Linux-Advocacy Digest #14, Volume #30 Fri, 3 Nov 00 02:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Beats NT! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure. ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Perry Pip)
Re: Microsoft == Firestone (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Perry Pip)
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Perry Pip)
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Perry Pip)
Re: Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure. (Perry Pip)
Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff.. (Perry Pip)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 06:17:45 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yDqM5.121003$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > The OpenBSD people claim they are usually 6 months ahead of Linux/Unix
> in
> > > fixing exploits.
> > >
> > > Go ahead and sleep through those 6 months of "open" vulnerabilities.
> >
> > Why don't you ask them how many years they are ahead of anything
> > from Microsoft?
>
> What percentage of the market does the secure open source project
(OpenBSD)
> hold compared to the insecure one (Linux) ?
Probably 1% - and there are some good reasons for that.
> And why do so many open source programs have holes in them?
All large programs have holes in them. The open source ones
get fixed quickly where closed source ones can be exploited for
years by the smaller number of people who know about them and
withold that knowledge.
> Why do script kiddies prefer Linux to break into and install DDOS tools?
>
> Because Linux is an open door by default!
Early versions have had problems. The real reason is that compared
to Windows, Linux is much more useful after you gain access. The
windows box would probably just crash before you could do
anything with it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:26:13 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:46:16 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Of course, if one has physical access to the box, one's most likely
> >> borked anyway. :-) Stick a floppy in this machine; it's done. :-)
> >
> >No need....just send it a gaggle of ill-behaved ActiveX controls.
>
> Ouch. Yeah, that'll probably work -- erm, not work -- erm,
> well, yes, that would most likely bork the machine... :-/
>
> (I wonder if Win2k still can be crashed by some of the wacky
> webpages out there using Slightly Suspect ActiveX Controls.. :-) )
The ActiveX control would only have as much access as the logged on user,
it would essentially be like any other app.
If you're not logged on as an administrative user, then you're probably
not going to have much happen to your system.
If you're logged on as Admin, then you're pretty stupid anyhow.
If you run a trojaned app on unix as root, is it not vulnerable to the
same type of attacks?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Beats NT!
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:29:43 GMT
"Gary Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 1. READ THE FUCKING POST, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FUCKING WEBSERVERS YOU
> > > FUCKING CUNT HEAD, I AM TALKING ABOUT BIG FUCKING SERVERS USED INSIDE BIG
> > > FUCKING CORPERATE NETWORKS SERVING HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF EMAILS, FILES
> > > AND APPLICATIONS TO THOUSANDS OF USERS PER DAY.
> >
> > Ok... Windows is taking over this space day by day. If you look at IDC
> > and Gartner studies on Windows penetration in the Fortune 500 space, you'll
> > see it's rapid.
> >
>
>
> Interesting, since when did Fortune 500 companies run big servers?
> Think about that for a second. You can not compare a Novell/NT network
> (which is where any large amount of server work will be done) doing
> application and file managment to some group in a building to the huge
> server farm over at Google. Google can search it's database in under a
> second and still be relevent.
Oh boy! Linux can search an index! Woohoo! It's the BESTEST OS ever!
> Google isn't running NT.
So?
> That being said, I do find it perculiar that NT has actually gained
> acceptance in the Web Server space.
Because people need to more than just search indexes.
> Regardless of the merits of NT (or lack thereof), it's pricy. Real pricy.
Well, when you're not concerned with price, and more with performance,
Linux is way more expensive
>
>
>
> > > 3. RESEARCHED A NUMBER OF SITES (YAHOO.COM, GOOGLE.COM, REAL.COM,
> > > WHITEHOUSE.GOV, BE.COM, IBM.COM, APPLE.COM, ZDNET.COM, WINZIP.COM) ALL USE
A
> > > UNIX VARIANT INSTEAD OF WINDOWS, GET THE FUCKING HINT, NOBODY WANTS TO USE
> > > WINDOWS AS A WEBSERVER EXCEPT FOR THOSE TO GUTLESS TO STAND UP AGAINST THE
> > > WINTEL MONOPOLY.
