Linux-Advocacy Digest #333, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Feb 01 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Craig Kelley)
Re: SSH1 (Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ])
(Craig Kelley)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: My Win2k Network Nightmare!!!!!! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (John Rudd)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (John Rudd)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article) (LShaping)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Bloody Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:44:33 GMT
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:13:14 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would come across to consumers bundled with as much luggage as
> possible, grouping open sourcers with crackers, music thieves, movie
> pirates, et al. Don't underestimate the effect of spin.
One of these days consumers will wake up and realize that the term
"piracy" has been redefined to include _them_ and their making of music
compilations, "lending" software to their friends, purchasing
grey-market anime, etc. What'll you suppose will happen then?
As for Allchin's comments, I think it will take an awful lot of spin to
keep people from seeing right through them. They are so transparently
self-serving that even your average American can see what's up. Allchin
and his company hold their customers in contempt and the customers are
starting to realize that. A good dose of "content control" from .NET
ought to seal the deal.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:47:45 GMT
In article <1ep3cpw.15jor811qwvgrvN@[192.168.0.142]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > Please. This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen.
> > It's blatantly false. You can use GPLed code in a project only if
> > you wish to release that entire project under the GPL. BSD and many
> > other licenses have no such restriction. GPL is viral. These other
> > licenses are not.
>
> What is the problem with releasing the entire project under the GPL
> as opposed to releasing it under a BSD license?
Some people don't like the restrictions of GPL.
> > > Nobody has a "right to receive payment for his work".
> > >
> > > It depends on whether somebody is willing to pay for it.
> >
> > You're being needlessly pedantic. I meant, of course, that an
> > author has a right to release his work under a license which
> > requires people who make use of it to pay him.
>
> A legal right he has, a moral right I don't know.
I don't see why someone who has invested time/money in creating
something shouldn't be allowed to sell it at a profit.
> > > > Why does Apple do this? Simple self interest. If Apple's
> > > > changes are in the main source tree, it means that Apple's code
> > > > is maintained and improved by the community, and Apple can use
> > > > later versions of the software in Mac OS X without having to
> > > > reincorporate its modifications. Everyone wins. This kind of
> > > > thing wouldn't work with GPL; Apple tries to keep the closed
> > > > and open parts of OS X separate, but Apple still couldn't use
> > > > GPLed code in its proprietary OS without serious potential
> > > > licensing issues. A major corporation just can't risk that.
> > >
> > > Apple could make the kernel GPL. MacOS X (and NEXTSTEP) is a very
> > > modular system.
> >
> > GPL does not permit linking proprietary software against GPLed
> > libraries. This would make things tricky.
>
> Use the lesser GPL.
But then Apple can't mix in GPL code, so what's the point?
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 19 Feb 2001 19:48:03 -0700
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <RDYj6.34466$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > According to the trademark cease-and-desist letter sent to the OpenSSH
> > folks from the SSH.com people, OpenSSH only uses the SSH1 protocol, but
> > they may be wrong, I guess.
> >
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how some people can make claims like this
> without doing any research first. It took me all of a few seconds of
> web searching to come up with
>
> http://www.openssh.com/
>
> which clearly states that openssh does support SSH2.
You're still amazed that Chad spouts off about things which he does
not understand? I thought you'd been around long enough to know.
Perhaps we should add this to the COLA FAQ already? :)
I suppose I'm due for an 'ad hominem' attack from him about now,
cursing me for pointing out the obvious.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH1 (Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ])
Date: 19 Feb 2001 19:50:47 -0700
Janne Sinkkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> > They've been spreading FUD about SSH1 for years. They had a commercial
> > interest in getting people to upgrade to SSH2. You can join the dots
> > yourself.
>
> BTW, is there any known incidents of compromized SSH1 connections, or
> is the vulnerability of the protocol just theoretical so far?
Rootshell claims that they were owned via SSH1, but they have no
proof. Of the published attacks, you'd need to be able to sample data
between the client and server and you'd need many attempts, which
would display odd (noticable) behaviour.
It seems doubtful, but I wouldn't say 'extremely' difficult (maybe
'fairly'?)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 19 Feb 2001 19:52:38 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > About the only part of Cairo that was promised that never happened was
> the
> > > OO File system.
> >
> > Still lagging behind Unix...which has had an object oriented filesystem
> > since the beginning.
