Linux-Advocacy Digest #346, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Feb 01 11:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Mike Martinet)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("dev
null")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Tim Hanson)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Tim Hanson)
Re: M$ taking over linux? ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Richard E.
Silverman)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Linux web pads? (Mark Styles)
Re: Check out this Windows bug (Donn Miller)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: Where are glibc-2.1.1 binaries? (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:05:43 -0700
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
>
> Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The crux of any discussion concerning Windows performance as a server
> > has to revolve around DOS. And that's not a derogatory statement. It's
> > a decision THEY, Microsoft as a company, made for marketing reasons - to
> > leverage their installed desktop base into server sales.
>
> > If you were to go out and design server software, you would not base it
> > on an intentionally crippled, home-use OS.
>
> NT is based on DOS now?
>
> It's comforting to see that Linux advocates continue to be as well informed
> as they always were.
>
> Francis.
Are you saying that NT through 4.0 was built entirely from scratch
without tons of legacy code? If that's the case, then I stand corrected
on that point.
Nevertheless, you still have a company that's tried to turn a GUI into
an OS. Not good design.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "dev null" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:08:17 -0500
You guys love the chicken-little thing, don't ya? Why do I think so?
Because you bend over, grunt, and splatter this fetid verbal equivalent of a
baby's diaper on usenet every couple of months or so. That's why.
Be careful what you wish for. How will you advocate, er, I mean who are you
going to smear once MS and its 'lusers' are gone?
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:11:18 GMT
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Personally, I think a Marine Expeditionary Brigade, 2 Marine
> : Air Wings, and a couple of Iowa-Class battleships should use
> : the Redmond, Washington campus of Microsoft as a live-fire
> : training ground.
>
> The Iowa-model battleships would be nice, just make sure to adapt nuke
> artillery shells to its guns. That way, Redmond becomes MS-Parking Lot v.1.0.
>
> --
> 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.
Actually, until a couple of years ago, Redmond was in range. Before
being towed out to Pearl and (?), Bremerton was home to both the
Missouri and the New Jersey.
--
Surprise due today. Also the rent.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:57:57 GMT
"unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The following are the opinions of the author, no more no less...
>
> You don't understand how serious of a threat Linux is to Microsoft.
>
> Microsofties are fond of pointing to the overwhelming presence of
> windows on the desktop to show Microsoft's good health, but this is
> an oxymoron. Microsoft is their own worst enemy on the desktop.
> Win ME sales are lagging at 20% of Win98, and WIn2K is a non-
> starter for corporate usage (after all it took 5 years to debug NT4,
> why upgrade now?) Microsoft is trying to milk a few more dollars
> out of the suckers, uh, I mean faithful microsoft users with another
> featureless upgrade called Win XP (extremely pointless?)
Wishful thinking. Windows XP is HARDLY a featureless upgrade.
You're speaking from a position of ignorance, as illustrated, so
all your conjectures are ignorant, as I'll ullustrate.
> But why do you think their stock is worth 1/3 of what it was a year ago?
Because of the DOJ witchhunt. They will win their appeal, the fighting
will stop, and the stock will rise again. However, even if they get
broken apart, they will be stronger than ever. Two Microsofts are bigger
than one.
> Because anyone with two functioning braincells realizes that microsoft
> is a dying company, and is dumping them.
Hmm... it seems you are incorrect. Sales of Windows continue to increase.
The hype revolving around Windows XP is high, which means many people
are interested. Hardly the signs of a dying company.
>
> Does that mean that people are removing WIndows from their desktops?
> NO.
> Just think of all the VAXes out there still running VMS, even though DEC
Now that's a dying breed. They are being ripped out left and right
for NT. I worked for a large truck manufacturer who had about 12 different
platforms for various applications from ERP to engineering to just about
everything else. Within the 6 months or so I worked there, they converted
all but one of their Unix systems over to NT and saw a 30% reduction in
their IT staff and about a 50% reduction in their support staff alone.
Two of these systems were Vax clusters.
> no longer exists.
> It will be ten years after Microsoft's assests are sold at auction
> before all
> those legacy windows applications are ported to Linux.
Wishful thinking. Man, this is halarious. Converted to Linux... ROFL
> Remember, though, that Microsoft isn't making one penny from the people
> who just keep using Win 98, duh....
But they're still making tons of money. The fact is, many people buy
computers every couple years and MS makes money every time they do.
> Microsoft could go into the embedded OS business, but Linux has them
> outmanouvered already. Without their desktop productivity software to
> leverage off of, MS products tend to go over like a turd in a
> punchbowl. (Anyone still using MS Bob?, Win CE, anyone?)
Windows CE was, and still is hugely success in the handheld market.
