Linux-Advocacy Digest #360, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Feb 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Steve Mading)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Sam Morris")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("nuxx")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Bloody Viking)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Steve Mading)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red Hat Fisher Beta (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Craig Kelley)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Craig Kelley)
LINUX CALL FOR PAPERS for the O'REILLY OPEN SOURCE CONVENTION 2001 (Simone Paddock)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Tim Hanson)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Doc O'Leary)
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: 20 Feb 2001 23:49:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : here's an example which computes the trapezoid approximation to an
:> : integral.
:>
:> : (defun trapezoid-rule (fn a b n)
:> : "apply the trapezoid integration rule"
:> : (let ((h (/ (- b a) n))
:> : (x a)
:> : (sum (* 5d-1 (+ (funcall fn a) (funcall fn b)))))
:> : (loop for i from 1 below n do
:> : (incf x h)
:> : (incf sum (funcall fn x)))
:> : (* h sum)))
:>
:> : there is 1) no recursion and 2) no lone parentheses.
:>
:> And it demonstrates exactly what I was talking about.
:> Following it by eye is a pain. Unless I pull it up
:> into a paren-matching editor, or make pencil-marks
:> on it, I can't follow what matches to what (I can
:> guess by the indentation,
:> but if my purpose was to
:> find a syntax error (missed a paren), then I can't
:> rely on the whitespacing.)
: this is why you use an indenting editor. hit a key and it indents
: for you. then you keep ignoring the parentheses. use the computer,
: it's right there in front of you.
:> Maybe it's just me. When
:> I see a repeating pattern, my mind tends to parse that
:> as one solid object, so when I see ")))))", My low-level
:> visual processor doesn't catalogue that as "five
:> parentheses", but as "a block of ascii art with a curvy-
:> line pattern, made out of parenthesis characters". In
:> other words, I catalogue it as a single object consisting
:> of 'several' parenthesis. To force my brain to actually
:> COUNT them, I have to 'zoom in' my attention so I no longer
:> think of the pattern. Thus I can't see the big picture and
:> the little picture at the same time like I can in C. (This is
:> really hard to try to explain in words. I *liked* the
:> functional style, as a learning tool, and I use it in C when it
:> seems to make more sense that way, but the mega-parenthesis
:> syntax alone is a showstopper for me with Lisp.)
: all i can say is that your approach is not helping you. let the
: computer count the parens and indent, that way you don't have to.
: learning lisp is as much about un-learning habits as it is about
: acquiring new ones.
You're missing the problem, I think. It's not that it's hard to
compose. It's hard to *look at* for me. I like visual thinking
more than verbal thinking. I want to be able to SEE the layout
of the code. Having the computer in front of me doesn't help
make my vision work any better. I want to be able to parse
the code quickly with my eyeballs. Tools that make me *do stuff*
to find the matches don't help in this regard.
One thing that would have *greatly* improved Lisp's look without
really changing a thing about its functionality would have been
to allow multiple forms of parenthesis: {}, [], (). Other
than having the compiler enforce their matching (can't match
a '[' with a '}' ), they would be treated no different than
any other parenthesis. They would merely be a tool the programmer
could use to help show what matches to what visually at a
glance, like so: {[(a b) c] d}
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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 23:50:53 -0000
> No...they are not "petty attacks". They are accurate analyses
of the
> various goofballs named therein.
Ok, Aaron, justify *all* of them. Otherwise, by your own logic,
they are "petty attacks".
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> [Blah blah]
--
Cheers,
Sam
"All your base are belong to us" - Cats
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:53:10 +0800
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > Are you saying you have a cluster of machines that you reboot
individually,
> > but collectively they present 99.999% uptime to the outside world?
> >
>
> FIVE LoseDOS machines to duplicate the availability of ONE Linux machine.
> [And he STILL can't provide the same level of services as the ONE Linux
machine].
>
Nope, single server, no clustering and not at all unusual at my site. The
best Linux could hope to do in this case is equal the uptime, it's not
possible to beat it.
nuxx.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[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: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:35:13 +0100
John Rudd wrote:
>
> If you want to just admit that you're being rude, no problem. But don't
> try to shift the issue on to the reader. Own up to your being rude and
> arrogant.
>
>
Well spoken.
And i am very sure, that asshole A R Kulkis will just ignore it or come
back with this shitty explanation, that then he will be stalked again by
those guys he has in his SIG.
IF they do, one has to ask who is to blame?
I think this asshole Kulkis is just an oxygene thief.
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:51:39 GMT
Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 20 Feb 2001 02:55:14
>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?