> >
> > Um... who cares about all those sites? The only one that has half-way
> > respectable numbers is Yahoo, and up until their recent deal with
Google.com,
> > they were NT on the front end.
> >
>
> Interesting. From a list of sites ranked by most unique vistors:
>
> yahoo 1
> real.com 10
> google.com 11
> zdnet.com 27
> IBM.com 65
> apple.com 79
>
>
> > How about sites with real numbers? Dell.com and Gigabuys.com, the two
> > largest e-Commerce sites on the 'net. Powered by....? Windows 2000 and
> > SQL Server 2000.
> >
>
> Dell is not in the top 100.
> Gigabuys is not in the top 100.
Dell and Gigabuys are the top 2 e-Commerce sites and process more transactions
than any other site on the web. Check Neilson, IDC, and numerous other
ecom stat sites.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure.
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:33:10 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LspM5.120993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think the author should spend more time reading the security advisories on
> the Linux sites.
Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and trojan code was allowed
to be inserted and was released as final product by Red Hat themselves.
So far, there's no evidence that any code was stolen from MS, let alone the
critical
systems code, let alone it was checked into source control (where the final
product(s) get built from).
-Chad
>
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I don't make any judgements on this; I only provide it for
> > discussion...
> >
> > Check out this article in Windows 2000 magazine discussing the
> > ramifications of the recent Microsoft crack:
> >
> > http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=16025
> >
> >
> > In particular, I found this paragraph amusing...
> >
> >
> > At the heart of this problem is the debate about open-source software
> > and the proprietary, closed model older software companies such as
> > Microsoft use. Microsoft jealously guards the source code to its
> > products because that code is the company's biggest asset. But
> > products such as Linux are developed in the open, by a committee of
> > sorts, and the source code is available to one and all. When someone
> > finds a security problem in Linux, for example, many people discover
> > what the problem is and work to fix it immediately. When someone
> > discovers a security problem in a Microsoft product-and let's face it,
> > security problems surface every week-customers must wait for Microsoft
> > to even acknowledge the problem's existence. Then, customers wait for
> > the company to provide a workaround, and, hopefully, release code that
> > actually fixes the problem. And in many cases-take most Windows NT 4.0
> > service packs, for example-the fixes cause more problems than the
> > original issue. It's an untenable situation, regardless of your
> > position in the open-source debate.
> >
> >
> > Let the discussion begin... :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:44:10 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John Hughes wrote:
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Colin R. Day" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Great. And what happens if a nuclear missile hits Redmond?
> > >
> > > There's always hope...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > A fine example of the mentallity of a Linux zealot. Sick.
>
> For fuck's sake IT WAS A BLOOODY JOKE
>
> Have you never made a joke in your life, or are you devoid of a sense of
> humour?
Is humor of the macbre really necessary in this setting? Wish mass
destruction on thousands of hard working Americans like the anyone else
is not necessarily funny.
You don't hear Windows advocates (at least not the real ones in COMNA) wishing
Linus death or plague do you? We debate on merits and technical details rather
than resulting to ignorant, and rather unsettling jokes such as this.
This only demonstrates the idiocy and immature and ill-founded hatred that
morons like you hold. It also seeks to discredit any point you make (not
that it needed any more help).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:45:50 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00110216263600.02705@pc03...
> El mié, 01 nov 2000, Ayende Rahien escribió:
> >"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8tqi24$amr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8tql1c$rqu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Which will run a data center for at most, a few hours. What happens
> >> if
> >> > an
> >> > > > earthquake hits, or a plane crashes into the data center, or any
> >> number
> >> > of
> >> > > > other natural catastrophies that might occur to a single site.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Great. And what happens if a nuclear missile hits Redmond?
> >> > > Linux, on the other hand, you'd have to nuke half the planet.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think so, all you need to do is to kill one man, Linus, and then
> >> the
> >> > linux compunity is going to be:
> >> > A> In shock
> >> > B> Un-unified.