In fact, it's rapdily approaching the PalmOS and is set to overtake
it within a couple years. It's now called the Palm PC OS, but it's
the same thing (WinCE 3.0, actually).
Windows NT embedded sales were pretty astonishing when it was first
released. Windows 2000 embedded is due out shortly which should also
see huge sales.
<SNIP: more mindless moronic wishful thinking>
Linux still has no chance. Even it's growth is pretty lame.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[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 14:01:37 +0000
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> True. And the public demand that Parliament outlaw handguns
> will, in the final analysis, prove to be the key step which
> costs British subjects even the appearance of freedom.
Ah. So not only are you an asshole with a .sig, you're a right-wing
paranoiac gun-nut asshole with a .sig. I'm glad I'm on a different
continent from you. I don't suppose you could relocate to a different
planet, like Mercury?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[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 14:05:42 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
> That's not the problem. We have the European Laws of Human Rights which
> the country is bound to (ie a higher authority). This is in direct
> violation of that law (ie reversing the burden of truth). That would be
> like the US government doing something unconstitutional. I am not aware
> of any cases that have gone to court, but if they make it as far as the
> European court, the gouvernment will not have a leg to stand on.
There are "National Security" get-out clauses in the EHRA, but it is certainly
questionable whether general snooping would be allowed by a court to come
under those exclusions from the right to privacy. AFAIK it's not been tested
yet in court.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:59:28 GMT
"lurker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:52:49 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Theo de Raadt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > This is just too funny to be true: Chad Myers accusing _Theo de Raadt_
> >> > of all persons of not contributing enough when speaking about SSH.
> >>
> >> I think it's pretty funny too. Nothing is more fun than making
> >> net-kooks lose their temper.
> >
> >I have yet to see you or Klaus refute my claims. Instead, you take a
> >false high-road and just go for the personal attacks.
> >
> >Really, how do you answer to all these exploits and vulnerabilities?
>
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
>
> >
> >Perhaps you should start calling it Not so secure shell (NSSSH).
>
> Nope, that's for NAI/NSA's PGP v7.x
Really, how do you answer to all these exploits and vulnerabilities?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:15:00 +0000
Peter Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:09:17 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Joshua Hesse wrote:
>>> Who's running the place, Hilter?
>> Nobody nearly as sane as that...
>
> You have it in one, Aaron.
>
> Trouble is, they're as popular as Hitler was in the 30's. Up another 5%
> just today, despite Lord Irvine's shenannagins.
Well, look at the opposition. The right wing in the UK at the moment
tend to give me the impression of being the sort of people who would
have had two problems with Hitler; that he was head of a party with the
word "Socialist" in its name, and that he was German.
Crazy xenophobic idiots. I wouldn't put them in charge of organizing a
piss-up in a brewery...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:00:55 GMT
"Stephen Cornell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So far, no one has refuted my claims (which were basically that SSH
> > isn't secure and there are several exploitable vulnerabilities which
> > exist on a large number of installed SSH hosts).
>
> No, you're wrong. People have responded by posting information about
> the vulnerabilities which have been found, which are (i) patchable
> bugs and (ii) flaws in the SSH protocol 1.
But:
1.) SSH does have flaws which are still present in a large number of
installations. So SSH isn't really all that great
2.) The vast majority of SSH installations are with SSH 1 which is
"fundamentally flawed" according to the SSH people themselves.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:01:35 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Yep, that's pretty much the definition of FUD.
> > So you're admitting you're avoiding all my facts, right?
>
> I admit that you're a clueless dipstick, Chad, with an amazing ability
> to demonstrate in a public forum your lack of ability at basic reading
> comprehension. Detailed rebuttals have been posted, and you have
> somehow managed to completely miss the point throughout. If you wish
> to be regarded by the general public as anything other than a kid that
> is predestined to live out your life in the illiterati, I'd advise
> spending time learning how to take a piece of text and get all the
> information out of it. (My kid brother is better at it than you seem
> to be...)
Another factless avoidance post by the Penguinistas.
Why do you guys continue to avoid the truth and facts?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[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 14:30:41 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> Nick Condon wrote:
> > BSD's license is open to that kind of abuse. Experience suggests that it
> > promotes forking, a la Free/Net/OpenBSD. The late 80s Unix fragmentation
> > happened because of similar licensing problems; it wouldn't have happened
> > had the original Unix been GPLed.
>
> The GPL does not prevent fragmentation (for example, I could take GCC and
> make a bunch of incompatible changes that the current maintainers think are
> completely wrong-headed, and then distribute it under a different name, so
> starting a fork, and nothing in the GPL stops this from happening.)
