Linux-Advocacy Digest #426, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (sfcybear)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Microsoft Email Lists (Shane Phelps)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Why Hatred? (Donn Miller)
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:28:18 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
>
> It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of people
> looking at the source code. Now, install a backdoor into open source code
> that only has few dozen people looking at it, and how long will it take for
> someone to find it? Years, if at all.
Only a "few dozen" people look at it?
Not if it's a back-door worth having.
Clue for the clueless...trying to install a "back-door" into the
"ls" (list directory) command won't get you anywhere worthwhile.
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93m071$fip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.interbase2000.org/
> >
> > InterBase was released as open source at the end of July 2000. A complete
> > backdoor was discovered when examining the source. This backdoor has
> existed
> > in the commercial versions of the code since 1994 and appears to have been
> > known about for some time and used by at least one Borland/Inprise
> engineer.
> >
> > There's also a discussion on Slashdot :
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/11/1318207.shtml
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:29:10 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:54:36 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
>> >> mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
>> >
>> >Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
>> >mention available for Linux.
>> >
>> >Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
>> > Both free/shareware.
>>
>> So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
>> to despise so much? Please be precise.
>
>Congratulations on completely missing the point.
Actually, you were first.
OTOH, you can get a nice distribution that includes those things
for you allowing you to avoid extra work. I'll state that last
bit again so that you might have a chance of comprehending it:
AVOID EXTRA WORK.
While you're trying to act as white knight for those that have
meagre computing skills, you demonstrate that you are quite out
of touch with them. Many end users either don't want to or are
unable to manually futz with downloading things from the web
even assuming they have a network connection at all.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> I also hate it when NT5 knows that it has found a Blade 3D but
>> >> won't bother to tell the end user that it has done so and that
>> >> there is a generic driver available to use.
>> >
>> >And I hate that you can get 3D acceleration for the Matrox card under
>> >Xfree 3.3 but if you use 4.x the performance suffers (or the other way
>>
>> So?
>>
>> What about 4.0 is that you need so badly that you would put
>> up with a few less fps?
>
>The POINT is that XFree86 4.0.*, which is the NEW version of Xfree86 has
>performance issues, which are supoposed to be RESOLVED when a NEW RELEASE is
So? If you can use the hardware as required then there really
isn't a problem, just an artificial ones that outside agitators
can fixate on. You have no real interest in whether any particular
function of Linux actually works or not.
>made.
>
>So, loosing functionality at the cost of an upgrade is acceptable under
>Linux, but not Windows? What predictable hippocracy.
Then don't upgrade. It's not as if you have to.
You never demonstrated outside of childish numerology why you
would care one way or the other which version of Xfree you
happen to be running.
>
>> >around, I forget). Under Mandrake they even tell you this when you
>> >select the card.
>> >No consistency with Linux, it's just a mess.
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself actually.
>
>And your STILL missing the point, actually.
>
>> You've just told us that Mandrake gives you a comprehensive
>> set of options and tells you where each would be appropriate.
>>
>> All you have to do is push a button.
>
>No, he has to do conciderably more than that to revert to XFree86 3, which
>will solve his video performance problem.
No, you are simply ignorant or a liar.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:22:21 GMT
In article <3a5f5f0c$0$45783$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93n49k$car$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <hWD76.28007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, that's one example of one GOOD thing about Open Source.
However,
> > > unfortunately, it's not the norm. Especially on large projects
like
> > Linux.
> > > Bugs are still being discovered in the kernel (not at as fast a
rate,
> > > granted, but they're there and still being discovered). Some are
old
> > bugs,
> > > some are new bugs from new code.
> > >
> > > Some of these bugs had existed for quite some time. Why weren't
they
> > discovered
> > > immediately?
> >
> > Bugs are a part of life. Unless you are completely blinded by your
lust
> > for Microsoft, you know that bugs are being found in MS software all
the
> > time as well. Now, if we quit trying do divert the topic and paint
Linux
> > as the only system that has bugs (since BOTH OS's have bugs, it's a
> > wash), the question remains: How do you know that there are no back
> > doors in your MS software?
>
> I don't ---- but neither does anyone else! What good is there to have
a 100%
> secret backdoor?
Ummm, there is no such thing as a 100% secret back door! Someone put it
there so someone knows about it. The person does not put a back door in
so they will stay out of a system. A back door is put into a sytem so
the person or company can get past the security and gain controll of the
system or data. An unacceptable situation for me, but it seems to be
very acceptable to you. No wonder you support MS software.
If no one knows it's there, it's not useful eh? Just like
> the Interbase thingy, it wasn't a security threat UNTIL the open
source
> folks published the backdoor. Since then there has been a HUGE upswing
in
> port scans for the port Interbase exposes - gee, great. Guess we'll
force
> people to patch it by making it accessible to every script kiddie out
there.
> Obviously things should be patched, but to announce the details of the
> backdoor in such detail are irresponsible - they should have said:
> "Warning - a backdoor was found, no we're not telling you how to
exploit it,
> yes, here is the patch" - instead, the irresponsible, egotistical open
> source types couldn't wait to publically announcement every script
kiddies
> dream, how to exploit system admin authority. Great...
