Linux-Advocacy Digest #369, Volume #32 Wed, 21 Feb 01 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Klaus-Georg
Adams)
Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source (Tim Hanson)
Re: First came free OS, now come free geeks. ("matt")
Re: NT 4.0 symbolic links? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How much do you *NEED*? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (John Rudd)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (John Rudd)
Re: M$ taking over linux? (Gareth Brereton)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Jacques Distler)
Re: Pop Quiz: Who made this statement 15 months ago? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Ian Davey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 21 Feb 2001 09:03:33 +0100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> However, security products like firewalls, intrusion detectors and SSH,
> for example, are usually trusted products which are allowed ports in
> the firewall or are placed in the DMZ or on the Internet itself without
> any shielding.
Incidentally if you are speaking about firewalls and DMZ: In all sites
I have worked so far, if you wanted to login to a computer in the DMZ
coming from either inside or outside, it had to go through a ssh
connection.
--
kga
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:18:11 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> > "Allchin's concerns, eWEEK was told, stem fromGPL paragraph (2B), which
> > states, "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> > thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> > under the terms of this License."
> >
> > so he doesn't hate all open source, just the type M$ can't hijack.
>
> This is a much more useful and transparent response. Microsoft have
> admitted that Allchin was not misquoted.
>
> It is also transparent that Microsoft wants to embrace and extend free
> software. Taking over free software and making it proprietary is much
> harder with the GPL. We can all understand why Microsoft feels threatened
> in this respect.
>
> I found it amusing that Microsoft representatives still couldn't stop
> themselves from spouting nonsense. We are now supposed to believe that the
> GPL will constrain innovation stemming from taxpayer funded software
> development.
>
> And this is the underlying motivation for Microsoft's continuing assault
> against open source software: Microsoft wants to poison any initiatives for
> government to spend money on open source software development.
>
> Also notice how we:
>
> (a) Now have "Microsoft representatives" instead of a real person being
> quoted making the comments.
>
> (b) Microsoft uses the term "taxpayer-funded" software development,
> instead of government funded. They want to make out that government has no
> business spending taxpayer money on software development. This of course
> ignores the present government spending upon proprietary software. If this
> dependence could be reduced then taxpayers would likely save money,
> especially in the longer term.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
No wonder they like BSD. I picked this little string search of WinNT
binaries off Slashdot:
e:\winnt\system32>strings ftp.exe
!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
[...]
GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of
California.
All rights reserved.
exe\ftp.dbg
.exe
Here's another:
C:\>strings winnt\system32\finger.exe | more
!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
eRich5
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
ws2_32.DLL
MSWSOCK.DLL
MSVCRT.dll
KERNEL32.dll
USER32.dll
finger
SVWj@
ueWh
X_^[
WSOCK32.dll
putchar
isspace
isprint
fflush
_iob
strrchr
_write
exit
_exit
_XcptFilter
__p___initenv
__getmainargs
_initterm
__setusermatherr
_adjust_fdiv
__p__commode
__p__fmode
__set_app_type
_except_handler3
MSVCRT.dll
_controlfp
GetLastError
LocalFree
FormatMessageA
Sleep
KERNEL32.dll
CharToOemBuffA
USER32.dll
<b>@(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of
California.
All rights reserved.</b>
exe\finger.dbg
.exe
--
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of purge."
------------------------------
Reply-To: "matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: First came free OS, now come free geeks.
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:34:44 -0500
i'd prefer free Bill Gates voodoo dolls :)
"Satanic Sysadmin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Now geeks are offering their services for free. Look at
> http://www.geeks4free.com
>
> What is going to be next? Free beer?
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:47:50 +1100
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT 4.0 symbolic links?
Isn't that known as a crosslink file?
Chris
matt wrote:
>
> The one time I ever got a "symbolic link" was in DOS 7 when my old Compaq's
> hard drive crashed.
> Months later after it died, I was able to make a boot disk from another PC
> that it could boot from. I
> started to put more stuff on it, and eventually, this one directory(C:\JUNK)
> started pointing to
> another directory(C:\EUPHORIA\TOPAZ). Heh :)
>
> "Bill Shine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Soni6.498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Would anybody happen to know if you can create symbolic links under NTFS
> > with NT 4.0? I unfortunately have to use this rather brain-dead system
> > at work, and the lack of mount points is driving me nuts! Our IT
> > department is planning on an eventual migration to w2k by early next
> > year...