>
> Proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are commenting on something
> you don't understand.
I can see how a deranged C programmer could confuse ioctls with
objects. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Win2k Network Nightmare!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:53:05 +1300
Hey Donn,
> My analysis is that you have bad HW, bad drivers (not MS's fault), or
> you're just extremely stupid. Because Windows is such a great operating
> system with so many great features, I'm surprised Win 2K didn't locate
> your setup CD lying across your room automatically, float it in mid-air,
> insert it into the CDROM drive by itself, and automatically configure
> the correct drivers. See, it's always operator error when Windows
> screws something up.
LOL. You had me in stitches at this point.
But it DID locate my setup CD across the room--but that's because of the
self-attracting full-size genuine MS hologram.
> Or, dammit, it HAS to be bad drivers.
Remember it HAS to be bad *THIRD PARTY* drivers.
Adam
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:57:34 -0800
From: John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> >> the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
> >
> > The second part of "freedom" 3 is not a freedom with GPL. You're not
> > given a choice.
>
>
> With the GPL you must redistribute the code. The freedom of the user si
> restricted slightly, but that guarntees that is is just as free for all
> future users.
>
You're both wrong.
With the GPL you do not "have to" redistribute your code. You may keep it
to yourself. You are only compelled to share your source code if you also
distribute the binary. If you make no _public_ _binary_ distribution (for
free or for cost), then you have no obligation to give your source code to
anyone.
Further, if you _do_ distribute binaries, you are only obliged to give your
source code to those people you have given your binary to. So, if I put it
up for download on the net, then I must also make the source downloadable.
BUT, if I only distribute the binary to paying customers, I only have to
give the source to those people who paid for the binary. (I cannot stop my
paying customers from then redistributing it (incuring the source
obligation on them, not me), but I only have to make the source available
to those people I have given a binary)
So, Edward Rosten: No, you do not _have_ to redistribute. You are free not
to redistribute.
And, ZnU: Under freedom 3, you have a choice to (re)distribute or not
(without further obligation or restriction from the entity that gave the
code to you, at cost or gratis). That is your freedom. That is the only
freedom that #3 gives you*. You also have an obligation to distribute the
source to whoever you've given the binary. That's because the code itself
has freedom, and requires that you obey it's rights (its right to be
distributed in whole, not just in binary part).
(* this might cause you to say that Freedom2 and Freedom3 are identical ...
but they're not: freedom2 addresses redistributing the code as you recieved
it, and freedom3 addresses redistributing your changes to the code, and/or
the code in its changed form)
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:59:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <1ep39jk.p3hefehaa16oN@[192.168.0.142]>,
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > > The only string is that derivatives must also be free. Thus
> > > > > > > we claim it is free (as in liberty), and stays free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That string is enough to severely limit the kinds of projects
> > > > > > into which GPLed code can be incorporated.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it is the other licenses that limit the kinds of projects
> > > > > into which GPLed code can be incorporated. The GPL discriminates
> > > > > against nobody.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, and freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ketchup is a
> > > > vegetable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For nutrition purposes, ketchup is a vegetable...unless they've
> > > stopped using the manufacturers have stopped using tomato as the
> > > primary (95%+) ingredient in favor of dog feces.
> >
> > Technically tomatoes are a fruit (although the FDA doesn't agree), and
> > once the poor things have been processed into ketchup, they're devoid of
> > all nutritional value. The joke is, of course, the Reagan tried to pass
> > ketchup off as a vegetable in the context of funding of school lunch
> > programs.
>
> 1) No, it wasn't Reagan....it was a bureacrat
Obviously the President isn't personally responsible for school lunch
menus, but it was under his administration.
> 2) Read the back of a bottle of ketchup sometime.
> a) Minerals don't break down under normal canning temps
> b) Most vitamins are more EASILY utilized by the body
> AFTER heating to canning temps.
Heinz Tomato Ketchup:
Serving size 17g.
Calories 15
Total Fat 0%
Sat. Fat 0%
Cholesterol 0%
Sodium 8%
Total Carb. 1%
Fiber 0%
Sugar 4g
Protein 0g
Vitamin A 6%
Vitamin C 0%
Calcium 0%
Iron 0%
Sorry, I don't see much in there.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 20 Feb 2001 02:53:26 GMT
In article <%5kk6.42136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is Tatu mistaken when he claims that his own product (I assume
> he's from SSH.com, right?) is "fundamentally broken"?