> >> >
> >> > Very soon there will be no official kernel, no one with the autority to
> >> > release it, Linux will split up to various groups which will be totally
> >> > incompatible. Reasonable people will move to BSD.
> >> >
> >> > (Yes, that is the worst case scenario, but a lot of people has already
> >> > expressed worry about Linus being the center on Linux.)
> >>
> >> I think you'd probably have to knock off a few of the other maintainers
> >like
> >> Alan Cox to get that sort of reaction.
> >>
> >> For the zealots, a quick visit to kt.linxcare.com to determine who the
> >most
> >> voluminous posters to the kernel mailing list are should aid you in
> >> assembling a suitable hit list[1].
> >
> >Okay, didn't check, just in case something would happen to them and the
> >finger would be pointed at me.
> >But still, you don't have to kill nearly as many people to kill linux as
> >you've to kill windows.
> >(You've to nuke more than just Redmond for this, you've to nuke every
> >Microsoft <nation> in the world, as they have the localized source for MS
> >prodcuts.)
>
> They have the sources, but they don't have anyone who understands it.
>
> If having the source is all that mattered, you would have to destroy every
city
> where a sunsite or kernel.org mirror is, and that's quite a bit more than the
> ones where MS has stored the sources.
You don't think that MS has off-site storage for circumstances like this?
Geez... how'd you guys make it through college, or better yet, high school?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: 3 Nov 2000 06:48:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:39:46 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:52:37 +0200,
>> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:bxbM5.268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > 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:
>> >
>> >Perhaps, I don't know anything about this, I do know that X +Gnome/KDE is
>> >slower on lower system than window (98se) is.
>> >
>>
>> How do you "know"?? Have you persoanlly examined every machine on the
>> planet?? Did you even bother to enable DMA on your Linux machine??
>
>How do I know?
>I tested it on several machines, that is how I know.
>
But you didn't enable DMA.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft == Firestone (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: 3 Nov 2000 06:49:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:21:40 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:35:24 +0200,
>> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> >> Where Gates, Allen, and other notables answered each question by either
>> >>
>> >> a) lying
>> >> b) dodging the question
>> >> c) claiming ignorance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And this surprise you because?
>> >It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that they would do so.
>> >Or did you thought that Gates would come and say: "Of course we used
>illegal
>> >means to become the monopol. Now please breakup my company and ruin my
>> >lifework as well as my money cow."
>> >
>> >
>>
>> So then why do you say we should trust his closed source software,
>> hypocrite.
>
>Because of the simplest of all reasons, selfishness.
Huh?? You acknowledge that MS has been fucking people over since their
inception, then you say they can be trusted because of selfishness??
All of the experts are predicting the Appeals courts will favor them,
so don't give me that crap.
>Think about it.
>
You need to do that, and stop making excuses.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
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: 3 Nov 2000 06:49:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:09:35 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9m0M5.2726$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:GoXL5.119890$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:47:44 GMT,
>> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > >news:9HJL5.1627$[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.
>> >
>>
>> I did. You're knowlingly misrepresenting what is on OpenBSD's security
>> page. In other words, you're lying.
>>
>> The only thing that comes close to what you claim is a paragraph which
>says:
>>
>> --------
>> Our proactive auditing process has really paid off. Statements like ``This
>> problem was fixed in OpenBSD about 6 months ago'' have become commonplace
>in
>> security forums like BUGTRAQ.
>> --------
>>
>> That's a far cry from them claiming to be "at least 6 months ahead of the
>> other Linux/BSD sites in closing security holes."
>
>It is EXACTLY the same thing. EXACTLY.
No it's not, liar. They didn't even reference other Linux/BSD's. And
the quote was only in reference to one specific "problem", not a
general statement about closing security holes.
>Quit playing the whining Linux semantic game.
>
You're struggling.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: 3 Nov 2000 06:49:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:35:58 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8tso5h$hvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Perry Pip wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course he's lying. He has no arguement.
>> >
>> > But what is most ironic is that he claims Linux is "scary" because the
>> > source code is available for people to see, and then he uses OpenBSD as
>> > and example of what is secure. Total hypocracy.
