Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 09:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Edward Rosten)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) ("Robert J. Hansen")
Re: Helix Code changes name (Matthias Warkus)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:17:58 +0000
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
>>>
>>> AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7%
>>
>> You got the order of events wrong. Tux beat iis by more like 250% -
>> then, after months of frantic, all-out effort, the best microsoft could
>> do is come close to the Linux result with their new "benchmark buster"
>> product.
>
>
> we're talking about the results in 2000Q4 - 7500 vs 7300 - do the math.
>
>
>>> - woo hoo!!! A whole 2.7%
>>> and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
>>
>> Nope, tux ran in userspace for the specweb tests.
>
>
> Proof? Not denying, just asking for the proof, I don't see it in the specweb
> document.
>
>
>>> I have never seen Tux in production, IIS (and SWC) is out there.
>>
>> I've never seen swc, but Tux is available, for free - today.
>
>
> SWC is available right this second from MS and it's resellers. It's been
> available for some time, version 3 (which they used) is in final beta and
> will be released March (after further performance tweaking).
Yep, it's a beta product.
Tux was running on slightly inferior hardware (slower hard disks)
Linux still won by a bit
All the Linux software is avaliable _now_.
The software for windows is still beta.
And after all that, the windows stuff costs more
So how on earth is the windows stuff better in this case?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:24:29 +0000
> You are really dense aren't you? SWC is a web CACHE - do you know what the
> word cache means? Do you understand how a web cache works? Obviously not.
> Where do you think the pages the cache is supplying were generated????? Do
> you think the cache created the pages??? HELLO???!!! Doh!!! IIS5 created the
> pages and if a static (keyword) page was requested again and it hadn't
> expired it was served by the cache and not by IIS, all the dynamic pages
> were served by IIS5 time and again.
Uh huh. You're the thick one being taken in by BS. If it generates its
own web pages (via its OWN dynamic API) then its a server. Calling it a
cache doesn't make it a cache. It may do caching as well, but it's also
a server.
Calling a server a cache to improve benchmark results does not make the
said server a cache.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:48:59 +0000
Chad Myers wrote:
> "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
>
>
> 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.
This, as you can see is quite unlike closed source software. Closed
source SW (especially from Micros~1) doesn't have bugs, which is why
there aren't any NT or Win2000 service packs.
-Ed
> Some of these bugs had existed for quite some time. Why weren't they discovered
> immediately?
>
> -Chad
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:19:36 -0600
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93p97a$73h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Windows 3.1 used cooperative multitasking.
>
> Correct. And SunOS and Linux and FreeBSD and SCO all
> provided real-time multitasking AND excellent support for
> multiple overlapping windows, back when Windows 3.0 was
> still trying to get overlapping windows to work. It was
> marginal at best.
Hmmm.. given that Windows 3.0 had overlapping windows on the day it was
released, and FreeBSD didn't exist when Windows 3.0 was released, that would
be quite a feat.
I think you're confusing Windows 1.0 (which didn't have overlapping windows)
with Windows 3.0, and confusing FreeBSD with BSD.
> > > It meant applications had to
> > > yield to achieve multitasking.
>
> Yup It's called "busy/wait" multitasking. It was obsolete back in the
early
> 1980s, but Microsoft revived it for Windows.
Actually, Apple started it.
> > > Windows
> > > 95/98/ME/NT/2000 are all pre-emptive multitasking.
>
> True but the multitasking is still sigificantly inferior to
> Linux or UNIX. Windows 2000 was substantially improved, but
> all of the applications would have to be redisigned and reimplemented
> to exploit the improvements.
What are you talking about? You don't have to redesign any apps to get good
multitasking in Win2k (unless you're talking SMP, which is not the same
thing).
> 3rd party developers can invest millions trying to accomodate the
limitations
> of the various versions of Windows, or they can leverage the core
structures
> provided by Linux and UNIX. But there isn't much profit in Windows.
Well, I guess that explains why Intuit and AOL are multi-billion dollar
companies.
> Star Office is slow but tolarable. Most of the applications that are
unique
> to Windows run under WINE, and what's left runs under VMWare.
Most? Hardly any. the Wine status page lists only a 30-50% CRT
compatibility, that means that any apps that use the MSVCRT are 50% or more
likely to die.
> Windows 2000 isn't bad, but I'm waiting for either SP2 or SE.