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:49:59 +0000
> Diesel-electrics were NOT introduced to solve a fuel-consumption
> problem: they were introduced because they provide better torque from a
> dead stop than steam...allowing an increase in the gross tons per
> locomotive ratio.
>
> Also, they can be remote-controlled from one cab by electrical hookups,
> allowing ONE crew to harness the power of three or four engines. With
> steam, you would still need 1 or 2 people in each engine, and the
> linkage would probably (in those day) have to have been mechanical, not
> electrical.
The 'electric' part of diesel electric is more coincidence than
anything. When you have huge engines, at power transmission becomes a
real problem. At the time, copper wires were the best way of transferring
the mechanical power from the engines to the wheels. Diesel-mechanical
didn't work well. IIRC, CAT developes a system a decade ago or so for
tirect transfer of mechanical energy for really big vehicles.
There is no reason why steam trains could not all be controlles from one
cab. Poeerstations run on steam and they are automated these days.
They were switching to diesel for other resaons. This cerartainly has
nothing to do with hybrid vehicles (no electric power was stored) and
even less to do with Open Source under threat.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:00:39 -0600
"Jim Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ONJk6.846
> Charlie,
> This really would be a good piece of advocacy if you had not used all the
foul
> language. Clean it up and repost it. Include more facts. The best
advocacy is
> a smart advocacy not an obscene one.
Yeah, it might have been if it contained even a shred of truth.
I've grown so tired of constantly correcting Charlies claims (such as his
claim that HP has been shipping the Itanium for a year). The biggest farce
is his insinuation that Linux cannot be crashed by a bad device driver.
Grow up Charlie...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:18:04 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96uudk$e2i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Unix device driver and file system is an object-oriented
> interface: You have universal operations that work on all
> device drivers: read/write/open/close.
You're talking about polymorphism. Polymorphism alone does not make
something OO. For instance, Visual Basic used polymorphism via COM
interfaces quite well. In order to be truly OO you need to support the
entire range of OO principles. You could say the same thing about Windows,
since it too uses basic functions to operate on both files and devices.
In any event, the capability you're talking about is not an inherant part of
the file system, but rather of the kernel model. A file handle is a file
handle, regardless of what file system is used. Remember, Linux can run on
FAT. Are you going to suggest that FAT is OO?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:21:16 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Ntqk6.392$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <Xqmk6.374$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> What you don't seem to understand is that Microsoft is lying about
> >> how likely it is that a few people in a garage will survive long
> >> enough to affect them.
> >
> >[ followed by...]
> >
> >> Open Source will eventually topple Microsoft whether the program is
> >> Linux or something else. These are impassioned people who are
> >> willing to contribute what little they can because it gets returned
> >> many times over.
> >
> >Do you enjoy contradicting yourself?
> >
> I did not contradict myself. You seem quick to jump to conclusions
> and ignore what else is before you.
>
> Open Source is not limited to a single garage it is supported by a
> community of developers far larger than any commercial software firm
> could afford spread across the entire world in most cases.
And nowhere in any of my messages did I make reference to this fictitious
"single garage" that your theory is based on.
In fact, I stated specifically "kids" (plural) and "garages" (plural).
> The Open Source community is now millions strong, time for some
> reorganization.
And completely irrelevant to the thread.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:16:54 -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
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Gerry wrote:
> >
> > But please answer these:
> > Can you justify your signature?
>
> Yes. without my .sig, bandwidth on this newsgroup would explode
> to 5x the present volume with flamewars
>
Don't flatter yourself. [see below]
> > What purpose does it serve?
>
> keeps flamers from following me around and starting shit.
>
"Mommy, they're calling me names!"
> >
> > Is it "tooooooo difficult" for you to realize that you should
> > trim your signature to no more than 3-5 lines?
>
> Is it too difficult for you to realize that a great many
> people despise what I write.
It's not difficult at all to realize how many people despise what you
write, and why. Just look at what you're writing in this sub-thread.
>
> >
> > The top 4 lines of your signature are acceptable.
> > I don't understand, nor do I care about the other 99% of your sig.
>
> I really have no interest in giving you a demonstration of
> the utter chaos which would ensue if I were to remove it.
Aaah, so you're our savior. Without your arrogance and rude behavior,
we'd all be much worse off. You're rude AND delusional. Two great
annoyances in one package!
