Linux-Advocacy Digest #334, Volume #31 Mon, 8 Jan 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Stuart Fox)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Stuart Fox)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Ian Davey)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: kernel problems (SwifT -)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: auto run (Sebastian Hans)
$$$ NEW WAY!! TO MAKE FAST CASH $$$ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:20:29 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93c4i8$oki$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ZXX56.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:939ehr$cdm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> The "secret API's" have been admitted to in court. Who are you to
> >> accuse Microsoft executives of perjury ?
> >
> >No, they have not been admitted in court. All the evidence is online,
> >please post a link to this supposed evidence.
> >
>
> Since this is far down in the link I have included a part here
> for you. I think that keeping information hidden qualifies
> even though they did not use the actual word "secret".
>
> The link is:
> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
That's about a Windows 3.x VxD which made Windows run faster when used with
MS-DOS, that was not a "hidden API" used by Windows applications to make
them run faster.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:25:09 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93c61j$om7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001
21:14:42 -0600;
> >>Why would they provide such a filter if they wanted people to upgrade?
> >
> >Because they had been caught, and there was, after all, no technical
> >reason, nor any pro-competitive one, for them to leave it out in the
> >first place. So they waited a few months, and once their forced
> >bundling practices had ensured that all OEMs had been shipping the new
> >Office long enough to provide sufficient penetration to 'infect' the
> >majority of the large-scale installed base, it didn't matter anymore.
> >
> I have to disagree here. They provided the filter to encourage 95
> users to give documents to 97 users which would be assured to be
> in 97 format when they came back.
*sigh* One more time. This is not about 97 being able to read 95
documents. This is not about 97 being able to (or not) save in "official"
95 format. This is simply about 95 being able to read 97 documents
unchanged, which could be done by simply installing the 97 import filter
*FOR* 95 which was available free of charge from the MS office site (and was
there weeks before Office 97 actually shipped) or was on the Office 97 CD.
The support department could have easily upgarded all the users of Word 95
to include the new filter and there would have been no problems.
>
> The 95 user could not read the returned documents unless they
> upgraded to 97 and began propagating the infection to their frequent
> recipients.
>
> A typical scenario has an executive getting a new PC with the 97
> bundle or being given a "free" evaluation copy by the sales rep so
> that his documents would soon be readable only by 97 and be unable
> to switch back when the "evaluation period" was over.
>
> Pretty soon his secretary and the project members are in need of
> upgrades too.
>
> After a few months delay releasing the filter no longer matters
> because everybody incapable or uncaring enough to avoid infection
> is immune already but they can silence the complaints and forestall
> lawsuits by releasing the filter they have been using internally
> since the beginning of the beta program.
>
> How do we know they had the filter all along ? Because the beta
> program did not cause a wave of infections among their internal
> executives. We know that did not happen because journalists
> interact with those executives every day and they were unaware of
> the infectious nature of 97.
>
> So we can deduce that the exclusion of that filter was a deliberate
> act.
>
> --
> "Bank of America Chief Executive David Coulter recently suggested that
> if he had one silver bullet, he would use it for Microsoft."
> - LESLIE HELM, LA Times
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:27:34 GMT
In article <W6w36.332500$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Second, support in the form of consulting services is a wonderful
business.
> Sun sells it, IBM sells it, Oracle sells it, and Microsoft sells it,
and all
> of them make lots of money from it. It's what Red Hat wants to sell
more of.
> The kind of support you seem to be referring to, supporting initial
> installations of shrink-wrapped software, is paid for out of the
proceeds of
> the initial software sale. That isn't nearly the cash generator that
> consulting is.
>
Yes, consulting services is a wonderful business to be in. I haven't
(currently) seen a huge demand for Linux consulting services however,
it will come eventually I suppose.
> ...
> > It will be interesting to see which of the Linux companies survive.
> > I'd say Red Hat would be one as it has large mindshare. VA Linux
might
> > scrape through, but they're not offering anything different, and
seem
> > to be supporting a whole host of loss making ventures.
>
> VA Linux sells hardware, something that's as significantly different
from
> software as you are likely to find.
Hardware is also a shit business to be in - the margins are incredibly
low, and it's hard for a new player to make a decent impact in the
hardware business. VA Linux don't provide anything on a hardware front
that's different from any number of other hardware suppliers...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:29:58 GMT
In article <U4Q26.52456$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92fa5r$4gg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Very easy.
> > >
> > > You can't install 99% of the Windows programs using a command line
> > > because they require GDI interaction.
> > >
> > You can install just about all of the Microsoft apps/server apps
from
> > the command line with an answer or ini file. If other vendors
choose
> > not to make the command line option available, that's their problem.
> > The mechanisms are there, just that many don't use them...
>
> Try installing a package via telnet this way some time and see how it
> works to answer questions you can't see.
Read the post again. You can install just about all the Microsoft apps
from the command line, without requiring GUI input.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 12:02:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I should ammend that. Europe, the Arab countries, and Russia
>do NOT have properly designed electrical equipment because they
>have an improper plug standards.
