20
> > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> >=20
> > You're just now realizing this? It's been proven many a time...
> >=20
> > You should check out the Mac and OS/2 advocates as well...
>=20
> Don't forget the Windows advocates. I think *.advocates generally
> tend to be a bunch of morons. You are hanging around here, waste
> time and bandwith because you can't stand that other people have
> other preferences than you (kind of computer related fascism /
> stalinism). Get a life. Provide useful information to the usenet
> (or at least ask intelligent questions) instead of emitting
> bullshit.
>=20
> No need to answer, I am unsubsribing.
>=20
> Peter.
I'll reply anyway, and point out your words are not likely to change a th=
ing,
most people have become entrenched in what they like to use, windows, mac=
,
linux whatever. Even OS/2 maintains a die hard user base. There is value =
in
badgering Microsoft or apple though. If they're takin' heat it means some=
one is
watching and willing to hold them accountable if they're not doing the be=
st
they can. What's the alternative, a long and pointless parade of folks in=
here
going yeah mac, and having nothing better to do. THAT is a waste of time.
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[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: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:56:23 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Get your facts straight. There were multiple incidents on the Yorktown
What facts are those? Check some other points of view below.
>http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/july13/cov2.htm
>
> "Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there
> have been numerous software failures associated with NT
> aboard the Yorktown."
>
> "Refining that is an ongoing process", Redman said. Unix is a
> better system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas
> NT is a better system for the transfer of information and data.
> NT has never been fully refined and there are times when we
> have had shutdowns that resulted from NT.
>
> "The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of
> the systems failures, he said."
>
> "Because of politics, some things are being forced on
> us that without political pressure we might not do,
> like Windows NT," Redman said.
The captain of the Yorktown doesn't agree
===========
In a letter to the "Comment and Discussion" department, published in
the Aug 98 _Naval_Institute_Proceedings_, page 22, Captain Richard T.
Rushton, then-CO of _Yorktown_, categorically states, "The _Yorktown_
was never towed as a result of any Smart Ship initiative. During my
command, we lost propulsion power twice while using the new technology.
Each time, we knew what caused the interrupt and were underway again in
about 30 minutes.
============
The project director doesn't agree
============
...Harvey McKelvey,
former director of Navy programs for CAE Electronics, the firm which
apparently built the misbehaving application
(www.sciam.com/1999/0399issue/0399letters.html).
McKelvey writes that the failure, "was not the result of any system
software
or design deficiency but rather a decision to allow the ship to
manipulate
the software to stimulate [sic] machinery casualties for training
purposes
and the 'tuning' of propulsion machinery operating parameters. In the
usual
shipboard installation, this capability is not allowed."
McKelvey adds that CAE Electronics expressed "serious concern" when this
test was proposed.
==============
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:55:57 GMT
"PULL"<chink><bang>.
It's been a long time since I shot, I think I would need the box it came
in!
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken McFelea wrote:
>
> > Now if I can just find some helpful people that like to shoot skeet.
> > I've got a whole stack of MS CD's that we could use.
>
> I've two NT4.0, a 95 'A', a 95 'B', and a 98 to contribute!
> I can also throw in 18 OS/2 v2.0 and 6 Win3.11 floppies (If you're a
good
> shot)
>
> Just say PULL! ;)
>
> Tom Wilson
>
> PS: You do the shooting, i've only a Winchester Model 12
> Not exactly a skeet gun.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Doupnik)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 2 Nov 00 10:12:29 MDT
>> In a word, no.
>> This raving is costing lots of bandwidth. May I humbly suggest running
>>those experiments to see first hand the true state of affairs. Try several
>>simultaneous FTP streams amongst a collection of stations in the same
>>collision domain. The wire is fully occupied, the throughput is rather evenly
>>divided amongst transmitters, the aggregrate throughput is about 90% of total
>>wire capacity. Borrow a hub and please give it a try; no model is involved.
>
> I don't understand what this has to do with the quoted text. Did I say
> an Ethernet could not "go" over 30% utilization?
I merely included enough to pinpoint the message, not include all
the verbage.