I don't buy it. There's another way to avoid those flamewars: ignore or
killfile those people and their attacks. That accomplishes the same
goal AND does it without negatively impacting bystanders. But that
wouldn't satisfy your need to stroke the ego that came up with your
savior complex.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:19:29 -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
Sam Morris wrote:
>
> > Would you like to see the bandwidth of this newsgroup DOUBLE
> due to flame fests?
>
> I bet it would HALVE if you removed all the crap from your .sig.
>
Hell, it'd probably drop by 75% if he'd just learn how to propperly trim
messages.
Only an idiot thinks that you need to preserve context by preserving the
ENTIRE content of the message.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:25:22 +1100
From: Gareth Brereton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ taking over linux?
really? well im sorry that im new here...
i hope that one day i can be as perfect as you >:-(
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:30:19 +1100...
> ...and Gareth Brereton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> i was wondering... if M$ distrobuted linux running a proprietary gui,
>> installer/pakaging system
>
>
> Uh-huh. Yeah. <yawn>
>
> Wake when you're done, we've had this discussion much too often
> already.
>
> mawa
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:37:07 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> A monopoly never "gives" anything away. You pay for it by losing
> >> the innovations which would have come from their target and by
never
> >> seeing a hint of newer ideas which would have when others used
those
> >> new technologies in ways that the monopolists technologies could
not
> >> be coerced into.
> >
> >This statement doesn't parse. It seems like you might be trying to say
that
> >MS prevents people from using technology. That is simply false, or else
> >Linux would not exist at all, nor would OS's like BeOS or MacOS X.
> >
> It does parse for people who are not in denial about the desktop
> monopoly and M$ abuse of it.
>
> By strangling startup technologies Microsoft making us all pay more
> than the newer offering would have cost. They recoup the cost of
> their FUD and buying technologies so the project can be canceled by
> charging higher prices for all their software.
This ignores the fact that MS's software has gone down in price when you
factor in inflation, and the amount of software you get per dollar.
Further, you negelected to mention why OS's like BeOS and MacOS X exist if
this were the case.
> New technologies can do things that the older technologies could not
> or they would not be new. So by denying all of us the chance to see
> if those new technologies are useful for each of us Microsoft is
> denying us that value. A cost may come from denial of convenience
> or efficiency instead of your wallet.
Tell me, if you're running a business. Say you're selling lemonade. And
someone comes along and tells the world they have a new kind of lemonade
that is specifically designed to put you out of business. Would you not
take that as an act of war?
The problem is that most of these companies come in like gang busters and
arrogantly proclaim the death of MS with their products, which can do only
one thing. Piss off the giant and get you stomped on. These companies are
not benevolantly donating their technology to the world, to run alongside
MS. They are out for blood and looking to replace them.
Every person and company has a right to defend themselves from extinction.
> You have said that you disapprove of some of their actions, why are
> they disagreeable to you ?
Disapprove and Disagree are two different things. But still, why I disagree
is specific to each instance. However, most of it can be summed up with "MS
will push the envelope as far as it can, regardless of whether it needs to
or not". MS would have been just as successful without restrictive OEM
agreements. IE would have won on it's merits, without ISP agreements.
They react to every situation as a life or death threat, and that isn't
always necessary. Sometimes it is, but not always.
> >> Erik wake up. You have been victimized by a criminal organization
> >> which provided you with some glitzy toys to distract you.
> >
> >I've not been victimized by anyone but Red Hat and Mandrake for taking my
> >money for products that don't work at all.
> >
> Are you denying that Microsoft has a monopoly ? Or that monopolies
> do not charge higher prices than competitors do ?
Apples and Oranges. OS/2 has always been more expensive than Windows.
MacOS is more expensive than windows (they charge $99 for an upgrade, while
MS charges $89), Netware is more expensive than NT. Solaris, until recently
was much more expensive than NT, and still is for high end systems.
The only "competitors" that charge less are Be and Linux. Be offers a
fraction of the functionality of Windows, so that's understandable. Linux
is an enigma. Please back up this claim.
> How does paying more not harm you ? Do you enjoy sending money to
> Redmond in return for no improvement ?
I see plenty of improvement.
> >> It is not your fault. Victims don't ask to be abused but nobody
but
> >> you can get you away from further abuse.
> >
> >Kill the drama, you can do better than that.
> >
> The drama was an attempt to shock you out of your denial. Obviously
> it did not work. I'll try to think of something else.
Perhaps you should start by evaluating your own base assumptions. Windows
is *NOT* more expensive than most of it's competitors.
------------------------------
From: Jacques Distler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:16:20 GMT
In article <CSFk6.46858$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Theo de Raadt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Thank god I don't use any of your software. I value quality and security.
