Linux-Advocacy Digest #917, Volume #31 Fri, 2 Feb 01 18:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("ono")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: My open-source quote ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("Bennetts family")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The 130MByte text file (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 23:15:39 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:21:57 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:39:40 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> "." wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> > > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers
> [deletia]
> >> >
> >> >False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have
eyes
> >for
> >> >*much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
> >>
> >> We've been seeing for much longer, not using hieroglyphs for
> >> much longer. Also notice the trends in language developments
> >> as civilization advances: from many complex pictographs to a
> >> small set of more fundemental primitives that are then combined
> >> to form the visual representation of a word or concept.
> >
> >Actually, hieroglyphs predate writing as we know it by several thousands
> >years.
>
> IOW, not very long...
>
> A few thousand years is the blink of an eye in biological terms.
>
> >But icons *aren't* hyroglyphs.
>
> True. Heiroglyphs and other pictorial 'alphabets' often are
> built up from lower level primitives. Heiroglyphs are actually
> MORE advanced than icons.
>
> Icons rate right down there with cave man paintings in terms
> of sophistication.
>
> >
> >> >We can understand pictures much better than text.
> >>
> >> Pictures require context, much more so than text does.
> >> Also, a few words can be remarkably more expessive and
> >> (more importantly) PRECISE than any pictogram.
> >
> >So why won't we change all the traffic signs to words? It would be much
more
> >"PRECISE" than icons.
>
> You mean like "STOP" and "Construction Ahead".
>
> Also, those are a small set of well defined symbols.
> Furthermore, one is required to demonstrated proficiency
> with those symbols before you are even allowed to be
> designated a "student" driver.
>
> This example undermines your position actually.
>
> Have you ever actually gone to a foreign country and tried
> to make sense of their "iconic" traffic signs?
Have you? I think it's a lot easier to guess an icon then to learn a foreign
language.
You probably thought that scottland was a foreign country ;-).
>
> >
> >> >And it isn't as if CLI shows you all the commands (unless you tell it
> >to),
> >> >you've to *remember* them.
> >>
> >> Big deal. Then you tell it to show them to you.
> >
> >You don't need to in GUI, it's much easier to find something in GUI than
on
> >text, because your eyes can scan a picture much more easily than text.
>
> Nope. You need to think about the pictures more. More mental
> processing and thought is required to manipulate the interface.
>
> Just imagine if you favorite file manager had NO TEXT WHATSOEVER.
>
> YOU would be lost.
>
> >
> >> >That is a big minus, in GUI, you *see* what is going on.
> >>
> >> You have as much negative feedback in CLI shells too. What
> >> GUI's do is castrate the interface so that there are less
> >> ways for you to make a mistake. Although there are still
> >> plenty left for the novice.
> >
> >No, what the GUI does is to present you with Graphical UI.
> >Apperantely, you're on a Unix, I'm not sure if you've Midnight Commander
>
> I started on GEM actually. I've been using GUI's since
> long before it came in vogue to do so. This includes
> 80's versions of X as well as System 6.
>
> >there, but if you do, fire it up, and take a look at it.
> >It's a text based GUI, adding some of its capacities to file browsers
would
> >be more than nice.
> >The GUI make it easier to do stuff, it's much faster to recognize a
> >printer's icon as Print, than read "print".
>
> ...assuming that the icon ends up looking like what the end
> user thinks a printer should look like. OTOH, "PRINT" doesn't
> require any guessing.
>
> I guess that's why most GUI's these days print in that manner
>
> >
> >> >> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched,
and
> >> >> directories (folders) are managed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
> >> >>
> >> >> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for
> >functions,
> >> >and
> >> >> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next
> >version
> >> >of
> >> >> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is
not
> >easy
> >> >to
> >> >> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
> >> >
> >> >That is why it's so important to have uniform look in application.
> >> >Take a look on *any* book about designing application, get to the part
> >where
> >> >it talk about UI, you will find that consistency is a large part of
that.
> >>
> >> That only demonstrates that academics in a particular discipline
> >> think alike. If you were to go over to the industrial engineering
> >> department, you might get a different perspective.
> >
> >Really? Why does industrial engineering support inconsistent behaviour?