>> While the test runs flip throught the Boggs et al paper on Myths
>>and Reality concerning Ethernet, location cited previously and a copy is
>>also on netlab2.usu.edu in directory misc as file ethercap.zip, same file
>>in pub/mirror/misc on netlab1.usu.edu.
>
> Well, thank you for the link. I'll have to read it to find out where
> the confusion is coming from. Consider while I do that, as it will be a
> couple days before I will be back, this question:
>
The paper is well worth reading. It debunks a lot of muddled
thinking and urban legend.
> How much "bandwidth" does each ftp session have when the aggregate
> throughput is 90%?
They share the link, rather fairly as I mentioned above.
Please do run the tests. As a favorite book says "The data shall set
you free" meaning there are facts available rather than speculation
and opinions.
Once you get machines setup you can also try timing moderate
length files which are sent while much longer ones are on the wire to
other stations. That's a "sensitivity" test about sharing. Length of
time to do the tests is a lot less than pounding out yet more NEWS
messages on the matter.
Joe D.
> I am not considering the LAN utilization in prescribing 10% bandwidth
> guidelines. I'm concerned with how much service each station gets, not
> how good the hub is doing.
>
> --
> 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! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 2 Nov 2000 11:40:09 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tqq20$bbm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Beside that, Windows NT/2000 does exactly what you describe but goes an
> : extra mile: data is shared too until one instance needs to modify it. At
> : this very moment, the modifying process will get a private copy of the
page
> : it intends to modify. This is called Copy-On-Write. The advantage it
that
> : only the strict minimum gets copied.
>
> That's what Linux does. It's had it for a while now. I don't know
> enough details of the other Unixen to know if they do it too. I first
> heard about copy-on-write in the kernel about 3-4 years ago, if memory
> serves me right.
Great. One more thing where NT is on par with the cutting edge Unix
implementations.
> : This is were you show you've not used GDI. Device independent drawing
frees
> : you from details such as actual device resolution. The rasterizer will
> : render at the device resolution but you still talk to GDI in arbitrary
units
> : of your choice, like inches and points.
>
> Yet I still keep seeing programs that choose to use pixels directly,
> making them render in different sizes on different resolutions. The
> feature is there, but people aren't using it - kinda like you are
> saying is happening with the X printing system discussed earlier.
Most word processing, charting and desktop publishing programs does it
perfectly well, while most image editors are pixel-based.
> : So there is probably a similar implementation in the PCL driver, and
every
> : video card driver, every scanner and digital camera drivers etc... with
as
> : many color profiles formats.
>
> : Windows 98 and 2000 have a built in color management system called ICM
2.0,
> : which uses standard profiles (see www.color.org) for monitors,
> : scanners/digital cameras and printers. All color devices automatically
> : inherit the functionality and can take advantage of it, it's just a few
> : mouse clicks away right there in the UI.
>
> I can't speak to this, no knowing much about it, but I also don't
> really care, since color management serves merely to tweak colors
> slightly in ways too small for me to care about. (Ooh look, this
> shade of magenta is 1% too dark, let's fix that...). I'm not saying
> it's irrelevant for everybody - some people in the document printing
> biz probably care - but I suspect most others don't care.
Sure. But its one clear example of well thought design and clever
integration.
> : At the end of the day, that's probably right. My point is that it's
*much*
> : easier on Windows because everything you need is built in and nicely
> : integrated. You can count on it no matter where your app is running,
> : workstation, server or both.
>
> This is only a temporary deficit on Linux's part. The technology is
> there now. It's just a matter of waiting for it to become ubiquitous,
> which is pretty inevitable in the long run.
Probably.
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 2 Nov 2000 11:41:07 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Relax wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > > So, it might cost you 10,000,000 retail for Oracle software and
hardware
> > and
> > > ^^^^^
> > >
> > > $10,000,000 ??? Oh, really.
> >
> > They say you _have_ to buy all they recommend _and_ pay their
consultants
> > for tuning your system up to the point your web site is three times
faster.
> > They say is they can't do it, they give you a million [back].
>
>
> If it's too outrageously expensive, then the whole exercise is pointless,
> even from a promotional point of view.
>
> And you know that, don't you.