> Windows 2000 just isn't worth $300.
The upgrade from Win9x is much cheaper.
> > > If you're talking about Linux and the CLI,
> > > I would agree
>
> CLI, Scripts, the ability to quickly script applications and put GUI
> front-ends on them to launch them. In fact numerous front ends.
You do realize that Tcl/Tk exists for windows, right?
> Windows 2000 has lots of Eye Candy and really snappy displays (assuming
you
> have enough RAM and Video RAM to support it.
how fast your displays are have nothing to do with how much video RAM you
have (except for 3D).
> > > > Windows 2000 has a nasty habit of getting
> > > > into a state where the only
> > > > way to fix it is to reinstall the software.
> > > > In some cases, it won't
> > > > even reboot. Fortunately, this only happens
> > > > every 8-10 weeks, but it's
> > > > still very annoying.
> > >
> > > I've not seen this.
>
> I've had it happen about 4 times since the first production releas
> (which I bought 2 weeks after the announcement.
You just said you were waiting for SP2 to buy 2000.
> > > > > > Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
> > > >
> > > > But file managers are essentially launching applications.
> > > > See the discussion above. Windows Explorer might pop
> > > > up that first "Application
> > > > Started Icon" much faster, but you might
> > > > have something better to do.
>
> > > > you could be using it to do something
> > > > interesting like read the latest
> > > > quotations from Chairman Bill.
> > >
> > > Windows explorer across a 10MBit
> > > network does not display the icons until
> > > all the file names are known. KDE
> > > konqueror tries to display the file names
> > > as it goes, and consequently takes longer.
>
> This may partly be because Windows deals with
> the entire result set as a single object. UNIX deals
> with the result as a stream of results. As a result,
> you can begin displaying what might be a result set
> of several thousand files (remember back in the days
> with FAT 16 would only let you have 256 files per
> directory). When you have to treat the entire response
> as a single object, you must allocate memory for the entire
> object, and allocate process space and kernel space for
> the entire object. When the objects are huge, the situation
> can get pretty ugly.
You seem to have a knack for claiming the same thing three times and making
it look like 3x the problem.
Allocating memory is the same thing as allcoating process space. kernel
space is not allocated for anything but drivers.
> I think we agree that GUI preferences are a matter of personal preference.
> Windows 2000 gives you ONE option. Linux just happens to give you your
> choice of about 6 (more if you count the styles).
>
> Microsoft wants you to ues VB because you can't put it elsewhere.
Microsoft
> doesn't want you to use PERL, JAVA, TCL, or any other "cross platform"
> environment, because you might stop paying 10 times the production cost
for
> Microsoft products. And Microsoft wouldn't be able to get 50% profit on
> revenue.
MS doesn't "want you to use VB". They make VB because it's what their
customers want. MS makes several languages, including Visual Foxpro (which
also can't go anywhere else, yet they don't push that). Besides, things are
changing with .NET. In a years time, we'll see MS applications runing
unchanged on MacOS X, Palm, Win CE, Itanium, and x86. Perhaps even Solaris
or HP/UX.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:21:26 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were
connecting
> > at
> > speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
> > there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
> > that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours.
> > Even a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27
> > hours, or
> > more than a day. Not "overnight".
> >
> Sure, Windows would do that MUCH faster.
> And what if I live in a city and have DSL (which I have).
> This is at least 40 times as fast as your scenario above.
> But even then, windows will fail
DSL is not a dialup modem. The point was that it's really not feasible to
install Linux over a dialup modem.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:23:10 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:05:14 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, but the kernel itself has to be. A Linux install kernel has to
be
> >able
> >> > to run on a 386. MS's install kernel is both multiprocessor and 486
> >> > optimized (for NT4, P5 optimized for 2000).
> >>
> >> Not true. Redhat comes with multiple kernel rpms (386, 586, 686) and
> >> installs the one optimized for your machine. Mandrake ships with a
> >kernel
> >> optimized for 586. Both have separate rpms for smp which are
> >automatically
> >> installed if you have an smp.
> >
> >Read again. The *INSTALL* kernel. We're talking in the context of a
Linux
> >installation which never reboots from the original kernel loaded off the
CD
> >or install floppy. Red Hat can't install an optimized kernel if it's not
> >running yet, now can it?