> >We expect consistent behaviour from tools because the world around us is
> >consistent.
>
> You must have a very rudimentary experience with tools.
>
> Real tools are quite often quite distinct from task to
> task. I'm sure some of the weekend mechanics around here
> could give you an earful.
>
> >What would happen if you throw something up and it didn't come down? Or
you
> >placed a ball on the dashboard, and when you took a turn, it rolled on
the
> >direction of the turn?
>
> I'm not quite sure what you think fundemental physical laws have
> to do with the fact that distinct tasks usually require distinct
> techniques.
>
> >We can deal with inconsistent interfaces because the world is consistent
> >only up to a point.
> >There is absolutely no reason to support inconsistent behaviour.
>
> Sure there is. REAL professionals require it. Thus my notion
> of a "workstation" versus a "desktop". Some people actually
> do real work with their machines. This could be drafting,
> art authoring or CPU design. They need the tools that will
> improve their efficiency, not make a drooling moron feel more
> comfortable picking up a copy of Maya or AutoCADD.
>
> Alternately, one simply might have a different idea of what
> contitutes the "right way" of doing mundane things. Such
> people should not be put out by facist little twits such
> as yourself.
>
> OTOH, conventions do exist for those that really might need them.
>
> However, the existence of Liberty does not mean that there does
> not exist any safe havens for those that insist upon foolish
> consistency.
>
> >
> >> >And consistency with the OS' look is another part.
> >> >That is why I don't really like Linux's GUI, and why Java programming
is
> >not
> >>
> >> All the current linux GUI's have style guides. So you can keep
> >> yourself in a single interface ghetto if you really want.
> >
> >Really? That is news to me.
>
> Obviously. You are merely speaking out your ass
> and spreading misinformation.
>
> >
> >> OTOH, a computer is not a single tool but a collection of them.
> >> It's silly to think that the whole range of computer users and
> >> computer uses should be constrained by a neurotic obsession with
> >> conformity.
> >
> >Over 90% of the applications produced for Windows & Mac use the default
> >interfaces. For a reason.
> >Users don't like to learn something different everytime they use another
> >application.
> >
>
> So?
>
> Just how many applications do you use?
>
> [deletia]
>
> BTW, my default editor has survived more than 3 interface
> changes on the part of Microsoft and at least 2 on the
> part of apple.
>
> My newsreader doesn't have it's own editor. Nor does my
> email reader. So, my enviroment is remarkably more
> consistent than yours even despite the fact that my editor
> and my spreadsheet use remarkably different interfaces.
>
> Meanwhile, I've likely learned less interfaces while using
> more applications than your typical mythic end user.
>
> I DON'T WANT to use your idea of an editor. I don't want it
> imposed on me because you can't deal with diversity.
>
> You don't even want to know what my response would be to
> you subjecting me to the "one true interface" in a newsreader...
>
>
> Figuring out which of the other 4 drop down menus to look into
> for the "print" menu is not something that should be an unbearable
> inconvenience for anyone out of kindergarten, PERIOD.
>
> --
>
> >> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
> >> that allows the content to take control.
> >
> >Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
>
> Yup.
>
> Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 2 Feb 2001 16:28:50 -0600
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 27 Jan 2001 19:13:04 -0600,
> Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > >NT4 sp6a certified WITH networking and floppy.
> >> > >
> >> >http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
> >> > >
> >> > > This page mere says that NT can be networked, and that it can be C2
> >> > > certified. It doesn't say you can do both simultaneously.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Are you that stupid? Can I suggest a remedial english class.
> >> > here is a tip, you didn't get past the cover page did you?
> >> >
> >> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/library/fers/TTAP-CSC-FER-99-001.pdf
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh yes I did. And not one page of that document refers to simultaneous
> >> networking and C2 certification. In fact, if you read the last two
> >> chapters on C2 ceritfication you see C2 specifications deal entirely
> >> with protection from those with physical access to the machine. Thus,
> >> once you connect a C2 certified machine to a network the certification
> >> is meaningless.
> >>
> >> A half a dozen people have told you this but you are obviously two
dense
> >> to get it.