What I know it that there is no claim too outrageous for Larry :)
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:10:45 -0500
"Eric Remy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Get your facts straight. There were multiple incidents on the Yorktown
>
> What facts are those? Check some other points of view below.
>
> >http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/july13/cov2.htm
Looks to me like the article doesn't know WHO to blame! Not to mention it
was a pilot program.
What I find funny about the whole article is this:
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 3.0">
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:24:06 GMT
Hear Hear.
bob_more <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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...
>
<trimmed sniveling by Peter Maas>
>
> No need to answer, I am unsubsribing.
>
> Peter.
I'll reply anyway, and point out your words are not likely to change a
th=ng,
most people have become entrenched in what they like to use, windows, mac=
linux whatever. Even OS/2 maintains a die hard user base. There is value =n
badgering Microsoft or apple though. If they're takin' heat it means some=ne
is
watching and willing to hold them accountable if they're not doing the be=t
they can. What's the alternative, a long and pointless parade of folks
in=here
going yeah mac, and having nothing better to do. THAT is a waste of time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:34:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:54:52 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> It doesn't. He said same scenario, not same events. THe scenario is a
>> trojan, and any OS is vulnerable to them.
>
>Really now.
>
>So, like, why don't we see Unix e-mail viruses?
Who says we don't? Kevin Mitnick's "worm" was highly prolific,
somewhat destructive (because of bandwidth), and resulted in his
being forbidden to touch a computer ever again and serving time, AFAIK.
Of course, it wasn't nearly as dangerous as QAZ, and any Unix
and Linux trojan will be limited in its scope unless run as root.
This is also true for NT, but many administrators give the
primary user Administrative privileges on their NT box out of
convenience (because an equivalent to Unix's 'su' is either not
available, not installed, or not thought of; I think Win2k has
this command or a variant thereof, however -- and it just might
do the right thing by bringing up the GUI... :-) ).
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More on Megashit security
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:36:10 -0600
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I was
> > > wondering why DOS7 could see my CD-ROM only _after_ I
> > > fired up the GUI. Simple: the relevant lines in
> > > AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS have been _commented out_
> > > by Win95 during its installation. Oh, I can think of
> > > reasons all right, but they are all lame. The true
> > > reason, it seems to me is the old "DOS ain't done
> > > until Lotus won't run".
> >
> > No, the reason is that real-mode CD-ROM drivers often interfered with
the 32
> > bit buffered driver, causing the CD to either not be detected under
Windows,
> > or causing the CD-ROM to run in "compatibility mode", which is as much
as
> > 10x slower. It depended on the real-mode driver though. Some did not
not
> > interfere, some did. MS made the assumption that most people will only
use
> > the CD-ROM in windows, and if they want to use DOS, they'll use the
"Boot to
> > MS-DOS" option which will install the cd-rom driver.
>
> When win95 installs itself it comments out the CD lines. therefore, if
> you boot to dos the CD rom won't work (this is personal experience). I't
> is trivial to uncomment the lines or to add a config.sys menu.
The "Boot to MS-DOS" option uses it's own version of autoexec.bat called
(IIRC, it's been a long time) Autoexec.dos. Windows doesn't uncomment out
the config.sys entries, just the MSCDEX line. The autoexec.dos calls MSCDEX
with the proper driver.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff..
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:38:08 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:33:49 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:58:21 +0200,
> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:21:14 +0200,
> >> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >Well, for a start, they are going to have unaffected copies of the
> >source
> >> >> >code, remember?
> >> >> >They've change logs.
> >> >> >They can simply run a doc compar of the code and check only the
> >portions
> >> >of
> >> >> >it that changed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure, they can do this to assess the damages. But what if they find
> >> >> something really bad?? Suppose they discover that a trojan was put
in
> >> >> W2k updates, and tens of thousands downloaded it?? Would they
announce
> >> >> it to the public?? Or would they try to cover it up?? What did
> >> >> Firestone try to do when they found out their tires were flawed and
> >> >> people were dying?? Why would MS be different from any other large
> >> >> corporation with a mistake to hide.
> >> >
> >> >To do so you need a lot more than a mere access to the code.