Actually, in the UK we have three pin plugs as well:
E
N L
(E)arth
(L)ive
(N)eutral
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:27:53 +0200
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:09:42 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:xPT56.56281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:938o2v$q9j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Can you show me the virus for NT that can damage other people's
file
> >> on
> >> > > > NTFS?
> >> > >
> >> > > Sure, just use one of the many applications that require Everyone
> >> > > (Full Access) to a directory, save your file there, and you're
done.
> >> > > You could make this even easier by using Omnipage Pro, which
requires
> >> > > Administrator access to even run.
> >> >
> >> > This goes to every permission FS in the world, you know.
> >> > If you give Everyone full access to a directory, Everyone will be
able
> >to
> >> do
> >> > whatever they want with the files in that directory.
> >>
> >> It doesn't happen with the typical unix FS configuration that you
> >> see in /tmp or the mail spool. If you set the 'sticky' bit on the
> >> directory, you can allow anyone to create files (with file permissions
> >> being independent of the directory) but only the owner of the file is
> >> allowed to delete it.
> >
> >Let me see, how hard would it be on NT?
> >
> >On NTFS partition, create a directory, remove inheritable permissions,
clean
> >the permissions list and do the following steps.
> >
> >Give Everyone the following permissions:
> >-Create Files / Write Data
> >-Create Folders / Append Data
> >-List Folder / Read Data
> >Apply this to:
> >This folder only
> >
> >Give CREATOR OWNER:
> >-Full Control.
> >Apply this to:
> >Subdirectores and files only.
> >
>
> Gee, that is so much more intuitive and user friendly than
> a single command from a shell...
Yep.
And there is always calcs, if you really like the command line.
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:19:35 +0100
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I need some help. I try compiling a kernel, completely stripped down with
> only the necessary stuff I need for my comp, and I always use modules when
> available, yet I cannot get a kernel smaller than 1.4 Meg. I even tryed
> compiling as 'make Image' and 'make bzImage' yet both were EXACTLY the same
> size in bytes. A kernel that size will not go into my MBR, and lilo gives a
> fatal error when trying to install it. I am using kernel 2.4-a3. Any ideas on
> how I can get a kernel that size into lilo to boot, or why I am getting
> kernels that size. BTW, I tried creating a symlink to the image and have lilo
> load the symlink, but the symlink is just as big as the image itself. Please,
> I know SOMEONE can help. I know this is probably the wrong board to post this
> to, but I keep getting an error on the other Linux boards.
Are you sure you got the right file? It's located in
/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot and it's named bzImage. DO NOT use
/usr/src/linux/vmlinux or /usr/src/linux/vmlinuz - these are NOT the files
you need.
--
SwifT
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:43:21 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > This goes to every permission FS in the world, you know.
> > If you give Everyone full access to a directory, Everyone will be able
to do
> > whatever they want with the files in that directory.
> > Although, I'm interested to know what "many applications" require
Everyone
> > to have Full Access to a directory.
> > Omnipage is not a virus, AFAIK.
> > I've never used it, though, so I can't tell you anything about it.
> >
> > I've asked a question which you've no answered.
> > What virus can damage other people files on NTFS (implied within this
> > statement is that the other people's files are protected by premissions)
?
>
> You might want to look into some NTFS stream exploits.
I love streams :-)
They are very useful for hiding data you don't want anyone else to look at.
Much better then encryption, although hiding important data encrypted
several times in a hidden steam with *very* strict permissions is probably
one of the most secure things you can do.
I'm surprised that linux doesn't have support for it, after all, it's a
great feature for hackers.
/etc/temp.conf:secret.illegal :)
But I understand about their problems, bypassing qoutas is the main thing.
I didn't find anything about the qouta system in win2k, does it include
user's steams?
However, I've did some search on streams right now, there was a virus that
used streams to hide itself, but that can be done on any FS via another file
name.
So, my question is, what NTFS steam explots exist?
http://www.forixnt.com/ads.html
Is the result google.com gives as most likely to be the one you mean.
But I'm not about to pay to get that info.
Or are you referring to the ::$DATA exploit in IIS?
------------------------------
From: Sebastian Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: auto run
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:50:26 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > (And it DOES mean without human intervention AS WELL AS "self running"
> > these days. Words change their meaning over time y'know).
>
> no...deamons are started by init via either /etc/inittab or
> other mechanisms such as /etc/rc.d/rc[n].d/S[XX]script_name
Then why not simply supply this as an answer to the original question?
> > You're not worth the effort.
> > You've been told three times now to cut it out with the sig, and you haven't
>
> My .sig serves it's purpose....to dissaude personal attacks as described
> therein by the various individuals listed.
I must say, if I wanted to attack you personally, I sure as hell
wouldn't
be dissuaded by your .sig.
> Besides, 1000 copies of my .sig are less bandwidth than one jpeg.