> >>
> >
> >Then both you and these half dozen people are wrong.
> >
>
> No, you can't read thu hype and BS, that's all. Read the actual C2
> requirements at http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/ttap/DBMS.DVR.html and
> let me know where it refers to relevant network security issues such
> as encryption, spoofing protection, packet filtering, buffer
> overflows, etc, etc. It simply doesn't.
And exactly how does that invalidate my statement, which has never changed:
NT4 is C2 evaluted and certified WITH networking enabled. It has and is.
>
>
> >Turn to page 159 of the document last referened, page 171 of the PDF. It
was
> >the first quicky reference to networked operation I could find - there
are
> >more. You'll see here it discusses logging in via the network to a domain
> >with username and passwords.
>
> The C2 requirement mentioned is only intended to protect local logins,
> and is only extended to a network as an afterthought. There is a lot
> more to securing a machine on a network and C2 addresses virtually
> none of it.
And exactly how does that invalidate the statement I've repeatedly made, the
fact that NT4 is C2 evaluated and certified with neworking enabled.
>
>
> >On page 145 of the document, network sockets
> >and shares are mentioned.
> >WINS is covered, as is DNS, NETLOGIN and RPC is covered - these are all
> >network functions. The operation of a PDC versus BDC versus standalone is
> >covered. Network printing is covered. Extensive coverage of network
shares
> >is provided in many sections. Page 104 talks about the NTLM server
component
> >and access accross a network The workstation service is covered, the
network
> >browser service is cover. How much more networking would you like
covered?
> >TCP and UDP in a networked environment is covered. Page 94 gives a lovely
> >diagram. Trust relationships between domains is covered starting on page
> >85 - gee, can you have multiple (netbios) domains on a single machine?
> >
>
> They don't even mention C2 in any of these parts of the document you
> reference. Nor does the actuall C2 specificification I reference refer
> to any of these networking functionallities. Thus there is no
> connection between any of this and C2.
Are you dense or doing this on purpose. The pages I mention COME from the C2
evaluation I gave you the URL to at the top. Everything I wrote comes right
from the C2 pages I quoted.
>
> >
> >NO WHERE will you find ANYTHING in any document that says "Gee, although
we
> >tested network configurations of this OS, we don't certified THAT part."
>
> And NO WHERE will you find ANYTHING that says they do!! Read the
> actual C2 specification and you'll see that C2 does not address 90% of
> the networking fucntionalities covered in your document.
>
>
> >Hardware is documented, as in the various machines used are cataloged but
> >that's it. C2 for NT4 is for the OS - it has nothing to do with the
> >hardware.
>
> Wrong again. Read chapter 2.2.3 of the above referenced C2 specification
> note there are hardware requirements. In chapter 2.2.4 you will see
> that it is hardware software combinations that must be certified
> together, not merely software.
Wrong again. I read those chapters and there are no hardware requirements
for C2 for OSes. The hardware IS documented. If the C2 is for a DBMS and
there is specific hardware required by this DBMS then it's documented and
tested too. HOWEVER, the hardware for an OS evaluation is not part of the
certification. it's documented but not limited to. You can lock down a copy
of NT in exactly the same way on any PC that'll run it. Period. Did you not
notice that there is NOTHING about hardware in the ACTUAL C2 document about
NT? I provided a link to the PDF document itself - the ultimate absolute
proof of my statements but you just ignore it. Uhhuh... figures.
>
>
> >Hundreds have told you that but you are too stubborn to
> >understand.
> >
>
> Hundreds?? More like only two point/click/druel morons on Usenet
> struggling to fool themselves in to thinking they are smarter than
> they really are.
Don't have to be smart to read and understand plain and simple documents
like these. Just read the PDF and get educated.
>
> >I'm referring to official documents for proof - what do you have?
>
> The actual C2 specificition, dipshit. Not some peice of hype written
> to impress a manager.
I have given you the OFFICIAL PDF from the same site you quoted your
specification from. THis is not from MS nor hype in any way. It's the real
macoy and you can order a officialy notized version if you like too. There
is simply no more official document of the NT4 network C2 certification than
this:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/library/fers/TTAP-CSC-FER-99-001.pdf
>
> >Get over
> >it, NT4 is C2 certified including networking.