>>
>> It starts to get sad reading the posts by Bruce. At first they were
>amusing
>> but now i start to feel sorry for him.
>> Obviously the poor guy is not even aware of the fact that lots of code
>> compiles on both *BSD, Linux and other Unices without modifications.
>
>
>So all Unices share all security holes?
For the very short time they exist before the patches are released, yes.
>
>I retract what I said about OpenBSD then.
>
You mean you acknowledge you don't know WTF you are talking about.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure.
Date: 3 Nov 2000 06:49:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:33:54 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think the author should spend more time reading the security advisories on
>the Linux sites.
He is, and that's why he said what he said. Since when does more
advisories == less security, as you seem to assume. In practice, the
opposite is true.
>
>
>"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I don't make any judgements on this; I only provide it for
>> discussion...
>>
>> Check out this article in Windows 2000 magazine discussing the
>> ramifications of the recent Microsoft crack:
>>
>> http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=16025
>>
>>
>> In particular, I found this paragraph amusing...
>>
>>
>> At the heart of this problem is the debate about open-source software
>> and the proprietary, closed model older software companies such as
>> Microsoft use. Microsoft jealously guards the source code to its
>> products because that code is the company's biggest asset. But
>> products such as Linux are developed in the open, by a committee of
>> sorts, and the source code is available to one and all. When someone
>> finds a security problem in Linux, for example, many people discover
>> what the problem is and work to fix it immediately. When someone
>> discovers a security problem in a Microsoft product-and let's face it,
>> security problems surface every week-customers must wait for Microsoft
>> to even acknowledge the problem's existence. Then, customers wait for
>> the company to provide a workaround, and, hopefully, release code that
>> actually fixes the problem. And in many cases-take most Windows NT 4.0
>> service packs, for example-the fixes cause more problems than the
>> original issue. It's an untenable situation, regardless of your
>> position in the open-source debate.
>>
>>
>> Let the discussion begin... :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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]
>
>
--
Perry Piplani http://www.netservers.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://perrypip.netservers.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
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: 3 Nov 2000 06:50:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:38:08 GMT,
Chad Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, it's possible. It's also *possible* he got write access to it.
BTW, VSS can be cracked as easily as anything else MS does.
>> >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.
NTLM isn't the only protocol used on their networks, and users use the
same passwords for many things. NTLM encryption keys can also
be obtained if you crack the PDC.
>>
>> closed source software:
>> requires blind trust in people solely out to make money
>
>Requires trust in a group of people with an understandable motivation.
A motivation that has no interest in your interests, and every interest
to exploit you. Yet you trust them totally blindly.
>> no public review.
>
>Reviewed in the market. If the stuff is bad it won't sell.
Source code is not reviewed. Were talking about source code. Do you
even know what that is?? Security holes Trojans don't come out and
announce themselves to you.
>> 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.
Bullshit. Provide some *proof* that OSS developers are any more
"unstable" than closed source developers. A closed source developer can quit
his job anytime, leaving no one in the company who understands the code, and
thus, no one in the world.
And as far as ego problems are concerned, Windows advocates take the
cake. For example: http://ic.net/~drestinb/ "Computer Guru". Oh I'm
so impressed!!
>> is subject to public review.
>
>Self review (AKA Peer Review) is inherently ineffective,
1) Public != Peer != Self.
2) OSS is open for the public to see. That can't be less effective than
no source available for independant review.
3) Why don't you provide some *proof* to whatever it is you are saying
is ineffective.
>this is why
>software companies dont have programmers doing QA.
>
Software companies dont have *anyone* doing QA becuase they have
licensing agreements that absolve them of responsibility for the bugs
in the code. And we were talking about trojans in close source code
software. QA people wouldn't find that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
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: 3 Nov 2000 06:50:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:56:23 -0500,
Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
>------------
URL please. And include evidence he has been Captain during the entire
time of SmartShip's use.
>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).
This URL says nothing about the Yorktown.
All we have is different stories. That's is expected becuase the
people responible for the fuck up have to cover their asses.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