That's a polite way of putting things.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 20 Feb 2001 02:55:14 GMT
In article <i2kk6.42108$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this is how security issues are addressed in the Unix word, I thank
> God I only use Windows for the most part.
Ah, you prefer they be hidden and protected by a company that makes legal
threats against people who reveal them rather than publicised and fixed,
even at the expense of people misunderstanding them as badly as you have?
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:02:49 -0800
From: John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> But they can do nothing to stop you from using you *own* code.
> There isn't no way in hell that a company can take some code that I wrote,
> incorporate it into their products, and then try to sue *me* to stop using
> the code *I* wrote as long as:
> A> I didn't gave them exclusive license for the code.
> B> I don't work for the company (essesintly this is A)
Well, "yes .... and no".
There is no known legal basis for such a claim. No one would respect or
honor such a claim. But if they take you to trial over it, then all bets
are off.
And even if you win the claim, that doesn't mean you're back to your
happy-happy joy-joy life. Don't forget MacDonalds vs MacDonalds ... big
evil fast food company sues small british sandwitch shop that has been in
business many years longer than big evil fast food company, claiming that
small shop is violating big company's trademark. Small shop wins, but is
so financially and emotionally drained by it that they go out of business
anyway. Evil company, in the end, gets what they wanted anyway.
Once it goes to court, you're entering murky waters.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 20 Feb 2001 03:07:02 GMT
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Joseph T. Adams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: : I'm not a "fundy" or any other kind of Christian, but I'd prefer ANY of
: : them to ANY of their detractors.
: Take your xtian moral crap and shove it where it belongs, up your arse. I
: don't care to live in a theocracy. If I did, I could always move to Iran. A
: xtian version of an Iran still sucks.
A Christian theocracy is impossible, because Christianity and
theocracy are mutually exclusive. Jesus said that His kingdom was not
of this world.
However, for an elected leader to express some tiny bit of a moral
backbone, with regard to abortion, infanticide, etc., does NOT
constitute the establishment of a "theocracy."
: Anyways, you don't need any gods at all to have an operational moral compass.
: Bush v.2.0 AND Gore both have a degaussed moral compass, and both idiots go to
: church.
Gore is a contemptible jerk, and would be a discredit to any religion
he might profess.
As for Bush, he has done contemptible things, but also claims to have
repented and found faith in Christ. Hopefully, he will demonstrate
that repentance and faith through his actions. I can understand your
skepticism, but time will tell.
Joe
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:51:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Emery Lapinski) wrote:
>"That's the great thing about standards... there's so many to choose from."
Only if you enjoy living in a closet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: 20 Feb 2001 03:08:04 GMT
CR Lyttle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Linux has replaced the Colt as the great equalizer. Anyone can use Linux
: and free software. That puts you on equal standing with the government.
: I would like to point out that the oppressive governments in Poland, the
: USSR, and East Germany weren't overthrown with guns, but with
: typewriters and xerox machines. The government used them, but the people
: did too.
The Printer is mightier than the UZI.
Actually, what caused the collapse of the CCCP wasn't the information thingy,
though it helped. What actually did them in was that the Soviet empire's oil
production peak in 1988 and start of decline fucked up the economy behind the
iron curtain. We got with the Saudis to keep oil prices low to deprive the
Soviets of hard currency while spending massive money on military hardware.
Bush v.1.0, being both a CIA director and an oilman, had to know that the
Soviet oil peak would happen around when it did. With our military buildup
forcing the Soviets to waste their hard currency in kind pinned them to the
wall, so it was a matter of time for the oil peak to finish off the Soviet
government.
We know from history that oil peaks disrupt economies. In 1970, the Lower 48
peaked, allowing OPEC to pull off that embargo fun n' games. So, the Cold War
strategy was to find out when the Soviets would max out oil production and pin
them to the wall as we did. We could not switch to alternatives (such as coat
the Dakotas with windmills) becuse that would tip off the Soviets and prolong
the Cold War.
Brilliant as the strategy was, it is not without fallout later. Since we
didn't switch to alternatives, we as a whole planet are vunerable when global
production peaks, as it will sooner or later. The irony could end up being
that nuclear war is unwinnable - even if no missiles are ever launched.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
