Linux-Advocacy Digest #412, Volume #32 Thu, 22 Feb 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft backs out of Corel ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Stability of 2.4.1? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Gary Hallock")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Printing! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft backs out of Corel (Craig Kelley)
Re: Stability of 2.4.1? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Stability of 2.4.1? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft backs out of Corel
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:08:03 +1300
Why. Had Corel actually competed head on, instead of hoping everyone who
has a grudge will move to Corel, they wouldn't been in the same pickle.
Personally (IMHO), I would have rolled out some nice Sun Machines, although
expensive at first, they are very good quality, hence would have paid for
its self, and whats best, it an't Mickysoft.
Matthew Gardiner
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <973ur1$nhr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> This is insanity in action!
>
> >I'm not really worried about Corel or Microsoft. Had Corel focused on
its
> >core fundimentals instead of going into unknown territory, in the case of
> >the netwinder (I would hate to know how much was wasted in that little
pipe
> >dream), Corel wouldn't be in the deep shit they are now. Also, the lack
of
> >willingness to compete with Microsoft head on is another issue. In 1997
the
> >NZ Army had just upgraded there computers from running Wordstar 2000,
DBIV,
> >123, and Harvard Graphics to Pentium's running Windows NT, hence they
needed
> >a new office suite. When the NZ Army were looking for software companies
> >that were interested in providing an Office Suite for the army, the one
who
> >won was Microsoft, they offered a terrific deal, the deal allowed all
> >computers in the army, AND all army personal who had computers at home,
to
> >be able to load Office. Corel didn't even offer a deal (from what I have
> >heard from sources) even close to what Microsoft offered. Hence, the
> >reason why Microsoft in some respects are successful, they chase
customers,
> >unlike Corel, who just sit around hoping someone will, out of the good
ness
> >of their own heart, choose Corel over their competitors.
> >
> >Matthew Gardiner
> >
>
> Matthew,
>
> If Microsoft *COULD* product Microsoft Office for Linux as Corel has
> done, they wouldn't be looked upon as stupid evil shits anymore.
>
> They'd just be evil shits.
>
>
> --
> Charlie
>
> **DEBIAN** **GNU**
> / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
> / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
> /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
> http://www.debian.org
>
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stability of 2.4.1?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:09:51 +1300
>From what I have heard, 2.4.1 had some nasty bugs, you may want to upgrade
to 2.4.2 which is pretty stable from what I have heard (from the irc
channels).
Matthew Gardiner
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello,
>
> How is the stability of 2.4.1 regarded? I have used it for 3 weeks
> and have had only one strange incident that may have had something
> to do with it; Sawfish stopped working for my accouont until I rebooted.
> It still worked for root and other accounts. May have had something to
> do with me running UAE, I suspect it fscked something up. It is very
possible
> this mishap could have been resolved without a reboot, but that solution -
> if it exists - is beyond me.
>
> <cautious mode>
> I'm not saying this to bash Linux in any way, I'm just curious.
> </cautious mode>
>
> /Stefan
> --
> [ Stefan Ohlsson ] · There will always be survivors - Robert A. Heinlein
· []
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:19:02 +0500
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <973ug6$gks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steve Mading"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You would prefer an if/else ladder checking each and every character one
> at a time? Ick.
>
No, a simple translation table does the trick.
Gary
------------------------------
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: 22 Feb 2001 22:07:19 GMT
In article <fpfl6.6084$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > By convention, major versions have different filenames, so you can have
> as
> > > many as you need in a given directory, a-la MFC40.DLL, MFC42.DLL, etc.
> > While that workaround does exist and has been used, it's not a formal
> > convention
> It's just common sense. If a new library version isn't back-compatible, then
> call it a new library. And since the Unix scheme is just a convention too,
> it also relies on good behavior on the part of the library and application
> vendors. It's a convention; formal or not, nobody is forced to use it.
You might as well call system calls "just a convention".
The UNIX scheme is encoded in the installers, the library builders, the
loaders, the documentation at every level. The Windows scheme is "just
common sense". And it's not uses consistently by anyone, even by Microsoft.
Sometimes libraries are named by version numbers, sometimes by whether
they're 16 or 32 bit, and... mostly... not at all. In fact now that I'm
looking at %systemroot%\system32, I can only see a few libraries for which
major versions have different filenames. So you're not even that correct.
> Those are bugs, and the Unix scheme is just as vulnerable to them. If libfoo
> 1.4 is incompatible with libfoo 1.3 (and it's author doesn't notice the
> incompatibility in testing), or if some application relies on a bug in
> libfoo 1.3 that's fixed in 1.4, then updating libfoo will break things, and
> there's nothing the Unix OS can do about it.
Sure. You just install libfoo.1.3.so and libfoo.1.4.so. Worst case you wrap
the application in this script:
#!/bin/sh
exec env LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/appname/lib appname ${1+"$@"}
> Yes, and Unix prevents this from happening [programmers writing libraries
that don't follow the libfoo.x.y.so] how?