Nothing stops it from happening, but since your fork is GPLed, the
original developers can take code for your incompatible changes, which
you have to publish, extract the ones that interest them, and put them
back into the code base of the original project, if they desire. You
have the same right over code they subsequently create around you.
Nobody can legally keep a secret, so forks can't last long.
This is happening on the Samba team right now.
> Instead
> a lack of fragmentation stems from having a community that feels inclusive
> and which is determined to work together.
>
--
Surprise due today. Also the rent.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ taking over linux?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:44:24 +0000
Adam Warner wrote:
> Isn't this a similar situation to IBM?
[...]
> I'm sure internal talk within MS about Linux or a Linux distribution is
> "antichrist" as well. For all we know top secret development is going on
> at Microsoft, as occurred at IBM before the green light was given for
> Linux.
[...]
> Sure it's not going to happen any time soon. If a move to Linux does
> result there will be some humiliated managers. But there will also be
> people within the organisation that would make their careers as the result
> of such a change.
I suppose it is similar. I'd point out that given how much of their revenue
stream (and how much of their marketing spending) is Windows-related, such
a switch is deeply unlikely to happen without an extremely pressing commercial
reason. Who knows? Maybe it'll happen. (Being split up would certainly
accelerate any such moves.) But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.
Funnily enough, I reckon that their best moves would be to work on trying to
make Office utterly ubiquitous and not such a haven for virii, and to not
invest quite so much in the OS side of things where the potential for looking
really bad is much greater.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:56:38 +0000
Bloody Viking wrote:
> Economic disruption is assured when global oil production peaks becuse now we
> have to retool our whole economy to use electric trains powered from coal or
> shale or tar sand, sailing ships, trolley buses instead of cars, etc. There is
> some debate in eco-newsgroups whether this could cause civilisation to
> collapse or not. But economic disruption is assured.
How much oil there is depends very largely on how much money you want to
pay for it. The higher the price, there more that it is economically
viable to extract. Over a certain price (ISTR $35/barrel from somewhere)
it is even possible to start creating long-chain hydrocarbons from
non-petrochemical sources. The world's not about to end, but it might
get a bit more expensive to live the way we do now...
Donal (living in an already-electrified area. :^)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Silverman)
Date: 20 Feb 2001 10:18:02 -0500
>>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chad> But:
Chad> 1.) SSH does have flaws which are still present in a large
Chad> number of installations. So SSH isn't really all that great
Since "really all that great" is not a technical property I can evaluate,
I'm not sure how to respond to this... but see below.
Chad> 2.) The vast majority of SSH installations are with SSH 1 which
Chad> is "fundamentally flawed" according to the SSH people
Chad> themselves.
I think you're confusing two things: the existence of known flaws, and
being "insecure." Just because an algorithm, protocol or implementation
has known flaws, it does not immediately follow that it is absolutely
insecure, bad, or useless. If it did, then *nothing* would ever be
considered "secure," since *everything* has vulnerabilities if you look
hard enough or cast you net widely enough. Such an overall evaluation
depends on a number of factors, including the practical exploitability of
these flaws relative to the security benefit derived from the product's
use. The SSH-1 protocol does have a number of problems which cannot be
fixed while retaining compatibility; that is why SSH-2 exists, and is one
reason why Tatu has referred to SSH-1 as "fundamentally flawed." However,
that does not mean that SSH-1 is so horribly broken that everyone must
stop using it immediately, whatever the alternative. People should
migrate away from it as soon as is feasible, that is true. However, the
flaws in SSH-1 are relatively difficult to exploit, and there are simple
measures one can take to render them even more so. Thus, SSH-1 still
provides a great security benefit over the alternative, which is often no
protection at all. For example, Cisco routers offer two options for
secure connections: Kerberos authentication (with no encryption or
integrity checking), or SSH-1 with the DES cipher. SSH-1 has problems,
and the DES cipher is relatively weak, and vulnerable to the insertion
attack. Even with those caveats, however, SSH-1 connections are not
trivially and routinely sniffable/breakable, and so using it provides a
lot of real security improvement over the alternative of using Telnet and
praying.
The situation is somewhat analogous to that of the MD5 hash algorithm.
Over the past several years, some theoretical results have been obtained
which cast doubt on the security of MD5. This doesn't mean that MD5 has
been "broken," or that all applications using it are suddenly "insecure."
It does mean that RSADSI recommends that people move away from its use to
more modern alternatives, such as SHA-1.
ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/pdfs/bulletn4.pdf
--
Richard Silverman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 20 Feb 2001 15:27:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Edwin wrote:
>
>>> Software that comes unattached, without conditions, strings and
>>> dependencies...as in "free" and not GPLed.