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:30:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jan Johanson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 11 Jan 2001 19:16:39 -0600
<3a5e58dc$0$73898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
>
>AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7% - woo hoo!!! A whole 2.7%
>and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
I think you mean 2.7x.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:01h:07m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:31:41 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:59:26 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"IN my experience" seems to be your only defense here, and this is why you
I am not the only one that has claimed this actually.
>get branded a penguinist. OTHER people have bad experiences with Linux, and
I've even helped some of them.
However, outside agitators and fear mongers don't such as yourself
don't count for much.
A minor nuisance in an application is just that. Different developers
have different ideas when it comes to architecture and interface
design. Even if xmms acts as you say it does, it's quite trivial.
However, it doesn't.
[deletia]
Try coming up with some real problems rather than imagined
one's from the Bill Gates Fan Club mailing list.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:32:38 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:01:54 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
>> I know "DLL hell" is a catchy phrase, and you seem to enjoy it a lot,
>> but applying it to Linux isn't entirely rational, since it is a
>> problem caused by Windows design flaws only.
>
>If you can't relate the comparison between Linux's orgy of "library
>revisions" and the painfully complicated methods to which they are kept (or
...except you can have an orgy of library revisions.
DLL hell is the inability to have an 'orgy of library revisions'.
---
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Email Lists
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:36:09 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:40:35 +1100, Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Are the name changes just to get around the killfiles or do you just
> >wake up one morning and feel like a new man (or woman, or animal, or...)?
>
> Mostly to avoid SPAM as well as the kind of crap that unfortunately
> happened to Craig.
I missed that. What happened? - offline is fine.
>
> >.. adds a bit of interest to an otherwise dull time, I guess ;-)
> Keeps them on their toes.
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:37:43 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:18:10 GMT, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke unto the masses...
>:>The FREE version is only slightly differing in the speed at which it
>:>burns CD's and is still FAR ahead of anything Linux has.
>:
>: A CD is going to burn as fast as the hardware can manage, no
>: slower and no faster. If you seriously think that musicmatch
>: alters this, you are a true fool.
>
>Actually the free version just caps the burn speed at 2X. The registered
So, this is just crippleware. This doesn't reflect some nifty
aspect of the full product. The author is merely being a sleaze.
It's been so long since I've dealt with crippleware that it hadn't
occured to me that the 'increase' would be relative to some
artificially imposed limitation.
>version allows up to 12X I believe. But flatshit calling this difference
>"slight" is obviously stupid. Hmm.. 9 minutes or almost 40 to burn a full
>audio cd (at 8X). Not to mention that it is easily done with several programs
>in *nix, at any speed, and at no cost to the consumer.
Quite right.
Quite often the most immediately compelling aspect of Linux from
the point of view of a WinDOS user is the lack of crippleware.
Whereas I can generate a random mix CD from my mp3 archive and burn
it with a relatively simple shell script.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:45:59 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > What about Word98?
> > >
> > > Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
> formats.
> >
> > Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
> > Not trolling, genuinely curious.
>
> Well, most likely it's the endian issue, not to mention that things like OLE
> an structured storage are different between PC and MAC.
>
They could probably design it better, but that makes sense.
> > IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
> > of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call them)
> > capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
> > have expected convergence in file formats.
> > Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
> > least as far as Excel 5.
>
> Excel 5 for the PC uses BIFF format in a OLE structured storage compound
> document. I'd be surprised if the native Mac excel version was the same as
> the PC version (especially given FPU differences between the architectures).
I just saved an Excel file on the Mac and copied it to the NT box
(sneakernet, so that *may* make a difference). It read fine on the
NT box. The fonts were screwed up, but you'd expect that - it was
probably a best-guess conversion. It's only a simple spreadsheet,
so that might've made a difference. Hell, for all I know Excel stores
the platform in the file header somewhere and automatically converts.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:50:15 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > What about Word98?
> > >
> > > Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
> formats.
> >
> > Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
> > Not trolling, genuinely curious.
>
> Well, most likely it's the endian issue, not to mention that things like OLE
> an structured storage are different between PC and MAC.
>
What does endian have to do with it? Changing endian on reading files
between Intel and Motorola format takes at about 5 lines of code. I do
that all the time.
> > IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
> > of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call them)
> > capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
> > have expected convergence in file formats.
> > Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
> > least as far as Excel 5.
>
> Excel 5 for the PC uses BIFF format in a OLE structured storage compound
> document. I'd be surprised if the native Mac excel version was the same as
> the PC version (especially given FPU differences between the architectures).
That still doesn't seem reasonable. The problem of converting between
FPUs formats has been solved hundreds of times and doesn't require
enough code to justify new file formats.
Can you give a reason why either of those problems justifies changing
file formats?
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:59:23 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Steve Mading wrote:
> For someone who doesn't already know what those things mean, go
> to the /usr/doc directory for the long-winded documentation.
Or, /usr/share/doc on BSD systems. I suspect that certain Linux distros
may use /usr/share as well.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:48:13 GMT
In article <93lnpd$o24$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm in alt.linux.sux and where are you?
>
I originally posted this in comp.os.linux.advocacy. A windows user then ran
with it and spread the damn thing to all the forums, and I see at least 4
threads in this forum talking about something different. This is what I was
talking about. I posted in a LINUX forum to ask a LINUX question, which I
posted in the advocacy forum becuz deja keeps givin me a "no newsgroup found
error" in any other forum.]
C Pungent
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
******************************