> >>
> >> All the cracker would need is read/write access to the code, some fake
> >> reasons to log the code into the CM system, and lot's of time to study
> >> it.
> >
> >Trust me,
>
> Trust you?? Why should I?? If you know the first thing about security
> you don't trust total strangers. This is what is fundamentally wrong
> with closed source software. Send me a check for $5000 to do a
> background investigation on you and I will see about trusting you. My
> employer did one on me.
>
> >it's very nigh impossible to someone, even if he has full access
> >to the code, to make sense of it.
>
> And maybe some people are much better at understanding code than you
> are. I never said it was probable. I said it was possible.
>
> >A> It's a *lot* of code.
>
> But you only need to trojan a small part of it, like maybe IIS, NTLM,
> or Microsoft telnet server.
>
> >B> It's not lying in someone's computer marked as
> >windows_and_office_source_code_plus_comments_and_useful_insights.zip,
it's
> >thousands or more of files. You just got worker access to MS computers,
> >where do you start looking?
>
> It is most likely in a CM system with a directory structure. Browse
> the directories. Also, a former MS employee would know exactly where
> to go. Or maybe a disgruntled but not yet former MS employee. Or maybe
> a MS employee taking bribes from corporate or international spies who
> wants the code. Does MS do background investigations on all of it's
> employees??
>
Actually it's most likely in Source Safe that adds another level of
security, logging of all changes and restricting changes. It is possible,
and probable, that the intruder could only view the software without access
to change it.
> >C> How many workers do you think MS has that not only has full access to
all
> >the source codes to all the products, but also free and unlimited access
to
> >MS site?
>
> You put a sniffer on the network and sniff all the users passwords.
>
NTLM Passwords aren't in the clear.
> >D> PR mess when this come out to the open, MS is already in deep shit in
PR
> >right now, putting a fix wouldn't make it much worse.
> >
>
> Few corporations are rational with respect to PR.
>
> And you are avoiding the point I made:
>
> closed source software:
> requires blind trust in people solely out to make money
Requires trust in a group of people with an understandable motivation.
> no public review.
Reviewed in the market. If the stuff is bad it won't sell.
> You never know for sure
>
> open source software:
> requires cautious trust in people giving away code,
Requires trust in an unstable element who's only motivation is ego building.
> is subject to public review.
Self review (AKA Peer Review) is inherently ineffective, this is why
software companies dont have programmers doing QA.
> can review it yourself if need be.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:42:24 -0600
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bxbM5.268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't think so. X + Gnome/KDE are much more resource hungry in my
> > experiance than windows.
>
> That could be because you are trusting the numbers you see in Windows.
> Windows lies to you about your resources. Microsoft changed the way it
> counts "free memory" beginning with Win95, because Win95 itself consumed
> such a shocking amount. Each successive version of Windows gets worse.
> When you see:
>
> System Resources: 91% free
>
> or something like that, you are being lied to. What it's really telling
you
> is that 91% of whatever was left AFTER Windows was loaded, is still free.
> So if Windows consumed 60 of your 64 megs, you'll have 4 megs left for
> actually running your software, even though Windows will say something
like
> "94% free".
>
> Win 3.x, and versions before it, were at least honest about this number,
in
> that the algorithm they used to calculate free space was closer to what
> people think they're seeing when they see this number.
You are confusing two things. Resources, under Win9x is not the amount of
memory you have free. It's the amount of "16 bit Heap space" you have free.
In Win9x and Win3.1 there are 3 16 bit (64k) heaps for things like window
handles, device contexts, etc... This is not the general memory the system
uses.
Windows 9x did in fact change the reported percentage of system resources,
since what's more important is how much you have left after windows starts
than how much there is in total.
Windows 9x did *NOT* falsely report how much general memory or other
resources were available.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:42:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/01/00
> at 02:17 PM, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>Jason you asshole
>
>>Everyone can see who the a-hole here is, and it's you, letarded.
>
>I'm sure all the wintrolls think that. It takes their little brains off the
>hook for not thinking -- or being able to.
I'm not talking about an OS. I'm talking about you being a psycho
a-hole, letarded.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