>>
>> You're thinking of Public Domain Software.
>
>No, I'm thinking of "free" software, as I described it. It's the GPL zealots
>who pollute the language with their double speak. Why should we let them
>decide what "free" is?
What's not "free" about GPL software? It's freely distributable, the
source code is freely available, and since derivative works can never be
proprietary, no GPL software will ever become un-free.
When people argue about this sort of thing, they're usually upset that
they're not "free" to put GPL code into their own commercial software,
which isn't free. You're not free to restrict access to GPL software, but
I don't see how that makes it less "free" in the sense of everyone being
able to get it for nothing.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux web pads?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:28:35 -0500
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:41:32 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Until they learn to ask simple questions, such as "Why in the fuck
>would ANYBODY want to stand in front of the refrigerator to compose
>and E-mail message", they will remain "Popular Adolescent Fantasies".
I saw an episode of Tomorrow's World (brit TV show, could be described
as 'Popular Science on TV') where they were demonstrating a net
enabled fridge. The idea was that whenever you find you're out of milk
or whatever, you run the carton past the barcode scanner before
tossing it, and it gets added to your shopping list, then the fridge
automatically sends the list to the supermarket each week and your
groceries get delivered.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Check out this Windows bug
Date: 20 Feb 2001 09:41:00 -0600
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He was attempting to prepare and move files.
> What's to question?
I can't believe how bad FAT32 is! Damn, is there a worse filesystem out
there: severe fragmentation, no symlinks, long file names is really a hack,
reliability is horrid. OTOH, I will give FAT credit for one thing. Isn't it
the best filesystem for very small filesystems, like say, for a 1.44 MB
floppy, for example? You know, if someone in 1991 (when I first started
using a WinDOS PC) told me 1.44MB floppies would still be the norm, I'd never
have believed it. Come on - LS120 or some equivalent should have long been
the standard default floppy drive as of 2 years ago. That said, I think
LS-120 floppies are too expensive. The reason, I believe, is probably due to
low volume due to slow sales. It's not like magnetic media is going to be
around forever anyways. Yet, we're still stuck with 1.44MB floppies as the
norm. Well, I realize you could always install an LS120 later. But, if they
were the standard, as they should have been, those "super floppy" disks would
probably cost 1/8 of what they do now.
Thoughts?
====== 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: 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 15:47:40 GMT
In article <1ep47cx.ky0g8nl1xq0eN@[192.168.0.142]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <1ep4495.1qy899vihafh2N@[192.168.0.142]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I see no restrictions but the needed ones.
> >
> > Why are the larger work licensing restrictions needed? As I pointed
> > out, the BSD OSes get by just fine without a viral license. People
> > give back because they want to or because it benefits them in some
> > way, not because the license requires it.
>
> RMS gives a good reason.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosopy/pragmatic.html
404.
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > We can talk about "selling it", and in fact this was often done.
> > > However most software is not sold but licensed, and in contrast
> > > to a person selling a chair, the vendor does not lose the
> > > property he is allegedly "selling".
> >
> > Licensing software is no different from selling a book or any other
> > item which is essentially free to manufacture but has a high
> > development cost.
>
> Books are not really sold. If they were, they would be my property to
> do as I please with after I bought them.
>
> Even if something is free to manufacture, selling it will STILL
> result in your losing the object you are selling. Thus software is
> licensed, not sold.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing. I just don't see anything wrong with that.
> > > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > I don't see why Darwin could not be released under the GPL as
> > > well.
> >
> > It could, but this would provide no benefit to Apple, since Apple
> > couldn't incorporate changes to the GPLed version into OS X. The
> > GPLed version would probably fork off and end up as a totally
> > separate OS with a different community built around it.
>
> I don't see why a GPLed Darwin could not be used in OS. Which part is
> linked into the kernel?
Darwin is more than just the kernel. It's the entire BSD subsystem. I'm
not positive about specifics, but I strongly suspect there would be
issues.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where are glibc-2.1.1 binaries?
Date: 20 Feb 2001 09:51:27 -0600
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would STRONGLY recommend that you not upgrade glibc on any Linux
> system unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing and have good
> backups.
I could tell you horror stories of building my own glibc on Slackware,
shortly before glibc became the default libc on Slack. I worked up some
scripts for this. For example:
www.cvzoom.net/~dmmiller/linux/slackglibc2.html.
I had a lot of emails about these scripts I worked up at the time, since
Slack was still using the old libc. These are two years old. If I had to do
them all over again, obviously, I'd definitely use Perl. 8-) But then, I
didn't know Perl at the time, hence the horrendous sh scripts you see before
you.
====== 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
******************************