>
> C2 is grossly insufficient to guarantee a machine on a network is
> secure. 90% of the networking functionality in NT or any other network
> OS aren't even addressed in C2. Ignorance like yours is the reason
> that NT is by far the #1 cracked OS on the Internet today.
And exactly how does that invalidate the statement of fact that NT4 is C2
certified with networking?
Perhaps because front page extensions are often poorly secured? Because many
admins don't properly secure their servers. Perhaps because the crackers
themselves intentionally target IIS sites for the simple reason it's running
MS software. Perhaps because, despite Netcraft, there really are more IIS
servers out there than others?
>
> >Please do not reply that C2
> >goes out the door when connected to a network
>
> The C2 specification does not address relevent network security
> issues, such as encryption, spoofing protection, packet filtering,
> buffer overflows, etc, etc. Thus it's certification is not sufficient
> to secure a networked machine.
you just don't get it do you...
>
> >or that it's tied to
> >hardware -
>
> Read the actual C2 specification, dipshit.
I have read the actual certification and the specification and you are wrong
on both counts.
>
> >it will only document your ignorance of the rating and what it
> >means.
>
> ROFLOL!!!
A fools laugh is appropriate I guess... it's ignorance like yours that keeps
you from removing your blinders and seeing what the rest of the world
already knows.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My open-source quote
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:00:49 -0500
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> Ralph Miguel Hansen wrote:
> > I got TWO seats on my open-source-OS (bash and KDE) and my bicycle has got
> > two wheels compared to the one very little wheel M$ has.
> >
> Which isn't round to boot.
> Roundness is a concept not yet thought of at MS.
> So one is constantly on a quite bumpy ride.
Microsoft Wheel 5.0
Now with *EIGHT* sides.
>
> --
> Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
> We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
--
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: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:04:49 +1100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:44:54 -0500, Aaron Lehmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ><snippage>
> >> Trivial to a programmer maybe.
> >> Non trivial to a musician,
> >Why would a musician care about the things you posted?
> >You seemed to care about graphics, ergonomics, and visualizations...
> >Never once did you mention pushing the "PLAY" button...
>
> It's about FUN, not pushing buttons and that is the difference the
> Penguinista's fail to see. It plays just as well as any of the others
> out there, it's just more fun to use.
Alrighty, so we don't care about *listening* to music or watching videos,
all we care about is watching the damn visualisations. I wonder how many
people like having music playing in the background while they do work (or
flame people on Usenet ;-))? I'll put one on that count.
--Chris
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:03:13 -0500
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >Ian Davey wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> As far as Atheists are concerned, god doesn't exist any more than Santa
> > Claus
> >> >> or the Easter Bunny.
> >> >
> >> >Which *IS* a belief in itself.
> >>
> >> Not true. I read lots of novels and enjoy them, but don't believe any of the
> >> content as it's just fiction. There's no belief system wrapped up in it.
> >> There's no need to pay any attention to people who elevate stories into a
> >> belief system.
> >
> >You have just expressed a belief.
> >
> >It might be true, or not...either way, it IS a belief.
>
> You've still not managed to convince me. But perhaps it's just a matter of
> semantics, Atheism is a lack of *religious* beliefs (theism), but not a lack
> of belief. Does that work better for you? So an Atheist believes something
> other than religion.
There's an old law of military command:
Failure to come to a decision is a decision in itself.
Do the math.
>
> There is a valid proof that God doesn't exist, but I can't remember who coined
> it now: "the existance of God disproves the existance of God, therefore God
> does not exist". Seeing as you're mathematically/scientifically minded, you
> might be able to figure out the logic of that statement.
>
> Not Christian are you?
>
> ian.
>
> \ /
> (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
> /(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:06:17 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The solution is simple: if Linux bothers you, don't use it. If
> Windows bothers you, don't use it. There is an embarassment of riches
> in the OS arena right now: BeOS, Free/Open/NetBSD, Linux, all the
> Windows variants, Mac OS (and the upcoming OS X), QNX, and many
> others. It's just perverse to hammer on something just because you
> don't like it.
Don't forget about Plan 9.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