Well, of course. Don't you remember the troll-fest from a couple months
ago, where the trolls were very studiously insisting that not knowing
about an undetected vulnerability in a closed source program which
existed for years is better than finding out about it, once it went open
source?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 23:57:24 GMT
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:09:58 +0000, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>It was the Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:18:46 -0000...
>...and Donald R. McGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The UK has seen gun crime go up since the laws passed.
>
>This sort of claim is made by pro-gun advocates about every geographic
>area where any gun control legislation has passed. Wasn't it Australia
>or New Zealand where crime rates allegedly "skyrocketed" after gun
>control was legislated, whereby in reality they did not even increase?
Australia. And the claim was made by Kulkis. As usual, the correct response
for such a claim is "cite, please ?"
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: 20 Feb 2001 23:59:59 GMT
Charlie Ebert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I don't give a damn for Copyrights. I use GNU/Linux.
: Therefore, why should I cooperate with a Copyright organization.
I use Linux becuse I got tired of stupid copyright crap. But copyright is a
double edge sword. In the above warez boss case who wrongfully fires you for
not installing the warez deserves to be punished severely. While I respect
your ideology about copyright, the only realistic way to punish that boss is
to unleash the "Vito the Enforcers" on him with merely a cell phone as your
weapon.
It's obvious that if the boss fires you for not installing warez, he'll hire
someone who will... and leave himself vunerable to the BSA attack.
: Let God be the judge.
Let's leave him out of it. (:
: Exactly my point. It would be like having a dual with your employer.
: You get the cannon, he get's the skimpy bathing suit.
More like you get the battleship with the 16-inch turrets and he gets a rubber
band. The mere threat of the BSA and warez should serve as quite a deterrent
to fucking with an employee. The only defence for the boss is to use GNUware
only.
: But never cooperate with the BSA. They stand for Copyrights.
: Copyrights and Microsoft are like Six guns, Horses, and Cows,
: if there not frozen at your freezer section in your favorite grocery
: store, they should be.
Actually, if enough people went postal by using the BSA, employers will have
no choice but to defencively switch to GNUware. The BSA perversely helps the
cause.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: 20 Feb 2001 23:52:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It was the 19 Feb 2001 22:49:54 GMT...
: ...and Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [...]
:> What is the simplest algorithm for getting the numerical
:> value of a digit character in ASCII:
: [...]
:> How do you convert to uppercase?
: [...]
:> What is the simplest algorithm for sorting two characters in ASCII,
:> assuming you don't mind upper/lowercase problems:
:> if( ord(char1) < ord(char2) )
:> char1 is less than char2 // (duh)
: Anglocentric thinking at its best -- all this breaks down in a locale
: that uses any characters not in the [A-Za-z] range.
ASCII: a representation that works well in English, but not so good
in other human languages.
EBCDIC: a representation that works badly in ALL human langauges.
I don't understand your defense of EBCDIC on mulitnational
grounds. It's even worse than ASCII in that regard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:01:03 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:00:55
>"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
This statement would be applicable, in theory, to any piece of software
whatsoever, so your second sentence does not follow from your first.
>2.) The vast majority of SSH installations are with SSH 1 which is
> "fundamentally flawed" according to the SSH people themselves.
Who have a commercial interest in pointing out the benefits of their
product and inhibiting adoption of an open source alternative, and join
you in having no real evidence that SSH is unsecure in practice.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat Fisher Beta
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:05:54 GMT
Said Jeepster in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:50:22
>Linvocates - they make the mormons seem normal.
>
>Gotta love 'em.
>
>> bad.... I've spent more time getting a modem to work
>> under Win NT.
>
>Then you don't understand what you are doing. You should be even touching a
>computer in an administrative capacity.
>
>Disgraceful, you are a user, nothing more, nothing less.
Bullshit. Nothing more, nothing less.
(I doubt I'll be the only one to make this observation.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:09:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > John Rudd wrote:
> > > > Dude, ever heard of netiquette? :-) no more than 4-6 lines,
> > > > please. :-)
> > >
> > > Dude, ever hear that 20M hardrives are obsolete, and 20G hard
> > > drives are standard equipment these days?
> >
> > It's annoying to scroll through, and my newsreader doesn't
> > recognize it as a .sig due to excessive length, so I have to snip
> > it out manually in replies.
>
> Here's a clue...when you see this:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer"
>
> stop reading.
My newsreader allows me to page through messages by hitting the
spacebar. With your messages, I need to hit it an extra 2-3 times to
scroll through your .sig.
> > A 38 line .sig is just obnoxious any way you look at it. Especially
> > one that's full of petty personal attacks on people who most of the
> > folks reading your messages have never even had any contact with.