It doesn't prevent it, but it makes it rare enough that I haven't heard
of it causing a problem, over more years and systems than Microsoft. If
they don't do it, it's a bug, they get bug reports, they fix it.
> Look, the problem is not
> that some library vendor may forget to append "10" or "-1.0" to the
> filename. The problem is that the library vendor may someday issue an update
> mistakenly believing that it's 100% back-compatible when it really isn't.
That's simply not a problem, because when you install the new library it
doesn't replace the existing library. It's always got a new name.
> Yes, the ability to specify a minor version is a Unix advantage. It's only a
> minor advantage, because it only helps when a library is accidentally
> updated with an older minor version, something that isn't very likely given
> how package managers and installers work.
It also helps when a library is installed with a new minor version.
> But that's not really the point.
> Look at your statement above. Do you see where it says "any version with
> that minor version number or later is considered to satisfy the
> requitement"? The two words "or later" are the key that opens both the door
> to convenient library updates and the door to DLL Hell.
Nope, because the old version is not deleted. The program that wants foo.1.3
still gets foo.1.3, and new programs get foo.1.4.
> > In which case the program can provide its own copy of the minor version
> > required, anywhere in the library search path, and it will load it without
> > conflicting with other versions that may be loaded, EVEN if the major and
> > minor version numbers are the same.
> There are several problems with this "solution". First of all, an
> application vendor can't predict that someday the vendor of some library
> he's using will accidentally issue an incompatible update.
Since he won't be using the updated version unless the administrator deleted
the old one, that's not an issue.
> Second, even if
> he wants to play it safe, he may not be licensed to redistribute the library
> with the application.
He was already running just fine with the older library when you installed
the new one.
> Third, if you're talking about the end user fixing the
> problem by installing the required minor library version someplace where
> only the affected application will see it, then you're right, but (a) you
> can do that in Windows as well,
If I have C:\Program Files\Appname\MSCRT40.DLL already loaded, and an app
asks for MSCRT40.DLL, they'll get the loaded version even if they need the
one in C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32, so no you can't.
> and (b) what are the chances that Joe Q.
> Public will figure out how to do it?
Joe Q. Public calls tech support, tech support tells them to download the
script (above).
> Huh? That's how Windows works as well! Wait a minute, didn't you know that?
Microsoft has stated the opposite. I paid Microsoft good 900 number money
for that information, when I was trying to solve exactly this problem.
> > can do. Any exploit, spam, or DDOS tool can be delivered to and run by the
> > applet, no matter what your local privileges are.
> Untrue. Like I said, I run IE under an account with practically no
> filesystem privileges, no address book, and no LAN identity.
While that makes it an interesting question as to how you get any work done,
an applet doesn't need any of that to load and run any of those things.
> Like you said,
> an ActiveX component in such an environment can still be used as a DDoS
> relay (unlike a Java applet), but that's about it.
It can be used for local attacks on your LAN. It can sniff the LAN and steal
nonces and Lan Manager names to attack local systems. It can sniff passwords.
It can relay spam. It can run exloit tools against locally connected systems
that required resources (like packet spoofing) not available over the Internet.
> > An ActiveX aplet can do anything the locally logged in user can.
> Unless it's running in a process belonging to someone other than the locally
> logged in user.
How do you manage that with Internet Explorer, given IE's level of desktop
integration, when Microsoft can't even manage to give Outlook and Windows
Explorer different security settings?
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:21:37 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> > British refuse to take self-defense seriously
> >> >
> >> > That's why you have a handgun ban. That's why, in WW2, American
> >> > citizens donated their privately-owned, household firearms to Britain
> >> > to defend the beaches against an invasion by the Germans...
> >> >
> >> > [Fortunately, Germany never manufactured proper landing craft to do
> >> > so,
> >> > or you all might be speaking German to this very day].
> >>
> >> Its also because they lost air superiority.
> >
> > If Germany had been in posession of proper landing craft in the spring
> > of 1941, Britain would have fallen, and the Normandy landings would
> > never have occurred.
>
> Debatable. Invasion is much more difficult without air superiority. By
> this stage the UK would have known about an impending invasion because
> they had cracked the Nazi cyphers.
Depends. The 1944 Ardennes offensive (Battle of the Bulge) was a
complete surprise because the Germans kept EVERYTHING off of the
radio. The entire counter-offensive was planned and set up via
telephone and couriers.
>
> > The Home Guard was ill-armed because of the reactionary gun-control laws
> > pushed through by the British elite around 1920.
>
> That is BS. Even if people had personsal weapons, they would not have
> been much use against Panzers.
Panzers go "blub blub blub" without a dock to land them on.
Beachheads are not docks.
> Secondly, there was no guns in England
> because there were not enough guns to go round the army. That's why the
You make my point for me.