>
> Sure it can. All it needs to do is to deposit a binary somewhere
> on the disk and tell the bootloader where to find it.
How can it deposit a binary on a disk that isn't formatted? additionally,
in order to have the bootloader load it, it would have to reboot.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:24:46 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Very few people mastering CD's outside of the sort of enviroment
> > > where there would be a special machine dedicated to the purpose
> > > stress machines to the level where it should be an issue.
> >
> > Just kick of a kernel compile.
> >
> Well, just to try out if my SCSI-only system would stand the strain, I did
> exactly that -- I made a CD AND did a kernel recompile while at the same
> time browsing the net.
The key word here is SCSI. Most people burn IDE CD-R's (and those are the
ones they burn coasters on when heavy disk activity causes them to get a
buffer underrun)
------------------------------
From: "Robert J. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:47:06 GMT
Forgive me for coming to the party a little late, but...
> code. If this develops into a working system
> (which it will) I will discuss with the core group
> members some commercial ideas which will make use
> of the system. To make this all worthwhile for
> those who contribute to the project I will
> distribute to them the net revenues the commercial
This is suicidally stupid from a business perspective. Sorry, but
considering that I don't know you, which means that I don't trust you,
there's no way I'm going to enter any business venture with you unless I
have a signed contract made in the presence of witnesses which specifies
exactly what our obligations are and how the pie is going to be sliced up at
the end.
I think that I am far from unusual in the software development
community--whether it be open source development or proprietary development.
> is done is fully up to me so I'm asking you to
> have a little faith and trust in me. I and others
This sounds ominously like $$MAKE_MONEY_FAST$$. If you want people to trust
you, first you have to show yourself worthy of trust. Posting on the Net
trying to find takers is either a sign of incredible business naievete, or a
confidence game.
> I know I am asking for a lot but I see this as a
> better way than all the open source projects that
> don't make any money for the coders; fame and
Funny, I get paid a good salary to hack away on some open source projects.
Pays the rent, keeps my refrigerator stocked with beer and Skittles--what
more could a guy ask for? (And if my employers are reading this--thanks!)
Note that I trust my employer, and I still have a signed employment contract
specifying obligations and pie-slicing. :)
> glory alone won't put food on your table. This
> project has money making as one of it's goals. As
> usual, there are no promises though.
No promises of profit is a good thing; that's realistic, given that most
business ventures fail. Realism is a good thing. No promises of profit,
plus you being the sole party responsible for divvying up any profit, with
no legal recourse (since the terms are all clear that you have sole
discretion)... that's unrealistic.
> Now, If I haven't scared you off by now I want to
> add one thing. If you don't agree with what I have
> to say below, then fine. Just don't tell me I'm
No problem. You've screwed up in just under a dozen places, far as I can
tell, and you're coming perilously close to reinventing a wheel that most AI
researchers abandoned in the '60s; but beyond that, I'll keep my comments to
myself.
But my above comments are business objections, not technical ones. If you
want to make money in developing Linux software, this is the wrong way to do
it. You aren't going to recruit the sort of developers you need, because
the sort of developers you need have better sense than to enter a business
venture without any sort of formal agreements and consultations with
lawyers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Helix Code changes name
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:31:28 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:19:24 GMT...
...and Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Helix Code no longer exists.
>
> It's now....
>
>
> http://www.ximian.com
>
> The .org goes .com
Helix's site has been .com from the beginning.
mawa
--
Puberty is working half an hour on saying "Hallo." in a way that
sounds neither arrogant nor gay.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 13 Jan 2001 07:58:25 -0600
lesse... backdoor unused the entire time it was closed source, it is open
sourced, backdoor is unprofessionally spammed into the public domain and
suddenly firewalls admins report massive surges of hits to the affected
ports. What's a greater threat, the 1-2 guys that know about a hidden
backdoor and given the total lack of any reported cracking of Interbase I
doubt they've done anything with it, perhaps it was a test access used
during development and left in accidently so that even the programmers have
forgotten about it - OR, as soon as it's found the nerds can't wait to
spread the word far and wide to every script kiddie in sight. So... a
useless secret or a public vulnerability - hmmm.... I would have had more
respect for the open source "community" (what a joke, more like a cult) had
they contacted interprise privately and issued a patch WITHOUT detailing the
hole in public first.
"WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't ---- but neither does anyone else! What good is there to have a
100%
> > secret backdoor? If no one knows it's there, it's not useful eh?
>
> It is an impossibility for a backdoor to be 100% secret. The programmer
> who coded the backdoor knows about the backdoor. Depending upon what that
> backdoor allows to the software and depending upon the particular software
> the backdoor could be worth a lot of money to others.
>
> > Just like
> > the Interbase thingy, it wasn't a security threat UNTIL the open source
> > folks published the backdoor.
>
> It was a security threat the day in went out the door as closed source.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 13 Jan 2001 08:00:12 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > What good is there to have a 100%
> > secret backdoor? 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.
>
> Just because *you* didn't know it was there, does not tell you that no one
knew
> it was there.
>
> Abusers find undocumented security holes all the time. There's no reason
to
> assume that this one was magically sacrosanct.
>
Perhaps the complete lack of anyone reporting any interbase cracking is a
clue here...
why would it automatically be assumed that if there is a backdoor that it's
1) known to anyone other than the creator, 2) used at all, 3) perhaps a
forgotten test login left behind and even the original author doesn't
realize it's there.
The fact is, it was spued into the public and only now are there script
kiddies pounding away at the databases...
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:00:30 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Word has traditionally stored binary data structures in it's file format.
> This means that, unless you always convert endianness when loading and
> unloading documents, the file formats (even if otherwise identical) will not
> be the same for data content. More likely, Word only does endianness
> conversion when using filters for a non-native file format.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a file,
> read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the FPU.. see
> if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the data for
> your native file format? That makes no sense.
>
So massage the data. It isn't that difficult and can be done as the file
is loaded. Either that or change the name and quit calling your Apple
application Excel. If it is Excel and is *.xls, it should be readable by
Excel everywhere. Or one of the products isn't Excel.
The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
> > Can you give a reason why either of those problems justifies changing
> > file formats?
>
> The only way the formats can be identical on both platforms is if one
> platform stores their data in the other platforms format.
Or if both store data in the single Word Processor format, which is not
required to be native for either system.
>Why would a
> native Mac word document store it's data in PC format when such
> interchangeability is not necessary very often (especially not when the file
> formats were created 10 years ago).
So cross platform, per you and MS, means the user interface looks the
same, but you can't transfer documents or files between platforms? I
love this. Word is cross platform because MS makes a version for both
PCs and Macs. Just don't try to exchange *.doc or *.xls files!
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 13 Jan 2001 08:02:25 -0600
lesse... backdoor unused the entire time it was closed source, it is open
sourced, backdoor is unprofessionally spammed into the public domain and
suddenly firewalls admins report massive surges of hits to the affected
ports. What's a greater threat, the 1-2 guys that know about a hidden
backdoor and given the total lack of any reported cracking of Interbase I
doubt they've done anything with it, perhaps it was a test access used
during development and left in accidently so that even the programmers have
forgotten about it - OR, as soon as it's found the nerds can't wait to
spread the word far and wide to every script kiddie in sight. So... a
useless secret or a public vulnerability - hmmm.... I would have had more
respect for the open source "community" (what a joke, more like a cult) had
they contacted interprise privately and issued a patch WITHOUT detailing the
hole in public first.
Do you guys really not get it? Something open source isn't perfect simply
because it's open source.
This is the type of backdoor that could not be found by simply bumping
against a login prompt over and over brute force (at least not in this
lifetime). Had it remained closed, no one would have just, wooops, found it
...
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > [snip]> 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? If no one knows it's there, it's not useful eh?
>
> Heheeheheheeheh - LOL!
> It is because of your attitude that crackers continue to ply their
> dirty trade. Remember - the real ones are _very_ clever. The
> rest use the software the clever one's create.
>
> >Just like
> > the Interbase thingy, it wasn't a security threat UNTIL the open source
> > folks published the backdoor.
>
> ...so opensource is to blame! LOL.
>
> >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...
>
> That's the thing about opensource:
> 1. it's open
> 2. it's source
> If you put these two things together it is rather difficult
> not to find the security hole if people know where to look!
>
> this made me smile :-)
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:09:11 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well considering that you just have to enter the little
> numbers into the little boxes much like you would do for
> WinDOS or NT, the obvious conclusion would be operator
> error.
Nope, I checked with ifconfig. Everything was correct. Yet, unable to see
other machine. Most peculiar.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