>
> No...they are not "petty attacks". They are accurate analyses of the
> various goofballs named therein.
Great. Why do you think anyone cares?
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 20 Feb 2001 17:09:36 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> No. We live in a democracy and we are free to not have guns if we wish. I
> >> think there is more freedom in restrictive gun laws because it means that
> >> I am free to live my life without getting shot. I want that freedom.
> >
> >Those laws will not protect you from getting shot.
>
> True, but the fewer weapons in circulation the lower your chances of
> getting shot. People rather outlaw handguns than have someone with
> legally held weapons go on the rampage (as happened at least twice
> here).
This is not entirely clear. I live in Idaho, where the per-captia gun
ownership is very high. We have concealed weapon permits, and honor
any other such permits from other states. We have fewer gun deaths
than almost every other state.
> The people decided they wanted handguns banned, so the government
> obeyed the will of the people.
Nothing wrong with that.
> >If we really want to save lives here, why not ban alcohol so that the
> >DUI rate goes down? DUIs kill more people every day than hand guns do
> >all year.
>
> Guns are specifically designed to kill, alcohol isn't. You could
> also put an end to DUI's by banning cars, but they're not designed
> to kill either.
Hmmm, nobody I know bought a gun to kill people with. They buy them
for sport, defense and hunting (admittedly, hand guns are not used
much in hunting -- although they are used occasionally).
I wouldn't be against banning hand guns, but there has to be
consensous by 2/3 majority (at least here in the US).
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 20 Feb 2001 17:11:33 -0700
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> > If we really want to save lives here, why not ban alcohol so that the
> > DUI rate goes down? DUIs kill more people every day than hand guns do
> > all year.
>
> Prohibition is unlikely to work as well as flaming high taxes; while
> people may grumble about taxes, banning drink would be far more unpopular
> and all the politicians know it. We're more likely to see a legalization
> of cannabis than a banning of booze...
That's my point. Do we want Nancy Reagan on TV telling everyone,
"Don't buy handguns"? Because the law will not change the fact that
criminals have them; ie, the same people who abuse them even now.
--
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: Simone Paddock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LINUX CALL FOR PAPERS for the O'REILLY OPEN SOURCE CONVENTION 2001
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:14:15 GMT
O'Reilly is calling the wizards, mavens, virtuosos and maestros of
Linux and Open Source development to submit their proposals for
talks and tutorials for
The O'Reilly Open Source Software Convention
July 23-27, 2001, San Diego, California
http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon2001/
********************************************************************
This could be YOUR chance to talk about your work on an Open Source
project, show people how to use an under-appreciated program, or pass
on the hard-earned experience that others can learn from.
But not only that: it's also an excellent opportunity for you to
network with your peers and rub shoulders with the heroes, founders
and demi-gods of the Open Source community - plus have a ton of fun!
Our audience comprises sophisticated developers and administrators, so
we're looking for talks on solid technical subjects.
Here are some sample topics:
* real-time Linux
* embedded Linux
* GNOME application development
* Samba
* securing open source systems
* corporate needs for open source software
* clustering
* corporate experiences with the open source development model
* using OpenSSL in other applications
* the vast world of open source Java projects
* tips on running Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD on laptops
* migrating to FreeBSD 5.0
Proposals should be emailed in plain text format (no attachments
and particularly no Word files) to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The cut-off date for proposals is February 28. You will have at least
two months to prepare the full presentation materials.
For more details on the Linux Call for Papers, see:
http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon2001/call-linux.html
For more information on the O'Reilly Open Source Convention, go to:
http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon2001/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:14:58 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Feb 2001
15:02:05 GMT;
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:05:43 -0700, Mike Martinet
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>That's not really a fair characterization of NT (although I am no
>great fan of NT). NT really is a new OS, built from the ground up.
>Dave Cutler, the father of Vax's VMS, was the main architect of NT and
>he designed it to be a fully modern, mini-kernel (not exactly
>micro-kernel) based OS. Some of the code was left over from
>Microsoft's OS/2 efforts, but most of it is brand-new.
There may or may not be anything wrong with this VMS-like OS, but it
still the same in the manner that Mike indicated; its a GUI trying to be
an OS (or, more accurately, its an OS pretending to be middleware). An
the Windows part of NT makes this VMS-like OS *almost* as bad as DOS!
The OS they put Windows on top of isn't the issue, even if DOS was a
runt-of-the-litter. Its Windows which is where the real crap is.
>Compatibility with 16-bit code was provided by WOW (Windows on
>Windows), which ironically was purchased from an outside vendor.