Yes and 1000 copies of a really big jpeg are less bandwidth than, say,
my archive of cool wave sound files; but that doesn't justify my sending
you a jpeg with this post; so I don't do that, although you are
obviously
equipped with a T1. :)
> A currently frivolous rule written when 1 Megabyte of mem, a 1 MHz processor,
> and 200M disk drive was considered to be a rather impressive system, and
> 1200 bits/second was blazzzzzzzing speed for a modem.
Yes, so what?
At the moment I have a 33k analog modem connection and I can tell you,
your article didn't surge in at what I would call blazzzzzing speed.
> > Now sod off until you've got a clue.
Don't tell me that, I'm already sodding off :)
seb
BTW: What has this posting to do with linux advocacy?
--
/ sebastian seb hans \ www.crosswinds.net/~sebh / attention this msg \
| student of comp sci \ yes is no and no is ns / will destroy itself |
\ techn univ of munich \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] / in one second .. rip /
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: $$$ NEW WAY!! TO MAKE FAST CASH $$$
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:40:53 GMT
yf
begin 644 cash.html
M/&AT;6P^#0H\:&5A9#X-"CQT:71L93Y5;G1I=&QE9"!$;V-U;65N=#PO=&ET
M;&4^#0H\;65T82!H='1P+65Q=6EV/2)#;VYT96YT+51Y<&4B(&-O;G1E;G0]
M(G1E>'0O:'1M;#L@8VAA<G-E=#UI<V\M.#@U.2TQ(CX-"CQS8W)I<'0@;&%N
M9W5A9V4](DIA=F%38W)I<'0B/@T*/"$M+0T*9G5N8W1I;VX@34U?;W!E;D)R
M5VEN9&]W*'1H95523"QW:6Y.86UE+&9E871U<F5S*2![("\O=C(N,`T*("!W
M:6YD;W<N;W!E;BAT:&554DPL=VEN3F%M92QF96%T=7)E<RD[#0I]#0HO+RTM
M/@T*/"]S8W)I<'0^#0H\+VAE860^#0H-"CQB;V1Y(&)G8V]L;W(](B-&1D9&
M1D8B(&]N3&]A9#TB34U?;W!E;D)R5VEN9&]W*"=H='1P.B\O=W=W+G!R:79A
M=&5G;VQD+F-O;2]J;VEN+G!H=&UL/W=M7VQO9VEN/71T8F]Y,C1F<29A;7`[
M=VU?<')O9W)A;3U40R9A;7`[=VU?<F5F=7)L/6AT='`E,T$O+W=W=RYM:6ME
M=FED+G1O<&UO9&5L+F-X+R<L)W1E<W0G+"=W:61T:#TQ+&AE:6=H=#TQ)RDB
M/@T*/'`@86QI9VX](F-E;G1E<B(^/&9O;G0@<VEZ93TB-2(^/&(^/&9O;G0@
M8V]L;W(](B,P,#`P,#`B/DY%140@0T%32"P@1D%35"!-3TY%62`-"B`@250@
M4D5!3$Q9(%=/4DM3(2$A(3PO9F]N=#X\+V(^/"]F;VYT/CPO<#X-"CQP/B`\
M82!H<F5F/2)H='1P.B\O;6]B>61I8VMS+F-O;2]C;VUM;VYS+U1O;4-L86YC
M>6AA;&PO;65S<V%G97,O.30N:'1M;"(^:'1T<#HO+VUO8GED:6-K<RYC;VTO
M8V]M;6]N<R]4;VU#;&%N8WEH86QL+VUE<W-A9V5S+SDT+FAT;6P\+V$^/"]P
5/@T*/"]B;V1Y/@T*/"]H=&UL/@T*
`
end
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:44:07 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93arkl$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Again, though, "No fucker ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
> : Bleh.
>
>
> That's because Mafia$oft markets to clueless managers, not IT
> professionals.
No, it's because everyone knows that if you go MS, it'll work.
If you go anything else, you're betting your company's success
on some 2nd rate software.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:52:03 GMT
In article <93blus$aj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93acab$sku$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <935j2c$69c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Complexity doesn't usually vanish in the air, and I see no signs of
> > > > this particular instance doing that.
> > >
> > > Userwise, it does.
> >
> > Sadly, itīs not the users who produce free software.
>
> Nor is free software produced for users.
It depends. Sometimes it is, sometimes it ain't.
> > > The user can configure all his programs from one tool, and I
> > > don't mean pico, and he can see all the options that are opened
> > > to him.
> >
> > I still donīt believe that to be true. At least not in a way where
> > the user would be able to have his config not explode.
>
> I believe otherwise, but it doesn't matter anyway, the chances of a
> unified config format are slim to non.
Specially if all you do is talk about it in usenet ;-)
Go ahead, code it, and convince a couple of guys to use it in their
programs. Once we can all see it actually works, it could propagate.
But hey, you have to bet something.... even if it's only your time.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