>>
>> I love it! Keep this coming! It's great!
>>
>> You think I'd keep replying if I didn't think this was hilarious??
>
>It's amusing that someone who I'm told is writes good software is
>really just an immature child who refuses to accept the flaws of his
>own "fundamentally flawed" software.
You really have *NO* idea who you are talking to, do you?
What a maroon!
Keep this up, you are really very, very funny.
JD
--
PGP public key: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/distler.asc
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pop Quiz: Who made this statement 15 months ago?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:40:39 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96pru5$jhf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <fLYj6.4816$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > And they tie in so nicely with Microsoft saying that free software is
> >> > un-American.
> >>
> >> "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling,
> >> we're going to give away for free."
> >> -Microsoft Vice President Paul Maritz
> >
> > "We've got our boots on their throats. The right thing to do is to press
> > until they stop breathing. If you're going to strike at the king, you
> > better cut his head off."
> > -Sun Chief Lawyer Mike Morris
>
> So what your saying is that is someone does something wrong, then its OK
> for everyone else to? Get a brain.
No, I'm saying that statements like these are commonplace. Football coaches
tell their teams to go out and "kill" the opposite teams. It's meant to
illustrate, not to be taken literally.
Did it ever occur to you that MS was already planning on giving away IE and
IIS? And that this was an added benefit?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 09:28:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Kelley) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[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).
>
You would easily surpass that majority in the UK. There is no pro-gun lobby
to speak of and most British people are proud of the fact that we don't
(feel the need to) have guns. So they are illegal. Democracy in action.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 09:30:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tim Streater wrote:
>> Where we live, perhaps. In the UK about 50 people are murdered with
>> handguns each year (this includes Northern Ireland, by the way). This
>> compares with 300 or so killed by people drinking (out of about 3000
>> road deaths annually). In the US, 10,000 are murdered annually with
>
>If you remove "criminals killing other criminals", the number
>is substantially lower.
Since killing people is a crime in most circumstances, this is something of
a circular argument.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Activities Committee
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:47:08 -0600
"Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > My point was that if IBM can be sued for selling tabulation machines to
the
> > Nazi's, it's the exact same thing as accepting and knowingly assisting
in
> > the act of providing an OS that is used for violating human rights.
> >
> > If you condemn IBM, then you must also condemn others that do the same
> > thing.
>
> IBM was a commercial entity who knowingly gave the Nazis technology
> which made it illegal to catalog 'undesirables'. That is different then
> someone offering up free code on the Internet and letting anyone at all
> download it and use it. It's possible that Linus' worst enemy (if he
> exists) could've downloaded Linux and used it, and Linus would've never
> known it. It's not like the ChiComms called Torvalds and said that they
> needed a operating system to help squash their enemies (which is what
> IBM did, AFAIK, I didn't read too much about the incident).
Not a problem. There is, in fact, a difference between giving something
away and unknowningly assisting in human rights violations. My point is
that many people in the Linux community are actively persuing the use of
Linux by the Chinese government, and are trumpeting this fact in press
releases and editorials.
This is not passively allowing someone to use your technology for evil, it's
actively participating in it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 09:38:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald R. McGregor) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <96ucn0$qgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>> >> I can't say I follow UK politics too well, but I doubt that's the
>>>> >> problem. The problem is that a government typically operates at
>>>> >> or slightly beyond the legal limits of its authority. With no
>>>> >> full equivalent of the US Constitution to restrict its powers,
>>>> >> the UK government can get away with more, and does.
>>>> >
>>>> No. We live in a democracy and we are free to not have guns if we
>>>> wish.
>
>This returns to the idea of a written constitution with enumerated
>rights that are not subject to simple majority rule.
Even written constitutions are capable of amendment. An amendment to this
hypothetical written UK constitution would easily gain enough support to be
passed. Any attempt to introduce Prohibition, however, would be doomed to
failure. Your written constitution didn't help you there, did it?
Your faith in a written constitution is misplaced. The former Soviet Union
had one of the most extensive Bills of Rights ever written and look how far
it got them. The separation of powers is a far more important principle,
IMO.
--
Nick
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:44:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>then why all of the bullet-riddled bodies in British morgues these days?
Which bullet-riddled bodies are those? Don't forget, I actually live here. Can
you provide some evidence that the number of bullet-riddled bodies has
increased since the ban on hand guns? Should be easy for you to do if the
facts are on your side.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