>
>Where NT tends to suffer in comparison to other OSes is that it was
>never really intended to be a datacenter OS -- it was conceived as a
>high-power workstation OS and file/print server, and that's where it
>does the best job. But even Win2K is still too unstable to trust in
>HA environment, where five-nines reliability is required.
It was conceived as a "it doesn't matter what it is, just put Windows on
top of it" attempt to monopolize, is all. That does much more damage,
in the end, then having to support legacy at any technical level.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:17:58 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> >> > MS made Win32 programs work with existing DOS and windows drivers,
> >> > something that OS/2 didn't do. This was important to consumers, as
> >> > was the solid look and feel.
> >>
> >> Of course, Win95 was slower and less reliable (and that's saying
> >> something) if you took advantage of this.
> >
> >Not even, Win95 was much faster than Windows 3.1, and was much more stable
> >than 3.1.
>
> Yes, but slower and less reliable than OS/2, which was the point. You
> really *do* have blinders on, don't you?
Note that M$ is still playing this game. In their advertizing they're
calling Windows [whatever, this month] "The fastest Windows ever..." and
'even more stable than Windows [whatever, last month]." It's not too
tough competing against one's past self.
> [...]
> >No. You said that MS is afraid of these kids. I didn't say that. I said
> >MS wants Congress to believe they are being victimized. Two different
> >things.
>
> Yes; one is an understandable if somewhat rhetoric statement; "MS is
> afraid of these kids". The other is a silly quibble that barely avoids
> being entirely dishonest, and only by remarking on how dishonest MS is.
> Two very different things, I'd say.
>
> [...]
> >I happen to agree that people in their garages can overthrow MS. Most Linux
> >people seem to think they can do just that. Congress and the DOJ doesn't
> >seem to think that is true.
>
> Most Linux people aren't either as insipid or as softheaded as you are,
> Erik, and recognize that guys in garages can't stop illegal behavior,
> while the DOJ (why is it Microsoft flunkies always bring Congress into
> it?) has no intention of producing software.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Every journalist has a novel in him, which is an excellent place for it.
------------------------------
From: Doc O'Leary <[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 18:19:50 -0600
> That's true. I was never too comfortable with the metaphor, either.
> Only people can express a will, or have rights.
Enter sticky AI issues. What are the people but sensory information?
To you, I am nothing more than the words you see on your screen, so am
I somehow less significant than the nameless strangers you daily see,
hear, smell, touch, or taste (let's hope they're no longer nameless by
the time you're tasting them :-)? It's easy to anthropomorphize people.
> Information can only be
> free if those owning it agree to free it.
You don't understand freedom. True freedom has never been granted.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: 21 Feb 2001 00:11:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : Steve Mading wrote:
:> :>
:> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> : Chad Myers wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> :> :> news:96jg3p$9hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :> :> >
:> :> :> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> :> :> > news:MEaj6.27470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :> :> >
:> :> :> > < Perm bits
:> :> :> > > are ancient, a poor design, and are really unsecure.
:> :> :> >
:> :> :> > Describ a way to get over permissions in any *nix that implement perm bits
:> :> :> > (all of them).
:> :> :>
:> :> :> You're not understanding what I'm saying...
:> :> :>
:> :> :> It's the mentality. Permission bits are extremely limiting, as they
:> :> :> only allow one owner, one group, and everyone else.
:> :>
:> :> : And gasoline engine + wheels is extremely limiting as compared
:> :> : to say, wings, rocket engines, and a launch pad.
:> :>
:> :> : But as long as you have not the slightest intention of taking
:> :> : your wheeled vehicle across the ocean, it is quite sufficient.
:> :>
:> :> : You can have 65535 DISTINCT groups on a Linix system, Chad.
:> :>
:> :> But a file cannot be a member of more than one group at a time.
:> :> This *is* a limitation - just not enough of one to matter as
:> :> much as Chad FUDs it up to seem. Another limitation of UNIX
:> :> groups is that one must be root to make one, which leaves
:> :> ordinary users no way to say "I want fred, charlie, bob, and
:> :> mary (and only them) to be able to write to this file, but they
:> :> haven't been put together into a group by the admin and I hate
:> :> to bug him to make a group for just this one file." Unlike
:>
:> : Creating a new group takes all of several seconds.
:>
:> False. TYPING it takes a few seconds. You aren't taking
:> into account talking to the user, getting the list of
:> users from him. You also aren't taking into account having
:> to keep changing it over and over again when he changes his
:> mind, or people move in and out of his project group. The
:> time spent on the computer is trivial. The IRL interruptions
:> are not.
: All of which demonstrates that, in the REAL WORLD, there are
: a lot of management/policy-decisions that justify *NOT* letting
: users create and modify group membership.
It demonstrates exactly the opposite.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