> guovernment confiscated every scrap of metal (iron fences, the lot) for
> use in weaponary. Any personal weapons would have been taken away and
> used.
Conversely, in the United States, we were able to provide the British
with more service-quality rifles and shotguns from PRIVATELY DONATED
firearms than out of the combined stores of our armed services.
>
>
> > Gun control is ALWAYS about implementing feudalism.
>
> I disagree.
Then you truly have no understanding of how the elitist power-brokers
in government view the average citizen like you and me.
They want you to be a conformist little robot who offers ZERO
resistance to any of their decisions.
You see...incidents like Dunblane are HYPED so as to brainwash you
into surrendering your BASIC HIMAN RIGHT to self defence.
>
> > This is a bit out of date, of course. The events of Dunblane resulted in
> > further further hysterical legislation that was equally misdirected....
>
> I disagree.
Disagree all you want. You're still wrong.
>
> > and inneffective. If British readers of this don't get the point by now,
> > I hope that American readers will, at least.
>
> I get the point, I just disagree. One problem you have is an
> unwillingness to see why other people hold a different point of view.
My point of view is based on a thorough study of history and
the actions of both common criminals, and those who infect government.
Trusting EITHER type of criminal to treat you with courtesy is
a foolish thing to do....foolish enough that it may cost you
your life.
Remember...in the period 1900-1999, the LEADING cause of violent
death among people has been attack by their own government.
There is no escaping that fact.
You say, Oh, someone like Hitler or Stalin could never come into
power here....and at the same time, set up all the same conditions
which usher such bloodthirsty tyrants into power.
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Printing!
Date: 22 Feb 2001 15:59:20 -0700
sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone know how to print RFC`s (the text ones) so they are properly
> formatted on the printed page? I had some notes somewhaer but I can't
> find them and I'm too lazy to look it up ;).
enscript rfc????.txt
(it may be called 'nenscript' if you're using an older distribution)
If you don't have enscript, get it -- it's a must-have.
--
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: Microsoft backs out of Corel
Date: 22 Feb 2001 16:04:58 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
> In article <973ur1$nhr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> This is insanity in action!
>
> >I'm not really worried about Corel or Microsoft. Had Corel focused on its
> >core fundimentals instead of going into unknown territory, in the case of
> >the netwinder (I would hate to know how much was wasted in that little pipe
> >dream), Corel wouldn't be in the deep shit they are now. Also, the lack of
> >willingness to compete with Microsoft head on is another issue. In 1997 the
> >NZ Army had just upgraded there computers from running Wordstar 2000, DBIV,
> >123, and Harvard Graphics to Pentium's running Windows NT, hence they needed
> >a new office suite. When the NZ Army were looking for software companies
> >that were interested in providing an Office Suite for the army, the one who
> >won was Microsoft, they offered a terrific deal, the deal allowed all
> >computers in the army, AND all army personal who had computers at home, to
> >be able to load Office. Corel didn't even offer a deal (from what I have
> >heard from sources) even close to what Microsoft offered. Hence, the
> >reason why Microsoft in some respects are successful, they chase customers,
> >unlike Corel, who just sit around hoping someone will, out of the good ness
> >of their own heart, choose Corel over their competitors.
> >
> >Matthew Gardiner
> >
>
> Matthew,
>
> If Microsoft *COULD* product Microsoft Office for Linux as Corel has
> done, they wouldn't be looked upon as stupid evil shits anymore.
>
> They'd just be evil shits.
That's a lame thing to say.
If Microsoft cared about their *users* and actually making *money* as
opposed to locking people into their software forever, they would make
Office for Linux. If they did do such a thing, I would think that
Linux users would congratulate, not deride them.
Of course they never will do such a thing because they *don't* care
about their users or money as much as locking people into Windows
"solutions".
But if they did do a bang-up job of porting it... I'd be the first
one to step up an apologize. Heck, I'd even buy a copy.
--
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: Stability of 2.4.1?
Date: 22 Feb 2001 16:08:38 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson) writes:
> Hello,
>
> How is the stability of 2.4.1 regarded? I have used it for 3 weeks
> and have had only one strange incident that may have had something
> to do with it; Sawfish stopped working for my accouont until I rebooted.
> It still worked for root and other accounts. May have had something to
> do with me running UAE, I suspect it fscked something up. It is very possible
> this mishap could have been resolved without a reboot, but that solution -
> if it exists - is beyond me.
2.4.1 has been rock-solid on our beowulf cluster (we upgraded to get
the new, spiffy 3c59x drivers that work much better than their 2.2
ancestors).
I've noticed the sawfish problem, but it's because the latest sawfish
has bugs, not the kernel.
--
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: Stability of 2.4.1?
Date: 22 Feb 2001 16:08:55 -0700
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From what I have heard, 2.4.1 had some nasty bugs, you may want to upgrade
> to 2.4.2 which is pretty stable from what I have heard (from the irc
> channels).
.. if you can compile it, that is. ;)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
